- Table View
- List View
Arguing for Evolution: An Encyclopedia for Understanding Science
by Sehoya H. Cotner Randy MooreThis timely encyclopedia presents an arsenal of evidence for evolution that goes beyond the typical textbook examples.Arguing for Evolution: An Encyclopedia for Understanding Science provides readers with a single source for the scientific evidence supporting evolution. The book shows how scientists have tested the predictions of evolutionary theory and created an unshakeable foundation of evidence supporting its truth. As such, it demonstrates how evolution serves as a case study for understanding the scientific method and presents a logical model for scientific inquiry.The evidence for evolution is presented historically and topically in an accessible, example-rich, and logical format, using an arsenal of examples that goes beyond the typical textbook matter. The chapters are structured around a series of hypotheses that the authors put to the test, amassing evidence on fossils, comparative anatomy, molecules, and evolutionary biology in order to conclude that evolution is scientific fact. Learning about this fascinating field is enhanced through "see for yourself" examples that include original data and figures from key historical and contemporary papers in evolutionary biology.
Arguing for Independence: Evidence, Risk and the Wicked Issues (Viewpoints #8)
by Stephen MaxwellShortlisted for 'Polemic of the Year' at The Paddy Power/Total Politics Political Book Awards 2013!Following an introductory chapter exploring why political argument deals in probability and plausibility across interdependent areas of social activity not certainty in individual areas, this book offers a case for independence under six main headings - the democratic case, the economic case, the social case, the international case, the cultural case and the environmental case. Under each heading, the case is assessed against both the supportive evidence and the hostile evidence, from a variety of sources, concluding with a judgement of where the balance of the evidence points. The book concludes with a selection of populist objections to independence answered by summary rebuttals from the independence file. Reviews Maxwell has done his homework assiduously. The key historical, social science and political sources on the subject have been marshalled with skill and to good effect... The author writes in coherent and lucid prose so even complex economic arguments can be reaily understood and absorbed. SUNDAY HERALD This is a book of profound thought, intelligence and wit. To my mind it is the best book on the need for Scottish Independence and it certainly should be read and cherished by all of us who hope to contribute to the campaign. Stephen stimulated many of us for years, but this is his final and most powerful work. As Owen Dudley Edwards says in his Preface: "This book lifts the entire debate on Scottish independence to a new intellectual level. PAUL HENDERSON SCOTT Back Cover Independence: a nation's right to effective government by its people or for its people Evidence: interpretation of facts Risk: likelihood that outcomes will not be as predicted Wicked issues: problems perceived to be resistant to resolution What sorts of arguments and evidence should carry the most wight in assessing the case for and against Scottish independence? Given the complexity of the question and the range of the possible consequences, can either side in the argument protend to certainty, or must we simply be satisfied with probability or even plausibility? Are there criteria for sifting the competing claims and counter-claims and arriving at a rational decision on Scotland's future? In Arguing for Independence author Stephen Maxwell opens with a chapter on The Ways We Argue before exploring the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments for independence under six main headings: the democratic case the economic case the social case the international case the cultural case the environmental case. He also provides his own concise answers to some of the most frequent 'Aye but' responses to the case for independence. By offering an assessment of the case for independence across all its dimensions, Arguing for Independence fills a longstanding gap in Scotland's political bookshelf as we enter a new and critical phase in the debate on Scotland's political future.
Arguing from Cognitive Science of Religion: Is Religious Belief Debunked?
by Hans Van EyghenThis book considers whether recent theories from Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR) undermine the epistemic status of religious belief. After introducing the key theories in the growing area of CSR, Hans Van Eyghen explores some of the epistemic questions surrounding CSR, including: Is CSR incompatible with the truth of religious belief? How might CSR show that religious belief is unreliably formed? And, finally, does CSR undermine the justification of religious belief by religious experiences? In addressing these questions, he demonstrates how CSR does not undermine the epistemic bases for religious belief. This book offers a clear and concise overview of the current state of cognitive science of religion and will be of particular interest to scholars working in philosophy and epistemology of religion.
