I have been reading some articles by a professor of Old Testament and Biblical Hermeneutics at Westminster Theological Seminary, Peter Enns. I really like the way Enns thinks.
If you have the time you should read his article "Apostolic Hermeneutics and an Evangelical Doctrine of Scripture: Moving beyond a Modernist Impasse"
Also, I am getting ready to read his book "Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament."
I like Enns because he thinks outside of the box. Hes actually willing to admit that the New Testament authors DID NOT always use a grammatical-historical method of interpretation in their times, and therefore we shouldnt make this the end-all evangelical hermeneutic. (Just so you know, the G-H method says that we must interpret a text according to the proper rules of grammar and according to a proper understanding of historical context) Enns is willing to admit that history has seen a variety of styles of interpretation and God has worked through them all to deliver his revealed truth.
Its particularly interesting that Enns teaches at Westminster, a seminary that was started by theological refugees of Old Princeton, the school known for practically inventing the word "inerrancy" and defending it with its dying breath.
Enns teaches at a school whose tradition, as of late, has really frightened me. I just dont see myself ever again looking at the Bible as an "inerrant" book in the objective, modernist sense. So its really refreshing to read a guy like Enns, who teaches at Westminster, is steeped in this classic Reformed tradition, and yet sees the Bible as the complex web of interpretive styles that it really is.
It is a very unsafe admission indeed that, according to our modern-day grammactical-historical rules for interpretation (and I stress "according to") the New Testament authors misinterpreted the Old Testament. And yet, this is what Enns says. And I like him for it, because I agree with him.