N.T. Wrong has given an interview after ceasing the publication of his great, irreverent blog. I particularly like this part:
It goes without saying that I continue to see a valid distinction between â€˜useâ€™ and â€˜interpretationâ€™ (and I like Umberto Ecoâ€™s theoretical approach here), and I place scholars whom I encounter somewhere along the continuum between them. Frustratingly, in reading the publications of biblical studies, there are too many of these scholars far closer to the â€˜useâ€™ end of the continuum, so much so that it is just annoying to have to continually second guess whether a particular biblical scholar is interested in discovering what is true or only has an interest in defending what is already believed to be true. The state of biblical commentaries â€” a â€˜primary secondaryâ€™ source for biblical studies â€” is a simply appalling example of this.
I talked about this problem in the diss repeatedly. I didn’t use the word ‘annoying’, of course; I think it was ‘frustrating’. Speaking of words, I’m also glad to see that we don’t share hobbies.