Here’s my very brief summary of Don Carson’s 2011 article critiquing Theological Interpretation of Scripture:
Carson commends the movement’s dissatisfaction with pseudo-objective, Enlightenment-bound models of historical-critical exegesis, but is concerned that theology is sometimes then pitted against history in an unsatisfying binary. He is pleased to see that theology is being brought into conversation with biblical studies, but fears that this is sometimes done uncritically and without sufficient methodological clarity. He welcomes the refreshed attention to precritical exegesis, but finds this emphasis somewhat arbitrary, overly simplistic, and not sufficiently discerning. He sees the value of acknowledging God in exegesis, but is worried that the suspicion of ‘human’ hermeneutical rules or principles is overplayed. He applauds the instinct to read Scripture with ‘trinitarian lenses,’ but wonders whether this doctrine is an arbitrary choice. He is happy with the emphasis on the Bible as narrative, but cautions that this can be applied simplistically, with an unnecessary disdain for propositions.