An Introduction to the Five Scrolls

Gladson’s An Introduction to the Five Scrolls provides introductions to each of the five books of the Megilloth, ordered according to the Jewish liturgical calendar. Writing primarily for seminary and graduate students, Gladson summarizes the critical consensus regarding each of these books. As he states, “[T]his work offers only a summary of a vast field of research. Nor have I tried to advance new, original insights into this literature” (xxvi). For each book, Gladson summarizes the state of critical scholarship regarding: (1) the historical and cultural setting (including discussions of authorship, date, provenance, and the state of the Hebrew text), (2) literary style (including genre, compositional theories, and rhetorical features, (3) theological interpretation (including historical-critical, feminist, and postmodern approaches), and (4) liturgical reception in both the Jewish and Christian traditions.

An Introduction to the Five Scrolls needs to be judged on what it intends to be, a summary of the common critical approach to each of the five books of the Megilloth. Nota bene: critical scholarship. This book provides the reader with what Gladson has advertised, nothing more; it provides a summary of critical theories, not preparation to exegete, teach, or preach.

Gladson largely succeeds at his stated task, and he should be praised for providing an easy reference for the state of the conversation as well as for a 100-page bibliography, a full 20% of the book. That said, this bibliography is also worth careful analysis, as An Introduction to the Five Scrolls is an update of Gladson’s 2009 work The Five Exotic Scrolls of the Hebrew Bible (Lewiston, NY: Mellen, 2009).

The first major critique regarding Gladson’s bibliography in light of his overall purpose is its inconsistency in updating, leaving this volume showing the age of the original edition. For instance, “recent years” often means the 1970s (113), language presumably carried over from the original work.

Looking more deeply, only between 5–6% of the sources in the bibliography are from 2010–the present, compared to over 38% from 1990–2009 and 26% from 1970–1989, each almost the same length of time. Even spotting Gladson a few years to come in the 2020s and another year or two for the volume to reach production, it is somewhat difficult to imagine that scholarly output on the Megilloth declined so precipitously in the past two decades. Further, some of the five books show much more interaction with recent scholarship than others, with Ruth, Song, and Lamentations receiving noticeably more new sources than Esther and Ecclesiastes. This imbalance at times impacts interpretation. For instance, Gladson seemingly accepts a metrical approach to Hebrew poetry (188, 223), an approach still extant, but increasingly questioned by modern scholars.

As a second major area of critique, at the level of the overall work, Gladson is to be commended for at least stating the traditional positions on issues such as authorship and providing the arguments for those positions. For instance, he does at least consider Solomonic authorship of some poems in the Song of Songs (14). That said, his consistent pattern in all five books is then to move on and conclude against that traditional position. In terms of summarizing current critical scholarship, of course, he has simply been accurate in doing so. Nor does one need to oppose every critical statement Gladson makes. For instance, an anthological approach to the Song (27, 50) can easily fit within traditional orthodoxy.

One does wish, though, that Gladson would also have considered being more critical of the critical positions. At times, he does exactly this. For instance, he accurately notes that resonance in a given time period does not mean that a text originates in that period (109), and that not all tensions in a text indicate multiple authors (258). Yet, too often, such critiques are missed, even when the consensus of critical scholarship is, in the end, just an assertion. For instance, Gladson views Ruth as having significant embellishment during an oral stage of transmission (109), something that is possible but completely unprovable, since the only version of Ruth available to the modern interpreter is the written text. Similarly, he argues that the different acrostic structures of the poems in Lamentations indicate different authors (195), seemingly ignoring the fact that a single author can vary his or her structure when writing different works.

At the more specific level, several factors make An Introduction to the Five Scrolls a somewhat inefficient read:

First, it can be difficult to discern when Gladson is giving his own opinion and when he is summarizing the opinions of others. He seems to argue that Qohelet is the author of Ecclesiastes (248), but then clearly says not (259, 292). These inconsistencies are likely not inconsistencies in his own thought, but simply the difficulty of tracking when he is speaking for himself (e.g., 75) and when he is summarizing others’ thoughts (e.g., 262). In many cases (e.g., 314), at least this reader had difficulty discerning.

Second, the vast amount of scholarship these books often makes the theological interpretation sections of An Introduction to the Five Scrolls into a proverbial laundry list, one paragraph after another of “This scholar says… that scholar says… (230, 298, 333).

Third, this volume is highly repetitive (e.g., 114 vs. 142, 113 vs. 160, and many others) and could have been streamlined. For instance, this reviewer threw up his hands the fourth time Gladson discussed the definition of an acrostic (218) in Lamentations and completely lost count of the number of times Gladson mentioned that Esther provides an etiology for Purim.

None of these factors eliminate the value in Gladson’s work. It does provide what it promises, an overall summary of critical scholarship. The reader should just not expect anything beyond what Gladson promises. For that reason, the volume will be more useful as a handy reference for professors or students and somewhat less useful as an aid for those working in preaching and ecclesial ministries.

William Fullilove
Reformed Theological Seminary, NYC