http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/ Oh yea! We went there. en Thu, 20 Jun 2013 11:35:37 GMT vBulletin 5 http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/images/misc/rss.png http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/ http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155990-Structuralist-and-Post-Structuralist&goto=newpost Sun, 26 May 2013 02:10:10 GMT I am reading Mark Given's Paul's True Rhetoric wherein he takes a post structuralist approach to the study of Paul's writings.

My early thoughts are that these approaches make simple discussion into something overly complex. A bunch of questions come to mind. Not all these have to be answered. But here they are:

1. For the study of scripture, what is improved by consideration of a structuralist or post structuralist investigation?

2. What problem was being solved by the introduction of structuralism and post structuralism analyses? For example, was the goal basically of providing a methodology to make final determinations of the meaning of obscure texts? or was the methodology supposed to help in present day communications?

3. Are these approaches supposed to resolve all problems ... i.e. to be used in the most simplest and direct communications as well as the most obscure?

4. Are there good examples where, for example, post structuralist analysis has a proven necessity? (and maybe the same question about a structuralist approach)

5. Is there something better than either of these approaches? Or does this depend on circumstances of the writing being analyzed?

6. Is it imagineable that an analysis of a writing could be done that would prove that neither type of analysis was appropriate?

7. Is there a simple side by side comparison of the two techniques? i.e. to show the comparative benefits and drawbacks?

These don't all have to be answered. It is just what comes to mind as I read some of this book. ]]> Linguistic Anthropology 201 mikewhitney http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155990-Structuralist-and-Post-Structuralist