Arguing from Cognitive Science of Religion: Is Religious Belief Debunked?
by Hans Van EyghenThis book considers whether recent theories from Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR) undermine the epistemic status of religious belief. After introducing the key theories in the growing area of CSR, Hans Van Eyghen explores some of the epistemic questions surrounding CSR, including: Is CSR incompatible with the truth of religious belief? How might CSR show that religious belief is unreliably formed? And, finally, does CSR undermine the justification of religious belief by religious experiences? In addressing these questions, he demonstrates how CSR does not undermine the epistemic bases for religious belief. This book offers a clear and concise overview of the current state of cognitive science of religion and will be of particular interest to scholars working in philosophy and epistemology of religion.
Arguing Fundamental Rights (Law and Philosophy Library #77)
by Agustín J. Menéndez Erik O. EriksenThis book explores the trail-blazing Theory of Constitutional Rights of Robert Alexy. The authors combine critical analysis of the structural elements of Alexy’s theory with an assessment of its applied relevance, paying special attention to the UK Human Rights Act and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Alexy himself opens the book with an insightful contextualisation of his theory of fundamental rights within his general legal theory.
Arguing Identity and Human Rights: Among Rival Options
by Doug Cloud,Arguing Identity and Human Rights poses open questions about how to best argue for human rights, to help us think through the advantages and trade-offs of different rhetorical strategies, identify rival options, and, ultimately, choose our own paths. Modeling a humane approach to human rights argument, this book offers four deep rhetorical analyses of some of the most vexing and fascinating challenges facing human rights arguers in the United States: How do we want to frame difference in human rights advocacy—are we trying to downplay difference or something else? How can we best answer dismissive responses to human rights arguments? Should we portray people in marginalized categories as having “no choice” about their identity, and what would alternatives look like? What are the possibilities and perils of trying to “afflict” audiences with hegemonic identities to persuade them on human rights issues? Offering clear practical and theoretical implications while resisting easy answers, the book provides a concise introduction to the relationship between identity, discourse, and social change. Designed for both theorists and practitioners, for current and aspiring human rights arguers, this insightful text will be of use to students of rhetoric, argumentation, persuasion, and communication studies more generally, as well as human rights, social activism and social change, political science, sociology, and race and gender studies.
Arguing Identity and Human Rights: Among Rival Options
by Doug Cloud,Arguing Identity and Human Rights poses open questions about how to best argue for human rights, to help us think through the advantages and trade-offs of different rhetorical strategies, identify rival options, and, ultimately, choose our own paths. Modeling a humane approach to human rights argument, this book offers four deep rhetorical analyses of some of the most vexing and fascinating challenges facing human rights arguers in the United States: How do we want to frame difference in human rights advocacy—are we trying to downplay difference or something else? How can we best answer dismissive responses to human rights arguments? Should we portray people in marginalized categories as having “no choice” about their identity, and what would alternatives look like? What are the possibilities and perils of trying to “afflict” audiences with hegemonic identities to persuade them on human rights issues? Offering clear practical and theoretical implications while resisting easy answers, the book provides a concise introduction to the relationship between identity, discourse, and social change. Designed for both theorists and practitioners, for current and aspiring human rights arguers, this insightful text will be of use to students of rhetoric, argumentation, persuasion, and communication studies more generally, as well as human rights, social activism and social change, political science, sociology, and race and gender studies.
