What do you think?
Rate this book
Deep Exegesis: The Mystery of Reading Scripture
Seeking to train readers to hear all that is being said within a written text, Peter Leithart advocates a hermeneutics of the letter that is not rigidly literalist and looks to learn to read—not just the Bible, but everything—from Jesus and Paul. Thus Deep Exegesis explores the nature of reading itself taking clues from Jesus and Paul on the meaning of meaning, the functions of language, and proper modes of interpretation. By looking (and listening) closely, and by including passages from the Bible and other literary sources, Leithart aims to do for the text what Jesus did for the blind man in John 9: to make new by opening eyes. The book is a powerful invitation to enter the depths of a text.
261 pages, Paperback
First published September 15, 2009
About the author
Peter J. Leithart
82 books326 followersPeter Leithart received an A.B. in English and History from Hillsdale College in 1981, and a Master of Arts in Religion and a Master of Theology from Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia in 1986 and 1987. In 1998 he received his Ph.D. at the University of Cambridge in England. He has served in two pastorates: He was pastor of Reformed Heritage Presbyterian Church (now Trinity Presbyterian Church), Birmingham, Alabama from 1989 to 1995, and was founding pastor of Trinity Reformed Church, Moscow, Idaho, and served on the pastoral staff at Trinity from 2003-2013. From 1998 to 2013 he taught theology and literature at New St. Andrews College, Moscow, Idaho, where he continues to teach as an adjunct Senior Fellow. He now serves as President of Trinity House in Alabama, where is also resident Church Teacher at the local CREC church. He and his wife, Noel, have ten children and five grandchildren.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 62 reviews
July 27, 2024
A Leithart book is always an exhilarating read, and this book might be the most leitharty Leithart book there is. I honestly felt out of breathe at times while I was reading. Highly recommend!
Want to read
September 30, 2020Published by Baylor University Press. Bought a copy the day he spoke at Baylor (Feb. 27, 2014). Same day I had lunch with him and others for the Baylor Society for Early Christianity as we talked about his book on Constantine.
Here is a good related article on the historicity of Adam, and why it matters. Thoughts from Doug Wilson. Here is a response to one of Leithart's arguments (the defenestration of Prague) in the book. See some comments here.
Here is a good related article on the historicity of Adam, and why it matters. Thoughts from Doug Wilson. Here is a response to one of Leithart's arguments (the defenestration of Prague) in the book. See some comments here.
July 3, 2021
An absolute balm for sore eyes. Leithart's work is as fresh as a basin of water taken straight from the torrents of the river of Scripture. There is no posture of arrogance in the development of the argument nor is it a mere historical case for a specific hermeneutical model. Leithart is both a literary critic and a Bible scholar and the best of both worlds collide here to provide a coherent and logical argument for a fuller method of interpreting Scripture that sees in it more than the literal interpretation, yet emphasizes a hermeneutic of the letter.
This book has been a sure blessing in my life, and I believe it will do the same to you. Highly recommended!
This book has been a sure blessing in my life, and I believe it will do the same to you. Highly recommended!
October 18, 2009
Good stuff, as always. Peter is fantastically learned, and lots of fun. Some objections, which we will be discussing at an NSA grad forum.
January 7, 2019
Wow, what a strange book. What a strange author. I get the sense from this book, far more than when I read *Traces of the Trinity,* that Peter Leithart is probably the most interesting guy in Christian scholarship right now. He is very provocative and makes you feel, at times, like he is a crazy postmodern deconstructionist, and then he destroys postmodern deconstructionism. You think you're reading a church father or a medieval scholastic, but then he says something like, "Reading the Bible is like good sex; it takes time."
He has some very bizarre sections, and I would by no means recommend his proposal in this book without a huge list of qualifications, but he offers quite a bit of refreshing and important insights. Also, the man knows how to argue. Even some of his sections that struck me as outlandishly wacky at first ended with me putting the book down, mumbling, "Hmmm... maybe... maybe." The last thing I'll mention is this: his bibliography is ridiculous. I mean, the range of material he interacts with in this work on hermeneutics will make you chuckle. Just to give you an example, he has an entire section where he interacts at length with the novel, *No Country for Old Men.* And all of this is, I think, no small part of what makes Leithart so enjoyable and refreshing to read. He's a wordsmith-scholar, a rare breed.
He has some very bizarre sections, and I would by no means recommend his proposal in this book without a huge list of qualifications, but he offers quite a bit of refreshing and important insights. Also, the man knows how to argue. Even some of his sections that struck me as outlandishly wacky at first ended with me putting the book down, mumbling, "Hmmm... maybe... maybe." The last thing I'll mention is this: his bibliography is ridiculous. I mean, the range of material he interacts with in this work on hermeneutics will make you chuckle. Just to give you an example, he has an entire section where he interacts at length with the novel, *No Country for Old Men.* And all of this is, I think, no small part of what makes Leithart so enjoyable and refreshing to read. He's a wordsmith-scholar, a rare breed.
December 31, 2022
Interesting counterpoint to the Peter Enns book I read with our church's book club.
Leithart says that Enns follows in the reading tradition of the Latitudinarians, freethinkers, and philosophers like Kant and Spinoza that see the text as husk and kernel: remove the husk (form) to get to the kernel (underlying truth). This affects translation: for example, the Message's "your trusty shepherd's crook" versus the KJV's "thy rod and thy staff", which preserves the repetition in the Hebrew. It also allows you to "rescue true religion from Christianity" and discard the "embarrassing" parts of Christianity as husk: homosexuality may have been disallowed by the church before, but it can now be accepted. We need not believe in a historical Adam as long as we keep the kernel from the story. With Lodewijk Meyer, you can use philosophy to interpret scripture, elevating philosophy over scripture.
Leithart instead wants to interpret the text in layers, like the medievals and reformers. The medieval quadriga is one system, with four readings: literal (what happened), allegorical (what to believe), tropological (what to do), anagogical (what to hope for). John Cassian uses Jerusalem as example: Jerusalem is literally a physical city, allegorically the Church, tropologically each individual Christian, and anagogically the future Zion, the New Jerusalem.
Texts are events. Every reading is typological because texts exist in time; later events give new meaning to earlier events. A shooting at 9 o'clock receives the meaning of "murder" at 10 o'clock after the victim dies. The prophets did not understand how Christ would fulfill their prophecies; after the fulfillment, the OT texts received new meaning. History is a detective novel: you don't get the full import of events until the end.
Words are players. Don't make the etymological fallacy, but also don't ignore word history. You can believe that words have connotations without accepting linguistic relativism.
The Text is a joke. Getting a joke requires making an intuitive connection to information outside the joke. Literature references other literature: you don't understand Virgil fully without knowing Homer. We want to avoid importing meaning that doesn't belong in the text, but also not miss meaning that is there. Definitions, historical background, references to other writing are elements we bring to the reading, so eisegesis is not entirely avoidable. History and science work the exact same way: you assemble the data, invent a reasonable theory that explains the data, then see if over time new data and other reasonable minds confirm or reject the theory. History example: it's obvious that brickmaking business increased after gunpowder was invented in order to build walls that could withstand cannon fire, but you have to make the intuitive connection between the two events rather than proving it from a document. The genius of Newton and Einstein was not their command of data (analysis) but the stories they told (synthesis).
Texts are music. Order and repetition are techniques used by composers and authors.
