Rel/div 3159 01 Semiotics and Biblical Studies m 3: 10-5: 00 Garland 301g fall 2009 Instructor: Daniel Patte

REL/DIV 3159 01 Semiotics and Biblical Studies

M 3:10-5:00 Garland 301G

Fall 2009
Instructor: Daniel Patte Garland 301G (322-6359) Office Hours: MW 2:00–3:00 & by appointments Daniel.M.Patte@vanderbilt.edu.
READINGS (in this order):
1) Murder and Difference: Gender, Genre, and Scholarship on Sisera's Death Mieke Bal

2) Structural Exegesis for NT Critics, Daniel Patte

3) Theory of Semiotics Umberto Eco

4) Religious Dimensions of Biblical Texts Daniel Patte

5) Narratology (3^rd edition) Mieke Bal

6) Loving Yusuf Mieke Bal

7) Ethics and Infinity Emmanuel Levinas
We will also discuss, as required by the topics, A.-J. Greimas and J. Courtès (Semiotics and Language: A Dictionary and Umberto Eco, The Role of the Reader.
DESCRIPTION AND GOALS: This advanced seminar for Ph.D. Candidates in biblical studies and upper MDiv students seek to address the question: Why are several, different, and often opposed interpretations of the same biblical text equally legitimate and plausible? (This is the question raised by Ricoeur in The Conflict of Interpretations, and Fish in Is There a Text in This Class?, and also raised by the shelves of diverging scholarly commentaries on the same biblical book.) Thus, why do interpreters of the Bible have the moral responsibility of choosing among these legitimate and plausible interpretations one which “does no harm” and to take the risk of choosing an interpretation which will be helpful, liberating, and constructive by challenging systemic evil?
Semiotic theories address these questions by providing theories of the way meaning is produced through the interaction of texts, intertexts, contexts, and readers. These theories are not new: these were already the concern of Plato and Aristotle, Augustine, Boethius, Anselm of Canterbury and Abelard, Bacon, John Duns Scotus (to name a few historical figures). Modern scholars developed these theories in two opposite orientations (although:
a) either in a pragmatist line with Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914), followed by Charles W. Morris, Thomas Sebeok, and Umberto Eco – who start with the question: How do we communicate by means of signs? (a “semiotics” about “signs”—semeia); communication through signs frames the question of the production of meaning;

b) or in a linguistic line with Ferdinand de Saussure (1857–1913), followed by Louis Hjelmslev, Roland Barthes, A.J. Greimas (and Russian semiotics) – who start with the question: How do we produce meaning? (a “semiotics” about “semantics”; “structural semantics”); the production of meaning frames the question of communication by means of signs.

The question is: Which approach is most helpful in biblical studies? My response will be: a “semiotics” about the production of meaning (closely related to hermeneutics; Greimas was a dialogue partner with Ricoeur and Lévinas), although the semiotic theory of Umberto Eco (A Theory of Semiotics and The Role of the Reader) provides helpful insights. Semiotics as structural semantics opens the possibility to account for the several Religious Dimensions of Biblical Texts; it is this structural semiotics that Mieke Bal presents Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative and On Meaning-Making: Essays in Semiotics and applies in spectacular ways to biblical studies in her study of Judges 4 and 5 Murder and Difference: Gender, Genre, and Scholarship on Sisera's Death; and Loving Yusuf: Conceptual Travels from Present to Past, in which she reads biblical texts together with modern literature, feminist issues, visual art, and other religious texts (in the latter case, the Qur’an). A semiotic approach shows different options for reading any given text. We have a choice as readers, and thus also an ethical responsibility; Lévinas (who was in dialogue with Greimas) will help us for this through his Ethics and Infinity.
PROCEDURES: Using a semiotic approach for the study of a biblical text amounts to raising a series of questions about this text. It is expected that throughout the semester each member of the seminar will develop a paper which will make a contribution to the critical study of a specific New Testament text. We shall start doing so from the first day of the semester.
1) The first step is to choose a text from any book of the New Testament: a pericope or possibly a series of pericopes according to your interest. (This choice of a text must be made at the latest before the second session of the seminar, M-Sept. 2, and hopefully by W-Aug. 26)

It is time to choose a NT text which is particularly interesting for you, for whatever reason. In your eyes there is something at stake (positively or negatively) regarding this text, either because there is a scholarly debate about it (conflicting analytical interpretations), or because of the ways in which its teaching affects people in one context or another, or again because of the hermeneutical or theological issues it raises. The delimitation of the passage to be studied depends upon what you expect to be the focus of your study – that is, “what is at stake for you,” the point about which you believe a contribution is needed.

2) Each session has two parts.

