Customer Reviews

Psalms: Psalms 90-150 (Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms)

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

You might get the impression from the other reviewers that this commentary is written for a Jewish more than a Christian audience. It isn't. But it respects the fact that the psalms themselves were-- at least initially. Obviously those who preserved the psalter weren't just waiting for the incarnation in order to make sense of them. This collection of songs and prayers had shaped the spiritual lives of God's people long before Mary had her firstborn. It's at least worth reflecting on what they might have meant to those readers.

What's more, that task is not distinct from a historical-redemptive reading of the psalms. Yes, we read the OT in light of the NT. But we can't fully understand the NT without reading it in light of the OT as well. My own traditon (Reformed) has regularly mistaken a 16th century framework for a NT perspective when looking at the Old Testament. Goldingay refuses to go that route.

But by no means does he treat the Psalms in isolation from the rest of Scripture. A simple glance at the Scripture Index demonstrates that that isn't the case. Nearly every NT book is referenced. Moreover, examination of each psalm concludes with a section entitled "theological implications." These are clearly written from the perspective of someone writing for the church.

These are great commentaries.

basically, i am in full agreement with shane's review already posted. as a pastor who loves to read theological commentaries, i often find myself frustrated w/ goldingay's works (i am also reading thru his monster 3-volume ot theology and have the same problems as with his 3-volume treatise on the psalms). i do love his own translation of the hebrew which is wonderfully literal. he is not afraid to challenge interpretations he disagrees with, but sometimes it seems like he is more afraid of liberals who may be reading his commentaries than evangelicals.

for those who have a good grasp of biblical theology (aka redemptive/salvation history), goldingay has some great nuggets to be gleaned. but often he leaves me wanting more, and sometimes just plain frustrated that he misses the big picture of the psalms, namely its purpose in pointing forward to the coming of Messiah (like the rest of Scripture, cf. luke 24:25-27, 44, etc.). i have been waiting for the ultimate commentary on the psalms, one that is meaty, deals w/ the hebrew syntax, and yet relates it organically to the rest of the Scriptures, esp. the NT. honestly, i still prefer gerald wilson's vol. 1 of the psalmes in nivac (one can only wish he finished vol. 2 before going home to see Jesus). i am eagerly awaiting allan ross' work on psalms, as many others are either too short (e.g kidner of van gemeren), or just plain liberal.

if you have alot of money, get the 3-volume set. but i still think they are a good 'along-side' commentary, and not the 'go-to' ones.

w/ all other books of the Bible, the best thing is simply to study them for oneself. longman's intro to interpreting the psalms is excellent, as well as wilson's short article in "biblical theology: retrospect & prospect", ed. by hafemann, or even waltke's section in his ot theology.

as an 'academic wannabe', goldingay is ok. as an evangelical preacher, he can sometimes be exasperating.

i hope this helps.
in Christ and for His supreme glory
pastor ryan case

(Note: this review is based on all three volumes of Goldingay's commentary on the psalms.)

Goldingay's three volume commentary on the psalms is a scholarly resource when it comes to studying the psalter. In these commentaries, he discusses the textual, syntactical, and structural details of each psalm, as well as the (probable) historical context. There is a short glossary at the end of each volume which is helpful if the reader needs a brief definition of key terms in the psalms. Goldingay has utilized many different medieval, reformation, and modern commentaries on the psalms which helps make this set useful in some regards. Those are the strong points.

I do, however, have two major critiques of this commentary set that have to do with Goldingay's interpretive methodology.

First, Goldingay does not read the psalms from a NT point of view. In other words, these commentaries are not redemptive-historical or biblical-theological in any sense of the term. In fact, in the introduction (to vol. 1) he explicitly states that he does not "make the NT the filter or lens" through which he reads the psalms. He says reading the psalms through the lens of the NT silences the psalms' theology and spirituality. Of course, some may agree with Goldingay's methodology here; I simply want to point it out in case the reader is looking for a commentary that deals with how the NT ties into the psalms. This commentary series does not do that at all; in fact, the scripture indexes at the end of each volume only have a few references to NT passages.

The second major critique I have of this commentary set ties in with the previous one: Goldingay does not read the psalms as messianic, eschatological, or forward looking. For example, commenting on psalm 8 he writes that the psalm "does not refer to the Messiah." In his notes on psalm 22, Goldingay says "it is not a prophecy. The Messiah is not the primary referent of this text. The NT `wrenches it out of its setting.'" For psalm 110 he suggests linking the psalm to Jesus is to "ignore its meaning." In other words, Goldingay does not approach the psalter like the apostles did.

For these two reasons, I believe this commentary series is not helpful. Goldingay's "un-messianic" methodology also shows up in his application sections. He basically moralizes the psalms away by applying them to our setting without mentioning the NT, Jesus, the cross, or the resurrection. Time and again as I was reading his comments on many different psalms I was utterly frustrated by bare textual notes and odd gospel-less application. Every application just felt flat to me. If you believe the psalms are messianic, eschatological, and if you believe the apostles interpreted the psalms correctly (with Jesus at the center), you will most likely be quite disappointed with this series. In summary, I don't recommend this commentary set because it has very little to do with Jesus.

By the way, if you are looking for a better discussion of the psalms that do center on Jesus, check out Richard Belcher's "The Messiah and the Psalms," Geerhardus Vos' article "The Eschatology of the Psalter," Tremper Longman's "How to Read the Psalms," Mark Futato's "Interpreting the Psalms," the "NT Commentary on the OT" edited by Don Carson and Greg Beale, and of course Calvin and Luther's sermons and commentaries on the psalms (just to mention a few).

Goldingay has written an unreadable commentary series. Unfortunately, Goldingay cannot construct concise, clear sentences that communicate his message. Three examples alone may suffice:

"Here it is unusually set in contrast with some extending of the eyes that is already going on. Extending is often a hostile act, whether of the hand, the arm, or the swords; the extending of the eyes links with the talk of longing in v. 9" (vol. 1, pg. 242).

"It is not just human beings and animals that look to Yhwh. Subordinate divine beings (the kind mentioned in, e.g., 82:1 [2]; 95:3) as well as human beings do so" (vol. 1, pg. 510).

"As Yhwh's face shines out upon them, that issues in people seeing the gifts that issue from Yhwh's grace and generosity" (vol. 1, pg. 511)

As the examples indicate, Goldingay writes opaquely: few action verbs, few concrete subjects, nominalization of verbs, passive voice, ambiguous pronouns. Goldingay's messy syntax bogs down the commentaries, and creates an unnecessarily long and grueling read.

In short, Goldingay's volumes hopefully serve scholarship in one way: as an example of how not to write.