Choosing the best two commentaries on Psalms is not the same exercise as choosing the two highest-ranked individual commentaries. What matters here is complementarity.

Two excellent books can overlap so heavily that owning both adds relatively little. A better pairing gives the reader two genuinely different kinds of help: perhaps one commentary provides a stable all-round reading while another is more exploratory; one concentrates on the individual poem while another emphasises its position in the Psalter; one gives extensive technical discussion while another excels at theological judgment.

After comparing the Psalms commentaries in detail, I would retain the three pairings I have settled on. Each works for a somewhat different reader. The first is the pairing I would recommend most broadly; the second is strongest for academically serious work on the final form of the Psalter; the third is particularly attractive for pastors and teachers who value both depth and interpretive economy.

1. David G. Firth + John Goldingay

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

Why the pairing works

This is my first-choice pairing because Firth and Goldingay overlap in all the right places while differing in precisely the ways that make two commentaries worth owning.

Both work seriously with the Hebrew text. Both care about poetry rather than merely reconstructing historical settings. Both take theology seriously. Both cover the entire Psalter. Neither is controlled by an elaborate form-critical theory, and neither is eager to force every psalm into one reconstructed history of the book.

The important difference is temperamental and methodological. Firth is exceptionally balanced and restrained. He weighs textual, literary, historical, canonical, and theological evidence without allowing any one method to run ahead of what can actually be demonstrated. His Sitz im Buch approach is especially valuable: neighbouring psalms and collection structures matter where evidence supports the connection, but he does not build large editorial narratives from every possible echo.

Goldingay is more exploratory and more independent. He is willing to reopen questions other commentaries regard as settled, follow unusual implications of Hebrew expressions, and allow the theological tensions within lament, divine absence, suffering, and imprecation to remain unresolved longer. Psalms such as 22, 73, 89, and 139 particularly reward comparison between the two writers.

The reader therefore gains something more than additional information. Firth frequently provides a stable control against Goldingay’s more adventurous proposals; Goldingay prevents Firth’s judiciousness from becoming the final word simply because it is judicious. Where Firth says, in effect, “this is what the evidence most responsibly supports,” Goldingay often asks, “but have we actually heard everything the text is saying?”

The pairing also compensates for important weaknesses. Goldingay’s three volumes can be expansive and theologically idiosyncratic. His rejection of classical formulations of inherent divine omniscience and changelessness, together with his relatively flexible understanding of biblical historicity, means that I would not want him to be the only theological voice in a Psalms library. Firth supplies a substantially more dependable evangelical framework. Conversely, Firth’s comparative restraint means that Goldingay will often generate interpretive possibilities and detailed observations that the more economical Apollos treatment does not pursue.

How I would choose

If I could own only two Psalms commentaries, this is the pair I would choose. Firth would normally be my first consultation and Goldingay the commentary I would use to test whether the safe reading is also the most perceptive reading.

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

Firth — Psalms (Apollos Old Testament Commentary)
Hossfeld & Zenger — Psalms 51–150 (Hermeneia, 2 vols.)

Why the pairing works

This pairing is particularly strong for readers interested in the relationship between individual exegesis and the final shaping of the Psalter.

Firth provides a balanced modern commentary on all 150 psalms. His great advantage in this pairing is methodological restraint. He takes the placement of a psalm seriously and regularly asks about neighbouring texts, smaller collections, and book-level context, but he distinguishes fairly carefully between a demonstrable literary relationship and an attractive editorial theory.

Hossfeld and Zenger push precisely that question much further. Their treatment of Psalms 51–150 is one of the richest attempts to reconstruct the formation and theological purpose of smaller Psalters and editorial sequences within the final book. Their discussions of Psalms 111–112, the Passover Hallel, the Songs of Ascents, Psalms 108–110, the Davidic collection in Psalms 138–145, and the Hallelujah conclusion repeatedly show what can be gained when canonical neighbours are allowed to interpret one another.

The two approaches are therefore extremely productive in conversation. Firth can prevent compositional criticism from becoming overconfident; Hossfeld and Zenger can prevent interpretive caution from becoming atomism. When the German commentators propose a sequence or redactional development, Firth often helps distinguish the part of the argument grounded firmly in the final text from the reconstructed history behind it.

The theological and confessional difference also helps. Firth works from an evangelical Christian framework and is alert to the Psalter’s biblical-theological significance. Hossfeld and Zenger operate within a much more historically critical scholarly tradition and often bring Jewish, liturgical, and compositional concerns to the foreground. Their discussions consequently overlap less than two broadly evangelical commentaries would.

The main limitation is coverage. Hossfeld and Zenger begin at Psalm 51, so Firth carries Psalms 1–50 alone. This is therefore not the ideal pair if the goal is to have two independent technical voices on every individual psalm. Its strength lies instead in the exceptional depth it gives to the latter two-thirds of the Psalter and especially to questions of canonical arrangement.

How I would choose

I would choose this pairing over Firth–Goldingay if my work were particularly focused on academic research, Psalter formation, final-form interpretation, or Books III–V. It gives a sharper methodological contrast than almost any other two-commentary combination.

3. John Goldingay + Derek Kidner

Goldingay — Psalms (Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms, 3 vols.)
Kidner — Psalms 1–150 (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, 2 vols.)

Why the pairing works

Goldingay and Kidner make an unusually effective pairing because they operate at radically different scales while both possessing strong exegetical instincts.

Goldingay gives breadth and exploration. His three substantial volumes examine wording, literary structure, possible historical settings, theology, and pastoral implications in detail. He frequently offers several possibilities and is willing to pursue interpretations that challenge conventional readings.

Kidner gives concentration and judgment. He rarely has room to survey an entire scholarly debate, but he has an extraordinary ability to identify the central issue and state it with clarity. Where Goldingay may spend several pages opening possibilities, Kidner can often supply the sentence that helps the reader decide which possibility really matters.

This makes the pairing particularly useful in sermon and teaching preparation. Goldingay gives enough material to ensure that a difficult feature has not been overlooked; Kidner provides a powerful check against confusing complexity with depth. When both converge on the same interpretive point from such different formats, I tend to pay close attention.

Kidner also compensates for some of Goldingay’s theological eccentricities. His evangelical theology is more classically framed, and his instinct for canonical Christian reading is generally safer for readers who share those commitments. Goldingay, however, prevents Kidner’s concision from limiting the range of questions considered. He has access to later scholarship, considerably fuller Hebrew discussion, and a willingness to explore tensions Kidner simply did not have space to develop.

This pairing is less strong than Firth–Hossfeld/Zenger for detailed final-form research, since neither Goldingay nor Kidner makes Psalter shaping the primary organising question. It is also less balanced theologically than Firth–Goldingay because Goldingay remains the main technical voice. But for a reader who wants one major research commentary and one extraordinarily perceptive concise companion, the combination is difficult to beat.

How I would choose

I would especially recommend Goldingay–Kidner to pastors, teachers, and readers who like to move between detailed study and concise theological judgment. It is perhaps the most enjoyable of the three pairings to use repeatedly in ordinary preparation.

Bottom Line

If I could choose only one pair, I would choose David Firth + John Goldingay. Firth gives me the most balanced and dependable modern reading of the whole Psalter; Goldingay gives me the independent and sometimes unsettling second opinion most likely to reveal something I have missed.

For research concentrated on Psalter formation and canonical arrangement, I would choose Firth + Hossfeld/Zenger.

For preaching and teaching, especially where I value both expansive analysis and concise judgment, Goldingay + Kidner is an exceptionally rewarding combination.

The larger lesson is that complementarity matters more than simply adding ratings together. A good commentary pairing should make the reader better at evaluating both books, not merely provide twice as many pages.