Copyright holder: Tyndale University, 3377 Bayview Ave., Toronto, Ontario, Canada M2M 3S4 Att.: Library Director, J. William Horsey Library Copyright: This Work has been made available by the authority of the copyright owner solely for the purpose of private study and research and may not be copied or reproduced except as permitted by the copyright laws of Canada without the written authority from the copyright owner. Copyright license: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License Citation: Kessler, John. “Temple Building in Haggai: Variations on a Theme.” In From the Foundations to the Crenellations: Essays on Temple Building in the Ancient Near East and Hebrew Bible, edited by Mark J. Boda and James Novotny, 357-379. (Alter Orient und Altes Testament; Bd. 366). Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2010. ***** Begin Content ****** TYNDALE UNIVERSITY 3377 Bayview Avenue Toronto, ON M2M 3S4 TEL: 416.226.6620 www.tyndale.ca Note: This Work has been made available by the authority of the copyright owner solely for the purpose of private study and research and may not be copied or reproduced except as permitted by the copyright laws of Canada without the written authority from the copyright owner. Kessler, John. “Temple Building in Haggai: Variations on a Theme.” In From the Foundations to the Crenellations: Essays on Temple Building in the Ancient Near East and Hebrew Bible, edited by Mark J. Boda and James Novotny, 357-379. (Alter Orient und Altes Testament; Bd. 366). Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2010. [ Citation Page ] From the Foundations to the Crenellations Essays on Temple Building in the Ancient Near East and Hebrew Bible Edited by Mark J. Boda and Jamie Novotny 2010 Ugarit- Verlag Münster [ Title Page ] From the Foundations to the Crenellations. Essays on Temple Building in the Ancient Near East and Hebrew Bible Edited by Mark J. Boda and Janne Novotny Alter Orient und Altes Testament. Band 366 © 2010 Ugarit-Verlag. Münster Alle Rechte vorbehalten All rights preserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced. stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photo-copying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. Herstellung: Hubert und Co, Göttingen Printed in Germany ISBN: 978-3-86835-031-9 Printed on acid-free paper [ Title Page Verso ] [ Page 357 ] Temple Building in Haggai Variations on a Theme John Kessler, Toronto When the community in Yehud undertook the reconstruction of the Jerusalemite temple in the late sixth century BCE it became a part of a long succession of ancient Near Eastern temple builders and restorers, spanning many centuries and various diverse geographical contexts.1 The work of Richard Ellis which is being com- memorated in this volume constituted a highly significant contribution to our under- standing of the historical and ideological dimensions of foundation deposits.2 Ellis’ monograph was an important addition to the growing body of research investigating broader ancient Near Eastern traditions and practices regarding temple building and the echoes of such matters within the biblical text. The richness and ongoing vitality of this research is reflected in the essays in the present volume and the broader body of material from which they draw. While it is possible to detect both significant dif- ferences in thematic and ideological emphasis in the evidence from various sites, as well as historical and cultural developments, it is nevertheless possible to identify the central issues at play when construction of a new temple was undertaken or a damaged site was restored.3 These central themes include the obtaining of divine approval for temple building, the divine authorization of an individual or group as temple builder, knowledge of the specific timing for the initiation and subsequent steps in temple building, the ascertaining of the specific site upon which the new temple was to be built (or in cases of restoration, determining the precise foundation lines of the old temple), the ritual cleansing of the city including the settling of out- ________________________________________ 1 The present study follows the general scholarly consensus and view that the initial construc- tion and dedication of the “Second Temple” in the reign of Darius I (reigned 520-486 BCE). For the view that the origins of the Second Temple are to be found at a later date compare L. Dequecker, “Darius the Persian and the Reconstruction of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem (Ezra 4, 24),” in J. Quaegebur (ed.), Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East (Leuven 1993) pp. 67-92; and D. V. Edelman, The Origins of the ‘Second’ Temple: Persian Imperial Policy and the Rebuilding of Jerusalem (London 2005). This study will primarily address matters relating to ideology and the recontextualization of religious traditions. 2 R. S. Ellis, Foundation Deposits in Ancient Mesopotamia (=Foundation Deposits; YNER 2; New Haven and London 1968). 3 The bibliography here is immense. See for some basic considerations, R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions (Grand Rapids 1997) pp. 274-330; A. S. Kapelrud, “Temple Building, a Task for Gods and Kings,” Orientalia NS 32 (1963) pp. 56-62; R. E. Clements, God and Temple (Oxford 1965); and V. (A.) Hurowitz, I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings (=Exalted House; JSOTSup 115; Sheffield 1992). [ Page ] 358 standing disputes and contentious matters, the ritual purification of the building ma- terials and the site, the ritual preparation of the “first brick” (or in cases of restora- tion, the placement of the “former brick”), the preparation and installation of foun- dation boxes including foundation deposits and foundation pegs, details concerning the funding of the construction, acts designed to induce the deity to take up resi- dence in the new or rebuilt structure (including acts of consecration of the structure and the provision of gifts and furnishings for the comfort of the deity), and ceremo- nies marking the occupation of the new structure by its patron deity (including a festal banquet) and hopes for the future glorification of the temple and its role as a world center. The purpose of the present essay is to reflect upon the distinctive reformulations of these motifs as they are found in the book of Haggai4 against the backdrop of both ancient Near Eastern and biblical tradition and practice. This being the objec- tive, the question immediately arises as to how much knowledge of these themes may be posited with reference to Haggai. It would be ultimately impossible to dem- onstrate that either the prophet himself or the framer(s) of Haggai possessed a de- tailed knowledge of ancient Near Eastern temple building and rededication proce- dures. As such any suggestions regarding counterpoints or echoes in Haggai vis-à- vis other highly specific and distinctive ancient Near Eastern texts or traditions would be too speculative to be convincing. However it is legitimate to discern the presence of variations and reinterpretations of broadly distributed ancient Near East- ern themes (both chronologically and geographically) within Haggai. As Hurowitz suggests, the Persian Period biblical texts may be seen as reflecting an “indirect ... diluted Mesopotamian tradition of building accounts.”5 The Judahite community reflected in Haggai and responsible for the production of the book likely included both those who remained in the land and those who had returned from exile.6 For ________________________________________ 4 I will henceforth refer to this text simply as Haggai. Where I specifically wish to designate the prophet himself, I will so indicate. 5 Hurowitz, Exalted House p. 26. 6 Much debate surrounds the perspective of the framer(s) of Haggai vis-à-vis the tensions believed to have existed between those who remained in the land and those who returned from exile. It has been suggested that Haggai himself was a non-exiled Judean and spokesper- son for that community, whose words were subsequently redacted by a perspective favoring the Babylonian returnees, such as Zerubbabel and Joshua. For this approach compare W. A. M. Beuken, Haggai-Sacharja 1-8: Studien zur überlieferungsgeschichte der frühnachex- ilischen Prophetie (=Haggai-Sacharja; Assen 1967) p. 334. For a similar perspective, accord- ing to which the prophet Haggai spoke only to the non-deported Judean population, and a later redaction linked his words to Zerubbabel and Joshua, compare A. Sérandour, “Réflex- ions à propos d’un livre récent sur Aggée-Zacharie 1-8,” Transeu 10 (1995) pp. 75-84. In my own view various considerations speak against approaches which attempt to draw far- reaching conclusions based upon distinctions between the oracles and editorial framework in Haggai. Linguistic differences between the two sections (as generally delimited by those who accept such a division) are likely due to subject matter and form. Ideological distinctions between the two are hard to sustain without an appeal to a priori considerations. What is more, there is a striking tendency for scholars increasingly to assign portions of the oracles to the editorial framework, based on ideological and historical judgments (thus Sérandour, Tran- seu 10 passim; and A. Sérandour, “Les récits bibliques de la construction du second temple: leurs enjeux,” Transeu 11 [1996] pp. 9-32). Thus it is more judicious to read the work as a [ Page ] 359 diverse reasons and from a variety of perspectives, both would have been aware of the broader ritual patterns and ideological underpinnings of temple construction and rededication. Such ideas were a part of the earlier religious traditions of the Israelite and Judean communities, as well as being a common element in the culture of Mesopotamia and the eastern Mediterranean. This being the case, the distinctive re- configurations of such motifs which are manifested in Haggai can provide a point of entry into the broader theological perspective manifested in the text. The present study will therefore examine Haggai’s treatment of the following themes: (1) divine authorization for building and its timing; (2) the temple builder(s); (3) matters con- cerning ritual purity and reconstruction; (4) motifs of fertility, wealth, and the tem- ple’s role as a world center; and (5) the return and residence of the deity in the tem- ple. Divine Authorization for Building and its Timing Throughout the ancient Near East the decision to build a temple or rebuild a ruined one was not undertaken lightly, and was viewed as being fraught with danger.7 Pro- ceeding without due authorization or at an inappropriate moment could bring curse and destruction.8 Hurowitz suggests three basic patterns for