I can’t believe it. Within three years we have had two major commentaries on the whole of Isaiah from two of today’s most respected OT scholars. And for me, despite their many good features, they are both disappointing. (The other, incidentally, was Brueggemann’s two-volume commentary, Westminster, 1998.)

Childs’ is most famous for his introduction of ‘canonical approaches’ to OT study. His Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (1979) argued that the Bible is not just a collection of books, but Scripture or Canon for both Jewish and Christian communities. Consequently it is legitimate—necessary, in fact—to study the finished product. This means that the editorial contributions, both additions and arrangement of material, have great importance. While he leaves some important questions unanswered, this has been a most helpful contribution to OT study. So, although Childs believes that the book of Isaiah may have been written over a period of more than 200 years, it has been put together as one book and that is how we must read it.

As an example, consider Isaiah 7–11. It has certain recurring themes, notably significant children (7:3, 14–17; 8:1–10, 18; 9:6–7; 11:1ff) and the alternation of judgement and salvation. I would have expected an exposition of the section as a whole, with a demonstration of how each part contributes to the overall concern of the editors of the final text, for Childs speaks as a canonical interpreter. In dealing with, The Internal Coherence’ [of ch. 7] he says:

In my approach, the goal of interpretation is toward an understanding of the full richness of the various voices in this passage, but always in relation to the text’s final form. In other words, the aim is not to reconstruct an allegedly original oracle … [and discard the rest]. Rather, my concern is to analyze how the coercion of the text from the hearing of the earliest levels of tradition evoked further interpretative activity from its original tradents who sought to register the continual effect of the whole on each single text (63).

This gives an idea of the type of language Childs uses, and you can decide whether you find it attractive and comprehensible or not. Personally I do not; it seems often to lead to ambiguity and confusion rather than clarity. Nevertheless, Childs’ aim to show how an original message was understood and modified by succeeding readers/disciples/editors is promising and often successful.

However, ‘The Function of Chapter 7 in the context of Chapters 1–12’ is dealt with in half a page (cf. less than a page on ‘Introduction to Isaiah 1–12’), ‘Structure’ in eight lines, and the exposition of 7:1–25 looks suspiciously like other standard commentaries on Isaiah. There are definite insights here; there areobservations relating to the meaning of the text as we have it; but the broad sweep that I wanted is not there. The commentary proceeds to discuss the separate sections (8:1–22; 8:23–9:6; 9:7–10:4; 10:5–34; 11:1–16), without even offering a proper explanation for the connections between 10:1–4 and 5:8–25, though he criticises others for their inadequacies.

Throughout the commentary there are references to other scholars, but Childs rarely tells us exactly what they said and why they are wrong. One example would be references to the commentaries of Motyer and Watts who ‘have not recognised the extent of the problem’ and whose ‘synchronic readings’ have not produced ‘much help’. There is no presentation, appreciation or criticism of the extensive structural theories that both these very different scholars present (and about which I have strong reservations). This makes for a very frustrating commentary.

The commentary contains much useful material and must be read by all serious students of Isaiah (there’s a quote for a dust jacket!) but my overall verdict is ‘my high hopes were not realised’.

---