Analyzing and Interacting with Scholarly Arguments (Expanded Lesson)

Introduction

Doctoral research in Biblical Studies requires more than a mastery of sources and methods; it demands the practiced ability to think with, against, and ultimately beyond the scholarship one inherits. A dissertation is not a scrapbook of quotations or a museum of interesting facts; it is a sustained argument that advances a field by proposing, defending, and refining claims with evidence. To do this well, the doctoral researcher must learn how to anatomize arguments, evaluate their strength, and enter the conversation as a credible interlocutor. This lesson provides an expanded, detailed guide to analyzing and interacting with scholarly arguments at the doctoral level. We will examine the structure and logic of arguments, classical and contemporary frameworks for analysis, criteria for evaluation, and the distinct challenges posed by arguments in Biblical Studies—textual, historical, theological, and methodological. We will also consider the theological and moral dimensions of scholarly disagreement, explore case studies, and practice exegetical discernment through key biblical passages that model rigorous testing of claims. The goal is to equip you to read others charitably but critically, and to craft your own arguments with clarity, coherence, and integrity.

The Anatomy of a Scholarly Argument

Every scholarly argument, whether in an article, monograph, or dissertation chapter, has discernible parts. At its center is a thesis—a claim about the world, a text, an author, or a concept—that the scholar believes to be true and worth defending. Surrounding this thesis is a network of support: evidence drawn from primary sources; warrants that show how the evidence, properly interpreted, actually supports the claim; and a set of assumptions, or background commitments, that make the argument intelligible. Stephen Toulmin’s model remains a useful diagnostic tool: claims are supported by data; warrants connect data to claims; backing underwrites those warrants; qualifiers state the scope of the claim; and rebuttals acknowledge possible defeaters (Toulmin, 2003). When you analyze an argument, you are asking: What exactly is being claimed? What evidence is adduced? How is the evidence made to bear on the claim? What assumptions are doing silent work? Where has the author already anticipated objections, and where have they not?

In Biblical Studies, the “data” may include textual variants, lexical patterns, intertextual echoes, archaeological artifacts, social-historical analogues, patristic witnesses, or reception history. The warrants translate those data into significance: for example, from a cluster of occurrences of dikaiosynē in Romans to a conclusion about Paul’s theological logic; or from a Second Temple text’s use of covenantal language to an interpretation of Paul’s pistis Iēsou Christou. Because warrants often live at the level of method—historical-critical, rhetorical, socio-rhetorical, canonical, theological—arguments in our field frequently rise or fall not only on what evidence is cited but on how that evidence is permitted to function.

Classical and Contemporary Frameworks for Argument Analysis

Aristotle’s triad—ethos, pathos, logos—remains foundational. Scholarly arguments should persuade primarily by logos (reasoned demonstration), but the credibility of the scholar (ethos) and the judicious awareness of audience concerns (pathos) are not irrelevant (Aristotle, trans. 1991). In practice, ethos in academic writing is communicated through transparency of method, fairness to opponents, and careful documentation; pathos surfaces as the rhetoric of significance—why this matters for understanding Scripture, theology, or history.

Stasis theory further clarifies where debates are actually located. Ancient rhetoricians distinguished disputes over fact (conjecture: did this occur?), definition (definition: what shall we call it?), quality (quality: how weighty or serious is this?), and policy or procedure (procedure: what should we do?). Many biblical debates mix these stases. Consider justification: Is Paul criticizing human effort (definition) or ethnocentric boundary markers (quality)? Does the historical data actually show Judaism as legalistic or covenantal (conjecture)? Recognizing the stasis prevents you from talking past your interlocutor.

Modern rhetoric adds valuable lenses. Chaim Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca stress argument as gaining adherence from a particular audience; arguments succeed by making the reasonable seem preferable for those addressed (Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1969). This is relevant when you write for mixed audiences—biblical scholars, theologians, historians—who bring different criteria of plausibility. James Kinneavy and George Kennedy adapt classical rhetoric to literary and biblical criticism; Kennedy’s work in particular shows how rhetorical categories illuminate New Testament discourse (Kennedy, 1984). These frameworks do not replace philology or history; they clarify how claims are being advanced and how you may engage them.

