He describes but doesn't name Leithart's hermeneutic: interpretive maximalism.
- Squeeze every bit of truth out of the text.
- The text is rich and every word is inspired that way for a reason.
- How a word is used in Genesis matters to how we should read it in Habakkuk and Romans.
The pushback against this is that you can find anything according to your own fancy in the deep weeds of the dictionary or your imagination, while missing the main point. Sometimes Jordan and Leithart do this. But there's enough good to make reading them worth it. Sometimes their critics are right. Other times their critics don't have the literary sense that Leithart does to see the connection. The details enhance the main point, they don't (or shouldn't) detract from it. Working with the details doesn't mean there ISN'T a main point.
Troy's raven is a great example. Seems fanciful at first. But then you realize the millions of dead bodies under the water that the raven flew over, while the dove brings back peace/olive to the ark/church.
Like imagination generally, a more imaginative reading of Scripture needs Scriptural boundaries, but it need not be rejected out of hand. Therer are 3 categories of connection: (1) those explicitly stated in Scripture (Heb 2:6-9), (2) fanciful and not meant by Scripture (the two breasts of the woman in Song of Solomon are the OT and NT), and (3) a real connection but only implied or inferred literarily (Jehoiachin, in the podcast). The last one is where most disagreement lies.