Visit https://ebookfinal.

com to download the full version and

explore more ebook

A New Glimpse of Day One Intertextuality History of

Interpretation and Genesis 1 1 5 1st Edition S. D.
Giere

_____ Click the link below to download _____

https://ebookfinal.com/download/a-new-glimpse-of-day-
one-intertextuality-history-of-interpretation-and-
genesis-1-1-5-1st-edition-s-d-giere/

Explore and download more ebook at ebookfinal.com

Here are some recommended products that might interest you.
You can download now and explore!

The joy of science Part 1 of 5 Hazen

https://ebookfinal.com/download/the-joy-of-science-part-1-of-5-hazen/

ebookfinal.com

Frommer s Stockholm Day by Day 1 Pap/Map Edition Mary Anne

Evans

https://ebookfinal.com/download/frommer-s-stockholm-day-by-day-1-pap-
map-edition-mary-anne-evans/

ebookfinal.com

Java 1 5 Tiger A Developer s Notebook 1st ed Edition David

Flanagan

https://ebookfinal.com/download/java-1-5-tiger-a-developer-s-
notebook-1st-ed-edition-david-flanagan/

ebookfinal.com

Grandmaster Repertoire 1 1 d4 Volume One 1st Edition Boris

Avrukh

https://ebookfinal.com/download/grandmaster-repertoire-1-1-d4-volume-
one-1st-edition-boris-avrukh/

ebookfinal.com
The conceptual evolution of DSM 5 1. ed Edition Regier

https://ebookfinal.com/download/the-conceptual-evolution-of-
dsm-5-1-ed-edition-regier/

ebookfinal.com

Russian Stage One Live from Russia Vol 1 2nd Edition Maria
D Lekic

https://ebookfinal.com/download/russian-stage-one-live-from-russia-
vol-1-2nd-edition-maria-d-lekic/

ebookfinal.com

The Bedford Boys One American Town s Ultimate D Day

Sacrifice 1st Edition Alex Kershaw

https://ebookfinal.com/download/the-bedford-boys-one-american-town-s-
ultimate-d-day-sacrifice-1st-edition-alex-kershaw/

ebookfinal.com

Outside of Eden Cain in the Ancient Versions of Genesis 4

1 16 M. W. Scarlata

https://ebookfinal.com/download/outside-of-eden-cain-in-the-ancient-
versions-of-genesis-4-1-16-m-w-scarlata/

ebookfinal.com

Encyclopedia of Children and Childhood In History and

Society 1 1st Edition Paula S. Fass

https://ebookfinal.com/download/encyclopedia-of-children-and-
childhood-in-history-and-society-1-1st-edition-paula-s-fass/

ebookfinal.com
A New Glimpse of Day One Intertextuality History of
Interpretation and Genesis 1 1 5 1st Edition S. D. Giere
Digital Instant Download
Author(s): S. D. Giere
ISBN(s): 9783110224337, 311022433X
Edition: 1
File Details: PDF, 2.65 MB
Year: 2009
Language: english
 S. D. Giere
A New Glimpse of Day One
Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die
neutestamentliche Wissenschaft
und die Kunde der älteren Kirche

Herausgegeben von
James D. G. Dunn · Carl R. Holladay
Hermann Lichtenberger · Jens Schröter
Gregory E. Sterling · Michael Wolter

Band 172

≥
Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York
 S. D. Giere

A New Glimpse of Day One

Intertextuality, History of Interpretation,
and Genesis 1.1-5

≥
Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York
 앪
앝 Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines
of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability.

ISSN 0171-6441
ISBN 978-3-11-022433-7

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie;
detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de.

쑔 Copyright 2009 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, D-10785 Berlin
All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book
may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,
including photocopy, recording or any information storage and retrieval system, without permis-
sion in writing from the publisher.
Printed in Germany
Cover design: Christopher Schneider, Laufen
 For
Amy LuAnn,
Isaac Oban,
and
Shonagh Josephine
 Foreword
Foreword

Foreword
This book flows out of my commitment to and interest in the on-going
interpretation of sacred texts, especially within and among religious
communities. In 1997, I completed a thesis at Wartburg Theological
Seminary, Dubuque, Iowa, USA, that explores the possibility of a
midrashic relationship between Leviticus 19 and the New Testament
book of James. While the results of the thesis were not earth-shattering,
during the process of writing I began to consider more fully the
hermeneutical process from different angles – especially the
engagement of scripture with scripture1 and dynamic of the relation of
the reader with scripture.2 This curiosity about the hermeneutical
process was only further peaked during my experience as a parish
pastor and teacher, in particular reading texts with parishioners,
students, and colleagues. To these, my fellow readers past and present,
I owe a great deal. I hope that this little project adds to the
conversation.
What follows is a revision of my doctoral thesis completed in 2006
at St Mary’s College, University of St. Andrews, under the supervision
of Prof. James R. Davila, to whom I am indebted for his guidance and
wisdom and for whom I have great admiration as a scholar who
embodies integrity to both text and academy. I am also appreciative of
the examiners of this project as a doctoral thesis: Dr. Mark W. Elliott
and Dr. Jennifer M. Dines. Their careful critique and input helped
make this a better work. It also has been a pleasure to work with
Carsten Burfeind and Sabina Dabrowski of Walter de Gruyter. Their
suggestions along with those of the editors of Beihefte zur Zeitschrift
für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren
Kirche have made this a stronger work.
Since the advent of this project eight years ago I have also benefited
from many colleagues to whom I wish to extend my thanks. Most
recently, I am appreciative of my colleagues at Wartburg Theological

1 M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985).

2 D. Boyarin, Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash, (Bloomington, IN: Indiana
University Press, 1990).
viii Foreword

Seminary, Dubuque, Iowa, USA, for their on-going support. As this

project was reaching its germination as a doctoral thesis, I enjoyed the
collegiality of and conversations with colleagues in the Religion
Department of Concordia College, Moorhead, Minnesota, USA, whose
hospitality and support were most appreciated. Also, thanks to those
who gathered regularly at the pub formerly known as Lafferty’s for
conversations that intermittently bore intellectual fruit, often granted
perspective, and always provided release.
Throughout the writing and revision of this book I have come to
appreciate more fully the profound value of the librarian. The
hospitality and helpfulness of Colin Bovaird and Lynda Kinloch at the
King James Library, St Mary’s College, made work and life more
enjoyable. Also, in the writing-up of the project, I worked out of the
Carl B. Ylvisaker Library, Concordia College. While the Ylvisaker
Library is not a research library, Leah Anderson by way of interlibrary
loan greatly helped the completion of this project. Most recently, I am
thankful to Susan Ebertz and Karen Lull at the Reu Memorial Library,
Wartburg Theological Seminary. And to those who make institutions
work – Debbie Smith, Susan Millar, and Margot Clement at St Mary’s,
and Mary Thornton at Concordia – many thanks. I also wish to express
my thanks to my student assistant, William Rosin, for his help in
preparing the indices.
I also grateful to many who have supported this project – the
Division for Education of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America,
in particular the Rev. Dr. Jonathan Strandjord, the foundation of Elim
Lutheran Church, Fargo, North Dakota, and Dennis and Sandy Giere,
my father and step-mother. As much, I would like to thank Dale and
Ann Current, my in-laws, who by their help with childcare and general
moral support made the intial completion of this thesis possible and
lightened the trauma that these things can cause to families.
I owe my greatest gratitude to my wife, Amy Current, for her
support, careful reading, helpful critique, and constant companionship,
and to our children, Isaac Oban and Shonagh Josephine. They have
endured my long hours away, preoccupation, and the general grind. To
them I extend my heartfelt thankfulness and love, and it is to them that
I dedicate this work.
Finally, while the work and ideas of many come together in this
study, any and all errors are mine.

S D Giere
15 October 2009
 Table of Contents
Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Foreword ....................................................................................... vii

Table of Contents............................................................................ ix

Abbreviations ................................................................................xv

Chapter 1 Intertextuality & Method............................................. 1

1.1 Initial Thoughts ......................................................................................... 1
1.2 Intertextuality ............................................................................................2
1.2.1 Toward Understanding Intertextuality ........................................3
1.2.2 A Viable Intertextuality & The History of
Interpretation ..................................................................................... 8
1.2.3 History, Tapestry, Lacunae ........................................................... 13

Chapter 2 Genesis 1.1-5 in the Hebrew Bible ............................ 16

2.1 Considering Commonality..................................................................... 17
2.2 A Look at MT Genesis 1.1-5 ................................................................... 18
2.2.1 MT Genesis 1.1 ............................................................................... 20
2.2.2 MT Genesis 1.2 ............................................................................... 21
2.2.3 MT Genesis 1.3 ............................................................................... 25
2.2.4 MT Genesis 1.4 ............................................................................... 26
2.2.5 MT Genesis 1.5 ............................................................................... 26
2.2.6 The Stability of the Hebrew Text of Genesis 1.1-5 ..................... 27
2.3 Creation Intertexts of MT Genesis 1.1-5 ............................................... 28
2.3.1 Psalm 104.1-35 ................................................................................ 30
2.3.2 Job 38.4-38 ....................................................................................... 32
2.3.3 Isaiah 42.5-9 .................................................................................... 35
2.3.4 Psalm 148.1-14 ................................................................................ 36
2.3.5 Job 26.5-14 ....................................................................................... 37
2.3.6 2 Samuel 22.7-20 & Psalm 18.7-20 [EV 6-19] .............................. 39
2.3.7 Isaiah 40.12-31 ................................................................................ 40
x Table of Contents

2.3.8 Amos 5.8-9 ...................................................................................... 41

2.3.9 Proverbs 8.22-31 ............................................................................. 42
2.3.10 Isaiah 44.24-45.8 ........................................................................... 44
2.3.11 Psalm 136.1-9 ................................................................................ 45
2.3.12 Isaiah 45.18-19 .............................................................................. 46
2.3.13 Jeremiah 4.23-28 ........................................................................... 48
2.3.14 Psalm 33.6-9 .................................................................................. 49
2.3.15 Isaiah 51.4-16 ................................................................................ 50
2.3.16 Proverbs 30.4 ................................................................................ 51
2.3.17 Jeremiah 10.11-13 & 51.15-16...................................................... 51
2.3.18 Psalm 135.5-7 ................................................................................ 52
2.3.19 Job 3.3-10 ....................................................................................... 53
2.3.20 Psalm 74.12-17 .............................................................................. 54
2.3.21 Amos 4.13...................................................................................... 55
2.3.22 Zechariah 12.1 .............................................................................. 55
2.3.23 Amos 9.5-6 .................................................................................... 55
2.3.24 Isaiah 48.12-13 .............................................................................. 56
2.3.25 Proverbs 3.19-20 ........................................................................... 56
2.3.26 Nehemiah 9.6 ............................................................................... 57
2.3.27 Job 28.12-14 ................................................................................... 57
2.4 Conclusions – The Larger Hebrew Tapestry ....................................... 58
2.4.1 YHWH’s place and/or action .......................................................... 58
2.4.2 Observations on Form ................................................................... 60
2.4.3 Use of MT Gen 1.1-5 Vocabulary ................................................. 61
2.4.4 Creative Forces External to YHWH .............................................. 63
2.4.5 Creation & Temple ........................................................................ 65
2.4.6 A Final Word .................................................................................. 66

Chapter 3 Genesis 1.1-5 in Greek Equivalents of Texts

in the Hebrew Bible ................................................................ 67
3.1 ‚Septuagint‛ ............................................................................................ 68
3.2 Considering Commonality..................................................................... 72
3.3 A Look at LXX Genesis 1.1-5 .................................................................. 72
3.3.1 LXX Genesis 1.1 ............................................................................. 74
3.3.2 LXX Genesis 1.2 ............................................................................. 76
3.3.3 LXX Genesis 1.3 ............................................................................. 78
3.3.4 LXX Genesis 1.4 ............................................................................. 79
3.3.5 LXX Genesis 1.1-5 .......................................................................... 80
3.4 Intertexts of LXX Genesis 1.1-5 .............................................................. 80
3.4.1 Psalm 103.1-35 (MT Ps 104) .......................................................... 83
3.4.2 Isaiah 42.5-9 .................................................................................... 91
 Table of Contents xi

3.4.3 Proverbs 8.22-31 ............................................................................. 92

3.4.4 Isaiah 44.24-45.8 ............................................................................. 95
3.4.5 Isaiah 51.9-16 .................................................................................. 98
3.4.6 Psalm 148.1-14 ................................................................................ 99
3.4.7 Isaiah 40.12-26 .............................................................................. 101
3.4.8 Job 38.4-38 ..................................................................................... 104
3.4.9 Psalm 17.7-18 (MT Psalm 18) ..................................................... 111
3.4.10 2 Kingdoms 22.7-18 ................................................................... 112
3.4.11 Jeremiah 10.11-13 ....................................................................... 115
3.4.12 Jeremiah 28.15-16 ....................................................................... 116
3.4.13 Amos 5.7-9 .................................................................................. 117
3.4.14 Psalm 32.6-9 (MT Ps 33) ............................................................ 119
3.4.15 Psalm 73.12-17 (MT Psalm 74) ................................................. 120
3.4.16 Isaiah 45.18-19 ............................................................................ 122
3.4.17 Psalm 134.5-7 (MT Psalm 135) ................................................. 123
3.4.18 Exodus 20.11 ............................................................................... 124
3.4.19 Exodus 31.17 ............................................................................... 125
3.4.20 Zechariah 12.1 ............................................................................ 125
3.4.21 Amos 9.5-6 .................................................................................. 126
3.4.22 Job 3.3-10 ..................................................................................... 127
3.4.23 Psalm 76.17-21 (MT Psalm 77) ................................................. 129
3.4.24 Job 37.15 ...................................................................................... 130
3.4.25 Job 33.4 ........................................................................................ 131
3.4.26 Excursus on Job 26: When Origen’s Asterisked
Materials are Omitted ................................................................... 132
3.5 Conclusions – The Larger Greek Tapestry ......................................... 136
3.5.1 God’s Place and/or Action .......................................................... 136
3.5.2 Observations on Form ................................................................. 138
3.5.3 Uses of LXX Genesis 1.1-5 Vocabulary ..................................... 138
3.5.4 Creative Forces External to God ................................................ 140
3.5.5 Creation & Temple ...................................................................... 140

