Isaiah: A Commentary / Isaiah 1-39: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary / Idem, Isaiah 40-55: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Dec 2002 by Wegner, Paul D

Isaiah: A Commentary. By Brevard S. Childs. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001, 555 pp., $59.99. Isaiah 1-39: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. By Joseph Blenkinsopp. New York: Doubleday, 2000, 524 pp., $50.00. Idem, Isaiah 40-55: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 19A. New York: Doubleday, 2001, 411 pp., $45.00.

For the past 30 or 40 years, there has been a steady stream of commentaries on the book of Isaiah. In the past two years, however, there has been a sudden burst of commentaries: J. Blenkinsopp (2000-2002); W. A. M. Beuken (2000); K. Baltzer (2001); B. S. Childs (2001); J. Goldingay (2001); L. L. Walter and L. Walker (2002). This review examines the commentaries by Childs and Blenkinsopp. While they differ significantly in hermeneutics and perspectives on the book of Isaiah, in some ways they are quite similar: (1) they both have extensive bibliographies (even within each section) covering major works in German, French, and English; and (2) they have similar presuppositions as to how the text of Isaiah has developed, i.e. a core of Isaianic material was redacted and shaped into its present-day form. Childs emphasizes the final form of the text more than Blenkinsopp, but they both see the development of the text quite similarly.

For the past fifty years the primary emphasis on scholarship has been to dissect the various parts of the book of Isaiah into smaller and smaller units. It has only been in recent decades, after the seminal article by R. E. Clements entitled "The Unity of the Book of Isaiah" (Int 36 [1982] 117-29), that the final form of the book of Isaiah is being given attention once again (see Childs, pp. 1-5, 8-9, 16, etc.). Childs's understanding of canonical criticism, which puts the emphasis on the final form of the biblical text, is a corrective that has been needed for decades. However, his commentary is weighted toward the history of interpretation rather than on providing new direction for Isaianic studies. Childs concisely states his overall method as follows: "in my opinion, it is fully inadequate to find the unity of this book in a succession of redactional layers, each with its own agenda, which are never ultimately heard in concert as a whole.... In the end, it is the canonical text that is authoritative, not the process, nor the self-understanding of the interpreter" (p. 4). My only wish is that Childs would have further developed this concept throughout his commentary.

Childs is known for his thoroughness of research and his ability to succinctly analyze various positions, a great strength in this commentary. For anyone interested in the history of interpretation for the book of Isaiah in the past 20 years, Childs's commentary is a must-read. He spends little time, however, analyzing the various views or positions and often discounts other theories, including even some of his own older theories (e.g. pp. 233, 263, 264), with only a brief comment (e.g. pp. 8, 21, 29).

While Childs's overview of the history of Isaianic interpretation is this commentary's strength, it also contributes to its weakness in leaving little room for his own interpretation of the book. Perhaps there would have been more room for comment on textual issues if the commentary series had not chosen to include a retranslation of the book of Isaiah (taking more than one-quarter of the book's 547 pages), especially since new translations of the Bible have been appearing almost yearly. Childs's textual notes are so pared down that they give little of his rationale for choosing one reading over another (e.g. "b. The NEB emends the MT to read 'wine'" [p. 193]; "d. The Hebrew text has been slightly emended (cf. BHS)" [p. 1931; "17. The exact meaning of b^sup e^rit ^sup c^a(overscored)m is contested. The MT is often emended to `let roar' (vir^sup c^am) for the sake of coherence" [p. 315]). Even a brief comparison of Childs's notes with J. N. Oswalt's or J. D. W. Watts's indicates the weakness of his textual work. Childs has done such ground-breaking work in his book on OT theology, and yet, while his critique is informative, his commentary rarely goes into the type of detail necessary to critically evaluate the positions. Deeper discussion of the biblical text and a more thorough explanation of how the text fits together would be most welcome.

Childs appears to understand Isaiah 7, 9, and 11 as having been shaped to refer to a messiah, but, it is surprising that he interprets the "suffering servant" in 52:13-53:12 as the prophet (probably "second" Isaiah). However, he does draw an ontological connection between the "suffering servant" in Isa 52:13-53:12 and Jesus. Childs explains it this way: "It is significant to observe that in Acts 8, when the eunuch asked about the identity of the Isaianic servant, Philip did not simply identify him with Jesus of Nazareth. Rather, beginning with the scriptures, `he preached to him the good news of Jesus.' The suffering servant retains its theological significance within the Christian canon because it is inextricably linked in substance with the gospel of Jesus Christ" (p. 423). In some sense this is an attempt to bridge the gap between conservative scholars who see this as referring to Jesus and those who see it as someone else. The reader can be the judge as to whether this is an adequate interpretation of the passage, but at the very least Childs has seriously attempted to deal with the NT's use of this passage.