John Goldingay has tried to distance his exegetical practice from theological interpretation. Close readings of Goldingay’s own pronouncements and interpretive practice, in combination with insights from philosophical hermeneutics, however, indicate that he may be protesting too much. The present essay demonstrates that Goldingay’s working method operates under the rule of faith, in accordance with the creeds, and from an ideological location. It recommends Goldingay’s working method as an exemplar for those who wish to practice fresh, theologically informed, and exegetically sensitive readings of Scripture.
See e.g.“Biblical Narrative and Systematic Theology” in Between the Two Horizons: Spanning New Testament Studies and Systematic Theology (ed. Joel B. Green and Max Turner; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans2000) 123-42.
Ibid. 223-5; cf. R. W. L. MoberlyTheology of the Book of Genesis (Old Testament Theology; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press2009); and R. R. Reno Genesis (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible; Grand Rapids: Brazos 2010).
John Goldingay“‘That You May Know that Yahweh Is God’: A Study in the Relationship between Theology and History in the Old Testament,”TynB23 (1972) 58-93. This article spends a great deal of time establishing a sort of minimalist account of the historical veracity of the Old Testament. By “historical considerations” we are recommending Goldingay’s actual interest in history which is not so much dealing with the issue of historiography but with historical contexts word meanings and the like. Green has recently set out a helpful heuristic for distinguishing between these types of concerns (“Rethinking ‘History’ for Theological Interpretation” JTI 5 : 159-74).