Chapter 4 Intertextual Afterlives of Genesis 1.1-5 in

Hebrew ................................................................................... 142
4.1 Hebrew Afterlives ................................................................................. 144
4.1.1 1QM x.8-18 ................................................................................... 145
4.1.2 1QHa xx.4-11 ................................................................................. 149
4.1.3 1QHa ix.7-20.................................................................................. 152
4.1.4 4QWorks of God (4Q392) frag. 1 ............................................... 156
4.1.5 Rule of the Community (1QS iii.13-iv.1) ................................... 160
4.1.6 Ben Sira 16.16-23 (MSA).............................................................. 166
xii Table of Contents

4.1.7 1QHa v.13-19 ................................................................................. 168

4.1.8 4QJubileesa v.1-11 (4Q216 12 ii -13) (= Jub 2.1-3)...................... 171
4.1.9 4QNon-Canonical Psalms B (4Q381) frag. 1 ............................ 174
4.1.10 Hymn to the Creator 11QPsa (11Q5 xxvi.9-15) ......................... 177
4.1.11 4QSongs of the Sageb (4Q511) frag. 30 .................................... 184
4.1.12 4QSapiential Hymn (4Q411) frag. 1 ii ..................................... 187
4.1.13 4QMeditation on Creation A (4Q303) frag. 1 ......................... 189
4.1.14 4QWords of the Luminariesa (4Q504) (4QDibHama)
frags. 1-2 iii recto 2-10 .................................................................... 193
4.1.15 4QInstructionb (4Q416) frag. 1 ................................................. 195
4.1.16 Additional Texts ......................................................................... 199
4.1.16.1 Ben Sira 15.14 .................................................................... 199
4.1.16.2 Ben Sira 41.10 .................................................................... 200
4.1.16.3 1QM xvii.4-9 ..................................................................... 201
4.1.17 Excursus: Intertexts in the Mishnah ........................................ 203
4.1.17.1 Mishnah Hullin 5.5 ........................................................... 204
4.1.17.2 Mishnah Berakoth 9.2 ....................................................... 205
4.2 Conclusions ............................................................................................ 206
4.2.1 Re-Tellings of Genesis 1.1-5 ........................................................ 206
4.2.2 Methods of Creation.................................................................... 206
4.2.2.1 Stretching the Heavens ..................................................... 206
4.2.2.2 Creation by Boundrification ............................................. 207
4.2.2.3 Creation by Word/Speech ................................................. 207
4.2.2.4 Creation by Wisdom / Knowledge .................................. 208
4.2.3 Creation & Angels ....................................................................... 209
4.2.4 The Uses of  .................................................................... 210
4.2.5 The Nominalization of  .................................................. 211

Chapter 5 Intertextual Afterlives of Genesis 1.1-5 in

Greek ....................................................................................... 212
5.1 Jewish Texts ............................................................................................ 213
5.1.1 Philo, De opificio mundi 26-35...................................................... 213
5.1.2 Jubilees 2.2-3 .................................................................................. 220
5.1.3 Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 1.27-29 ...................................... 223
5.1.4 Philo, De somniis 1.72-76 ............................................................. 225
5.1.5 Philo, De gigantibus 22-23 ............................................................ 228
5.1.6 Philo, Quis rerum divinarum heres 163b-164 .............................. 231
5.1.7 Joseph and Aseneth 12.1-2 ............................................................. 232
5.1.8 Addition to Esther A.4-11 ........................................................... 235
5.1.9 Josephus, Contra Apionem 2.190-192 .......................................... 238
5.1.10 Sirach 24.1-12.............................................................................. 239
 Table of Contents xiii

5.1.11 2 Maccabees 7.28 ........................................................................ 242

5.1.12 Prayer of Manasseh 1-4 ............................................................. 244
5.1.13 Sirach 1.1-10 ................................................................................ 246
5.1.14 Additional Jewish Texts ............................................................ 248
5.1.14.1 1 Enoch 17.1-19.3 ............................................................... 248
5.1.14.2 1 Enoch 21.1-3 .................................................................... 249
5.1.14.3 Philo, Quod Deus sit immutabilis 58 ................................ 249
5.1.14.4 Philo, De aeternitate mundi 17-19 .................................... 250
5.1.14.5 Sirach 33.7-15 .................................................................... 250
5.2 Christian Texts ....................................................................................... 251
5.2.1 Epistle of Diognetus 7.2 ................................................................. 251
5.2.2 Colossians 1.15-20 ........................................................................ 254
5.2.3 1 Clement 20.1-12 .......................................................................... 257
5.2.4 1 Clement 33.1-8 ............................................................................ 260
5.2.5 John 1.1-5 ...................................................................................... 262
5.2.6 Shepherd of Hermas Visions 3.4 ................................................. 265
5.2.7 Sibylline Oracle 1.5-21................................................................... 267
5.2.8 Additional Christian Texts ......................................................... 270
5.2.8.1 Ignatius, To the Ephesians 19.1-3 ........................................ 270
5.2.8.2 Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 129.1-4 .................... 271
5.2.8.3 Sibylline Oracle 3.8-23 ......................................................... 271
5.3 Conclusions ............................................................................................ 271
5.3.1 Re-tellings of Genesis 1.1-5......................................................... 272
5.3.2 Methods of Creation.................................................................... 273
5.3.2.1 Creation by Boundrification ............................................. 273
5.3.2.2 Creation by Word/Speech ................................................. 274
5.3.3 Creation Involving a first-figure (Wisdom / Christ-
figure) .............................................................................................. 276
5.3.4 The Invisible - o` avo,ratoj .............................................................. 277
5.3.5 Creatio ex nihilo ............................................................................. 278

Chapter 6 The Tapestries of Genesis 1.1-5 ............................... 280

6.1 The Question of Method ...................................................................... 281
6.2 The Intertextuality of MT Gen 1.1-5 in the Hebrew Bible ................ 282
6.3 The Intertextuality of LXX Gen 1.1-5 in the Greek
Equivalents of the Hebrew Bible ........................................................ 284
6.4 The Intertexts of MT Gen 1.1-5 compared with its
Intertextual Afterlives .......................................................................... 286
6.5 The Intertexts of LXX Gen 1.1-5 compared with its
Intertextual Afterlives .......................................................................... 289
6.6 The Role of Language ........................................................................... 291
6.7 Some Final Thoughts ............................................................................ 292
xiv Table of Contents

Appendix A Intertextual Markers of Genesis 1.1-5

throughout the Hebrew Bible ............................................. 294

Appendix B Intertextual Markers of LXX Genesis 1.1-5

throughout the Greek Equivalents of Texts in the
Hebrew Bible ......................................................................... 304

Appendix C Additional Texts for Chapter 5 .......................... 314

Jewish Texts .................................................................................................. 314
1 Enoch 17.1-19.3 ................................................................................... 314
1 Enoch 21.1-3 ........................................................................................ 317
Philo, Quod Deus sit immutabilis 58 ..................................................... 317
Philo, Quis rerum divinarum heres 122 ................................................. 318
Philo, De aeternitate mundi 17-19 ......................................................... 318
Sirach 33.7-15......................................................................................... 319
Christian Texts ............................................................................................. 321
Ignatius, To the Ephesians 19.1-3 .......................................................... 321
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 129.1-4 ....................................... 322
Sibylline Oracle 3.8-23.......................................................................... 323

Bibliography ................................................................................ 325

Index ............................................................................................. 342

Subjects .................................................................................................. 342
Modern Authors ................................................................................... 344
Ancient Sources .................................................................................... 347
 Abbreviations
Abbreviations

AB Anchor Bible
ABRL Anchor Bible Reference Library
AJSL American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature
AJT Asia Journal of Theology
APOT The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament.
Edited by R.H. Charles. 2 vols. Oxford, 1913.
Aug Augustinianum
BDB Brown, F., S.R. Driver, C.A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English
Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford, 1907.
Bib Biblica
BibInt Biblical Interpretation
BIOSCS Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and
Cognate Studies
BJS Brown Judaic Studies
BZNW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche
Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche
CahRB Cahiers de la Revue biblique
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
CBQMS Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series
CRINT Compendia rerum iudaircarum ad Novum Testamentum
DJD Discoveries in the Judean Desert
DSD Dead Sea Discoveries
ECDSS Eerdmans Commentaries on the Dead Sea Scrolls
ESLL Educational Studies in Language and Literature
ExAud Ex audito
ExpTim Expository Times
FOTL Forms of Old Testament Literature
GTJ Grace Theological Journal
HAR Hebrew Annual Review
HDR Harvard Dissertations in Religion
HeyJ Heythrop Journal
HSS Harvard Semitic Studies
HTR Harvard Theological Review
HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual
ICC International Critical Commentary
xvi Abbreviations

Abbreviations
IEJ Israel Exploration Journal
Int Interpretation
Jastrow Jastrow, M. A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli
and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature. 2nd ed. New
York, 1903.
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JECS Journal of Early Christian Studies
JJS Journal of Jewish Studies
JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies
JNSL Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages
JQR Jewish Quarterly Review
JSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and
Roman Periods
JSJSup Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian,
Hellenistic, and Roman Periods: Supplement Series
JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement
Series
JSP Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha
JSS Journal of Semitic Studies
JSSMS Journal of Semitic Studies Monograph Series
JTS Journal of Theological Studies
Judaism Judaism
LCL Loeb Classical Library
LDSS Literature of the Dead Sea Scrolls
LEC Library of Early Christianity
LSJ Liddell, H.G., R. Scott, and H.S. Jones, A Greek-English
Lexicon. 9th edition with revised supplement. Oxford,
1996.
LXX Septuagint
MT Masoretic Text
NCB New Century Bible
NTS New Testament Studies
Mils Milltown Studies
OstSt Ostkirchlichen Studien
OTL Old Testament Library
OTP Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by J. H. Charles-
worth. 2 vols. New York, 1983.
OtSt Oudtestamentische Studiën
PVTG Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graece
RB Revue Biblique
 Abbreviations xvii

RevQ Revue de Qumran

RHR Revue de l'Histoire des Religions
SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series
SBLMS Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series
SBLSCS Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate
Studies
SBLTCS Society of Biblical Literature Text Critical Studies
SBT Studies in Biblical Theology
SDSSRL Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature
Semeia Semeia
SPhA The Studia Philonica Annual
SJT Scottish Journal of Theology
STDJ Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah
StPB Studia post-biblica
SVTP Studia in Veteris Testamenti pseudepigraphica
Tarbiz Tarbiz
Text Textus
TSAJ Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum
TynBul Tyndale Bulletin
VC Vigiliae christianae
VD Verbum domini
VT Vetus Testamentum
VTSup Vetus Testamentum Supplements
WBC Word Bible Commentary
ZAW Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
 

Blessed is the one who fortifies the works of creation.

m.Ber. 9.2

‚The tracing of intertextual relations is endless,

and quite literally, pointless.‛

Timothy K. Beal





In R. Ishmael’s school it was taught:
And just as a hammer divides rock –
just as [the rock] is split into several pieces,
so too one scriptural text goes forth as several meanings.

b.Sanh. 34a
 Chapter 1

Intertextuality & Method

Intertextuality & Method

1.1 Initial Thoughts

Initial Thoughts
To say the least, Genesis 1.1-5 or Day One contains just but a small serv-
ing of the vastness of language. Though to say ‘contains’ is not alto-
gether accurate. While words that occur inside the boundaries of Gen
1.1-5 are controlled to a degree by grammatical rules and syntactical
relationships therein,1 controls that help the reader understand, the
words themselves are not solely limited to or by their context. Ontolog-
ically and epistemologically, words spill out of and into text. 2 For as
much as Gen 1.1-5 ‘contains’ a word, the reader of the text and its word
– the interpreter – seeks to understand it within the expansive sea of
words and texts available.3 Words, and the discourses/texts which they

1 Saussure’s langue.
2 H.-G. Gadamer, Truth and Method, (trans. J. Weinsheimer and D.G. Marshall; 2nd
revised ed.; New York: Continuum, 1996), thinking about ‘word’ in the context of the
relation of the divine and the human word, writes: ‘Whereas God expresses his
nature and substance in the Word in pure immediacy, every thought that we think
(and therefore every word in which the thought expresses itself) is a mere accident
of the mind. The word of human thought is directed toward the thing, but it cannot
contain it as a whole within itself. Thus thought constantly proceeds to new
conceptions and is fundamentally incapable of being wholly realized in any. This
incapacity for completeness has a positive side: it reveals the true infinity of the
mind, which constantly surpasses itself in a new mental process and in doing so also
finds the freedom for constantly new projects.’ (425-426)
3 ‘Reading is an active organization of readers’ awareness of the various elements in
the text. Readers use their entire corpus of knowledge (linguistic, cultural, and
literary) constructed from previous readings and life experiences that formed the
associations and connotations and serve as a basis for intertextual reading.’ I. Elkad-
Lehman, ‚Spinning a Tale: Intertextuality and Intertextual Aptitude,‛ ESLL 5 (2005)
40.Also cf. P. Ricoeur’s understanding of text as ‘discourse under the condition of
inscription,‘ Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning (Fort Worth,
TX: Texas Christian University Press, 1976) 23.
2 Intertextuality & Method

comprise, ‘live’ in this dynamic, multidimensional, infinite (?) conversa-

tion between (con)text, reader, and intertexts.4
This study explores the living nature of texts by way of examing the
intertextuality of an individual text, in this case Genesis 1.1-5 in He-
brew and Greek texts up to c. 200 CE, with an eye towards the implica-
tions of an individual text’s intertextuality for the history of interpreta-
tion

