Year: 2025
Type: article
Abstract: The study begins with the questions “Where was Paradise?” and “How was the Garden cultivated?”, and the relationship between different modes of interpretation. It compares the biblical data (Gen. 2) with patristic testimonies (John Chrysostom, Ambrose, Ephrem, Gregory of Nyssa, John of Damascus) and symbolic readings (Philo, Cyprian, Hippolytus), in order to assess whether the plurality of meanings generates confusion or coherence. Situated within the divergent approaches of these patristic authors—especially concerning literal and figurative aspects—I aim to outline an integral theological reading of the Eden tradition and of the aforementioned questions. The methods used in this research are comparative biblical and patristic exegesis, structured through a four-step framework: (1) retaining the literal sense when the text provides anchors (rivers, orientation); (2) shifting from description to vocation in the moral-liturgical sense (“to work”/“to keep”); (3) accepting the ineffable (2 Cor. 12) as a boundary; (4) articulating an ontology of paradisiacal matter. The findings of this study are as follows: Eden is an earthly reality, but one with transfigured materiality; “work” is an inner activity (obedience, contemplation) without toil; and the diversity of interpretations proves to be complementary: the literal anchors the “where/what”, while the spiritual illuminates the “why/how”, together avoiding both inert geography and ungrounded symbolism.
Source: Religions
DOI: 10.3390/rel16091200
Author: Alexandru Lazăr
Institution: Babeș-Bolyai University
Language: English
Subfield: Religious studies
Field: Arts and Humanities
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: gold
Estimated APC paid: $2,172
OpenAlex ID: W4414329619