[JSOT212 (2002) 243-256] ISSN 0309-0892

Building the Second Temple: Questions of Time, Text, and History in Haggai 1.1-15 John Kessler
Tyndale Seminary, 25 Ballyconnor Court, Toronto, ON M2M 4B3, Canada

Abstract The people's reticence expressed in Hag. 1.2 has been understood by some interpreters as reflecting the belief that Yahweh had not yet authorized the temple's reconstruction, rather than as a rationalization for the community's misplaced priorities. However, exegetical, text-, form-, literary- and ideological-critical considerations cast doubt upon this reading. Rather, the text's redactor presents Haggai as a successful prophet whose words of reproach pierce the people's recalcitrant hearts. In the light of broader ancient Near Eastern parallels, it is, nevertheless, plausible that objections to the temple's reconstruction on ideological grounds did exist in Early Persian Yehud. Haggai 1.2 may demonstrate the selectivity with which a historical context may be portrayed, and provides an example of the difficulties of using prophetic texts in historical reconstructions.

A long-standing approach to Hag. 1.1-15 maintains that the people's opposition to the reconstruction of the temple was not due to laziness or indifference, as is affirmed in many commentaries on Haggai, but was rooted in ideological convictions. P.R. Bedford, for example, has argued at length for this approach in an article (Bedford 1995) and recent monograph (Bedford 2001). In an earlier study I offered an initial critique of this position and promised a detailed critique of Bedford's article (Kessler 1998: esp. p. 559 n. 20; as noted by Bedford 2001: 177 n. 198). The publication of Bedford's monograph affords me the opportunity of responding to the fuller context of his arguments, and to state my own position
© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002, The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SEI 7NX and 370 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA.

Alternative translations of ΠΊΠ might be 'abandoned' or 'deserted'. Hanson (1975: 225-69). 1.2-4 in greater detail. 1. 1.1-15 and historical reconstructions of the early Persian period in Yehud.2-4 reads as follows: Thus says Yahweh Sebaoth: 'This people says. In the second. . Steck (1971: 373-76). Exegetical Considerations Several exegetical considerations present serious difficulties to under­ standing the people's opposition. 177) rather than simple self-interest. Kessler 2001: 149-50 and 2002: 128-30. consequently.1 The text of Hag. but also historiographical conclusions with reference to how such a prophetic text may be used to reconstruct an historical context (cf. "It is not the time to come. The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002. Kessler 1998: 555-56 and 2002: 123-25. and Tadmor (1999) view the people's words. 2. The text-critical decision which yields this translation.4 Much weight is placed on understanding Γ\ΰ in v. no such endeavour ought to be undertaken. de Robert (1996). as opposed to the alter­ native 'The time has not come'.1 -15. Similarly. cf. as reflecting the opinion that the time for temple reconstruction had not yet come. 3. the time for the house of Yahweh to be rebuilt" ' ? Then the word of Yahweh came through Haggai the prophet saying: 'Is it time for you yourselves to dwell in your panelled houses while this house [stands] desolate?'3 Scholars such as Wellhausen (1898:173). In the first section I will assess the notion of time in Hag. His assertions involve not only exegetical judgments regarding the sense of the text. as it is redactionallyportrayed in Hag­ gai. and consequently. I will discuss the relationship between Hag.2. as stemming from pious theological concerns (thus Bedford 2001: 174. and. HamertonKelly (1970). Bedford's recent studies argue for this position in great detail. For a summary of the opinions of these scholars regarding the various sectors of the population that held such views. will be discussed infra. The arguments of Kessler 1998 will thus be reformulated and expanded here. 1.2 (2002) vis-à-vis this general approach to the understanding of time (ΠΙ7) in Hag. 4. Amsler 1988: 22. 1. 2 as referring to a 'divinely appointed moment' (Tadmor 1999: 402-403. this present assessment of the hypothesis of ideological opposition to the construction of the Second Temple consists of two parts. Janssen (1956: 78). Floyd 1995:490). 1. as cited in Hag. cf.244 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 27. Bedford 2001: 173-78).