1.2 Intertextuality
Intertextuality
As exemplified by the epigraph from the pen of Timothy Beal,5
intertextuality and (especially) its relevance for the history of
interpretation may elicit questions of validity and/or viability. What
role can intertextuality play? Is intertextuality a method? How can
intertextuality be useful without digressing ad infinitum? What follows
is an explication of a broad understanding of intertextuality and an
argument for its viability in an historically bound literary study such as
this, all the while observing the wise counsel of Daniel Boyarin insofar
as he suggests that intertextuality is ‘neither some sort of game of
allusion-hunting, which some have taken it for, nor a self-indulgent
mode of anything goes exegesis.‘6

4 ‘<the text is never a complete ‚work‛ as such, with a clear unitary meaning implicit
in its words. Instead, it always requires interpretation, in each individual encounter.
Authorial intent may provide one set of meanings for the text, but these meanings –
no matter how clearly they may be conveyed – are always susceptible to revision
and reinterpretation, either by the author/editor(s) themselves, or by other redactors
and interpreters. Audiences, in turn, may reshape and reconsider the potential
meanings of the text, in light of their own needs and ideologies, providing
interpretations of ‚the meaning‛ of a text that serve their own immediate and
pressing concerns at different moments in the history of the text. The result of this
sort of literary critical approach is an understanding of textual meaning as
something that is fundamentally dynamic, and fundamentally contested, as well.’
M.L. Grossman, Reading for History in the Damascus Document: A Methodological Study,
(STDJ 45; Leiden: Brill, 2002) 24.
5 T.K. Beal, ‚Intertextuality,‛ in Handbook of Postmodern Biblical Interpretation (ed.
A.K.A. Adam; St Louis: Chalice, 2000) 129.
6 D. Boyarin, ‚Issues for Further Discussion: A Response,‛ Semeia 69/70 (1995) 294.
 Intertextuality 3

1.2.1 Toward Understanding Intertextuality

Intertextuality is an observation of relationships between texts that

places the generation of meaning in the dynamic conversation between
text/intertext/reader.7 What follows are a few points outlining an un-
derstanding of intertextuality.
First, intertextuality was a product of the cultural and political
upheaval in France in the 1960's. Julia Kristeva, most often identified as
the originator of intertextuality,8 her teacher, Roland Barthes, and other
post-structuralists, attempted to intellectually subvert what they per-
ceived to be the bourgeois, elitist power structures of their context by
reexamining some of the basic elements of culture, the understanding
of ‘text’ being one such element. Intertextuality at its inception was not
an isolated or neutral intellectual observation, but ‘a means of ideologi-
cal and cultural expression and of social transformation.’9 It was a tool

7 Some other definitions of intertextuality: Kristeva's definition, ‘<tout texte se cons-

truit comme mosaïque de citations, tout texte est absorbtion et transformation d'un
autre texte.’ J. Kristeva, ‚Le mot, le dialogue et le roman,‛ in Semiotiké: Recherches
pour une sémanalyse (ed. J. Kristeva; Paris: Seuil, 1969) 146. Roland Barthes' definition
of text in which his understanding of intertextuality is readily apparent: ‘The text is a
tissue of quotations drawn from innumberable centers of culture.’ R. Barthes, ‚From
Work to Text,‛ in Image - Music - Text (ed. S. Heath; Glasgow: Fontana/Collins, 1977)
146. Ellen van Wolde: ‘The intertextual approach starts from the assumption that a
writer's work should not be seen as a linear adaptation of another text but as a
complex of relationships; the principle of causality is left behind. Moreover, in an
intertextual analysis or interpretation of a text it is the reader who makes a text
interfere with other texts. The writer assigns meaning to his own context and in
interaction with other texts he shapes and forms his own text. The reader, in much
the same way, assigns meaning to the generated text in interaction with other texts
he knows. Without a reader a text is only a lifeless collection of words.’ E. van
Wolde, ‚Trendy Intertextuality,‛ in Intertextuality in Biblical Writings: Essays in honour
of Bas van Iersel (ed. S. Draisma; Kampen: Uitgeversmaatschappij J.H. Kok, 1989) 47.
J.W. Voelz: ‘<from an intertextual perspective<through the presence of a
multiplicity of texts, both written and non-written, the meaning of a text arises in the
presence of the interpreter.’ J.W. Voelz, ‚Multiple Signs, Aspects of Meaning, and Self
as Text: Elements of Intertextuality,‛ Semeia 69/70 (1995) 150. [Voelz's emphasis.]
8 It is thought that the concept of ‘dialogicity’ in the 1920's thought of Russian
Formalist, Mikhail Bakhtin, may be a precursor to Kristeva's intertextuality. Note
especially her own presentation of Bakhtin's thought in a 1966 article - J. Kristeva,
‚Word, Dialogue, Novel,‛ in The Kristeva Reader (trans. A. Jardine, et al.; ed. T. Moi;
Oxford: Blackwell, 1986) 34-61. A noted detractor of this is H.-P. Mai, ‚Bypassing
Intertextuality,‛ in Intertextuality (ed. H.F. Plett; Research in Text Theory 15; Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter, 1991) who, among others, argues that ‘Bakhtin's relevance for the
intertextual debate is rather doubtful.’ (33)
9 G. Aichele and G.A. Phillips, ‚Introduction: Exegesis, Eisegesis, Intergesis,‛ Semeia
69/70 (1995) 9.
4 Intertextuality & Method

of revolution. This said, there are those who would like to discredit the
observation of intertextuality because of its beginnings (the Marxist,
Maoist, Freudian, and generally subversive and revolutionary influ-
ences on Kristeva's thought).10 Acknowledging the context and motiva-
tion of its genesis, intertextuality is larger than its beginnings and con-
tinues to be a useful concept within semiotics, text linguistics,
philosophy, and biblical studies. As such, intertextuality appears to be
here to stay<at least for some time.11
Second, intertextuality at its heart is an understanding of text.
Given a dialogical or conversational understanding of text/intertext, the
question of what a text is broadens ad infinitum to include, not merely
written texts, but history, culture, art, etc. Life becomes the model for
text.12 As lives lived are inevitably lived in conversation with the
other,13 so texts participate in a dialogical existence with the other
(intertext/reader/context) in the reading of the reader. Human
existence at its very nature is in dialogue with the world around it.14 As
dialogue is at the heart of human existence, similarily it is at the heart
of text.
Also along these lines, within the discussion of intertextuality the
boundaries of text are always questionable, always permeable. In a

10 T.R. Hatina, ‚Intertextuality and Historical Criticism in New Testament Studies: Is

There A Relationship?,‛ BibInt 7 (1999) charges that intertextuality is ‘inimical’ to
historical criticism of the New Testament because of its roots and, even more so, the
‘fashionable’ and uncritical use of the term within biblical studies. (28-43) Hatina's
critique is largely ideological, possibly echoing piety rather than scholarship. At the
same time, his critique of the use of intertextuality without some knowledge of its
philosophical baggage is not without value. van Wolde, ‚Trendy Intertextuality,‛
takes up a similar argument without the baggage of Hatina's historical-critical piety.
(43-49)
11 While William Irwin, ‚Against Intertextuality,‚ Philosophy and Literature28 (2004) 227-
242, raises valid critiques of the frequent misuse of ‘intertextuality‘ for ‘allusion,‘
however, he himself falls prey to his own critique, throwing the valid descriptive
nature of intertextuality, the proverbial baby, out with the bathwater of its
misunderstanding and misuse.
12 ‘Being that can be understood is language,’ Gadamer, Truth and Method, 474.
13 ‘Language is not an instrument that I can pick-up and put down at will; it is always
there, surrounding and invading all I experience understand, judge, decide, and act
upon. I belong to my language far more than it belongs to me, and through that
language I find myself participating in this particular history and society.’ D. Tracy,
Plurality and Ambiguity: Hermeneutics, Religion, Hope, (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1987).
14 Tracy, Plurality and Ambiguity, writes about ‘reality’ in a similar way: ‘Reality is
neither out there or in here. Reality is constituted by the interaction between a text,
whether book or world, and a questioning interpreter.’ (48)
 Intertextuality 5

sense, all texts are intertexts. This is evident in H.F. Plett's definitions
of ‘text’ and ‘intertext’:
A text may be regarded as an autonomous sign structure, delimited and
coherent. Its boundaries are indicated by its beginning, middle and end, its
coherence by the deliberately interrelated conjunction of its constituents.
An intertext, on the other hand, is characterized by attributes that exceed it.
It is not delimited, but de-limited, for its constituents refer to constituents
of one or several other texts. Therefore it has a twofold coherence: an
intratextual one which guarantees the immanent integrity of the text, and
an intertextual one which creates structural relations between itself and
other texts.15
Plett's own distinction between text and intertext both questions
whether or not there is such a thing as a text that is not an intertext and
stresses what Derrida calls the débordement, or the spillage of text in
which the borders and divisions commonly ascribed to text are called
into question. In Derrida’s words:
<a ‚text‛ that is henceforth no longer a finished corpus of writing, some
content enclosed in a book or its margins, but a differential network, a
fabric of traces referring endlessly to something other than itself, to other
differential traces. Thus the text overruns all the limits assigned to it so far
(not submerging or drowning them in an undifferentiated homogeneity,
but rather making them more complex, dividing and multiplying strokes
and lines) – all the limits, everything that was to be set up in opposition to
writing (speech, life, the world, the real, history, and what not, every field
of reference – to body or mind, conscious or unconscious, politics,
economics, and so forth).16

15 Heinrich F. Plett, ‚Intertextualities,‛ in Intertextuality, Heinrich F. Plett, ed. (RTT 15;

Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1991) 5. The trajectory of Plett's comments is to
play with the paradoxical relationship of text and intertext, proposing a continuum
between text and intertext with a sliding scale of intertextuality. The extreme ends of
this continuum he describes: ‘<a text which is no intertext, and an intertext which is
not text. What does this mean? The text which has no interrelations with other texts
at all realizes its autonomy perfectly. It is self-sufficient, self-identical, a self-
contained monad – but is no longer communicable. On the other hand, the intertext
runs the risk of dissolving completely in its interrelations with other texts. In
extreme cases it exchanges its internal coherence completely for an external one. Its
total dissolution makes it relinquish its beginning, middle and end. It loses its
identity and disintegrates into numerous text particles which only bear an extrinsic
reference. It is doubtful that such a radical intertext is communicable at all.’ (6)
16 J. Derrida, ‚Living On: Border Line,‛ in Deconstruction and Criticism (trans. J.
Hulbert; ed. H. Bloom, et al.; London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1979) 81-82. Also
quoted by G.A. Phillips, ‚Sign/Text/Différance: The Contribution of Intertextual
6 Intertextuality & Method

Derrida points out that without the broader context of language,

individual words, sentences, even whole texts are meaningless.
Without a context in the language world of the reader, the text is
meaningless. It follows, then, that all texts in as much as they are a part
of a broader language world are intertexts and products of and
participants in ‘various cultural discourses.’ (Barthes) And as all texts
taken on an atemporality (Ricoeur)17 insofar as their inscription allows
a text to read wherever and whenever there is a reader, a text as
intertext participates in times, langauges, cultures, and worlds beyond
(not even imagined by) the original author’s.
Third and related to this atemporality of text, another aspect of
intertextuality is the placement of meaning or the generation of
meaning in the conversation of text/intertext/reader. Because of the
dialogical nature of meaning, it follows that meaning is fundamentally
not static.18 In the words of G. Phillips, ‘<there is no eschatological
reader who at some point in time and space will read the text right, will

Theory to Biblical Criticism,‛ in Intertextuality (ed. H.F. Plett; Research in Text

Theory 15; Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1991). Phillips’ description of
Derrida’s motive is helpful here: ‘Derrida makes the outlandish claim that the text
overruns everything established as a limit to its working, be that limit defined in
traditional terms as the textual corpus, the reader’s intended meaning, or even the
historical context itself. Derrida attempts to defamiliarize the ‚natural‛ distinction
between the textual and the extratextual; his aim is to compel reflection upon the
taken-for-grantedness of the boundary conditions and their relationship to the
various ‚analytico-referential‛ interpretive strategies used to read texts today<.
*Derrida’s+ effort is to direct slumbering attention to the border and the fact of the
border as a way of lifting a corner of the camouflage so as to draw attention to the
natural, unreflected-upon distinction that allows the modern critic to so neatly
separate text from context from reader from the extratextual and to discover the
‘truth’ of the text, i.e., its meaning, its referent, its world-of-meaning, etc.’ Phillips,
‚Sign/Text/Différance,‛ .
17 Similar is P. Ricoeur’s observation that a text is ‘a kind of atemporal object, which
has, so to speak, cut its ties from all historical development... the transfer of
discourse to a sphere of ideality that allows an indefinite widening of the sphere of
communication.‘ Interpretation Theory, 91.
18 Grossman, Reading for History, asserts three observations about text: (1) ‘texts are not
fixed entities and< their meanings depend on how they are interpreted,’ (2) ‘that
interpretations of even the most authoritarian texts can change over time, depending
on the audiences’ expectations and agendas,’ and (3) ‘that competing interpretations
of a text may arise even in a single interpretive community.’ (ix) Also along these
lines, D.R. Blumenthal, ‚Many Voices, One Voice,‛ Judaism 47 (1998) in his
‚(re)writing‛ of Genesis 1 from the perspective of Medieval Jewish commentators,
Ramban, Rashi, Rashbam, and Ibn Ezra, attempts to show the ‘competing
interpretations’ (Grossman) and what Blumenthal calls the ‘multivocal,
plurisignificant’ nature of the text. (468)
 Intertextuality 7

critique the text without the possibility of another word, a remainder.’19

Insofar as intertextuality acknowledges the fundamental inter-
connectedness of texts with other texts as part and parcel of the reader’s
discernment of meaning and insofar as a text can be read in any
number of times and spaces within any number of intertextual
matrices, it follows a deconstructionist line of thought that pushes
language and words to the edge of ‘meaning’ – especially when this
means the meaning. As a linguistic and hermeneutical observation,
intertextuality’s posture is one of openness to possible readings.
Intertextuality places an emphasis on the dynamic interaction of the
reader with the intertextual mosaic encountered/perceived in a text. If
a text is an intertext, and an intertext is a mosaic of other texts, it
follows that it is the reader’s20 place to trace the meaning of a text by
interpreting the text’s intertextuality.21 G. Phillips proposes a term for
this interaction – ‘intergesis’ – an understanding that the space between
texts is the place from which meaning emerges. ‘Meaning does not lie
‚inside‛ texts but rather in the space ‚between‛ texts. Meaning is not
an unchangeable ideal essence but rather variable, fluid, and contextual
depending upon the systematic forces at work that bind texts to one
another.’22 In concert with this, however, it should be noted
unequivocally that without the texts themselves the space of ‘intergesis‘
would prove a vacuum.

