[1] Baldwin writes, “His name is one of several in the Old Testament derived from hag, ‘festival’: Hggi (Gen. 46:16; Nu. 26:15), Haggith (2 Sa. 3:4), Haggiah (1 Ch. 6:30). He was probably born on a feast day and therefore named ‘my feast’ (Lat. Festus, Gk. Hilary). It is even possible that Haggai was a nickname” (Joyce G. Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi: An Introduction & Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, 27- 28).

[2] Baldwin writes, “The absence of a patronym may indicate that his father was already forgotten, that prophets were few and therefore, ‘the prophet’ was sufficiently specific” (Joyce G. Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi: An Introduction & Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, 27).

[3] Baldwin writes, “According to Jewish tradition he had lived the greater part of his life in Babylon [Rabbi Eli Cashdan, The Twelve Prophets (Soncino Press, 1948), p. 254]. Partly on this tradition and partly on inference from Haggai 2:3 is based the opinion that when he prophesied he was a very old man who had seen the Temple before its destruction, and was given the most important task of his life just before his death. The authority he commanded and his single-minded preoccupation with the Temple rather tend to bear this out” (Joyce G. Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi: An Introduction & Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, 28).

[4] Baldwin writes, “According to an early Christian tradition Haggai was a priest and was buried with honour near the sepulchers of the priests. The fact that in the Versions certain Psalms are attributed to Haggai may add support to his priestly lineage. The LXX, for example, prefaces Psalms 138 and 146-149 with the names Haggai and Zechariah, indicating perhaps that they were responsible for the recension from which the Greek translation was being made. Hebrew tradition on the other hand did not reckon Haggai among the priests, and the modern Rabbi Eli Cashdan writes: ‘Evidently he was not of the priestly tribe, seeing that he called on the priests of his day for a ruling on levitical uncleanness (ii.II).’ The point is hardly proved on this evidence, however” (Joyce G. Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi: An Introduction & Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, 28).

[5] Joyce G. Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi: An Introduction & Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, 30. Continuing she writes, “Recently W. A. M. Beuken has argued that Haggai and Zechariah 1-8 were edited ‘in a Chronistic milieu’. His argument is that the same major interest in the Temple, its ritual, and the continuity of the Davidic line dominate both these prophets and the books of Chronicles. This is true, but if Beuken is implying that the editors selected according to their individual preference the themes they would record, this is to undermine confidence in the books as they have come down to us. We believe it to be both more likely and more logical that Haggai was edited early, possibly before 500 B.C. and that he and Zechariah together moulded the thinking of those who edited the books of Chronicles” (Ibid.).

[6] This chart comes from Joyce G. Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi: An Introduction & Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, 29.

[7] Joyce G. Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi: An Introduction & Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, 29.

[8] Robert B. Chisholm, Jr., Interpreting the Minor Prophets, 219.

[9] Robert L. Alden, “Haggai,” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, VII:572.

[10] See Albright’s early discussions. He seems to have changed his mind about this matter.

[11] LaSor et al write, “These business documents and letters were found on the island of Elephantine, north of the first cataract of the Nile and opposite Aswan. They belonged to a Jewish military colony established at least as early as the fall of Jerusalem in 586. The texts throw brilliant light on the affairs of the Jewish colony in Upper Egypt, especially for the period 425-400. In 410 these Jews wrote a letter to Johanan, high priest at Jerusalem (Neh. 12:22), regarding the rebuilding of their temple. In 407 they sent a long appeal in the same regard to Bagoas, governor of Judah, in which they mentioned a similar letter to ‘Delaiah and Shelemiah, the sons of Sanballat the governor of Samaria.” Assuming this is the same Sanballat who was the inveterate enemy of Nehemiah (2:19; 4:1 [MT 3:33]), the Artaxerxes referred to in 2:1 must be Artaxerxes I” (LaSor, Hubbard, and Bush, Old Testament Survey, 560, n. 33; See also ANET, pp. 491ff).

[12] Archer writes, “This Johanan was a grandson of the Eliashib mentioned in Nehemiah 3:1 and 20 and Nehemiah was a contemporary of Eliashib. It therefore follows that when the biblical record speaks of Nehemiah going to Jerusalem in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes (Neh 1:1) and again in his thirty- second year (Neh. 13:6), the reference must be to Artaxerxes I (yielding the date 445 and 433 respectively) rather than the reign of Artaxerxes II (which would result in the dates 384 and 372 respectively-far too late for the high priesthood of Johanan)” (Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 419-20).

[13] Alden writes, “Against these odds and in the midst of this despair, Haggai chided the people of God to resume the task enthusiastically taken up so many years ago and subsequently dropped. His message was simply ‘build God’s house.’ To support his case he contended that recent crop failures (1:9) and drought (1:10-11) were God’s way of reminding them of their dependence on him” (Robert L. Alden,”Haggai,” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, VII:573).