Structuralist Criticism; Biblical Structuralism ?
As we arrive at chapters 8-9, we are painfully aware that the four methods for reading the Bible addressed so far (literary/source, form, redaction, and canon criticisms) have major shortcomings. To be sure, each of these methods have their advantages and afford us interpretive insights. Source criticism, for example, helps us to discern written sources upon which biblical tradents (those who passed on the traditions) drew in creating and developing biblical texts. Form and redaction criticisms contribute to understanding genre, life-setting, and editorial activity, respectively. But Barton observes that for all their benefits, these methods do no individually or collectively solve all interpretive problems, and more importantly, they do not elucidate what the text means to the believer today, for they are historical (not theological) approaches that divest individual texts of their current canonical context. Canon criticism seeks to address this latter problem, but as Barton illustrates, Childs’ version of canon criticism is fraught with problems and fails to meet the theological goals that he sets. At the end of the day, according to Barton, canon criticism is really beneficial not to theology but to literary criticism (in the proper sense; see Barton, 20). And this leads us to the topic of structuralism, the focus of this week’s unit.?

Structuralism and its contributions to Biblical Interpretation

I may as well be forthright: most of us will find structuralism to be the most difficult topic covered yet. So what is ‘structuralism’? Barton explains, “…structuralism is, in its essentials, not a method of inquiry, but a general theory about human culture and its various branches: language, social life, art. This theory asserts that meaning is a function of the structures of a cultural system” (112). While this very difficult concept will be explained in this week’s readings, let me take just a minute to point out a few of the most important ideas that we’ll encounter. Make sure that you fully process Barton’s discussion of them. Hopefully, this will help you to read chapters 8-9 more productively. The first concept is ‘binary (two-part) opposition.’ This essentially means that the meaning of something is determined by establishing what it is not. ‘Poor,’ for instance, means ‘not rich.’ For ‘poor’ to have meaning, its opposite, ‘rich,’ must be a possibility. Things have meaning only when they are “part of…a system of contrasts” (111). Second, structuralists are concerned not so much with what a text means as with how a text means, that is to say, “how a text ‘makes sense’” (113). Third, unlike historical-critical methodology, structuralism tends to take the focus off of authors and redactors and places it onto texts themselves. One can immediately see the potential for the study of biblical literature, whose authors and redactors often cannot be discovered.?

Structuralism and its contributions to Biblical Interpretation
With that said, it is now time to read chapters 8-9. As you read, please pay attention to the terms listed below. All of them should appear in your essay on structuralism:
?
1. Binary opposition
2. Claude L?vi-Strauss
3. Contrast?
4. Conventional
5. Determined
6. Structuralism
7. Semiotics
8. System