The Question of Indirect Touch 73 carrying the main responsibility for Jerusalem’s downfall: the priests’ past crime caused innocent blood to flood in the city. As a result, the priests, rendered impure by the spilt blood, now wander blindly in the streets (v. 14), without a rightful place to live in (v. 15), and without being shown any deference (v. 16). To sum up, when we compare the involvement of the priests in the three texts, we find again, as in the case of indirect touch, that Lam 4,14 and Hag 2,10-14 agree with each other against Ezek 44, 15-31: while Lam 4,13-16 and Hag 2,10-14 share the concepts of priestly guilt and of resulting impurity, Ezek 44, 15-31 speak of a blameless clergy. * ** We have seen that Hag 2,12-13 and Lam 4,14 agree with one another in two areas: both texts claim that impurity can be transferred via indirect touch, and both texts hint at a critical disposition towards the priests, claiming that their behaviour is connected with either their own impurity or that of the people. In contrast, Ezek 44,19 presents a more positive estimate of the priests, contrasting their behaviour favourable with that of the people. Furthermore, Ezek 44,19 disagrees with Hag 2,12 concerning the matter of holiness. While Ezek 44,19 declares that holiness can be transferred through indirect touch, Hag 2,12 states that it cannot. How, then, should we interpret these similarities and differences? The exilic Ezek 44,19 and the Judahite Lam 4,14 can be regarded roughly as contemporary with one another, and they present two related cases: Lam 4,14 claims that impurity can be transmitted via indirect touch, and Ezek 44,19 gives us a corresponding example of holiness being transmitted via indirect touch. There are two plausible scenarios: it is possible that we have here an example of an inner-Biblical development of a concept and, as such, also an inner-Biblical revision (20). The later text of Hag 2,12-13 would then evaluate both traditions, side with the tradition preserved in Lamentations and reject the tradition in Ezekiel: impurity can be transmitted via indirect touch but holiness cannot. Taken in conjunction, Hag 2,12-13 also sides with the critical evaluation of the priests preserved in Lamentations against the more favour- able evaluation in Ezekiel. Alternatively, we may assume that Hag 2,12-13 was familiar with the tradition in Lam 4,14 but not with the one in Ezek 44,19. Accordingly, Haggai follows the tradition of Lam 4,14 with regard to the transmission of impurity, but adheres to a tradition at variance with the one preserved in Ezek 44,19 with regard to the transmission of holiness. Furthermore, Haggai follows the (20) Concerning the term “revision”, I follow Sommer’s definition and use of the term (B.D. SOMMER, A Prophet Reads Scripture. Allusion in Isaiah 40–66 [Contraversions; Stanford, California 1998] 25-28). According to Sommer, revision occurs when a later Biblical text restates some aspects of an earlier text while altering elements of the message of the older text, or adding to the earlier message. This happens most frequently in legal codes where earlier laws are rewritten and largely replaced. Thus, in the present case, the negative ruling of the later Hag 2,12 replaces the positive ruling of the earlier Ezek 44,19.