M. Rogland, «Haggai 2,17 – A New Analysis», Vol. 88 (2007) 553-557
The syntax of the phrase yl) Mkt)-Ny)w in Hag 2,17 has proven difficult to analyze,
causing many scholars to suspect that the text is corrupt. This article argues, on
the contrary, that the current Masoretic Text is understandable syntactically and
that emendation is unnecessary. Examples from Qumran Hebrew and Biblical
Hebrew are adduced to demonstrate that the syntagm Mkt)-Ny) is to be understood
as a type of possessive clause. The usage of the preposition l) and the function of
the clause as a whole are also analyzed, and it is argued that the phrase ought to
be rendered 'while you had nothing directed towards me' or 'because you had
nothing directed towards me'. The phrase thus indicates that the judgment
experienced by the people was due to their failure to direct that their material
possessions towards the Lord for the rebuilding of his temple (cf. Hag 1,1-11).
Haggai 2,17 – A New Analysis
drbbw ˆwqrybw ˆwpdvb µkta ytykh
hwhyAµan yla µktaAˆyaw µkydy hc[mAlk ta
I struck you and all the products of your toil with blight and mildew and hail;
yet you did not return to me, says the LORD (1) (Hag 2,17).
The translation of Hag 2,17 is fairly straightforward, with the notable
exception of the syntactically problematic expression yla µktaAˆyaw, which has
been variously described as being “among the most difficult in Haggai†(2), as
“barbaric†Hebrew (3), “hardly comprehensible†(4), “hopelessly corrupt†(5),
and textually “indefensible†(6). Those scholars who attempt to make sense of
the Masoretic Text (MT) as it currently stands typically interpret µkta as
marking the grammatical subject of the clause (7). Consequently, attention is
usually drawn to the force of the preposition la which, it is argued, either has
a dynamic sense indicating movement towards a person or else has a
dispositional sense that indicates being “on the side of†the Lord (8).
Alternatively, it has been suggested that the expression indicates that the
Israelites are “as nothing†to the Lord (9). One of the chief obstacles to
interpretations such as these, however, is the fact that the use of ta to mark the
grammatical subject is a highly disputed topic (10).
While the difficult nature of the MT speaks in favor of its originality (11),
it is typically concluded that the text is corrupt. The verse is frequently viewed
as a gloss on Amos 4,9, which reads as follows:
(1) Translations are cited from the New Revised Standard Version.
(2) C. MEYERS – E. MEYERS, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8 (AB; Garden City 1987) 61.
(3) Thus Ehrlich’s Randglossen, cited by D. PETERSEN, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8
(OTL; Philadelphia 1984) 86.
(4) H.-W. WOLFF, Haggai (Continental Commentary; Minneapolis 1988) 58.
(5) T. MURAOKA, Emphatic Words and Structures in Biblical Hebrew (Jerusalem –
Leiden 1985) 157.
(6) H. MITCHELL ET AL, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi and Jonah (ICC; Edinburgh 1912)
75. For helpful summaries of the scholarly discussion, see J. KESSLER, The Book of Haggai.
Prophecy and Society in Early Persian Yehud (VTS 91; Leiden 2002) 199, n. 20; J. KOOLE,
Haggaï (Commentaar op het Oude Testament; Kampen 1967) 90; D. CLARK, “Problems in
Haggai 2.15-19â€, BT 34.4 (1983) 432-439.
(7) Cf. KESSLER, The Book of Haggai, 200, n. 20.
(8) For the former view, see KESSLER, The Book of Haggai, 200 n. 20 and C.F. KEIL,
The Minor Prophets (Peabody 2006) 493; for the latter see CLARK, “Problemsâ€, 435;
PETERSEN, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 86, 92; cf. VERHOEF, Haggai and Malachi, 128. On
the meaning of la, see further below.
(9) R.L. SMITH, Micah–Malachi (WBC 32, Waco, TX 1984) 159, 161; cf. MEYERS –
MEYERS, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, 61. If this were intended, however, one would have
expected ˆyak as in Hag 2,3.
(10) See especially J. BLAU, “Zum angeblichen Gebrauch von ’t vor dem Nominativâ€,
VT 4 (1954) 7-19 and MURAOKA, Emphatic Words, 146-158.
(11) Cf. P. VERHOEF, The Books of Haggai and Malachi (NICOT; Grand Rapids 1989)
128; KESSLER, The Book of Haggai, 200, n. 20.
FOLLOW US