2b and 4 both use ΠΙ3 followed by a genitival infinitive construct. as in the first translation. First. It is therefore entirely apposite to see the same construction in 1. The latter reading leaves greater room for the possibility that the people's motive is theological (although it by no means requires it). Third. 1.1 -11. located elsewhere (Barthélémy 1992: 924). It is thus likely that the people constitute the subject of 813 in both verses. now isn't a good time to come]' is more contextually appropriate than 'The time has not come'.e. Meyers and Meyers 1987: 3). Fourth.e. 14) and translates. the people do in v. 5 there are two principal options for understanding the MT: (1) 8 3 may be read as an infinitive absolute and predicate of Γ\ΰ. 7 and 2002: 103 η. © The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002. views the people as the implied subject of 813 (as is the case in v. Jerusalem appears to have been quite sparsely inhabited at the time (Lipschits 1999: 184-85. Gen. 5. In the thematic structure of 1. 2002: 90-96) and it would be necessary for some workers to come to Jerusalem from their own dwellings. vv. 29. cf. Because of Haggai's words in 1. Carter 1999: 200-205. as in the second trans­ lation that I have just mentioned. 2. Leaving aside those solutions that delete one or the other occurrence of Γίΰ as well as those which repoint 8 3 to K3.1-15. The two chief translational options propose differing subjects for the verb K13 ('to come'). Wolff 1988:27. 14. Barthélémy 1992:923-24. (Barthélémy 1992: 923-24. 'The time has not come. the noun Γ\ΰ followed by a genitival infinitive construct (usually preceded by lamedh. describing the kind of time in question (i. Kessler 2001: 46-51. 7. a time for/of coming).. the people are the subject of 813 in v. but occasionally without. Tadmor 1999:402 n. which I have followed above. 14 that which they have refused to do in v. text-critical and translational choices play a crucial role in determining the theme and logic of 1. or (2) 8 3 may be read as an infinitive construct used genitivally with Πΰ (GKC § 114b. . The former underlines the speakers' volitional choices at a given moment. The alternative translation. Thus the translation 'It is not the time to come [i. 'It is not the time to come' (thus Barthélémy 1992: 923-24.7) is frequently used in sa­ piential contexts and denotes the kind of time suitable for a given activity (see infra).KESSLER Building the Second Temple 245 Textual Criticism In Hag.' (thus Reventlow 1993: 8. Amsler 1988:19). w .. Second. There they come to Jerusalem to build the temple. Four considerations make the latter solu­ tion the most likely. Beuken 1967:30-49).2a. The more frequently adopted translation construes ΠΪ? as the subject of AID and translates.2. 2 and 14 stand opposite each other. cf. For a detailed discussion of these options.1 -15. Kessler 1988: 558 η. 6).

The fault may be. Steck ( 1971: 367) considers 1. 174). Bedford (1995: 74. Beuken (1967:185-89) sees the section as containing the following forms: v. Hillers 1964: 28-29.2-11 has been variously categorized. Floyd (2000: 273) views it as a prophetic disputation. especially in prophetic and deuteronomistic literature. motivated by a desire to avoid offending their deity. 11. 2001: 72) sees the people's fault as essentially 'cultic'. 5-6. Spruch/Ent­ faltung. and not evidence of a lack of covenant faithfulness. or worse. on the use of ΠΤΠ ΏΰΤ\ ['this people'] in 1. He affirms that their motivation for doing so was not 'moral turpitude' (p. Wolff [1988: 33] speaks of the futility curses as 'proofs of guilt'). 7-8. 1995: 287) could be seen by Haggai (or his editor) as merely cultic violations. Tollington 1993: 189-94). however. Kessler 2002: 153-57.2). Petersen 1985: 50.2 (2002) Form Criticism The form of Hag. Such form-critical considerations all imply that the prophetic address here is one of reproach (cf. w . cf. On the hermeneutical strategy of linking temple reconstruction and covenant. He concludes (p. Mahnwort. 7. dereliction of duty. 9. 1. v. May 1968.7 Bedford (2001: 170-77) maintains that the community had rejected a call to rebuild issued sometime around the emergence of Darius I and the return of Zerubbabel.246 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 27. It suffices to note at this point that the invocation of Deuteronomistic futility curses and the use of prophetic forms of reproach and judgment seems to be an odd way to respond to a timorous people. cf. See infra on the use of Deuteronomistic motifs in Haggai. at the very least. Auftrag and Heilswort.6 imply that the people are in some way guilty before Yahweh. willful rejection of a known moral obligation (thus Chary 1969:19. 6-11 (Beuken 1967: 189-97. w . v. to see how 'neglect of the temple' and 'willful disobedience to the pro­ phetical call to rebuild' (Bedford's words.2-8 to be a Diskussionswort followed by a promise. © The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002. Critical to the argument of the section is the presence of the 'futility curse' form in w . One would rather expect some form 6. Such forms of reproach. 10. Eingreifen Gottes. 4. A similar designation is main­ tained by Wolff(1988: 33-34). 173) but stemmed from 'excellent ideological rea­ sons' (p. Disputationswort. 177): Since the rebuilding of a shrine which an angry deity had consigned to destruction could not be undertaken without clear evidence that such work had divine sanction. Hag 1:2 can be interpreted as reflecting the Judeans' perception that the dissipation of Yahweh's anger was not yet evident nor was his return hitherto known to be imminent. v. I fail. Scheltwort. . especially given the clear links between Haggai and the Deuteronomistic tradition (Mason 1977).

