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



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 metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Abaelardus, Petrus
    1970Dialectica. Edited byLambertus. Marie de Rijk. Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Aristotle
    Aristotle 1991a “Rhetoric.” InThe Complete Works of Aristotle, Vol. II, ed. byJonathan Barnes. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Aristotle
    Aristotle 1991b “Topics.” InThe Complete Works of Aristotle, Vol. I, ed. byJonathan Barnes. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Arnauld, Antoine, and Pierre Nicole
    1996Logic or the Art of Thinking. Edited byJill Vance Buroker. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139166768
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166768 [Google Scholar]
  5. Atlas, Jay David
    2008 “Presupposition.” InThe Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. byLaurence Horn and Gregory Ward, 29–52. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Atlas, Jay David, and Stephen Levinson
    1981 “It-Clefts, Informativeness and Logical Form: Radical Pragmatics (Revised Standard Version).” InRadical Pragmatics, ed. byPeter Cole, 1–62. New York, NY: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Austin, John Langshaw
    1962How to Do Things with Words. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bach, Kent, and Robert Harnish
    1979Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Barth, Else, and Erik Krabbe
    1982From Axiom to Dialogue: A Philosophical Study of Logics and Argumentation. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110839807
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110839807 [Google Scholar]
  10. Blair, Anthony, and Ralph Johnson
    1987 “Argumentation as Dialectical.” Argumentation1 (1): 41–56. 10.1007/BF00127118
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00127118 [Google Scholar]
  11. Cicero, Marcus Tullius
    2003Topica. Edited byTobias Reinhardt. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Dascal, Marcelo, and Jerzy Wróblewski
    1988 “Transparency and Doubt: Understanding and Interpretation in Pragmatics and in Law.” Law and Philosophy7 (2): 203–24. 10.1007/BF00144156
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00144156 [Google Scholar]
  13. Eck, Ernest Van
    2001 “Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation: Theoretical Points of Departure.” HTS Teologiese Studies / Theological Studies57 (1/2). Faculty of Theology, University of Pretoria: 593–611. 10.4102/hts.v57i1/2.1884
    https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v57i1/2.1884 [Google Scholar]
  14. Eemeren, Frans van
    2009Examining Argumentation in Context. Fifteen Studies on Strategic Maneuvering. Amsterdam, Netherlands-Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.1
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.1 [Google Scholar]
  15. Eemeren, Frans van, and Rob Grootendorst
    1984Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions: A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed towards Solving Conflicts of Opinion. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Floris Publications. 10.1515/9783110846089
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110846089 [Google Scholar]
  16. 1992Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Elliott, John
    1991A Home for the Homeless: A Social-Scientific Criticism of 1 Peter, Its Situation and Strategy. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Everardus, Nicolaus
    1601Loci Argumentorum Legales. Venice, Italy: Matthaeum Valentinum.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Greenawalt, Kent
    2015Interpreting the Constitution. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199756155.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199756155.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  20. Grice, Paul
    1975 “Logic and Conversation.” InSyntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, ed. byPeter Cole and Jerry Morgan, 41–58. New York, NY: Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004368811_003
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003 [Google Scholar]
  21. Guastini, Riccardo
    2011Interpretare e Argomentare. Milano, Italy: Giuffrè. 10.2307/2218258
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2218258 [Google Scholar]
  22. Hamblin, Charles Leonard
    1970Fallacies. London, UK: Methuen.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Hitchcock, David
    1998 “Does the Traditional Treatment of Enthymemes Rest on a Mistake?” Argumentation12 (1): 15–37. 10.1023/A:1007738519694
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007738519694 [Google Scholar]
  24. 2017On Reasoning and Argument: Essays in Informal Logic and on Critical Thinking. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑53562‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53562-3 [Google Scholar]
  25. Hurley, Patrik, and Lori Watson
    2018A Concise Introduction to Logic (13th Edition). Boston, MA: Cengage.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Johnson, Ralph
    1996The Rise of Informal Logic. Newport: Vale Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Jonsen, Albert, and Stephen Toulmin
    1988The Abuse of Casuistry. A History of Moral Reasoning. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press Journals.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Kecskes, Istvan
