Bro. Tom,
By 400 AD Augustine in the west and Constantine in the east removed everything Hebrew from the church and ran Jews out of it. Augustine even had the audacity to say that the Septuagint was superior to the original Hebrew. Protestant hermeneutics are Augustinian and are, by nature, Greek logic, rhetoric and philosophy.
As you have so kindly insinuated, that my hermeneutic must be gibberish because it is not familiar, it may be an appropriate time to review:
Pr 18:13 ΒΆ He that answereth a matter before he heareth [it], it [is] folly and shame unto him.
The fact of the matter is that this hermeneutic is anything but creative. Apparently I did not explain sufficiently how it is impossible to be of human invention because of its consistency throughout the whole Bible. In fact it is so consistent, that books not containing the hidden meaning might be considered to not being scripture, as has been testified by others as they removed them from the canon. It works like a multi-dimension crossword puzzle where all the metaphors lock into each other by their usage through out the scripture. I am sure I gave the examples of leaven and darkness, but this format is difficult to follow threads sometimes. I have not yet figured out how to search on a particular member.
This hermeneutic has done nothing to undermine your purpose for the study in showing that Genesis is foundational. In fact, it has done nothing but show Christ was indeed telling us something marvelous that all the scriptures speak of him in great detail.
I have posted on Ge 38 and observed parallels which are easy to see in English. There are many more in Hebrew which I did not unpack there. Anyone can see the parallels once they are pointed out. This hermeneutic has little to do with me. The parallels exist whether I do or not. And once children are shown how, they can see Christ in the scriptures more easily than scholars. After all, it is an early childhood learning skill to do puns and riddles, which adults think is childish, but is required in order to have a true command of the language.
I believe Brown was Catholic when he popularized the term 'sensus plenior' to describe the multi-layer nature of scripture. There are five classes of response to Brown, concerning sensus plenior, all from people who cannot unpack it. The Catholic church has an earlier memory of the multi-layered nature of scripture called Quadriga for 4 layers, the Jews call it Pardes.
Unless you wish for tedious explanations and derivations (of which I have provided examples) the measure should be it's own internal consistency. Anything that is unfamiliar is... well, unfamiliar. Unfamiliarity is not a measure of truth, unless of course you already know everything.
I can provide examples that New Testament authors use the methods associated with this hermeneutic. I can also show that modern Jews also are familiar with the method, they just do not include the New Testament in their studies. The rabbis say that the scriptures are full of riddles, but by excluding the New Testament, they exclude the answers to those riddles. The mystery was hidden until the cross.
I would hope that you have read the post in Ge 38 and would be blessed by it. The support for the perpetual virginity of Mary is strong. Judah knew her (Tamar) again no more as an indication that Jesus was the only begotten son, and Shela, representing Joseph, never did take Tamar to wife.
I am not responsible for the free-for-all allegory of those using Augustine's hermeneutics. He did a bit of it himself. It is why the church has battled free-for-all allegory for centuries; a story of Christ exists just under the surface of the literal, but the Greek hermeneutic does not have the tools necessary to unpack it, so they use Greek rhetorical invention to make up the difference.
Oh, also consider the Bereans. When Paul preached, they did not just blindly accept what he had to say. They checked his testimony of the life of Christ against the Old Testament. The Bereans had more authority than Paul by holding dear to the Old Testament. His testimony of Christ was validated by them. We have the same authority to check the New Testament (in fact all things) as the testimony of whomever, and see that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, through the validation of the Old Testament.
I have shown how this hermeneutic was plausibly used by John to generate Jo 1:1-4. I don't have to take John's authoritative word that Jesus is the Greek Logos, because I know him to be both the Hebrew bara (the Son who spoke and created the heavens and the earth) and amar (The 'word' and the 'lamb'). And I have shown that it is John who testifies to this. I apologize if my explanations are wanting. In this format I have no clue where to begin to explain the basis for the hermeneutic (though I try to sneak in bit and pieces here and there), and can only demonstrate it.
So I don't think we are in opposition. Help me to explain it better by asking questions. Thanks.