the initiation of temple building or reconstruction: (1) initiation of the project by a deity, followed by selec- tion of a builder; (2) initiation of the project by an individual (usually a king) fol- lowed by the seeking and receiving of divine approval; and (3) initiation of the pro- ject by an individual, but divine approval is denied.9 In all of these patterns would- be builders took great pains to ascertain whether divine approval attended their pro- ject. This quest generally involved extispicy,10 divine revelation through dreams and ________________________________________ redacted whole, wherein the perspectives of the prophet as presented in the book stand in general continuity with those of the book’s framers. On this compare the similar conclusion of Μ. H. Floyd who has carefully examined the relationship between source and redactional material in Haggai and concludes that “the kind of analysis that seeks to distinguish redac- tional material from source material ... should be abandoned, along with the historical specu- lation that has often been based on this practice” (Μ. H. Floyd, “The Nature of the Narrative and the Evidence of Redaction in Haggai,” VT 45 [1995] pp. 470 490. especially p. 473). Compare also Μ. H. Floyd, Minor Prophets, Part 2 (=Minor Prophets; FOTL 22; Grand Rap- ids 2000) pp. 259 260. If the “historical Haggai” held widely divergent views from the book’s redactor, the latter has not allowed these to permeate the text. Furthermore, it is likely that the redaction of Haggai took place soon after the events it describes. The form of the dates in the book and their relationship to late sixth century scribal traditions, the lack of any mention of the rededication of the temple and the unattenuated expression of hope for Zerub- babel in Hag 2:20-23 all speak in favor of this possibility. Thus I feel Haggai to be a text inclusive of the perspectives of the non-deported population and the returnees, framed in the late sixth century. For a fuller discussion of these and other related matters compare J. Kessler, The Book of Haggai: Prophecy and Society in Early Persian Yehud (VTSup 91; Leiden 2002) pp. 31-57. Compare also Floyd, Minor Prophets pp. 259-260, and Floyd, VT 45 pp. 470-490. Even if one posits a later dating regarding the redactional history of Haggai, my conclusions in the present study are not affected. 7 See especially Ambos, above pp. 221-237. 8 Ambos, above pp. 221-234; and Hurowitz, Exalted House pp. 154—167. 9 Hurowitz, Exalted House p. 137. 10 Hurowitz, Exalted House pp. 156-160. [ Page ] 360 their subsequent confirmation by an interpreter,11 and other mantic and ritual prac- tices. Furthermore, timing was extremely important. In the case of a ruined or de- stroyed shrine, the builders needed to be certain that the deity’s anger (the most common explanation for the shrine’s destruction) had abated and that rebuilding would not be a further offense or provocation.12 Furthermore, great care was taken so as to build at auspicious moments.13 Questions regarding authorization to rebuild and the timing of such a project constitute a major component in Haggai. Indeed, such matters form the first element of the prophet’s words to his community and launch the “drama” which unfolds over the course of the book.14 While logically separate, the matters of authorization and timing are so intertwined in Haggai that they must be discussed together. As noted above, the words which open the book (Hag 1:2) center around the question of time. This theme is further developed in Hag 1:4-11, an oracle which consists of a prophetic denunciation of the community and its leaders15 regarding their neglect of the reconstruction of the temple. The prophet’s opening salvo (Hag 1:2) takes the form of a citation of the people’s words—words that the prophet will go on to ridicule and denounce. Haggai cites the people as saying lo et-bo et-beit Yahweh lehibanot (1:2). Scholars are divided regarding the import of these words. One line of argument translates the phrase “the time has not yet come, the time to rebuild Yahweh’s house” and maintains that the people are expressing their reticence to undertake the temple’s reconstruction, fearing they might incur further divine dis- pleasure should their endeavor prove to be undertaken prematurely and without di- vine authorization. P. R. Bedford and H. Tadmor are eloquent proponents of this position, among other adherents.16 Bedford maintains that the population of Hag- ________________________________________ 11 Compare the examples in Hurowitz, Exalted House pp. 143-149. 12 For an excellent summary of this material, compare P. R. Bedford, Temple Restoration in Early Achaemenid Judah (=Temple Restoration; SJSJ 65; Leiden 2001) pp. 174-177; and Hurowitz, Exalted House pp. 140-143. 13 Hurowitz, Exalted House p. 225. 14 I have argued that the form of Haggai is a hybrid of prophecy and narrative which I de- scribe as “dramatized prophetic compilation.” As such it contains a thematic development which unfolds as the dramatic events in the book are narrated, compare Kessler, Book of Haggai pp. 243-246. See now T. Meadowcroft, Haggai (Readings; Sheffield 2006) p. 10 on the significance of narrative in Haggai. Meadowcroft deems narrative to be a highly distinc- tive element of the book. 15 In the present form of the book the prophet confronts the community’s leaders (Hag 1:1) with a saying of the people (Hag 1:2) followed by a prophetic denunciation of that saying (Hag 1:4-11). This presentation implicates the civil and religious leaders in the attitude and choices of the community as a whole as it regards the rebuilding of the temple. On this, see Kessler, Book of Haggai pp. 121-122; and D. L. Peterson, Haggai and Zechariah 1-8 (OTL; London 1985) p. 47. 16 Bedford, Temple Restoration p. 161; Bedford, “Discerning the Time: Haggai, Zechariah and the ‘Delay’ in the Rebuilding of the Jerusalem Temple,” in S. W. Holloway and L. K. Handy (eds.), The Pitcher is Broken, Memorial Essays for G. W. Ahlström (JSOTSup 190; Sheffield 1995) pp. 71-94; and H. Tadmor, ‘“The Appointed Time Has Not Yet Arrived’: The Historical Background of Haggai 1:2,” in W. W. Hallo, L. H. Schiffman, and R. Chazan (eds.), Ki Baruch Hu: Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Baruch A. Levine (Winona Lake 1999) pp. 401—408. Compare also P. de Robert, “Pour ou contre le second temple,” in M. Augustin and K. -D. Schunck (eds.), “Dort ziehen Schiffe dahin...”; [ Page ] 361 gai’s day understood the drought and poor economic conditions alluded to in Hag 1:3-11 as signs that the divinely appointed time had not yet come for the temple’s reconstruction to be undertaken.17 Tadmor, taking a slightly different approach, sug- gests that the people and our prophet were in conflict over the start date for the cal- culation of Jeremiah’s prophecy of a “seventy year” period before Babylon’s judg- ment (Jer 25:11-12, compare Isa 23:15). Haggai deemed the time to be ripe at the time of the delivery of his oracles18 while the people hold what Tadmor considers to be the “orthodox” view and calculate the seventy years from 586.19 I have argued at length that such an understanding of the people’s words as represented in Haggai reflects an incorrect reading of the literary portrait of the people being created in the text.20 To be sure, given the socio-religious and ideological flux of the late sixth century, there could well have been much discussion of the appropriateness of tem- ple reconstruction, and the correct time to do so. However, the portrait of the com- munity in Hag 1:2-11 is not of a pious people wary of incurring the deity’s ire and diligent to remain faithful à la lettre to the prophetic word. The image is rather of an obstinate and self-interested group who use sapiential reasoning to put off that which they clearly understood (or should have understood) to be their duty. The chief arguments in favor of such an understanding are as follows. First the correct translation of Hag 1:2b is not “the time has not come” but rather, “it is not the ap- propriate time to come.”21 While it is certain that Haggai’s restatement of the peo- ________________________________________ Collected Communications to the XIVth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament. Paris, 1992 (BEATAJ 28; Frankfurt am Main 1996) pp. 179- 182. 17 Bedford (Temple Restoration pp. 171-172) states, “The people’s lack of interest in rebuild- ing in Hag 1:2 arises not out of self-interest or any other supposed moral deficiency, rather ... they were unsure of the correct time to build” (p. 177). He adds, “It is not self-interest, but rather a lack of concern for the temple based on a misunderstanding of the deity’s will, that has incurred Yahweh’s ire” (p. 178). Bedford further suggests that Haggai’s invective relates to the people’s negative response to the prophet’s recent call to rebuild. He also suggests that they may have been somewhat uninterested in it, due to its connection to the monarchy and former state, both of which no longer existed (pp. 179-180). 18 Tadmor (Ki Baruch Hu pp. 407—408) follows E. J. Bickerman (“En marge de l’écriture,” RB 88 [1981] pp. 11-12) in seeing the second year of Darius as 521 BCE, when the rebel- lions following the accession of Darius were only recently quelled. I have argued against such an approach, compare J. Kessler, “The Second Year of Darius and the Prophet Haggai,” Tran- seu 5 (1992) pp. 63-84; and Kessler, Book of Haggai pp. 80-85. 19 Tadmor (Ki Baruch Hu p. 405) states: “Haggai does not mention the period of divine wrath, but its binding force is implicit in the popular slogan [the time has not come]. This slogan reflected the ‘orthodox’ interpretation. Its adherents, sons and grandsons of those who had witnessed the destruction, in accordance with Jeremiah’s prophecies of doom, insisted on taking literally Jeremiah’s other prophecy: only when the seventy years, beginning with the destruction of 586, have come to a close should the rebuilding of the temple begin.” 20 J. Kessler, “ ‘t (le temps) en Aggée I 2-4: Conflit théologique ou ‘sagesse mondaine’?” VT 48 (1998) pp. 555-559; J. Kessler, “Building the Second Temple: Questions of Time, Text, and History in Haggai 1.1-15,” JSOT 27 (2002) pp. 243-256; and Kessler, Book of Haggai pp. 103 and 124-127. 