This commentary by Brevard S. Childs on Isaiah, despite being a relatively small volume, is detailed and thorough and offers one a great deal to think about. Every sentence carries weight and authority. Childs knows his subject and offers sane dialogue with the main academic positions, crisp argumentation, and helpful analyses of structural units. (I seldom found myself disagreeing with his choice of units.) Childs respects the text's integrity but unlike some scholars who tend to underplay critical questions, Childs' 'canonical' approach is sophisticated, revealing as it does that he is aware of what issues there are and why these issues exist. Childs strives to understand earlier units of the material in Isaiah *and* the rationale of the text in its final form. His thoughts are never conventional, always interesting and often persuasive. In his discussion on Is 7.14 he argues that neither 'virgin' (KJV) nor 'young woman' (NRSV) accurately translates the Hebrew, the former being too 'narrow' in scope and the later 'too broad' (66). If I one were to offer a criticism of the work, it would be that Childs is not always easy to follow. I think that he often assumes (incorrectly) that his readers know as much as he does about the subject he is discussing. That is a mistake. For example, on page 47 his thoughts lack clarity and the problem is not helped by the fact that paragraph three contains two serious typing errors (v.13 should be 1.3 and v.3 should be v.13; also on page 48 '17' should be 13). I gain the impression from reading the commentary that Childs is mostly writing for fellow academics, although others are invited to listen in as well. Perhaps there is a touch of scholarly hubris at play here. In comparison with other commentaries on Isaiah, I personally regard this work as second only to Brueggemann's commentary, which wrestles at greater length with the meaning of the text itself (as opposed to the scholarly debate around the text). Brueggemann is also more helpful for preachers.