19 Phillips, ‚Sign/Text/Différance,‛ 92. Derrida, ‚Living On: Border Line,‛ makes a

similar observation: ‘<no one inflexion enjoys absolute privilege.’ (78)
20 Or plural readers. When considering the place of intertextuality of legal (e.g. the
Constitution of the United States of America) and sacred texts (e.g. Torah, Bible,
Qu’ran, etc), it is important to acknowledge the place and importance of reading
communities lest the reader be assumed to be untethered from community/
communities.
21 ‘<there is one place where this multiplicity *intertextual mosaic+ is focused and that
place is the reader, not, as was hitherto said, the author. The reader is the space on
which all the quotations that make up a writing are inscribed<’ Barthes, ‚From
Work to Text,‛ 148.
22 Aichele and Phillips, ‚Exegesis, Eisegesis, Intergesis,‛ 14-15. I would temper Philip’s
observations to the degree that the text as it is inscribed does bear within itself a
range of possible interpretations, in the way that the rabbis understood Scripture to
continue to speak with authority, as D. Boyarin, Intertextuality and the Reading of
Midrash, (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1990) suggests: ‘<midrash is
literature, but all serious literature is revision and interpretation of a canon and a
tradition and is a dialogue with the past and with authority which determines the
shape of human lives in the present and future. The rabbis were concerned with the
burning issues of their day, but their approach to that concern was through the
clarification of difficult passages of Scripture.’ (19)
8 Intertextuality & Method

Finally, at its core intertextuality is an observation not a method. It

is an observation of the nature of text and of the relationship of
text/intertext/reader. While intertextuality is a fuzzy concept, maybe
intentionally so, in its purest form it cannot be a methodology.
Critiques of the improper methodization of intertextuality come from
Hatina,23 Aichele and Phillips,24 van Wolde,25 and Beal,26 noting
especially the confusion of ‘agency’, ‘influence’, and ‘allusion‘ for
intertextuality among contemporary biblical scholars. Rather,
intertextuality is an observation of a broad notion of ‘text’ and the
integral role of the reader/reading community in the production of
meaning.
To summarize, the study of intertextuality leads down a plethora of
winding paths of complex relationships and multi-layer conversations
between texts/intertext/reader. All the while, texts are in conversation
with other texts/intertexts, loosely comprising an intertextual mosaic
(referred to as a ‘tapestry’ in this study) extending ad infinitum into a
blurry horizon, portions of which are picked up and digested by the
reader in the creation of meaning. Meaning happens in the
conversation of text/intertext/reader, the confluence of a broad
understanding of text that includes culture, history, art, etc., and the
reader’s varied awareness of the text's intertextuality.

1.2.2 A Viable Intertextuality & The History of Interpretation

The question, then, is whether or not this ad infinitum observation of

intertextuality is useful within the study of the history of interpre-
tation, contra Timothy Beal. And if so, how might intertextuality be
employed? I argue that the observation of intertextuality can be harn-
essed to provide insight into the mosaic of interrelated texts within a
given corpus. The harnessed observations that intertextuality provides
can be particularly helpful within the history of interpretation as they
provide a glimpse of the intertextual tapestry from which later
readers/interpreters drew their interpretations.
Following the lead of Ellen van Wolde, with some limiatations
intertextuality is a window that ‘makes a special perception of the text

23 Hatina, ‚Intertextuality and Historical Criticism,‛ 28ff.

24 Aichele and Phillips, ‚Exegesis, Eisegesis, Intergesis,‛ 11-12.
25 van Wolde, ‚Trendy Intertextuality,‛ 43ff.
26 Beal, ‚Intertextuality,‛ 129.
 Intertextuality 9

possible’.27 Though not a method, the observation of intertextuality is

employable in that it provides an understanding of the relationship
between texts that opens angles of insight on the text outside the
bounds of the questions of source, Sitz im Leben, author, authorial
intentions, etc. Given the broad sense of intertextuality, that is the
débordement [Derrida] of text ad infinitum, some modification and/or
limitation of the concept is both necessary and possible.
Van Wolde employs a metaphor of the relationship between a drop
of water and a river to both explain and critique the ‘usefulness’ of the
Kristeva, Barthes, Derrida, etc. school of intertextuality within biblical
studies:
Their standpoint might be compared to a river: elements from other texts
are incorporated in a text like drops of water in a river. In addition, they
find that it is not the writer who is determinative of the intertext, but the
reader. Expressed in the images of metaphor: it is not the writer who
determines where the drop ends and river begins, but the reader who
distinguishes particular drops within the unfathomable quantity of water.28
Van Wolde finds this broad understanding of intertextuality unhelpful
because of the inherently vague nature of the concept and the
uselessness of an observation that deals with the droplet-level
observation of something as large as a river. She echoes W. van Peer's
critique of Kristeva's intertextuality as having ‘little analytical power.’29
While I am not convinced that Kristeva would say that intertextuality is
meant to be analytical, van Wolde sees enough value in Kristeva's
intertextuality to offer a modification of it that proves useful within her
exegetical goals.
Within van Wolde's complex literary analysis, she proposes a
limited use of intertextuality that ‘starts from an acknowledgement of
the autonomous value of each of the compared texts on their own, and
continues with the explication of the textual markers shared by the
texts.’30 She goes on to propose specific criteria for intertextual study of

27 E. van Wolde, ‚Texts in Dialogue with Texts: Intertextuality in the Ruth and Tamar
Narratives,‛ BibInt 5 (1997) 3.
28 van Wolde, ‚Texts in Dialogue with Texts,‛ 3.
29 E. van Wolde, Word Become Worlds: Semantic Studies of Genesis 1-11, (Biblical
Interpretation 6; Leiden: Brill, 1994) quoting W. van Peer, "Intertextualiteit: traditie
en kritiek," Spiegel der Letteren 29 (1987) 16.
30 van Wolde, ‚Texts in Dialogue with Texts,‛ 7. By ‘textual markers’ van Wolde is
referring to a broad range of characteristics including words, semantic fields, larger
textual units, theme, genre, analogies in character type, and similarities in narrative
style.
10 Intertextuality & Method

the Hebrew Bible for purposes of exegesis: (1) study the texts on their
own; (2) compile an inventory of repetitions in the compared texts; and
(3) analyse the ‘new network of meaning originating from the meeting
of the two texts.’31 Van Wolde’s criteria provide a means to explore
and/or to test the intertextuality of texts, criteria, which with some
modification, are useful within the history of interpretation.
For the ancient interpreter, namely ancient rabbinic sages but
presumably ancient interpreters in general, scripture was a dynamic
revelation of the divine.32 That is, revelation was not a completed
event. Each generation was present again at Sinai and charged with
understanding and inwardly digesting Torah.33 Writing about Rabbinic
midrashim, Daniel Boyarin continues this thought:
The rabbis, as assiduous readers of the Bible, developed an acute
awareness of these intertextual relations within the holy books, and
consequently their own hermeneutic work consisted of a creation process
of further combining and recombining biblical verses into new texts,
exposing the interpretive relations already in the text, as it were, as well as
creating new ones by revealing linguistic connections hitherto unrealised.
This recreation was experienced as revelation itself, and the biblical past
became alive in the midrashic present.34
Such a realization about the ancient rabbis, along with ancient biblical
interpreters in general,35 is reason enough for the use of a limited

31 van Wolde, ‚Texts in Dialogue with Texts,‛ 7-8.

32 The work of M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, (Oxford: Clarendon,
1985), demonstrates that interpretation was fundamental to the fabric of Israel’s
scripture from its earliest history. Looking at inner-biblical exegesis he notes that the
biblical text itself was subject to ‘redaction, elucidation, reformulation, and outright
transformation<.They *biblical texts] are, in sum, the exegetical voices of many
teachers and tradents, from different circles and times, responding to real theoretical
considerations as perceived and anticipated.’ (543)
33 Two theologians of undoubtedly more who have worked constructively with this
idea are: E.L. Fackenheim, God's Presence in History: Jewish Affirmations and
Philosophical Reflections, (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1970), from the perspective
of post-Holocaust Judaism, and J. Plaskow, Standing Again at Sinai: Judaism from a
Feminist Perspective, (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1990), from a contemporary
Jewish Feminist perspective.
34 Boyarin, Intertextuality, 128. Also, M. Fishbane, The Exegetical Imagination: On Jewish
Thought and Theology, (Cambridge: Harvard, 1998) 20.
35 Rowan Greer suggests similar things about early Christian interpreters of scripture
prior to Irenaeus, though from a perspective of ‘transformation’. Early Christian
interpreters were of a similar mind to their early Jewish counterparts that scripture
was divine revelation. Their interpretation was a transformation of the Hebrew
scriptures to ‘disclose their true significance’ in light of their accepted messiah, Jesus.
J.L. Kugel and R.A. Greer, Early Biblical Interpretation, (LEC 3; Philadelphia:
 Intertextuality 11

intertextuality in the history of interpretations. If it is true that the

ancient scribe/rabbi/interpreter had a concordance-level knowledge of
their sacred texts, then some measure of intertextuality can provide a
sound observational tool for reconstructing the scriptural mosaic that
was foundational to subsequent interpretations. Within the history of
interpretations and more specifically for this particular study, then, it is
key that intertextuality can serve as a window into the textual/language
world of the ancient interpreter. Providing such a glimpse is the goal of
this study.
Some modest modifications of van Wolde's proposed criteria are in
order to ‘use‘ intertextuality within the history of interpretation. The
first step in this method (1) remains the same, beginning with the study
of the primary text under consideration. This means that the initial text
placed under the microscope is the text whose intertextuality is to be
studied. For this study, the primary text is Genesis 1.1-5.
Step two (2) involves identifying intertexts within a predetermined
corpus of similar texts, in the case of this study, the Hebrew Bible (ch.2),
the Greek equivalents of the text of the Hebrew Bible (ch.3),36 and
Hebrew (ch.4) and Greek (ch.5) texts from before 200 CE that fall
outside those covered in chapters two and three. A means to this end is
identifying intertextual markers, that is individual words, minor phras-
es, or word-pairs within the primary text whose recurrence elsewhere
in the corpus might spur interest in the primary text. These are words
that occur infrequently and/or are central to the primary text. In such
an atomic level study of the corpus, these words are examined
thoroughly in the variety of meanings they bear and the variety of
contexts in which they appear. In effect, a mosaic of usage/meaning is
sketched for each intertextual marker. This atomic level study is useful

Westminster, 1986) 126ff. Also, pre-rabbinic texts exist that point to the importance
of interpretation, as noted by James Kugel, especially the book of Daniel in which
Daniel is the interpreter of revelation and in Ben Sira's understanding of the role and
importance of the sage in Sir 39.1-6. (58, 62-63)
36 The issue of ‘canon’ is a sticky wicket in a study such as this. Whose canon ought to
be employed to delineate texts, if one should be used at all? Since this study begins
with the Hebrew text of Gen 1.1-5, which is undoubtedly the most ‘original’, the
Hebrew canon, a.k.a. the Hebrew Bible or Tanakh, is used as a benchmark
throughout this study. While this may not be an ideal solution, it is a solution
nonetheless. E. Ulrich, ‚Our Sharper Focus on the Bible and Theology Thanks to the
Dead Sea Scrolls,‛ CBQ 66 (2004) based on the texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls draws a
clear picture of the ‘shadowy beginnings’ of the Hebrew Bible. (1-24)
12 Intertextuality & Method

in identifying the variety of understandings of a given intertextual

marker in subsequent interpretations.37
Step three (3) is the identification of texts that have a significant
repetition of intertextual markers from the primary text and bear its
theme(s). The primary goal of this step is to provide a collection of
identifiable intertexts. Commonality is most important. As such, while
intertextual markers are the initial draw to a given text, and the more
the better, also included in this equation are theme and other words
common to both the primary text and the intertext. In this stage, then,
intertextual markers function as a beacon, but theme and the wider
commonality maintain the attention of the interpreter. In this study of
Genesis 1.1-5, the broad theme is that all the texts at some level have to
do with the creation of the cosmos.
It should be noted here that intertextuality and influence are two
different, some would say opposed, observations. Intertextuality is
concerned with relationships but not with direction, causality, and thus
influence. The intertexts identified in step two, then, need only be
demonstrably similar to the primary text in vocabulary and theme. No
inference of direction should be made at this point.
Step four (4) examines the material compiled in step three with the
goal of drawing thematic lines among the intertexts, that is, getting a
broad look at the intertextual tapestry. This provides another view of
the tapestry and hence another lens through which subsequent
interpretations can be studied. Again, direction and causality are not
an issue here. Rather, the analysis is based on thematic similarities
among the intertexts identified in step three.
Step five (5) is similar to van Wolde's step three, with the difference
being the locus of the new meaning being in the subsequent
interpretations rather than in contemporary exegesis. Van Wolde's
concern is using a limited intertextuality as an exegetical tool leading to
‘new’ observations. Whereas the usefulness of intertextuality within
the history of interpretations is as a foundational lens through which to
make ‘new’ observations of ‘old’ exegesis – seeing not new exegesis but
intertextual ‘afterlives’ of the primary text. The tapestry that
intertextuality serves to illuminate provides a glimpse of the language
world(s) within which the ancient reader worked.

