532 Elie Assis thematically. In the first oracle, the prophet urges the people to build the Temple, and in the second, uttered two months later, he comforts those who are disappointed by the unpretentious and modest construction that they see. The third and the fourth oracles were uttered on the same day and are presented as a continuity, as indicated in the opening to the fourth oracle: “The word of the LORD came a second time to Haggai” (2,20). There is a thematic connection also between these two oracles. Both deal with questions of status and identity. The third oracle discusses the question of who belongs to Israel. The people think that the Samaritans can be part of Israel and can help them to build the Temple. Haggai, however, calls the Samaritans “an unclean nation” and opposes any intermingling with them (2,14) (6). The question of Israel’s status and identity appears here in all its gravity. The fourth oracle likewise deals with the question of status and identity: the status of Zerubbabel, scion of the House of David (1 Chron. 3,17-19) (7). The return to Zion had commenced, but Judah was not independent politically, and the status of King David’s offspring was inferior. This situation affected Judah’s status among the peoples, and therefore Haggai prophesied that Zerubbabel’s status would rise while the status of the kingdoms of the nations will decline (2,22) (8). The style of the opening and closing of the oracles confirms the division of the book into two parts. While a full date is given in the first (1,1) and the third oracles (2,10), with indication of year, month and day, the date in the second (2,1) and the fourth oracles (2,20) is incomplete: in the second, the month and the day, and in the fourth the day only (9). The most convincing explanation for the different types of dates is their function in the book. It would seem that indication of the full date is designed to mark the beginning of a new part, whereas the use of an incomplete date in the second and the fourth oracles is designed to indicate the start of a new oracle within the (5) A chiastic structure to the Book was suggested by: M.H. FLOYD, Minor Prophets (Part II, FOTL, Grand Rapids – Cambridge 2000) 257-258. I do not believe that this structure has been adequately proved. On the structure of Haggai see: C.L. MEYERS – E.M. MEYERS, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8 (AB, New York 1987) xlvii-xlviii; J.G, BALDWIN, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, London 1972) 31; PECKHAM, History and Prophecy, 741-748; T. CHARY, Aggée, Zacharie, Malachie (Sources bibliques, Paris 1969) 12-13; C. STUHLMUELLER, Haggai and Zechariah. Rebuilding with Hope (ITC, Grand Rapids 1998) 15; KESSLER, The Book of Haggai, 247-251. For a form-critical analysis see: K. KOCH, “Haggais unreines Volk”, ZAW 79 (1967) 52-66. (6) I follow here the suggestion proposed by Rothstein that this prophecy is against the Samaritans (although I think that 2,10-19 is one unit). J.W. ROTHSTEIN, Juden und Samaritaner. Die grundlegende Scheidung von Judentum und Heidentum. Eine kritische Studie zum Buche Haggai und zur jüdische Geschichte im ersten nachexilischen Jahrhundert (BWANT 3, Leipzig 1908) 5-41. Today, many disagree with Rothstein’s hypothesis: see e.g. KOCH, “Haggais unreines Volk”, 52-66. (7) Even though it is striking that Haggai makes no reference to Zerubbabel as royal, see: A. LEMAIRE, “Zorobabel et la Judée à la lumière de l’épigraphie (fin du VIe s. av. J.- C.)”, RB 103 (1996) 54-55. (8) See P.R. BEDFORD, “Discerning the Time: Haggai, Zechariah and the ‘Delay’ in the Rebuilding of the Jerusalem Temple”, The Pitcher is Broken. Memorial Essays for Gösta W. Ahlström (eds. S.W. HOLLOWAY – L.K. HANDY) (JSOTSS 190, Sheffield 1995) 84. (9) Various explanations were offered for the different forms of the dates: see: R. YARON, “The Schema of the Aramaic Legal Documents”, JJS 2 (1957) 33-61, 60-61; KESSLER, The Book of Haggai, 44-48.