Since Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz originally coined the term “theodicy” in 1710, probably based on St. Paul`s remarks in Romans 3:4-5, theodicy discourse tends to be considered an Enlightenment philosophical apology to defend God`s goodness and justice in face of evil in the world. Despite its potential biblical roots, however, Christian theodicists have largely ignored biblical theology and its immense resources. Consequently, theodicy and biblical theology are totally disjoined and separated from each other in contemporary debates. This article attempts to amend this undesirable situation by analyzing several theodicy motifs found in the Old Testament. Adopting and revising Ronald M. Green`s typology, the author suggests five theodicy models to be used for analysis: (1) the “free-will or retribution” theodicy, (2) the “educative” theodicy, (3) the “eschatological” theodicy, (4) “theodicy deferred” or “the mystery of suffering,” and lastly (5) the “communion” theodicy. Analyzing several important scriptural texts including the fall story of Genesis 2:5-3:24, Deuteronomistic history and Chronicler`s history in regard to the destructions of Israel and Jerusalem, the Book of Job, and the Book of Daniel, the article shows that various heterogeneous theodicy models are co-existing in tension and competing for its own validity over against other models in the Old Testament, without any one model totally dominating others. Based on this observation of radical plurality and ambiguity, the author suggests the following three theological conclusions. First, the plurality and ambiguity of biblical theodicy itself can be the most fundamental message of the Old Testament. It dissuades us from trying to provide a monotonous answer to the problem of evil, as well as from falling into an illusion that the Bible offers a clear solution of evil completely isolated from our existential hermeneutical decisions. Second, the plurality and ambiguity of biblical theodicy leads us to discover the importance of intertextuality of biblical books. Instead of merely focusing on each book`s isolated message, we learn that the very co-existence of various competing theodicies opens up a hermeneutical space of discourse on plurality and ambiguity. Through this character of intertextuality we encounter the fundamental provisional character of all our theological projects. Lastly, we must avoid a kind of bad pluralism in theodicy discourse. Despite its radical plurality and ambiguity, the Old Testament does not allow all types of theodicy as legitimately biblical but exclude a certain non-biblical type, for instance, a karma theory in Hinduism or Buddhism, which Max Weber considers as the perfect solution in theodicy. It may be a good, even a perfect, theodicy but not a biblical one.