Socio-Rhetorical Examples
Definition of logical progression.
Mark 15:1-15, the first scene of the trial and crucifixion, has a logical progression. The narrational discourse introduces two major syllogisms, one concerning the chief priests and one concerning Pilate:
(1) Syllogism concerning the chief priests:
[Unstated major premise: When the chief priests were envious of someone, they handed him over to Pilate and stirred the people up to put pressure on Pilate to crucify him.]
Minor premise: The chief priests were envious of Jesus.
Conclusion: Therefore, they handed him over to Pilate and stirred the people up to put pressure on Pilate to crucify him.
(2) Syllogism concerning Pilate:
Major premise: Pilate customarily released a prisoner of the people's choice to the people in Jerusalem in honor of their Passover festival.
Minor premise: It was time for the Passover Festival in Jerusalem.
Conclusion: The people's choice was Barabbas when Pilate asked them whom they wanted him to release to them.
Narrative discourse, as well as epistolary discourse, regularly states a conclusion first and presents one or both of the premises (reasons) for the conclusion in clauses of rationale ("because" or "for") after the conclusion. Thus, the first syllogistic display above presents information from 15:9 first (the minor premise), then the conclusion which is in 15:1. It is necessary, then, for an interpreter to reverse the order of the discourse when displaying it in syllogistic form. Narrational discourse in the Gospel of Mark openly states the major premise, minor premise, and the conclusion to the syllogism about Pilate. The narration uses the mind of Pilate to convey one part of the minor premise (that the chief priests were envious of Jesus). In addition, narrational address to the implied hearer/reader conveys the other part of the minor premise (that the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have Pilate set Barabbas free and to crucify Jesus). This leaves the major premise unstated (with the certainty that the hearer/reader will construct the conclusion):
Conclusion: The chief priests used the occasion when Pilate released a prisoner to the people at Passover to stir up the crowd to crucify Jesus, whom they envied.
The reader/hearer, then, is asked to trust Pilate (or the narrator's ability to read the mind of Pilate) to know that the chief priests were envious of Jesus and to trust the narrator to know that the chief priests stirred up the crowd to pressure Pilate to crucify Jesus.
Analysis of these logical syllogisms in Mark 15:1-15 reveals that the chief priests and Pilate were the major actors behind the crucifixion of Jesus. The argumentative texture makes it clear that Barabbas is a strictly secondary figure, for he plays no role in the argument (the syllogism) itself. The discourse does not mention Barabbas earlier, and it never mentions him again. The crowd functions simply as the means by which the chief priests can enact their wish for Jesus; it has no positive intention for Barabbas.
Mark15:16-24 presents a logical progression: the soldiers crucify Jesus, because Pilate, at the behest of the crowd, agreed to do so and handed Jesus over to the soldiers to perform the task. But this scene embeds a qualitative progression in its context. The implied reader/hearer expects that the soldiers will abuse Jesus, but there is no logical requirement that they put royal clothes on him and mock him as a pseudo-king. Yet the action flows naturally from the preceding episode where Pilate repetitively referred to Jesus as "the King of the Jews." This is the nature of a qualitative progression: the implied reader/hearer had no reason to know that mockery in this form would occur (even if one has remembered Mark 8:31-10:34), but when it does occur it seems a natural outcome of previous events. The result is the amplification of a logical progression (crucifixion) with a qualitative progression (mockery as a pseudo-king).
Mark 15:33-39 features a logical progression: the purpose for crucifying Jesus was to kill him, and in this scene he dies. Narrational discourse, however, embellishes the scene with a number of qualitative features: (a) darkness for three hours, at the end of which Jesus dies; (b) a death cry in a foreign language that the discourse translates for implied hearer/readers, but which some actors in the scene misunderstand; (c) running to get a sponge of vinegar while he hangs on the cross; (d) splitting of the curtain of the temple in two, from top to bottom; and (e) a statement from a centurion that Jesus is son of God. Implied reader/hearers expect, or at least hope, that some kind of special signs or activities will occur at the death of this special person. The particular manifestations, however, regularly occur in qualitative progressions. The reader does not know exactly what to expect, but the reader accepts whatever unusual things happen. In this instance, the universe becomes dark for three hours, and the curtain of the temple splits in two from top to bottom. We will discuss the possible meanings of these events in upcoming sections. At this point we simply observe that they are qualitative progressions that help to define for the reader/hearer the nature of Jesus and the significance of his death.
From V. K. Robbins, Exploring the Texture of Texts, (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996), pp. 24-7.
Back to inner texture index
For other examples from the Gospel of Mark, click here.
Textures Index | Text Index | Discourse Index | Oppositional Rhetoric Index