Throughout, Leithart exegetes John 9, piling on the layers of meaning. I'd be interested to hear those assembled into a sermon.
I'm mostly onboard with Leithart. The "text as joke" chapter is my favorite and I want to think through that idea further with relation to Karen Glass's writing about synthetic learning.
Notes:
- Tyndale invented the word "atonement" when he found no English equivalent to the Hebrew.
- Music trains us in patience: it does not just "get to the point".
- "God in his infinite wisdom decided to give us a book, and not a portrait or an aphorism."
- When asked to explain "The Waste Land", Eliot started reciting the poem. Commentary cannot mean the same thing as art: "Map is not territory".
Leithart says that Enns follows in the reading tradition of the Latitudinarians, freethinkers, and philosophers like Kant and Spinoza that see the text as husk and kernel: remove the husk (form) to get to the kernel (underlying truth). This affects translation: for example, the Message's "your trusty shepherd's crook" versus the KJV's "thy rod and thy staff", which preserves the repetition in the Hebrew. It also allows you to "rescue true religion from Christianity" and discard the "embarrassing" parts of Christianity as husk: homosexuality may have been disallowed by the church before, but it can now be accepted. We need not believe in a historical Adam as long as we keep the kernel from the story. With Lodewijk Meyer, you can use philosophy to interpret scripture, elevating philosophy over scripture.
Leithart instead wants to interpret the text in layers, like the medievals and reformers. The medieval quadriga is one system, with four readings: literal (what happened), allegorical (what to believe), tropological (what to do), anagogical (what to hope for). John Cassian uses Jerusalem as example: Jerusalem is literally a physical city, allegorically the Church, tropologically each individual Christian, and anagogically the future Zion, the New Jerusalem.
Texts are events. Every reading is typological because texts exist in time; later events give new meaning to earlier events. A shooting at 9 o'clock receives the meaning of "murder" at 10 o'clock after the victim dies. The prophets did not understand how Christ would fulfill their prophecies; after the fulfillment, the OT texts received new meaning. History is a detective novel: you don't get the full import of events until the end.
Words are players. Don't make the etymological fallacy, but also don't ignore word history. You can believe that words have connotations without accepting linguistic relativism.
The Text is a joke. Getting a joke requires making an intuitive connection to information outside the joke. Literature references other literature: you don't understand Virgil fully without knowing Homer. We want to avoid importing meaning that doesn't belong in the text, but also not miss meaning that is there. Definitions, historical background, references to other writing are elements we bring to the reading, so eisegesis is not entirely avoidable. History and science work the exact same way: you assemble the data, invent a reasonable theory that explains the data, then see if over time new data and other reasonable minds confirm or reject the theory. History example: it's obvious that brickmaking business increased after gunpowder was invented in order to build walls that could withstand cannon fire, but you have to make the intuitive connection between the two events rather than proving it from a document. The genius of Newton and Einstein was not their command of data (analysis) but the stories they told (synthesis).
Texts are music. Order and repetition are techniques used by composers and authors.
Throughout, Leithart exegetes John 9, piling on the layers of meaning. I'd be interested to hear those assembled into a sermon.
I'm mostly onboard with Leithart. The "text as joke" chapter is my favorite and I want to think through that idea further with relation to Karen Glass's writing about synthetic learning.
Notes:
- Tyndale invented the word "atonement" when he found no English equivalent to the Hebrew.
- Music trains us in patience: it does not just "get to the point".
- "God in his infinite wisdom decided to give us a book, and not a portrait or an aphorism."
- When asked to explain "The Waste Land", Eliot started reciting the poem. Commentary cannot mean the same thing as art: "Map is not territory".
September 28, 2015
Would you pick up a book like Deep Exegesis: The Mystery of Reading Scripture if it wasn’t a textbook? I purchased it because systematic analysis of literature in general and the Bible in specific have always been fascinating to me. Not only does it build on the work of one of my late New Testament professors (Dr. George R. Beasley-Murray), but it also works from a marvelous dissertation/book from a fellow-member of a seminar I attended (Dr. Paul Duke’s marvelous work on irony in the Gospel of John). So, Leithart’s Deep Exegesis hit me from multiple directions.
Remember some of the ultra-right-wing histrionics (like those of Harold Lindsell and James Draper) during the so-called Battle for the Bible? The basic premise of their argument was that words have meanings and we mustn’t stray from those literal meanings. At the time, I claimed it was a naïve understanding of language because those meanings change over time and even if the meanings don’t specifically change over time, they have different nuances in different contexts. Leithart illustrates this marvelously with the phrase, “She was nice, glamorous and gay.” In earlier times, nice mean naïve or ignorant, glamorous had to do with witchcraft, and gay meant happy. Today, it would suggest a polite and beautiful lesbian (p. 47). He takes translators who don’t believe they should translate the style as well as the meaning to task (p. 79), pointing out that the style shapes the meaning contextually (as the writings of Luis Alonso-Schökel so brilliantly emphasized).
Don’t take this to mean that Leithart has created a screed against the right-wing interpreters of scripture. He hits the left-wing very hard. I personally have a problem with the left-wing interpreter’s faddish hermeneutical rule in the late 20th and early 21st century of deciding that parables only have one simple lesson. They contend that parables should never be interpreted allegorically or with an eye to typology. Leithart points out that the mainstream liberal commentators of this era always complained that we needed to get away from the Medieval quadriga of interpretation [literal (ie. historical), allegorical, tropological, and anagogical—p. 14). Using the quadriga one might interpret Zion as literally a hill in Jerusalem, allegorically as either the synagogue or church as the people of God, tropologically as symbolic of ritual righteousness through the temple/synagogue/church emphasis on obedience, and anagogically as the future glory of living in God’s presence (p. 14). Leithart contends throughout this volume that the modern tradition of interpretation keeps trying to get interpreters and readers to choose ONE option in a reductionist fashion when the use of such a term , pericope, or phrase might offer a synecdoche where all of the approaches offer a more holistic meaning than any one section of the four (Yes, I know synecdoche sometimes means a part representing a whole, but it can also be the whole representing a part and that’s how I mean it here—Leithart didn’t use the term, simply stating that we don’t have to CHOOSE!]
Further, in the attempt to be tropological, to slice through quickly to the supposed application of a text as is so popular among pulpit professionals on both sides of the theological spectrum, Leithart states that it is unfair to say that only academics (and old-fashioned expositors) are interested in the etymologies and history of use of individual words. He wisely points out that ancient writers were interested in etymologies (witness Socrates, Aristotle, Ovid, Virgil, Quintilian, and Philo, to name a few—p. 95).
The bulk of the book uses different perspectives on the healing of the blind man in John 9. Leithart points out that understanding a joke requires the listener/reader to draw information from outside the text itself. He uses a twist on a classic joke about a mix of people going into a bar (p. 113). Since the great Yankee catcher/manager Yogi Berra died the day before I wrote this review, I’ll use one of his malapropisms to demonstrate how that works. Berra was mocked when he referred to the left field in the House that Ruth Built (literally, not either of the modern Yankee Stadiums) by saying, “It gets late early out there, sometimes.” If you know that for part of the day, that field was horrible for its glaring sun but was the first of the three outfields to be covered in shadows, you know that the silly-sounding phrase meant that the shadows actually made it easier to see the ball. If you had additional information, you could see the logic; if not, it just sounds dumb.
