Abstract
The NICOT series has released a single-volume work on the entire corpus of the Psalms. Three authors each bring their own voice to the study. The introduction contains discussions on titles, authorship, canonical shape, poetics, and theology. Most of this section is written by Jacobson, with the exception of deClaissé-Walford’s contribution on the canonical shape of the Psalter. The authors employ the form-critical approaches of Claus Westermann and Walter Brueggemann while also expressing the individuality of each psalm (pp. 18–19). As is typical of form criticism, the authors try to uncover an early edition of the text. Their goal is not necessarily to reconstruct the original, but establish the text “at the beginning of the Masoretic tradition” (p. 5). In this commentary, the authors are partial to the canonical and narrative elements of the psalms.
The authors write about the psalms individually, rather than co-writing on each one. Jacobson comments on Psalms 1–21, 23–24, 27–30, 33–34, 36, 39–41, and 100–106. Throughout his writing, he prefers to interpret the psalms within their canonical setting, and he often advocates for messianic interpretations for individual psalms. deClaissé-Walford comments on Psalms 42–51 and all of Book V (107–150). Her contributions are valuable, particularly as she contextualizes the psalms that she reads through the lens of the exile and restoration of the Persian period. She sees the psalms as responses to two questions: “Who are we?” and “What are we to do?” (p. 23). Finally, Tanner writes on Psalms 22, 25–26, 31–32, 35, 37–38, 52–72, all of book III (73–89), and 90–99. In a similar fashion to deClaissé-Walford, Tanner interprets the psalms through the exile and suggests how the psalms could have helped with such a tragedy.
There are many positive aspects to this commentary on Psalms, and I can only highlight a few here. First, the forty-seven-page introduction was clear on initial discussions about the book, and it is not so technical that a student or layperson could not understand it. Throughout the introduction, the authors make clear interpretive decisions that attempt to be gender inclusive and theologically rich. Second, each book of the psalms has its own introduction that deals with the canonical and interpretive issues. Third, each individual psalm receives due attention, with general remarks describing genre, structure, and theme. Once they discuss these issues, the respective authors provide an original translation with textual and philological notes. The final section of each psalm is a reflection (Jacobson’s term) that each scholar provides in the commentary adhering to his or her own style and values. I particularly appreciate how readers receive different flavors of reflection from the different authors throughout the commentary.
Before leaving the positive and moving into adverse elements of the commentary, I mention a major trait of the volume that is both one of its biggest strengths and biggest weaknesses: the co-authorship. The reader of the commentary will get the value and insights of three important scholars. Each scholar has his or her own perceptions, and they each offer their own individual reflections to the reader. As valuable as gaining knowledge from multiple scholars may be, it can detract from reading. Readers may end up comparing and contrasting the writings from the individual authors, rather than gaining a blended knowledge about the psalms as a whole. Many commonalities do exist between the understandings of the authors, but each psalm (or small group of psalms) ends with reflections in which the variety of insights between the authors is evident.
Though the commentary contains many valuable elements, it has a couple of down sides as well. As this is a one-volume commentary on the entire Psalter, much is left to be desired, despite the commentary’s being over a thousand pages long. Yet the authors still give considerable depth in their analyses and theological reflections. Also, as I mentioned above, the attempt at gender neutrality is admirable; however, the alternating of “he” and “she” between paragraphs can detract from the reading. Perhaps switching between each psalm would have been a better treatment.
Overall, the authors’ efforts to interpret and expound on Psalms have succeeded. This commentary can be utilized by the pastor and seminarian alike. Neither will have much difficulty, if any at all, in understanding key concepts and interpretive moves that the authors value. This addition to the NICOT series will be one that students of Psalms can value for many years to come.