It was a surprise to me to discover that hardly any scholar has described the genre of the minor prophet Haggai as a chronicle,56 though a chronicle it is. It has all the features of one: date for-mulas, unit division along date lines, inclusion of chronologically arranged events, and, as its only peculiar element, prophecies.57
55Grayson, AssBabC, 13-4; Idem, Or. 49 (1980), 174 = ‘Assyri¨e en Baby-loni¨e’, 75; Hallo, Origins, 140-2.
56Occasionally one would compare his booklet to an extract from a build-ing chronicle, an idea introduced by Klostermann in 1896 and followed by Rothstein, Deden, Dhorme, etc. See, however, J.L Koole, Haggai (COT), Kampen 1967, 6; A. van der Woude, Haggai Maleachi (PredOT), Nijkerk 1982, 13; Vriezen, Van der Woude, Oudisra¨elitische Literatuur, 319. Rudolph thought of an apology and Koole of a dated propagandistic document to be used as a kind of charter for the Second Temple. More recent surveys may be found in J.E. Tollington, Tradition and Innovation in Haggai and Zechariah l-8, (JSOT.S, 150), Sheffield 1993, 19-23; Idem, ‘Readings in Haggai: From the Prophet to the Completed Book, a Changing Message in Changing Times’, in: B. Becking, M.C.A. Korpel (eds), The Crisis of Israelite Religion: Trans-formation of Religious Tradition in Exilic and Post-Exilic Times (OTS, 42), Leiden 1999, 194-208; J. Kessler, The Book of Haggai: Prophecy and Society in the Early Persian Period (VT.S, 91), Leiden 2002, 243-5.
57Basically the redactional debate revolves around the question whether or not a collection of prophecies was secondarily framed by a chronographic framework, be it of ‘Chronistic’ (W.A.M. Beuken, Haggai–Sacharja: Studien zur ¨Uberlieferungsgeschichte der fr¨uhnachexilische Prophetie, Assen 1967) or of ‘Deuteronomistic’ origin (R.A. Mason, ‘The Purpose of the
“Editor-‘As for the other events . . . ’ 31
Therefore I would call it a ‘prophetic chronicle’, though that is no more remarkable than a chronicle of New Year festivals, or of market prices, water levels and similar chronographic collec-tions, i.e. from a form-critical perspective. Of course, as a chro-nological record of prophecies, it is a unique document. I cannot name any other ancient Near Eastern text outside the Old Testa-ment comparable with it. We have collections of salvation oracles for Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal, but they are, to my know-ledge, neither prophecy, nor chronologically arranged. Also the prognostic historical texts are different, for they all use the future tense and mention no names. Haggai is written in the past tense, and its main characters are mentioned by name: the Persian King Darius II, the Governor Zerubbabel, the High Priest Jeshua and, of course, the Prophet Haggai himself. So it reads somewhat like a story. What is more, it is historiographic in form. Even the Reli-gious Chronicle (AssBabC 17), as far as I understand it, is differ-ent, though the chronographic collections of events, omens and so on could be intended for divination. In fact, the only comparable texts come from the Old Testament itself and, hardly surprising, from the Former and the Latter Prophets. Other prophetic books such as Jeremiah and Ezekiel also have many date formulas, but they do not cover the whole book.58 Moreover, the underlying chronological framework and systems of dating are highly con-fusing and still a matter of debate. The only text that has a clear chronographic structure is Jer. 36:1–45:5 also known as the
‘Memoirs of Baruch’ and running from the 4th year of Jehoiakim son of Josiah to the 7th month of the 11th year of Zedekiah, the year of the capture of Jerusalem.59 However, it remains a
ial Framework” of the Book of Haggai’, VT 27 [1977], 413-21, esp. 415-6).
Both Tollington and Kessler argue that the oracles of Haggai have been integ-rated thematically and grammatically in its chronographic framework, which does not suggest a pre-existing prophecy collection, so that as for its literary genre, it primarily originated as a prophetic chronicle, even if it was revised and expanded secondarily (e.g. Tollington, ‘Readings in Haggai’, 200-7).
58Nevertheless, D. Petersen, Haggai and Zachariah 1–8 (OTL), London 1985, 32-6, rightly noted the resemblance between Haggai and the ‘Histor-ische Kurzgeschichte’ as described by N. Lohfink, ‘Die Gattung der “Histo-rischen Kurzgeschichte” in den letzten Jahren von Juda und in der Zeit des Babylonischen Exils’, ZAW 90 (1978), 319-47.
59Lohfink, ZAW 90 (1978), 322-3, 343-7, had noted the coherence of Jer.
26 and 36–41. See on the possibility of a pre-deuteronomistic ‘scribal chron-icle’, C.R. Seitz, Theology in Conflict: Reactions to the Exile in the Book of
riddle why, for instance, chapters 32–34 were not incorporated in these memoirs or ‘Chronicle of Baruch’.60 So it is extremely difficult to assess the overall picture of these dates in relation to the origin and redaction of these books. The problem is certainly too complicated to discuss within the limits of this article.61 As comparable texts, I would instead mention isolated ones such as the prophetic stories in Isaiah 762] and Amos 7, or the records about the 14thyear of Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:13–19:37) and the 18th year of Josiah (2 Kgs 22:3–23:30). They are all narrative texts that include dates, historiographic formulas, and accounts of, in particular, prophetic activity, often with extensive quotations of prophecies.