Types of Arguments in Biblical Studies

Biblical Studies hosts a variety of argument types, each with distinct evidentiary burdens. Text-critical arguments justify readings by weighing external witnesses (manuscript age, geographical distribution) and internal probabilities (authorial style, scribal tendencies). Historical reconstructions argue from texts, inscriptions, and material culture to claims about events, institutions, and social practices; their warrants are often comparative and probabilistic. Literary-rhetorical arguments reason from narrative shape, discourse features, and rhetorical arrangement to authorial intention and audience effect. Theological arguments synthesize exegetical findings within doctrinal loci, guided by canonical and ecclesial criteria. Reception-historical arguments trace how texts have been read and used, arguing for the significance of those readings in particular communities. Because each type calls for different standards of support, a wise critic evaluates an argument by the standards it purports to meet.

Reading Arguments Closely: Practical Heuristics

Begin by locating the thesis as precisely as possible. Authors sometimes scatter a central claim across an introduction, a methodological chapter, and the conclusion; gather those lines into a single sentence in your notes. Then identify the main lines of evidence. Pay attention to how footnotes function: are they merely gesturing at authority, or do they engage competing interpretations and primary data? Trace a few citations backward. If an author leans on a secondary claim, verify whether that secondary source actually says what is claimed. This protects you from inheriting errors and enables you to calibrate confidence appropriately.

Next, examine the reasoning. Are the inferences deductive (entailing the conclusion), inductive (generalizing from instances), or abductive (inference to the best explanation)? Biblical arguments are frequently abductive: no single datum “proves” a thesis; the thesis earns acceptance by explaining the most data with the least strain while remaining coherent with broader knowledge. Evaluate alternative explanations to see if the author fairly considered them. When you detect logical fallacies—equivocation on a key term, false dilemmas, unwarranted generalizations—note them carefully, but resist weaponizing the vocabulary of fallacy; it is better to show exactly where the inference fails than to label it with a name.

Finally, assess assumptions. Every argument rests on a view of what counts as good evidence and how texts mean. Historical-critical work may assume authorial intention is recoverable and decisive; theological interpretation may assume the canon’s unity as hermeneutically significant. Socio-rhetorical work may foreground implied audiences and intertextual networks; reception-historical work may treat later readings as part of the text’s “afterlife” worthy of normative attention. Naming these assumptions clarifies the debate’s true center.

Criteria for Evaluating Arguments

Several criteria help you judge the strength of a scholarly argument. Coherence concerns the internal consistency of the argument; an account that generates contradictions in its own framework is suspect. Explanatory scope asks how much of the relevant data the argument illuminates; an argument that handles Romans 3 elegantly but leaves Romans 9–11 in the shadows warrants caution. Explanatory power assesses how well the argument makes sense of data without ad hoc maneuvers; the more an argument must multiply special pleadings, the weaker it becomes. Simplicity (parsimony) is not a fetish for minimalism but a preference for fewer assumptions when explanatory power is comparable. Consilience considers how the argument coheres with other well-established findings—textual criticism, archaeology, Greco-Roman background—without forcing false harmonies. Fruitfulness looks to future research: does the argument open fruitful lines of inquiry or foreclose them? These criteria are not mechanical, but together they help you explain why you find an argument more or less persuasive.

The Moral and Theological Stakes of Scholarly Disagreement

Scripture urges rigorous testing of claims. The Bereans “examined the Scriptures daily” to verify Paul’s teaching (Acts 17:11), modeling careful scrutiny rather than credulity. Proverbs reminds us that the first case often appears right “until the other comes and examines him” (Prov 18:17). Paul’s exhortation to “test everything; hold fast what is good” (1 Thess 5:21) captures the ethical posture of scholarship: openness to truth, resistance to haste, and willingness to be corrected. First John 4:1 adds a note of discernment about sources and spirits—an admonition to attend to the origins and motives of messages. These texts do not baptize skepticism; they commend a chastened confidence that joins intellectual rigor to humility. In a field where arguments can involve deeply held ecclesial commitments, academic virtue means representing opponents fairly (the “principle of charity”), acknowledging genuine strengths even in views you ultimately reject, and avoiding triumphalist rhetoric. Such integrity enhances your credibility and honors the communal nature of knowledge.

