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 surprisingly little. A stronger pairing gives the reader two genuinely different kinds of help: one commentary may provide a stable all-round reading while another is more exploratory; one may concentrate primarily on the individual poem while another emphasises its place within the final Psalter; one may supply extensive technical discussion while another excels at theological judgment and interpretive economy.

After comparing the Psalms commentaries in detail, I would retain the three pairings below. Each serves a somewhat different reader. The first is the pairing I would recommend most broadly; the second is strongest for serious work on the final form and editorial shaping of the Psalter; the third is particularly attractive for pastors and teachers who value both detailed exploration and exceptionally concise judgment.

1. David G. Firth + John Goldingay

David G. Firth — Psalms — Apollos Old Testament Commentary

John 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 the areas where overlap is useful but differ precisely where two commentaries should differ.

Both work seriously with the Hebrew text. Both care about poetry rather than merely reconstructing historical backgrounds. Both take theology seriously. Both cover the whole Psalter. Neither is controlled by an elaborate form-critical system, 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 treatment of Sitz im Buch is particularly valuable: neighbouring psalms and collection structures matter where the evidence supports a connection, but he resists making every repeated word evidence of a complex editorial programme.

Goldingay is more exploratory and more independent. He is willing to reopen questions other commentators regard as settled, follow unusual implications of Hebrew expressions, and allow 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.

The reader therefore gains more than a second opinion. Firth frequently provides a stable control against Goldingay’s more adventurous proposals; Goldingay prevents Firth’s judiciousness from becoming the final word merely because it is judicious. Where Firth often asks what the evidence most securely supports, Goldingay asks whether the conventional reading has actually heard everything the poem is saying.

The pairing also compensates for significant weaknesses. Goldingay’s three volumes can be expansive and theologically idiosyncratic. His strongly dynamic understanding of God leads him at points away from classical formulations of inherent omniscience and immutability, and his relatively flexible view 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 methodological restraint means that Goldingay will frequently generate interpretive possibilities and detailed observations that the more controlled 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; Goldingay would be the commentary I would read next to discover whether the most responsible reading is also the most penetrating one.

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

David G. Firth — Psalms — Apollos Old Testament Commentary

Frank-Lothar Hossfeld & Erich 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 here is disciplined final-form interpretation. He takes neighbouring psalms, smaller collections, superscriptions, and the five-book arrangement seriously, but he generally distinguishes between literary relationships visible in the received text and reconstructed editorial histories that cannot be demonstrated with the same degree of confidence.

Hossfeld and Zenger push precisely those questions much further. Their treatment of Psalms 51–150 is one of the richest attempts to understand how smaller Psalters, groupings, and editorial sequences contribute to meaning. Their analyses of Psalms 111–112, the Hallel collections, the Songs of Ascents, Psalms 108–110, the Davidic sequence in Psalms 138–145, and the final Hallelujah psalms repeatedly show what may be gained when canonical neighbours are allowed to interpret one another.

The two approaches consequently work exceptionally well in conversation. Firth helps distinguish the strongest final-form observations from more speculative reconstructed redactional stages. Hossfeld and Zenger prevent interpretive caution from collapsing into atomism. Where they identify an editorial development, Firth often helps the reader ask what can still be affirmed purely from the final literary evidence.

The theological and methodological difference also creates useful complementarity. Firth writes from an evangelical Christian context and explicitly engages biblical theology and Christian interpretation. Hossfeld and Zenger work within a much more historically critical tradition and foreground composition, Jewish Scripture, liturgical development, and editorial theology. The result is significantly less duplication than one would get from two broadly similar evangelical commentaries.

The main limitation is coverage. Hossfeld and Zenger begin at Psalm 51, so Firth carries Psalms 1–50 alone. This is therefore not the best pair if the goal is to have two independent technical voices on every psalm. Its particular strength lies in the extraordinary depth it gives to Books III–V and to the question of how the Psalter became a literary-theological book.

How I would choose

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

3. John Goldingay + Derek Kidner

John Goldingay — Psalms — Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms, 3 vols.

Derek 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 considerable detail. He frequently opens several interpretive possibilities and is willing to pursue readings that challenge conventional assumptions.

Kidner gives concentration and judgment. He rarely has space to survey an entire scholarly debate, but he has an extraordinary capacity to identify the central issue and express it clearly. Where Goldingay may spend several pages widening the field of possibilities, Kidner can often supply the sentence that helps the reader determine what really matters.

This makes the pairing especially rewarding in sermon and teaching preparation. Goldingay provides enough detail to ensure that a difficult feature has not been missed; Kidner provides a powerful check against confusing complexity with depth. When two commentators with such different formats converge on the same interpretation, the agreement is particularly significant.

Kidner also compensates for some of Goldingay’s theological eccentricities. His evangelical theology is more classically framed, and his instinct for Christian canonical reading will generally be safer for readers who share those commitments. Goldingay, however, compensates for Kidner’s inevitable limitations of date and brevity. He incorporates later scholarship, considerably more detailed Hebrew analysis, and a willingness to explore theological tensions Kidner did not have space to develop.

This pairing is less strong than Firth–Hossfeld/Zenger for detailed research on canonical shaping, since neither Goldingay nor Kidner makes editorial arrangement the central organising question. It is also less theologically balanced than Firth–Goldingay because Goldingay remains the main technical voice. Yet 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 moving back and forth between detailed study and concise theological judgment. It may be 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 entire Psalter; Goldingay gives me the independent and sometimes unsettling second opinion most likely to expose 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 exceptionally rewarding.

The larger principle is that complementarity matters more than simply adding ratings together. A good commentary pairing should not merely provide twice as many pages. It should make the reader better able to evaluate both commentators—and ultimately better able to read the Psalms themselves.