Gardener of the Gods

In addition to original programming like Orange is the New Black and Stranger Things, Netflix also streams various documentaries (although not as many as Amazon Prime). One interesting documentary I’ve recently watched is a 3-part BBC Two series from 2011 called The Bible’s Buried Secrets hosted by Dr. Francesca Stravrakopoulou, Senior Lecturer in the Hebrew Bible at Exeter University. This is not the same program as the two-hour NOVA episode with the same name that aired on PBS in 2008 and is not to be confused with the similarly titled Buried Secrets of the Bible with Albert Lin that aired in March 2019 on the National Geographic channel. (Note to TV producers: try to be more original in naming your bible programs.)

Dr. Francesca Stravrakopoulou, host of BBC's 2011 series The Bible's Buried Secrets.

The first episode in the series (“Did King David’s Empire Exist?”) reviewed the archaeological evidence that cast doubt on the Bible’s claim to the extent – or even existence – of a United Kingdom under David and Solomon. The second episode (“Did God have a Wife?”) looked at evidence from archaeology and the Bible itself that belief in multiple gods in Israel was much more widespread prior to the Babylonian exile than is commonly believed. Neither episode presented anything to me that I had not previously encountered, although they could be eye-opening to those unfamiliar with the current state of biblical studies.

The Real Eden

Not so with the third episode, “The Real Garden of Eden”. Dr. Stravrakopoulous (hereafter, “Dr. S” for brevity’s sake) presents an intriguing hypothesis that the story of the Garden of Eden from Gen 2-3 is an allegory for the fall of Jerusalem. Understanding how she gets there requires following a chain of arguments.

Beginning in the British Museum, Dr. S shows us Assyrian reliefs presenting the king in his garden. The king’s palace was meant to be monumental, to show off the king’s power and wisdom. It was also considered a religious center. The king was the link between the people and the gods.

Gardens were built by the king to demonstrate his control over the environment, creating lushness in a barren environment. Gardens were built and maintained by the king as a place for the gods to reside.Only the king was granted privileged access to the garden to tend it and cultivate it.

Royal gardens were more like what we would think of as small parks and she takes us the garden surrounding the Alhambra in Spain for a modern example.

One of the gardens at the Alhambra palace in Granada, Spain.

The king was the gardener for the gods. In the Eden story, Adam plays the role of the king. There are still traces of this concept in Gen 2-3 where it states (Gen 2:15) Adam was put in the garden to “tend it and keep it.” Later (Gen 3:8), YHWH is seen enjoying his garden, walking about in it at “the breezy time of the day.”

Cherubs and Rivers

Another clue to the true identity of Eden comes after Adam and Eve are expelled from the garden. Gen 3:24 states that YHWH posted a cherub at the entrance to the garden to prevent humans from returning. Cherubs were winged creatures who accompanied the gods and marked their dwelling places. Back the British Museum to see the giant cherubs that flanked the entrance to the royal palace at Nimrud. Dr. S reminds us of the cherubs affixed to the top of the Ark of the Covenant and those that dominated the Holy of Holies in the temple.

Assyrian cherubs from the North-West Palace of Ashurnasirpal II (883-859 BCE) in Nimrud. These colossal statues are on permanent display at the British Museum in London (photo by author, 1996).

Dr. S’s final clue is in the names of the four rivers flowing out of Eden (Gen 2:10-14). One of these is the Gihon and the only Gihon we know of is a modest stream that provided water for Jerusalem in ancient times. This, she tells us, allows us to identify the true location of Eden as the Jerusalem temple. Just as the garden was known as the abode of the gods, the Jerusalem temple was where YHWH lived. It was the heart of religious life in ancient Judah, tended by the king. But in this case, the temple was a symbolic garden. The Jerusalem temple was built of cedar and decorated with palm trees, flowers, lilies, and pomegranates.

When the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in 587 BCE, it was a psychic blow to the survivors. They had lost their link with God and began to wonder how it could have happened. Some great sin on the part of the king must have led God to withdraw his presence from among his people. This became allegorized as Adam (representing the king) being cast out of God’s garden (representing the temple).

Backwards Argument

It’s an interesting theory and the individual components make sense, but I believe Dr. S drew the wrong conclusions. To be precise, I believe she got it backwards. Instead of the Eden story composed as an explanation for the loss of the temple, it makes more sense to me that the temple was built as an earthly model of the divine garden in which YHWH resides.

For Dr. S’s hypothesis to work, the Eden story would have to have been created after the fall of Jerusalem in 587 BCE. True, the majority of biblical scholars believe that the Bible as we have it today was compiled during the Babylonian Exile in the 6^th century BCE. But the Eden story is usually attributed to the Yahwist tradition, one of the oldest sources in the Bible dating from 8^th or 9^th century BCE.

My study of the Garden of Eden story convinces me that it is an etiological tale meant to explain why men have to labor to work the land, why women experience pain in childbirth, and so on. Dr. S never explains directly why these parts would be in an allegory of the last king of Judah. The closest she comes to that is a last-minute mention that the true villains were the serpent and the woman. The serpent was included to discredit serpent worship in the temple and Eve was included because women are usually blamed whenever a man misbehaves.

