This class broke off from the review of Goldsworthy's book for a brief walk through a history of hermeneutics. Louis Berkhof's book Principals of Biblical Interpretation was the ideal choice for this lecture.
Though I don't agree with every breakdown of Berkhof's it was a great starting point.
This class went well I think. :-)
The lecture happens to overlap perfectly with the reading assignment for the week. There was a lot of historical facts in both the reading and the lecture. Seeing as how we still haven't gotten to much of the "fun stuff" most of the questions were just clarifications about my language and descriptions.
I continue to be confronted with finding a better way to determine between allegory and typology in private interpretation. Currently, I think it boils down to a simple understanding of original author intent. I'm not sure if this perspective will hold up over the long haul.
On a much more practical level to the people taking the class, much of the confusion over type of interpretation stems from two major factors. The first is lack of descriptive terms to define the practice they are using. Once they are able to define what they are doing they become aware of inconsistencies or indoctrination that can remove potential confusion. The second major thing is that they haven't actually done exegesis. Sure many have "studied the Bible" but few have actually put in the work to form a consistent pattern of Biblical study for teaching or wide spread application.
The purpose of my Bible Blogging Commentary is to do just that. To run myself through some tough books and further push myself to develop consistent hermeneutics. We all have a long way to go.