    2008 “Dueling Contexts: A Dynamic Model of Meaning.” Journal of Pragmatics40 (3): 385–406. 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.12.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.12.004 [Google Scholar]
  29. 2010 “The Paradox of Communication: Socio-Cognitive Approach to Pragmatics.” Pragmatics and Society1 (1): 50–73. 10.1075/ps.1.1.04kec
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.1.1.04kec [Google Scholar]
  30. Kock, Christian
    2013 “Defining Rhetorical Argumentation.” Philosophy & Rhetoric46 (4): 437–64. 10.5325/philrhet.46.4.0437
    https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.46.4.0437 [Google Scholar]
  31. Krabbe, Erik
    2002 “Profiles of Dialogue as a Dialectical Tool.” InAdvances in Pragma-Dialectics, edited byFrans Van Eemeren, 153–67. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Sic Sat.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Leech, Geoffrey
    1983Principles of Pragmatics. London, UK: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Levinson, Stephen
    2000Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  34. Macagno, Fabrizio
    2008 “Dialectical Relevance and Dialogical Context in Walton’s Pragmatic Theory.” Informal Logic28 (2): 102–28. 10.22329/il.v28i2.542
    https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v28i2.542 [Google Scholar]
  35. Macagno, Fabrizio, and Sarah Bigi
    2017 “Analyzing the Pragmatic Structure of Dialogues.” Discourse Studies19 (2): 148–68. 10.1177/1461445617691702
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445617691702 [Google Scholar]
  36. Macagno, Fabrizio, and Alessandro Capone
    2016 “Interpretative Disputes, Explicatures, and Argumentative Reasoning.” Argumentation30 (4): 399–422. 10.1007/s10503‑015‑9347‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9347-5 [Google Scholar]
  37. Macagno, Fabrizio, and Douglas Walton
    2015 “Classifying the Patterns of Natural Arguments.” Philosophy and Rhetoric48 (1): 26–53. 10.5325/philrhet.48.1.0026
    https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.48.1.0026 [Google Scholar]
  38. Macagno, Fabrizio, Douglas Walton, and Giovanni Sartor
    2014 “Argumentation Schemes for Statutory Interpretation.” InProceedings of JURIX 2014: The Twenty-Seventh Annual Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, ed. byRinke Hoekstra, 11–20. Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. MacCormick, Neil
    1995 “Argumentation and Interpretation in Law.” Argumentation9 (3): 467–80. 10.1007/BF00733152
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00733152 [Google Scholar]
  40. Mack, Peter
    1993Renaissance Argument: Valla and Agricola in the Traditions of Rhetoric and Dialectic. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill. 10.1163/9789004246959
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004246959 [Google Scholar]
  41. Mailloux, Steven
    1991 “Rhetorical Hermeneutics Revisited.” Text and Performance Quarterly11 (3): 233–48. 10.1080/10462939109366012
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10462939109366012 [Google Scholar]
  42. Moshavi, Adina
    2015 “Between Dialectic and Rhetoric: Rhetorical Questions Expressing Premises in Biblical Prose Argumentation.” Vetus Testamentum65 (1). Brill: 136–51.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. O’Keefe, Daniel
    1977 “Two Concepts of Argument.” Journal of the American Forensic Society131: 121–28. 10.1080/00028533.1977.11951098
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.1977.11951098 [Google Scholar]
  44. Patterson, Dennis
    2005 “Interpretation in Law.” San Diego Law Review421: 685–710.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Perelman, Chaïm, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca
    1969The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Petrus Hispanus
    Petrus Hispanus 1990Peter of Spain: Language in Dispute. An English Translation of Peter of Spain’s “Tractatus” Called Afterwards Summulae Logicales, Based on the Critical Edition by LM de Rijk. Edited byFrancis Dinneen. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing. 10.1075/sihols.39
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sihols.39 [Google Scholar]
  47. Pontifical Biblical Commission
    Pontifical Biblical Commission 1996The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church. Sydney, Australia: Pauline Books & Media.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Reboul, Olivier
    1991Introduction à La Rhétorique. Paris, France: Presses Universitaires de France.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Rigotti, Eddo
    1995 “Verità e Persuasione.” Il Nuovo Areopago1 (3): 3–14.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Robbins, Vernon
    1996The Tapestry of Early Christian Discourse: Rhetoric, Society, and Ideology. London, UK, and New York, NY: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. 1998a “Enthymemic Texture in the Gospel of Thomas.” Seminal Papers, no.37: 343–66.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. 1998b “From Enthymeme to Theology in Luke 11: 1–13.” InLiterary Studies in Luke-Acts, ed. by‎Richard Thompson and ‎Thomas Phillips, 191–214. Macon, GE: Mercer University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. 1999 “Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation from Its Beginnings to the Present.” InProceedings of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas Conference. Pretoria. www.religion.emory.edu/faculty/robbins/Pdfs/SNTSPretSocRhetfromBeginning.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 2002 “Argumentative Textures in Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation.” InRhetorical Argumentation in Biblical Texts, ed. byAnders Eriksson, Thomas Olbricht, and Walter Ubelacker, 27–65. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Scalia, Antonin, and Bryan Garner
