HAG-FISH, Glutinous Hag, Or Borer (Myxine), a marine fish which forms with the lampreys one of the lowest orders of vertebrates (Cyclostomata). Similar in form to a lamprey, it is usually found within the body of dead cod or haddock, on the flesh of which it feeds after having buried itself in the abdomen. When caught, it secretes a thick glutinous slime in such quantity that it is commonly believed to have the power of converting water into glue. It is found in the North Atlantic and other temperate seas of the globe, being taken in some localities in large numbers, e.g. off the east coast of Scotland and the west coast of California (see [Cyclostomata]).
HAGGADA, or ’Agada (literally “narrative”), includes the more homiletic elements of rabbinic teaching. It is not logically distinguishable from the halakha (q.v.), for the latter or forensic element makes up with the haggada the Midrash (q.v.), but, being more popular than the halakha, is often itself styled the Midrash. It may be described as the poetical and ethical element as contrasted with the legal element in the Talmud (q.v.), but the two elements are always closely connected. From one point of view the haggada, amplifying and developing the contents of Hebrew scripture in response to a popular religious need, may be termed a rabbinical commentary on the Old Testament, containing traditional stories and legends, sometimes amusing, sometimes trivial, and often beautiful. The haggada abounds in parables. The haggadic passages of the Talmud were collected in the Eye of Jacob, a very popular compilation completed by Jakob ibn Habib in the 16th century.
HAGGAI, in the Bible, the tenth in order of the “minor prophets,” whose writings are preserved in the Old Testament. The name Haggai (חגי, Gr. Ἀγγαῖος, whence Aggeus in the English version of the Apocrypha) perhaps means “born on the feast day,” “festive.” But Wellhausen[1] is probably right in taking the word as a contraction for Hagariah (“Yahweh hath girded”), just as Zaccai (Zacchaeus) is known to be a contraction of Zechariah.
The book of Haggai contains four short prophecies delivered between the first day of the sixth month and the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month—that is, between September and December—of the second year of Darius the king. The king in question must be Darius Hystaspis (521-485 B.C.). The language of the prophet in ii. 3 suggests the probability that he was himself one of those whose memories reached across the seventy years of the captivity, and that his prophetic work began in extreme old age. This supposition agrees well with the shortness of the period covered by his book, and with the fact that Zechariah, who began to prophesy in the same autumn and was associated with Haggai’s labours (Ezra v. 1), afterwards appears as the leading prophet in Jerusalem (Zech. vii. 1-4). We know nothing further of the personal history of Haggai from the Bible. Later traditions may be read in Carpzov’s Introductio, pars 3, cap. xvi. Epiphanius (Vitae prophetarum) says that he came up from Babylon while still young, prophesied the return, witnessed the building of the temple and received an honoured burial near the priests. Haggai’s name is mentioned in the titles of several psalms in the Septuagint (Psalms cxxxvii., cxlv.-cxlviii.) and other versions, but these titles are without value, and moreover vary in MSS. Eusebius did not find them in the Hexaplar Septuagint.[2]
In his first prophecy (i. 1-11) Haggai addresses Zerubbabel and Joshua, rebuking the people for leaving the temple unbuilt while they are busy in providing panelled houses for themselves. The prevalent famine and distress are due to Yahweh’s indignation at such remissness. Let them build the house, and Yahweh will take pleasure in it and acknowledge the honour paid to Him. The rebuke took effect, and the people began to work at the temple, strengthened by the prophet’s assurance that the Lord was with them (i. 12-15). In a second prophecy (ii. 1-9) delivered in the following month, Haggai forbids the people to be disheartened by the apparent meanness of the new temple. The silver and gold are the Lord’s. He will soon shake all nations and their choicest gifts will be brought to adorn His house. Its glory shall be greater than that of the former temple, and in this place He will give peace. A third prophecy (ii. 10-19) contains a promise, enforced by a figure drawn from the priestly ritual, that God will remove famine and bless the land from the day of the foundation of the temple onwards. Finally, in ii. 20-23, Zerubbabel is assured of God’s special love and protection in the impending catastrophe of kingdoms and nations to which the prophet had formerly pointed as preceding the glorification of God’s house on Zion. In thus looking forward to a shaking of all nations Haggai agrees with earlier prophecies, especially Isa. xxiv.-xxvii., while his picture of the glory and peace of the new Zion and its temple is drawn from the great anonymous prophet who penned Isa. lx and lxvi. The characteristic features of the book are the importance assigned to the personality of Zerubbabel, who, though a living contemporary, is marked out as the Messiah; and the almost sacramental significance attached to the temple. The hopes fixed on Zerubbabel, the chosen of the Lord, dear to Him as His signet ring (cf. Jer. xxii. 24), are a last echo in Old Testament prophecy of the theocratic importance of the house of David. In the book of Zechariah Zerubbabel has already fallen into the background and the high priest is the leading figure of the Judean community.[3] The stem of David is superseded by the house of Zadok, the kingship has yielded to the priesthood, and the extinction of national hopes gives new importance to that strict organization of the hierarchy for which Ezekiel had prepared the way by his sentence of disfranchisement against the non-Zadokite priests.
The indifference of the Jews to the desolate conditions of their sanctuary opens up a problem of some difficulty. It is strange that neither Haggai nor his contemporary Zechariah mentions or implies any return of exiles from Babylon, and the suggestion has accordingly been made that the return under Cyrus described in Ezra i.-iv. is unhistorical, and that the community addressed by Haggai consisted of the remnant that had been left in Jerusalem and its neighbourhood after the majority had gone into exile or fled to Egypt (Jer. xliii.). Such a remnant, amongst whom might be members of the priestly and royal families, would gather strength and boldness as the troubles of Babylon increased and her vigilance was relaxed, and might receive from Babylon and other lands both refugees and some account at least of the writings of Ezekiel and the Second Isaiah. Stimulated by such causes and obtaining formal permission from the Persian government, they would arise as a new Israel and enter on a new phase of national life and divine revelation.
In spite, however, of the plausibility of this theory, it seems preferable to adhere to the story of Ezra i.-iv. Apart from the weighty objections that the Edomites would have frustrated such a recrudescence of the remnant Jews as has been described, it must be remembered that the main stream of Jewish life and thought had been diverted to Babylon. Thence, when the opportunity came under Cyrus, some 50,000 Jews, the spiritual heirs of the best elements of the old Israel, returned to found the new community. With them were all the resources, and the only people they found at Jerusalem were hostile gentiles and Samaritans. Full of enthusiasm, they set about rebuilding the temple and realizing the glowing promises about the prosperity and dominance of Zion that had fallen from the lips of the Second Isaiah (xlix. 14-26, xlv. 14). Bitter disappointment, however, soon overcame them, the Samaritans were strong enough to thwart and hinder their temple-building, and it seemed as though the divine favour was withdrawn. Apathy took the place of enthusiasm, and sordid worries succeeded to high hopes. “The like collapse has often been experienced in history when bands of religious men, going forth, as they thought, to freedom and the immediate erection of a holy commonwealth, have found their unity wrecked and their enthusiasm dissipated by a few inclement seasons on a barren and hostile shore.”[4]