A variety of contextual factors favours this latter nuance. In v. It is perfectly true that ΠΙ7 may at times refer to an epoch or a moment designated by Yahweh for a particular purpose (Ps. the people are declaring that the time appears to them to be inappropriate for the task of temple reconstruction. cf. 4. 1. 4 uses Π17 in a way that is identical to that which I am proposing in v. Syntactical and Contextual Considerations If. 3. Prov. In both cases the meaning is simply 'time suitable for'. A far more likely option is the well-attested use of Π17 as denoting 'an appropri­ ate or suitable time' for a given activity (Job 22. Haggai asks the people. 27. 'Is it an appropriate time for you to live in panelled houses while this house is desolate?' Con­ sequently.23. in v.27. The idea of an 'appropriate' or 'suitable' time is well rooted in sapiential literature (von Rad 1972:138-43). cf. 46. . Third. Isa. 4 the term Π Χ ? carries the notion of a judgment relative to the appropriateness of a given activity. such a nuance seems ill-suited to the context here. I do not see why Bedford (2001: 177) affirms that seeing a prophetic reproach in w . First. BDB. the forms used in the prophetic invective correspond well to the rejection of a clear obligation for reasons of personal comfort. 102. Taken in this sense. as Bedford suggests. 1.16.12-13. similar to Isa. When ΠΙ? is used in 8. Amsler 1988: 22).21. 60. Lexical. 15. as noted above. 2 it is an affirmation. Thus in v. Second.12-17 and 8.KESSLER Building the Second Temple 247 of an oracle of comfort or reassurance. 2-11 means attributing a different nuance to Hi? in w . Using a good dose of irony. 4 an ironic re­ statement. 2 and 4. Joel 2. Eccl. the people's objection is to be viewed as theologi­ cal in nature. 40. Tadmor 1999).14 [Eng. v.5-6. 2a and 4 use Πΰ in the sense of an appropriate time for 8 a given activity. Haggai's response to the people's convictions does not consist of any theological or chronological arguments (as Bedford [2001:286] notes.21 -27. However.2a must be understood as denoting the 'divinely appointed time' for temple reconstruction (so Bedford 2001: 173-78. © The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002. Jer. 31. Π Χ 7 in 1. 7.1 -15 as a response to some volitional direction on the people's part which is at variance from the will of Yahweh and inimi­ cal to covenant faithfulness. 1 and 2c).22. 8.1 -2. 2a). or Zech. v. In v.17.211. for example. Haggai ironically reformulates the people's perspective and uses ΠΙ? followed by an infini­ tive construct (as occurs in v. 50. Wolff 1988:41) as would be expected if the basis of the opposition was a lack of knowledge of Yahweh's will. ΠΙ?. Thus form-critical issues favour viewing Hag.7. THAT: 377. 2a. both vv. 13].