21 Kessler, JSOT 27 pp. 243-249; and Kessler, Book of Haggai pp. 103-104. This approach is also that of D. Barthélemy, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. Tome 3 Ezéchiel, Daniel et les 12 prophètes (OBO 50/3; Fribourg and Göttingen 1992) p. 923. It has been fol- [ Page ] 362 ple’s words does indeed echo vocabulary regarding questions of the arrival of the appointed time (for example Jer 27:6-7 22 or Ps 102:14 [Engl. 13])23 Haggai stead- fastly refuses to attribute such motives to the people. Rather, in Haggai’s presenta- tion of the people’s words the issue under discussion thus becomes the question of whether a given task should be undertaken at a specific moment in light of certain circumstances,24 a common sapiential theme.25 Second, in form and content Hag- gai’s response would be totally inappropriate had the question under discussion been essentially one regarding the proper time for an agreed-upon action. The form of the prophetic invective in Hag 1:3—11 26 is one that is generally employed with reference to a stubborn population, living in open defiance of the divine will. Furthermore the content of Haggai’s argument, that of the incongruity of living in adequate homes while Yahweh’s house lay in ruins, would have had absolutely no purchase if the debate concerned discerning the appropriate time. How could Yahweh fault them for living in their own homes if permission for rebuilding his house had been with- held?27 Third, the central theme of the book of Haggai is the success of the prophet and the ongoing validity of the prophetic office in the restoration period.28 As such Haggai is portrayed as a “classical” prophet who denounces disobedience and calls his hearers to repentance and renewal. Theoretical debates over “times and seasons” are alien to the portrait of the prophet drawn in the book. Fourth, the framer(s) of Haggai minimize (but clearly do not eliminate) many of the burning issues of his day, so as to concentrate on the success of the prophet, the response of his hearers, and the bright future which awaited the newly responsive community. As such the decisiveness and catastrophic nature of the destructions described in 2 Kings 24- ________________________________________ lowed recently by C. Nihan, From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch: A Study in the Composition of the Book of Leviticus (=Torah to Pentateuch; FAT 2/25; Tübingen 2007) p. 392. 22 ad bo-et artso gam-hu (“until the time of his own land comes,” NRSV) 23 atah takum terachem tsiyon chi-et lechen-nah chi-va moed (“you will arise and have compassion on Zion for it is time to favor it; the appointed time has come,” NRSV). 24 Hurowitz (Exalted House pp. 225-226) notes the great attention paid to undertaking tem- ple construction at auspicious or propitious times. Something of this may lie behind the peo- ple’s words, but this is a very different matter than divine authorization, and one which Hag- gai’s words can be clearly understood as addressing. 25 See the discussion in Kessler, Book of Haggai pp. 125-126; and Kessler, JSOT 27 pp. 243- 250. See also C. L. Meyers and E. M. Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1-8 (=Haggai, Zechariah; AB 25B; Garden City 1987) p. 21, who note that Haggai’s prophecy coincided with the time of harvest, a labor-intensive moment, concluding “The people may have meant quite literally that it was not the ideal time to add to their burden of labor.” 26 It is generally seen as some kind of prophetic reproach. Beuken (Haggai-Sacharja p. 189) sees the section as consisting of a Scheltwort, v. 4; Mahnwort, vv. 5-6; Auftrag and Heils- wort, vv. 7-8; Disputationswort, v. 9; Spruch/Entfaltung, v. 10; and Eingreifen Gotts, v. 11. O. Steck “Zu Haggai 1,2-11,” ZAW 83 (1971) p. 367 sees it as a Diskussionswort followed by a promise of salvation. 27 As noted supra Bedford senses the force of this line of reasoning and thus posits a recent prophetic word authorizing the rebuilding, which the people have ignored (Bedford, Temple Restoration pp. 179-180). But to admit this is, it seems to me, to shift the discussion away from issues of timing and into the realm of obedience to the prophetic word. 28 Kessler, Book of Haggai pp. 144-153 and 275-279. [ Page ] 363 25 29 and reflected in Ezekiel and Zechariah 1-8 is diminished and the conflict por- trayed in Haggai is presented more like one further crisis and resolution in the ongo- ing relationship between Yahweh and his covenant partner.30 Furthermore, the Sinai covenant is seen as a functioning basis for the divine-human relationship.31 The logic of the prophet’s reproach and the literary portrait of the situation thus rest on his assumption that divine authorization had already been given for the re- building project, and that the people were aware of such,32 and yet had chosen not to undertake the project, deeming that it was not an appropriate time to do so. As noted above, this is not to deny that some real discussion of whether or not the time to rebuild the temple had come may have existed among the population.33 Indeed as Nihan has recently maintained, the prophet may be deliberately taking up the words of the people.34 However this assertion must be qualified in that in taking up the people’s words, the prophet (or his editors) actually reframe them into an expression of self-indulgent laziness, requiring not some assurance that their fears regarding rebuilding were unwarranted, but rather swift denunciation.35 This rather simple summary of the prophet’s logic and the people’s behavior raises the question as to how the framer(s) of Haggai understood Yahweh’s authori- zation for the rebuilding of the temple to have been given, and consequently, how the community would have known this to be the case. It is highly striking that no allusion to any such authorization may be found in Haggai. One might argue that some knowledge of the “Edict of Cyrus” (Ezra 1:1-3; 6:2-5; and 2 Chr 36:22-23) is being presupposed. This however, is far from certain. It only figures in Ezra and Chronicles, works produced later than Haggai, and reflecting far different ideologi- cal commitments.36 Sérandour suggests that the book views the accession of Cyrus ________________________________________ 29 The literary-critical issues related to the Deuteronomistic History cannot be discussed here. Suffice it to say that these chapters portray a radical disruption of the community’s relation- ship with Yahweh. 30 On this tendenz in Haggai, see J. Kessler, “Tradition, Continuity, and Covenant in the Book of Haggai: An Alternative Voice from Early Persian Yehud,” in M. J. Boda and Μ. H. Floyd (eds.), Tradition in Transition (=Tradition; LHB/OT 475; London 2008) pp. 1-39. 31 Kessler, Tradition pp. 14-24, especially 22-24. 32 T. Chary, Aggée-Zacharie, Malachie (=Aggée; SB; Paris 1969) p. 19, appropriately com- ments, “By repeatedly objecting ‘it is not the right time to rebuild the temple’ the people were admitting they understood its necessity, but were paralyzed by a lukewarm attitude” (transla- tion mine). 33 Clearly the question of the “seventy year desolation” mentioned in Jer 25:11-12; and 29:10; Zech 1:12 and 7:5 would indicate this was a lively issue at the time. Compare Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah p. 20; and Tadmor, Ki Baruch Hu passim. 34 Nihan, Torah to Pentateuch p. 392. 35 I would be glad to admit that the people’s words as portrayed in Haggai were an expression of a genuine concern with the rightness of the time for rebuilding, if I could see anything in Haggai’s response which addressed that need. How could reproaching the people for their self-preoccupation possibly overcome their belief that the drought and economic difficulties experienced by the community were an omen not to rebuild? 36 On the historical issues regarding the edict, compare E. J. Bickerman, “The Edict of Cyrus in Ezra 1,” JBL 65 (1946) pp. 249-275; J. Briend, “L’édit de Cyrus et sa valeur historique,” Transeu 11 (1996) pp. 33—44; H. G. M. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah (WBC 16; Waco 1985) pp. 3-15; and the expanded discussion in Bedford, Temple Restoration pp. 111-132. On the [ Page ] 364 and the defeat of Babylon as symbolic of the victory of Yahweh and thus constitutes the ground for the reconstruction of the temple.37 However Haggai makes no men- tion of this motif. As noted, Bedford roots the authorization in a prophetic word re- cently given, yet unreported in Haggai (compare Zech 1:16).38 Amsler argues that the turbulent events surrounding the defeat of Cambyses and the accession of Darius39 served, in the prophet’s estimation, as a sign that the new era of Yahweh’s reign was imminent, and that, furthermore, the lack of a reconstituted temple was inhibiting the full manifestation of that era.40 Meyers and Meyers suggest that Hag- gai calculated Jeremiah’s seventy-year period from the fall of the temple in 586 BCE and was urging the people to prepare for the land’s coming independence.41 All of these suggestions, however, remain hypothetical attempts to fill an obvi- ous “gap” in Haggai’s logic. While one cannot deny that some of these factors may have played a role, it is indisputable that the reconstruction of a damaged temple could not have been undertaken without specific imperial authorization. Why then is there no allusion to some form of Persian decree as authorization for rebuilding? Two factors may be significant here. First, Haggai’s willingness provisionally to embrace Persian authority and its benefits (seen in the willingness to view Darius as the melekh (“king”) and Zerubbabel as the pechah (“governor”) did not imply an acceptance of the Pax Persica as an enduring and ultimate authority (as evidenced in the hopes for the coming rule of Yahweh in Hag 2:6-9 and 21-23).42 Thus there may have been some degree of reticence to ground authorization for rebuilding in the decree of a foreign ruler.43 More important, however, is the ideological and theo- logical tendenz in Haggai to obscure the disruptions caused by the Babylonian con- quest and to present the prophet in the “typical” role of a classical prophet of the monarchic period,44 and to portray the prophet’s activity more in the guise of calling the people (in Haggai’s case successfully) to remedy a current and existential prob- lem in their relationship with Yahweh.45 One further consideration is the fact that in Haggai the temple’s reconstruction is presented as a covenantal duty. This is re- markable given the fact that such an obligation appears nowhere else in the deuter- onomistic traditions with which Hag 1:4-11 is saturated.46 Thus a further reason for the lack of any definitive indication of an authorization to build is that the text wishes to imply that temple building is an inherent co-requisite of a proper relation- ship with Yahweh, despite the fact that this is far from a unanimous conclusion within Israelite traditions. Furthermore, Haggai conceives of the temple as one sin- ________________________________________ historical issues and scope of Cyrus’ policy, see A. Kuhrt, “The Cyrus Cylinder and the Achaemenid Imperial Policy,” JSOT 25 (1983) pp. 83-97. 37 Sérandour, Transeu 11 pp. 14-15. 38 Bedford, Temple Restoration p. 168. 39 On the chronological issues involved here, see Kessler, Transeu 5 pp. 69-75. 40 S. Amsler, A. Lacoque, and R. Vuilleumeier, Aggée-Zacharie 1-8, Zacharie 9-14, Malachi (= Aggée-Zacharie; CommAT 11c; Genève 1988) p. 15. 41 Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah p. 20. 42 On this, see my fuller discussion in Kessler, Transeu 5 p. 84. 43 Compare also the comments of Bickerman, JBL 65 p. 267. 44 Compare Kessler, Book of Haggai pp. 255-257 and 275-279. 45 See my fuller discussion in Tradition. 46 As noted by, among others, D. L. Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1-8 (=Haggai and Zechariah, OTL; London 1985) p. 54. [ Page ] 365 gle entity, having had a glorious past and awaiting an even more glorious future (Hag 2:6—9).47 This being the case it may be assumed that the authorization, once given, can be seen to perdure, and that the possibility of rebuilding the temple con- stituted the obligation to do so. In sum then, in Haggai the temple’s reconstruction is understood to be a covenantal duty. As such, the starting point of Haggai’s invective is that the temple’s rebuilding was a duty well understood by the community, and in complete dereliction of its duty the community failed to act. It is evident that this presentation in Haggai stands in radical contrast to the typi- cal ancient Near Eastern motif of temple (re)building. As noted supra, typically temple building narratives begin either with a deity who desires such a project, or with an individual, generally the ruler, who, after a great victory, or preoccupied with the lack of a temple (or the reality of a ruined temple), seeks divine authoriza- tion to rebuild. However in Haggai, Zerubbabel the civil ruler, Joshua the religious chief, and the people as a whole are presented as neglecting a responsibility they clearly know to be their own, and as consequently suffering ruinous economic con- ditions.48 Thus the traditional ancient Near Eastern motif of unauthorized rebuilding bringing ruinous consequences is inverted, and failure to rebuild in light of approval already given leads to distress. In sum, then, lack of any clear mention of an au- thorization to rebuild, but rather the assumption that the community and its leaders are aware of such a duty and have neglected it, is a distinctive element of Haggai (especially when compared to Jeremiah and Zechariah 1-8). The absence of such is likely due to the book’s redactional intention of presenting Haggai in the guise of a “classical” prophet and temple rebuilding as a known covenantal responsibility. The Builder As is commonly noted, temple building was, virtually without exception, the pre- rogative of kings49 and the theme of royal victory frequently played a role in the timing and ritual of temple construction.50 One common motif features a king who is informed in a dream that the divine will for him involves the building of a temple. The king then subjects this vision to a series of ongoing confirmatory tests. During ________________________________________ 47 Note especially Hag 2:9: gadol Yahweh kevod habayit hazeh ha-acharon min-harishon (“The future splendor of this house will far exceed its former magnificence”). Here it is clear that in Haggai there are not two temples (i.e. a first and second) but one. 48 Hurowitz, Exalted House pp. 148-149, posits an interesting exception to the general an- cient Near Eastern pattern. He notes the experience of ominous and threatening dreams men- tioned in the letter of Ili-Ipsara to Ilya of Dilanum. Hurowitz interprets these as divine chas- tisements sent to the king due to his lack of initiative in restoring a damaged temple. He then concludes, “We may cautiously compare this with Haggai’s complaint that the people are facing drought and agricultural failure because they are running to their own homes while letting God’s temple lie in ruins (Hag 1:3-10).” 49 Compare Sérandour (Transeu 10 p. 76, with bibliography) who underlines this point and stresses the uniqueness of the inclusion of priestly and popular participation in temple build- ing in Haggai. H. Schaudig (above p. 142) comments, “In the ancient Near East, temple building has always been considered a royal task and prerogative, to which there are only a few exceptions, mostly in times when kingship was weak or in trouble.” 50 B. Halpern, “Ritual Background of Zechariah’s Temple Song,” CBQ 40 (1978) pp. 167— 190, especially pp. 183-185. [ Page ] 366 this process the ongoing plans for the building are revealed, and the builder’s mis- sion is reconfirmed. Temple building may also be related to specific events in the life of the king and his kingdom.51 Its initiation may coincide with a recent conquest and thus be undertaken to celebrate that conquest, and display his power and author- ity over subject populations.52 Sometimes pious or economic motives may have played a role.53 Not infrequently the king is rewarded by the god(s) with a special blessing for his activity in temple building—this at times involved a promise regard- ing the endurance of his dynasty or kingdom.54 The perspective in Haggai is once again quite distinctive. As we have just seen, the text is laconic regarding any command or authorization to build. Rather, such an authorization is assumed to have existed and the community is portrayed as neglect- ing its known duty. Rather than being focused in a single royal figure, the responsi- bility for reconstruction is said to lie with the community as a whole. Its civil and religious leaders are singled out for specific reproach due to their failure to insist that the community fulfill its obligations to Yahweh.55 It is worth noting in passing that this distribution of responsibility is characteristic of certain aspects of the deu- teronomic literature. The severe limitations placed on the monarch in the so-called deuteronomic “law of the king” and the appointment of the king by the population are seen as examples of this phenomenon.56 The implications of this phenomenon in Haggai will be examined further infra. The text’s opening reproach, as we have seen, attributes the decision to defer the reconstruction to the people (Hag 1:2) while at the same time deeming the civil and religious authorities to be complicit in the same attitude. The indictment of the people and leaders in Hag 1:4-11 is to be contrasted with the description of their positive response to the words of the prophet in Hag 1:12—14. Thus in Hag 1:12 Zerubbabel, Joshua, and all the remnant of the people (vekol she-erit ha-am)57 obey Yahweh their God (vayishma ... bekol Yahweh Elohihem, a ________________________________________ 51 Hurowitz, Exalted House pp. 137-160. 52 M. Fitzgerald, above pp. 43-44. 53 M. Fitzgerald, above pp. 43-45. 54 Compare 2 Samuel 7. On the various bases of royal legitimization in the ancient Near East, see T. Ishida, Royal Dynasties in Ancient Israel (=Dynasties; BZAW 142; Berlin and New York 1977) pp. 6-24. 55 Kessler, Book of Haggai pp. 108-109 and 121-122; Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah p. 47; and Floyd, Minor Prophets pp. 269-271. 56 On this see G. N. Knoppers, “The Deuteronomist and the Deuteronomic Law of the King: A Reexamination of a Relationship,” ZAW 108 (1996) pp. 329-346; and G. N. Knoppers, “Rethinking the Relationship between Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History: The Case of Kings,” CBQ 63 (2001) pp. 393-415. Sérandour (Transeu 10 passim, especially p. 83) maintains that such the “distribution of powers” in evidence in Haggai definitively sets the redaction of the book in the mid-fifth century. However, reflection on the redistribution of religious and civil authority need not be excluded in the context of the political and socio- religious flux of the late fifth century. Compare Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah pp. xxxlvii-xliv. 57 The use of remnant here is not to be read as a technical term referring to either the non- deported population (pace S. Japhet, “The Concept of the ‘Remnant’ in the Restoration Pe- riod: On the Vocabulary of Self-Definition,” in From the Rivers of Babylon to the Highlands of Judah [Winona Lake 2006] pp. 432-449) or the returnees (pace H. W. Wolff, Haggai: A Commentary [Minneapolis 1988] p. 52, and many others). Rather, since it is reserved for use [ Page ] 367 classic deuteronomistic formulation)58 as communicated through the words of Hag- gai, whom Yahweh had sent. These ones fear Yahweh (v. 13) and, roused by Yah- weh through the preaching of Haggai, come (bo compare v. 2) and do the needed work on the house of Yahweh.59 Thus the community as a whole—leaders and peo- ple—is responsible for the reconstruction and, through the stirring of Yahweh via the preaching of the prophet, is moved to fulfill it. In Haggai, therefore, temple re- construction is both the responsibility and the accomplishment of the civil and reli- gious leadership and the people. This distribution of both responsibility and credit for temple rebuilding, highly distinctive of Haggai, doubtlessly reflects the emerging and largely unexpected and unforeseen political and socio-religious context of Per- sian Yehud.60 Despite this “decentralization” of responsibility for temple building, however, special attention is given to Zerubbabel in Hag 2:21-23. There he is designated as Yahweh’s servant, and promised that in Yahweh’s imminent and dramatic interven- tion in history he would be taken as Yahweh’s signet ring (clearly reversing the judgment pronounced on Jehoiachin in Jer 22:24-30) and exalted to a lofty (though largely unspecified) role.61 Most significant for our purposes here is the fact that the text is reticent to disclose precisely why these promises are given to Zerubbabel. Most specifically, can any parallel be drawn between promises of dynastic perpetu- ity, which were sometimes given by deities to successful royal temple builders in ancient Near Eastern literature, and this promise to Zerubbabel?62 Sérandour has strongly affirmed this to be the case. He maintains that a thoroughgoing redaction of the Haggai-Zechariah-Malachi material occurred around 450 BCE63 In his view, the oracle to Zerubbabel in Hag 2:21-23 reaffirms the ongoing validity of an eternal ________________________________________ after the people’s positive response, it carries the more theological nuance of a renewed and purified people, and is likely used for the community as a whole—returnees and remainees. On this see Kessler, Book of Haggai pp. 141-142; and J. E. Tollington, Tradition and Innova- tion in Haggai and Zechariah 1-8 (JSOTSup 150; Sheffield 1993) p. 54. 58 On this see further Kessler, Book of Haggai pp. 142-147. 59 On the numerous exegetical decisions involved in this understanding of Hag 1:12-14, see Kessler, Book of Haggai pp. 140-157. 60 On this see also J. Kessler, “Persia’s Loyal Yahwists: Power, Identity and Ethnicity in Achaemenid Yehud,” in O. Lipschits and M. Oeming (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period (Winona Lake 2006) pp. 91-121; and J. Kessler, “Reconstructing Haggai’s Jerusalem: Demographic and Sociological Considerations and the Quest for an Adequate Methodological Point of Departure,” in L. L. Grabbe and R. D. Haak (eds.), ‘Every City Shall Be Forsaken’: Urbanism and Prophecy in Ancient Israel and the Near East (JSOTSup 330; Sheffield 2001) pp. 137-158. 61 Hag 2:20-23 is a dense and evocative passage (Chary, Aggée p. 34 deems it to be com- posed of numerous clichés traditionnels). It furthermore raises various significant historical questions, which cannot be discussed here. On the many issues involved in this verse, see J. Kessler, “Haggai, Zerubbabel and the Political Status of Yehud: The Signet Ring in Haggai 2:23,” in Μ. H. Floyd and R. D. Haak (eds.), Prophets, Prophecy and Prophetic Texts in Sec- ond Temple Judaism (=Prophets, Prophecy; LHB/OT 427; New York and London 2006) pp. 102-119. 62 Compare Kapelrud, Orientalia NS 32 pp. 52-62, especially p. 61; Sérandour, Transeu 11 passim especially pp. 12-13. See also Ishida, Dynasties pp. 81-122. 63 Sérandour, Transeu 10 p. 83. [ Page ] 368 Davidic covenant.64 This reaffirmation stands in tandem with Zechariah 3, a text which establishes an eternal priestly covenant with Joshua.65 Furthermore, Séran- dour suggests that the beginnings of the dual messianism of Qumran can be found here.66 Thus for Sérandour the oracle to Zerubbabel in Hag 2:23 is part of a larger schema designed to anchor the community’s diarchic leadership (which evolved around 450 BCE) in an eternal priestly and royal covenant, represented by the co- participation of Joshua and Zerubbabel in the refounding of the temple. It is beyond the scope of the present study to evaluate his proposal.67 Neverthe- less Sérandour is certainly right to highlight the link between Zerubabbel’s position as governor, his Davidic ancestry, his role in the temple’s restoration, and the oracle addressed to him in Hag 2:23. In the flow of the narrative development within Hag- gai it is highly likely that, having described the ultimate glorification of the temple in Hag 2:6-9, the book’s attention turns to the fate of its allied institution, the Da- vidic line.68 Such a linkage is entirely plausible given the close association of temple and monarchy in the ancient Near East. Thus Haggai announces that the rejection of the Davidic line pronounced in Jer 22:24-30 69 has been overturned, and that Yah- weh now desires to express his approbation for Zerubbabel for his role in the tem- ple’s reconstruction, and through it his renewed favor toward the Davidic line.70 As ________________________________________ 64 Sérandour, Transeu 11 p. 17. 65 Sérandour, Transeu 10 pp. 76-77. 66 Sérandour, Transeu 10 p. 83. 67 Significant questions may be raised regarding his assertion (1) that Haggai-Zechariah- Malachi must be read as a triptych, and elements from the latter two texts are essential for the interpretation of Haggai; (2) his expanded view of the editorial framework of Haggai to in- clude Hag 2:6-9 and 21-23; and (3) his judgment that any diarchic forms of leadership could not have emerged before the mid-fifth century. 68 So Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah p. 82. Compare also Kessler, Book of Haggai p. 222. 69 The pivotal point linking Hag 2:23 and Jer 22:24-30 is not the image of the signet per se but the larger metaphor in which it is embedded—that of Yahweh, on the one hand discarding his precious signet, and on the other, taking it up again. On this, compare Kessler, Prophets, Prophecy pp. 115-116. 70 Pace K. Pomykala, The Davidic Dynasty Tradition in Early Judaism: History and Signifi- cance for Messianism (=Davidic Dynasty; SBLEJL 7; Atlanta 1995) pp. 45-53. Pomykala’s purpose is to refute the assertion that Hag 2:23 is evidence for the expectation of an imminent restoration of the Davidic dynasty. To do so he suggests that in Haggai there is no indication of Zerubbabel’s Davidic origins and that the language in Hag 2:23 is quite general and not specifically evocative of the Davidic promises. I do concur with Pomykala that Hag 2:23 should not be read as any attempt to politically resurrect the Davidic dynasty in the late fifth century. In Haggai, Zerubbabel’s exaltation is seen to be the work of Yahweh, subject to a dramatic intervention, and is put off into the indefinite future (Hag 2:6-9 and 21-23). Yet given the Persian’s general policy of reinstating formerly deposed royal houses (on which see F. Bianchi, “Le rôle de Zorobabel et la dynastie davidique en Judée du VIe siècle au VIe siècle av. J. Transeu 7 [1994] pp. 156-157; P. Briant, “Contrainte militaire, dépendance rurale et exploitation des territoires en Asie achéménide,” in Rois, tributs et paysans. Etudes sur les formations tributaires du Moyen-Orient ancien [Paris 1982] pp. 199-225; and A. Le- maire, “Zorobabel et la Judée à la lumière de l’épigraphie [fin du VIe s. av. J. -C.],” RB 103 [1996] p. 44), Pomykala’s skepticism regarding Zerubbabel’s Davidic origins seems over- drawn. Furthermore, Hag 2:23 is not merely a collection of evocative terms, but a deliberate [ Page ] 369 such Hag 2:23 employs a series of highly significant terms with reference to Zerub- babel.71 These terms express Yahweh’s approbation of Zerubbabel and the future exaltation he will experience.72 Critical to this change is the one term applied to the then present status of Zerubbabel: he is described as Yahweh’s servant (eved).73 This term is one that is extensively used in a variety of Israelite traditions for those who have chosen to ally themselves with Yahweh and his purposes. The list includes Abraham (Gen 26:24), Isaac and Jacob (Exod 32:13), Moses (Num 12:7—8; Deut 34:5, Josh 1: and 7 and many times in the Deuteronomistic History), Joshua (Judg 2:8), Job (Job 1:8 and 2:3), and especially David (2 Sam 7:5, 8; 1 Kgs 11:13; 14:8; and 2 Kgs 19:34). However, as has been frequently noted, it is not used for other Davidic rulers, with the exception of Hezekiah in 2 Chr 32:16 and the future Davidic scion in Ezek 34:23 and 37:24—25.74 Meyers and Meyers further note that in Deuteronomistic History the term is not used with reference to Solomon (except for limited self designations in the prayers attributed to him in passages such as 1 Kgs 3:7-9 and 8:28—32).75 On this basis they conclude that the term conveys Zerubbabel’s “subservient relation- ship to Yahweh” and his instrumental role in Yahweh’s future world intervention.76 While such an inference is possible, it is likely that there is a more central implica- tion in Haggai’s use of the term with reference to Zerubbabel. As noted above, in the Deuteronomistic History the term is almost exclusively used with reference to David to the virtual exclusion of all other Davidides. Close investigation of the distribution of its usage in the Deuteronomistic His- tory reveals further details of its use. In the early section of the David-Saul narra- tives in 1 Samuel the term is one which primarily designates David’s fealty and un- ________________________________________ re-reading and reversal of the Jeremianic tradition of the rejection of Jehoiachin the davidide in Jer 22:24-30. As such, issues of the future of the Davidic line cannot be extirpated from the discussion. This is especially so since the promises to David had become so profoundly con- nected to the Deuteronomistic traditions (as evidenced in the Deuteronomistic History) so much in evidence in Haggai. However, this being said, Pomykala is right to observe that any allusion to Zerubbabel as a davidide is minimized in Haggai. This is likely done in order to dampen any populist hopes of immediate political action in defiance of Persian authority that might have arisen after Zerubbabel’s appointment. In point of fact Hag 2:21-23 serves to maintain Davidic hope while at the same time urging accommodation to the status quo under Persian rule and deferring any concrete political manifestation of Davidic rule until after the cataclysmic intervention of Yahweh in Hag 2:6-9 and 21-22. On this, see Kessler, Transeu 5 p. 84. 71 For a fuller discussion of these terms, compare Kessler, Book of Haggai pp. 226-239; and Kessler, Prophets, Prophecy pp. 113-117. 72 On the deliberately veiled description of Zerubbabel’s future, compare Kessler, Prophets, Prophecy pp. 113-119. 73 eved (“servant”) stands in apposition to the name “Zerubbabel” and constitutes Yahweh’s direct address to him at the then present moment. 74 W. H. Rose, Zemah and Zerubbabel: Messianic Expectations in the Early Postexilic Period (JSOTSup 304; Sheffield 2000) pp. 211-212; and Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah p. 103. 75 Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah p. 68. 76 Meyers and Meyers suggest that, unlike Zechariah who eschatologizes the future Davidic ruler, “Haggai’s expectations emerged from the historical present, which involved the rebuild- ing of the temple and the immediate potential for a monarchic state under the rule of a Davidide who in all likelihood would be Zerubbabel” (Haggai, Zechariah p. 69). [ Page ] 370 wavering submission to Saul (1 Sam 17:32, 34; and 19:4). At 1 Sam 23:10, how- ever, a new dimension is introduced as David, in a prayer, refers to himself as Yah- weh’s servant. The term is then referred back to David by Yahweh in 2 Sam 3:18 where in a prophetic oracle, David is named as the one who will deliver Israel from the Philistines. This theme culminates in the well-known passage in 2 Samuel 7 where, after his transfer of the ark to Jerusalem, David expresses his desire to build a house for Yahweh. This in turn elicits an oracle from Nathan promising David that he will be the founder of a perpetual monarchy.77 In this context the designation of David as Yahweh’s servant occurs twelve times in twenty-nine verses—a density far greater than previously encountered in 1-2 Samuel.78 It occurs in Yahweh’s speech to David via Nathan (2 Sam 7:5 and 8) and in David’s speech back to Yahweh (2 Sam 7:20 and 26). What is most significant is that after 2 Samuel 7 it virtually dis- appears from the David narratives, returning only at 2 Sam 24:10 in David’s prayer. After David’s demise, however, the term occurs frequently, and becomes virtually a fixed formula of designation when referring to David. It is found in this way on the lips of Solomon (1 Kgs 3:6; 8:24, 25 and 26), of the narrator (1 Kgs 8:66 and 2 Kgs 8:19), and of Yahweh (1 Kgs 11:13, 32, 34, 36, 38; 14:8; 2 Kgs 19:34; and 20:6). It finds similar expression in Isa 37:35; Jer 30:9; 33:21, 22, 26; Ezek 34:23, 23; 37:24, 25; Ps 78:70; 89:4 [Engl. 3], 21 [Engl. 20]; 132:10; 144:10, the titles of Psalms 18 and 36, and widely in Chronicles (1 Chr 17:4, 7, 18, 24; 21:8; 2 Chr 6:15, 16, 17, and 42). Second Samuel 7 thus appears to be a critical and defining “moment” (nar- ratively speaking) for the usage of the term. David’s victory over the Philistines, his bringing of the ark to Jerusalem, his desire for the honor of Yahweh, and the latter’s promise of dynastic perpetuity appear to have coalesced to attribute a special sig- nificance to the designation of eved (“servant”) one that came to be a distinctive titular designation of David. Indeed, as Ishida notes, the term is one that commonly denotes not only a vassal-suzerain relationship, but also “the relationship between a tutelary deity and his dynasty.”79 The book of Haggai, as has been widely noticed, is profoundly influenced by deuteronomistic thought and idioms.80 The traditions reflected in the Deuteronomis- tic History would therefore have likely been influential for the deuteronomistic cir- cles involved in the redaction of Haggai, whether through those who remained in the land, or those who returned from the East.81 In this context, then, the use of this term ________________________________________ 77 On 2 Samuel 7 compare Ishida, Dynasties pp. 63-122. On the role of 2 Samuel 7 in the Deuteronomistic History, compare D. J. McCarthy, “II Samuel 7 and the Structure of the Deuteronomic History,” JBL 84 (1965) pp. 131-138; and F. M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge 1973) pp. 249-260. On the “unconditional” nature of the dynastic promises to David, compare G. N. Knoppers, “David’s Relation to Moses: The Contexts, Content and Conditions of the Davidic Promises,” in J. Day (ed.), King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar (JSOTSup 270; Sheffield 1998) pp. 91-118. 78 As also noted by Ishida, Dynasties pp. 112-113. 79 Ishida, Dynasties p. 113. 80 R. A. Mason, “Purpose of the ‘Editorial Framework’ of the book of Haggai,” VT (1977) pp. 413-421; Kessler, Book of Haggai pp. 153-157; and Sérandour, Transeu 10p. 81. 81 The literature on the redaction of the Deuteronomistic History is immense. For a survey and recent proposal, see O. Lipschits, The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem: Jerusalem under Baby- lonian Rule (Winona Lake 2005) pp. 272-312. [ Page ] 371 for Zerubbabel carries with it more than a simple designation of Zerubbabel’s sub- servience to Yahweh. Given its almost exclusive designation of David or some fu- ture Davidide, in Hag 2:23 it could not but evoke the highly decisive role that Zerubbabel, like David, has played vis-à-vis Jerusalem, its temple, and the nation at a critical moment in Israelite history. Zerubbabel, like David, in his support of the rebuilding program, has shown a desire for the honor of Yahweh through the glorifi- cation of Yahweh’s house (compare 2 Sam 7:1-3).82 Similarly, like David, he is not so much a grand builder (in the image of Solomon) but a founder both of a temple and a dynasty. Furthermore, David and Zerubbabel both support and endorse the construction of a temple whose glory will come later (1 Kings 5-7 and Hag 2:6-9), and through the prophet Haggai, as he had done through Nathan before him, Yah- weh declares both David and Zerubbabel to be his servants. The likely implication of the use of eved (“servant”) is then that Zerubbabel, in Haggai, is a kind of new David—one who has demonstrated concern for Yahweh and his house and thus re- ceives great promises for the present and future. This being said, it appears to me that, distinct from the customary ancient Near Eastern rewarding of kings who serve as patrons to specific deities, the oracle to Zerubbabel in Hag 2:23 should not be understood purely as a recompense for his role as a temple builder, although to a certain extent his obedience to Yahweh (in contrast to Jehoiachin’s failure, compare Jer 22:24-30) is in view. Rather, Yahweh’s words to Zerubbabel are best seen as a reaffirmation of the role of the Davidic dy- nasty in the context of the newly reconstructed temple and Yahweh’s future inter- vention in the world. And like David himself, who has manifested his piety and dedication to Yahweh via concern for the construction of a house of worship, Zerubbabel, who has manifested a similar concern, will be exalted and honored. This balancing of royal prerogative with a more democratized vision of temple building (with significant influence of Zion and Priestly theology) likely reflects the socio-religious and political context of early Persian Yehud.83 Ritual Purity and Reconstruction As noted above, in ancient Near Eastern temple building or restoration there were acts that were fraught with danger. Inappropriate disturbing of a ritual site, failure to carry out the appropriate apotropaic rituals, or failure to rebuild a ruined site pre- cisely on its former foundations were likely to bring dire consequences.84 Similarly the building materials, the site itself, and the population had to be appropriately puri- fied to prevent misfortune during the building process.85 Haggai presents a sharp contrast to this elaborate attention to the prevention of misfortune during the restora- ________________________________________ 82 Hurowitz, Exalted House, pp. 324-325, also notes the contrast between the people who have neglected Yahweh’s house and taken care of their own homes, and David who has shown concern for the house of Yahweh. The use of eved (“servant”) in Hag 2:23 sets Zerubbabel and David together in this concern. 83 Knoppers has persuasively argued that the deuteronomistic vision of kingship was far more powerful and authoritarian than that of earlier deuteronomism; see Knoppers, ZAW 108 pp. 329-346. 84 Compare Ambos, above pp. 221-237. 85 Averbeck, above pp. 20 and 31. [ Page ] 372 tion process. Apart from the ritual matters raised in Hag 2:14 (to be discussed in- fra), there is little attention to any of the kind of ritual detail described above. No attention is given to ascertaining the precise foundations, dimensions or contours of the earlier site. No special, ritually pure materials are required, nor is the ritual cleansing of the workforce needed. All that is required is that the people go up to “the mountain, get wood, and build my house” (Hag 1:8).86 Even in the command to “get wood” (Hag 1:8), the ritual dimension is greatly diminished when compared to the various ancient Near Eastern texts where the wood that was used was ritually sacred,87 brought from afar, and of great quality.88 Questions of purity do, however, figure in a significant way in Hag 2:10-19. Here a series of questions posed to “the priests” together with their responses consti- tutes a prophetic-symbolic act which serves as a vehicle for the prophetic denuncia- tion of the people and their offerings as “impure” in Hag 2:14.89 Verses 14-19 have long troubled exegetes due to the numerous questions this section raises for under- standing the present form of the book. These questions concern how Haggai, having reassured the leaders and people of Yahweh’s presence with them in Hag 1:13, and further encouraging them in their efforts in Hag 2:1-9, could subsequently reproach them again, and declare them unclean (Hag 2:14). An earlier response to the prob- lem was to view Hag 1:15a + 2:15-19 as the remnant of an oracle proclaimed on the twenty-first of the seventh month, just after the rebuilding began,90 and to under- stand the people who are deemed to be unclean not as the Yehudite community, but as the inhabitants of the former northern kingdom who have sought to join in the project (compare Ezra 4:2).91 However, most recent commentators have abandoned this approach92 and, following Koch, have viewed Hag 2:10-19 as a unit and sought to make sense of it as such.93 ________________________________________ 86 A certain degree of uncertainty surrounds the prophet’s command here. On the location of the mountain and the matter of why wood, and why only wood is mentioned (especially in light of the massive destruction suffered by the temple at the hands of the Babylonians) com- pare Kessler, Book of Haggai pp. 213-214). 87 Hurowitz (Exalted House pp. 210 and 215) notes that at times the king was presented as having cut the wood himself, and that such wood was considered sacred and fit for temple building. 88 On these motifs compare, see Hurowitz, Exalted House pp. 212-220. 89 chen ha-am hazeh vechen hagoy hazeh lefanay neum Yahweh vechen chal ma-aseh yedeyhem va-asher yakrivu sham tame hu (“so [i.e. unclean] is this people and so is this nation before me—oracle of Yahweh—and so is all the work of their hands; and what they offer there is unclean.”). 90 Thus Amsler, Lacoque, and Vuilleumeier, Aggée-Zacharie p. 10, following Beuken Haggai-Sacharja p. 208 and J. W. Rothstein, Juden und Samaritaner: Die grundlegende Scheidung von Judentum und Heidentum: Eine Kritische Studie zum Buche Haggai und zur jüdische Geschichte im ersten nachexilischen Jahrhundert (BWANT 3; Leipzig 1908) pp. 53- 73. 91 Thus Beuken, Haggai-Sacharja pp. 67-70; Rothstein, Juden und Samaritaner; and Wolff, Haggai pp. 26-30. 92 Floyd, Minor Prophets; Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah; and Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah in loco. 93 K. Koch, “Haggais unreines Volk,” ZAW 79 ( 1967) pp. 52-66. [ Page ] 373 Various approaches have been suggested regarding the question of why the prophet declares the people, their sacrifices at the Jerusalem altar,94 and the work of their hands (Hag 2:14) to be unclean.95 With Meyers and Meyers, Petersen, Amsler, and Floyd, I have argued that the conflict here is essentially cultic in nature.96 Yet, having declared the people unclean, the prophet announces that from a precise mo- ment, the twenty-fifth day of the ninth month of the second year of Darius’ reign (Hag 2:10 and 18), their fortunes would radically change. This day is described in Hag 2:18 as the day when the temple of Yahweh was refounded.97 Furthermore, in Hag 2:15 allusion is made to the day when “stone was placed upon stone in the tem- ple of Yahweh” (sum even el even beheychal Yahweh). To what does this phrase refer? As noted supra, those who view Hag 2:15-19 as displaced from its original position after 1:15a see this as a reference to the initiation of the reconstruction.98 However given the unity of Hag 2:10-19,99 for the framer(s) of Haggai in its present form this must refer to something other than the initiation of reconstruction. Meyers and Meyers suggest that it refers to masonry work.100 However, in light of the fact that this single act, is deemed to be so radically important to the shift in the people’s for- tunes from woe to weal, it is more probable that Hag 2:10, 15, and 18 are all allu- sions to a single, decisive event, ritual in nature, due to its ability to immediately purify and restore the community. Thus the refounding of the temple (Hag 2:18) or the “laying of stone upon stone” (Hag 2:15) likely reflects a ritual activity under- taken well after the initiation of the reconstruction, but before its completion. This ritual activity was likely an Israelite echo of the placement of the “first” or “former” ________________________________________ 94 Various proposals have been advanced which identify the defiled altar as one other than that of the Jerusalem temple. Compare P. R. Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration: A Study of He- brew Thought of the Sixth Century B.C. (London 1968) p. 168 n. 73; J. Blenkinsopp, History of Prophecy in Israel (Louisville 1996) p. 201; and T. Chary, Les prophètes et culte à partir de l’exil (Paris 1955) p. 137. For a critique, see Kessler, Book of Haggai pp. 214-215. 95 For a fuller survey of the various proposals, with critique and bibliography, see Kessler, Book of Haggai pp. 206-218. 96 Compare Kessler, Book of Haggai pp. 211-213, with bibliography. This position stands in contrast to those who would maintain that the impurity in question in Hag 2:10-19 is due to “Samaritan” participation in the reconstruction or to ethical breaches on the part of the people. On the former, see Rothstein, Judean und Samaritaner passim; for the latter see, for example, D. R. Hildebrand, “Temple Ritual: A Paradigm for Moral Holiness in Haggai II 10-19,” VT 18 ( 1989) pp. 154-168; and R. Mason, “The Prophets of the Restoration,” in R. Coggins, A. Philipps, and M. Knibb (eds.), Israel’s Prophetic Tradition: Essays in Honour of Peter R. Ackroyd (Cambridge 1982) pp. 137-153. 97 I take 7D’ here to mean refounding, as in 2 Chr 24:27 and 31:7. This sense is philologically justifiable and fits the present context. 98 Amsler, Lacoque, and Vuilleumeier, Aggée-Zacharie p. 27. It seems to me entirely possible that Hag 2:15-19 was originally an oracle of salvation delivered to the people after the initia- tion of work on the temple. Yet in light of Koch’s persuasive arguments, whatever the Ora- cle’s prehistory, one must read Hag 2:10-19 as a unit. As such, in its new setting the oracle must refer to blessing to follow some step undertaken by the community after the work had begun. 99 Thus Koch, ZAW 79 passim. 100 Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah p. 59. [ Page ] 374 brick or kalû-rite widely practiced in the ancient Near East.101 Such ritual activities served to link the destroyed temple with the newly refitted one.102 as well as serving purificatory functions.103 The ritual impurity which infected the altar, temple, and people was likely due to the accrued faults of leaders and community, reflected in both priestly and deuteronomistic traditions, from which cleansing was needed.104 Thus this pericope concerns the radical transformation of the people’s fortunes which were to follow upon the temple refoundation ceremony (compare Zech 4:6-7, 8-10, and 8:9).105 The prophet declares that the agricultural and economic frustra- tions which have plagued the community will soon give way to abundance and fruit- fulness.106 Haggai thus reflects both continuity and discontinuity with reference to more common ancient Near Eastern conceptions. Like its cultural environment, Haggai is concerned with purity and impurity, and proper care for sacred space. As well, agri- cultural fruitfulness is associated with a duly rebuilt and reconsecrated temple. However, unlike its environment, and in line with a monotheistic and deuteronomis- tic covenantal ideology, Haggai presents a more circumscribed view of ritual mat- ters. There appears to be no concern for building on especially auspicious days. The dates in Haggai do not appear to correspond to particularly auspicious moments.107 Rather the dates which structure the book serve to underline the rapidity with which the project proceeded.108 No special ritual purification is prescribed for the site, builders, or building materials. No apotropaic rituals are set forth for protection of the builders and site. Rather, the ritual dimensions of temple reconstruction are fo- cused in the ceremony of refoundation of the temple, and the placement of “stone upon stone” (Hag 2:15 and 18). By means of this ritual, the accumulated defile- ments of the past are seen as having been remedied, and all hindrances to proper worship removed. As such, the purification and consecration effected by placing “stone upon stone” stands as a “priestly” theological parallel to the relational repara- ________________________________________ 101 On this, see the pioneering work of Ellis, Foundation Deposits. Compare the discussion in Hurowitz, Exalted House pp. 264-269; and Averbeck, above pp. 22-23. 102 Hurowitz, Exalted House p. 265. 103 Ellis, Foundation Deposits p. 20; Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah p. 93; and Petersen, “Zerubbabel and Jerusalem Temple Reconstruction,” CBQ 36 (1974) pp. 368-369. 104 For a fuller discussion, see Kessler, Book of Haggai pp. 215-216. 105 On this text, see Halpern, CBQ 40 pp. 167-190; Koch, ZAW 79 pp. 52-66; Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah pp. 63-64; Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah pp. 88-96; Petersen, CBQ 36 pp. 366-372; and A. Petitjean, Les Oracles du Proto-Zacharie: Un programme de restauration pour la communauté juive après l’exil (EBib; Paris and Louvain 1969) pp. 241- 251. 106 J. A. Bewer, “Ancient Babylonian Parallels to the Prophecies of Haggai,” AJSL 35 (1919) pp. 128-133, notes the association between temple re-foundation and agricultural prosperity. Bewer’s position will be discussed further infra. 107 On the difference between the identification of specific times as auspicious for temple building in Mesopotamian accounts, and the biblical date formulae, see Hurowitz, Exalted House pp. 227-233. 108 Hurowitz, Exalted House pp. 226-227, notes the ideological function of the dates in the Solomonic building narrative. [ Page ] 375 tion effected by the covenantal obedience, couched in the deuteronomistic, covenan- tal language of Hag 1:12—15.109 Fertility, Wealth, and the Temple’s Role as a World Center The notion of fertility is frequently associated with temple building in both biblical and ancient Near Eastern texts. At times, fertility of land and beasts constitutes a sign to the temple builder that divine approval attends the project, as well as provid- ing material means for the financing of the project.110 Conversely, infertility would indicate that the deity was not pleased, and that the project should be halted.111 In other ancient Near Eastern motifs the completed temple constitutes a conduit to the realm of the divine from which fertility and abundance emanate.112 In traditions as- sociated with “Zion Theology” the temple is frequently described as a world pil- grimage center to which tribute and offerings flow.113 Haggai utilizes these motifs in a distinctive way. The concepts of fertility and wealth are the reverse of much of the received ancient Near Eastern tradition. In the Deuteronomistic conceptualization, famine, infertility, drought and the like were to be understood as indicating divine displeasure (Amos 4 and Deuteronomy 28).114 Haggai, in line with this tradition, sees in the misfortunes which have beset the community in Yehud divine displeas- ure specifically associated with the neglect of rebuilding and purifying the ruined temple (Hag 1:2-11 and 2:10-19). The restoration of the fertility of the land is an expression of the removal of the divine displeasure, rather than any means of provi- sion for the temple or confirmation of the legitimacy of the project. Furthermore, the fertility and blessing promised, again in line with deuteronomistic tradition, are not the paradisal and overwhelming effects of the divine presence (as in, for example, Ezekiel 40-48) but rather the more “normal” and “temporal” blessings of rich and abundant harvests in the course of the regular cycle of sowing and reaping (Hag ________________________________________ 109 On the ability of ritual to effect reparation, see Ambos, above p. 231, who draws attention to the remedial power of ritual in the divine-human relationship. He views ritual texts as “de- scribing the ritual expert’s task to mend the endangered relationship between the gods and humanity.” 110 Averbeck in present volume, above pp. 15-16. 111 Compare Ambos, above p. 231. Note how this is symmetrically opposite to the perspective in Haggai where Yahweh sends natural calamities to indicate his displeasure that the temple has not been rebuilt. 112 On this motif, see J. D. Levenson, Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible (Min- neapolis 1985) pp. 111-137. 113 M. Weinfeld, “Zion and Jerusalem as Religious and Political Capital: Ideology and Uto- pia,” in R. E. Friedman (ed.), The Poet and the Historian (HSS; Chico 1983) pp. 75-113. 114 On the re-use of deuteronomistic “curse” formulae in Haggai, with specific references, see Kessler, Book of Haggai pp. 153-157. A similar ideology is found in certain priestly texts such as Leviticus 26. [ Page ] 376 2:19).115 As Bewer noted nearly a century ago, this motif in Haggai finds a counter- part in Gudea Cylinder A.116 The perspective of regular, ongoing blessing in the course of the agricultural cy- cle as a removal of divine displeasure stands in tension with the motif of the enrich- ment of the temple through the “treasures of the nations” in Hag 2:6-9. This distinc- tion between, on the one hand, agricultural blessing in the annual cycle, linked to the community’s obedience in rebuilding of the temple, and, on the other, the future glorification of the temple (and exaltation of Zerubbabel) tied to the spectacular theophanic manifestation of Yahweh in the cosmos, is an important one in Haggai, and one which is frequently overlooked.117 In the latter of these two “fertility” mo- tifs we enter the realm, not of the regular course of history,118 but of that of a re- newed world, one that has experienced a decisive intervention of Yahweh and the “shaking of the nations.”119 Drawing on the rich traditions of Zion theology120 as well as more general ancient Near Eastern motifs,121 our prophet, albeit in highly veiled and generalized language,122 envisages a time when Yahweh will manifest his presence, sending the elements of the universe into convulsion, and terrifying the inhabitants of the earth.123 As a result, in a manner deliberately veiled by the prophet, the treasures of the nations will fill the temple with a splendor (kavod) sur- passing anything the temple had known before (Hag 2:9). In this motif, the temple is not a guarantor of fertility, but the one place on earth where the Supreme Deity may be worshipped and glorified (compare Isa 4:1-5; Mic 2:1-5; Isaiah 60; and Zechariah 14). One current in the interpretation of Haggai has consistently main- tained that our prophet viewed the reconstruction of the temple as a kind of talisman ________________________________________ 115 On the complex questions related to this verse, see D. J. Clark “Problems in Haggai 2:15- 19,” BT 34 (1983) pp. 432-439; and Kessler, Book of Haggai pp. 209-210. It is best to see this as a promise of blessing for the community’s future agricultural pursuits. 116 Bewer, AJSL 35 pp. 128-133. Hurowitz, Exalted House pp. 322-323, notes that while Bewer’s suggestion of a drought in the Gudea text was inaccurate, the motif of fertility after the temple’s construction still obtains. 117 It has been noticed by A. Caquot, “Le Judaïsme depuis la captivité de Babylone jusqu’à la révolte de Bar-Kokheba,” in Encyclopédie de la Pléiade. Histoire des Religions 2 (Paris 1972) pp. 114-132, especially p. 130; and W. O. McCready, “The ‘Day of Small Things’ vs the Latter Days: Historical Fulfillment or Eschatological Hope?” in A. Gileadi (ed.), Israel’s Apostasy and Restoration: Essays in Honor of Roland K. Harrison (Grand Rapids 1988) pp. 223-236. 118 This coming age is marked off from the regular course of history by the expression od achat meaht hi (“one more time, and it will happen soon”) in Hag 2:6 and bayom hahu (“on that day”) in Hag. 2:23. On the former expression, see Kessler, Book of Haggai pp. 160 and 173- 175. 119 On the meaning of this colorful expression, compare J. Kessler, “The Shaking of the Na- tions: An Eschatological View,” JETS 30 (1987) pp. 159-166; and Kessler, Book of Haggai pp. 175-178. 120 Compare G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, Volume 2 (Edinburgh and London 1965) pp. 292-297. 121 Compare Weinfeld, The Poet and the Historian passim. 122 On the use of such generalized language in Haggai, and its rhetorical purpose, compare Kessler, Book of Haggai pp. 190-191 and 272. 123 Kessler, Book of Haggai pp. 177-178 [ Page ] 377 or guarantor of weal and fertility in the age to come.124 In a similar vein, others have affirmed that the reconstruction of the temple was a necessary prerequisite for the coming age.125 However a closer reading of Haggai reveals that that book’s perspec- tive concerning the future does not sustain either of these affirmations. The temple is glorified after the acknowledgement of the supremacy of Yahweh through his spec- tacular interventions in the cosmos. What is more, the glorification of the temple does not come through the abundant fertility of the land due to the presence of the temple, but through the wealth of the nations which comes in to the temple and serves as a testimony of the surpassing greatness of Yahweh, whose house it is. This motif is one that features significantly in both Zion (Isaiah 60 and Zechariah 14) and deuteronomistic traditions (1 Kgs 8:41-43 and 10:1-10),126 both of which are well-represented in Haggai. Thus, while motifs of fertility and enrichment of the temple are both present in Haggai, the two are held in tension and set within the framework of deuteronomistic and Zion theology. Temple Restoration and Divine “Return” It was commonly assumed in the ancient Near East that when a temple fell into ruin through destruction in war or material deterioration, its patron deity would leave the temple and reside elsewhere until such time as the temple was restored. A prime example is the Gudea Cylinder which describes the departure and return of Ningirsu and Baba and their installation in the new temple with all the attendant pomp and circumstance attached to such an event.127 Motifs of divine departure and return are also reflected in certain biblical texts, such as Ezekiel 1-11. Once again, Haggai’s presentation of Yahweh’s response to the restoration of the temple stands in tension with broader ancient Near Eastern tradition and certain biblical representations. In 1:8 Yahweh declares his response to the people’s obedience in rebuilding the tem- ple, saying: ve-ertseh bo ve-ekavda. Various textual, syntactical and translational options are in evidence in these words.128 In my view, this phrase is best construed as a promise, and translated “then I will delight in it (that is, the temple) and I will allow myself to be glorified.”129 This extremely brief statement regarding Yahweh’s response to the rebuilt temple demonstrates that in Haggai the theme of the return of the deity to the temple is modified in two distinct ways, reflecting the broader ideological un- derpinnings of the book. First, while there is some sense that in Haggai the relationship between Yahweh and his people has been stressed by the lamentable state of the temple, and that the ________________________________________ 124 So for example F. James, “Thoughts on Haggai and Zechariah,” JBL 3 (1934) pp. 229- 234; and R. H. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament (New York 1941) p. 602. 125 Thus recently, Pomykala, Davidic Dynasty p. 49. 126 On this motif, see Weinfeld, The Poet and the Historian passim and W. J. Dumbrell, “Kingship and Temple in the Post-Exilic Period,” RTR 37 ( 1978) pp. 33-42; and W. J. Dum- brell, “Some Observations on the Political Origins of Israel’s Eschatology,” RTR 36 (1971) 33-41. 127 Compare Averbeck, above pp. 29-33. 128 For a discussion of the various lexical, textual, and syntactical issues involved, compare Kessler, Book of Haggai pp. 133-136. 129 Thus Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration p. 160. [ Page ] 378 temple as it stood was an unfit residence for Yahweh, there is no explicit statement to the effect that Yahweh had departed from it. The text is quite subtle here. Even in its sorry state the temple is still declared to be “my house” (beiti) in Hag 1:9. What is more, in Hag 1:4 Yahweh complains that the people live in “paneled houses” while “this house” lies abandoned (charev). The implication is left unclear: is Yahweh living in a dilapidated house, or has he no earthly dwelling place?130 In line with its broader purposes, Haggai does not stress the departure of absence of Yahweh from the temple. Accordingly the renewed relationship between Yahweh and his people as a result of their rebuilding activity is not presented as a “return” of Yahweh to Jerusalem and its temple (compare Zech 1:16 and 8:3). Rather, Yahweh declares (Hag 1:8) that if the temple is rebuilt he will take pleasure (ratsah) in it and will ac- cept the worship that is offered to him there (niphal of kaved).131 Second, in contrast to broader ancient Near Eastern tradition where the deity had to be induced to return to the sanctuary, and such return was far from certain,132 here Yahweh’s acceptance of the rebuilt temple is assured. Furthermore, all that is re- quired is the effort of rebuilding. No elaborate ritual procedures are required to ex- orcise any foreign presence,133 no ceremonial inauguration is prescribed,134 no spe- cial furnishings are demanded and no fresh manifestation of the divine presence (such as a recapitulation of the filling of the temple with glory in 1 Kgs 8:10-11) is promised or described. Thus whereas in the more common ancient Near Eastern traditions wherein the return of the god to the temple is never a foregone conclusion and therefore requires elaborate preparation, and when it does occur, is described in great detail, Haggai promises that when the people fulfill their covenantal duty to- ward Yahweh by refurbishing the temple, he will be pleased with their efforts and accept their worship. The directness and simplicity of the community’s responsibili- ties in rebuilding the temple and the certainty of Yahweh’s pleasure and acceptance of their efforts are clear reflections of the book’s presentation of Haggai as a “classi- cal” prophet in the deuteronomistic tradition. ________________________________________ 130 This ambiguity raises many interesting issues. How does Haggai’s perspective here relate to the priestly “glory” theology, and deuteronomistic “name” theology? Compare here Séran- dour, Transeu 10 p. 81, who notes the confluence of the two perspectives in Haggai. Clearly Yahweh cannot have taken temporary lodging in the shrine of another deity, as in certain polytheistic texts. Are we to infer here that the presence of Yahweh has returned with the exiles (compare the departure of his glory to the north with the exiles in Ezekiel 1-11) but lacks an abode? Or are we to suppose that the dwelling parallelism of Hag 1:4 is meant to be read as the people dwelling in adequate houses and Yahweh dwelling in a hovel? It is quite likely that some form of worship continued at the site of the ruined temple during the period of its destruction. Compare D. R. Jones, “The Cessation of Sacrifice after the Destruction of the Temple in 586 B.C.,” JTS NS 14 (1963) pp. 12-31; and J. Middlemas, The Troubles of Templeless Judah (OTM; Oxford 2005) pp. 1-71. How would our prophet’s words here re- late to the religious sensibilities of the non-deported population? Note also the contrast here between the perspective in Haggai and certain ancient Near Eastern traditions in which the temple virtually incarnated the deity (compare Schaudig, above p. 151). 131 Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration p. 160. 132 Averbeck, above pp. 29-33. 133 As in the cleansing of the spirits of the workers in certain texts, compare Ambos, above pp. 234-235. 134 Compare 1 Kings 8. [ Page ] 379 Conclusions Haggai therefore presents the reader with a unique recontextualization of several motifs found in the broader context of the ancient Near Eastern and biblical tradi- tions regarding temple building. In line with the theological traditions represented among the Jerusalemite community of the time, temple building is framed in terms of Deuteronomistic, Priestly and Zion traditions, and in line with the book’s desire to promote the significance of the prophetic office in the restoration period, Haggai is presented as a “classical” prophet who successfully brings the people to the ful- fillment of their covenantal obligations before Yahweh. This desire thus leads to the presentation of the dramatic movement in the book as the restoration of a damaged covenant rather than the renewal of a broken one. This in turn influences the highly distinctive “variations” on broader ancient Near Eastern themes regarding temple building and rededication which appear in Haggai. ***** This is the end of the e-text. This e-text was brought to you by Tyndale University, J. William Horsey Library - Tyndale Digital Collections *****