Exegetical Soundings: Argument and Discernment in Scripture

Acts 15 (the Jerusalem Council) provides a canonical case study in argument evaluation. The presenting issue—Gentile inclusion—elicits speeches, appeals to Scripture, reports of empirical signs, and pastoral judgments. Peter argues from God’s action among Gentiles and the giving of the Spirit; Paul and Barnabas supply corroborating testimony of signs and wonders; James argues from Scripture (Amos 9:11–12 LXX) and proposes a pastoral policy. What emerges is not a shallow prooftext but a layered convergence: empirical evidence, scriptural interpretation, apostolic authority, and prudential application coalesce into a communal judgment. The council’s method models a rich argumentative ecology, showing that biblical discernment integrates multiple kinds of evidence and attends to the common good.

Paul’s letter to the Romans displays a sophisticated argumentative form, frequently employing diatribe, where an imagined interlocutor raises objections that Paul anticipates and answers (Rom 2:1–3; 3:1–9; 6:1–2). Recognizing the rhetorical technique prevents misreadings that collapse Paul’s voice and the interlocutor’s objections. Galatians adds a forensic tone, with invective and oath formulae underlining the stakes. Rhetorical criticism, as Kennedy (1984) and later scholars have shown, equips the exegete to map argument flow, identify transitions, and see how emotional and ethical appeals function alongside logical demonstration. Close attention to this internal rhetoric trains the doctoral researcher to mirror such clarity and anticipation of counterclaims in their own writing.

Case Study I: The New Perspective on Paul

E. P. Sanders argued that Second Temple Judaism was best described as “covenantal nomism,” a pattern in which obedience maintains one’s place in a covenant graciously established by God rather than merits entry into it (Sanders, 1977). Sanders’s data were wide-ranging Jewish sources; his claim was that traditional Protestant portraits of Judaism as crass legalism are historically inaccurate. James D. G. Dunn adopted and extended this proposal, coining “New Perspective” to argue that Paul’s critique of “works of the law” targeted boundary markers (circumcision, food laws, sabbath) that separated Jews from Gentiles, not human self-salvation by moral effort (Dunn, 1983). N. T. Wright further integrated this with a narrative of Israel’s covenant vocation and God’s righteousness understood as covenantal faithfulness (Wright, 2013).

How should a doctoral student analyze this debate? First, by identifying the stasis. At the level of conjecture, what do primary Jewish sources show about “legalism”? At the level of definition, what does Paul mean by “works of the law”? At the level of quality, how severe is Paul’s critique of Torah observance vis-à-vis Gentile inclusion? Second, by tracing warrants. Sanders and Dunn rely on the warrant that contextual readings of Judaism should discipline Pauline interpretation. Critics employ a different warrant: canonical and lexical patterns in Paul may point to a different theological center than Sanders allows. Third, by comparing explanatory scope. Does the New Perspective better explain Galatians and Romans without resorting to ad hoc qualifications? How does it fare in Romans 4 (Abraham), 9–11 (Israel), and Philippians 3 (boasting)? Fourth, by assessing fruitfulness. The New Perspective has generated research into the social function of Torah and Jew-Gentile relations; critics claim it underplays sin and divine judgment. An excellent interaction will “steelman” (strongly reconstruct) each side before offering a calibrated judgment, perhaps finding that Paul opposes both ethnocentric boasting and any soteriology that evacuates grace.

Case Study II: Criteria and Critiques in Historical Jesus Research

Albert Schweitzer emphasized Jesus’ apocalyptic proclamation of God’s imminent reign; later, Rudolf Bultmann accentuated existential proclamation stripped of mythic elements; the Jesus Seminar famously used voting procedures to evaluate sayings. More recently, John Meier and Dale Allison have proposed historically modest reconstructions that resist overconfidence while retaining an apocalyptic core (Meier, 1991–2016; Allison, 2010). Here, the doctoral critic must interrogate methods: Are “criteria of authenticity” (multiple attestation, embarrassment, dissimilarity) used mechanistically or as defeasible heuristics? Do arguments account for the literary nature of the Gospels as theological portraits? How are Jewish contexts employed? What role does prior naturalistic or confessional stance play in weighing miracle claims? Evaluating such arguments requires not only cataloging criteria but also asking whether the methods actually fit the phenomena—texts that are at once testimony, proclamation, and artfully composed narratives.

