- Home
- e-Journals
- Journal of Argumentation in Context
- Previous Issues
- Volume 12, Issue 1, 2023
Journal of Argumentation in Context - Volume 12, Issue 1, 2023
Volume 12, Issue 1, 2023
-
Argumentation and the interpretation of religious texts
Author(s): Fabrizio Macagno and Lucia Salvatopp.: 2–18 (17)More LessAbstractThe 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.
-
The boundaries of lying
Author(s): Fabrizio Macagno and Giovanni Damelepp.: 19–58 (40)More LessAbstractThe Holy Scriptures can be considered a specific kind of normative texts, whose use to assess practical moral cases requires interpretation. In the field of ethics, this interpretative problem results in the necessity of bridging the gap between the normative source – moral precepts – and the specific cases. In the history of the Church, this problem was the core of the so-called casuistry, namely the decision-making practice consisting in applying the Commandments and other principles of the Holy Scriptures to specific cases or moral problems. By taking into account the sin of lying, this paper argues that casuistic texts reveal an extremely sophisticated interpretative method, grounded on “pragmatic” contextual and communicative considerations and argumentative structures that resemble the ones used in legal interpretation. These works show how the underspecified biblical text expressing an abstract norm was enriched pragmatically by completing it and modulating its meaning so that it could be used to draw a conclusion in a specific context on a specific case. The mutual interdependence between biblical interpretation, pragmatics, and argumentation sheds light on a much broader phenomenon, namely the pragmatic nature of argumentation.
-
Cracking the code of Jesus’s parables with argumentation analysis
Author(s): Lauri Thurénpp.: 59–76 (18)More LessAbstractThe 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.
-
The appeal to religious authority
Author(s): Lucia Salvatopp.: 77–115 (39)More LessAbstractThis paper analyzes a particular type of support that religious authorities use in their argumentative monologues on moral and theological matters. In particular, the argumentative monologue given by Joseph Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI during his 2011 visit to the federal parliament in the Reichstag in Berlin will be used as a case study. In his speech, Ratzinger offers his reflections on the foundations of law starting from his interpretation of a brief story from the First Book of the Kings in the Old Testament (1 Kings 3:5–10). The entire interpretation assumes the form of an argumentative text, in which he appeals to an authoritative voice of German-language jurisprudence (Hans Kelsen) and three Christian religious authorities (St Augustine, Origen of Alexandria, and St Paul). The aim of the study is to assess the pragmatic strength of Ratzinger’s argumentation and thus verify the authoritative contribution of religious experts in his argumentation, in which religion and ethics are linked together.
-
Apocalyptic argumentation
Author(s): Anders Erikssonpp.: 116–134 (19)More LessAbstractOur time is an apocalyptic time, but the argumentation in this apocalyptic time has hardly been studied by scholars of argumentation. This article shows how both Donald Trump and the jihadist warriors of ISIS appeal to an apocalyptic worldview in their argumentation. The three topos of evil, time and authority from Stephen O’Leary’s Arguing the Apocalypse are used in the analysis. Both Trump supporters and jihadist warriors see themselves as fighting for God and their enemies as representing evil forces. For scholars of argumentation the role of arguments woven into narratives that become whole worldviews needs to be studied more thoroughly.
Most Read This Month

-
-
Arguing with oneself
Author(s): Marta Zampa and Daniel Perrin
-
- More Less