37 These intertextual sketches of individual intertextual markers can be found in

Appendices A and B.
 Intertextuality 13

It is my hope, then, that this method will provide a new glimpse at

old material – and in particular a new glimpse of Day One in this inter-
textual history of Gen 1.1-5 up to 200 CE.

1.2.3 History, Tapestry, Lacunae

History
This study attempts to contribute to the body of work that can be called
the history of interpretation of biblical texts. 38 In defense of this attempt
at history via intertextuality, I look to Maxine Grossman. In response to
Philip Davies’ assertion that reader response approaches 39 ‘do not pro-
duce history,’40 Grossman asserts:
It is [sic+ possible to ‘produce history’ while working from a literary critical
perspective. A history of this sort may look unfamiliar, but its very differ-
ence will provide insights that are not revealed by a more standard histori-
cal analysis<41
Indeed, this study is an attempt at history that does not look familiar. It
sketches intertextual relationships between texts based on common
vocabulary in an attempt to see wider interpretive matrices, to gain
new glimpses of old material. It is not interested in wading into the
questions of agency, influence, causality, allusion, etc<, but it is inter-
ested in relationship. Few of the texts examined are deliberate re-
tellings of Gen 1.1-5. The vast majority of texts are held together by the
commonality of language or intertextual markers. As a result, the reali-
ty of this intertextual history is that it is both messy and modest. There

38 From among the many works in this corner of the academy- a corner that has seen
significant growth in the past decade, two pioneering works are J.P. Lewis, A Study of
the Interpretation of Noah and the Flood in Jewish and Christian Literature, (Leiden: Brill,
1968); and S.D. Fraade, Enosh and His Generation: Pre-Israelite Hero and History in
Postbiblical Interpretation, vol. 30, (SBL Monograph Series; Chico, CA: Scholars, 1984);
and from a post-modern perspective Y. Sherwood, The Biblical Text and its Afterlives:
The Survival of Jonah in Western Culture, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2000) explores the interpretation within tradition, ‘science,’ art, and culture. Also of
value will be the on-going publication of The Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception,
H.-J. Klauk, et al, eds (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009-).
39 Intertextuality is related to reader response criticism insofar as texts can be portential
intertexts on paper (or parchment or papyri) with the intertextuality only fully (or
partially) realized in the reading of the interpreter.
40 P.R. Davies, Behind the Essenes: History and Ideology in the Dead Sea Scrolls, (BJS 94;
Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987) 11.
41 Grossman, Reading for History, ix.
14 Intertextuality & Method

are many loose ends – texts that are obvious inclusions are viewed
alongside texts barely connected with the larger whole.
The scope of this study is necessarily limited. For this study the
words come from the bounds of the Hebrew and Greek versions of Gen
1.1-5, a.k.a. Day One in the First Creation Story.42 While it is with Day
One that this study begins and to which it returns again and again, it is
the intertextuality of Day One that is of primary interest. What are the
intertextual relationships of Day One? How does Day One spill over
into the intertextual vastness and vice versa? The texts in this study are
also limited in that they all share a creation theme, a common denomi-
nator organic with Gen 1.1-5. Finally, all of the texts in this study were
produced prior to 200 CE. As with any specific date on the sea of glob-
al history, this date could likely be abandoned in favor of a more impor-
tant and/or meaningful date. However, the reasons for using 200 CE as
a cutoff are (1) that this is the approximate date of the compilation of
the Mishnah, and (2) that it draws an historical line before Origen and
his Hexapla come into play.

Tapestry
The primary objective of this study is to gather a glimpse of the inter-
textual tapestry of Gen 1.1-5. The hand-woven textile art known as a
‘tapestry’ is used throughout this study as an image for the broader
intertextuality of Gen 1.1-5. The image in mind is a tapestry in an in-
complete state still tied to the loom.43 That is, it is an image of threads
woven together, with the boundaries not entirely clear. It is an image
with spindles of thread hanging off the edge and loose threads not
completely tied in. Some threads are bright and distinct, others are dull
and common. Some threads appear at one spot and another with no
trace of the thread that runs beneath the surface linking the two. Some
threads come together to provide a certain picture in one corner of the
whole, while another corner may look completely different – though
they are ultimately of the same work. While the employment of any
image brings with it its own limitations, the image of tapestry-in-

42 Limiting the scope of this study to texts that are extant in Hebrew or Greek excludes
consideration of texts such as 2 Enoch. Were there an extant Hebrew or Greek
manuscript of the likes of 2 Enoch, it would undoubtedly warrant inclusion in this
work.
43 I draw this image from trips to Stirling Castle in 2002-2003, during which I observed
the slow and careful progress of the weaving of a recreation of ‘The Unicorn in
Captivity,’ a South Netherlandish tapestry woven from 1495-1505, now part of the
collection at The Metropolitan Museum of Art, The Cloisters, New York.
[http://www.metmuseum.org/Works_of_Art/department.asp?dep=7]
 Intertextuality 15

progress provides a metaphorical conception of the intertextuality of

Gen 1.1-5.

Lacunae
The fragments from the Dead Sea Scrolls that are examined in chapter
four, important pieces of the intertextual history of Gen 1.1-5 as they
are, are illustrative of text and this project as a whole. In their present
state, these fragments are broken and partial. Barring some future dis-
covery of a complete or more complete manuscript, these fragments are
all that remains, the lacunae on the parchment and between fragments
fertile ground for the scholarly imagination. While only a portion of
the texts covered in this study are physically broken, our knowledge
and understanding of all of them is fragmentary and partial. Given the
historical, cultural, linguistic distance with ancient texts, the danger
with having a full manuscript is to assume that it is completely accessi-
ble. The fragmentary scrolls from the Dead Sea in their current state
serve as a reminder of the partiality of our knowing and thus the ‘rela-
tive adequacy’44 of our readings.
In addition, the corpus of texts available to study is limited by the
accidents of history. Were it not for the arid climate and lack of a cu-
rious canine in search of a play-thing, the Masada fragments of Ben Sira
could be forever unknown. One must wonder what other texts remain
hidden to us by the accidents of time. Finally, I must also mention the
accidents of the author. Two eyes helped by spectacles, a certain set of
ideological assumptions (some conscious, others not) about text, histo-
ry, current scholarship, etc< Needless to say but important to note, the
results of this study are limited by the limitations of its author.
All of this is to say that as the texts (some more than others) of this
study are fragmentary so are the results. But lest limitation lead to apa-
thy, let the weaving begin.

44 Cf. Tracy, Plurality and Ambiguity, 22, passim.

 Chapter 2

Genesis 1.1-5 in the Hebrew Bible

Genesis 1.1-5 in the Hebrew Bible

This chapter begins to sketch the intertextual tapestry of Gen 1.1-51

within its most immediate and original textual context – the corpus of
the Hebrew Bible / Tanakh. The following chapter is a parallel explora-
tion of the Greek equivalents. These chapters provide images of the
tapestries upon which subsequent interpretations are woven. Again,
the long view of this study is that the boundaries between text and tra-
dition, text and interpretation, text and intertext are semi-permeable
and that language plays a central role in the afterlives of a biblical text,
in this case the first five verses of Genesis.2
This chapter begins with a discussion of the criteria used for
establishing intertextuality, followed by an examination of the primary
text, MT Gen 1.1-5, both as a structural whole and by verse. The largest
portion of the chapter follows with a text-by-text look at the intertexts
of MT Gen 1.1-5. Finally, the chapter concludes with a sketch of some
of the more prominent threads in the broader intertextual tapestry of
MT Gen 1.1-5 by analyzing some prominent thematic threads.

1 Given that in these first two chapters I am looking at two different, though very
similar texts, I distinguish between MT Gen 1.1-5 and LXX Gen 1.1-5, following this
distinction through to all the intertexts I examine.
2 Y. Hoffman, ‚The First Creation Story: Canonical and Diachronic Aspects,‛ in
Creation in Jewish and Christian Tradition (ed. H.G. Reventlow and Y. Hoffman;
JSOTSup 319; London: Sheffield, 2002) has taken a similar look at the whole of Gen
1.1-2.3 (First Creation Story) within the Hebrew Bible. The aim of Hoffman‘s study
is to contrast the central status placed upon the First Creation Story by generations
of readers in comparison to its place among the 100+ creation texts within the
Hebrew Bible. He explores this relationship with searches for citation, reference,
and allusion of the First Creation Story in these other biblical texts. His search yields
strikingly little evidence, prompting his conclusion that ‘the FCS had no
authoritative status among the biblical authors. The post-biblical elevated standing
of the FCS is therefore not a reflection of its biblical status.‘ (50) The trajectory of
Hoffman’s study differs this study insofar as he tests the tradition of interpretation in
light of the biblical witness, whereas this study examines intertextuality rather than
citation and reference.
 Considering Commonality 17

2.1 Considering Commonality

Considering Commonality
In order to achieve a level of commonality upon which to build the
claim of intertextuality, certain parts of the whole are identified as
words that, when found in another (con)text, may indicate or trigger an
intertextual link between texts – in this case between the primary text
(Gen 1.1-5) and its intertexts. Throughout this study these individual
parts are called intertextual markers. Ideally, intertextual markers
occur with relative infrequency within the larger corpus. 3 The likelih-
ood that the occurrence of an intertextual marker might signal an inter-
textual relationship increases with the presence of a creation context
and additional words from the primary text in proximity. 4 The
intertextual markers for the examination of MT Gen 1.1-5 are:
words – 
minor phrases5 – 
word-pairs6 –  and ,  and ,  and ,  and 

3 For example, , which in MT Gen 1.3 is central to the first creative action of the
First Creation Story, occurs 4300+ times in the Hebrew Bible and is thus impractical
and of little use in identifying intertexts of MT Gen 1.1-5.
4 A clear example of intertextuality and an exception to this idea about the context of
an intertextual marker is m.Hul 5.5, in which the infrequently occuring  in
Lev 22.28, a text with no creation theme, sparks a connection with MT Gen 1.5 in the
interpretation of the rabbis.
5 Minor phrases function like individual words, i.e., when combined the way they are
in the primary text they take on a grammatical unity. Conversely, the individual
parts of these word pairs have little if no weight as intertextual markers by
themselves, e.g.  carries little intertextual interest when separated from .
6 A word-pair functions as a unit within the primary text as a circumlocution for a
larger whole, e.g. heaven and earth comprise the larger cosmos. [See the discussion
of heaven and earth in Gen 1.1 by U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis;
Part 1 - From Adam to Noah, (trans. I. Abrahams; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1961), 20]
A word-pair is admittedly more subjective than individual words and minor phrases
as their relationship to one another in the secondary text must be evaluated before
their relationship with the primary text can be considered. Take for example, 
and . In MT Gen 1.1 these two words function as a pair, hendiadys for the enti-
rety of the cosmos. Their appearance in a secondary text alone, however, is not suf-
ficient to determine intertextuality. Other parameters must be taken into considera-
tion. The first is that the pair ought to be functioning as a pair. This can mean that
the two words are separated by a conjunction functioning as a collective sub-
ject/object/etc. (e.g. MT Gen 2.4, 2 Kgs 19.15) or a slightly wider separation in parallel
ideas (e.g. MT 2 Sam 22.8, Jer 4.23). This parameter rules out occurrences that, while
in close proximity to one another, do not function as a pair (e.g. MT Exod 10.22,
32.12). A second parameter is that the pair occurs in a creation context. This rules
out occurrences that have a locative function (e.g. MT Gen 9.2, Jer 7.32) and occur-
rences that represent or personify the cosmic framework of heaven and earth (e.g.
MT Deut 30.19, Isa 1.2). A third parameter is that the pair occurs in close proximity
18 Genesis 1.1-5 in the Hebrew Bible

As noted above, these intertextual markers serve as a control group of

‘flags’ for identifying texts with a significant intertextual commonality
with Gen 1.1-5. For this and the following chapters, there are appen-
dices that explore the occurrences of the intertextual markers through-
out the whole of the Hebrew Bible7 and Greek equivalents.8 In addition
to a commonality of intertextual markers, a second basic criterion for
identifying an intertext is that it has a creation or creation-related
theme. Both of these controls, intertextual markers and creation theme,
facilitate a viable use of intertextuality.

2.2 A Look at MT Genesis 1.1-5

A Look at MT Genesis 1.1-5
The interest of this chapter is the intertextual tapestry comprised of MT
Gen 1.1-5 and its intertexts within the Hebrew Bible. In this section the
goal is two-fold: first, to make a few observations about the structure of
MT Gen 1.1-5; and second, to look at MT Gen 1.1-5 by verse, paying
attention to the use of the intertextual markers in their primary context.









