Commentary Compass

Choosing two Psalms commentaries is not the same exercise as choosing the two best individual commentaries.

The Psalter is too large and too varied.

One commentary may excel at:

Hebrew poetry,

individual-psalm exegesis,

theology,

historical setting,

canonical interpretation,

editorial shaping,

or concise literary perception.

The question for a pairing is therefore:

What does the second commentary enable us to see that the first does not?

Using that criterion, these are my three preferred combinations.

1. David G. Firth + John Goldingay

Best overall pairing

• David G. Firth — Psalms (Apollos Old Testament Commentary)
• John Goldingay — Psalms (Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms, 3 vols.)

This is the strongest overall pairing because the two commentaries operate at different scales.

Goldingay gives extraordinary depth inside the individual psalm.

Firth adds unusually careful attention to the psalm’s location within the Psalter.

That distinction creates exceptional marginal value.

What Goldingay contributes

Goldingay is the deeper reference resource.

He works carefully through:

Hebrew wording,

poetic imagery,

historical questions,

theological claims,

and the emotional world of the poem.

When a verse is difficult, Goldingay is often the commentator most willing to remain with the difficulty rather than simplify it.

His independent judgment is also valuable.

He does not merely report consensus.

He tests it.

What Firth adds

Firth repeatedly asks an additional question:

Why read this psalm here?

What happens when the poem is read beside:

the preceding psalm,

the following psalm,

its immediate collection,

and its location within one of the five books?

His Sitz im Buch perspective adds a dimension Goldingay deliberately gives much less emphasis.

Individual psalm + canonical neighbourhood

Suppose Goldingay helps us understand a lament in all its poetic and theological detail.

Firth may then ask:

Why has this lament been placed beside a royal psalm?

Does vocabulary link them?

Does one answer the other?

Is the local sequence moving:

from distress,

to trust,

to praise?

That is genuine complementarity.

Different temperaments

Goldingay is also more willing to explore individual exegetical possibilities at length.

Firth is comparatively restrained when discussing editorial architecture.

The pairing therefore avoids two opposite problems:

reading every psalm in isolation

and

forcing every psalm into an elaborate theory of the Psalter’s structure.

Psalms 1–2

The opening pair illustrates the value.

Goldingay gives detailed treatment of each composition.

Firth emphasises their placement together as a programmatic opening involving:

Torah

and

the LORD’s anointed king.

The reader gets both the poem and the book.

Lament

Likewise, Goldingay is exceptional on the theology of individual lament.

Firth allows us to ask what happens when repeated laments accumulate in a section of the Psalter and how later collections answer or reframe the earlier crisis.

The emotional and canonical dimensions reinforce one another.

Why the pairing works

Neither commentator makes the other redundant.

That is the key.

Why the pairing works: Goldingay gives the deepest sustained individual-psalm exegesis; Firth adds disciplined attention to local grouping, final form and the developing shape of the Psalter. Together they give both the trees and the forest.

2. David G. Firth + Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger

Best pairing for the shape and composition of the Psalter

• David G. Firth — Psalms (ApOTC)
• Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger — Psalms (Hermeneia)

This second pairing is for readers especially interested in the Psalter as a deliberately shaped book.

The important qualification must be stated immediately:

the English Hossfeld/Zenger Hermeneia volumes cover Psalms 51–150 only.

So this is not a complete two-commentary solution for Psalms 1–50.

But within Psalms 51–150, the complementarity is exceptional.

What Firth contributes

Firth is a restrained final-form reader.

He notices:

adjacency,

repeated vocabulary,

superscriptions,

local sequences,

and larger collections.

But he does not assume every apparent connection requires a complicated redactional history.

He tends to begin with what can be observed in the final text.

What Hossfeld and Zenger add

Hossfeld and Zenger are much more ambitious.

They ask how:

collections formed,

editorial seams developed,

groups of psalms were arranged,

and theological trajectories emerged through the history of the Psalter’s composition.

Where Firth sees a meaningful final juxtaposition, Hossfeld and Zenger may try to explain how and why that juxtaposition came to exist.

Final form + compositional history

This makes the two volumes excellent conversation partners.

Firth can say:

these neighbouring psalms appear to interact.

Hossfeld and Zenger ask:

what editorial process might explain that interaction?

Firth then provides the necessary check:

how much of that proposed history is actually required by the final text?

The tension is productive.

Book III

This becomes especially valuable in Book III.

Royal crisis.

Temple.

National catastrophe.

The apparent collapse of Davidic promises.

Psalms in this region frequently acquire additional significance through their neighbours.

The editorial approach helps us see that the Psalter is wrestling not merely with private suffering but with the theological crisis of Israel’s history.

Books IV–V

The pairing may be even stronger later.

God’s kingship.

Moses.

Restoration.

Thanksgiving.

Pilgrimage.

Torah.

David.

Final praise.

Hossfeld and Zenger expose possible editorial relationships at great depth.

Firth helps distinguish compelling literary relationships from speculative reconstruction.

Why this ranks second rather than first

The limitation is coverage.

Because the English Hermeneia project begins at Psalm 51, the pair cannot function as evenly across the complete Psalter as Firth + Goldingay.

But if your primary interest is how the Psalter became a theological book, this may be the most stimulating combination available.

Why the pairing works: Firth provides restrained final-form interpretation; Hossfeld and Zenger offer an ambitious account of compositional and editorial development. Each corrects the other’s natural excess while illuminating how psalms acquire meaning through placement and collection.

3. John Goldingay + Derek Kidner

Best depth + concision pairing

• John Goldingay — Psalms (BCOTWP, 3 vols.)
• Derek Kidner — Psalms (TOTC, 2 vols.)

This pairing works for a very simple reason.

Goldingay gives you almost everything.

Kidner tells you what you may otherwise have missed.

Goldingay gives depth

If a verse requires twenty pages of investigation, Goldingay is prepared to do the work.

Hebrew.

Text.

Syntax.

Poetry.

History.

Theology.

Interpretive options.

The three-volume scale gives him room.

Kidner gives perspective

Kidner then enters with a paragraph.

Sometimes a sentence.

And suddenly the central literary contrast becomes visible.

This is not because Kidner has done less thinking.

It is because his gift is compression.

He sees the interpretive centre quickly and expresses it memorably.

Useful disagreement of scale

Reading Goldingay first can leave the reader with many possibilities.

Kidner can restore perspective.

Reading Kidner first can leave the reader wanting evidence and technical depth.

Goldingay supplies it.

That is nearly ideal pairing behaviour.

Poetry benefits from both

This matters especially in poetry.

Technical explanation can sometimes make a psalm feel less poetic.

Kidner restores:

movement,

imagery,

surprise,

and devotional force.

But concise theological reading can sometimes pass too quickly over difficult Hebrew.

Goldingay brings the reader back to the details.

Lament and praise

Goldingay allows the emotional complexity of lament to remain visible.

Kidner often captures the pivot from:

fear to trust,

complaint to confidence,

petition to praise

with unusual economy.

The two scales complement beautifully.

Christian interpretation

Both are Christian commentators but neither routinely flattens the Old Testament into simplistic prediction.

Goldingay generally begins firmly with the psalm’s own theological world.

Kidner often gestures succinctly toward canonical fulfilment.

The result is a balanced Christian reading.

Why third?

The weakness relative to the first two pairings is that neither volume gives sustained attention to the editorial architecture of the Psalter.

This is overwhelmingly a pairing for readers interested in individual psalms.

But for that purpose it is exceptionally strong.

Why the pairing works: Goldingay provides massive exegetical and theological depth; Kidner supplies compact literary clarity and exceptional insight per page. Together they prevent both superficiality and drowning in detail.

What about Firth + Kidner?

This may be the most efficient practical pairing.

Firth gives the modern full-scale commentary.

Kidner supplies compressed literary theology.

For pastors who do not need Goldingay’s three-volume depth, this is highly attractive.

It narrowly misses because Goldingay contributes more marginal information beside Firth.

What about Goldingay + Hossfeld/Zenger?

This may be the most formidable research pairing for Psalms 51–150.

Goldingay gives individual exegesis.

Hossfeld and Zenger give editorial-compositional analysis.

Why not top three?

Mainly because Firth provides a more useful bridge between those approaches and because Hossfeld/Zenger’s incomplete English coverage remains significant.

What about James Luther Mays?

Mays makes a superb theological second commentary.

A pairing such as Goldingay + Mays would give:

technical depth

plus

concise theological synthesis.

For preaching and sustained theological reading, that combination may be preferable to several ranked options.

He will feature more prominently in the Cover to Cover ranking.

How I would choose

Choose Firth + Goldingay for the strongest overall working library.

Choose Firth + Hossfeld/Zenger if the editorial and compositional shape of Psalms 51–150 is especially important.

Choose Goldingay + Kidner if you want maximal depth combined with maximal clarity.

For most serious readers, Firth + Goldingay is the best place to begin.

Bottom line

My ranking of the best commentary pairings for Psalms is:

1. David G. Firth + John Goldingay
2. David G. Firth + Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger
3. John Goldingay + Derek Kidner

The first pairing best captures the double character of the Psalter.

Every psalm is a poem in its own right.

But no psalm now stands alone.

Goldingay helps us hear the individual voice.

Firth helps us hear what happens when that voice is placed beside others.

Together they allow the Psalter to remain simultaneously:

150 prayers

and

one book of prayer.