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.
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?
ReplyDeletePerhaps 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...