Bruce K. Waltke and Fred G. Zaspel. <i>How to Read and Understand the Psalms</i>

This recent volume by Bruce Waltke and Fred Zaspel is a refreshing introduction to the complexities of psalm studies.The authors organize their book according to the various literary questions relevant to the Psalter, and they devote the bulk of their work to the form-critical genres of the psalms. They begin with an introductory chapter that expounds Ps 1, and then they follow that with a brief chapter on Christian hermeneutics and the Psalter. The next chapter focuses on the historical settings of individual psalms. Here, the authors discuss this subject via an exposition of Pss 3 and 4. They unpack Ps 3 in light of its historical superscription, and they deduce the historical context of Ps 4 through the details latent within its text. The fourth chapter introduces the “royal orientation of the Psalms.” The authors impress on readers that the Psalter is a royal and Davidic hymnbook. Individual Israelites did assume the Psalter’s words and make them their own; however, they did so by virtue of their covenant relationship to their king. Similarly, Christians sing the words through their covenant solidarity with Christ. This royal theme reappears throughout their analysis.The authors discuss in chapter 5 the liturgical setting of individual psalms. They focus their analysis primarily on the Songs of Ascent and enthronement Psalms (Pss 2 and 110, in particular). The sixth chapter unpacks the governing principles of Hebrew poetry: parallelism, brevity and terseness, and imagery and figures of speech. The bulk of the chapter, however, appropriately focuses on dynamic parallelism, tracing and applying the historical developments in psalm studies from Bishop Robert Lowth to James Kugel and Robert Alter. The seventh chapter introduces the basics of Hermann Gunkel’s form-criticism and proposes ways such an approach remains useful.The authors devote the next six chapters to the various form-critical categories. Within each of these lengthy chapters, they first summarize the main features of the genre and then follow up with close analyses of particularly relevant psalms. The chapters categorize various psalms into the following forms: praise psalms, petition-lament psalms, individual songs of grateful praise, songs of trust, messianic psalms, and didactic psalms.In chapter 14, the authors pivot away from genre categories to the rhetorical devices and structures of the Psalms. Then, in chapter 15, they tackle the final arrangement of the Psalter. The authors conclude their book with three appendixes. The first two appendixes are previously published articles by Waltke: “Superscripts, Postscripts, or Both” and “A Canonical Process Approach to the Psalms.” The third appendix is a two-page summary of psalm forms.I have a few exegetical quibbles with the work here and there. For example, I am unconvinced that grouping together Pss 3–8 and 9–14 is the only way to outline the first subsection of the book 1 (cf. p. 480). That reading is possible, but exegetes should take into account the close relationship of Pss 9 and 10. If we follow the LXX and connect them, that places Ps 8 at the middle of a group surrounded by Pss 3–7 and 9–14. Ps 8 then sticks out with its unique emphasis on creation in the midst of lament psalms. The effect is similar to Ps 19’s placement within 15–24. Perhaps the MT’s division of Ps 9 and 10 invites us to read the subsection both as 3–8/9–14 and as 3–7/8/9–14. Additionally, I currently read Pss 25–41 as a third subsection within book 1 centered on Ps33, with eight psalms on either side. Like Pss 8 and 19, Ps 33 has creational emphases that make it stand out in its context. I am open, however, to the possibility that multiple approaches are simultaneously legitimate. In the best forms of literature, differing outlines are not always mutually exclusive.The authors’ exposition of Ps110, however, is my primary object of critique. Their exegesis of the psalm is quite confusing. They advocate dividing the text of Ps 110 between vv. 1–3 and 4–7. Such a proposal would be reasonable (though, in my opinion, unconvincing), but their justification for the move is incomprehensible. They state on p. 125 that the proposed halves of the psalm have “seventy-four words in each.” I am uncertain what Waltke and Zaspel are referring to at this point; by my count Ps 110 contains thirty-one words in vv. 1–3 and thirty-four in vv. 4–7. Those numbers shift to twenty-nine and thirty-four if one omits the superscription from the count. I strongly suspect the authors intended to argue that each proposed half contains seventy-four syllables. The numbers in that case come much closer to their claim. Even still, by my count, they are off. I detect seventy-five syllables in vv. 1–3 and seventy-one in vv. 4–7. Without the superscript, those numbers change to seventy and seventy-one. Further difficulty arises with the question of counting the syllables in the tetragrammaton.Rather than divide the psalm on dubious phonological and numerical grounds, I would advocate a boundary marker readily apparent in the text. Verses 1 and 5 both reference an אדני at the right hand. The prepositions and vocalizations are slightly different, but the parallel is striking. It is hard to imagine a clearer textual cue or more fitting boundary marker.Aside from these minor scruples, I cannot think of any reason not to recommend this book. It is perfect for an undergraduate course on the Psalms. Its language and format are accessible. The content is analytical, not primarily devotional. The authors also provide ample examples of textual analysis. Overall, it makes good biblical-theological and Reformed sense of the Book of Psalms.