Jason Andersen
26 September 2011
Peter Leithart is a man of letters and a theologian who has
written broadly in areas ranging from classical education to hermeneutics. Deep
Exegesis pulls from his varied background, which helps to inform him in the
area of Biblical Hermeneutics. The book is an introduction to a literary-theological
approach to reading Scripture. His prose is slightly disheveled, engaging, and
conversational so that it is easy to sit and get lost in his world.
Deep Exegesis is organized nicely into six distinct
aspects of a literary-theological reading of Scripture. According to Leithart,
the basics of his method are derived from the medieval church’s Quadriga
method of interpretation (13, 207). Quadriga is a Latin word for the
four horse chariot. In interpretation, Quadriga means that the
interpreter looks at the texts in four ways: literal, allegorical,
tropological, and anagogical (13). These categories do not mean exactly the same
as we would understand these words today. The literal meaning is the plain
meaning of the text i.e. what happened. The allegorical meaning answers the
question what does the text mean for our beliefs or faith. The tropological
meaning is the moral understanding as to how we Christians ought to live.
Finally the anagogical meaning is the meaning that tells us about what we are
to hope for (13). As much as Leithart may like and point the reader to these
categories, he creates his own that are distinct from this method of
interpretation and are more similar to a literary-theological approach to Scripture.
Leithart begins his discussion of hermeneutics by building
a case against current, modern hermeneutics. He traces the history of
hermeneutics by looking at three men whom he thinks have influenced us to look
at the text as a husk from which we are to find kernels of morality to live our
daily lives. These men are Lodewijk Meyer, Benedict Spinoza, and Immanuel Kant.
Each was a rationalist and built on the previous scholar as they led the way
into a rationalist hermeneutic. Meyer started this trajectory by detaching
“truth and meaning of Scripture from its verbal expression” (10). Meyer only
accepted as true from the Bible what could be rationally explained. Spinoza
responded to Meyer by asserting there is no truth in Scripture because it
contradicts itself in many places. We can only know basic truths from Scripture
e.g. there is a supreme being, or “those who live according to a [simple]
divine law will be forgiven and saved” (13). Finally, Kant goes beyond both of
these men and takes away any authority in the Bible and replaces that authority
with rationality. To Kant, the Bible “gives us reason’s conclusions in temporal
form. Kant is interested in the moral message of the Bible and not the
linguistic letter” (29). Leithart continues by saying that this husk-kernel
approach to Scripture where the words have less importance than the truths or
morals behind the text has driven much of evangelical interpretation in the
recent past. Leithart’s historical overview is important groundwork for the
continuing chapters. This husk-kernel approach is what he argues against in the
rest of the book in favor of a hermeneutics based on the letter (34).
Leithart has five different aspects that he presents in his
hermeneutic that he hopes will help us to read Scripture. These categories are:
typology, semantics, intertextuality, structure, and application. There has
been much discussion in each of these areas over the past twenty years in the
Biblical Studies world, and Leithart provides an easy introduction to them for
a lay reader. Throughout most of the rest of the book, he uses John 9 as an
example to help us to understand the reading that he is teaching.
When Leithart discusses typology, he uses the example of
Matthew’s quotation of Hosea, “Out of Egypt I called my son,” as an example
that only fits in a typological sense. His typological reading focuses on the
idea that the text’s meaning is unfinished. According to Leithart, future
events give meaning to a historical event or a text. In other words, the
meaning of a text is ultimately unfinished because future events change and add
to the meaning of any one event. In addition to this understanding of typology,
he also explains it in the way that we commonly speak: an echo of a past event.
Thus, Christ’s going to Egypt and the fulfillment of Hosea is an expanding echo
of the redemption pictured in Israel’s own Exodus.
Leithart continues by discussing the roles of words in
chapter three. His desire is for us to see words poetically. He says, “When we
read a text, especially one with a high level of craftsmanship, we should be
alert to the possibility that a covert sense is lurking just under the surface
of the overt” (87). In modernity, words were defined only by their semantic
range and not seen as pliable expressions that can surprise and question
poetically pulling from their unique history (etymology). Leithart reminds us
that the words used by a Biblical author are not only poetic but are also
recalling the past of Biblical history to paint a rich tapestry. In a similar
manner, he also suggests in his discussion of intertextuality in chapter four,
that the Biblical authors are recalling a shared heritage that the listeners
would have heard or understood. He gives us the example of a joke. In order to
understand most jokes, one has to understand the cultural milieu that surrounds
said joke. Even if we were missing one important point of information, the joke
may not be funny. This is also true when a Biblical author pulls something from
the Biblical past. When he writes, he hopes to pull from a common heritage anticipating
that the chords of his teaching might resonate with the reader. He remarks, “Everyone brings information to
the text that is not in the text” (117). In this discussion Leithart wants his
readers to see that it is very important that we come to the text knowing that
we miss much because we are not looking for the echoes of Scripture in the text
as we read.
