Skip to main content

Typology is "Ordinary", Leithart, Deep Exegesis, Review of Ch 2



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

Chapter 2: Texts are Events

This chapter gives an effective but surprisingly mundane defence of typological reading. That is, the practice of interpreting earlier texts in the light of later ones. Leithart begins his chapter pulling no punches, pointing out that Matt 2:15 reads Hosea 11:1 and 1 Cor 10:14 reads Exodus 17 in ways that are to modern minds “unconscionable” and “[mess] with the intended, literal meanings of texts” (35). First he shows how the readings of the NT authors could have been following hints given in the OT itself (37-39), showing how subtle details in the OT text could legitimate apparently anachronistic NT readings.

Then he makes an unexpected move and asks “Can we defend typology as a mode of reading in general, not merely as a mode of reading Scripture?” (39) This becomes the focus of the rest of the chapter. He begins with the illustration that historical events gain fresh meanings in light of later events, because at the time of the event the full significance of what has happened could not be appreciated by the participants and witnesses of the event. It is the historian’s role to give an account of events, not just as they happened, but also of their significance in light of later events. A plain literal description of events would just be a chronicle, not a history.

He then applies this same principle to texts which, “say new things as they come into relationship with subsequent texts and events.” (44) This is an inevitable condition of being a reader, different from the author. Yet even the same author can come back to a text she wrote at a different time and situation and find the words speak to her with new meaning (which of course in no way voids the original meaning they had for her). For (my own) example, a song about loneliness written as a dumped teenager might find new poignancy when confronting the death of a parent. The same words take on new meaning in the new situation (51). This is also a function of narrative. Many detective novels work by presenting the reader with apparently trivial information that only becomes meaningful once the story’s climax is reached and the murderer revealed. Then the reader can “read backwards” to understand the full significance of events and details that had little or no meaning for the reader when the story was read forwards (66-68). His Biblical example of this is the narrative of John 9 where later events modify our perception of earlier, in this case a discussion of sin and blindness, becomes a healing story, which becomes a Sabbath controversy with the spiritually blind Pharisees (60-63).

He concludes, “The apostles teach us to recognize that ‘how it turned out’ exposes dimensions of the original event or text that may not have been apparent, and perhaps were not even there, until it turned out as it did.” (74) That is, when the apostles learn that Jesus is the climax of the Biblical story the texts and events of the OT  gain new significance, new meanings and do so that is in “in principle” nothing special, but just the “ordinary” way that events and texts work (74).

Again this chapter has put Leithart's incredible bibliography on display, with a wide range of different sources, academic and literary, on display, and an almost whiplash-inducing ability to bring examples from unexpected places and take the discussion in different directions. His discussion of the relationship between Darwin and Nazism, e.g., (68-71) is worthy of another blog post, but for me didn’t helpfully contribute to this chapters thesis. Leithart takes you on a winding road, and I wonder how many readers might get put off by that, but he is certainly taking us on a journey, and I’m excited to see where the next chapter will take us.

Comments

  1. How does this chapter mesh with the first? Does Leithart see such typological intertextualities as somehow denied or excluded by his strawman of Bridgebuilding interpretation?

    Perhaps unfair to ask you, I suppose I *should* read the book, but to be fair to myself I am still trying to work out if I should/could/will...

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

ANZABS 2018 program and abstracts

ANZABS CONFERENCE 2018
6-7 December, 2018


Venue: Wesley Hall, Trinity Methodist College,

202A St Johns Rd, Meadowbank, Auckland 1072

Thursday 6 December
9.30 am – REGISTRATION
10.00-10.10 – mihi
10.10-11.00 – Keynote speaker: Robert Myles – Fishing for Eyewitnesses in the Fourth Gospel
11.00-11.30 – Morning tea
11.30-12.00 – Lyndon Drake – Economic Capital in the Hebrew Bible
12.00-12.30 – Anne Aalbers – Resurrection and Celibacy: Two Sides of the Same Coin?
12.30-1.00 – Jonathan Robinson – "And he was with the beasts," (Mark 1:13): Ambiguity,
Interpretation and Mark as a Jewish Author
1.00-2.00 – Lunch
2.00-2.30 – Ben Hudson – Ethical Exhortation and the Decalogue in Ephesians
2.30-3.00 – Csilla Saysell – The Servant as 'a covenant of/for people' in Deutero-Isaiah
3.00-3.30 – Afternoon tea
3.30-4.00 – Jacqueline Lloyd – Did Jesus minister in Gaulanitis?
4.00-4.30 – Mark Keown – Jesus as the New Joshua
4.30 – AGM
Friday 7 December
9.30-10.00 – Ben Ong – Pākehā Readin…

Updated Current Research and Book Reviews

So, my PhD must be going well because I have just spent the morning updating my blog pages for Current Research and brand spanking new Book Reviews page. But it is not just procrastination, it is good to stop and and get an overview.

I had totally forgotten about half the book reviews I had done on this blog, they go back to 2009! I am still working on writing the sort of reviews I really enjoy reading, but now that I'm regularly doing reviews for journals it is great to also review books on this blog where I have stylistic freedom and no space limitations. I had always hoped this blog would be a good source of free books, but while it was a source of free books they were not good ones. Reviewing for journals (as a PhD student) has been much better and is helping me keep my broader education going even as I delve deep into my PhD subject. Looking at my old book reviews helps me realise how far I have come. Hopefully, much growth as a blogger, scholar and human being (perhaps not i…

Again, on Mark 2:23-28

I think this is different enough to the "solutions" shared earlier to be worth a post. I'm afraid I haven't had a chance to absorb it yet, been reading too much today, so I can't say if I think he is on to something or not, but do let me know what you think :-)


James M. Hamilton Jr. in "The Typology of David's Rise to Power: Messianic Patterns in the Book of Samuel" JSBT 16, 2012, 4-25, at p13 writes,

Considering the way that Jesus appeals to the Davidic type in Mark 2:23-28, Goppelt draws attention to the way that Jesus not only makes a connection between himself and David in Mark 2:25, he also links his disciples to “those who were with [David].”70 This would seem to invite Mark’s audience to make other connections between those involved in these two events. Much discussion has been generated by the fact that Mark 2:26 portrays Jesus referring to “the time of Abiathar the high priest,” when it appears that at the time, Ahimelech would have been the…