What do you think?
Rate this book
The Religious Dimensions of Biblical Texts
s/t: Greimas's Structural Semiotics and Biblical Exegesis
293 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1990
4 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
May 30, 2020
The Religious Dimensions of Biblical Texts: Greimas’s Structural Semiotics and Biblical Exegesis is a specialized treatise intended as a guide for biblical scholars to use “structuralism” as an aid to traditional exegesis. At times, it is as dry as a dictionary because it is, in places, an explanation of the Semiotique: dictionnaire de raissoné de la théorie du langage which Algirdis Julien Greimas published in collaboration with J. Courtés. Yet, where Greimas was dealing with universal structures and applying them (as examples) to secular texts, this volume by Daniel Patte both summarizes Greimas’ theories and makes applications to biblical exegesis.
Personally, I was drawn to this title by my experience in writing a dissertation based on what we then called “rhetorical criticism.” I was intrigued because it looked like structuralism might offer a more standardized methodology than my fumbling in the dark during my dissertation research (which would have been significantly enhances if I had only been five (5) years later in my efforts). Yet, I was barely into the body of the book when I was dissuaded of my desire to clarify my former methodology. Patte points out that the type of criticism I had attempted was tied to a specific literary text (p. 39) while the approach in this book was interested in “universal structures.” (p. 41) At best, a structuralist would see my personal approach as differentiated between form (textual presentation) and content (subject covered) as representative of an “expression signification system” (p. 53) and “content signification system) (p. 54).
So, what does the semio-structural approach provide? First, it recognizes a chain-like series of narrative transformations (changes in state or subjects) which combine into a syntagmatic system (p. 54). When Patte (as Greimas’ interpreter) applies the use of the semiotic square (to be explained in a moment) to those successive transformations, the exegetical value of the approach begins to appear. But before unveiling the semiotic square, Patte also explains paradigmatic systems. These systems include: 1) codes (understandings common to the author/consumer and their environment), 2) symbolic/figurative systems (text-specific mechanisms designed to transform narrative or discourse in the hearer’s/ reader’s mind, and 3) semantic universe (fundamental beliefs/assumptions of the author upon which the narrative or discourse may be built) (p. 67).
But the importance of this methodology would be minimal if it were not for the semiotic square, the epitome of a universal structure. Take the idea of order vs. chaos. Greimas would place them on the upper left and upper right corners of the square as opposites. Those are expressions of opposites which would be, but they each have negative expressions—non-chaos on the bottom left (the order side) and non-order on the bottom right (the chaos side) (p. 81). He goes further to express the top opposition as macrocosmic order vs. chaos and the bottom opposition as microcosmic order vs. chaos (p. 83). Such constructions allow one to see an overarching structure such as the transition from lacking to non-lacking or from what is true in conviction to either necessarily true or impossible (or improbable) regarding veridiction (p. 89, although this is demonstrated more thoroughly on p. 119).
Eventually, Patte asserts that this approach will lead to the discovery of alethic modalities (veridiction—p. 91) and deontic modalities (behavior—p. 92—a non-Western structure is depicted on p. 269)). For me, though, the most helpful concept was seeing both narrative and discourse as a process of enunciator (speaker, author, narrator) attempting to convince an enunciatee(s) (hearer, reader, or viewer) of a conviction or of the necessity of acting (p. 56). This is because Patte builds his idea of narrative syntax on this relationship of enunciator/enunciatee(s) (p. 250). Since an alethic utterance expresses a condition of an object’s “state of being/non-being), it represents the “junction” of subject and object in terms of convincing the enunciatee of a given state, condition, or fact. A deontic utterance precipitates a narrative transformation, hence it communicates to the enunciatee what needs to be done (p. 250). Any text should be able to be unpacked for such a transformation.
The truth is, despite Patte’s efforts to communicate the methodology, I’m not sure that it has given me enough assurance to attempt this structural approach on my own. For me, the benefit is probably going to be enjoying his commentary on Matthew in a more satisfying way. Regardless of these two impressions, be aware that The Religious Dimensions of Biblical Texts: Greimas’s Structural Semiotics and Biblical Exegesis is neither for the casual reader and/or the fainthearted.
Personally, I was drawn to this title by my experience in writing a dissertation based on what we then called “rhetorical criticism.” I was intrigued because it looked like structuralism might offer a more standardized methodology than my fumbling in the dark during my dissertation research (which would have been significantly enhances if I had only been five (5) years later in my efforts). Yet, I was barely into the body of the book when I was dissuaded of my desire to clarify my former methodology. Patte points out that the type of criticism I had attempted was tied to a specific literary text (p. 39) while the approach in this book was interested in “universal structures.” (p. 41) At best, a structuralist would see my personal approach as differentiated between form (textual presentation) and content (subject covered) as representative of an “expression signification system” (p. 53) and “content signification system) (p. 54).
So, what does the semio-structural approach provide? First, it recognizes a chain-like series of narrative transformations (changes in state or subjects) which combine into a syntagmatic system (p. 54). When Patte (as Greimas’ interpreter) applies the use of the semiotic square (to be explained in a moment) to those successive transformations, the exegetical value of the approach begins to appear. But before unveiling the semiotic square, Patte also explains paradigmatic systems. These systems include: 1) codes (understandings common to the author/consumer and their environment), 2) symbolic/figurative systems (text-specific mechanisms designed to transform narrative or discourse in the hearer’s/ reader’s mind, and 3) semantic universe (fundamental beliefs/assumptions of the author upon which the narrative or discourse may be built) (p. 67).
But the importance of this methodology would be minimal if it were not for the semiotic square, the epitome of a universal structure. Take the idea of order vs. chaos. Greimas would place them on the upper left and upper right corners of the square as opposites. Those are expressions of opposites which would be, but they each have negative expressions—non-chaos on the bottom left (the order side) and non-order on the bottom right (the chaos side) (p. 81). He goes further to express the top opposition as macrocosmic order vs. chaos and the bottom opposition as microcosmic order vs. chaos (p. 83). Such constructions allow one to see an overarching structure such as the transition from lacking to non-lacking or from what is true in conviction to either necessarily true or impossible (or improbable) regarding veridiction (p. 89, although this is demonstrated more thoroughly on p. 119).
Eventually, Patte asserts that this approach will lead to the discovery of alethic modalities (veridiction—p. 91) and deontic modalities (behavior—p. 92—a non-Western structure is depicted on p. 269)). For me, though, the most helpful concept was seeing both narrative and discourse as a process of enunciator (speaker, author, narrator) attempting to convince an enunciatee(s) (hearer, reader, or viewer) of a conviction or of the necessity of acting (p. 56). This is because Patte builds his idea of narrative syntax on this relationship of enunciator/enunciatee(s) (p. 250). Since an alethic utterance expresses a condition of an object’s “state of being/non-being), it represents the “junction” of subject and object in terms of convincing the enunciatee of a given state, condition, or fact. A deontic utterance precipitates a narrative transformation, hence it communicates to the enunciatee what needs to be done (p. 250). Any text should be able to be unpacked for such a transformation.
The truth is, despite Patte’s efforts to communicate the methodology, I’m not sure that it has given me enough assurance to attempt this structural approach on my own. For me, the benefit is probably going to be enjoying his commentary on Matthew in a more satisfying way. Regardless of these two impressions, be aware that The Religious Dimensions of Biblical Texts: Greimas’s Structural Semiotics and Biblical Exegesis is neither for the casual reader and/or the fainthearted.
Displaying 1 of 1 review