Skip to main content

The Crucial Missing Elements: Review of Leithart, Deep Exegesis, ch 4

Peter J Leithart Deep Exegesis: The Mystery of Reading Scripture, Baylor 2009
Chapter 4: The Text is a Joke

The subtitle for this chapter is “Intertextuality” (p109).  This chapter is an exploration of why some people will get a certain joke while others will not, and why some people can read things into texts that others simply can’t see. Leithart bemoans how students of the Bible are “usually inoculated against literary fancies early on in their training. The more expert they get, the more inoculated they become” (109). Of course this inoculation against eisegesis, that is reading things into the text that are not there, renders the exegetical methods of the patristic Fathers and the Bible itself alien, shocking and inaccessible to the modern interpreter (110). Leithart agrees this is well motivated, but that it has resulted in “drastically under-reading scripture” (111). As a positive example he quotes Dale Allison’s interpretation of Matt 1:1, “The interpretation of this line can be nothing other than the unfolding of what is not stated” (111). For Leithart this gets to the nub of the matter “Interpretation is all about tracing out the crucial missing elements that make the text mean what it does” (112).

Leithart moves on to an illustrative discussion of jokes and humour, finding much use in the movie Shrek, where most of the jokes in the movie rely on the viewer’s prior knowledge of fairy stories, nursery rhymes and other movies. At no point do those things get explained by the movie, but without them no one can “get” what the movie is about (113-15). Returning to the issue of exegeis he argues that “Even the most rigorously grammatical and historical exegesis of the Bible depends on connections between text and text, or text and speech, or text and extratextual reality” (116). Thus the distinction between exegesis and eisegesis is an unhelpful “pretense” (117).

Leithart continues to make his case with an example from Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice’s use of the Bible and one from Eliot’s use of Dante’s Inferno (119-24). He argues that in the same way Scripture relies on such intertextual “jokes” to create its meaning giving examples, again, from John 9, in particular Jesus’ use of mud on the man’s eyes and relating it to God’s shaping of Adam from the mud and imagery of God as potter in Jer 18, etc (124-32). He then moves on to argue that what is taken to be a subjective literary reading is not really so different from a scientific historical one because they both involve the same process of “theory formation or hypothesizing” (133). Lest anyone faint at the expansive interpretive horizons opening up, Leithart discusses two constraints upon interpretive freedom: historical context and biblical conventions (136-37). Finally he discusses what kind of person makes a good interpreter, like someone who will get a joke, they need both the right background knowledge, that is comprehensive familiarity with the Bible, (138) but also the correct “hermeneutical equivalent to a good sense of humour” (139).

This was a good chapter, not least because I also love the movie Shrek. For me Leithart’s great strength is coming at familiar issues with bombast and originality. He is interesting and he provides you with a new perspective. In this chapter, with me reading, he was preaching to the choir, but I still learned from the way he illustrated and explained. Should Tim Bulkeley also read this book? I don’t know, are these issues that are bothering him? At the moment, for me, Robert Alter’s The Art of Biblical Narrative is still a more useful and interesting book for a Biblical scholar to engage with reading the Bible literarily (as opposed to literally!). Deep Exegesis is perhaps more aimed at convincing an educated lay-person (perhaps with high brow literature tastes?), but I am finding it very helpful for my own thinking.

Let me know what you think :-)


Comments

  1. Since I am mentioned in the text, I must respond. The chapter sounds really good. But, a bit a case of going over familiar territory, a stroll in my local park... Perhaps having discovered literature reading Alter and his ilk in the 80s, and enjoyed intertextualities of many splendid varieties in the 90s, Leinhart in the second decade of the 21st C is surely preaching to the choir?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, when you and I read him, probably, but I think he views the conversation as within his own North American Evangelical Biblical/Theological Scholarship. I think you would enjoy it, but I do not think you NEED to read it given the CV you outlined above! :-)

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

That one time Jesus got the Bible wrong

It's so typical isn't it? You are preaching all day long, training your disciples, sparring with the Pharisees, encouraging the poor and down trodden, healing the sick and casting out demons, all day, day after day, and even when you go up a mountain to get a rest the crowds hunt you down and follow you up, and then the one time you get a bit muddled up with some of the details of a biblical text . . . that is the one they write down in the first gospel - verbatim. At least Matthew and Luke had the good sense to do some editing. But Mark, he always had his eye on giving the public the "historical Jesus" whoever that is supposed to be . . . warts and all. Thanks a lot Mark!

Some think I made the mistake on purpose, just to show the Pharisees up.

For some there is no mistake worth mentioning, only a slightly ambiguous turn of phrase.

Others think I am doing something tricky with Abiathar's name, getting him to figuratively stand in for the priesthood.

It really has…

Thor Ragnarok and Parihaka: Postcolonial Apocalypse

Thor: Ragnarok is a riot of colour, sound, violence, humour, sci-fi and fantasy. As a piece of entertainment it is the best Marvel has produced so far. As in many of Taika Waititi's films the plot often seems secondary to the humour and a number of quirky moments seemed only to serve for a quick giggle. I left the theatre overwhelmed by the sensory experience, but ultimately unimpressed by any deeper meaning.

It wasn't until the second morning after my trip to the movies that I woke to the realisation that the movie could function as a profound postcolonial metaphor (I do some of my best thinking while alseep, also it can take me a while for the penny to drop). Unfortunately a quick google showed me that I was neither the first, nor the second to have this thought.

[Spoiler Alert!]

It's easy to miss with all the other stuff going on but Thor undergoes a postcolonial awakening during the film as he slowly realises that his beloved Asgard and its dominion of the nine realms …

Dale Martin does Mark

Dale Martin is an important and frequently controversial NT scholar. Those of us who can't make it to Yale to hear him teach can access some of his lectures, in fact his entire introduction to the NT course, through the magic of the internet.

Here he is holding forth on Mark . . .