1) In Interpreting Scripture with the Great Tradition, I spoke about typology in ways that some found surprising - given my central thesis that we need to learn from the Great Tradition how to do exegesis. @chrisredwine has a thread on this. I'l like to reply.

2) First, I think the OT has many Xolgoical types & that typology is central to the spiritual meaning of many texts. So I'm all for it in general. When I say that the widespread use of word is modern, I mean 2 things.

3) First, after the Enlightenment the word is used instead of allegory. (G. Beale insisted on this last year at ETS in the panel on my bk.) I think the widespread use of the word in the 19th C. was part of a defensive reaction against a reduction to the single human meaning only

4) Second, the diff bet premodern & modern typology is that premodern takes acct. of Divine authorial intent (DAI) & so can see X as the true meaning of the type. But modern typology has only HAI so the meaning has to be read in later by the apostle (or, the mod. interpreter).

5) The problem is that we have typology both in the premodern & modern periods but we use the same word for it. The word is biblical & there is nothing wrong with it. But my pt. is that not everyone means by typology what you mean by it. There is typology & then there is typology

6) Some typology done in modernity is premodern, but some is not. In modernity, not all those who do it are doing the same thing as the premoderns did in their metaphysical context. This is my caution. It can be, in the hands of historicists, a postmodern reading technique . . .

7) . . . by which the reader supplies (part of) the meaning of an OT text from his own faith - a faith he had prior to reading the text.

I want to do typology in such a way that the exegete discerns the spiritual sense of the text & thus sees its literal Xological sense.