Francesca Stavrakopoulou, «Exploring the Garden of Uzza: Death, Burial and Ideologies of Kingship», Vol. 87 (2006) 1-21
The Garden of Uzza (2 Kgs 21,18.26) is commonly regarded as a pleasure garden
in or near Jerusalem which came to be used as a royal burial ground once the tombs
in the City of David had become full. However, in this article it is argued that the
religious and cultic significance of royal garden burials has been widely
overlooked. In drawing upon comparative evidence from the ancient Near East, it
is proposed that mortuary gardens played an ideological role within perceptions of
Judahite kingship. Biblical texts such as Isa 65,3-4; 66,17 and perhaps 1,29-30 refer
not to goddess worship, but to practices and sacred sites devoted to the royal dead.
Exploring the Garden of Uzza 5
that the garden’s designation recalls the character named Uzza
(variously rendered az[ or hz[ in MT), who was killed upon touching
the ark of God during its procession to the threshing floor, giving rise
to the toponym Perez-uzza (2 Sam 6,3-8; 1 Chr 13,7-11) (13); and lastly,
that the garden was a cult place dedicated to the Arabian deity al-
¿UzzË (14). Yet, whilst none of these proposals has proved persuasive
enough to attract widespread acceptance, the garden itself, as distinct
from its name, also warrants attention.
From earliest times, cultivated spaces filled with trees and plants
were accorded a special role in ancient Near Eastern cultures,
encapsulating the means of subsistence (protective shade and fertile
soils) within the controlled bounds of human endeavour. As symbols
of cultivated fertility, gardens were imbued with a notable religious
significance, as is evident in Mesopotamian texts describing the lush
gardens of the gods, which are watered by cosmic rivers and stocked
with fruits, spices and medicines, and references to temple gardens, in
which their divine owners were believed to enjoy walking, and in
which certain rituals were performed (15). The divine power and
controlling order manifested in gardens was also perceived in opposi-
tional relation to the mythic concept of the uncultivated wilderness, in
which chaotic malice might reside (16). Indeed, biblical portraits of the
Garden of Eden exhibit many of these inherited characteristics (17).
(13) E.g., I.W. PROVAN, 1 & 2 Kings (NIBC; Carlisle 1995) 269.
(14) J. GRAY, “The Desert God ¿At¯tr in the Literature and Religion of
Canaanâ€, JNES 8 (1949) 72-83, esp. 81; J.W. MCKAY, Religion in Judah under
the Assyrians, 732–609 BC (SBT 26; London 1973) 24-25, 95; T.R. HOBBS, 2
Kings (WBC 13; Waco, TX 1985) 309.
(15) See further D.J. WISEMAN, “Mesopotamian Gardensâ€, Anatolian Studies
33 (1983) 137-144; A.L. OPPENHEIM, “On Royal Gardens in Mesopotamiaâ€, JNES
24 (1965) 328-333. It may be that trees and plants grown in these gardens were
employed as offerings in the associated temple (so WISEMAN, “Mesopotamian
Gardensâ€, 141-142).
(16) Cf. M.S. SMITH, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism. Israel’s Polytheistic
Background and the Ugaritic Texts (Oxford – New York 2001) 28-29; N. WYATT,
“The Significance of the Burning Bushâ€, VT 36 (1986) 361-365. On the deity as
cultivator (e.g., Isa 41,19), see B. LANG, The Hebrew God. Portrait of an Ancient
Deity (New Haven – London 2002) 139-169.
(17) E.g., Gen 2,8–3,24; Ezek 28,13-16; 31,8-9. See M. DIETRICH, “Das
biblische Paradies und der babylonische Tempelgarten: Ãœberlegungen zur Lange
des Gartens Edenâ€, Das biblische Weltbild und seine altorientalischen Kontexte
(eds. B. EGO – B. JANOWSKI) (Tübingen 2001) 281-323; T. STORDALEN, Echoes of
Eden. Genesis 2–3 and Symbolism of the Eden Garden in Biblical Hebrew
FOLLOW US