I particularly enjoyed the section on the “Text as Music” where Leithart dealt with particular structures. First, after discussing some actual musical compositions, he considers Beasley-Murray’s straightforward presentation of John 9 as six linear scenes (p. 161). Then, he demonstrates how the inclusio which ends Chapter 9 (it starts discussing blindness and sin and ends discussing blindness and sin—p. 162). But he also notes that there is an inclusio that wraps back onto the whole section from 9:1-10:21 when, after the Good Shepherd teaching, Jesus comes back to the healing of the blind man (p. 163).
Okay, so you don’t have to choose between the ninth chapter alone structure and the ninth and tenth chapter structure, but have you noticed that there is a chiasmic structure to John 9? Jesus opening the eyes of the blind man and saying that said man didn’t become blind because of sin, but Jesus saying at the end of the chapter (in counter-balance) that the Pharisees are blinded because of their sin (of disbelief). Leithart balances each section except for the asymmetrical piece in the middle (my experience and Leithart’s is that such asymmetrical pieces represent a very significant lesson in a passage). Leithart spells this out on page. 167. Now, which structure should one choose? But wait, there’s more! In chapters 9, 10, 11, the word “eyes” appears 12 times. “Blind” is used 13 times in chapter 9 and once more in 10, giving 14 (or two sevens). The blindness is double-complete, but Jesus brings a more perfect (12) healing (p. 166). It is even more interesting when he demonstrates a chiasmic structure to the entire gospel (p. 168).
I also liked the observation that there are seven “signs” in John comparable to the seven days of creation, as well as the fact that John begins with the idea of light just as does Genesis (p. 170). I liked the balance between the echo of Christ in the blind man’s “I am…” of John 9 compared with Peter’s cowardly, “I am not…” of John 18 (p. 177). Mostly, I liked the way Leithart used known rhetorical schemes (particularly those used in other parts of Greek literature) to demonstrate the “turning of the tables” on p. 204.
Deep Exegesis: The Mystery of Reading Scripture is a phenomenal book. If I were currently teaching a class in Hermeneutics, it would definitely be one of my textbooks. It is great value for the seminary and the pastor’s study alike.
Remember some of the ultra-right-wing histrionics (like those of Harold Lindsell and James Draper) during the so-called Battle for the Bible? The basic premise of their argument was that words have meanings and we mustn’t stray from those literal meanings. At the time, I claimed it was a naïve understanding of language because those meanings change over time and even if the meanings don’t specifically change over time, they have different nuances in different contexts. Leithart illustrates this marvelously with the phrase, “She was nice, glamorous and gay.” In earlier times, nice mean naïve or ignorant, glamorous had to do with witchcraft, and gay meant happy. Today, it would suggest a polite and beautiful lesbian (p. 47). He takes translators who don’t believe they should translate the style as well as the meaning to task (p. 79), pointing out that the style shapes the meaning contextually (as the writings of Luis Alonso-Schökel so brilliantly emphasized).
Don’t take this to mean that Leithart has created a screed against the right-wing interpreters of scripture. He hits the left-wing very hard. I personally have a problem with the left-wing interpreter’s faddish hermeneutical rule in the late 20th and early 21st century of deciding that parables only have one simple lesson. They contend that parables should never be interpreted allegorically or with an eye to typology. Leithart points out that the mainstream liberal commentators of this era always complained that we needed to get away from the Medieval quadriga of interpretation [literal (ie. historical), allegorical, tropological, and anagogical—p. 14). Using the quadriga one might interpret Zion as literally a hill in Jerusalem, allegorically as either the synagogue or church as the people of God, tropologically as symbolic of ritual righteousness through the temple/synagogue/church emphasis on obedience, and anagogically as the future glory of living in God’s presence (p. 14). Leithart contends throughout this volume that the modern tradition of interpretation keeps trying to get interpreters and readers to choose ONE option in a reductionist fashion when the use of such a term , pericope, or phrase might offer a synecdoche where all of the approaches offer a more holistic meaning than any one section of the four (Yes, I know synecdoche sometimes means a part representing a whole, but it can also be the whole representing a part and that’s how I mean it here—Leithart didn’t use the term, simply stating that we don’t have to CHOOSE!]
Further, in the attempt to be tropological, to slice through quickly to the supposed application of a text as is so popular among pulpit professionals on both sides of the theological spectrum, Leithart states that it is unfair to say that only academics (and old-fashioned expositors) are interested in the etymologies and history of use of individual words. He wisely points out that ancient writers were interested in etymologies (witness Socrates, Aristotle, Ovid, Virgil, Quintilian, and Philo, to name a few—p. 95).
The bulk of the book uses different perspectives on the healing of the blind man in John 9. Leithart points out that understanding a joke requires the listener/reader to draw information from outside the text itself. He uses a twist on a classic joke about a mix of people going into a bar (p. 113). Since the great Yankee catcher/manager Yogi Berra died the day before I wrote this review, I’ll use one of his malapropisms to demonstrate how that works. Berra was mocked when he referred to the left field in the House that Ruth Built (literally, not either of the modern Yankee Stadiums) by saying, “It gets late early out there, sometimes.” If you know that for part of the day, that field was horrible for its glaring sun but was the first of the three outfields to be covered in shadows, you know that the silly-sounding phrase meant that the shadows actually made it easier to see the ball. If you had additional information, you could see the logic; if not, it just sounds dumb.
I particularly enjoyed the section on the “Text as Music” where Leithart dealt with particular structures. First, after discussing some actual musical compositions, he considers Beasley-Murray’s straightforward presentation of John 9 as six linear scenes (p. 161). Then, he demonstrates how the inclusio which ends Chapter 9 (it starts discussing blindness and sin and ends discussing blindness and sin—p. 162). But he also notes that there is an inclusio that wraps back onto the whole section from 9:1-10:21 when, after the Good Shepherd teaching, Jesus comes back to the healing of the blind man (p. 163).
Okay, so you don’t have to choose between the ninth chapter alone structure and the ninth and tenth chapter structure, but have you noticed that there is a chiasmic structure to John 9? Jesus opening the eyes of the blind man and saying that said man didn’t become blind because of sin, but Jesus saying at the end of the chapter (in counter-balance) that the Pharisees are blinded because of their sin (of disbelief). Leithart balances each section except for the asymmetrical piece in the middle (my experience and Leithart’s is that such asymmetrical pieces represent a very significant lesson in a passage). Leithart spells this out on page. 167. Now, which structure should one choose? But wait, there’s more! In chapters 9, 10, 11, the word “eyes” appears 12 times. “Blind” is used 13 times in chapter 9 and once more in 10, giving 14 (or two sevens). The blindness is double-complete, but Jesus brings a more perfect (12) healing (p. 166). It is even more interesting when he demonstrates a chiasmic structure to the entire gospel (p. 168).
I also liked the observation that there are seven “signs” in John comparable to the seven days of creation, as well as the fact that John begins with the idea of light just as does Genesis (p. 170). I liked the balance between the echo of Christ in the blind man’s “I am…” of John 9 compared with Peter’s cowardly, “I am not…” of John 18 (p. 177). Mostly, I liked the way Leithart used known rhetorical schemes (particularly those used in other parts of Greek literature) to demonstrate the “turning of the tables” on p. 204.
Deep Exegesis: The Mystery of Reading Scripture is a phenomenal book. If I were currently teaching a class in Hermeneutics, it would definitely be one of my textbooks. It is great value for the seminary and the pastor’s study alike.
March 21, 2024
Wonderful, stimulating book.
Chapters 1 and 2 were a phenomenal introduction to typology and how the meaning of texts change over time and context.
In Chapter 3 Leithart argues that most people in both secular and biblical lexical semantics get it wrong and eliminate word-play and novel use of words and language. I am squeamish about this, but think the point should be accepted in moderation.
Chapter 4 is another phenomenal chapter on intertextuality.
Chapter 5 is about literary and musical structure and Leithart argues that the biblical writers (specifically the gospel writers) were as sophisticated in their approach to writing literature as Homer, Shakespeare, and Joyce. This is also a point that should be accepted in moderation, and deserves to be teased out more. If these fisherman did craft intricate and complex literary masterpieces full of craft and technique it must be because of the Holy Spirit.
Chapter 6 is an application and explanation of the previous points using John 9 as an example. He gives further thoughts about the way interpretation works. I was especially impacted by his comparison of interpretation to musical performance where both the right notes need to be hit and the interpreter brings something of their own to the performance.
Chapters 1 and 2 were a phenomenal introduction to typology and how the meaning of texts change over time and context.
In Chapter 3 Leithart argues that most people in both secular and biblical lexical semantics get it wrong and eliminate word-play and novel use of words and language. I am squeamish about this, but think the point should be accepted in moderation.
Chapter 4 is another phenomenal chapter on intertextuality.
Chapter 5 is about literary and musical structure and Leithart argues that the biblical writers (specifically the gospel writers) were as sophisticated in their approach to writing literature as Homer, Shakespeare, and Joyce. This is also a point that should be accepted in moderation, and deserves to be teased out more. If these fisherman did craft intricate and complex literary masterpieces full of craft and technique it must be because of the Holy Spirit.
Chapter 6 is an application and explanation of the previous points using John 9 as an example. He gives further thoughts about the way interpretation works. I was especially impacted by his comparison of interpretation to musical performance where both the right notes need to be hit and the interpreter brings something of their own to the performance.
April 10, 2021
Thought-provoking. This might end up being the most important book I read all year (but, as Leithart argues, some of the meaning/significance of a text develops/is revealed later). I'm reading this book with some friends and perhaps my wife, so in some sense, I'm waiting for conversations to help shape my own response to the book, but some not altogether fully-formed, preliminary thoughts:
-- Chapter one is a critique and history of the way that scholars and evangelicals have read the Bible post-Enlightenment. Less engaging than the rest of the book, but important nonetheless. Basically, Leithart is arguing that we have not learned how to read the Bible from the Bible but from Spinoza, Kant, and others and have detached the medium from the message. We have taken the text as a husk that is hiding the true message once we dispose of the pesky husk. He begins the chapter by comparing the King James and the Message bible's renderings of Psalm 23. The King James is allowing the Hebrew to dictate the medium and treating the actual language and form of the text as important. The Message throws out the form and the language looking for the truth hidden within. This is not a call to return to the King James but a metaphor of sorts with how Evangelicals approach the text. The text needs to be unraveled to get the truth, but the form and words don't matter. Among the scholars he critiques in this chapter is Peter Enns but I wasn't convinced that there isn't room for Enns' insights (which, I would see as related to the hermeneutics of John Walton, Tremper Longman, and others) and Leithart's to be in conversation and sharpen each other. This is something I'd like to go back to.
--Chapters 2 (Texts are Events), 3 (Words are Players) and 4 (The Text is a Joke) are gold. Leithart argues in chapter 2 against (although not without some appreciation) the idea that I was taught in seminary that texts have fixed meaning. Later events can change the meaning of the text. Leithart spends time in John 9 (as he does throughout the book), Hosea 11 and Matthew 2 (Matthew's reading of "Out of Egypt I called my Son), the novel Atonement, and the writings of Charles Darwin on what has come to be called "Social Darwinism" to illustrate this. I think the disagreement between my training and Leithart is less than might be supposed, some of it is semantics. What Leithart calls additional meaning, my hermeneutics teacher would call added significance, but regardless, Leithart makes his points well and stretched my thinking.
--Chapter 3 is an argument for the importance of actual words in the text. Leithart, again, boldly confronts accepted truisms in biblical scholarship. One cannot lightly throw aside the etymology of words - the Bible clearly uses this method for reading earlier texts itself. In texts (sacred and secular) words often have multiple meanings and functions in a text that are important to see and recognize in order to fully understand the text.
--Chapter 4 was my favorite. Leithart likens texts of Scripture to a joke that requires shared knowledge and experience in order to be appreciated and understood. Scripture is the same way. It assumes your knowledge and awareness of other texts. This is related to the concept he argued in chapter 2 of added meaning/significance over time. A text needs multiple readings to be appreciated and understood - indeed that is the expectation of the Biblical authors. The more you read Scripture the more you will get out of it.
--Chapter 5 (Texts are Music) argues for the importance of seeing structure in a text as doing multiple things are once (there is perhaps more than one structure to a text simultaneously.
--Chapter 6 (Texts are about Christ) was more challenging for me, I appreciated it, but need to think through this a little more carefully. He is not only arguing that Biblical texts are about Christ but that other ancient (and presumably modern?) texts can and should be read Christologically (he uses Oedipus as an example). This is a return to a Medieval way of reading texts, which is what he is advocating throughout. There is also a strong critique of the Enlightenment's approach to truth (and texts) which, I believe, Leithart would see as the dragon to be slain. More thought needed here, but helpful.
--Overall Leithart is arguing for a return to reading Scripture the way that the writers of Scripture read Scripture. Texts are not timeless but they are not frozen either. Leithart argues for a return to a "Christian" hermeneutic and a rejection of a secular one. In this book, he articulates many of the problems I have sensed with the ways that I have been taught to approach texts and have subsequently taught others. An appreciated challenge! That said, although I am giving this 5 stars, it does not indicate total agreement on all points. I am unconvinced of some of his points and think there are times where differences are not as sharp as he presents them. Highly recommended, nonetheless.
-- Chapter one is a critique and history of the way that scholars and evangelicals have read the Bible post-Enlightenment. Less engaging than the rest of the book, but important nonetheless. Basically, Leithart is arguing that we have not learned how to read the Bible from the Bible but from Spinoza, Kant, and others and have detached the medium from the message. We have taken the text as a husk that is hiding the true message once we dispose of the pesky husk. He begins the chapter by comparing the King James and the Message bible's renderings of Psalm 23. The King James is allowing the Hebrew to dictate the medium and treating the actual language and form of the text as important. The Message throws out the form and the language looking for the truth hidden within. This is not a call to return to the King James but a metaphor of sorts with how Evangelicals approach the text. The text needs to be unraveled to get the truth, but the form and words don't matter. Among the scholars he critiques in this chapter is Peter Enns but I wasn't convinced that there isn't room for Enns' insights (which, I would see as related to the hermeneutics of John Walton, Tremper Longman, and others) and Leithart's to be in conversation and sharpen each other. This is something I'd like to go back to.
--Chapters 2 (Texts are Events), 3 (Words are Players) and 4 (The Text is a Joke) are gold. Leithart argues in chapter 2 against (although not without some appreciation) the idea that I was taught in seminary that texts have fixed meaning. Later events can change the meaning of the text. Leithart spends time in John 9 (as he does throughout the book), Hosea 11 and Matthew 2 (Matthew's reading of "Out of Egypt I called my Son), the novel Atonement, and the writings of Charles Darwin on what has come to be called "Social Darwinism" to illustrate this. I think the disagreement between my training and Leithart is less than might be supposed, some of it is semantics. What Leithart calls additional meaning, my hermeneutics teacher would call added significance, but regardless, Leithart makes his points well and stretched my thinking.
--Chapter 3 is an argument for the importance of actual words in the text. Leithart, again, boldly confronts accepted truisms in biblical scholarship. One cannot lightly throw aside the etymology of words - the Bible clearly uses this method for reading earlier texts itself. In texts (sacred and secular) words often have multiple meanings and functions in a text that are important to see and recognize in order to fully understand the text.
--Chapter 4 was my favorite. Leithart likens texts of Scripture to a joke that requires shared knowledge and experience in order to be appreciated and understood. Scripture is the same way. It assumes your knowledge and awareness of other texts. This is related to the concept he argued in chapter 2 of added meaning/significance over time. A text needs multiple readings to be appreciated and understood - indeed that is the expectation of the Biblical authors. The more you read Scripture the more you will get out of it.
--Chapter 5 (Texts are Music) argues for the importance of seeing structure in a text as doing multiple things are once (there is perhaps more than one structure to a text simultaneously.
--Chapter 6 (Texts are about Christ) was more challenging for me, I appreciated it, but need to think through this a little more carefully. He is not only arguing that Biblical texts are about Christ but that other ancient (and presumably modern?) texts can and should be read Christologically (he uses Oedipus as an example). This is a return to a Medieval way of reading texts, which is what he is advocating throughout. There is also a strong critique of the Enlightenment's approach to truth (and texts) which, I believe, Leithart would see as the dragon to be slain. More thought needed here, but helpful.
--Overall Leithart is arguing for a return to reading Scripture the way that the writers of Scripture read Scripture. Texts are not timeless but they are not frozen either. Leithart argues for a return to a "Christian" hermeneutic and a rejection of a secular one. In this book, he articulates many of the problems I have sensed with the ways that I have been taught to approach texts and have subsequently taught others. An appreciated challenge! That said, although I am giving this 5 stars, it does not indicate total agreement on all points. I am unconvinced of some of his points and think there are times where differences are not as sharp as he presents them. Highly recommended, nonetheless.
March 9, 2024
It’s hard for me to summarize this book in a brief description, but in short I found it very helpful and insightful. Leithart explores various approaches to hermeneutics, some of which aren’t appropriate (e.g. “the text is a husk”) and others which for me were new and refreshing (especially “Words Are Players” and “The Text is a Joke”). He fleshes these approaches out using John 9 as a sort of proof of concept.
I highly recommend this to anyone wanting to better understand the biblical text and learn to read from Paul and Jesus (Leithart’s main aims for the book).
I highly recommend this to anyone wanting to better understand the biblical text and learn to read from Paul and Jesus (Leithart’s main aims for the book).
June 5, 2021
Absolutely amazing. Loved every bit of it. Each chapter blew my mind more and more, I’ve come to love reading much much more now. Texts are events and they can’t ever have ends.
March 4, 2024
This is a difficult book to review.
In many ways, Leithart's insights are stunning. His ability to see things in the text of John is wonderful and incredibly insightful. He also, at times, writes in a very engaging and accessible way, one that makes me thrilled to get to study the bible as a full time occupation.
However, his conclusions are often somewhat mystical in their origin. (Unsurprising given the tagline of the book is the Mystery of Reading Scripture).
It is true that often authors of a NT text have the 'key of Exodus' ringing in their ears, but if we push texts too far, we are in danger of seeing every OT type in every verse. Sometimes this is what it felt like with Leithart. Is the gospel of John a journey through the temple, beginning with the firmament and ending at the mercy seat of the cross via the propitiatory hands of Jesus the intercessory Priest? Maybe. But I'm too stupid to see it if it is.
But the most worrying conclusions were on how the meaning of a text 'never ends'. Leithart's thesis is that a text's meaning is determined, in part, by the community reading it. Thus Pride and Prejudice is interpreted today very differently to its original audience. We might see it as a book of oppressive victorian standards, or an uncomfortable mirror to our licentious culture- but that wouldn't be what the original readers would have taken the novel as. But in a sense that doesn't matter- the current reading community determines its current meaning. This feels like thinly veiled postmodernism.
The only problem with this approach, and it is a major one, is it unwittingly ignores or underplays Austen's original intent behind her work. We no longer care about why Austen wrote her work, we only care about why we read it. Thus when we come to scripture, we no longer care about Hosea's meaning or Isaiah's meaning. We care about how they are used by others and then ultimately by us.
But Matthew doesn't redefine Hosea 11:1 when he quotes it. Paul doesn't redefine the rock in Exodus when he refers to it as Christ in 1 Corinthians. They instead use Hosea and Moses' intended meaning in order to facilitate the point that they wish instead to make.
My fear with the 'quadriga' approach to scripture, one that Leithart in his epilogue is quick to defend, is that we end up fundamentally not caring about OT authors and their own intentions. Someone as genius as Leithart is able to see all kinds of stunning allegorical parallels that leave us equal parts thrilled and bemused. It left me thinking I, perhaps, could never really read scripture for myself- because it takes a brain like his to do so.
Thus whilst many of his insights on John 9 and the gospel of John as a whole are simply brilliant, it sits within a 'husk' of a book that I would not recommend.
In many ways, Leithart's insights are stunning. His ability to see things in the text of John is wonderful and incredibly insightful. He also, at times, writes in a very engaging and accessible way, one that makes me thrilled to get to study the bible as a full time occupation.
However, his conclusions are often somewhat mystical in their origin. (Unsurprising given the tagline of the book is the Mystery of Reading Scripture).
It is true that often authors of a NT text have the 'key of Exodus' ringing in their ears, but if we push texts too far, we are in danger of seeing every OT type in every verse. Sometimes this is what it felt like with Leithart. Is the gospel of John a journey through the temple, beginning with the firmament and ending at the mercy seat of the cross via the propitiatory hands of Jesus the intercessory Priest? Maybe. But I'm too stupid to see it if it is.
But the most worrying conclusions were on how the meaning of a text 'never ends'. Leithart's thesis is that a text's meaning is determined, in part, by the community reading it. Thus Pride and Prejudice is interpreted today very differently to its original audience. We might see it as a book of oppressive victorian standards, or an uncomfortable mirror to our licentious culture- but that wouldn't be what the original readers would have taken the novel as. But in a sense that doesn't matter- the current reading community determines its current meaning. This feels like thinly veiled postmodernism.
The only problem with this approach, and it is a major one, is it unwittingly ignores or underplays Austen's original intent behind her work. We no longer care about why Austen wrote her work, we only care about why we read it. Thus when we come to scripture, we no longer care about Hosea's meaning or Isaiah's meaning. We care about how they are used by others and then ultimately by us.
But Matthew doesn't redefine Hosea 11:1 when he quotes it. Paul doesn't redefine the rock in Exodus when he refers to it as Christ in 1 Corinthians. They instead use Hosea and Moses' intended meaning in order to facilitate the point that they wish instead to make.
My fear with the 'quadriga' approach to scripture, one that Leithart in his epilogue is quick to defend, is that we end up fundamentally not caring about OT authors and their own intentions. Someone as genius as Leithart is able to see all kinds of stunning allegorical parallels that leave us equal parts thrilled and bemused. It left me thinking I, perhaps, could never really read scripture for myself- because it takes a brain like his to do so.
Thus whilst many of his insights on John 9 and the gospel of John as a whole are simply brilliant, it sits within a 'husk' of a book that I would not recommend.
August 6, 2022
Some parts were way above my head, but the parts that were level with my head were really great. I'm sure the parts way above my head were great too, I just couldn't tell. A few paragraphs stick with me as I think of how Scripture is meant to be read.
His performance analogy of interpretation was grand:
"Interpretation is ultimately a performance. If texts are musical, if they are scores, then the interpreter is not the composer or even the music critic but the performer. A competent performer gets his notes right; a great performer gets his notes right, but aims to achieve more. A great performer wants to get as much as he can from the correct notes he plays. Interpretation is performance in this sense, and no interpreter or reader should be content with getting the words right. But interpretation is also performance in the sense that it is carried out before an audience and before the critics. A preacher is not done interpreting his text when he finishes writing his sermon; the delivery of the sermon is the interpretation. A commentator is not finished when he has made all of his exegetical decisions, or even when he writes up the results; his interpretation includes the publication of those decisions and results, presenting them to the scrutiny and judgment of others. Again we see that interpretation is a communal activity. Interpretation is performance also in the sense that it aims to be timely. Humor depends on timing, and if hermeneutics is about getting it, it has something to do with saying the right thing at the right time." - Peter Leithart | Deep Exegesis
His performance analogy of interpretation was grand:
"Interpretation is ultimately a performance. If texts are musical, if they are scores, then the interpreter is not the composer or even the music critic but the performer. A competent performer gets his notes right; a great performer gets his notes right, but aims to achieve more. A great performer wants to get as much as he can from the correct notes he plays. Interpretation is performance in this sense, and no interpreter or reader should be content with getting the words right. But interpretation is also performance in the sense that it is carried out before an audience and before the critics. A preacher is not done interpreting his text when he finishes writing his sermon; the delivery of the sermon is the interpretation. A commentator is not finished when he has made all of his exegetical decisions, or even when he writes up the results; his interpretation includes the publication of those decisions and results, presenting them to the scrutiny and judgment of others. Again we see that interpretation is a communal activity. Interpretation is performance also in the sense that it aims to be timely. Humor depends on timing, and if hermeneutics is about getting it, it has something to do with saying the right thing at the right time." - Peter Leithart | Deep Exegesis
October 20, 2009
Easily the best book on hermeneutics I've read, Leithart continues to delight as he teaches. He gets a lot done in 200 pages and makes you want more, much like when I've heard him preach. This is a constructive book, laying out ways to get the most out of Scripture. I would have liked to see some counter-examples of certain "maximalist" interpretations that go too far. When is it inappropriate to link two passages that both include water in Scripture? That sort of thing. If you love the Bible, and any literature really, read this book.
October 26, 2010
Peter Leithart has done ministers, Christian scholars and the Church in general a huge favour with this book. He declares that the Scriptures themselves ought to be the authority for how one interprets them. In evangelical, reformed and conservative Christian circles of scholarship, sola scriptura (the reformation principle that "Scripture alone" is the Church's authority for all of life and doctrine) has been the basis for the rejection of all sorts of heretical doctrines and errant practices and for holding fast to "the faith, once for all delivered to the saints", and rightly so. However, without even batting an eye, many of those same well-meaning folks have adopted a model of interpreting those Scriptures which is itself imported from outside of God's Word and then imposed upon it.
Dr. Leithart traces this outside and extra-biblical system of viewing and interpreting Scripture, with its mindset of scientific and systematic compartmentalization, to Spinoza and his contemporaries and up through modernism. Such thinking tended to "spiritualize" Scripture since it had to do with religion, relegating its relevance and application to the private, inward life of the soul and separating it from the political and material realms. However, the Hebrew mind (the culture into which the Scriptures were given by God and from of which they spread) did not divide man into body, soul, spirit and mind but understood humans in terms of organic wholeness. Therefore, to the Hebrew mind, the Scriptures have a much broader relevance. In fact, there was not a single area of life or thought that Scripture did not speak to - and all of Scripture spoke to all of man.
Leithart shows examples of current exegetical theory which limit interpretations of a given passage to one and only one proper meaning. This is not the way we are shown how to interpret the Bible by the examples we see within its own pages. Leithart gives examples of "poor" apostolic exegesis by the standards of current exegetical practice (Paul's famous "do not muzzle the ox while it treads out the grain" to argue for monetary support for faithful ministers of the gospel and his allegorizing of the Sarah/Hagar story - "these are two covenants...") and argues that, far from being unique and scattered exceptions to the rule of interpretation, these passages display the interpretive rule; they show us how we are to understand and interpret Scripture properly. One can see many hermeneutics professors rolling over in their graves or toppling over at their lecterns at this point.
Instead of an "only one correct interpretation for any given text" approach to hermeneutics, Leithart makes the case for reviving some form or approximation of the medieval quadriga. With this exegetical method of reading and interpreting the text, there is a literal sense (the plain meaning, with an element of both the historical understanding the original recipients would have understood and the continuing implications for a present day audience), a moral sense (what does this passage call the reader to do or imitate), an allegorical or typological sense (what does this passage say about Christ and/or what is the theological learnings based in this passage) and an anagogical sense (what future hope is the reader called to). Here, many reading this review might either write me as reviewer or Leithart as author completely off based on wild and fanciful interpretations they have heard promulgated by the medieval interpreters but hang on...that would be a mistake. One may not be 100% convinced of such a method of interpreting the Scriptures and still receive a good deal of benefit from reading this book. For one, it will make you think about the scriptural basis for your own model of interpreting Scripture.
One theme Leithart returns to over and over is that in our interpretation, we ought to desire to hear ALL God has to say to us through his Word and Leithart argues that God is not saying only one thing in any given passage. It is clear from the way some passages of Scripture treat others that at least the passages they specifically deal with have more than one true sense. If this is the case, one needs to make the decision about whether the Bible itself is our authority on how to interpret it or if modernist literary interpretive method is the authority for understanding Scripture. If we go with modernist methodology, we have departed (in our hermeneutic) from the authority of Scripture and placed it underneath our model, the very thing a faithful Christian knows must not be done.
Leithart gives examples from everyday experience in which we already inherently recognize that there is purposefully more than one true sense in which to understand something. A joke, for example, may be humorous on multiple levels, or a scene in a play, book or movie may have layers of correct, varied and multiple meanings. John 9 is explored in great depth to show how the story of Jesus healing of the man born blind is so much more than merely a miracle story. And while not everyone will be convinced by all aspects of his John 9 example, one cannot come away merely content to see this narrative the way one has always seen it. Leithart convincingly shows that by Scripture's own rule, a wooden "literal only" interpretive model is not an option for the exegete whose own interpretive work is itself subjected to the authority of the Book he/she is attempting to understand. At the same time, Leithart stresses that the model he advocates must itself be subject to all of Scripture when gleaning the manifold meanings of any given passage. This book is not a license for fanciful "reinventions" of the text but a rigorous reexamination of what biblically informed and faithful interpretation should look like. Knowing Leithart's passion for a full-orbed trinitarian theology of all things, I believe it is safe to say that his interpretive model could be summarized as seeing the different meanings or senses of a text as a one-in-three (or more) and a three (or more)-in-one. This guards against an "anything goes" or a "new is true" free-for-all because it disallows any interpretation that would counter or contradict one of the other senses of the text (say, the literal, for example).
In my opinion, the greatest strength of this book is that it calls interpreters back to basing their interpretive methods and principles themselves on Scripture. In the end, Dr. Leithart admits that this subject needs further exploration and that the parameters of the present volume didn't allow for it. I for one look forward to the conversation this book is bound to spur among exegetes and I hope for further material on this subject from Peter Leithart in the future.
Dr. Leithart traces this outside and extra-biblical system of viewing and interpreting Scripture, with its mindset of scientific and systematic compartmentalization, to Spinoza and his contemporaries and up through modernism. Such thinking tended to "spiritualize" Scripture since it had to do with religion, relegating its relevance and application to the private, inward life of the soul and separating it from the political and material realms. However, the Hebrew mind (the culture into which the Scriptures were given by God and from of which they spread) did not divide man into body, soul, spirit and mind but understood humans in terms of organic wholeness. Therefore, to the Hebrew mind, the Scriptures have a much broader relevance. In fact, there was not a single area of life or thought that Scripture did not speak to - and all of Scripture spoke to all of man.
Leithart shows examples of current exegetical theory which limit interpretations of a given passage to one and only one proper meaning. This is not the way we are shown how to interpret the Bible by the examples we see within its own pages. Leithart gives examples of "poor" apostolic exegesis by the standards of current exegetical practice (Paul's famous "do not muzzle the ox while it treads out the grain" to argue for monetary support for faithful ministers of the gospel and his allegorizing of the Sarah/Hagar story - "these are two covenants...") and argues that, far from being unique and scattered exceptions to the rule of interpretation, these passages display the interpretive rule; they show us how we are to understand and interpret Scripture properly. One can see many hermeneutics professors rolling over in their graves or toppling over at their lecterns at this point.
Instead of an "only one correct interpretation for any given text" approach to hermeneutics, Leithart makes the case for reviving some form or approximation of the medieval quadriga. With this exegetical method of reading and interpreting the text, there is a literal sense (the plain meaning, with an element of both the historical understanding the original recipients would have understood and the continuing implications for a present day audience), a moral sense (what does this passage call the reader to do or imitate), an allegorical or typological sense (what does this passage say about Christ and/or what is the theological learnings based in this passage) and an anagogical sense (what future hope is the reader called to). Here, many reading this review might either write me as reviewer or Leithart as author completely off based on wild and fanciful interpretations they have heard promulgated by the medieval interpreters but hang on...that would be a mistake. One may not be 100% convinced of such a method of interpreting the Scriptures and still receive a good deal of benefit from reading this book. For one, it will make you think about the scriptural basis for your own model of interpreting Scripture.
One theme Leithart returns to over and over is that in our interpretation, we ought to desire to hear ALL God has to say to us through his Word and Leithart argues that God is not saying only one thing in any given passage. It is clear from the way some passages of Scripture treat others that at least the passages they specifically deal with have more than one true sense. If this is the case, one needs to make the decision about whether the Bible itself is our authority on how to interpret it or if modernist literary interpretive method is the authority for understanding Scripture. If we go with modernist methodology, we have departed (in our hermeneutic) from the authority of Scripture and placed it underneath our model, the very thing a faithful Christian knows must not be done.
Leithart gives examples from everyday experience in which we already inherently recognize that there is purposefully more than one true sense in which to understand something. A joke, for example, may be humorous on multiple levels, or a scene in a play, book or movie may have layers of correct, varied and multiple meanings. John 9 is explored in great depth to show how the story of Jesus healing of the man born blind is so much more than merely a miracle story. And while not everyone will be convinced by all aspects of his John 9 example, one cannot come away merely content to see this narrative the way one has always seen it. Leithart convincingly shows that by Scripture's own rule, a wooden "literal only" interpretive model is not an option for the exegete whose own interpretive work is itself subjected to the authority of the Book he/she is attempting to understand. At the same time, Leithart stresses that the model he advocates must itself be subject to all of Scripture when gleaning the manifold meanings of any given passage. This book is not a license for fanciful "reinventions" of the text but a rigorous reexamination of what biblically informed and faithful interpretation should look like. Knowing Leithart's passion for a full-orbed trinitarian theology of all things, I believe it is safe to say that his interpretive model could be summarized as seeing the different meanings or senses of a text as a one-in-three (or more) and a three (or more)-in-one. This guards against an "anything goes" or a "new is true" free-for-all because it disallows any interpretation that would counter or contradict one of the other senses of the text (say, the literal, for example).
In my opinion, the greatest strength of this book is that it calls interpreters back to basing their interpretive methods and principles themselves on Scripture. In the end, Dr. Leithart admits that this subject needs further exploration and that the parameters of the present volume didn't allow for it. I for one look forward to the conversation this book is bound to spur among exegetes and I hope for further material on this subject from Peter Leithart in the future.
July 30, 2015
Read my whole review here: https://spoiledmilks.wordpress.com/20...
How are we to interpret the Bible if we can’t always follow the apostles’ methods? Isn’t the historico-grammatical method the only way to correctly interpret the Bible? In his book “Deep Exegesis” Leithart challenges the strict historico-grammatical structure and brings us back to a time of the patristic authors.
Leithart finds meaning in the text itself rather than in the intention of the author (though I wonder if this could be the intention of the author). Leithart covers typology (chapter 2, the clues point to Jesus), semantics (chapter 3, the words are actors on a stage), intertexuality (chapter 4, works off of prior knowledge of OT Scriptures), structure (chapter 5, like a symphony, John 9 has multiple layers holding it up), and application (chapter 6, against, it’s all about Jesus).
While I would have liked to have seen this exegetical method played out in other biblical texts, Leithart stays in John 9 to show the reader how one simple text can have so many layers, how it connects other parts of John and the Bible to each other, and how these deep layers can bring us to spiritual maturation in Christ.
With Leithart there are times when I think his interpretations are stretched. Yet here he gives enough detail and evidence to make a convincing case for the parts that seem stretched.
This book seems to be a defense of Leithart’s exegetical method, and for the most part he’s very convincing. I’ve always heard negative examples of the medieval interpretive method (simply look up Augustine’s interpretation of the Good Samaritan) and found it to be plain weird. Yet throughout this book, it seems (almost) completely natural. Here Leithart shows what is really going on.
I found this book hard to put down. Leithart’s conclusions are easy to latch on to, most of his examples were easy to follow, and his style of imagery writing enviable. He will have an impact on your interpretive thinking, whether you agree with him or not.
[Special thanks to David at Baylor University Press for allowing me to review this book! I was not obligated to provide a positive review in exchange for this book.]
How are we to interpret the Bible if we can’t always follow the apostles’ methods? Isn’t the historico-grammatical method the only way to correctly interpret the Bible? In his book “Deep Exegesis” Leithart challenges the strict historico-grammatical structure and brings us back to a time of the patristic authors.
Leithart finds meaning in the text itself rather than in the intention of the author (though I wonder if this could be the intention of the author). Leithart covers typology (chapter 2, the clues point to Jesus), semantics (chapter 3, the words are actors on a stage), intertexuality (chapter 4, works off of prior knowledge of OT Scriptures), structure (chapter 5, like a symphony, John 9 has multiple layers holding it up), and application (chapter 6, against, it’s all about Jesus).
While I would have liked to have seen this exegetical method played out in other biblical texts, Leithart stays in John 9 to show the reader how one simple text can have so many layers, how it connects other parts of John and the Bible to each other, and how these deep layers can bring us to spiritual maturation in Christ.
With Leithart there are times when I think his interpretations are stretched. Yet here he gives enough detail and evidence to make a convincing case for the parts that seem stretched.
This book seems to be a defense of Leithart’s exegetical method, and for the most part he’s very convincing. I’ve always heard negative examples of the medieval interpretive method (simply look up Augustine’s interpretation of the Good Samaritan) and found it to be plain weird. Yet throughout this book, it seems (almost) completely natural. Here Leithart shows what is really going on.
I found this book hard to put down. Leithart’s conclusions are easy to latch on to, most of his examples were easy to follow, and his style of imagery writing enviable. He will have an impact on your interpretive thinking, whether you agree with him or not.
[Special thanks to David at Baylor University Press for allowing me to review this book! I was not obligated to provide a positive review in exchange for this book.]
October 14, 2009
What a book. If you want to explore more deeply the ways in which Scripture "means," then this is the book for you. Rich and textured, just like it asserts Scripture itself is, it will open your eyes to new ways in which to read, understand, and interpret the Bible.
February 21, 2021
The first book I read by Leithart. Definitely enjoyed it. Leithart is a great writer and gives interesting insights that I found helpful. Without a doubt there were disagreements and objections. I know better where he is coming from in his exegesis as a read more of his works in the future.
June 9, 2011
I enjoyed reading this and learned a lot from it. Not sure I agree with every jot, but I think Leithart is closer than many to how we should read the Bible.
May 16, 2012
Just fantastic. What a game changer.
October 16, 2015
Phenomenal.
January 29, 2021
A lot of intriguing ideas (though buried in heaps of scholarly flexing, at times), but I’m not sure what to do with them. Obviously there is far more typology and even allegory in the Scriptures than we often admit, and standard exegesis misses much of it.
But 1) how do we know that the symbolism and allusions we read into the text are really there, unless it has been made obvious? Plenty of his examples seem like solid connections, which open up really cool deeer readings. Some of them take so much stretching that the exegete might pull a muscle making them fit.
And 2) are we supposed to look for Creation references in every passage? Exodus references? Church references? It seems like if you keep looking for the exact same themes and ideas all over the Bible, you’ll be doing a lot of that stretching and you’re going to make the Bible seem wildly repetitive - boring, in other words. What starts as an exciting method for reading the Bible suddenly becomes a copy and paste method that leads to burnout.
I don’t know how to answer those two questions, which makes it difficult to know how to put these ideas into action.
But 1) how do we know that the symbolism and allusions we read into the text are really there, unless it has been made obvious? Plenty of his examples seem like solid connections, which open up really cool deeer readings. Some of them take so much stretching that the exegete might pull a muscle making them fit.
And 2) are we supposed to look for Creation references in every passage? Exodus references? Church references? It seems like if you keep looking for the exact same themes and ideas all over the Bible, you’ll be doing a lot of that stretching and you’re going to make the Bible seem wildly repetitive - boring, in other words. What starts as an exciting method for reading the Bible suddenly becomes a copy and paste method that leads to burnout.
I don’t know how to answer those two questions, which makes it difficult to know how to put these ideas into action.
December 23, 2021
Leithart argues that the words and choices in a biblical text are part of the truth it is communicating. This means that our duty is not to simply unpack a text to get at the truth inside it (seeing the text as a “husk” to be discarded), but to appreciate and chew on the way it is constructed, the references and allusions it makes, the words not chosen, and the harmonies it creates.
This book is interesting but very esoteric. Leithart has his rabbit holes and some are better than others. At some point he lost me; it was probably the part about Oedipus in a chapter entitled “texts are about Christ”. And frankly, a lot of the deep thought here doesn’t help us to get any closer to living the text. But as an effort to see the enduring beauty and value of biblical text, I appreciated it.
This book is interesting but very esoteric. Leithart has his rabbit holes and some are better than others. At some point he lost me; it was probably the part about Oedipus in a chapter entitled “texts are about Christ”. And frankly, a lot of the deep thought here doesn’t help us to get any closer to living the text. But as an effort to see the enduring beauty and value of biblical text, I appreciated it.
November 25, 2018
This is an outstanding book on biblical (and even general) hermeneutics. It's my first book by Peter Leithart, and I found his perspective very refreshing and insightful. He's highly imaginative and fun to read. He applies all the chapters to John 9. I greatly benefited from every chapter: The Text Is a Husk (he argued against this), Texts Are Events, Words Are Players, The Text Is a Joke (especially good, perhaps essential reading for Bible students), and Texts Are Music. The last chapter, Texts Are about Christ, is good when discussing John 9, but then he starts finding Christ in Sophocles, etc., and I lost interest. But I loved the book.
March 29, 2023
3.5 stars. Despite my rating, this is actually a really good book. I agree with Leithart's assessments and hermeneutics. This was just one of those books that I kept putting down and coming back to, taking me a long time to get through it. There were a lot of dry stretches of topics I wasn't interested in. But, per usual with Leithart, the gold that is contained within is worth the mining.
Have you ever considered when Jesus says that the eye is the lamp of the body, that lamps shine outward, not inward? That is a passage I've interpreted backward for a long time. The meaning of light shining and illuminating the darkness goes deep with a little meditation.
Have you ever considered when Jesus says that the eye is the lamp of the body, that lamps shine outward, not inward? That is a passage I've interpreted backward for a long time. The meaning of light shining and illuminating the darkness goes deep with a little meditation.
August 4, 2023
This work surpassed my expectations and turned my thought around regarding exegesis. I used to lump it together with a dry "deep dive" into texts. Boy was I wrong.
I found Leithart's treatment of John 9 through different, not really lenses, but almost worldviews to be wildly enlightening. While focusing on scripture, I see invaluable opportunities for approaching any text.
Very highly recommended!
I found Leithart's treatment of John 9 through different, not really lenses, but almost worldviews to be wildly enlightening. While focusing on scripture, I see invaluable opportunities for approaching any text.
Very highly recommended!
June 25, 2024
In his usual brilliance, Leithart delivers a lot of insights in this book. Th reader might walk away with more questions than answers when it comes to how to read the Bible, but Leithart points in the right directions concerning how someone should approach the Bible.
We should all be weary of the post-modern tendency to approach texts in an entirely subjective manner. However, such fears shouldn't keep the Christian from seeing all that is found in the Bible!
We should all be weary of the post-modern tendency to approach texts in an entirely subjective manner. However, such fears shouldn't keep the Christian from seeing all that is found in the Bible!
July 23, 2024
I'll keep this book, but I'm not sure I'll finish it. There must be books explaining for inexperienced beginners how to perform deep exegesis, but this book isn't it. It's too advanced. And...Spinoza?? If I keep reading this book, it will be mainly to find out why the author brought a pantheist philosopher into a meditation on Biblical interpretation.
September 6, 2017
Takes a traditional understanding of hermeneutics and stretches the possibilities within the simple idea of "getting meaning from the text". Helped open my mind to exciting, doxological, and perhaps even some dangerous possibilities.
May 9, 2023
Excellent. A couple places took quite the trudging, but generally very good. I really appreciated his idea that we should learn how to “read” from scripture and that that should effect the way we read in general. Biblical interpretation should aid us in literary interpretation as well.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 62 reviews