Constructing Your Own Argument: From Analysis to Dialogue

Having learned to diagnose arguments, you must craft your own with equal clarity. Begin by stating your thesis plainly enough that a critic could disagree with it. Situate the claim within the scholarly conversation, acknowledging prior art and signaling your contribution. Declare your method and justify its appropriateness for the question. Order your evidence in a logical sequence—often from most widely attested to more contested—and show how each piece functions. Anticipate major objections explicitly; it is better to raise your strongest critic in your own pages and meet them than to leave your reader to imagine you have not considered them.

Attend to signposting and transitions so that your argument’s spine is visible. “In the previous section I showed…; in what follows I test that finding against…” Such metadiscourse is not pedantic; it is a service to your reader. Use footnotes strategically: do not bury your core argument or its most important warrants in the notes, but do use them to acknowledge alternative readings, point to technical discussions, and document comprehensive engagement. Calibrate your tone: confident enough to persuade, open enough to signal intellectual humility. Above all, tether your claims to the primary sources. The more your reader hears Scripture, inscriptions, artifacts, and ancient authors in your pages, the more your argument will feel anchored rather than impressionistic.

Methodological Disagreements: Finding the True Center of a Dispute

Many doctoral debates are not really about a single textual detail but about what kind of explanation is best. When one scholar prioritizes authorial intention while another centers canonical reception, when one leans on Greco-Roman parallels and another on intertextual echoes within Israel’s Scriptures, you must avoid reducing the disagreement to caricature. Ask: what problem is each method designed to solve, and what are its limits? A generous critic will sometimes concede that an interlocutor’s method illuminates something even if it does not decide the contested question. This habit builds bridges and often yields integrative proposals that respect multiple levels of meaning: historical, literary, theological, and ecclesial.

The Role of Probability, Causation, and “Best Explanation”

Because our evidence is fragmentary and ancient, many conclusions are a matter of probability. There is a difference between saying “this must be so” and “this best explains what we observe.” Train yourself to mark those modal differences in your prose. Where causation is asserted—say, a direct line from a Greco-Roman practice to a Pauline usage—ask whether the evidence shows causation or merely correlation. Inference to the best explanation is strengthened when you can show that alternative explanations either fail to explain some key datum or require more assumptions. Explicitly weigh rivals; do not assume your reader will do that work. When a conclusion is genuinely underdetermined by the data, say so and propose tests (textual, archaeological, methodological) that would raise or lower its probability.

Writing as Ethos: Style, Clarity, and the Ethics of Citation

Your prose is part of your argument. Clarity serves truth; convoluted sentences often mask conceptual confusion. Short paragraphs that carry one idea each, precise topic sentences, and careful definitions create a readable logic that invites scrutiny and assent. Ethos is also built by scrupulous citation. When you borrow a formulation, acknowledge it; when you adapt a method, credit its architects; when you synthesize a literature, represent it fairly. The marginalia of your dissertation—the footnotes, bibliographies, and acknowledgments—tell a story about your intellectual honesty.

An Extended Worked Example: Mapping an Article’s Argument

Suppose you are reading a hypothetical article arguing that in Romans 3:21–26 “the righteousness of God” means primarily God’s covenant faithfulness rather than a righteous status granted to believers. The claim is semantic and theological. The data include LXX Psalms where God’s righteousness is saving and covenantal; intertextual echoes in Isaiah; the immediate context of Romans 3; and comparative uses of dikaiosynē theou in Second Temple literature. The warrants are that intertextual usage guides Pauline semantics and that Paul’s argument in Romans follows Israel’s narrative of covenant and exile. The author anticipates rebuttals by addressing passages that seem to use righteousness for a bestowed status (e.g., Rom 4) and argues for both-and: God’s covenant faithfulness as the fountain from which justification as gift flows. Your evaluation would ask whether the LXX usage is truly decisive for Paul’s phrase, whether the reading does justice to the forensic strands in Romans 4–5, whether alternative semantic proposals better fit the data, and whether the proposal’s explanatory scope is broad enough to account for Romans 9–11. You would then position your own view, perhaps arguing for a polysemous deployment wherein covenant faithfulness and forensic gift are coordinated rather than opposed, offering textual analysis to support the synthesis.

