and fig-cakes does not here come into consideration at all, inasmuch
as both belonged to the choicest dainties; and it is as evident, that
"to love," and "to be the daughter of," express the same idea. But
if thus the symbolical signification of the name be established,
the correctness of the supposition of a merely internal transaction
is established [Pg 195] at the same time. The symbolical names of
the children alone could not have furnished a sufficient foundation
for this supposition. Against this an appeal might, with the
most perfectpropriety, have been made to _Shear-Jashub_, and
_Maher-shalal-hash-baz_, neither of whom can, by any means, have been
an ideal person. The prophet gave them these names; but the matter is
quite different in the case of the wife, who already had her name when
the prophet took her. All that we can grant to _Hofmann_ is, that such
a providential coincidence was _possible_; but _probable_ it could be,
only if other decisive arguments favoured the view of the transaction
having been an outward one. If the name were not symbolical--if it
belonged to the real wife of the prophet, it cannot be easily
explained, why he did not afterwards mention the name of his second
wife also, but content himself with the general term, "a wife."

8. A main argument against the literal interpretation is further
furnished by iii. 2. The verse is commonly translated: "And then I
bought her to me for fifteen pieces of silver, and an homer of barley,
and a lethech of barley;" and is explained from the custom prevalent in
the East of purchasing wives from their parents. But it is very
doubtful whether the verb [Hebrew: krh] has the signification "to
purchase." There is no necessity for deviating from the common
signification "to dig," in Deut. ii. 6: "And water also ye shall dig
from them for money, and drink" (compare Exod. xxi. 33); the existing
wells were not sufficient for so great a multitude, compare Gen. xxvi.
19, 21, 22. To this philological reason, we must _further_ add, that
the circumstance would be here altogether destitute of significance,
while every other feature in the description is full of meaning. We
base our interpretation upon the supposition, already sufficiently
established by _J. D. Michaelis_, that the whole purchase-money
amounted to thirty shekels, of which the prophet paid one-half in
money, and the other half in the value of money. According to Ezek.
xlv. 11, the homer contained ten