The authenticity of all these four sections was doubted by no one,[618] till ten years ago W. Böhme, besides pointing out some useless repetitions of single words and phrases, cast suspicion on chap. i. 13, and questioned the whole of the _fourth_ section, chap. ii. 20-23.[619] With regard to chap. i. 13, it is indeed curious that Haggai should be described as _the messenger of Jehovah_; while the message itself, _I am with you_, seems superfluous here, and if the verse be omitted, ver. 14 runs on naturally to ver. 12.[620] Böhme’s reasons for disputing the authenticity of chap. ii. 20-23 are much less sufficient. He thinks he sees the hand of an editor in the phrase _for a second time_ in ver. 20; notes the omission of the title “prophet”[621] after Haggai’s name, and the difference of the formula _the word came to Haggai_ from that employed in the previous sections, _by the hand of Haggai_, and the repetition of ver. 6_b_ in ver. 21; and otherwise concludes that the section is an insertion from a later hand. But the formula _the word came to Haggai_ occurs also in ii. 10:[622] the other points are trivial, and while it was most natural for Haggai the contemporary of Zerubbabel to entertain of the latter such hopes as the passage expresses, it is inconceivable that a later writer, who knew how they had not been fulfilled in Zerubbabel, should have invented them.[623] Recently M. Tony Andrée, _privat-docent_ in the University of Geneva, has issued a large work on Haggai,[624] in which he has sought to prove that the _third_ section of the book, chap. ii. (10) 11-19, is from the hand of another writer than the rest. He admits[625] that in neither form, nor style, nor language is there anything to prove this distinction, and that the ideas of all the sections suit perfectly the condition of the Jews in the time soon after the Return. But he considers that chap. ii. (10) 11-19 interrupts the connection between the sections upon either side of it; that the author is a legalist or casuist, while the author of the other sections is a man whose only ecclesiastical interest is the rebuilding of the Temple; that there are obvious contradictions between chap. ii. (10) 11-19 and the rest of the book; and that there is a difference of vocabulary. Let us consider each of these reasons.