Typology: Literary Device or History?

In his essay, "Typology," Frances Young agrees with Michael Goulder (Type and History in Acts) that typology is primarily a literary device that the NT authors used to convey spiritual truths, but they were not historical accounts of New Testament events. Goulder even says that the more types there are the less historical the account. Young complains that scholars (Danielou/Frye) have placed a modern demand for historicity on typology that was not present in the NT and patristic authors. What is important is that they were able to convey truths not historical accuracy. There are several problems with this account. First, is that Young and Goulder both continue to hold to a modern understanding of history and judge typology according to that definition. They assume that history is just random and unstructured, and that God is silent. Second, it is not that the Patristic authors were not concerned with history they just had a different understanding of history in which history is connected to spiritual reality and to the biblical story without contradiction. Third, just because there are typological connections between disparate events doesn't mean that the typological connections are just literary inventions of the human author. I don't deny that they are literary devices but this doesn't mean they were inventions but discovers of a history which is guided by God. A history which is a text itself. Fourth, the communications of spiritual truths in the stories which appear rooted in historical events but are inventions creates a dichotomy between the spiritual and real worlds. If the spiritual truths being communicated cannot be actually effect reality but must be conveyed in a deceit then what hope do we have that those truth can effect the present or the future. Spiritual truths are not some ethereal truths with no connection to the material world. This is not to deny the use of allegory or parables to convey truth - these do not make claims to be historical as do the gospel narratives and acts.

For Edwards the world is in a sense "enchanted" - history and nature are really a story and a language to be read. He is countering the deistic attempt to strip history of religious meaning or at least the meaning given by traditional religion and special revelation. Instead, they assign their own meaning in the name of reason. God is continually in the process of speaking through history - creation is a continual process, maybe too continual but that's another issue - and so doesn't abandon the world to our invention. The role of Scripture is to continually act as a grammar or idiom by which we interpret types in the rest of scripture and the meaning of the history.