36 Adina Moshavi premise or premises is critical for the proper understanding of argumentative RQs. 2. Pragmatic argumentation theory The modern study of argumentation includes a variety of theoretical viewpoints. The school of thought most useful for our purposes can be termed pragmatic argumentation theory, and is prominently associated with the pragma-dialectical theory developed by van Eemeren and Grootendorst, as well as with the related, but distinct approach of Douglas Walton (25). Van Eemeren and Grootendorst utilize an idealized model of argumentation, in which the main goal of the participants is to resolve a critical difference of opinion, and arguments are judged by a universalized set of rules. Pragma- dialectic theory stresses the importance of the pragmatics of language use in understanding arguments. A relevant pragmatic phenomenon is the use of indirect speech acts to express premises or conclusions. Van Eemeren et al. cite the use of the RQ as an indirect assertion expressing a premise, a usage closely resembling the argumentative RQ in the Bible: “Let’s take an umbrella, or do you want to get wet?” (26) The rhetorical question “Do you want to get wet” serves as an indirect assertion, “We do not want to get wet”; this in turn is a premise supporting the conclusion, “We should take an umbrella.” I have found Douglas Walton’s approach, which takes a context-based approach to argument evaluation, to be the most useful for investigating Biblical argumentation. Walton defines an argument as the use of reasoning in a dialogue to achieve a particular goal in the context of the discourse. Possible goals include, but are not restricted to resolving a difference of opinion (27). According to Walton proper interpretation and evaluation of an argument depends on the goal of the argument (28). In judging an argument as correct one must consider not only its logical properties but also the 20; Winona Lake, IN 2002) 452-453. I was unfortunately unable to obtain Herzog’s dissertation (E. HERZOG, “The Triple Rhetorical Argument in the Latter Prophets”, Ph. D. diss., Jewish Theological Seminary 1991). (25) On pragma-dialectic argumentation theory see, e.g., F.H. VAN EEMEREN et al., eds., Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory. A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments (Mahwah, NJ 1996); F.H. VAN EEMEREN – R. GROOTENDORST, Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions. A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed towards Solving Conflicts of Opinion (Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis 1; Dordrecht 1984); F.H. VAN EEMEREN – R. GROOTENDORST, A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. The Pragma-dialectical Approach (Cambridge 2004). WALTON is a prolific writer on argumentation theory; relevant works include, e.g., Argument Structure. A Pragmatic Theory (Toronto 1996); Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning (LEA Titles in Argumentation; Mahwah, NJ 1996); The New Dialectic. Conversational Contexts of Argument (Toronto 1998); “The New Dialectic: A Method of Evaluating an Argument Used for Some Purpose in a Given Case”, ProtoSociology 13 (1999) 70-91. (26) VAN EEMEREN et al., Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory, 13-14. (27) WALTON, “New Dialectic”, 74. Other goals mentioned by WALTON include, e.g., seeking information, negotiating a deal, intellectual inquiry, and deliberation regarding possible courses of action. (28) WALTON, New Dialectic, 30; “New Dialectic”, 88.