Via Michael Bird on FB, I read this interesting (insiders) discussion from William B. Evans of the recent case of Douglas Green's ouster at Westminster Theological Seminary.
Consider the ways in which Evangelicals use the term "grammatico-historical" as a counter-point to "historical critical" reading of the Old Testament. The basic idea is that one's interpretation of the Old Testament should recover the "authorial intention" of the writers, and that furthermore the writers' "intention" was consciously and intentionally Christian. However, this view of the Old Testament strains the meaning of "historical" beyond recognition.
[T]he grammatical-historical method is redefined so as to remove the Enlightenment emphasis on human autonomy and the resulting exclusion of God from consideration. Thus it is expanded to include divine influence on the human authors’ psychology as legitimate considerations for interpretation. Along this line, grammatical-historical method is also recast to include biblical typology, which is seen as arising intrinsically out of the grammatical-historical meaning of the text.
If you "modify" and "expand" your "grammatico-historical" interpretation to including things like the Holy Spirit and typology, then you should not continue to use the term "historical."
This approach claims to be interested in the linguistic and historical context of the text, but—in my view—it aggressively ignores both of these in service to Evangelical claims about the Bible's "inspiration" and "authority." It's not (only) about reading Christian theology into the Old Testament; it's about making the Bible fit into a predefined category.
As Evans says,
this notion of what the biblical writers must have had in mind is an inference; in most cases it cannot be demonstrated, and to assert otherwise is to commit what the New Critics called the intentional fallacy... Rather than being doctrinaire on this point, why not leave the question open and deal with these matters on a case-by-case basis? Why does everything have to be nailed down so tightly?
I have to say, Evangelical interpretation of the Old Testament is mystifying to me. I grew up Southern Baptist and have always considered myself to be broadly "evangelical." But the more I read about big-E Evangelical interpretation of the Bible, the more I am dismayed. This kind of rigid, counter-factual reading of the Bible was never part of my upbringing in the church.