Diversity in the OT (sic!)
Chris asks whether Brueggemann, Goldingay or a christologically driven Tomlin provide the best way of the interpreting the diversity. None are my favourites, but I’d have to take Bruggemann over the other two (and that with having studied with Goldingay!). We need to let the diversity be.
Philip’s post is a bit more confusing to me. He critiques the choices posed by Chris and states the following:
The fact that Dogmatic theologians such as Barth, Diem, or Webber have been left out baffles me somewhat and seriously compromises the selection from the outset. Why should we assume that Old Testament theologians are the ones best equipped for handling diversity in the OT?
Generally, I’d say the reason why you’d assume a scholar of the Hebrew Bible would handle the diversity better is that often times they’re the only ones actually taking the text seriously. The only ones reading the text to hear what it is saying in and of itself.
I get suspicious of most New Testament scholars and all theologians who interpret the Hebrew Bible. Too often, they’re using the text as a tool rather than letting it speak for itself.