In my opinion, it is undeniable that prophetic and histori-ographic literature in the period of the Exile and afterwards shows a rapidly increasing, almost explosive interest in metic-ulous chronological recording by the scribes who produced the collected works, if not by the prophets themselves. The struc-ture and style of this ‘Chronicle of Haggai’ is similar to Deuter-onomistic historiographic literature and, presumably, originated in that milieu,63which was also the environment responsible for the redaction of Jeremiah’s prophecy taken from the ‘Chronicle of Baruch’. One may note the remarkable parallel between the hopeful messianic ending of DtrH and Haggai’s Chronicle. This intimate relationship is significant because the date of the ‘Chron-icle of Haggai’ is reasonably well established. Most scholars
as-Jeremiah (BZAW 176), Berlin 1989, 285-7; T.Ch. R¨omer, ‘How Did Jeremiah Become a Convert to Deuteronomistic Theology?’, in: L.S. Schearing, S.L.
McKenzie (eds), Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomism (JSOT.S, 268), Sheffield 1999, 196-7.
60No wonder that the lack of chronologica1 coherence brings quite a number of scholars to the conclusion that the dates and chronological framework are secondary, having been added to already existing collections of Jeremiah’s prophecies. The differences from the shorter Greek text also point in that direction.
61It is difficult to assess the many date formulas in the Book of Ezekiel. The combination of date formulas and ‘autobiography’ is singular; see, however, Isa. 6:1. Some consider the possibility of literary fiction. Zimmerli, however, pointed to an ever-increasing interest in exact dating in prophetic literature in and after the Exile, in contrast to early prophecy (W. Zimmerli, Ezechiel I, [BKAT 24/1], Neukirchen-Vluyn 1969, 40-1).
62Also date formulas in Isa. 6:1; 14:28; 20:1.
63Mason, VT 27 (1977), 414-7; Van der Woude, Haggai, 12; R. Rendtorff, Das Alte Testament: Eine Einf¨uhrung, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1983, 250.
‘As for the other events . . . ’ 33
sume that it originated shortly after the dedication of the Second Temple (Nisan 515 bce).64 Though the chronicle in its present form contains the words of Haggai only and especially a selec-tion from his Temple speeches,65 it is possible that it was an extract from a more voluminous running chronicle. It is the type of extract known from Babylonian sources as a niˇsh
˘u.
If the Aramaic parts of Ezra (Ezra 4:7-6:18) once belonged to the same Aramaic chronographic source used in the compilation and redaction of Ezra–Nehemiah,66 it is clear that this source dates from the last part of the 5th century bce. In particular, the fragment about the rebuilding of the Temple (4:24–6:18) is an interesting, apparently independent, counterpart of Haggai’s Chronicle. Perhaps the two drew their information from the same events and sources, but obviously gave a different picture of the circumstances that led to the standstill of the work on the House of God in Jerusalem. One can discuss and differ widely about the meaning of Haggai’s words cited from the mouth of the people:
‘The time has not yet come for the Lord’s House to be built.’
One could think of theological, psychological, political or econom-ical reasons; it is not the same as in Ezra 4:4, where opposition to the rebuilding by surrounding peoples frustrated their plans during the entire reign of Cyrus, king of Persia, down to the reign of Darius. In Haggai, however, we do not yet find a par-ticular bias against the enemies of Judah. The account in Ezra is clearly a later historical view of these events, a view perhaps
64It is possible that parts of Zechariah belonged to this Chronicle (1:1-17; 7:1-14). Their appearance together in the Chronicler’s History within the framework of an Aramaic Chronicle (Ezra 4:8–6:18), from which the Chronicler extracted two segments (4:8-23; 4:24–6:18, apparently revising them and adding some Hebrew glosses 4:24; 6:14), points in this direction.
In particular, the wordsawDø[iArB' hy:r“k'z“W ha;ybin“ yG"j' ta'Wbn“Bi(Ezra 6:14) suggest a joint performance. Zech. 7:14 could have been the epilogue of this chronicle.
65Rendtorff, Das Alte Testament, 250: ‘Der Rahmen des Buches hat den Worten Haggais eine bestimmte Pr¨agung und Tendenz gegeben, aber wohl kaum ihre urspr¨ungliche Intention ver¨andert.’ See also Kessler, Haggai, 243-4.
66The authenticity is a matter of debate (H.G.M. Williamson, Ezrah and Nehemiah [OTGu] Sheffield 1987, 44-5; Vriezen, Van der Woude, Oudisra¨ eli-tische & vroegjoodse literatuur, 384), but I cannot see why the Chronicler went so far as to translate parts of his work to make them look more authentic, and then inserted some Hebrew glosses afterwards. For my argument, it does not make any great difference, for if the Aramaic source is a counterfeit of the author–redactor of Ezra–Nehemiah, it is even later than the 5thcentury bce.
found for the first time in this Aramaic Chronicle, but adopted and elaborated by the author of the Book of Ezra–Nehemiah. The Aramaic Chronicle displays bias about political developments in the early post-exilic period and has a perspective different from its Hebrew context. It speaks consistently of ayed:Why“ (Ezra 4:12, 23; 5:1, 5; 6:7-8, 14), even ofayed:Why“as inhabitants of the province of Yehud and Jerusalem (5:1). The same usage is found in the later Memoirs of Nehemiah (Neh. 1:2; 2:16; 3:33-34; 4:6 and so on), that is the usage consistent with the use of Yehudˆı in the royal Persian administration, denoting Jews from the province of Yehud, but also Jews living elsewhere in the Empire, and prob-ably still without any religious overtone. Since the documents speak expressis verbis of Jews who lived in Yehud and Jeru-salem at that time, one wonders whether the narrator or chron-icler resided somewhere else, perhaps in Mesopotamia, and was writing for Aramaic-speaking local readers.