Arguing Islam after the Revival of Arab Politics
by Nathan J. BrownFor much of its modern history, a combination of deep nervousness and profound lack of interest seemed to inhibit or even prevent regular political conversations in the Arab World. Public spaces were devoid of political discussions: public squares in major cities showed no signs of assemblies for political purposes. If one picked up a newspaper, one was more likely to read about the comings and goings of officials rather than any sort of comprehensive political coverage. In the wake of the Arab Spring, newer media and older forms (such as the daily newspaper) have gradually made it easier for Middle East countries to participate in public debates from a variety of ideological perspectives. The state retreat from social welfare commitments have opened opportunities for a host of new informal groups and organizations to operate in areas previously dominated by officially-controlled bodies. These trends have obviously been noticed by social scientists, but scholars who focus on the large-scale political changes tend to edge into a celebratory tone: the changes are seen as potentially democratizing. Arguing Islam after the Revival of Arab Politics presents an understanding the "revived" forms of Arab politics as they really are, and does not speculate about the democratic future these changes could signal. In particular, this book examines various sites of Arab public life to explore how politics operates. Four kinds of public spheres are brought into focus: small group discussions that straddle the public/private divide (such as diwaniyyas in Kuwait or piety groups in Egypt), public spaces of assembly (such as public squares and mosques), media (both new and old), and parliaments (an institution etymologically founded in philosophizing and pontificating rather than legislating). Further, the author gives due attention to the ways in which these spheres interact to explore how these gradations, affirmations, and subversions of hierarchy, status, and power make up the current political landscape of the Middle East. The resulting work is one that is able to bridge disciplinary boundaries, offering understandings of the new political sphere. Designed to speak beyond a scholarly audience, this volume will contribute to broader public understandings of Islam in practice and of Arab politics as those who participate in it experience it.
Arguing Islam after the Revival of Arab Politics
by Nathan J. BrownFor much of its modern history, a combination of deep nervousness and profound lack of interest seemed to inhibit or even prevent regular political conversations in the Arab World. Public spaces were devoid of political discussions: public squares in major cities showed no signs of assemblies for political purposes. If one picked up a newspaper, one was more likely to read about the comings and goings of officials rather than any sort of comprehensive political coverage. In the wake of the Arab Spring, newer media and older forms (such as the daily newspaper) have gradually made it easier for Middle East countries to participate in public debates from a variety of ideological perspectives. The state retreat from social welfare commitments have opened opportunities for a host of new informal groups and organizations to operate in areas previously dominated by officially-controlled bodies. These trends have obviously been noticed by social scientists, but scholars who focus on the large-scale political changes tend to edge into a celebratory tone: the changes are seen as potentially democratizing. Arguing Islam after the Revival of Arab Politics presents an understanding the "revived" forms of Arab politics as they really are, and does not speculate about the democratic future these changes could signal. In particular, this book examines various sites of Arab public life to explore how politics operates. Four kinds of public spheres are brought into focus: small group discussions that straddle the public/private divide (such as diwaniyyas in Kuwait or piety groups in Egypt), public spaces of assembly (such as public squares and mosques), media (both new and old), and parliaments (an institution etymologically founded in philosophizing and pontificating rather than legislating). Further, the author gives due attention to the ways in which these spheres interact to explore how these gradations, affirmations, and subversions of hierarchy, status, and power make up the current political landscape of the Middle East. The resulting work is one that is able to bridge disciplinary boundaries, offering understandings of the new political sphere. Designed to speak beyond a scholarly audience, this volume will contribute to broader public understandings of Islam in practice and of Arab politics as those who participate in it experience it.
Arguing on the Toulmin Model: New Essays in Argument Analysis and Evaluation (Argumentation Library #10)
by David Hitchcock Bart VerheijIn The Uses of Argument (1958), Stephen Toulmin proposed a model for the layout of arguments: claim, data, warrant, qualifier, rebuttal, backing. Since then, Toulmin’s model has been appropriated, adapted and extended by researchers in speech communications, philosophy and artificial intelligence. This book assembles the best contemporary reflection in these fields, extending or challenging Toulmin’s ideas in ways that make fresh contributions to the theory of analysing and evaluating arguments.