1 When God began to create the heavens and the earth,

2 The earth being formless and void, darkness upon the face of the deep,
and the breath of God hovering upon the face of the waters,
3 God said, ‘Let there be light.’ And there was light.
4 And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from
the darkness.
5 And God called the light day, and the darkness he called night – There
was evening, there was morning, day one.

to other Gen 1.1-5 vocabulary, further substantiating the possibility of intertextuality.

Finally, when a word-pair occurs verbatim from the primary text theoretically it car-
ries more intertextual weight (e.g. MT Exod 20.11).
7 Cf. Appendix A
8 Cf. Appendix B
 A Look at MT Genesis 1.1-5 19

The debate is well worn over how the verses of Gen 1.1-5 relate to one
another,9 with vv. 1-2 being especially problematic. The business of this
study is not to prove the unity of Gen 1.1-5. Rather, a modest goal is to
establish the probability that Gen 1.1-5 can be seen as a unit by the
reader, whether ancient or modern.
With the structure of MT Gen 1.1-5, two things are clear – the
creative speech of God begins in vs. 3, when God speaks light into
existence, and vv.4-5 continue the creative action of v.3. The unity of
MT Gen 1.1-5, then, rests on the relationship of vv.1-3.
One argument for the unity of MT Gen 1.1-5 is based on a reading
of the first letter of the text, , as 'when,'10 introducing a dependent
clause (v.1) that moves into a parenthetic clause (v.2) 11 with the thought
completed by the main clause (v.3).12 The creative action of v.3 is
extended by the creative actions in vv.4-5 and only concludes with the
declaration of the day. Another vantage point on the unity of Gen 1.1-5

9 Cf. J.E. Atwell, ‚An Egyptian Source for Genesis 1,‛ JTS 51 (2000) 451.
10 N.M. Sarna, Genesis, (JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: JPS, 1989) notes that the
creation texts in Gen 2.4, 5.1, begin with 'when'. (5)
11 C. Westermann, Genesis 1-11: A Commentary, (trans. J.J. Scullion; London: SPCK, 1984)
suggests that there is a traditional pattern for beginning ancient cosmologies in the
‘When not yet,’ a pattern that reappears in MT Gen 1.2 and is common specifically to
the Babylonian Enuma Elish. (102) Also, B.S. Childs, Myth and Reality in the Old
Testament, (2nd ed.; SBT 17; London: SCM, 1962) 42. Atwell, ‚Egyptian Source,‛
concurring with Westermann's general observation, convincingly argues that the
most pertinent parallel is not with Enuma Elish but with Egyptian cosmology
attributable to the priestly cult at Hermopolis. (449-467) The connection with
Hermopolis was previously noted by R. Kilian, ‚Gen. I 2 und die Urgötter von
Hermopolis,‛ VT 16 (1966) 420-438, especially 429ff.
12 The varied arguments for the relationship of the first three verses of Genesis help to
illustrate the impossibility in coming to any decisive conclusion. Arguments
generally begin with the interpreter's understanding of v. 1. These can be separated
into three general categories of interpretation: (1) v. 1 is an independent clause with
v.2 and v.3 describing subsequent acts of creation – A. Caquot, ‚Brèves remarques
exégétiques sur Genèse 1, 1-2,‛ in In Principio: Interprétations des premiers versets de la
Genèse (Études Augustiniennes 8; Paris: Centre d'Études des Religions du Livre,
1973) 13-15; Childs, Myth and Reality, 31-43, G.J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, (WBC 1;
Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987) 11-13; (2) v. 1 is an independent clause that functions
as a title for the creation account of vv. 2-31 – Cassuto, Genesis, 20, S.R. Driver, The
Book of Genesis, (London: Methuen & Co., 1904) 3, G. von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary,
(trans. J.H. Marks; OTL; London: SCM, 1961) 51, Westermann, Genesis 1-11, 94,
Atwell, ‚Egyptian Source,‛ 451; and (3) v. 1 is a temporal clause completed by v. 3
with v. 2 as a parenthetic clause – J.D. Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil:
The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence, (2nd revised ed.; Princeton: Princeton
University, 1988 & 1994), Sarna, Genesis, 5, J. Skinner, Genesis, (2nd ed.; ICC;
Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1930) 12-14, E.A. Speiser, Genesis, (AB 1; Garden City, NY:
Doubleday, 1964) 12-13.
20 Genesis 1.1-5 in the Hebrew Bible

is from the wider literary structure of the First Creation Story (Gen 1.1-
2.4a). MT Gen 1.5 concludes with the same formulaic declaration that
is used to declare the end of each of the first six days.13 The literary
pattern of the First Creation Story uses this declaration of the day as a
full stop, a natural break in the narrative. 14 From this it can follow that
Day One includes the material that precedes the declaration. Thus, the
whole of the First Creation Story is divided into seven days with the
first segment of the whole being MT Gen 1.1-5.15
The ambiguity of the relationship of MT Gen 1.1-2 to the
subsequent verses likely will never be completely resolved as the
ambiguity is inherent in the text itself. It is the position of this author
that it is at least reasonable to think, however, that an ancient reader
(along with his/her 21st century counterparts) could read the Hebrew
text of Gen 1.1-5 as a unit. Though the above points are admitedly far
from conclusive, the unity of the first five verses of Genesis remains a
viable enough possibility to move on to examining parts of the larger
whole.

2.2.1 MT Genesis 1.1

The function of 16 is temporal; whether it is relative or absolute

is debatable and ought to be left open given the various grammatical
and pointing17 possibilities. Stemming etymologically from ,18 it
follows that the range of possible understandings of the word is limited
to some indication of beginning. In any case, it both begins the

13 (number)
14 F.H. Polak, ‚Poetic Style and Parallelism in the Creation Account (Genesis 1.1-2.3),‛
in Creation in Jewish and Christian Tradition (ed. H.G. Reventlow and Y. Hoffman;
JSOTSS 319; London: Sheffield, 2002) in the midst of an argument for reading MT
Gen 1.1-2.3 as a poetic ‘Hymn of Creation’ (5, 31) suggests that MT Gen 1.1-5 is the
first ‘stanza’ of the creation poem. (11)
15 Cassuto, Genesis, has documented ‘numerical harmony’ based on the use of the
number seven that permeates the First Creation Story. (12-15) Cassuto, though he
sees Gen 1.1 as an introductory verse, also notes that the Masoretes placed the first
paragraph marker after v.5. (13)
16 For a mapping of the usage and contextuality of each intertextual marker, see
Appendix A.
17 Origen's Greek transliteration being just one example.
18 BDB, s.v. When considering occurrences of  in the intertexts of MT Gen 1.1-5,
I also strongly consider , in line with W. Eichrodt, ‚In the Beginning,‛ in
Israel's Prophetic Heritage: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg (ed. B.W. Anderson and
W. Harrelson; New York: Harper and Row, 1962) 3f.
 A Look at MT Genesis 1.1-5 21

narrative and places the narrative at a beginning.  both begins the
action of v.1, stating that God created the heavens and the earth, and
puts the beginning that  signals in context – it is a creative
beginning. While there are other words used to explain God's creative
action,19 within the Hebrew Bible  (qal) is only used with God as the
subject and God's creative work as the object.20 The object(s) of this first
creative verb is the merism, . Forming two halves
of the cosmos, the circumlocution of the heavens and the earth describe
the overarching totality of God's creative venture – a totality that is
fleshed out throughout the rest of the First Creation Story.21 The
function of  is drawn out in Wenham's paraphrase
of Gen 1.1, ‘In the beginning God created everything,’ 22 though I would
temper this by understanding MT Gen 1.1 as, ‘When God began to
create everything<,’ in line with reading  as ‘when.’ To translate as
Wenham, however, superimposes upon the text the later development
of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, upon the text.23

2.2.2 MT Genesis 1.2

and  function together as the simple predicate24 that describes

the proto-earth. Exactly what the pair mean is unclear, though both
‘chaos’25 and ‘desert/emptiness’26 seem sufficient guesses. Whichever

19 E.g., 
20 W.R. Garr, ‚God's Creation:  in the Priestly Source,‛ HTR 97 (2004) finds that
God's creative action as described by  in the Priestly Source as both constructive
of the good and counteractive of the 'turbulent land' and 'sea monsters'. (88)
21 Cassuto, Genesis, 20.
22 Wenham, Genesis 1-15, 15. Also, M. DeRoche, ‚Isaiah XLV 7 and the Creation of
Chaos?,‛ VT 42 (1992). Against this position, Cassuto, Genesis, is of the opinion that
the concept of the totality of the universe was not known to the Hebrews at the
origin of Genesis 1, only entering the Hebrew worldview in a later period. (20)
23 Cf. G. May, Creatio Ex Nihilo: The Doctrine of ‘Creation out of Nothing‘ in Early Christian
Thought (A. S. Worrall, trans.; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1994).
24 Childs, Myth and Reality, notes the superfluous nature of  since it is assumed in
a nominal clause. (33)
25 Cassuto, Genesis, ‘<that is to say, the unformed material from which the earth was to
be fashioned was at the beginning of its creation in a state of tōhū and bōhū, to wit,
water above and solid matter beneath, and the whole, a chaotic mess, without order
or life.’ (23)
26 Westermann, Genesis 1-11, translates ‘a desert waste.’ (76) D.T. Tsumura, The Earth
and the Waters in Genesis 1 and 2: A Linguistic Definition, (JSOTSup 83; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1989), elaborates: ‘<the phrase tōhû wā bōhû in Gen 1.2 has
nothing to do with 'chaos' and simply means 'emptiness' and refers to the earth
22 Genesis 1.1-5 in the Hebrew Bible

meaning is ascribed to  in MT Gen 1.2,27 it seems clear that this

ambiguous pair describe the proto-earth as present yet undeveloped.
In the second phrase,  is an integral element of the proto-earth,
the condition in which the creator begins to form everything else.28
Westermann makes an opposite and sweeping judgment about the
occurrence of  in MT Gen 1.2, with which I must disagree based on
the ambiguity of  throughout the Hebrew Bible. He claims that
darkness in MT Gen 1.2 is ‘the opposite of creation<*not+ a
phenomenon of nature but rather< something sinister.’29 While 
certainly occurs with negative connotations elsewhere in the Hebrew
Bible, to make such a conclusion about MT Gen 1.2 smoothes out
bumpy inconsistencies, including the use of to describe the
presence of the divine.30 And, the three other occurrences of  in the
First Creation Story are similar in that they do not invoke the
dichotomy of good/evil but rather matter-of-factly contrast the basic
elements of light and dark, day and night (MT Gen 1.4, 5, 18). Given
the consistent juxtaposition of light and darkness, day and night in
these three occurrences, it seems reasonable that throughout the First
Creation Story  simply means darkness, nighttime, or the absence
of light, acknowledging, as does Driver, that light and darkness each
have their place in the ordering of the cosmos.31

which is an empty place, i.e., 'an unproductive and uninhabited place.' Thus the
main reason for mentioning the earth as tōhû wā bōhû in this setting is to inform the
audience that the earth is 'not yet' the earth as it is known to them.’ (43) Atwell,
‚Egyptian Source,‛ based on his observation that Gen 1.2 is a description 'in toto' of
the primordial world suggests that Tsumura's (and Westermann's) reading of
 misses the immediate ‘not yet’ context of Gen 1.2. (452)
27 Childs, Myth and Reality, suggests that while the etymology of the word pair is
uncertain ‘the tōhû seems to be a many-sided bōhû<’ (33) Such an explanation is a
sufficiently vague description of this ambiguous pair.
28 I. Blythin, ‚A Note on Genesis I 2,‛ VT 12 (1962): ‘In Gen i 2 it has perhaps been too
lightly assumed that [] is parallel in meaning to [], for if there is
reasonable certainty that [] means the spirit of God, a power 'extension' of
the Godhead, then it is possible that [+ is parallel to this phrase.’ (121)
29 Westermann, Genesis 1-11, 104. Also, Childs, Myth and Reality, makes a similarly
sweeping judgment about darkness in the Hebrew Bible saying that it is ‘closely
related to death’ and ‘remains a sphere opposed to life, and land of non-being.’ (34)
30 See MT Exod 14.20; Deut 4.11, 5.23; 2 Sam 22.12; Isa 45.3; Ps 18.12(11), 139.12.
31 Driver, Genesis, 5-6. On this point Cassuto, Genesis, wants it both ways – darkness as
bad and darkness as an integral part of creation. Commenting on MT Gen 1.4: ‘This
verse, unlike the corresponding verses, specifies the thing that is good – the light – to
prevent the misconception that darkness is also good< It was not the Creator's
intention that there should be perpetual light and no darkness at all, but that the
light and the darkness should operate consecutively for given periods and in
unchanging order.’ (26)
Exploring the Variety of Random
Documents with Different Content
 “Sorry I can’t let you out in the sunshine,” said Tate. “But if you
behave yourselves to-day maybe we’ll let you out to-morrow.”
“Is Davenport in command here?” questioned Jack.
“He’s our leader, yes.”
“Tell him I want to talk to him.”
“He’s gone off and he won’t be back until this afternoon.”
After that the hours dragged by more slowly than ever. The boys
chafed under the restraint but could not think of a single thing to do
to better their condition.
“I wonder if we can’t push some of those logs apart and squeeze
through the opening somehow,” whispered Fred after the breakfast
had been disposed of. “Maybe some of the chains are not as tight as
they look.”
With the coming of day the light in the cave had grown brighter.
With this, and also the lantern to aid them, the four lads set to work
and examined the logs and the chains minutely. As they did this they
watched the opening to the cave so that no one might notice what
they were doing. But none of the gang that had made them captives
appeared.
At first the case looked hopeless and the boys were filled with
despair. But then Andy noticed where one of the chains seemed to
have slipped down over a notch in one of the logs. This was pried up
and by their united efforts the boys were finally able to move the top
of one of the logs a distance of six or eight inches.
“There! I’m sure that opening is wide enough to let a fellow out,”
declared Fred. “Anyhow, I am sure I could get through it.”
“We could all get through if we could get up there,” returned Jack.
The widened opening between the logs was a foot or two above his
head.
It was here that their gymnastic exercises stood the boys in good
stead. Jack quickly managed to place himself on Randy’s shoulders
and then squeezed his way through the opening between the logs.
Fred and Andy followed, and then those outside gave Randy a hand
up, and presently all four of the lads stood outside of what had been
their prison.
“Now what shall we do—make a rush for it?” whispered Fred.
“Wait a minute. I’ll see how the land lies,” announced the young
major, and while the others waited he crawled cautiously to the
entrance of the cave and peered out between the bushes.
The others waited with bated breath wondering what would
happen next. Half a minute passed and then Jack tiptoed his way
back to his cousins.
“Tate and Jackson are out there, smoking their pipes and resting
on the ground,” he announced. “Each has a gun handy. They are
about fifty feet from the entrance to the cave.”
“Are they looking this way?” asked Randy.
“Yes, both are facing the entrance to the cave.”
“Have they got their guns in their hands?” questioned Fred.
“No, their guns are resting against a tree near by.”
“Then why can’t we make a dash for it?” asked Andy recklessly.
“I don’t think we’ll have to do that,” answered the young major.
“I’ve got another plan.”
 CHAPTER XXVIII
TRYING TO ESCAPE