gathering in the flocks constitutes an inappropriate activity.28-32). Driver 1916: © The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002. to receive (Pnpb) garments. GKC §114b.2 and 4.2-8. the discussion of this text in O'Brien 1996).2 (2002) this sense. Lohfink 1968. Waltke and O'Connor 1990: §36. In essence.1-14. given the external circumstances. Π Χ 7 is followed by several infinitive constructs describing activities appropri­ ate to certain periods of life. 'It is clear. 1. for example. to die ÇDùb PU).2. There it is stated. to plant (PlUub PU). notably Γ Π ¡Τ 71 pD UQÍÜ (Weinfeld 1972: 336) and ΓΠΓΓ KT (Derousseaux 1970: 209-56 [221. appropriate or reasonable in the existing circumstances?' Furthermore.2. Deut. sheep and cattle. The fundamental motif in covenant rejection and renewal is that of loyalty to the God ofthe covenant (Derousseaux 1970:221 . 1.248 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 27. . the broader context of 1. male and female servants?' (cf. The intention is clearly to state that. such a human evaluation can be called into question by the prefixing of a he-interrogative to PU (as in Hag. given the external circumstances. it is not the time to gather in (*]0ΑΠ PU'fcÒ) the flocks'.26 contains a virtually identical interrogative structure. 9-11. 1. but rather to a human evaluation in response to the question. In Eccl. Mason 1977:418-19). like Elisha. 'It is still day. calls into question a course of action chosen on the basis of the appropriateness of the circumstances—presumably the adversities mentioned in 1. Thus 2 Kgs 5. as noted above. Genesis 29.1 . the people are portrayed as having said. This sapiential orientation is evident in several passages which contain the same construction as Hag.4-6.c). repentance.12 and 14. 4. 3. prudent. Thus there is a time to be born (Dlbb PU). Fourth. 'Is it the time to receive (PPIpb PUÎT) silver. 'would the activity being considered be wise. There Elisha asks Gehezai. This is especially apparent in the use ofthe typically Deuteronomistic vocabulary in 1. and renewal (cf. and to pluck up p p u b PU).7 provides an excellent parallel to Hag. it is frequently followed by an infinitive construct indicating the activity which is appropriate or inappropriate in the time under consideration (Joüon 1923: §124d. the people's initial refusal and subsequent change of heart is redactionally set within a broader framework of covenant violation. In each of the above instances the construction refers not to a divine judgment regarding whether or not an activity should be undertaken. Thus.12 andDÎTïf?« Î1W (Driver 1916: lxxix-lxxx) in 1. that wisdom dictates that the rebuilding of the temple be put off until a more appropriate time'.4). 255-56]) in 1. olive trees.1-15 sets the people's activity in a framework of alienation and renewal vis-à-vis the covenant (Beuken 1967: 32-34. Haggai. vineyards.

but a successful one. 2000: 272-74). n. This stands in significant contrast to his excellent. whose powerful word breaks through the community's resistance to the will of Yahweh. The upshot of this is that. he is portrayed as a classical prophet whose words cut to the heart of a disobedient people (Floyd 1995. detailed discussion of Ezra 1-6. including the 'edict of Cyrus' on pp. Meyers and Meyers 1987: xliii. despite his desire to attribute nobler motives to the people. 35). Redactional Purpose ofthe Book of Haggai I have argued elsewhere (Kessler 2002:243-57 [255-57]) that one ofthe primary redactional themes in the book of Haggai is that ofthe prophet's success. so compelling is such a reading of Haggai. from a redactional point of view. 1. 177) that 'the people's lack of interest in temple rebuilding in Hag. . The text in Haggai 1 describes a movement toward such an attitude on the part ofthe people.2 arises not out of self-interest or any other supposed moral deficiency. it would be entirely alien to the purpose ofthe book to cast the people as piously seeking the will of Yahweh and to portray Haggai as a scribe or interpreter of omens able to correct their miscalculations. Haggai is cast in the role of a 'typical' prophet. Wolff 1988:16. 1. that Bedford himself is drawn towards it. © The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.12. Yet despite these affirmations 9. His comments in this regard are found on p. He similarly affirms (p. rather it reflects a perspective similar to that exhibited in Zech. 87-157. On the one hand he states (2001 : 198) that 'the tension between the prophet and the people does not lie in the area of moral rectitude but in a difference of opinion as to whether the "propitious time" has in fact arrived'. Peckham 1993: 741).KESSLER Building the Second Temple 249 lxxxii). Summary and Conclusions In the light of the foregoing evidence. I maintain that the words of the people as presented by the redactor ofthe book of Haggai are meant to portray the community as using sapiential reasoning to justify the conclusion that their circumstances constituted sufficient grounds for putting off the reconstruction ofthe temple. In the context of this theme. namely that they were unsure ofthe correct time to rebuild'. Bedford (2001:308) acknowledges the fact that Haggai has its own redactional slant but does not explore the book's redactional history or distinctive perspectives in detail.9 Rather. 55 (esp. Indeed. and through whom Yahweh is able to effect change (Kessler 2002: 254-55). This success has been widely noted in scholarly literature (Beuken 1967: 332.