I couldn’t easily find an academic paper arguing Dr. S’s exact hypothesis but I did discover that a presentation of the Garden of Eden as a temple is not unheard of. While I believe it makes more sense that the temple was built on the model of the Garden of Eden than the Eden story was inspired by the destruction of the Jerusalem temple, there is value in exploring the ancient idea of the garden as a place where humans and the divine could co-exist. If nothing else, it challenges the common conception that Eden was simply meant to be a paradise for human beings.

Deacon Blues

Last week, Pope Francis agreed with a proposal to construct a commission to study the issue of women serving as permanent deacons. The diaconate is the first of three ranks of ordained ministry in the Roman Catholic Church (the other two ranks are that of priest and bishop). Deacons preparing for the priesthood are transitional deacons. Married men cannot be ordained as priests but can be ordained as permanent deacons. Acts 6:1-7 is usually cited as the origin of the diaconate but the seven men who were chosen are never referred to as deacons.

Hellenists vs. Hebrews

In something of a departure from previous episodes in Acts that spoke only of the irenic fellowship of the early Christian community in Jerusalem, for the first time Luke speaks of dissention in the ranks as the Hellenists lodged a complaint against the Hebrews that their widows were being neglected in the daily food distribution.

“Hellenists” are typically referred to as “Greek-speaking Jews.” That’s a rather sloppy designation, though, because although Paul was a Greek-speaking Jew, he identified as a Hebrew. The most commonly accepted description among biblical scholars is that the Hellenists spoke only Greek and followed Greek customs. The Hebrews spoke Hebrew and/or Aramaic in addition to Greek and followed traditional Jewish customs. So what we’re dealing with is a cultural difference in the community and not just a language difference. A modern-day equivalent would be English and Spanish-speaking segments in a church congregation, each with their own cultures and traditions.

Reading between the lines, there was probably more at issue than just food distribution to widows. Throughout the early chapters of Acts, Luke speaks of the apostles praying in the Temple. But in the remainder of Acts 6, Stephen will be accused of speaking against the Temple. And, in his speech that is supposed to be his defense against those charges, Stephen challenges the importance of the Temple: “Yet the Most High does not dwell in houses made with human hands” (7:48). We know from other sources that Jews of this period were sharply divided over the claim that the Jerusalem Temple was the only place on earth where sacrifices could be offered. So it is not too much of a stretch to think that the importance of the Temple could have been a divisive issue within the early Jerusalem Christian community, as well.

Apostles are not Waitstaff

For whatever reason, unintentional or otherwise, the Hellenists believed their widows were being shortchanged. Widows were considered the most vulnerable members of a community since they did not have a husband to look after their welfare. The Twelve responded to the complaint by calling a meeting of the entire community to explain, “It is not right that we should neglect the word of God in order to wait on tables.”

The apostles were responsible for how the community’s resources were spent and food inequality was a result of them paying inadequate attention to those duties. Rectifying this would require the apostles to spend more time on administrative functions and they felt that prayer and evangelizing were their proper roles.

Their proposed solution was that the community should select seven men of good standing who could be appointed to the task of seeing that the funds were distributed equitably. Why seven? It may have been in imitation of a Jewish town council (Josephus, Antiquities 4.8.14), but we really don’t know.

It is noteworthy that the seven names on Luke's list are Greek. While Greek names were common among Jews in Jerusalem, it is most likely in this instance that the Seven came from the Hellenist part of the community. Since the original charge of unfair treatment came from the Hellenist group, the best way to set that right was for the apostles to appoint administrators chosen by the Hellenists. The Hebrew group must have had their own administrators as well because after this time, Acts will speak of James the brother of Jesus and the elders alongside the apostles as authorities in Jerusalem.

“The apostles put their hands on the men and prayed for them” (Acts 6:6b). The imposition of hands is a gesture from the OT that expresses a blessing, spiritual gift, or installation to an office or rank. [image courtesy of www.freebibleimages.org]

Introducing the Seven

Of the seven names listed, we only hear more of Stephen and Philip. Stephen’s story will be told in the rest of chapter 6 and chapter 7. He will be known as the first Christian martyr. Philip will be featured prominently in Acts 8 and in 21:8 he will be called “the evangelist, one of the Seven.” He had four unmarried daughters with the gift of prophecy. Nicolaus is the only one of the Seven mentioned as being a convert to Judaism, so presumably the others were Jewish from birth. The rest are otherwise unknown.

The Greek word diakonia (ministry, service) is used several times in this passage referring to the daily service of food (6:1), serving tables (6:2), and the ministry of the word (6:4). Because of the frequent appearance of this term, the Seven have often been regarded as the first “deacons” of the church, but that name is not used for them here. And, although they were appointed to wait on tables, we never see Stephen and Philip function in that role. But we do see them engaged in the self-described role of the apostles, “the ministry of the Word” (6:4).

This has led biblical scholars to think Luke is misreading the tradition he received. In Mark 6:35-44, Jesus fed 5000 in a Jewish region and had twelve baskets leftover. A couple of chapters later (Mark 8:1-10), Jesus fed 4000 in a Gentile region and had seven baskets leftover. Many commentators see a numeric symbolism here: twelve = Israel, seven = Gentiles.

As discussed previously, Jesus intended the Twelve to symbolize the regathering of the twelve tribes. But there could only be twelve patriarchs for the new Israel. Others had to be appointed to evangelize to the Gentile world, and that’s where the Seven came in. Fluent in Greek and comfortable in the Gentile culture, these Hellenist apostles would help the Church spread to “all of Judea and Samaria and to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1: 8).