In a whisper so that the two men outside of the cave might not
hear him, Jack outlined his plan for escape.
“The bushes on the left of the entrance are very thick and extend
outside for ten or fifteen feet. There are also several bushes just in
front of the entrance that are a foot or more high. If we can crawl out
in snake fashion maybe we can get into those bushes and work our
way along until we reach some spot where we shall be out of line of
their vision. Then, as soon as we get that far, we can leg it for all we
are worth.”
“Gosh, Jack, I hope we can do it!” returned Randy. “Come on, let’s
try at once. Those fellows may take it into their heads to come into
the cave any time.”
All were more than willing to make the attempt to escape, even
though they realized that the men watching them were desperate
characters and would not hesitate to use their firearms if they
thought it necessary.
The four boys approached the entrance of the cave with caution,
dropping flat on their stomachs as they did so. Then, led by Jack,
one after another wormed his way along until the bushes screening
the opening were reached.
“Now be careful,” warned Jack. “Don’t shake the bushes too much
or those men will get suspicious. It may pay to go slow. And don’t
make any noise.”
As silently as Indians on a hunt the four boys began to worm their
way through the bushes at the side of the cave opening. This was no
easy task, for there was always danger of cracking some dry twig or
of shaking the tops of the bushes unduly. They could hear the men
talking earnestly and even heard Jackson knock out his pipe against
a tree.
“As soon as I get my hands on the dough I’m going to light out for
Mexico,” they heard Jackson tell Tate. “That’s the safest place to
hide.”
“Maybe it is,” they heard Tate answer. “But I don’t like to live
among those Greasers. I’ll try my luck up in the Northwest. I don’t
think anybody will try to follow me to where I’m going.”
“Do you think the Rovers will come across, Tate?”
“Sure, they will! They’ll pay up to the last dollar! Davenport will
make ’em do it!”
“But suppose they balk?”
“Then Davenport will send ’em a finger or an ear. That will surely
bring ’em to terms mighty quick.”
“Would he go as far as that?”
“Davenport? You don’t know the man! He’d go a great deal further
if he thought it would bring him in any money. That fellow is about as
cold-blooded as they make ’em.”
Every one of the boys heard this talk, and it made them feel
anything but comfortable. Evidently the scoundrels who had made
them captives would stop at nothing to accomplish their ends.
Presently Jack found himself confronted by a big rock that stuck
up almost to the top of the bushes. As silently as a cat after a bird,
he crawled over this rock, and one after another the others followed.
Then came a series of rocks and more brushwood, and at last the
four lads found themselves out of sight of Tate and Jackson.
“Which way are you going to head?” questioned Randy when he
thought it was safe to speak.
“I don’t know,” was the whispered reply. “The main thing is to get
out of reach of those fellows. Come on—don’t lose any time. If they
discover our escape they’ll do their best to round us up again.”
 Without knowing where they were going, the four boys plunged on
through the bushes and over the rough rocks until they came to a
narrow trail running along the mountainside.
“I think we’re heading for Sunset Trail,” announced Fred. “And if
we are, so much the better.”
“If we see or hear anybody coming jump behind the trees or
bushes,” ordered Jack. “We might run into Davenport. They said he
had gone off on some sort of an errand.”
The boys pushed on for several hundred feet, and there found that
the trail came to an end at a spring of water which gushed forth from
between several rocks. Beyond this point was a heavy mass of
practically impenetrable forest.
“Doesn’t look as if we could go any farther in this direction,”
remarked Andy, his face falling as he gazed around.
“No. I guess we’ve got to go back,” answered the young major.
“Wait a second. I’m going to have a drink,” cried Fred, and bent
down to partake of the clear, cool water of the spring.
All were thirsty, and they spent a full minute in refreshing
themselves. They were just turning away from the spring when they
heard a shout followed presently by three gunshots in rapid
succession.
“They’ve discovered our escape and that’s a signal to warn the
others!” ejaculated Jack. “Now we’ve got to be careful or they’ll catch
us sure.”
How to turn the boys did not know. They could not go ahead, and
they did not want to backtrack on the trail for fear of running into
some of their enemies. To climb the mountainside was practically
impossible, and it looked almost as dangerous to attempt to descend
between the uncertain rocks and dense brushwood.
“Well, it’s suicide to stay where we are,” was the way Andy
expressed himself.
“Can’t do it,” added his twin.
 “Unless I’m mistaken, I can see some sort of a trail below us,”
announced Jack. “Look there and tell me if I am right.”
All gazed in the direction indicated and came to the conclusion
that there was another and better trail about a hundred yards below
them. Then one after another they began the perilous descent
between the rocks and bushes.
All went well for a distance of sixty yards. Then Randy slipped and
his twin almost immediately followed. Jack was ahead of them, and
in a twinkling they took the young major off his feet. Fred made a
wild clutch to stop Andy, and as a consequence he, too, began to
slide. All of the boys went down with a rush, carrying several small
bushes with them. They slid over the rocks and a number of loose
stones, and finally brought up in a hollow, some small stones rattling
all around them as they did so.
“Wow! Talk about your toboggans!” gasped Randy, when he could
speak. “I guess I came down at the rate of half a mile a minute.”
“Anybody hurt?” sang out Jack. He himself had scratched his
elbow, his ear and one of his knees.
All of them were scratched and bumped, but not seriously, and
they stood up quickly, brushing themselves off and gazing around to
find out where they had landed.
“Look!” cried Jack, pointing. “If that isn’t Sunset Trail over there
then I miss my guess! What do you say?”
“It sure is! And yonder is Longnose’s cabin,” answered Fred.
“Out of sight! All of you!” came quickly from Randy. “There is
Davenport and a couple of others with him!”
One after another the Rover boys tried to hide behind such rocks
and bushes as were available. But their movements came to little.
They were discovered by one of the men with Davenport, and that
individual immediately set up a cry of alarm. Then the men, led by
Davenport, came riding toward the spot as rapidly as the condition of
the trail permitted.
 “Stop where you are!” yelled the man from the oil fields. “Hands up
and stop, or it will be the worse for you!”
The boys heard the rascal but paid no attention to his threat. They
did their best to lose themselves in some bushes below the spot
where they had landed. But the way was rough and uncertain and
one after another they took another tumble, to find themselves at last
hopelessly tangled up in a mass of brushwood.
“You can’t get away from us, so you might as well give up,” yelled
Davenport as he rode as close as the brushwood and rocks would
permit. “Come out of there one by one. If you don’t, we’ll use our
guns.”
Seeing that all of the men were armed, the boys knew it would be
useless to attempt to go farther, and so one by one they came out of
the tangle of rocks and brushwood, their clothing torn and their
hands bleeding from their rough experience. Fred was the first to
emerge, and, telling his companions to “keep all of the rats covered,”
Davenport dismounted and caught the youngest Rover by the arm.
“Thought you’d get away, eh?” snorted the oil man, an ugly look
crossing his face. “I reckon we let you have too much liberty. After
this I’ll see to it that you won’t get a yard from where we place you.”
All of the boys did their best to argue with Davenport, but the oil
man would not listen to them, and in the end they were compelled to
march along the trail as it wound in and out along the mountainside,
at last reaching a camp close to where the cave in which they had
been prisoners was located. At the camp they fell in with Tate and
Jackson, who had been looking everywhere for the lads.
“How did they get away?” stormed Davenport.
“Don’t know,” answered Tate. “We haven’t made an inspection of
the cave yet. They must have crawled through some kind of a hole.”
The cave was entered, and soon the rascals discovered how two
of the logs had been pried apart at the top.
“After this we’ll have to guard ’em! That’s all there is to it!” declared
Davenport. “Why, if we hadn’t been lucky enough to spot ’em, they’d
have gotten away sure.”
“See here, Davenport! what’s the meaning of this, anyway?”
questioned Jack, putting on as bold a front as he could.
“Hasn’t your father already told you what I intend to do?”
demanded the oil man.
“He told me you demanded a lot of money of him.”
“So I did, Jack Rover. And I intend to get it—a whole lot of money.”
“And I suppose you want some money out of my father too,” put in
Fred.
“That’s right!” answered Tate. “If you want to know some of the
particulars I’ll tell you. We’re asking fifty thousand dollars for the
release of Jack Rover, fifty thousand dollars for the release of Fred
Rover and fifty thousand dollars for the release of Andy Rover and
Randy Rover. That’s a hundred and fifty thousand dollars for the
bunch.”
“Huh! Then you think my two cousins are worth twice as much as
my brother and I, eh?” asked the irrepressible Andy, with a faint grin.
“Pah, Andy Rover! Don’t make fun of it!” snarled Davenport. “It’s
nothing to laugh at. If you don’t like the price we’ve put on you and
your brother we can easily raise it to fifty thousand apiece.”
“That’s the talk!” cried Tate. “Then we’d have fifty thousand dollars
more to divide between us,” and he smiled wickedly.
“This high-handed proceeding may get you in hot water,
Davenport,” said Jack.
“I’m willing to take the risk. Now that we’ve got you again I’ll see to
it personally that you’ll never get back to your folks again until that
money is paid.”
“Suppose our folks can’t raise the money?” questioned Fred.
“I happen to know that they can raise it,” answered the oil man.
“Your folks are rich. They have made barrels of money out of their
transactions in Wall Street and in the West and down in the oil fields.
They can pay that hundred and fifty thousand dollars easily enough,
and they are going to do it.”
“Have you already made a demand for the money?” asked Randy.
“We have.”
“Well, if they won’t pay it, what then?” questioned Andy.
“Then we’ll put the screws on you boys until you send word to your
folks that they’ve got to pay.”
“And if we won’t send word, what then?”
“Oh, you’ll send word all right enough before we get through with
you,” replied Davenport suggestively.
Then the boys were hustled back into their prison and additional
chains were placed upon the logs. After that a regular guard was
stationed at the entrance to the cave, so that another escape would
be impossible.
 CHAPTER XXIX
ANOTHER DEMAND