Moving on from intertextuality, Leithart stresses the fact
that Scripture is also highly structured. One of his most important thoughts
that drives him and bears repeating:
Is it not safer to stay on the surface and make sure
that we do not put words into God’s mouth? Safer, yes. But caution is not the
only hermeneutical virtue. At the same time we are making sure that we do not
hear God say things he did not say, we want to make sure that we do not miss
anything either (142-143)
Specifically, he wants the reader to see that the structure
in Scripture is not just a flat retelling of either history or of a
propositional truth but that the structure inherently has and builds meaning
just like the structuring of Bach’s countermelodies build meaning as his songs
progress.
In his final chapter Leithart discusses the idea Totus
Christus: it’s all about Christ. He quotes Augustine for a slightly
different perspective than we are used to, but it helps to clarify what he
means by Totus Christus. Augustine describes the Church as being a part
of the body of Christ and thus Scripture could be about either or both (173,
174). In addition to presenting this concept, Leithart takes an excursion
within the chapter to delve into the relationship between the Biblical story
and classical myths, specifically Oedipus.
There is much to commend in Leithart’s book. He uses
language very well to communicate the message of the book. In many instances
his metaphors and word pictures help the reader to see clearly the ideas he is
presenting. The chapter titles are also helpful in building each topic, which
could have been described in a very dry scholarly sort of way. For example, his
chapter on intertextuality is called, Texts Are Music. He first paints
the picture of a corollary intertextuality in music and then carries this into
the realm of reading the Bible. This helps the reader immensely and provides
for a more engaging book. It is also very helpful that Leithart sticks to John
chapter 9 and applies the different concepts to the same passage. This helps us
to focus on the topic much better than if he had introduced multiple texts
since we would have to be continually reminded of the new story introduced.
In many ways, this book seems to be very much similar to
Robert Alter’s The Art of Biblical Narrative. Many of the topics or
issues are discussed similarly, and it is great to see that what was initiated
in the Old Testament realm over 30 years ago by Alter is now catching on in New
Testament readings of Scripture. Of course, Leithart comes to the table with a
Christian versus Jewish/secular worldview, and this makes for a more meaningful
discussion. A comparable volume in some ways is Jonathan Pennington’s Reading
the Gospel’s Wisely. Each book has its strengths. Pennington is much
clearer in what he is saying, but Leithart has the imagination that makes reading
his book so enjoyable. Deep Exegesis does not teach us a method, but
gives us a way of thinking about how we should read Scripture. This is
beneficial, but we look forward to resources that help the reader of Scripture
to apply these thoughts.
In some places, Leithart’s desire to paint a picture leaves
the reader hanging for a clear, grounded-in-history statement. This
specifically happens when reading about the meaning in chapter two. Leithart
raises many reasonable questions and objections to how we typically look at an
event, yet in the end, he does not clearly answer them but leaves the reader to
deduce what this means. Perhaps this was his intention, and he has fulfilled
his objective. However, it is important that the reader is reassured that any
meaning in Scripture is not relative to any or all events in the future.
Specifically, Leithart could have expressed the importance of two or three
Biblical events that do change the meaning of the metanarrative of Scripture:
Christ’s 1st and 2nd coming. All other events pale in
comparison as to how much they might change the meaning of an event for a
reader. How much can Scripture’s meaning change? Even a different analogy might have helped us
understand better.
His historical sketch in the first chapter is also
enlightening as to where we are in modern hermeneutics today. It is good to
know where we have come from. However, it seemed a bit too spartan. He
describes Meyer, Spinoza, and Kant because they were leaders in the cardinal
evil of separating the text and meaning. However, it may be that he brushed his
strokes too broadly. History is never so simple as to have only one paradigm
for anything. For Leithart it seems that most evangelicals read Scripture in
this kernel-husk way. History is never so monolith or precise, and it would be
good to take his history with a dose of caution.
Overall, Leithart provides an excellent book in an area
that is much in need of refreshing. It is very encouraging to see the movement
away from the Enlightenment and German higher criticism and the Evangelical’s
response to them. Hopefully, as we move forward, evangelicals will have
insightful books like Deep Exegesis that bring us back to a more natural
and profitable way of reading the text.
