1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Journal of Argumentation in Context
  4. Volume 12, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 12 Number 1
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

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.

© 2023 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.22006.mac
2023-05-09
2025-01-17

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/jaic.22006.mac
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abaelardus, Petrus
    1970 Dialectica. 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
    1996 Logic 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
    1962 How to Do Things with Words. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Bach, Kent, and Robert Harnish
    1979 Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Barth, Else, and Erik Krabbe
    1982 From 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
    2003 Topica. 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
    2009 Examining 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
    1984 Speech 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. 1992 Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. 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]
  18. Everardus, Nicolaus
    1601 Loci Argumentorum Legales. Venice, Italy: Matthaeum Valentinum.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Greenawalt, Kent
    2015 Interpreting 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
    2011 Interpretare e Argomentare. Milano, Italy: Giuffrè. 10.2307/2218258
     https://doi.org/10.2307/2218258 [Google Scholar]
  22. Hamblin, Charles Leonard
    1970 Fallacies. 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. 2017 On 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
    2018 A Concise Introduction to Logic (13th Edition). Boston, MA: Cengage.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Johnson, Ralph
    1996 The Rise of Informal Logic. Newport: Vale Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Jonsen, Albert, and Stephen Toulmin
    1988 The 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
    1983 Principles of Pragmatics. London, UK: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Levinson, Stephen
    2000 Presumptive 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
    1993 Renaissance 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
    1969 The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Petrus Hispanus
    Petrus Hispanus 1990 Peter 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 1996 The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church. Sydney, Australia: Pauline Books & Media.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Reboul, Olivier
    1991 Introduction 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
    1996 The 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
    2012 Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts. Eagan, MN: Thomson West.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Searle, John
    2002 Consciousness and Language. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511606366
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511606366 [Google Scholar]
  57. Snodgrass, Klyne
    2008 Stories with Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Tarello, Giovanni
    1980 L’interpretazione Della Legge. Milano, Italy: Giuffrè.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Thurén, Lauri
    2014 Parables 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
    1999 Acts of Arguing: A Rhetorical Model of Argument. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. 2015 The 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
    1958 The Uses of Argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Toulmin, Stephen, Richard Rieke, and Allan Janik
    1984 An Introduction to Reasoning. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Company.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Walton, Douglas
    1984 Logical Dialogue-Games and Fallacies. Lanham: University Press of America.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. 1985 Physician-Patient Decision-Making: A Study in Medical Ethics. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. 1987 Informal Fallacies. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbcs.4
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbcs.4 [Google Scholar]
  67. 1989 Informal 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. 1997 Appeal to Expert Opinion. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. 1998 The 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. 2002 Legal Argumentation and Evidence. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  73. 2006 Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. 2007 Media Argumentation: Dialectic, Persuasion and Rhetoric. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511619311
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511619311 [Google Scholar]
  75. 2008 Informal 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
    1995 Commitment in Dialogue. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Walton, Douglas, Fabrizio Macagno, and Giovanni Sartor
    2021 Statutory 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
    2008 Argumentation 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
    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]
  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
    2015 Puzzling the Parables of Jesus: Methods and Interpretation. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. 10.2307/j.ctt155j2q7
     https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt155j2q7 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.22006.mac
Loading
  • Article Type: Introduction
Keyword(s): argumentation theory; biblical interpretation; implicit dimension; interpretation of religious texts; pragmatic dimension; rhetoric

Most Cited

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