Skip to main content

"The Text is a Husk" Review of Leithart, Deep Exegesis, ch 1

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

Chapter 1: The Text is a Husk

The first chapter of Leithart’s book presents the thesis that Western Christians have “emasculate[d] our own scriptures” (3). He presents as the epitome of this process Eugene Peterson’s “translation” (3-4) of Psalm 23. This is a disappointing cheap shot. The Message is explicitly not intended as a translation, but a paraphrase, and Eugene Peterson hardly seems like the enemy for a book about taking the text of the Bible seriously.  After this Leithart gets onto firmer ground beginning with Dutch Lutheran Humanist Lodewijk Meyer whose 1666 Philosophy as the Interpreter of Holy Scripture begins Leithart’s account of the “Battle for the Bible” (7). Leithart’s narrative takes us through Meyer, Spinoza (10), Kant (20), and all the way to Peter Enns (31), who may be surprised to find himself described as a “Kantian Evangelical” (!?!), and finally Richard Longnecker (32). Leithart’s account is lively, informative and effective in demonstrating the lineage of the modern impulse to privilege the “content” of the Bible over its “form”, the text.

The most damming of all his examples is his quotation of Richard Longnecker’s 1999 Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period (33). Leithart succinctly sums up Longnecker’s position: “when the apostles do what we do, we can follow their example. When they do not, we cannot . . . He wants us to draw the same conclusions Paul drew from the gospel . . . [but] does not always want us to follow the reasoning that Paul used to draw those conclusions” (33-34). Thus the message (content) of the text is truth, but the text (form) itself is untrustworthy and is discarded. Can this really be called a high view of scripture?

Here, Leithart finds the real enemy: The nonsense of Evangelical hermeneutics that claims the authority of the Bible but will not allow the Bible’s own interpretive methods to be used. This is the Bridge Paradigm of hermeneutics. This is a personal bugbear for me, so I am excited to see where Leithart goes next. I recently led a session on hermeneutics with a group of pastors and almost to a man (sorry, they were all men in this instance) they agreed that they would not use Biblical methods of scripture interpretation in their sermons, but only the grammatical-historical method which they had been taught at Bible college. I’m grateful that my undergrad hermeneutics teacher, Myk Habets, while he did teach the Bridge Paradigm, also acknowledged the validity of Biblical modes of interpretation and encouraged their exploration. If I remember Habets correctly, “What the NT does with the OT, we are permitted to do with the whole Bible.” I’m still working that one out. My current PhD research is all about the way Mark interprets scripture in his gospel. Let me tell you, there is not a grammatical-historical bridge paradigm in sight!

Overall, this first chapter shows off Leithart’s considerable erudition but takes a long time (longer than necessary) to make the point. I’m also surprised he doesn’t include the enormously influential Schleiermacher in his narrative (or judging by the author index, in the book at all), as he is generally considered the father of modern hermeneutics. I’m eager to see what he does with the rest of the book, and hopeful for some exciting constructive work.


  1. Oh, bother, yet another book to add to my 'should really read, one day' list...

  2. Sorry Tim, but if I manage to finish the review, you will at least have a substantial summary to help you decide if you really need to read it or not :-)


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.