Cover not available
Article 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. 59–76

Cracking the code of Jesus’s parables with argumentation analysis

ORCID logo | University of Eastern Finland
The teachings of Jesus consist to a great extent of parables. There is, however, no unanimity on what each parable means or how it should be interpreted. I argue that modern argumentation analysis is the key to understanding the parables and their effect on the reading or listening public. Irrespective of the length of the parable or the imagery used, the aim of each one is to persuade its audience. The parables operate with a common, hidden argumentative structure. By cracking this code, one can assess the meaning and function of the parables in a reliable way. Example texts discussed and analyzed are some crucial parables in Matt. 24–25.
Keywords: argumentation analysis, gospel of Matthew, last judgment, New Testament, parables, persuasion, prophecy, reasoning, Stephen Toulmin, warrant
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • 1.Prophecy or reasoning?
  • 2.Reading the parables with Toulmin
    • 2.1Selecting the approach
    • 2.2Applying the method to the parables
  • 3.Matthew’s final parables
    • 3.1Intriguing stories
    • 3.2The Wicked Manager (Matt. 24:45–51)
    • 3.3 Ten bridesmaids (Matt. 25:1–12)
    • 3.4The Talents (Matt. 25:14–30)
    • 3.5The Last Judgment
  • 4.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 9 May 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.22005.thu
References (25)
References
Hietanen, Mika. 2005. Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians: A Pragma-Dialectical Analysis. LNTS 344. London/New York: T&T Clark.Google Scholar
Hitchcock, David, and Bart Verheij (eds): Arguing on the Toulmin Model. New Essays in Argument, Analysis and Evaluation. Dordrecht: Springer.
Lahti, Niilo. 2017. The Maneuvering Paul: A Pragma-Dialectical Analysis of Paul’s Argumentation in First Corinthians 4:18–7:40 . Ph.D. dissertation, University of Eastern Finland.
Luz, Ulrich. 1989. Matthew 1–7. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress.Google Scholar
. 2005. Matthew 21–28. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress.Google Scholar
O’Banion, John D. 1987. “Narration and Argumentation: Quintilian on Narratio as the Heart of Rhetorical Thinking.” Rhetorica 5 (4):325–351. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olbricht, Thomas H. 2008. “Rhetorical Criticism in Biblical Commentaries.” Currents in Biblical Research 7 (1):11–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perelman, Chaïm and Olbrechts-Tyteca, Lucie. 1958. Traité de l’argumentation:la nouvelle rhétorique. Paris: Presses universitaires de France. Translated: Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1969. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Pluijm, Lester C., and Jacky Visser. 2011. “David Hitchcock and Bart Verheij (eds): Arguing on the Toulmin Model. New Essays in Argument, Analysis and Evaluation.” Argumentation 251:527–539. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siegert, Folker. 1984. Argumentation bei Paulus gezeigt an Röm 9–11. WUNT I/34. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
Snodgrass, Klyne R. 2008. Stories with Intent – A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.Google Scholar
Thurén, Lauri. 1995. Argument and Theology in 1 Peter: The Origins of Christian Paraenesis. JSNTSup 114. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.Google Scholar
. 2001. “John Chrysostom as a Rhetorical Critic: The Hermeneutics of an Early Father.” Biblical Interpretation 91:180–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. “Is There Biblical Argumentation?” In Rhetorical Argumentation in Biblical Texts, ed. by Anders Eriksson, Thomas H. Olbricht, and Walter Übelacker, 77–92. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International.Google Scholar
. 2014. Parables Unplugged: Reading the Lukan Parables in Their Rhetorical Context, Minneapolis: Fortress. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. “Multiple Communication Layers and the Enigma of the Last Judgment (Matt 25,31–46).” In Multiple Teachers in Biblical Texts, ed. by A. L. H. M. van Wieringen and B. J. Koet, 125–146. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 88. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
. 2020. ”The Final Countdown: The Last Judgment in the Light of Narratology and Argumentation Analysis.” In History and Theology in the Gospels: Moscow Conference, ed. by Tobias Nicklas, Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr, and Mikhail Seleznev. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 289–302.Google Scholar
. 2021. ”Parables in the Sermon on the Mount: a Cognitive and Rhetorical Perspective.” In Social and Cognitive Perspectives on the Sermon on the Mount, ed. by Rikard Roitto, Colleen Shantz, Petri Luomanen. Studies in Ancient Religion and Culture. Sheffield: Equinox Publishing, 174–204.Google Scholar
Toulmin, Stephen Edelston. 1958. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Toulmin, Stephen Edelston, Richard Rieke, and Allan Janik. 1984. An Introduction to Reasoning. 2d ed. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Van Eemeren, Frans H. et al. 2014. Handbook of Argumentation Theory. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verheij, Bart. 2005. ‘‘Evaluating Arguments Based on Toulmin’s Scheme.” Argumentation 19 (3): 347–371. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wolter, Michael. 2002. “Lk 15 als Streitgespräch.” ETL 781:25–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zimmermann, Ruben. 2015. Puzzling the Parables of Jesus: Methods and Interpretation. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar