Skip to main content

Final part of Review of Leithart, Deep Exegesis

Peter J Leithart Deep Exegesis: The Mystery of Reading Scripture, Baylor 2009

Chapters 5&6: Texts are Music/ Texts are about Christ

Eek I finished this book a couple of weeks ago, but haven’t had time to finish the review. Sorry for the delay.

In chapter 5 Leithart argues that Biblical texts are multi-layered and that “the same words tell several stories at the same time” (142). It may be safer to stay on the surface of a text and not risk putting “words into God’s mouth”, “[b]ut caution is not the only hermeneutical virtue” (142). Leithart goes on to discuss how musical many films and literary works are, relying as they do, on the repetition of themes, motifs, structures, rhythms and patterns. These musical features link not only to repetition within a work but also to other works. Again, discussion of Bach, Homer, Shakespeare, Groundhog Day, Raymond Roussel, etc, demonstrate Leithart’s wide net for examples and parallels. And again he seems to spend a long time hammering home a point which I would have accepted much sooner. Moving on he further develops the idea of multiple structures, a feature of large scale musical works, and of the works of James Joyce. Finally we return to John 9 with an extensive discussion of the multiple structures running through that passage (161-71). John 9 is a chiasm, it follows a priest’s progression through the sanctuary, it tells the story of a blind man, it tells the story of Jesus, and it tells the story of the Pharisees, all at the same time. “John 9 is . . . a polyphonic composition, a cantata to rival Bach’s” (171).

Leithart enters his final chapter through Augustines concept of the totus Christus, that is understanding the church not as a separate entity to Christ but as the body of which Christ is the head (173). Thus the reader of the Bible is permitted to see both Christological and Ecclesiological meanings in, e.g. the story of Cain and Abel, where Abel in his death is a type of Jesus and of the church. Now we get to what Leithart considers the heart of the matters, “The breakdown of this Augustinian hermeneutical principle has been one of the main sources of interpretive confusion among Protestants” (174). After showing how this is true for John 9 he then moves on to an extension of the chapter’s thesis,  “Jesus sums up not only the history of Israel and the aspirations of the people of God, but the history of man and the aspirations of the human race” (180). To prove this Leithart undertakes a Christological reading of Sophocles’ Oedipus. What follows is a tour de force of literary criticism as Leithart brings Oedipus into conversation with John 9, where “both texts play on the ironies of blindness and sight” (181), without failing to engage briefly with Nietzsche, Descartes, Kant, and many more. It really is a great climax for the book and is entertaining and insightful.

Yet, and this is going to sound harsher than I want it to, at the end of it I don’t feel empowered to read scripture or other texts the way Leithart just has. I’m also confused about how, if all texts speak of Jesus, what makes the Bible special? And, if every Biblical text is about everything (206) are they really about anything at all? In a book that is designed to expand a person’s interpretive horizons, and which by and large does so persuasively, I could have used more discussion of the boundaries around interpretation. Leithart is so busy in this book making everything possible, you are left wondering if there are any limits to our readings of the Bible or anything.

All in all, this was an entertaining and insightful read. I could have done with less and shorter high-brow illustrations and more discussion of different Biblical texts. It was clever to illustrate every chapter from John 9, but did it really make the case any more persuasive? Not for me. On the other hand, it has inspired me to read more Leithart, I think few people are doing what he does at the level he does. I found myself in agreement with the broad lines of each chapter. I’m not sure I could recommend it for the average church goer, but for a seminary student having their head filled with a rigidly literal approach to the scriptures, this could be a good balancing influence. There’s certainly some good big ideas in this book that are worthy of further cogitation.

Let me know what you think! :-)


  1. Surely any (educated, and not necessarily in biblical studies even) reader of the Bible who is aware of postmodernity and/or postmodernism does not need to be told that texts are slippery, or even that multiple readings are possible? Isn't the question of how/why we may say that some readings are better than others crucial (pun fully intended)?

    My take from watching you read Leithart (which is not at all necessarily the same as if I had read him) is that I am unsure who he is writing for, there seems little to impact a Bible scholar, yet it sounds too complex and without enough practically needed ideas (like limits of good reading) to be really useful for Jo(e) in the soft seat on Sunday morning.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why Dr Charles Stanley is not a biblical preacher

Unusually for me I was watching the tele early on Sunday morning and I caught an episode of Dr Charles Stanley preaching on his television program. Now I know this guy has come under some criticism for his personal life, and that is not unimportant, but it is also not something i can comment on, not knowing the facts. His preaching is however something I can comment on, at least the one sermon I did watch.

He started off by reading 2 Timothy 1:3-7. Which is a passage from the Bible, so far so good. He then spent the next 30 minutes or so talking about his mum and what a great example of a Christian mother she was. Now nothing he said or suggested was wrong, but none of it actually came from scripture, least of all the scripture he read from at the beginning. It was a lovely talk on how Stanley's mother raised him as a Christian despite considerable difficulties and it contained many useful nuggets of advice on raising Christian kids. All very nice, it might have made a nice…

The false link between suicide and mental illness

One characteristic of human society is the tendency to keep doing something over and over again despite it not working. One example would be our approach to incarcerating criminals to punish them instead of rehabilitating them, compounding their trauma and making it harder for them to live productive law-abiding lives when they get out. But this is the "common-sense" approach, the intuitive human response to the failings of others, punish them and they wont dare do it again. It has never worked, ever, but let's keep doing it. Secular society is screwed because it cannot comprehend that its vision is blurred by sin and therefore knee-jerk, common sense solutions are usually destructive and counter-productive.

So it is with our response to suicide. To kill yourself must be the response of the weak minded and sick - so the thinking goes - so to combat rising suicide we treat individuals medically. Yet suicide is a perfectly rational response to a world as broken as ours and…

The Addictive Power of End Times Speculation

The mighty Rhett Snell has picked up his blog again (I wonder how long he'll last this time), check out his theory on why people get so into annoyingly unbiblical end times nonsense.

I think that where codes-and-calendars end times theology is dangerous, is that it can give a sense of false growth. We read a theory online, or hear it from some bible teacher, and we come to think that we have mastered an area of our faith. A bit like levelling up in a computer game, or Popeye after he’s eaten some spinach. At worst, we begin to believe that we’ve taken a step that other Christians have not; that we’ve entered an elite class of Christianity.