Argumentation and the interpretation of religious texts
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



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.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Hietanen, Mika
    2005Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians: A Pragma-Dialectical Analysis. LNTS 344. London/New York: T&T Clark.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Hitchcock, David, and Bart Verheij
    eds: Arguing on the Toulmin Model. New Essays in Argument, Analysis and Evaluation. Dordrecht: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 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.
  4. Luz, Ulrich
    1989Matthew 1–7. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 2005Matthew 21–28. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. O’Banion, John D.
    1987 “Narration and Argumentation: Quintilian on Narratio as the Heart of Rhetorical Thinking.” Rhetorica5 (4):325–351. 10.1525/rh.1987.5.4.325
    https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.1987.5.4.325 [Google Scholar]
  7. Olbricht, Thomas H.
    2008 “Rhetorical Criticism in Biblical Commentaries.” Currents in Biblical Research7 (1):11–36. 10.1177/1476993X08094023
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1476993X08094023 [Google Scholar]
  8. Perelman, Chaïm and Olbrechts-Tyteca, Lucie
    1958Traité 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]
  9. 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.” Argumentation251:527–539. 10.1007/s10503‑011‑9214‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-011-9214-y [Google Scholar]
  10. Siegert, Folker
    1984Argumentation bei Paulus gezeigt an Röm 9–11. WUNT I/34. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Snodgrass, Klyne R.
    2008Stories with Intent – A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Thurén, Lauri
    1995Argument and Theology in 1 Peter: The Origins of Christian Paraenesis. JSNTSup 114. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 2001 “John Chrysostom as a Rhetorical Critic: The Hermeneutics of an Early Father.” Biblical Interpretation91:180–218. 10.1163/156851501300139291
    https://doi.org/10.1163/156851501300139291 [Google Scholar]
  14. 2002 “Is There Biblical Argumentation?” InRhetorical Argumentation in Biblical Texts, ed. byAnders Eriksson, Thomas H. Olbricht, and Walter Übelacker, 77–92. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 2014Parables Unplugged: Reading the Lukan Parables in Their Rhetorical Context, Minneapolis: Fortress. 10.2307/j.ctt9m0vdv
    https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt9m0vdv [Google Scholar]
  16. 2017 “Multiple Communication Layers and the Enigma of the Last Judgment (Matt 25,31–46).” InMultiple Teachers in Biblical Texts, ed. byA. L. H. M. van Wieringen and B. J. Koet, 125–146. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 88. Leuven: Peeters.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 2020 ”The Final Countdown: The Last Judgment in the Light of Narratology and Argumentation Analysis.” InHistory and Theology in the Gospels: Moscow Conference, ed. byTobias Nicklas, Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr, and Mikhail Seleznev. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 289–302.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 2021 ”Parables in the Sermon on the Mount: a Cognitive and Rhetorical Perspective.” InSocial and Cognitive Perspectives on the Sermon on the Mount, ed. byRikard Roitto, Colleen Shantz, Petri Luomanen. Studies in Ancient Religion and Culture. Sheffield: Equinox Publishing, 174–204.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Toulmin, Stephen Edelston
    1958The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Toulmin, Stephen Edelston, Richard Rieke, and Allan Janik
    1984An Introduction to Reasoning. 2d ed.New York: Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Van Eemeren, Frans H.
    2014Handbook of Argumentation Theory. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑90‑481‑9473‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9473-5 [Google Scholar]
  22. Verheij, Bart
    2005 ‘‘Evaluating Arguments Based on Toulmin’s Scheme.” Argumentation19 (3): 347–371. 10.1007/s10503‑005‑4421‑z
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-005-4421-z [Google Scholar]
  23. Wolter, Michael
    2002 “Lk 15 als Streitgespräch.” ETL781:25–56. 10.2143/ETL.78.1.584
    https://doi.org/10.2143/ETL.78.1.584 [Google Scholar]
  24. Zimmermann, Ruben
    2015Puzzling the Parables of Jesus: Methods and Interpretation. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. 10.2307/j.ctt155j2q7
    https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt155j2q7 [Google Scholar]
  25. http://www.eurel.info/spip.php?rubrique547

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error