Cover not available

Introduction published In: Argumentation and the interpretation of religious texts
Edited by Fabrizio Macagno and Lucia Salvato
[Journal of Argumentation in Context 12:1] 2023
► pp. 2–18

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required
Introduction

Argumentation and the interpretation of religious texts

ORCiD logo with link | Universidade Nova de Lisboa
 | Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore
Published online: 9 May 2023
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.22006.mac
Abstract
The interpretation of religious texts is an area of research in which rhetoric and the use of arguments play a central role. The analysis of the persuasive message expressed in many biblical passages, the reconstruction of the implicit messages conveyed by the texts, and the justification of an interpretation are questions that concern directly argumentation studies. The pragmatic dimension of arguments, the instruments developed for bringing to light implicit assumptions and conclusions, and the methods for justifying an interpretative claim can be important resources for biblical studies and applications that can open new research paths. This introduction outlines the crossroad between the two fields and the possible directions of future inquiry.
Article outline
  • 1.Arguments and the pragmatic dimension
  • 2.The implicit dimension
  • 3.The arguments of interpretation
  • 4.Biblical interpretation and rhetoric
  • 5.Argumentation theory and the interpretation of religious texts
  • References
References (86)
References
Abaelardus, Petrus. 1970. Dialectica. Edited by Lambertus. Marie de Rijk. Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aristotle. 1991a. “Rhetoric.” In The Complete Works of Aristotle, Vol. II, ed. by Jonathan Barnes. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1991b. “Topics.” In The Complete Works of Aristotle, Vol. I, ed. by Jonathan Barnes. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arnauld, Antoine, and Pierre Nicole. 1996. Logic or the Art of Thinking. Edited by Jill Vance Buroker. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Atlas, Jay David. 2008. “Presupposition.” In The Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Laurence Horn and Gregory Ward, 29–52. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Atlas, Jay David, and Stephen Levinson. 1981. “It-Clefts, Informativeness and Logical Form: Radical Pragmatics (Revised Standard Version).” In Radical Pragmatics, ed. by Peter Cole, 1–62. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Austin, John Langshaw. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bach, Kent, and Robert Harnish. 1979. Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barth, Else, and Erik Krabbe. 1982. From Axiom to Dialogue: A Philosophical Study of Logics and Argumentation. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blair, Anthony, and Ralph Johnson. 1987. “Argumentation as Dialectical.” Argumentation 1 (1): 41–56. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cicero, Marcus Tullius. 2003. Topica. Edited by Tobias Reinhardt. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dascal, Marcelo, and Jerzy Wróblewski. 1988. “Transparency and Doubt: Understanding and Interpretation in Pragmatics and in Law.” Law and Philosophy 7 (2): 203–24. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eck, Ernest Van. 2001. “Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation: Theoretical Points of Departure.” HTS Teologiese Studies / Theological Studies 57 (1/2). Faculty of Theology, University of Pretoria: 593–611. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans van. 2009. Examining Argumentation in Context. Fifteen Studies on Strategic Maneuvering. Amsterdam, Netherlands-Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans van, and Rob Grootendorst. 1984. Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions: A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed towards Solving Conflicts of Opinion. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Floris Publications. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1992. Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Elliott, John. 1991. A Home for the Homeless: A Social-Scientific Criticism of 1 Peter, Its Situation and Strategy. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Everardus, Nicolaus. 1601. Loci Argumentorum Legales. Venice, Italy: Matthaeum Valentinum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Greenawalt, Kent. 2015. Interpreting the Constitution. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grice, Paul. 1975. “Logic and Conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, ed. by Peter Cole and Jerry Morgan, 41–58. New York, NY: Academic Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Guastini, Riccardo. 2011. Interpretare e Argomentare. Milano, Italy: Giuffrè. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hamblin, Charles Leonard. 1970. Fallacies. London, UK: Methuen.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hitchcock, David. 1998. “Does the Traditional Treatment of Enthymemes Rest on a Mistake?” Argumentation 12 (1): 15–37. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2017. On Reasoning and Argument: Essays in Informal Logic and on Critical Thinking. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hurley, Patrik, and Lori Watson. 2018. A Concise Introduction to Logic (13th Edition). Boston, MA: Cengage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnson, Ralph. 1996. The Rise of Informal Logic. Newport: Vale Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jonsen, Albert, and Stephen Toulmin. 1988. The Abuse of Casuistry. A History of Moral Reasoning. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press Journals.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan. 2008. “Dueling Contexts: A Dynamic Model of Meaning.” Journal of Pragmatics 40 (3): 385–406. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kock, Christian. 2013. “Defining Rhetorical Argumentation.” Philosophy & Rhetoric 46 (4): 437–64. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krabbe, Erik. 2002. “Profiles of Dialogue as a Dialectical Tool.” In Advances in Pragma-Dialectics, edited by Frans Van Eemeren, 153–67. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Sic Sat.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London, UK: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio. 2008. “Dialectical Relevance and Dialogical Context in Walton’s Pragmatic Theory.” Informal Logic 28 (2): 102–28. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio, and Sarah Bigi. 2017. “Analyzing the Pragmatic Structure of Dialogues.” Discourse Studies 19 (2): 148–68. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio, and Alessandro Capone. 2016. “Interpretative Disputes, Explicatures, and Argumentative Reasoning.” Argumentation 30 (4): 399–422. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio, and Douglas Walton. 2015. “Classifying the Patterns of Natural Arguments.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 48 (1): 26–53. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio, Douglas Walton, and Giovanni Sartor. 2014. “Argumentation Schemes for Statutory Interpretation.” In Proceedings of JURIX 2014: The Twenty-Seventh Annual Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, ed. by Rinke Hoekstra, 11–20. Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
MacCormick, Neil. 1995. “Argumentation and Interpretation in Law.” Argumentation 9 (3): 467–80. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mack, Peter. 1993. Renaissance Argument: Valla and Agricola in the Traditions of Rhetoric and Dialectic. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mailloux, Steven. 1991. “Rhetorical Hermeneutics Revisited.” Text and Performance Quarterly 11 (3): 233–48. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moshavi, Adina. 2015. “Between Dialectic and Rhetoric: Rhetorical Questions Expressing Premises in Biblical Prose Argumentation.” Vetus Testamentum 65 (1). Brill: 136–51.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
O’Keefe, Daniel. 1977. “Two Concepts of Argument.” Journal of the American Forensic Society 131: 121–28. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Patterson, Dennis. 2005. “Interpretation in Law.” San Diego Law Review 421: 685–710.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perelman, Chaïm, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1969. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pontifical Biblical Commission. 1996. The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church. Sydney, Australia: Pauline Books & Media.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reboul, Olivier. 1991. Introduction à La Rhétorique. Paris, France: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rigotti, Eddo. 1995. “Verità e Persuasione.” Il Nuovo Areopago 1 (3): 3–14.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Robbins, Vernon. 1996. The Tapestry of Early Christian Discourse: Rhetoric, Society, and Ideology. London, UK, and New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1998a. “Enthymemic Texture in the Gospel of Thomas.” Seminal Papers, no. 37: 343–66.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1998b. “From Enthymeme to Theology in Luke 11: 1–13.” In Literary Studies in Luke-Acts, ed. by ‎Richard Thompson and ‎Thomas Phillips, 191–214. Macon, GE: Mercer University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1999. “Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation from Its Beginnings to the Present.” In Proceedings of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas Conference. Pretoria. [URL]
. 2002. “Argumentative Textures in Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation.” In Rhetorical Argumentation in Biblical Texts, ed. by Anders Eriksson, Thomas Olbricht, and Walter Ubelacker, 27–65. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scalia, Antonin, and Bryan Garner. 2012. Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts. Eagan, MN: Thomson West.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Searle, John. 2002. Consciousness and Language. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Snodgrass, Klyne. 2008. Stories with Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tarello, Giovanni. 1980. L’interpretazione Della Legge. Milano, Italy: Giuffrè.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thurén, Lauri. 2014. Parables Unplugged: Reading the Lukan Parables in Their Rhetorical Context. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Publishers. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tindale, Christopher. 1999. Acts of Arguing: A Rhetorical Model of Argument. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. The Philosophy of Argument and Audience Reception. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Toulmin, Stephen. 1958. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Toulmin, Stephen, Richard Rieke, and Allan Janik. 1984. An Introduction to Reasoning. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Company.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 1984. Logical Dialogue-Games and Fallacies. Lanham: University Press of America.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1985. Physician-Patient Decision-Making: A Study in Medical Ethics. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1987. Informal Fallacies. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1989. Informal Logic. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1990. “What Is Reasoning? What Is an Argument?” Journal of Philosophy 871: 399–419. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1997. Appeal to Expert Opinion. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1998. The New Dialectic. Conversational Contexts of Argument. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1999. “Profiles of Dialogue for Evaluating Arguments from Ignorance.” Argumentation 13 (1): 53–71. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2002. Legal Argumentation and Evidence. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006. Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. Media Argumentation: Dialectic, Persuasion and Rhetoric. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008. Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. “Defeasible Reasoning and Informal Fallacies.” Synthese 179 (3). Springer: 377–407. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas, and Erik Krabbe. 1995. Commitment in Dialogue. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas, Fabrizio Macagno, and Giovanni Sartor. 2021. Statutory Interpretation: Pragmatics and Argumentation. New York, NY, NY: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas, and Chris Reed. 2005. “Argumentation Schemes and Enthymemes.” Synthese 145 (3): 339–70. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas, Christopher Reed, and Fabrizio Macagno. 2008. Argumentation Schemes. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas, Giovanni Sartor, and Fabrizio Macagno. 2016. “An Argumentation Framework for Contested Cases of Statutory Interpretation.” Artificial Intelligence and Law 24 (1): 51–91. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilder, Amos N. 1956. “Scholars, Theologians, and Ancient Rhetoric.” Journal of Biblical Literature. JSTOR, 1–11. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Williamson, Peter. 2001. Catholic Principles for Interpreting Scripture: A Study of the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church. Rome, Italy: Pontificio Istituto Biblico.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2003. “Catholic Principles for Interpreting Scripture.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 65 (3). JSTOR: 327–49.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zarefsky, David. 2006. “Strategic Maneuvering through Persuasive Definitions: Implications for Dialectic and Rhetoric.” Argumentation 20 (4): 399–416. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Ruban. 2015. Puzzling the Parables of Jesus: Methods and Interpretation. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Alkhouri, Khader I.
2024. The Role of Artificial Intelligence in the Study of the Psychology of Religion. Religions 15:3 ► pp. 290 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue