Reading Isaiah: Poetry and Vision

by Peter D. Quinn-Miscall

Perfect for students, Reading Isaiah is a practical and nontechnical literary introduction to the book of Isaiah as a poem. Peter Quinn-Miscall translates much of the Hebrew text and focuses upon parallelism, figurative language, and the use of imagery.

Paperback

First published July 1, 2001

Reviews

[Benjamin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Though Quinn-Miscall does not consider the book of Isaiah to ave been written by Isaiah, he takes the book as a whole and investigates it from that perspective. Some very useful insights here.

[Steve Bauer · Rating 1 out of 5]

Peter D. Quinn-Miscall is an adjunt faculty member at the Iliff Scholl of Theology and the Aquinas Institute of St. Louis.

Background

One has to admire the transparency with which Quinn-Miscall begins his book. He openly admits that his book is not an in-depth commentary (4). Instead, his focus is to provide a “new way of reading Isaiah” (4). This new way seeks to reveal “the richness, intricacy, and complexity of Isaiah” (4). He explores the “variety of poetic devices, themes, and imagery” within the book (4). He concludes that Isaiah is to be taken as a whole and not divided up into two or more parts. He also concludes that the book was written about about a “fifth or even fourth century B.C.E. date” (4). Quinn-Miscall highlights the literary features that he will be emphasizing throughout the rest of the book: simile, metaphor, apostrophe, personification, synecdoche, and narrative/speeches.

The difficulty in evaluating this book is that Quin-Miscall seems to go out of his way to avoid any category in which one might put his book in. It’s not exegetical, though it does contain evidence of exegesis. It’s not narrative and literary, but does contain narrative elements. It’s not a theological treatise, but does contain theological assertions. So, in my evaluation I will proceed with an evaluation in two ways. First, I will evaluate him by the criteria he sets up in his book. Second, I will evaluate him by the unintended categories he sets for himself.

Intended Categories

There are basically two categories Quinn-Miscall sets up in his book:

Contrasts

Figures of speech

In the first category he is largely successful. In a dizzying array of diversity he abundantly shows how complex and contrasting the book of Isaiah is. In the second category he is largely unsuccessful. He introduces the literary features on p. 13: simile, metaphor, apostrophe, personification, and synecdoche. But these get only a passing reference throughout the book. He gives examples of most of these. But he doesn’t give the import of these examples. Or, to word it differently, he tells us the “what” with these examples. But he doesn’t tell us the “so what” with them.

Unintended Categories

While Quinn-Miscall seeks to extricate himself from any sort of critique or judgement by stating that he is not trying to make any waves in the areas of translation and theology, the reality is that he does make assertions in both areas. And when, as a professor in a school of theology he makes assertions, these assertions deserve scrutiny. I will limit my critique to these two areas then: translation and theology

Problematic Translations

Quinn-Miscall’s translations of some key passages in Isaiah are linguistically possible. But they are exegetically and contextually not probable. He translates Isaiah 34:14 as “Demons meet with phantoms, and a hairy beast calls to his friend. Indeed, there Lilith [a female demon] reposes and finds rest for herself.” He takes “desert dwellers” (צִיִּים֙) to mean “demons.” This is also how the LXX takes this difficult passage (“καὶ συναντήσουσι δαιμόνια ὀνοκενταύροις”(Isaiah 34:14 LXXG-ISA)) The real issue though is Lilith (לִּילִ֔ית). The word here is a hapax. And taking it as a female demon is going beyond Isaiah and into legend. The explanation from NIDOTTE is probably the best:

It is likely that לִילִית}‎ was an actual desert animal, a bat or owl, who was animistically endowed with demonic qualities by superstitious pagan worshipers. Isaiah’s reference, however, does not make ‏לִילִית‎ the object of worship. Rather, the term is used to symbolize the forthcoming desolation of judgment. (“לִילִית,” NIDOTTE, 2:788.)}

Problematic Theology

Quinn-Miscall’s translation is improbable for Isaiah 34:14. But his translation (and the theology it brings) for Isaiah 45:7 is untenable. He translates the verse, “I make peace and I create evil.” Then he writes, “ ‘I create evil “ is a shocking statement that is usually softened in translations...’ “ (93) I strongly disagree. All the translations except Quinn-Miscall and the KJV accurately reflect the use of the word in context. The word, “רָ֑ע” doesn’t always carry with it moral implications. Again, the NIDOTTE has a good reference here:

At times the adj. is used to accentuate the grievousness of something that is intrinsically harmful to one’s physical well-being, even though no moral judgment is being made by the use of the adj. itself. For example, a flaw is serious (Deut 15:21), an event is disastrous (1 Kgs 5:4 [18]), boils and other maladies are painful or severe (Deut 28:35, 59; Job 2:7; cf. Deut 7:15; 2 Chron 21:19), and the arrows of famine are deadly (Ezek 5:16). Even something that is ultimately beneficial can appear to its recipient to be bad or stern, such as Yahweh’s discipline that befalls a sinner (Prov 15:10). “רָעַע מֵרַע רַע רַע רֹעַ רָעָה},” NIDOTTE, 3:1,151.}

While there are other examples of this tendency of Quinn-Miscall to go in his own direction in theology, I’ll conclude with one example from Isaiah 53. Concerning the Great Servant Song, he writes, “[It] has received large amounts of attention over the years, not so the Song of the Woman in Chapter 54. This certainly reflects, in part, the fact that most commentators have been men with a decided male focus. I want to join efforts to counter this heavy male focus” (195). This is an unproved assertion. Not only this, but it is an ad hominem unproved assertion.

What then is the Great Servant Song speaking about in Isaiah 53:1-6? This is his assessment:

Because of the references to this Isaianic text in the Gospels, a longstanding Christian interpretation of Isiaah puts this poem in a christological context, reads the servant as Christ, and sees this as a process of vicarious suffering and atonement. “That is, that through his [the servant’s] own unmerited suffering he enabled others to escape the divine punishment that they deserved.” In Isaiah people are punished and suffer for their own iniquity. A large portion of Isaiah’s vision declares that the iniquity has been forgiven and that the time of desolation is over or soon to be over. In Isaiah and in the rest of the Hebrew Bible, there is no hint that God will accept the suffering of the innocent and righteous in place of the punishment of the guilty and wicked. People may well suffer unjustly or excessively—Jerusalem “has received from the Lord's hand double for all their sins” (40:2)—but not in place of the deserved punishment of others. (198)

There is a brutal irony in his words here. Lilith can be taken from mythology and put in his translation (33). And a Canaanite “version of creation” can be set alongside the Genesis account with equal veracity. But in the discussion of the meaning of Isaiah 53:1-6 he allows no room for the New Testament to speak.

But one doesn’t need to go outside of the Old Testament to see where Quinn-Miscall is in error. In Leviticus 17:11 there is innocent blood that is spilled to atone for sin. And even in Isaiah we see atonement. In that treasured section from Isaiah 40 we see the Lord proclaiming double comfort to Jerusalem. Why does he promise double comfort to her? Because her sin is pardoned (נִרְצָ֖ה עֲוֹנָ֑הּ). And it is pardoned because it is paid for twice-over (כִּפְלַ֖יִם). Quinn-Miscall concludes that the people are receiving double-punishment. But the context is clear their sins are paid for because the Lord made double payment.

Conclusion

Quinn-Miscall is successful in his goal of showing us the contrasts in Isaiah’s words. He is unsuccessful in his other goals of showing us the beauty and literary value of Isaiah’s poetry. When we add to this the translation excesses and theological errors it is difficult to recommend this book to either pastors or parishioners.

[Ben McFarland · Rating 3 out of 5]

Reading Isaiah: Poetry and Vision by Peter D. Quinn-Miscall is my "textbook" in a way. My university is reading Isaiah together during the Fall Quarter and I took a day-long class in Isaiah (given by my theology department colleague) about a week ago. I've always been fascinated by this sprawling, vivid and even contradictory book, and Quinn-Miscall's "textbook" is a good introduction.

Quinn-Miscall translates big bunches of text himself anew and resists the temptation to split up Isaiah into parts, instead looking at how different images are used throughout the book. This ties the book together rather than forcing it apart, and it's how I choose to look at it, too. The juxtaposition of the different images and parts of Isaiah is one of the powerful things about the book. I have the meta-image of a large stained glass window, with jagged chunks of glass, some blood-red, some sky blue, and some the green of a new tree; some faces from history painted in there; and the sun blazing behind it turning them to jewels and painting the reader with colored light. The fractal pattern of judgement-desolation-return is a useful pattern to see at all levels of Isaiah.

Quinn-Miscall's insistence on focusing on the poetry and only the poetry leads him to not even speculate about the speaker or referent at some points when I think he could go more out on a limb, so I think he could have loosened his own rules a bit for the benefit of people who want to know, "but what do you think?". But perhaps the whole point is that Quinn-Miscall himself fades away and when all's said and done, you're left with the vision of Isaiah itself. That's a good thing. This book helps you see it.