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
Introduction

Argumentation and the interpretation of religious texts

ORCID logo | Universidade Nova de Lisboa
| Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore

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.

Keywords: argumentation theory, biblical interpretation, implicit dimension, interpretation of religious texts, pragmatic dimension, rhetoric
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
Published online: 9 May 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.22006.mac
References
Abaelardus, Petrus
1970 Dialectica. Edited by Lambertus. Marie de Rijk. Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
Aristotle
1991a “Rhetoric.” In The Complete Works of Aristotle, Vol. II, ed. by Jonathan Barnes. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
1991b “Topics.” In The Complete Works of Aristotle, Vol. I, ed. by Jonathan Barnes. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Arnauld, Antoine, and Pierre Nicole
1996 Logic or the Art of Thinking. Edited by Jill Vance Buroker. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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
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
Austin, John Langshaw
1962 How to Do Things with Words. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bach, Kent, and Robert Harnish
1979 Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Barth, Else, and Erik Krabbe
1982 From Axiom to Dialogue: A Philosophical Study of Logics and Argumentation. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blair, Anthony, and Ralph Johnson
1987 “Argumentation as Dialectical.” Argumentation 1 (1): 41–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cicero, Marcus Tullius
2003 Topica. Edited by Tobias Reinhardt. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, Frans van
2009 Examining Argumentation in Context. Fifteen Studies on Strategic Maneuvering. Amsterdam, Netherlands-Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1992 Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.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
Everardus, Nicolaus
1601 Loci Argumentorum Legales. Venice, Italy: Matthaeum Valentinum.Google Scholar
Greenawalt, Kent
2015 Interpreting the Constitution. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guastini, Riccardo
2011 Interpretare e Argomentare. Milano, Italy: Giuffrè. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hamblin, Charles Leonard
1970 Fallacies. London, UK: Methuen.Google Scholar
Hitchcock, David
1998 “Does the Traditional Treatment of Enthymemes Rest on a Mistake?” Argumentation 12 (1): 15–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 On Reasoning and Argument: Essays in Informal Logic and on Critical Thinking. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hurley, Patrik, and Lori Watson
2018 A Concise Introduction to Logic (13th Edition). Boston, MA: Cengage.Google Scholar
Johnson, Ralph
1996 The Rise of Informal Logic. Newport: Vale Press.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
Kecskes, Istvan
2008 “Dueling Contexts: A Dynamic Model of Meaning.” Journal of Pragmatics 40 (3): 385–406. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 “The Paradox of Communication: Socio-Cognitive Approach to Pragmatics.” Pragmatics and Society 1 (1): 50–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kock, Christian
2013 “Defining Rhetorical Argumentation.” Philosophy & Rhetoric 46 (4): 437–64. DOI logoGoogle 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
Leech, Geoffrey
1983 Principles of Pragmatics. London, UK: Longman.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen
2000 Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio
2008 “Dialectical Relevance and Dialogical Context in Walton’s Pragmatic Theory.” Informal Logic 28 (2): 102–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio, and Sarah Bigi
2017 “Analyzing the Pragmatic Structure of Dialogues.” Discourse Studies 19 (2): 148–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio, and Alessandro Capone
2016 “Interpretative Disputes, Explicatures, and Argumentative Reasoning.” Argumentation 30 (4): 399–422. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio, and Douglas Walton
2015 “Classifying the Patterns of Natural Arguments.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 48 (1): 26–53. DOI logoGoogle 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
MacCormick, Neil
1995 “Argumentation and Interpretation in Law.” Argumentation 9 (3): 467–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mack, Peter
1993 Renaissance Argument: Valla and Agricola in the Traditions of Rhetoric and Dialectic. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mailloux, Steven
1991 “Rhetorical Hermeneutics Revisited.” Text and Performance Quarterly 11 (3): 233–48. DOI logoGoogle 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
O’Keefe, Daniel
1977 “Two Concepts of Argument.” Journal of the American Forensic Society 131: 121–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Patterson, Dennis
2005 “Interpretation in Law.” San Diego Law Review 421: 685–710.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
Pontifical Biblical Commission
1996 The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church. Sydney, Australia: Pauline Books & Media.Google Scholar
Reboul, Olivier
1991 Introduction à La Rhétorique. Paris, France: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Rigotti, Eddo
1995 “Verità e Persuasione.” Il Nuovo Areopago 1 (3): 3–14.Google Scholar
Robbins, Vernon
1996 The Tapestry of Early Christian Discourse: Rhetoric, Society, and Ideology. London, UK, and New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
1998a “Enthymemic Texture in the Gospel of Thomas.” Seminal Papers, no. 37: 343–66.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
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
Scalia, Antonin, and Bryan Garner
2012 Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts. Eagan, MN: Thomson West.Google Scholar
Searle, John
2002 Consciousness and Language. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Snodgrass, Klyne
2008 Stories with Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing.Google Scholar
Tarello, Giovanni
1980 L’interpretazione Della Legge. Milano, Italy: Giuffrè.Google Scholar
Thurén, Lauri
2014 Parables Unplugged: Reading the Lukan Parables in Their Rhetorical Context. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tindale, Christopher
1999 Acts of Arguing: A Rhetorical Model of Argument. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
2015 The Philosophy of Argument and Audience Reception. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toulmin, Stephen
1958 The Uses of Argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Toulmin, Stephen, Richard Rieke, and Allan Janik
1984 An Introduction to Reasoning. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas
1984 Logical Dialogue-Games and Fallacies. Lanham: University Press of America.Google Scholar
1985 Physician-Patient Decision-Making: A Study in Medical Ethics. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
1987 Informal Fallacies. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1989 Informal Logic. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1990 “What Is Reasoning? What Is an Argument?” Journal of Philosophy 871: 399–419. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997 Appeal to Expert Opinion. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
1998 The New Dialectic. Conversational Contexts of Argument. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1999 “Profiles of Dialogue for Evaluating Arguments from Ignorance.” Argumentation 13 (1): 53–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002 Legal Argumentation and Evidence. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
2006 Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2007 Media Argumentation: Dialectic, Persuasion and Rhetoric. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2011 “Defeasible Reasoning and Informal Fallacies.” Synthese 179 (3). Springer: 377–407. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walton, Douglas, and Erik Krabbe
1995 Commitment in Dialogue. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas, Fabrizio Macagno, and Giovanni Sartor
2021 Statutory Interpretation: Pragmatics and Argumentation. New York, NY, NY: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walton, Douglas, and Chris Reed
2005 “Argumentation Schemes and Enthymemes.” Synthese 145 (3): 339–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walton, Douglas, Christopher Reed, and Fabrizio Macagno
2008 Argumentation Schemes. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilder, Amos N.
1956 “Scholars, Theologians, and Ancient Rhetoric.” Journal of Biblical Literature. JSTOR, 1–11. DOI logoGoogle 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
2003 “Catholic Principles for Interpreting Scripture.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 65 (3). JSTOR: 327–49.Google Scholar
Zarefsky, David
2006 “Strategic Maneuvering through Persuasive Definitions: Implications for Dialectic and Rhetoric.” Argumentation 20 (4): 399–416. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zimmermann, Ruban
2015 Puzzling the Parables of Jesus: Methods and Interpretation. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar