1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
- Published on Amazon.com
Format: Kindle Edition
The Word commentaries on Psalms proceed upon the grossly aberrant belief that meter (or rhythm as it prefers) is one of the primary forms of Hebrew poetry. Instead, as Berlin has observed (The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism), Biblical poetry lacks meter as far as we understand it. The only ancient Semitic poetic text that uses meter throughout is the Babylonian Theodicy (i.e., not Hebrew). Pardee declared that Ugaritic, which is extremely similar to Biblical Hebrew, has no meter at all. In an attempt to salvage some kind of meter from Biblical poetry, Watson (Classical Hebrew Poetry), suggests, very cautiously, that just maybe, though there is no regularity, there may sometimes be rythmn according to stress/accentuation. And, perhaps, there may be brief moments were something like a "qinah" exists or where stress, intonation, and other sound patterns form a kind of meter, but this is an exception that proves the rule. Meter is a classical Greek form of poetry, alien to ancient Hebrew, which the Word commentaries force the poetry into almost as if with a straight-jacket. Every translation of a psalm is treated to this violence, with its supposed meter relayed at the side. In the Introduction, the author adds a disclaimer that "the approach to meter in Hebrew poetry which has been adopted in this volume may seem to some to be rather old-fashioned," which I think it not strong enough of an admission! This is a blatant reliance upon scholarship centuries old, which understood close to nothing about historical grammar, had little to no truly ancient texts or comparative ancient near eastern examples, and was based on ideas and assumptions that were completely foreign to the language being studied. At least he admits that there is "no evidence that a theory or system of meter was ever articulated in ancient Israel," which begs the question why, then, such a theory or system would be applied to their texts!
And to further add insult to injury, the Word commentaries on the psalms proceed upon Lowth's tired and unhelpful categories of Hebrew poetry (synonymous, antithetical, and synthetic), which even Kugel admitted were vacuous, though he didn't do much better with his "line 2 says something more than line 1 did" (or as he called it "A and what's more B"). The declaration that "Lowth's system has been modified and corrected in a number of details, but his basic insights remain unchanged," is horrendously out-of-date and stupefyingly over-simplified to the point of rendering any poetic analysis of the psalms in these commentaries virtually pointless.
Despite these complete and utter failures, however, there is good that can be gleamed from them. What I like most is how they comment on and summarize other notable commentaries and articles so that one gets a good sense of the field of study and its ideas without having to do all the research oneself. Such work with secondary sources is the strength of these commentaries. I imagine they would be more than what a pastor needs to preach to a congregation, but those wishing for something more useful for research and investigation in the original languages and with primary texts should go elsewhere. This is a helpful grocery list of items that can make a tasty delicacy, but not the recipe for it.
Unfortunately, there are not very many good commentaries available for the book of Psalms. Dahood is wrong just as often as he is right (if not more so) and the old ICC commentaries only magnify the atrocities of the WBC. Until something better comes along, those looking for good commentaries on the psalms will find Hossfeld and Zenger's Hermeneia volumes far more satisfying.