Arguing over Texts: The Rhetoric of Interpretation
by Martin CamperFrom the Constitution to the Bible, from literary classics to political sound bites, our modern lives are filled with numerous texts that govern and influence our behavior and beliefs. Whether in the courtrooms of our judiciaries or over our dining room tables, we argue over what these texts mean as we apply them to our lives. Various schools of hermeneutics offer theories of how we generally understand the world around us or how to read certain types of texts to arrive at the correct or best interpretation, but most neglect the argumentative and persuasive nature of every act of interpretation. In Arguing over Texts, Martin Camper presents a rhetorical method for understanding the types of disagreement people have over the meaning of texts and the lines of argument they use to resolve those disagreements. Camper's fresh approach has its roots in the long forgotten interpretive stases, originally devised by ancient Greek and Roman teachers of rhetoric for inventing courtroom arguments concerning the meaning of legal documents such as wills, laws, and contracts. The interpretive stases identify general, recurring debates over textual meaning and catalogue the lines of reasoning arguers may employ to support their preferred interpretations. Drawing on contemporary research in language, persuasion, and cognition, Camper expands the scope of the interpretive stases to cover textual controversies in virtually any context. To illustrate the interpretive stases' wide range of applicability, Arguing over Texts contains examples of interpretive debates from law, politics, religion, history, and literary criticism. Arguing over Texts will appeal to anyone who is interested in analyzing and constructing interpretive arguments.
Arguing over Texts: The Rhetoric of Interpretation
by Martin CamperFrom the Constitution to the Bible, from literary classics to political sound bites, our modern lives are filled with numerous texts that govern and influence our behavior and beliefs. Whether in the courtrooms of our judiciaries or over our dining room tables, we argue over what these texts mean as we apply them to our lives. Various schools of hermeneutics offer theories of how we generally understand the world around us or how to read certain types of texts to arrive at the correct or best interpretation, but most neglect the argumentative and persuasive nature of every act of interpretation. In Arguing over Texts, Martin Camper presents a rhetorical method for understanding the types of disagreement people have over the meaning of texts and the lines of argument they use to resolve those disagreements. Camper's fresh approach has its roots in the long forgotten interpretive stases, originally devised by ancient Greek and Roman teachers of rhetoric for inventing courtroom arguments concerning the meaning of legal documents such as wills, laws, and contracts. The interpretive stases identify general, recurring debates over textual meaning and catalogue the lines of reasoning arguers may employ to support their preferred interpretations. Drawing on contemporary research in language, persuasion, and cognition, Camper expands the scope of the interpretive stases to cover textual controversies in virtually any context. To illustrate the interpretive stases' wide range of applicability, Arguing over Texts contains examples of interpretive debates from law, politics, religion, history, and literary criticism. Arguing over Texts will appeal to anyone who is interested in analyzing and constructing interpretive arguments.
Arguing, Reasoning, and Thinking Well
by Robert Gass John SeiterArguing, Reasoning, and Thinking Well offers an engaging and accessible introduction to argumentation and critical thinking. With a pro-social focus, the volume encourages readers to value civility when engaged in arguing and reasoning. Authors Gass and Seiter, renowned for their friendly writing style, include real-world examples, hypothetical dialogues, and editorial cartoons to invite readers in. The text includes a full chapter devoted to the ethics of argument, as well as content on refutation and formal logic. It is designed for students in argumentation and critical thinking courses in communication, philosophy, and psychology departments, and is suitable for students and general education courses across the curriculum.
Arguing, Reasoning, and Thinking Well
by Robert Gass John SeiterArguing, Reasoning, and Thinking Well offers an engaging and accessible introduction to argumentation and critical thinking. With a pro-social focus, the volume encourages readers to value civility when engaged in arguing and reasoning. Authors Gass and Seiter, renowned for their friendly writing style, include real-world examples, hypothetical dialogues, and editorial cartoons to invite readers in. The text includes a full chapter devoted to the ethics of argument, as well as content on refutation and formal logic. It is designed for students in argumentation and critical thinking courses in communication, philosophy, and psychology departments, and is suitable for students and general education courses across the curriculum.
