Skip to main content

"Words are Players": Review of Leithart, Deep Exegesis, ch 3



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

Chapter 3: Words are Players

Leithart’s next target is the privileging of synchronic rather than diachronic word studies. He begins with quotes from Eugene Nida, Moises Silva, Peter Cotterell and Max Turner, Anthony Thiselton and finally James Barr (75-77). He acknowledges that they “all have points” but remains “suspicious” (77). Leithart’s first suspicion is that, as in the battle for the Bible (ch 1), here modern linguistic and communication theory is being allowed to determine how we read the Bible. Modern evangelical hermeneutics expects to determine the the way words work in the Bible prior to reading it (80-81). Again the result is a privileging of meaning over style, content over form. For Leithart this is a “major departure from the procedure of earlier translators”, e.g. the LXX and Tyndale, who incorporated Hebraic style and neologisms in the translations (79). Here I think Leithart is being a bit simplistic. In regard to biblical translation Tyndale and Eugene Nida, and indeed the LXX, are not polar opposites but on a spectrum, and I wonder how many of his interlocutors would feel they are being treated fairly? When he quotes Cotterell and Turner agreeing with him, rather than accepting they might not be so far apart, he suggests they are admitting his point only “sheepishly” (83)!

Polemics aside, the chapter mainly discusses the way words work in poetry (and in jokes) and how past meanings, etymology, and ambiguities can all play a part in interpretation often creating more than one possible meaning and allowing the text to say new, unexpected, things. This is where Leithart really has something to offer, but rigid formal translation is surely not the answer. Many such word plays, etymologies, and ambiguities are simply untranslatable because no two words from different languages will share the same possibilities. Surely the only way to get even close to such an understanding of a text is to read the original languages? Any translation not only disables certain meanings but also creates new possibilities through etymology, word plays, etc. Leithart is yet to address this issue.

Leithart makes the historical case that “ancient writers were very interested in word derivations, etymologies, and histories” (95). Giving as examples Socrates, Aristotle, Ovid, Qunitillian, Philo, Isidore of Seville, Coleridge and Hamann, he suggests Biblical writers were no different and points out that “There are as many as eighty explicit etymologies in the Old Testament, and many of these etymologies contribute substantially to the poetry and theology of biblical narratives” (95). He goes on to discuss Homer (96), Heidegger (96-97) and Seamus Heaney (97-99) in making his point. He then returns to John 9 and argues that John’s Gospel uses many such word plays and discusses how John’s translation of Siloam as “sent” in John 9:7 connects meaningfully with themes throughout the gospel and in the immediate narrative and exposes John’s poetic approach (99-105).

So Leithart’s objection is to “minimal meaning” (105) where the meaning of a text is flattened out to a literal translation of an assumed meaning without recognition of the poetic possibilities inherent in the text. For him, “The Bible is closer to poetry than to a scientific manual” (108). Here I think he is spot on. What I’m not sure, as of yet, is how far Leithart really has a solution to the problem of translation, or if he really thinks it is as simple as returning to the (supposed) translation strategy of the LXX and KJV!

Comments

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.