177-78). Meyers and Meyers. Bedford is indeed aware ofthe problems © The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002. Verhoef. 178) that 'it is not self-interest. one would hardly propose it on the basis of Haggai 1 alone. 11. Petersen. what can be said of the broader suggestion that there was. even for Bedford. Thus it is altogether apposite to affirm. Reventlow). The degree of certainty with which it may be affirmed that such concerns were present in Yehud depends upon the degree to which the Assyrian and Babylonian evidence is relevant to the Jerusalem temple. a motive of self-interest. but rather a lack of concern for this temple based on a misunderstanding ofthe deity's will.1-11 is a prophetic invective directed against a people who have wilfully neglected Yahweh's house is the virtually unanimous conclusion of commentators on the book (Wolff. 4 'satirizes' the people for deeming it appropriate for themselves to live in houses. His conclusion (p. . while Yahweh lacked one (pp. 1. at some level. as Bedford has convincingly demonstrated. He carefully documents this motif in a series of Assyrian and Babylonian royal inscriptions (Bedford 2001: 174-76). He states that v. However. My disagreement with Professor Bedford on this point ought in no way to be taken as reflecting my appreciation of his monograph as a whole. the question ofthe appropriate time to rebuild a damaged cult site was a highly important one in the ancient world. that has incurred Yahweh's ire' does not adequately take into account the people's rejection and neglect which he himself has posited. as argued in the previous section. Amsler. on the basis ofthe Assyrian.10 Prophetic Texts and Historiography If. or at least 10. He furthermore shows that the abatement ofthe divine anger which brought about the devastation ofthe land is a central concern in various biblical texts (Bedford 1995: 82-84). which is an excellent work of scholarship and makes many significant points. Indeed the position that Hag. the editor of Haggai is concerned to present the people's reticence to reconstruct the temple as culpable neglect. Rudolph. in the early Persian period. a current of opinion which stood in opposition to such a project on ideological grounds? I think that it is fair to say that if no other historical data existed which would render such a hypothesis plausible. Chary. that it is quite likely11 that ideological objections to temple reconstruction. the people's attitude reflects 'excellent theological reasons' and not.250 Journal for the Study ofthe Old Testament 27. Babylonian and biblical evidence. It becomes quite difficult to see how.2 (2002) he views the people as guilty of neglect ofthe temple and wilful rejection ofthe prophetic word (2001:287).

quite apart from the redactional presentation in Haggai. His 1991 article and his discussion of the 'Edict of Cyrus' (2001: 87-157) display great attentiveness to these matters. such use must be made with significant qualification. In the light of these observations. 162. the phrase 'as it is said to this day' in Gen. one has to attribute to Haggai's community a motive different from the one which the book's redactor presents.. Thus. pp. 1. his excellent discussion ofthe applicability ofthe Bürger-Tempel-Gemeinde hypothesis to Jerusalem in Bedford 1991 : esp. cf. 155. for further examples of this..2. the cautious affirmations in de Robert 1996). .KESSLER Building the Second Temple 251 significant questions with reference to the timing of such a project. An example of this phenomenon is the repeated 'emptyings' ofthe land in 2 Kgs 24-25 (Barstad 1996: 30-31. Indeed. Ackroyd 1968: 29-30.14). Second. It is on the basis of such concerns that Bedford imputes similar motives to Haggai's audience. 1.2. Let it immediately be said that such a manoeuvre may be altogether justified and yield excellent results.g. it is historically plausible that the posed by the use of comparative evidence. however such motives are obscured in the redactional presentation of the book which views such opposition as stemming from the people's misplaced priorities. arguments in favour of viewing the people's statement in Hag.2 as reflecting an 'anti-reconstructionist' position need to include the qualification that opposition to rebuilding the temple may lie behind the objection ofthe people in Hag. First. Thus. Sometimes biblical texts unwittingly reveal information about themselves (cf. the assumption that theological motives—and pious and legitimate ones at that—lay behind the people's opposition must be inferred in abstraction from the redactional portrait ofthe situation. Lipschits 1999: 162-65). At other times the theological preoccupations ofthe text lead to hyperbolic or schematic presentations which are attenuated or counterbalanced by other details within the text itself.. it should be noted that Bedford and others move from extra-biblical and biblical parallels to a suggested reading ofthe people's intent in the words attributed to them in Hag. 22. © The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002. 1. Two observations of a methodological nature are appropriate here. The question still remains as to whether or not. cf. e. I would affirm that if Haggai 1 is to be used in relationship to the question of being for or against temple reconstruction in 520 BCE. to reach the conclusion drawn by Tadmor and Bedford. did exist in the early Persian period (cf. Bedford is highly sensitive to the problems involved in the use of biblical texts in historical reconstructions.

