Abstract
Ignatius Jesudasan has written a unique monograph. He seeks to offer students and biblical scholars a novel interpretation of the Gospels based on his understanding of Genesis 2 and 3. He hopes to show that it is more efficacious to interpret the Gospels metaphorically than literally.
The monograph is divided into ten chapters. The first half of the book discusses midrash in general and argues that the story of Adam and Eve is a midrashic metaphor of Israel’s history. Chapters five through ten attempt to demonstrate how the Gospels retell the story about Israel, Adam, Eve, and the serpent.
Jesudasan appeals to Jacob Neusner’s research on rabbinic midrash. He explains that ‘biblical midrashic metaphor’ is the method he chooses to demonstrate his thesis. Jesudasan’s thesis divides into two main portions: 1. Deuteronomy 30:15-20 is the source the Yahwist author utilizes for Genesis 2:7-3:24. He also maintains that Adam and Eve are metaphorical representations of the patriarchs, and rulers of Israel and Judah. 2. The Gospels are similarly midrashic retellings of the Adamic story, because they often recast episodes from Israel’s history within descriptions of Jesus’ life. He also speculates that Paul interpreted the story about Adam and Eve literally and metaphorically.
Jesudasan is probably heading in the right direction by suggesting that some material in the Gospels may portray episodes from Israel’s history being repeated through narratives about Jesus. However, this does not necessarily mean that the gospels are metaphorically reinterpreting the stories about Adam and Eve. There are also additional flaws in his argumentation. He acknowledges that ‘midrash’ is an ambiguous category in endnote four on page 179, but he does not treat it as one when making his argument. Neither specific rabbinic midrashic texts nor Dead Sea Scrolls are mentioned.
The sources he offers as evidence do not sufficiently support his case. Jesudasan adopts Werner H. Schmidt’s view that the Pentateuch consists of four documentary sources with the following dates: J (950 BCE), E (800 BCE), D (7th century BCE), and P (550 BCE). According to Schmidt’s dating, Genesis 2:7-3:24 (J) predates Deuteronomy 30:15-20 (D) (page 187, note 54). This means Genesis 2:7-3:24 was produced before Deuteronomy 30:15-20. He might be able to salvage his argument by making a persuasive case for assigning D a date earlier than J. However, Jesudasan cannot currently legitimately contend that Genesis 2:7-3:24 is a midrash on Deuteronomy 30:15-20. Although Jesudasan suggests that Paul understood the story about Adam and Eve literally and metaphorically, he cites no evidence for the latter interpretation. The Gospels likewise treat Adam and Eve as real individuals (Mark 10:6-8; Matthew 19:4; Luke 3:38).
Overall, this monograph does not succeed in demonstrating its thesis. Although it does not make new valid contributions, it reinforces studies that suggest the Gospels reinterpret aspects of Israel’s history. Thus, this book is still a helpful resource.