PART A) The discussion of some theoretical semiotic readings, following the presentation of the main points of the readings by one of you;

PART B) Presentation/discussion of the implications of this reading for interpreting your chosen text
3) Toward the end of the semester (but also before), we shall assessing the Relative Value of your successive interpretations of your NT text. Our choice of a text, our choice of a particular set of questions we want to raise about it, as well as our choice of a specific focus for our reading demonstrates that there is something at stake for us in this interpretation. What is it? This is speaking of the value judgment – always in some ways, contextual – which also frames our interpretations, an issue which feminists and other advocacy critics have taught us none of us can afford to ignore.
REQUIREMENTS:

• 
  Active participation in class (and thus, regular attendance). Essential! The seminar depends upon it! You have a responsibility toward the other members of the seminar; your different points of view, your different interpretations help other members of the seminar to recognize the different choices they have made. 10% of grade.
  
• 
  Three Seminar presentations (either for Part A or for Part B) with handouts as discussion leader = 3 x 10% = 30% of grade.
  
• 
  A research paper prepared throughout the semester on a NT text of your choice developing a semiotic interpretation of this text (which will take different shapes according to your contextual concerns, and the hermeneutical and/or exegetical issue(s) you want to address). Excellent papers will incorporate in the argument additional works on semiotics and on the NT text. 60% of semester grade Paper due Wednesday December 16.
  

HONOR CODE: Throughout the semester, you are under the Honor Code of Vanderbilt University. All your reports and your paper should represent YOUR OWN work. Identify your sources, including other members of the seminar from whom you gain insights, so as to avoid plagiarism. Sign you work as a pledge of compliance with the Honor Code: a pledge that you wrote it without receiving aid from (or giving aid to) any other person, except as specified in your footnotes and bibliography.
SKELETON OF A SYLLABUS:

(Alone the theoretical parts of the seminar could be outlined; the substantial part of the seminar will be a discussion of the analysis of the NT texts you will have chosen. Please come WEDNESDAY AUG 26 with at least a tentative choice of a NT text—to be the focus of your contributions to the PART B discussion. You may choose to keep this text as the topic of your research paper; or you may choose another NT text and begin to use it on Oct 7^th.)

W-Aug. 26 PART A) Theoretical Readings to be discussed: 4 brief essays by DP:

“Structural Criticism (Searching for Meaning),”

“Semiotics,” “Symbolism,” (NIDB) and

“Structural Criticism “(RGG)

Discussion Leader: Daniel Patte

PART B) Your Choices of NT texts
W-Sept. 2 PART A) Theoretical Readings to be discussed:

Murder and Difference: Gender, Genre, and Scholarship on Sisera's Death pp. 1-11 (you may want to read the next two chapters already) by Mieke Bal

Discussion Leader: ________________

PART B) How does this apply to the interpretation of your NT text?

Discussion Leader: Daniel Patte on John 3:1-21

Reading: Structural Exegesis for NT Critics, pp. 1-72, by D.P..

W-Sept. 9 PART A) Theoretical Readings to be discussed:

Theory of Semiotics pp. 1-150 by Umberto Eco (emphasis on theory of codes, ch. 2; how does this help us understand Mieke Bal?)

Discussion Leader: ________________

PART B) How does this apply to the interpretation of your NT text?

Discussion Leader: ________________
W-Sept. 16 PART A) Theoretical Readings to be discussed:

Murder and Difference: Gender, Genre, and Scholarship on Sisera's Death pp. 12-138, by Mieke Bal

Discussion Leader: ________________

PART B) How does this apply to the interpretation of your NT text?

Discussion Leader: ________________

W-Sept. 23 PART A) Theoretical Readings to be discussed:

Theory of Semiotics pp. 151-318 by Umberto Eco (emphasis on theory of sign production)

Discussion Leader: ________________

PART B) How does this apply to the interpretation of your NT text?

Discussion Leader: ________________
W-Sept. 30 PART A) Theoretical Readings to be discussed:

Religious Dimensions of Biblical Texts pp. 1-72 by DP: Greimas’s Semiotic Theory: why it is preferable in Biblical Studies; Meaning as Multidimensional. Also relevant readings in Greimas & Courtès, Semiotics and Language

Discussion Leader: ________________

PART B) How does this apply to the interpretation of your NT text?

Discussion Leader: ________________
W-Oct. 7 PART A) Theoretical Readings to be discussed:

Religious Dimensions of Biblical Texts pp. 73-102 by DP: Greimas’s Semiotic Theory: the Generative Trajectory. Also relevant readings in Greimas & Courtès, Semiotics and Language

Discussion Leader: ________________

PART B) How does this apply to the interpretation of your NT text?

Discussion Leader: ________________
W-Oct. 14 PART A) Theoretical Readings to be discussed:

Religious Dimensions of Biblical Texts pp. 105-128 by DP Greimas’s Fundamental and Narrative Semantics. Also relevant readings in Greimas & Courtès, Semiotics and Language

Discussion Leader: ________________

PART B) How does this apply to the interpretation of your NT text?

Discussion Leader: ________________
W-Oct. 21 PART A) Theoretical Readings to be discussed:

Religious Dimensions of Biblical Texts pp. 129-172 by DP Greimas’s Discursive Semantics. Also relevant readings in Greimas & Courtès, Semiotics and Language

Discussion Leader: ________________

PART B) How does this apply to the interpretation of your NT text?

Discussion Leader: ________________