. and Jerusalem as a whole. Three factors would appear to support such a hypothesis. 74. see the recent studies of Briend [1996] and Bedford [2001: 111-53]. 5). Theological opposition to rebuilding would have to be rooted in something more concrete than ignorance ofthe appointed time (cf. Briant 1982: 199-225. Lam. The first concerns the biblical texts cited by Bedford which relate to Yahweh's anger as manifested in the Babylonian destructions (Pss. as Lipschits has suggested (1998:473. Such a perspective would have been all the more persuasive with the arrival ofthe Davidide Zerubbabel (as Bedford [2001: 179] notes).13 By contrast. Governor. would have been seen as a self-evident duty.12 Thus it is unlikely that the community as a whole would find no convincing reasons to begin rehabilitating the temple. especially the returnees.483-84).475. it is quite probable that reconstruction ofthe temple. one could argue that the advent of Persian rule. Second. Bianchi 1994: 156-57. Babylonian imperial policy was specifically aimed at the centralization of provincial rule at Mizpah. meticulous concern regarding the timing for temple reconstruction would appear to be more appropriate to religious specialists such as scribes and priests than the general populace (Grabbe 1995: 64-65). Given that the majority ofthe population of early Persian Yehud was likely to have been involved in agricultural and economic pursuits (cf.2 constitute a dramatis persona separate and distinct from the High Priest. constituted sufficient grounds for the community in Yehud.1) as well as 'the priests' (2. On the ' dynastic model ' in Persian imperial policy whereby members of former ruling elites were restored to power. In this regard it is significant to note that.11). This is especially so if.7-64.11 . 79. If this is the case. Under Babylonian rule some sort of authorization would likely have been required for any major rehabilitation ofthe temple itself. both with bibliography) permitting the return and reconstruction ofthe temple. Ben Zvi 1997:194-96) the kind of 12. and the much-debated 'decree of Cyrus' (on which.252 Journal for the Study ofthe Old Testament 27. in Haggai. and the prophet (1. All of them can be read as yearning for a time when Yahweh would make such a project a possibility. to assume that it was time to rebuild. © The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002. It should be noted that none of these texts specifically evokes the question of knowing when the right time might be to rebuild the temple. 13.2 (2002) Judaean population was significantly motivated by personal and pragmatic considerations in its reluctance to begin reconstruction of the temple. Isa. Hanson [1975: 90-95] and Hamerton-Kelly [1970] who situate the opposition in more specific ideological and theological convictions). see Lemaire 1996: 53-54. now a real possibility. 63. 'the people' in 1.

There the people are depicted as using sapiential reasoning to justify their decision that the reconstruction ofthe temple best be left for a more appropriate time. In sum.. Furthermore. Amsler. Geneva: Labor et Fides). it is altogether likely that conditions in Yehud in 520 BCE were not well suited to the reconstruction ofthe temple. 1999: 18284).R. despite the fact that the attitude of the people in Hag. Haggai 1 provides an excellent example ofthe various issues and problems involved in the use of prophetic texts for purposes of historical reconstruction. 1968 Exile and Restoration: A Study ofHebrew Thought ofthe Sixth Century B. 11 c. A. more ideologically and theologically driven objections current at the time.2 is filtered through the redactional stance and purpose ofthe book. Vuilleumier 1988 Aggée-Zacharie 1-8. Zacharie 9-14. C. the proportion of those who make a serious effort to understand and to face the problems of life is small compared with those who—no doubt partly for reasons of necessity and the pressure of conditions—live from hand to mouth with little time to concern themselves with the broader issues. 1. Bibliography Ackroyd. Thus the image of a struggling.. Such an attitude may have constituted the pragmatic counterpart to other. the text may indeed reflect one attitude among several—and a widespread one at that—regarding the reconstruction ofthe Jerusalem temple. largely agricultural community choosing to wait for a more suitable moment to rebuild the temple is far from historically improbable.KESSLER Building the Second Temple 253 reasoning described in the redactional portrait in Haggai seems more appropriate to them than more rarefied concerns regarding the details ofthe timing ofthe reconstruction. Yehud had a limited territory (Lemaire 1994: 20-21) and reduced population base (Carter 1999: 201-205. 1996:405-29). Philadelphia: Westminster Press). '[In] almost any community. Briant 1982. S.. Conclusion Haggai 1 is best considered as one piece ofthe broader patchwork of opinions in early Persian Yehud regarding the rehabilitation ofthe Jerusalem temple. Malachi (CAT. Lacoque and R. The text's portrayal of the community has historical credibility. P. and bore a taxation burden within the Persian Empire (Schaper 1995. Ackroyd (1968: 30) comments. (OTL. Lipschits 1998: 474.' Third. © The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002. .

