The first, that chap. ii. (10) 11-19 interrupts the connection between the sections on either side of it, is true only in so far as it has a different subject from that which the latter have more or less in common. But the second of the latter, chap. ii. 20-23, treats only of a corollary of the first, chap. ii. 1-9, and that corollary may well have formed the subject of a separate oracle. Besides, as we shall see, chap. ii. 10-19 is a natural development of chap. i.[626] The contradictions alleged by M. Andrée are two. He points out that while chap. i. speaks only of a _drought_,[627] chap. ii. (10) 11-19 mentions[628] as the plagues on the crops shiddāphôn and yērākôn, generally rendered _blasting_ and _mildew_ in our English Bible, and bārād, or _hail_; and these he reckons to be plagues due not to drought but to excessive moisture. But shiddāphôn and yērākôn, which are always connected in the Old Testament and are words of doubtful meaning, are not referred to damp in any of the passages in which they occur, but, on the contrary, appear to be the consequences of drought.[629] The other contradiction alleged refers to the ambiguous verse ii. 18, on which we have already seen it difficult to base any conclusion, and which will be treated when we come to it in the course of translation.[630] Finally, the differences in language which M. Andrée cites are largely imaginary, and it is hard to understand how a responsible critic has come to cite, far more to emphasise them, as he has done. We may relegate the discussion of them to a note,[631] and need here only remark that there is among them but one of any significance: while the rest of the book calls the Temple _the House_ or _the House of Jehovah_ (or _of Jehovah of Hosts_), chap. ii. (10) 11-19 styles it _palace_, or temple, of Jehovah.[632] On such a difference between two comparatively brief passages it would be unreasonable to decide for a distinction of authorship. There is, therefore, no reason to disagree with the consensus of all other critics in the integrity of the Book of Haggai. The four sections are either from himself or from a contemporary of his. They probably represent,[633] not the full addresses given by him on the occasions stated, but abstracts or summaries of these. “It is never an easy task to persuade a whole population to make pecuniary sacrifices, or to postpone private to public interests; and the probability is, that in these brief remains of the prophet Haggai we have but one or two specimens of a ceaseless diligence and persistent determination, which upheld and animated the whole people till the work was accomplished.”[634] At the same time it must be noticed that the style of the book is not wholly of the bare, jejune prose which it is sometimes described to be. The passages of Haggai’s own exhortation are in the well-known parallel rhythm of prophetic discourse: see especially chap. i., ver. 6.