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).
556 M. Rogland
expresses a favorable disposition “towards†someone else, with appeal being
made to examples such as 2 Kings 6,11 for support (20):
wydb[Ala arqyw hzh rbdhAl[ µraA˚lm bl r[syw
larcy ˚lmAla wnlvm ym yl wdygt awlh µhyla rmayw
The mind of the king of Aram was greatly perturbed because of this;
he called his officers and said to them, ‘Now tell me who among
us sides with the king of Israel?’
On closer inspection of this example and ones like it, however, it appears
that the evidence is against taking the preposition la as indicative of a positive
disposition “towards†a person (21). Rather, it would appear that la in such
examples is to be taken in a spatial-directional sense which in some cases
actually expresses opposition and antagonism towards someone else (la = l[
“againstâ€). If µktaAˆyaw is understood as a possessive clause then it is best to
analyze la in Hag 2,17 in a spatial-directional sense of “towardsâ€; the phrase
should thus be translated “you have/had nothing directed toward me†or,
perhaps a bit more smoothly, “you direct(ed) nothing towards meâ€. It refers,
then, to the people’s failure to direct their material possessions towards the
rebuilding of the Lord’s temple (22).
How then does yla µktaAˆyaw function within this verse and within its
larger context? Given that the people had already begun to change their ways
and to work on rebuilding the temple, it appears that yla µktaAˆyaw refers to a
past situation (“you had nothingâ€) rather than a present one (“you have
nothingâ€). The first part of the verse refers to the Lord’s striking the people
with punishments in the past, with yla µktaAˆyaw describing the circumstances
under which the Lord had done so. Rather than taking the clause as
adversative (23), it seems preferable to understand it as a circumstantial clause,
either with a temporal nuance (“I struck you with blight … while you had
nothing directed towards meâ€) or a causal one (“I struck you … for you had
nothing directed towards meâ€).
*
**
While a plausible case could be made for revocalizing µk,t]a, in Hag 2,17
from the nota accusativi to the preposition µk,t]ai (24), what is clear in any event
is that we are dealing with a type of possessive clause: The people failed to
direct any of their material possessions towards the Lord for the rebuilding of
his temple. yla µktaAˆyaw thus indicates the circumstances under which – or
possibly the reasons on account of which – the Lord punished his people.
With this interpretation of the clause, it emerges that Haggai’s third oracle
(20) Cf. KESSLER, The Book of Haggai, 200, n. 20. Other examples cited include Hos
3,3; Jer 15,1; Ezek 36,9.
(21) See M. ROGLAND, “Pro or Contra? 2 Kings 6:11â€, Presbyterion 27.1 (2001) 56-58.
(22) So, rightly, KOOLE, Haggaï, 90: “De zaak is dus niet zozeer, dat het volk niet met
bekering tot JHWH kwam, het gaat erom dat men geen arbeidskrachten en financiële
middelen voor JHWH beschikbaar steldeâ€.
(23) So e.g. the NRSV (“…yet you did not return…â€) and most other translations.
(24) Cf. KOOLE, Haggaï, 90.
FOLLOW US