v.9 without producing confusion. The second statement is based on an exaggerated notion of the subtlety of the illustration used in 212 ff.; which, according to André, betrays the priestly legalist. It is really, as will be shown in the comments, a figure that might have occurred to any Jew zealous for his religion in the days of the prophet. The third point touches the style, not of Haggai, but of the editor by whom his prophecies were collected. Moreover, as will be shown, the original reading in 21 was to, not by Haggai, and, when this correction is made, the alleged discrepancy has disappeared. The contradictions to which André refers under his fourth head he finds in 217, 18, on the one hand, compared with 110 f. 15 on the other. For the solution of these difficulties, see the comments on the passages cited. There are, as André, fifthly, asserts, differences of phraseology between 210–19 and the rest of the book, but there is not a case having any significance in which the word or phrase employed cannot be better explained than by calling it a mark of difference in authorship.
There is really no necessity for discussing the thirteen specifications under this head, but perhaps it should be done for the sake of showing how little science is sometimes mixed with criticism. The following are the words and phrases cited, with the reason, when there is one, for the use of each of them in the given connection:
a. The use of היכל, temple, in 215. 18 for the more general term בית, house, of 12. 14 has no critical significance. It is used in a precisely similar connection, and exclusively, four times in Zc. 69–15, and with בית in Zc. 89. b. In 214 יגיע, which means wearisome toil, and, when the instrument is to be expressed, is always followed by כף, palm, as in 111, would not have been general enough; hence the use of מעשׂה ידיהם, work of their hands. c. In 212 oil is called שׁמן, and not, as in 111, יצהר, because it is regarded as a commodity rather than a product of the soil. d. The same explanation applies to the use of יין, wine, for תירושׁ, must. e. The use of מגורה, granary, for the בית, house, home, in 219 is explained by the fact that the author is here thinking of grain in storage, and not, as in 19, on its way from the field or the threshing-floor. f. The word בגד is the proper one for a single garment. Hence it, and not לבושׁ, which generally means clothing, is used in 212, and often elsewhere, even in connection with the verb לבשׁ, clothe, of 16. Cf. Zc. 33. g. In 214 גוי, nation, is used of Israel, because a synonym is needed for עם, people. Cf. Ex. 3313. This is not the case anywhere else in the book. Cf. 12, 12, 13, 14 24. h. If in 214 the writer had had a verb denoting fear, he would
- André claims that vv.20, 21b, as well as v.10, were added to the text when vv.11–19 were inserted.