1. Appearances are not reality in human conduct and affairs.

2. Reality is structured.

3. This structure is code-like

It is not first of all the structure of texts (the"object" of biblical criticism) that is preconceived in theory, but the structure of language to which individual texts as particular linguistic expressions must conform in order to be intelligible.
 

"Structure" here is a trans-textual rather than simply an intra-textual "reality." The whole (the structure) is more than or other than the sum of its parts; further, the whole determines the parts. Its goal is to discover the underlying deep structure which was responsible for "generating" a given text.

This fundamental structure is not to be thought of as an outline from which the author worked, but rather as a system or configuration that in some way offers an explanation for the visible pattern in the text. The general features of grammatical structure are common to all languages and reflect certain fundamental properties of the mind.

Language is based on the social conventions of the community using the language rather than on some supposedly natural or essential relationship between language and that which it signifies.

Syntagm/Pardigm
The value of each term in a language results solely from the simultaneous presence of other terms. This understanding results in the description of relationships as syntagmatic and paradigmatic. (e.g., Stancil, p. 53)

Langue/Parole
The distinction between langue and parole is fundamental to Saussure's theories. The term langue refers to language as a system or code, whereas parole represents a specific speech act. Though some have theorized that language (langue) as a code is an ideal entity, Saussure himself believed that language as a system (langue) is no less concrete than speech acts (parole), since the linguistic signs are actually contained in the brain. Only langue, therefore, constitutes the proper study of linguistics.

Diachrony/Synchrony
Saussure also called into question the diachronic approach to language. (Chart on phonetics, p. 222,
Poythress)

Signifier/Signified
Saussures' understanding of signs is also important for the development of structuralism. Saussure taught that a linguistic sign is a dual entity involving both signifier and signified. The signified is not so much a "thing," according to Saussure, as it is the mental representation or concept of the thing. These two entities together make up the linguistic sign. The structuralist does not speak of objective meaning in such a way that a text exists independently of one's experience of it. That is, an interpreter does not "objectively" exegete a text without some "subjective" involvement. The signified (concept or image) is to some extent a product of the preunderstanding of the interpreter, thus eroding a strict
subject-object schema and establishing the necessity for a hermeneutical circle.

Binary Oppositions
Contrasts within a system are referred to as "binary oppositions" and make up the basic elements of language.

Transformations & Generating of Texts
Transformations are used to convert the deep structures to surface structures. According to Chomsky, the deep structures are identical in all languages, because they are a reflection of basic human mental processes. It is the pattern, not the elements, that are the only valid objects of study. The paradigm or controlling idea, guiding the research of literary critics is, on the other hand, literature. Consideration of the Bible as literature is itself the beginning and the end of scholarly endeavor. Structuralism thus differs in focus from that of historical-critical methodologies in that the category of history is essentially absent. There are several common characteristics of the new literary criticism:

    First, no extraliterary hypotheses (e.g. that the text is Scripture, that it is historical reportage)are
introduced to account for any features of the text or as evidence in support of any conclusions drawn.
    Second, for the literary critic nothing depends on the truth or falsity of historical claims.

An objection to literary analysis is that literary methods of analysis are successful only on works that are self-consciously written as literature. Literary Criticism is not identical with Structuralism. While literary criticism sees a conscious, symbolic structure, structuralism sees an unconscious deep structure. Structural Exegesis no longer aims at what the author meant. The structuralist studies the langue of the author with no concern for authorial intent. Structural meaning is nothing else than the various intra-textual and extra-textual correlations. Traditional historical criticism has assumed that a text does not exist as an autonomous entity apart from author, referent, cultural context, and other such relationships. In structuralism, the structure of the text is its meaning. As opposed to the unicity of the historical meaning (the author meant one thing), the structuralists acknowledge the plurality of `structural meaning.' Appearances are not reality. Phenomena (like literary texts) as they meet the eye are to be explained by phenomena below the surface, called deep structures. Deep structures express themselves as codes. All human activities, from kinship patterns to literary texts to fashions, are coded expressions of the deep structures of the human brain. The fundamental model for understanding all codes is language, which explains the peculiarly important place that linguistics plays in structuralist theory. By decoding human activities one can not only discover the reality behind the appearances of everyday life, but can also, potentially, map the structure of the mind. It is less accurate to say that a narrative or myth "has" a structure than that it conforms to a structure, the formulation or diagrammatization of which is accomplished theoretically only by the study of a large number of texts.
What constitutes a deep structure and how it is to be modeled or diagramed, are all moot points. In order to break codes one must pay attention to wholes. Persons innately organize life in terms of binary oppositions. The task of the interpreter, then, would be to uncover these fundamental oppositions, or if they are too deeply embedded, to at least uncover secondary oppositions which the culture has constructed as shields for avoiding threatening contact with basic metaphysical oppositions such as life/death, heaven/earth, and god/man.
It is not always clear how the analysis of the code relates to the interpretation of the message, if it does at all. The message of the Bible is not simply a by-product of a more important code. On a positive note, It is possible to use structural methods without necessarily subscribing fully to structuralism as an ideology.

CLAIMS OF STRUCTURALISM

1. Consciousness has a structure which exists prior to all knowing and prior to all formulation of what is known. All experience is informed by this absolute structure, hence,

2. This structure is universal to all consciousness (insofar as it is sentience). The structure is quintessentially "human."

3. Self-reflective consciousness arises only through and is mediated only by language. If it is not communicable, in some language system, it is not knowledge. Language is the sine qua non of coming into being.

4. The structures of consciousness underlie and are mediated through language as its deep structure. The structures of consciousness correlate with the deep structures of language.

5. The structures of consciousness are in dialectical relationship with the historical existence of a particular individual who comes into being self-reflectively.(Synchrony/diachrony)

6. Out of this dialectic arise meanings and interpretations of existence. Understanding of structure is essential for meaning-adequacy.

7. Each individual statement in a language reflects and gains its adequacy of meaning from the structures of consciousness which underlie it. Structures of conciousness correlate with grammar. They are syntactic, not merely semantic.

8. Understanding of the underlying structure of a statement is a necessary condition for understanding the meaning of the statement. Until correspondent structures are understood, no adequate understanding of any other meaning level of the text is possible.

9. Correspondent structure does not close the meaning potential of language, or the potential contextually meaningful statements (i.e., "practical") possible within a non-trivial language are infinite and open.

10. Structural analysis is the essential precondition for all historical interpretation of literature.
 

In conclusion, all these claims bar structuralism from being a pragmatic science. They are not demonstrable or verifiable scientifically. Furthermore, these claims are absolute, not relative.