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 555
1. the meaning of the syntagm µktaAˆya itself, 2. the usage of the preposition
la, and 3. the analysis of this circumstantial clause in its exegetical context.
Crucial to a proper understanding of Hag 2,17 is the recognition that
µktaAˆya should be analyzed as a type of possessive clause and means “you
do/did not haveâ€. Recent studies on the syntax of non-verbal clauses in
Qumran Hebrew have adduced examples in which the syntagm ˆya or vy plus
ta with a pronominal suffix is used to indicate possession or the lack
thereof (16). Note the following examples:
µybrl rbdl rbd wta çy rça çya lwkw
…and any man who has something to say to the Many… (1QS 6:12)
µybrl rbdl rbd yta çy
I have something to say to the Many… (1QS 6:13)
µta tma ˆyaw
…and there is no truth with them… (17) (4QJubd 2:24 [=Jub 21:21]).
In fact, this syntagm is also attested in Biblical Hebrew:
hwhyArbd wtwa vy fpvwhy rmayw
Jehoshaphat said, ‘The word of the LORD is with him’ (2 Kings 3,12).
The consonantal text in this last mentioned example indicates that ta is to
be read as the direct object marker, as the vocalization in Hag 2,17 indicates
as well. It has been frequently noted, however, that there exists some
confusion in the MT between the preposition ta and the nota accusativi (18),
and we do in fact encounter examples in Biblical Hebrew of vy plus the
preposition ta expressing possession. For example:
µwabx hwhyb anAw[gpy µT;ai hwhyArbd vyAµaw µh µyabnAµaw
If indeed they are prophets, and if the word of the LORD is with them,
then let them intercede with the LORD of hosts… (19) (Jer 27,18).
Thus in the MT we find both the preposition ta and the nota accusativi
used with the existential particle vy to indicate possession. Regardless of
whether one of these was the “grammatically correct†syntagm, it is in any
event safe to conclude that µktaAˆyaw in Hag 2,17 is intended as a possessive
clause: “and you have/had nothingâ€.
Once µktaAˆyaw is understood in this way, the other grammatical and
exegetical issues surrounding the phrase fall more readily into place. As
mentioned above, it is sometimes claimed that in Hag 2,17 the preposition la
(16) See M.F.J. BAASTEN, “Existential Clauses in Qumran Hebrewâ€, Diggers at the
Well. Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea
Scrolls and Ben Sira (eds. T. MURAOKA – J.F. ELWOLDE) (STDJ 36; Leiden 2000) 10-11;
ID., The Non-Verbal Clause in Qumran Hebrew (Ph.D. diss., Leiden University, 2006) 222.
(17) See also 4Q223-224 (4QJubh) 2 i 53 [=Jub 35.12].
(18) Cf. P. JOÜON – T. MURAOKA, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Rome2 2006) § 103
j-k; HALOT I, 101.
(19) See further The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew I, 449; BDB 86.
FOLLOW US