For the record, I have enjoyed some of Bruggemann's writing though I certainly have not read much more than a few of his books. I do not know any Waltke. Should I read him? Why would I want to critique the thoughts of another person? Why would I read a theologian? John Anderson has written a few extracts of Waltke's critique of Bruggemann here.
There are additional posts on translation also - Making sense isn't enough, says Joel Hoffman (and I concur). Language as proposition and imposition by Kurk Gayle in three parts and more to come here, here, and here. (And I am not sure what to think at the moment.)
And this nice quote on Job relayed from, appropriately, Adam, here
The satan has uncovered an ideological contradiction in the religious discourse that, when brought to light, threatens to render meaningless the fundamental category of that discourse.The accuser is a vital character in this tale, whether he has a pitchfork and horns or is simply a bunch of beni elohim like us throwing accusations and judgments around.
So given this tale and its fundamental nature as parable, does Hashem, Elohim, Eloah, or El Shaddai actually have a solution? What do you mean you are not interested! It is the foundation of creation that is at stake. The root of the matter is in Job himself as he notes.
Here we are 'making sense' of the Bible and translating 'with meaning' - and all the while we don't notice that the meaning of the discourse is undermined. Making sense - yes but not primarily. Making justice, healing the broken, being recreated, recognizing love. These 'matter'. Perhaps this is how the written word 'makes sense' in us.
How does G-d by any name restore the meaning of the discourse in the parable that is Job? Or is it something else that we need from God that we refuse to name or identify with in our broken state? I wonder if I am beginning to ask the right questions.