Arguing the Apocalypse: A Theory of Millennial Rhetoric
by Stephen D. O'LearyApocalyptic expectations of Armageddon and a New Age have been a fixture of the American cultural landscape for centuries. With the approach of the year 2000, such millennial visions seem once again to be increasing in popularity. Stephen O'Leary sheds new light on the age-old phenomenon of the End of the Age by proposing a rhetorical explanation for the appeal of millennialism. Using examples of apocalyptic argument from ancient to modern times, O'Leary identifies the recurring patterns in apocalyptic texts and movements and shows how and why the Christian Apocalypse has been used to support a variety of political stances and programs. The book concludes with a critical review of the recent appearances of doomsday scenarios in our politics and culture, and a meditation on the significance of the Apocalypse in the nuclear age. Arguing the Apocalypse is the most thorough examination of its subject to date: a study of a neglected chapter of our religious and cultural history, a guide to the politics of Armageddon, and a map of millennial consciousness.
Arguing the Just War in Islam
by John KelsayJihad, with its many terrifying associations, is a term widely used today, though its meaning is poorly grasped. Few people understand the circumstances requiring a jihad, or "holy" war, or how Islamic militants justify their violent actions within the framework of the religious tradition of Islam. How Islam, with more than one billion followers, interprets jihad and establishes its precepts has become a critical issue for both the Muslim and the non-Muslim world. John Kelsay's timely and important work focuses on jihad of the sword in Islamic thought, history, and culture. Making use of original sources, Kelsay delves into the tradition of shari'a--Islamic jurisprudence and reasoning--and shows how it defines jihad as the Islamic analogue of the Western "just" war. He traces the arguments of thinkers over the centuries who have debated the legitimacy of war through appeals to shari'a reasoning. He brings us up to the present and demonstrates how contemporary Muslims across the political spectrum continue this quest for a realistic ethics of war within the Islamic tradition. Arguing the Just War in Islam provides a systematic account of how Islam's central texts interpret jihad, guiding us through the historical precedents and Qur'anic sources upon which today's claims to doctrinal truth and legitimate authority are made. In illuminating the broad spectrum of Islam's moral considerations of the just war, Kelsay helps Muslims and non-Muslims alike make sense of the possibilities for future war and peace.
Arguing to Learn: Confronting Cognitions in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Environments (Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series #1)
by Jerry AndriessenThis book focuses on how new pedagogical scenarios, task environments and communication tools within Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) environments can favour collaborative and productive confrontations of ideas, evidence, arguments and explanations, or arguing to learn. The first to assemble the work of internationally renowned scholars, this book will be of interest to researchers in education, psychology, computer science, communication and linguistic studies
Arguing until Doomsday: Stephen Douglas, Jefferson Davis, and the Struggle for American Democracy (Civil War America)
by Michael E. WoodsAs the sectional crisis gripped the United States, the rancor increasingly spread to the halls of Congress. Preston Brooks's frenzied assault on Charles Sumner was perhaps the most notorious evidence of the dangerous divide between proslavery Democrats and the new antislavery Republican Party. But as disunion loomed, rifts within the majority Democratic Party were every bit as consequential. And nowhere was the fracture more apparent than in the raging debates between Illinois's Stephen Douglas and Mississippi's Jefferson Davis. As leaders of the Democrats' northern and southern factions before the Civil War, their passionate conflict of words and ideas has been overshadowed by their opposition to Abraham Lincoln. But here, weaving together biography and political history, Michael E. Woods restores Davis and Douglas's fatefully entwined lives and careers to the center of the Civil War era. Operating on personal, partisan, and national levels, Woods traces the deep roots of Democrats' internal strife, with fault lines drawn around fundamental questions of property rights and majority rule. Neither belief in white supremacy nor expansionist zeal could reconcile Douglas and Davis's factions as their constituents formed their own lines in the proverbial soil of westward expansion. The first major reinterpretation of the Democratic Party's internal schism in more than a generation, Arguing until Doomsday shows how two leading antebellum politicians ultimately shattered their party and hastened the coming of the Civil War.
