554 M. Rogland µkymrkw µkytwng twbrh ˆwqrybw ˆwpdvb µkta ytykh hwhyAµan yd[ µtbvAalw µzgh lkay µkytyzw µkynatw I struck you with blight and mildew; I laid waste your gardens and your vineyards; the locust devoured your fig trees and your olive trees; yet you did not return to me, says the LORD. The occurrence of the phrase ˆwqrybw ˆwpdvb µkta ytykh in both Amos 4,9 and Hag 2,17 has led many to suggest on the basis Amos’ yd[ µtbvAalw that a verb such as µtbv is to be restored to Haggai’s text (12). One should not be too quick to assume that Haggai was dependent on the text of Amos, however (13), since the similarities between the two texts are arguably more superficial than real. The fact of the matter is that the short phrase ˆwqrybw ˆwpdvb µkta ytykh constitutes the only material in common between the two passages. The repetition of µkta ytykh can hardly be viewed as convincing evidence of literary dependence, given how frequently both the verb hkn and the object marker ta occur in the Hebrew Bible. Moreover, even the occurrence of two relatively infrequent Biblical lexemes (ˆwpdv, ˆwqry) in such close proximity in both passages does not provide compelling evidence of a gloss either: the two words were very frequently linked together in pre-modern Hebrew, and always with ˆwpdv preceding ˆwqry, suggesting that this was simply a standard collocation (14). Consequently one ought not to overestimate the significance of the fact that they occur together in Amos 4,9 as well as Hag 2,17. In the end, most of the different emendations and interpretations of this troubling phrase sound remarkably similar to one another (15), but it is nevertheless clear that a truly satisfactory explanation of the syntax of yla µktaAˆyaw has yet to be offered. The present study will attempt to clarify our understanding of the MT of Hag 2,17 by addressing three distinct issues: (12) See e.g. P. ACKROYD, “Studies in the Book of Haggai”, JJS 3 (1952) 7; ID., “Some Interpretative Glosses in the Book of Haggai”, JJS 7 (1956) 166; SMITH, Micah–Malachi, 159; PETERSEN, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 86-88. The ancient versions lend a degree of plausibility to this proposal (cf. CLARK, “Problems”, 435): the LXX of Hag 2,17 adds kai; oujk ejpestrevyate prov" me, while Amos contains the similar kai; oujd∆ w|" ejpestrevyate prov" me; the Peshitta and Targum likewise include a verbal form for “turning”. MEYERS – MEYERS, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, 62, also suggest that a verb such as “brought” is to be supplied, though they argue that this is not a case of textual corruption but rather of omission due to metrical factors. (13) If Hag 2,17 is some kind of innertextual reference then it could just as easily be to Deut 28,22, which warns that the Lord will “strike” (hkky) his people with, inter alia, “blight and mildew” (ˆwqrybw ˆwpdvbw). (14) ˆwpdv and ˆwqry always occur together in Biblical Hebrew (Deut 28,22; 1 Kings 8,37; Amos 4,9; Hag 2,17; 2 Chron 6,28), with the sole exception of Jer 30,6, in which ˆwqry occurs alone to indicate a pale or jaundiced face. The collocation likewise occurs in Qumran Hebrew (11Q14 f1ii:12; ˆwqry occurs alone in 4Q473 f2:6, but the text is fragmentary and what immediately precedes it is missing) and in Tannaitic Hebrew (m. Taan 3,5; m. Ar 9,1; Sifra, Behar 3,3; Sifra, Behuqqotai 2,5; Sifre Num 76; Sifre Deut 306; Sifre Zutta 10,9). The only exceptions that I am aware of in the Tannaitic period are a quotation of Jer 30,6 in Sifre Deut 1 and the occurrence of ˆwpdv without ˆwqry in m. Taan 3,6, but this is immediately following upon 3,5, in which the two terms do occur together. (15) CLARK, “Problems”, 435, even asserts that “it does not matter greatly whether the text is emended or not, as the meaning is much the same either way”; cf. also VERHOEF, Haggai and Malachi, 128; KESSLER, The Book of Haggai, 200, n. 20.