    2012Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts. Eagan, MN: Thomson West.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Searle, John
    2002Consciousness and Language. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511606366
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511606366 [Google Scholar]
  57. Snodgrass, Klyne
    2008Stories with Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Tarello, Giovanni
    1980L’interpretazione Della Legge. Milano, Italy: Giuffrè.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Thurén, Lauri
    2014Parables Unplugged: Reading the Lukan Parables in Their Rhetorical Context. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Publishers. 10.2307/j.ctt9m0vdv
    https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt9m0vdv [Google Scholar]
  60. Tindale, Christopher
    1999Acts of Arguing: A Rhetorical Model of Argument. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. 2015The Philosophy of Argument and Audience Reception. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781316181645
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316181645 [Google Scholar]
  62. Toulmin, Stephen
    1958The Uses of Argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Toulmin, Stephen, Richard Rieke, and Allan Janik
    1984An Introduction to Reasoning. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Walton, Douglas
    1984Logical Dialogue-Games and Fallacies. Lanham: University Press of America.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. 1985Physician-Patient Decision-Making: A Study in Medical Ethics. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. 1987Informal Fallacies. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbcs.4
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbcs.4 [Google Scholar]
  67. 1989Informal Logic. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. 1990 “What Is Reasoning? What Is an Argument?” Journal of Philosophy871: 399–419. 10.2307/2026735
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2026735 [Google Scholar]
  69. 1997Appeal to Expert Opinion. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. 1998The New Dialectic. Conversational Contexts of Argument. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press. 10.3138/9781442681859
    https://doi.org/10.3138/9781442681859 [Google Scholar]
  71. 1999 “Profiles of Dialogue for Evaluating Arguments from Ignorance.” Argumentation13 (1): 53–71. 10.1023/A:1007738812877
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007738812877 [Google Scholar]
  72. 2002Legal Argumentation and Evidence. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. 2006Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. 2007Media Argumentation: Dialectic, Persuasion and Rhetoric. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511619311
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511619311 [Google Scholar]
  75. 2008Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. 2011 “Defeasible Reasoning and Informal Fallacies.” Synthese179 (3). Springer: 377–407. 10.1007/s11229‑009‑9657‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-009-9657-y [Google Scholar]
  77. Walton, Douglas, and Erik Krabbe
    1995Commitment in Dialogue. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Walton, Douglas, Fabrizio Macagno, and Giovanni Sartor
    2021Statutory Interpretation: Pragmatics and Argumentation. New York, NY, NY: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108554572
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108554572 [Google Scholar]
  79. Walton, Douglas, and Chris Reed
    2005 “Argumentation Schemes and Enthymemes.” Synthese145 (3): 339–70. 10.1007/s11229‑005‑6198‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-005-6198-x [Google Scholar]
  80. Walton, Douglas, Christopher Reed, and Fabrizio Macagno
    2008Argumentation Schemes. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511802034
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511802034 [Google Scholar]
  81. Walton, Douglas, Giovanni Sartor, and Fabrizio Macagno
    2016 “An Argumentation Framework for Contested Cases of Statutory Interpretation.” Artificial Intelligence and Law24 (1): 51–91. 10.1007/s10506‑016‑9179‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-016-9179-0 [Google Scholar]
  82. Wilder, Amos N.
    1956 “Scholars, Theologians, and Ancient Rhetoric.” Journal of Biblical Literature. JSTOR, 1–11. 10.2307/3261516
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3261516 [Google Scholar]
  83. Williamson, Peter
    2001Catholic 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]
  84. 2003 “Catholic Principles for Interpreting Scripture.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly65 (3). JSTOR: 327–49.
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Zarefsky, David
    2006 “Strategic Maneuvering through Persuasive Definitions: Implications for Dialectic and Rhetoric.” Argumentation20 (4): 399–416. 10.1007/s10503‑007‑9030‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9030-6 [Google Scholar]
  86. Zimmermann, Ruban
    2015Puzzling the Parables of Jesus: Methods and Interpretation. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. 10.2307/j.ctt155j2q7
    https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt155j2q7 [Google Scholar]
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