Arguing Well
by John ShandArguing Well is a lucid introduction to the nature of good reasoning, how to test and construct successful arguments. It assumes no prior knowledge of logic or philosophy. The book includes an introduction to basic symbolic logic. Arguing Well introduces and explains: * The nature and importance of arguments * What to look for in deciding whether arguments succeed or fail * How to construct good arguments * How to make it more certain that we reason when we should The book is ideal for any student embarking on academic study where presenting arguments are what matters most; in fact, for all people who want to understand the nature and importance of good reasoning and awaken their ability to argue well.
Arguing Well
by John ShandArguing Well is a lucid introduction to the nature of good reasoning, how to test and construct successful arguments. It assumes no prior knowledge of logic or philosophy. The book includes an introduction to basic symbolic logic. Arguing Well introduces and explains: * The nature and importance of arguments * What to look for in deciding whether arguments succeed or fail * How to construct good arguments * How to make it more certain that we reason when we should The book is ideal for any student embarking on academic study where presenting arguments are what matters most; in fact, for all people who want to understand the nature and importance of good reasoning and awaken their ability to argue well.
Arguing With Anthropology: An Introduction to Critical Theories of the Gift
by Karen SykesArguing with Anthropology is a fresh and wholly original guide to key elements in anthropology, which teaches the ability to think, write and argue critically. Using the classic 'question of the gift' as a master-issue for discussion, and drawing on a rich variety of Pacific and global ethnography, it provides a unique course in methods, aims, knowledge, and understanding. The book's highly original hypothetical approach takes gift-theory - the science of obligation and reciprocity - as the paradigm for a virtual enquiry which explores how the anthropological discipline has evolved historically, how it is applied in practice and how it can be argued with critically. By asking students to participate in projected situations and dilemmas, and in arguments about the form and nature of enquiry, it offers working practice of dealing with the obstacles and choices involved in anthropological study. * From an expert teacher whose methods are tried and tested* Comprehensive and fun course ideal for intermediate-level students* Clearly defines the functions of anthropology, and its key theories and arguments* Effectively teaches core study skills for exam success and progressive learning.
Arguing With Anthropology: An Introduction to Critical Theories of the Gift
by Karen SykesArguing with Anthropology is a fresh and wholly original guide to key elements in anthropology, which teaches the ability to think, write and argue critically. Using the classic 'question of the gift' as a master-issue for discussion, and drawing on a rich variety of Pacific and global ethnography, it provides a unique course in methods, aims, knowledge, and understanding. The book's highly original hypothetical approach takes gift-theory - the science of obligation and reciprocity - as the paradigm for a virtual enquiry which explores how the anthropological discipline has evolved historically, how it is applied in practice and how it can be argued with critically. By asking students to participate in projected situations and dilemmas, and in arguments about the form and nature of enquiry, it offers working practice of dealing with the obstacles and choices involved in anthropological study. * From an expert teacher whose methods are tried and tested* Comprehensive and fun course ideal for intermediate-level students* Clearly defines the functions of anthropology, and its key theories and arguments* Effectively teaches core study skills for exam success and progressive learning.