Assignments (Doctoral-Level)

1. Argument Dossier and Map. Select a major monograph in your subfield (e.g., Pauline soteriology, prophetic justice, Synoptic problem). Produce a 3,000–4,000-word dossier that (a) reconstructs the author’s thesis, sub-claims, and argumentative structure using a Toulmin-style map; (b) identifies explicit and implicit warrants; (c) evaluates coherence, explanatory scope, power, simplicity, consilience, and fruitfulness; and (d) proposes at least two alternative explanations and tests that would adjudicate among them. Include an appendix reproducing two crucial footnote trails you traced back to primary sources.

2. Comparative Exegetical Engagement. Choose a contested passage (e.g., Rom 9:14–24; Gal 2:11–21; Isa 52:13–53:12). Write a 3,500-word essay that presents two leading interpretations in their strongest forms (steelman), analyzes their methods and warrants, and offers your own argued judgment with fresh exegesis. Integrate rhetorical analysis of argument flow and show how your reading impacts a broader doctrinal locus.

3. Mock Peer-Review Report. Draft a 1,800-word blind review of a recent journal article in your area. Summarize the contribution, assess originality and rigor, identify major and minor issues, and recommend accept, revise, or reject with clear rationale. Reflect for 500 words on how the discipline of reviewing shapes your own argumentative practice.

4. Acts 15 Discernment Exercise. Compose a 2,500-word study of Acts 15 as a model for argument evaluation, analyzing how empirical signs, Scripture, and communal judgment interplay. Propose a contemporary research dispute in Biblical Studies and outline how an Acts 15–shaped method would adjudicate it, naming evidence types and decision criteria.

Conclusion

Analyzing and interacting with scholarly arguments is the craft by which doctoral students become colleagues in the guild. The work begins with disciplined reading: identifying claims, tracing evidence, naming warrants, and weighing assumptions. It matures into evaluative judgment, guided by criteria that privilege coherence, scope, power, simplicity, consilience, and fruitfulness. In Biblical Studies, where texts are ancient, evidence fragmentary, and audiences diverse, arguments are necessarily probabilistic and dialogical. To argue well, then, is to cultivate intellectual virtues—clarity, fairness, courage, and humility—under the scriptural call to test all things and hold fast to what is good. This moral dimension does not soften rigor; it deepens it, reminding us that the purpose of doctoral argumentation is not to vanquish an opponent but to advance understanding for the sake of truth, the academy, and the church. By practicing careful analysis and generous engagement, you will learn to enter debates with a voice that is at once precise and hospitable, critical and constructive—exactly the posture required for dissertation work and for a lifetime of scholarly contribution.

References

Allison, D. C. (2010). Constructing Jesus: Memory, imagination, and history. Baker Academic.

Aristotle. (1991). On rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse (G. A. Kennedy, Trans.). Oxford University Press.

Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., & Williams, J. M. (2016). The craft of research (4th ed.). University of Chicago Press.

Dunn, J. D. G. (1983). The New Perspective on Paul. Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, 65(2), 95–122.

Kennedy, G. A. (1984). New Testament interpretation through rhetorical criticism. University of North Carolina Press.

Meier, J. P. (1991–2016). A marginal Jew: Rethinking the historical Jesus (Vols. 1–5). Yale University Press.

Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation (J. Wilkinson & P. Weaver, Trans.). University of Notre Dame Press.

Sanders, E. P. (1977). Paul and Palestinian Judaism. Fortress Press.

Toulmin, S. (2003). The uses of argument (Updated ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Wright, N. T. (2013). Paul and the faithfulness of God. Fortress Press.