A week dragged wearily by and the four Rover boys still found
themselves prisoners of Carson Davenport and his gang.
During that time they had been given no chance to escape. For
two days they were kept in the close confinement of the cave and
after that they were taken out each day for several hours so that they
might enjoy the fresh air and the sunshine. But when this was done
each had his hands tied behind him and was fastened by a rope to
one of the trees while not less than two of the men sat near by, guns
handy, to guard them.
“Gee, we couldn’t be any worse off if we were in a regular prison,”
was the way Randy expressed himself.
“If we were in a regular prison I think the food would be better,”
answered Fred.
For the first three days the food supplied to them had been fairly
good. But now it was becoming worse every day. That morning they
had had the vilest of coffee and bread that was musty and old, and
the previous evening the stew offered to them had made the twins
sick.
They were satisfied that Davenport and his crowd were negotiating
with not only the twins’ father but with the fathers of Jack and Fred.
But they were given only a slight inkling of how matters were
progressing. Then they heard the oil man tell Jackson and Tate that
he expected Booster to arrive soon.
“And as soon as he comes we’ll put the screws on the boys. That
will bring their folks to terms,” said Davenport.
The next day the fellow called Booster put in an appearance, and
despite the wig he was wearing the boys to their surprise recognized
the young man who had introduced himself as Joe Brooks. The
confidence man smiled grimly when Jack spoke to him.
“I fooled you kids pretty neatly, didn’t I, in New York and in
Chicago?” said Joe Booster, for that was his real name. “You never
suspected that I was in with Davenport, did you?”
“Then you don’t know Fatty Hendry at all, do you?” put in Andy.
“Oh, I met him once,” answered the confidence man carelessly. “I
palmed myself off as a friend of one of his cousins and got him to
lend me ten dollars. That was when I was pretty well down on my
uppers.”
Davenport, Tate, Jackson and Booster had a long conversation
and then the four rascals came again to the boys.
“Well, how are you making out?” asked Booster pleasantly. “They
give you pretty good grub, don’t they?”
“No, it’s getting worse every day,” answered Fred bluntly.
“Why, I thought they were giving you genuine mocha coffee,” went
on the confidence man.
“Giving us dishwater!” retorted Andy.
“And fine stew, too!”
“It made me sick yesterday,” came from Randy.
“Well, you listen to us,” put in Davenport. “Unless you’re willing to
do what we want you to, the grub is going to be a good deal worse
instead of better. More than that, we’ll keep you in the cave all the
time.”
“What is it you want us to do?” questioned Jack, although he
already had an idea on that subject.
“We want all of you boys to write a letter to your fathers, stating
that they had better pay the money that we have demanded of them
and that otherwise you are afraid of what may happen to you. You
can tell them that so far you have had the best of food and the best
of treatment generally, but that you have been threatened with
starvation if the money isn’t forthcoming. We want all of you to make
that letter just as strong as you can. You write the letter,” he went on,
pointing to Jack, “and all of you sign it with your full names, so that
your folks will know it’s a genuine communication.”
“Excuse me, Davenport, but I’m not writing any such letter,”
declared Jack flatly.
“Neither am I,” put in Fred.
“Nor I,” added the twins in concert.
“You will write it!” bellowed Davenport, his anger rising swiftly. “If
you don’t write it I’ll give each of you a horsewhipping.”
“That’s the talk!” cried Tate.
“Give ’em a licking and no supper,” added Jackson.
“I don’t think you’ll have to whip ’em,” came from Joe Booster, who
did not believe in violence of any sort. “Just let ’em go without their
supper, and their breakfast to-morrow morning. Maybe then they’ll
sing a different tune.”
“I owe ’em a licking for all the things they’ve done against me,”
growled Davenport.
“Never mind. It will be enough after we get hold of that money,”
returned Booster. “Just cut ’em off from the eats. That’s the way you
can bring anybody to terms. I’ve tried it before, and I know.”
“All right then,” said the oil man shortly. And then he and his
cronies left the cave.
“Well, they’re a nice bunch, I don’t think!” came from Andy, when
the four boys found themselves alone.
“Going to starve us, eh?” muttered Fred. “Do you think they’ll dare
do it?”
“It looks to me as if they’d dare to do anything,” came from Jack.
“Gee, it’s too bad we didn’t make our escape when we had the
chance.”
 Randy looked toward the entrance of the cave to make certain that
all of the men had departed.
“Let’s try to get away again to-night,” he whispered. “It’s our one
hope.”
“I hope our dads don’t turn over that money to them,” went on
Jack, his eyes flashing angrily. “That bunch oughtn’t to have a
hundred and fifty cents, much less a hundred and fifty thousand
dollars. Such a demand is the worst kind of a hold-up.”
“Well, such demands have been made before, and the money has
been paid, too,” answered Fred. “Don’t you remember that case of
the fellow that was held by the bandits in Algeria, and the case of the
two girls who were held by the Mexican bandits? Their folks had to
come across. Otherwise those people would have been put out of
the way.”
Supper time came, but no food was brought to the boys. They,
however, were given a bucket of drinking water by Ocker.
“Davenport didn’t want you to have this,” whispered the man, as
he handed the water in. “But I told him I wouldn’t stand for letting you
kids go thirsty. It’s bad enough to make you go without the eats.”
“Thank you for so much sympathy anyhow, Ocker,” returned Jack,
and then went on quickly: “Why does a nice fellow like you stand in
with such a bunch as Davenport’s crowd? Why don’t you cut them
and help us to get away? We can make it well worth your while.”
“I wouldn’t dare do it, Rover,” muttered the man. “They’d never
forgive me, and they’d be sure to get me sooner or later. I’m kind of
sorry that I stood in with ’em, just the same,” and then, as Tate
appeared at the entrance of the cave, Ocker walked away hastily.
“Gee, maybe we can work on that fellow’s sympathies and get him
to help us,” was Randy’s comment.
“Maybe if we make him a worth-while offer he’ll help us to escape,”
put in his twin. “Even if they got the money from our folks it isn’t likely
that Davenport, Tate and Jackson, along with that Booster, would let
Ocker or Digby have any great amount of it.”
 The boys wondered what their folks were doing. Of course, they
knew nothing about Dick Rover and Sam joining Tom in Maporah.
Davenport, through Booster, had kept a close watch and reported
the arrival at Maporah of the fathers of Jack and Fred. Thereupon a
demand had been made upon the three older Rovers for the money,
which was to be paid in cash. It was to be placed in a package under
a tree along Sunset Trail, and the Rovers were to take care that no
one was to be in that vicinity during the night or early morning under
penalty of an attack from ambush. As soon as the package was
safely received by the Davenport crowd the four boys were to be
released and set on their way toward Gold Hill.
“Those fellows certainly know what they want,” said Sam Rover to
his two brothers. “What are we to do about it?” All efforts to locate
the boys had failed and their fathers were frantic, not knowing how to
turn or what to do next.
In the meantime Mr. Renton and Mr. Parkhurst, the heavy
stockholders in the Rolling Thunder mine, had reached Maporah and
there had a short but effective interview with Tom Rover.
“I’ll take charge of things here,” declared Mr. Renton, when he had
heard about the boys being held for ransom. “I think I know exactly
how to handle Garrish. You go ahead and look for those kids.
Garrish won’t get away from me, and neither will the Rolling Thunder
mine.” And thereupon Tom turned matters over to the other
stockholders who had agreed to act with him.
The water brought to them by Ocker satisfied the boys’ thirst but it
did not allay their hunger, and as hour after hour passed and none of
their captors presented himself, the lads began to grow desperate.
“I wish I had an ax! I’d try to smash down those logs,” declared
Andy. “We might be able to make a rush for it in the dark.”
“I’ve got an idea! I wonder we didn’t think of it before,” said Jack in
a low tone. “Here, Randy and Andy, stand back to back and give me
a chance to climb up on your shoulders. When I’m up there, Fred,
you hand me the lantern. I’m going to inspect those cracks overhead
and see if I can’t find some sort of an opening up there.”
 The young major, having removed his shoes, was soon standing
upright on the shoulders of the twins. Fred passed up the lantern,
and Jack had the twins move slowly from one part of the rocky
cavern to another.
For a long while Jack found nothing that looked promising, but
presently he discovered a stone that seemed to be loose. He told
those below to be on the watch and pulled and tugged at the bowlder
with all his might. It came down with a crash and a number of loose
stones and some dirt followed. Jack immediately leaped down and
threw himself on the ground, the others following his example.
“Hi there! What are you fellows doing?” came from the entrance to
the cave in Jackson’s voice.
“A loose stone came down! It nearly smashed us!” cried Jack.
“I don’t want to stay here if the roof is coming down on us,” wailed
Fred.
“Do as we told you to and you won’t have to stay there,” answered
Jackson, and then, after waiting a few minutes more, the man
disappeared from the entrance.
Once more Jack mounted to the shoulders of the twins and with
caution he poked at the hole which had been started.
“Take off your jacket, Fred, and catch the loose stones so that they
don’t make any noise,” he whispered. And this the youngest Rover
did.
It was a long, tedious task, and several times the young major was
on the point of giving up. But just when he felt that his labors were of
no avail he broke through an opening overhead. Immediately the
cool night wind struck him and he realized that he had reached the
outer air.
Again their gymnastic training stood the lads in good stead. Jack
hauled Fred up and then held him still higher, and soon the youngest
Rover had crawled through the opening above.
“I’m right here among a lot of bushes,” he whispered, looking
down. “It’s a side hole, so there isn’t much danger of its caving in.”
 Fred leaned down and assisted Jack up, and then the two cut a
long heavy stick and with this assisted the twins to get out of the
cave, bringing Jack’s shoes with them. They were but a short
distance away from the camp of the men and could hear them
talking quite plainly.
Hardly daring to breathe, the four boys crawled through the
brushwood until they reached something of a trail. They could see
little, owing to the darkness, but managed to make fair progress.
“Thank fortune, we’re out of that!” exclaimed Jack presently. “Now
we’ve got to see to it that they don’t catch us again.”
“Right-o!” answered Randy. Then, looking up at the sky, he
continued: “See how dark it is—not a star showing. I think it’s going
to rain.”
He was right, and in a few minutes more the first of the drops
began to come down. Then came a dim flash of lightning, followed
presently by a vivid streak across the heavens.
“We’re in for a regular thunder storm,” said Fred. “Gee, I hope the
lightning doesn’t strike us.”
On and on went the boys, bumping into more than one tree and
sometimes going headlong over the rocks. They had but one
purpose in mind—to put as much space as possible between
themselves and the Davenport gang.
At last, having moved along for over an hour and being soaked to
the skin, they came to rest under the shelter of a rocky precipice.
The storm continued, vivid flashes of lightning being followed by
claps of thunder that echoed and re-echoed through the mountains.
“We’ve got to go on,” said Jack, at last. “As soon as daylight
comes those fellows will be searching for us, and they’ll have a big
advantage for they’ll be on horseback while we’ll be on foot.”
Forward they went again, although in what direction they did not
know. They were hoping that they were getting farther and farther
away from the cave where they had been held captive.
 They were passing along the sloping side of the mountain when
another flash of lightning followed by a loud clap of thunder startled
them and brought them again to a halt. Then came another crash as
a tree toppled down not far away.
“Gee, that was close enough!” exclaimed Jack.
He had scarcely spoken when the four boys were startled by a yell
of fright. A few seconds later came a man’s voice crying piteously:
“Help! Help! For the love of heaven, help! I’m caught fast under the
tree and I’ll be crushed to death! Help!”
 CHAPTER XXX
THE ROUND-UP—CONCLUSION

“Somebody’s in trouble! We’ll have to see if we can’t help him!”

“Beware! It may be one of the Davenport crowd.”
“That may be true, but we can’t let him die. Come on.”
Another flash of lightning lit up the scene, and by this the Rover
boys saw where a tall tree of the mountainside had been broken off.
The top hung down over some sharp rocks and under several limbs
rested the form of a man, held down so that he could do little but kick
frantically with one leg.
“It’s Ocker!” exclaimed Fred, as they drew closer.
“Help! Help!” came faintly from the man as he saw the dim forms
of the boys in the darkness. “Help! I’m being crushed to death!”
Fully realizing that they might be playing into the hands of their
enemies and yet not willing to see Ocker crushed to death, the four
lads sprang forward and began to tug at the tree branches which
held the fellow a prisoner. They could see that any instant the top of
the tree might break away entirely from the trunk and then Ocker
would be crushed to a pulp.
It was strenuous work, but the military experiences of the former
cadets stood them in good stead, and now, as the twins and Jack
raised one limb after another, Fred propped them up with such
stones as were handy so that they could not slip back. Then, while
the twins continued to exert pressure on the treetop, Jack hauled
Ocker away.
The man was bruised and bleeding and for the moment so winded
he could scarcely speak. At first he had not recognized his rescuers
and he stared in astonishment when another flash of lightning
revealed their faces.
“You!” he gasped hoarsely. “You! And I was helping to keep you
prisoners!”
“Ocker, we have saved your life, and you know it,” answered Jack
quickly. “Now then, it is up to you to help us escape. Will you do it?”
“I sure will!” panted the man. “I’m done with that crowd, anyhow. I
told Davenport I wasn’t brought up to do such dirty work as he has
planned.” Ocker paused to regain his breath. “Why, Davenport is as
bad a skunk as Pete Garrish!”
“Pete Garrish!” exclaimed Randy. “Do you know anything about
that man?”
“I know everything about him,” muttered Ocker. “He and his crowd
are trying to swindle your father and some other men out of their
interest in the Rolling Thunder mine.”
“You come with us, Ocker, and you won’t regret it,” put in Jack
hurriedly. “Show us the way to Cal Corning’s house.”
For an instant the man hesitated.
“If I take you back where you belong, you won’t have me arrested,
will you?” he pleaded. “I don’t want to hurt you fellows, and I’d just as
lief tell Mr. Rover what I know about Garrish.”
“You won’t be arrested,” answered Jack. “I’ll give you my word on
it. Come—hurry up! We not only want to get back, but we want to
have a chance to round those other fellows up.”
“But don’t do it before I’ve a chance to get away!” And the man’s
face showed his sudden terror.
“All right, we’ll give you your chance, and we’ll make it worth your
while, too,” answered Jack.
Ocker had been on foot, not daring to take his horse when he had
stolen away from the Davenport crowd. He led the way to a broader
and better trail, and less than half an hour later found the whole
crowd on Sunset Trail. By this time the storm was passing and only a
few scattering raindrops were coming down.
That tramp was one the Rover boys never forgot. Soaked to the
skin, and so footsore they could scarcely walk, they reached Cal
Corning’s place at about five o’clock in the morning. Their knock on
the door brought Corning to that portal, gun in hand.
“Why—why, it’s the Rover boys!” called out the man, in
amazement. “Hurrah! Mr. Rover! Mr. Rover! The boys are here, safe
and sound!” he yelled.
It was then that pandemonium seemed to break loose. From a
couple of the bedrooms rushed Tom Rover followed quickly by Sam
and Dick. The men were partly dressed, having removed only their
coats and shoes.
“My boys! My boys!” cried Tom Rover, and there was almost a sob
in his throat as he rushed to embrace the twins. Then Dick ran to
Jack and Sam to Fred, and there was a genuine hugging match all
around.
“Gee, but it’s good to be back!” was the way Andy expressed
himself, and each of the other lads endorsed that sentiment.
“We were out looking for you until the storm came up,” said Dick
Rover. “We were going out again as soon as it was daylight.”
“Where have you been and what did those rascals do to you?”
questioned Sam Rover.
“It’s a long story, Dad,” answered Fred, and then he added quickly:
“Here’s a man you’ll like to see, Uncle Tom. His name is Ocker, and
he knows all about Peter Garrish.”
“Did he find you?” questioned Tom quickly.
“No. We found him—under a tree that was struck by lightning,” put
in Jack quickly. “We’ll give you the particulars in a little while. Just
now we want to know if you don’t want to get a crowd together to go
after Davenport and his bunch. Those men ought to be rounded up
and put back in prison.”
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebookfinal.com