Arguing with Aseneth: Gentile Access to Israel's Living God in Jewish Antiquity
by Jill Hicks-KeetonArguing with Aseneth shows how the ancient Jewish romance known as Joseph and Aseneth moves a minor character in Genesis from obscurity to renown, weaving a new story whose main purpose was to intervene in ancient Jewish debates surrounding gentile access to Israel's God. Written in Greco-Roman Egypt around the turn of the era, Joseph and Aseneth combines the genre of the ancient Greek novel with scriptural characters from the story of Joseph as it retells Israel's mythic past to negotiate communal boundaries in its own present. With attention to the ways in which Aseneth's tale "remixes" Genesis, wrestles with Deuteronomic theology, and adopts prophetic visions of the future, Arguing with Aseneth demonstrates that this ancient novel inscribes into Israel's sacred narrative a precedent for gentile inclusion in the people belonging to Israel's God. Aseneth is transformed from material mother of the sons of Joseph to a mediator of God's mercy and life to future penitents, Jew and gentile alike. Yet not all Jewish thinkers in antiquity drew boundary lines the same way or in the same place. Arguing with Aseneth traces, then, not only the way in which Joseph and Aseneth affirms the possibility of gentile incorporation but also ways in which other ancient Jewish thinkers, including the apostle Paul, would have argued back, contesting Joseph and Aseneth's very conclusions or offering alternative, competing strategies of inclusion. With its use of a female protagonist, Joseph and Aseneth offers a distinctive model of gentile incorporation--one that eschews lines of patrilineal descent and undermines ethnicity and genealogy as necessary markers of belonging. Such a reading of this narrative shows us that we need to rethink our accounts of how ancient Jewish thinkers, including our earliest example from the Jesus Movement, negotiated who was in and who was out when it came to the people of Israel's God.
Arguing with Aseneth: Gentile Access to Israel's Living God in Jewish Antiquity
by Jill Hicks-KeetonArguing with Aseneth shows how the ancient Jewish romance known as Joseph and Aseneth moves a minor character in Genesis from obscurity to renown, weaving a new story whose main purpose was to intervene in ancient Jewish debates surrounding gentile access to Israel's God. Written in Greco-Roman Egypt around the turn of the era, Joseph and Aseneth combines the genre of the ancient Greek novel with scriptural characters from the story of Joseph as it retells Israel's mythic past to negotiate communal boundaries in its own present. With attention to the ways in which Aseneth's tale "remixes" Genesis, wrestles with Deuteronomic theology, and adopts prophetic visions of the future, Arguing with Aseneth demonstrates that this ancient novel inscribes into Israel's sacred narrative a precedent for gentile inclusion in the people belonging to Israel's God. Aseneth is transformed from material mother of the sons of Joseph to a mediator of God's mercy and life to future penitents, Jew and gentile alike. Yet not all Jewish thinkers in antiquity drew boundary lines the same way or in the same place. Arguing with Aseneth traces, then, not only the way in which Joseph and Aseneth affirms the possibility of gentile incorporation but also ways in which other ancient Jewish thinkers, including the apostle Paul, would have argued back, contesting Joseph and Aseneth's very conclusions or offering alternative, competing strategies of inclusion. With its use of a female protagonist, Joseph and Aseneth offers a distinctive model of gentile incorporation--one that eschews lines of patrilineal descent and undermines ethnicity and genealogy as necessary markers of belonging. Such a reading of this narrative shows us that we need to rethink our accounts of how ancient Jewish thinkers, including our earliest example from the Jesus Movement, negotiated who was in and who was out when it came to the people of Israel's God.
Arguing With Scripture: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul
by Christopher D. StanleyDrawing on recent discussions of quotations in the fields of rhetorics, linguistics, and literary studies, Stanley argues that Paul's explicit appeals to Jewish Scriptures must be analyzed as rhetorical devices that seek to influence the thoughts, feelings, and actions of a first-century audience, an approach that requires a different set of questions and methods than scholars have typically used in their studies of Paul's quotations. Key questions include why Paul quoted words of Scripture to support some of his arguments and not others; how quotations help to advance the developing arguments of Paul's letters; and how a mostly illiterate first-century audience from a variety of backgrounds might have viewed these sudden intrusions of material from a Jewish religious text. Answering these questions requires paying careful attention to the affective and poetic dimensions as well as the intellectual aspects of the original audience's encounter with the Holy Scriptures of Israel.Christopher Stanley is Professor of Theology at St. Bonaventure University. He is the author of Paul and the Language of Scripture as well as numerous articles on the social, literary, and rhetorical context of Paul's letters.