Page:A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi and Jonah.djvu/62

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

probably have used מפני instead of לפני for before, just as he does in 112. i. The omission of על־דרכיכם in 215, 18 is is due to the fact that here the verb has another object. Cf. 15, 7. k. The use of יהוה without צבאות in 214, 17 would have more significance if the last clause of v.17 were undoubtedly genuine and Haggai did not employ the simple name three times (24(bis), 23) outside the passage under consideration. See also 113, an interpolation. l. The omission of his title after the name of the prophet in 213 f. is just what one would expect in a passing reference. Cf. Böhme, ZAW., 1887, 215. Elsewhere the title is used; except in 220, and there, on the testimony of 𝔊, it should be. Cf. 11, 3, 12 21. m. The priests appear in 211 ff., because the question is one that not only the high priest, but any of his associates, ought to be able to answer. In all cases where the high priest is introduced, he, like Zerubbabel, is a representative figure. Cf. 11, 12, 14 22. n. The case of, אל, to, for ביד, by, has already been discussed under point 3, p. 28.

In view of this showing it is not strange that André's hypothesis has met with little favour from biblical scholars.[1]

There is one other extended passage, 220–23, whose genuineness has been questioned by W. Böhme (ZAW., 1887, 215 ff.).

He mentions incidentally the omission of the title after the name of the prophet in v.20., laying the stress of objection upon (1) the use of the construction to (אל) for by (ביד; lit. by the hand of) in the same verse, and (2) the unnecessary repetition in v.21 of a prophecy found in 26b, 7a, which, according to 22. 4, Zerubbabel had already heard. These objections, however, are easily answered. The missing title is found in 𝔊; the construction with to is the one that was originally used in vv.1, 10; and the repetition of v.6b, or rather, v.6bα,—v.7a is not so literally reproduced,—is simply a device for connecting the fortunes of Zerubbabel with the same events for which the prophet had sought to prepare the people. The weakness of Böhme's argument is apparent. This, however, is not all. He has overlooked the fact that Zerubbabel was removed soon after Haggai ceased to prophesy, and that, therefore, his theory, as Marti remarks, implies that this final prophecy was added by a writer who knew that it could not be fulfilled.


The book of Haggai, then, as a whole, may be regarded as a genuine collection of the words of the prophet whose name it bears. It can hardly contain all that he said on any of the four occasions on which he is reported to have spoken, much less all that he said during the months when he was labouring for the restoration of the national sanctuary. The meagreness of the

  1. For a more severe criticism of it, see G. A. Smith on Haggai in The Expositor's Bible.