A. Paris: Les Belles Lettres): 199-225. 1994 'Le rôle de Zorobabel et la dynastie davidique en Judée du Vie siècle au Ile siècle av. Bianchi. Carter. Chary. 1996 Histoire de l'empireperse de Cyrus à Alexandre (Achaemenid History. Ahlström (JSOTSup. 117. 43. 63. 1970 La crainte de Dieu dans l'Ancien Testament (LD. 1916 Deuteronomy (ICC. Transeuphratène 7: 153-65. Gauley (eds. 294.R. Transeuphratène 11: 33-44.W.J. Malachie (Sources Bibliques.254 Journal for the Study ofthe Old Testament 27. Aufrecht. 1996 'L'édit de Cyrus et sa valeur historique'. Persian Period (JSOTSup. Leiden: E. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten).). F. III. S.. J. 1991 On Models and Texts: A Response to Blenkinsopp and Petersen'. Sheffield: JSOT Press): 71-94. CE. Daniel et les 12 prophètes (OBO.R. Holloway and L. . H. N.).M. 50.C . L. J . in W. 1982 'Contrainte militaire. Driver. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). dépendance rurale et exploitation des territoires en Asie achéménide'. .W. Assen: Van Gorcum). I. 5 vols. © The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002. Handy (eds. Davies (ed. Annales Littéraires de l'Université de Besançon. Derousseaux. Sheffield: JSOT Press): 154-62. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons). 2001 Temple Restoration in Early Achaemenid Judah (JSJSup. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press).) 1992 Critique textuelle de l'Ancien Testament. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press): 194-209. Mirau and S.M.2 (2002) Barstad. P. Briend.. Brill). Paris: Cerf).K. 1969 Aggée-Zacharie.A. (ed. in S. Bedford. Zechariah and the "Delay" in the Rebuilding ofthe Jerusalem Temple'. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires. Rois. 190. in idem. 10. 1995 'Discerning the Time: Haggai. Gabalda). E. The Pitcher is Broken: Memorial Essays for G. in P. T.R.).W. 1996 The Myth ofthe Empty Land: A Study in the History and Archaeology of Judah During the 'Exilic ' Period (Symbolae osloenses Supplement Series. 63. D. Second Temple Studies. 28. Ezéchiel. 1999 The Emergence of Yehud in the Persian Period (JSOTSup. 244. Barthélémy. Briant. Urbanism in Antiquity (JSOTSup. Ben Zvi. 269. 10. P. 2 vols. W. Beuken. Paris: J.E. 1997 'The Urban Centre of Jerusalem and the Development ofthe Literature of the Hebrew Bible'. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press). tributs et paysans: Etudes sur les formations tributaires du Moyen-Orient ancien (Centre de Recherche d'Histoire Ancienne. 1967 Haggai-Sacharja 1-8: Studien zur Überlieferungsgeschichte der frühnachexilischen Prophétie (SSN.3.

J.A. M. 1994 'Histoire et administration de la Palestine à l'époque perse'.H. Priests. H. 1995 255 'The Nature ofthe Narrative and the Evidence of Redaction in Haggai'. Lohfink. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). ' 't (le temps) en Aggée 12-4: conflit théologique ou "sagesse mondaine"?'. Hamerton-Kelly. 1995 2000 Grabbe. Grabbe and R. P. VT 18: 190-97. J. 22. Haak (eds. Tel Aviv 26: 1999 155-90.L. Transeuphratène 3: 31-74. VT21: 1977 413-21. 1975 The Dawn ofApocalyptic (Philadelphia: Fortress Press). Every City Shall Be Forsaken: Urbanism and Prophecy in Ancient Israel and the Near East (JSOTSup. PA: Trinity Press International). av.L. 1956 Juda in der Exilszeit: Ein Beitrag zur Frage der Entstehung des Judentums (FRLANT. N. 1968 '"This People" and "This Nation" in Haggai'. 2001 'Reconstructing Haggai's Jerusalem: Demographic and Sociological Considerations and the Quest for an Adequate Methodological Point of Departure'. UF 30: 467-87. Diviners. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).G. in L. in E. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute Press). Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press): 137-58. 1964 Treaty Curses and the Old Testament Prophets (BibOr. Minor Prophets.). Lipschits. Laperrousaz and A. 69. 1990 'Populations et territoires de la Palestine à l'époque perse'. P. 1996 RB 103: 48-57. R. O. 330. Leiden: E.J.-C. . Joüon. 'Zorobabel et la Judée à la lumière de l'épigraphie (fin du Vie s. 91. VT 45: 470-90. Sages: A Socio-Historical Study of Religious Specialists in Ancient Israel (Valley Forge. Janssen. A. L. Part 2 (FOTL. La Palestine à l'epoque perse (Paris: Cerf): 11-53. © The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002. Hanson. E. FT 20: 1-15. 1998 'Nebuchadnezzar's Policy in "Hattu-Land" and the Fate ofthe Kingdom of Judah'.KESSLER Building the Second Temple Floyd. Lemaire. Lemaire (eds. 1968 Mason. Kessler. 1998 VT4S: 555-59.). Prophets.)'. The Christian Meaning ofthe Old Testament (Milwaukee: Bruce).G. 1970 'The Temple and the Origins of Jewish Apocalyptic'. Prophecy and Society in Early Persian Yehud (VTSup. 2002 Brill). 'The History ofthe Benjamin Region under Babylonian Rule'. R.R.D. 1923 Grammaire de l'hébreu biblique (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute Press). 'The Purpose ofthe "Editorial Framework" ofthe Book of Haggai'. D.-M. May. Hillers. 16.

K.). Augustin and K. 1993 Die Propheten Haggai. ': Collected Communications to theXIVth Congress ofthe International Organization for the Study ofthe Old Testament.L.2 (2002) Meyers. Wellhausen. C. J. Meyers 1987 Haggai.. Zechariah 1-8 (AB.W. H. 1996 'Dortziehen Schiffe dahin. M.. O'Brien. Chazon (eds. G. IN: Eisenbrauns). Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Oxford University 1972 Press). Wolff.D. Weinfeld. Schunck (eds.256 Journal for the Study ofthe Old Testament 27. Peckham.2'. 1999 '"The appointed time has not yet arrived": The Historical Background of Haggai 1.). and M. von Wisdom in Israel (trans. J.L. D.. Waltke. 1985 Rad. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).A.. VT46: 448-57. 1992 (BEATAJ.-D. Levine (Winona Lake. Sacharja und Maleachi (ATD. P. London: SCM Press). H. J. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang): 179-82.G.P. L. 25B. Garden City. Robert. J. B. London: SPCK). 1996 'Is This The Time to Accept. 1971 'ZuHaggai l. Ki Baruch Hu: Ancient Near Eastern. Petersen. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press). 'The Jerusalem Temple as an Instrument of Achaemenid Fiscal Administra1995 tion'. 1898 Die kleinen Propheten übersetzt und erklärt (Berlin: Georg Reimer). in W.2. Schaper. 1972 Reventlow. The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002. D. 1993 History and Prophecy: The Development of Late Judean Literary Traditions (ABDRL.H. Paris. and E. 25. VT 45: 528-39. IN: Eisenbrauns): 401-408.H.M.2-U\ZAW: 355-79. B. O. 1988 Haggai: A Commentary (trans. 1993 Tradition and Innovation in Haggai and Zechariah 1-8 (JSOTSup. Steck. H. . Schiffman and R.. O'Connor 1990 An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake. Haggai and Zechariah 1-8: A Commentary (OTL. 150. NY: Doubleday). 28. Tollington. Martin. M. Kohl. in M. Minneapolis: Augsburg).? (2 Kings ν 26b): Simply Moralizing (LXX) or an Ominous Foreboding of Yahweh's Rejection of Israel (MT)?'.. de 'Pour ou contre le second temple'. New York: Doubleday).W. Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Baruch A. Hallo. Tadmor.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property ofthe American Theological Library Association. . or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. please refer to the copyright information in the journal. decompiling. or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner. you may print. For information regarding the copyright holder(s). Any use. if available. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user. or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. However. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions ofthe copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.ΛΠ^. who also may own the copyright in each article. for certain articles. the author ofthe article may maintain the copyright in the article. reproduction. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. download.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful