masculine form of the plural occurs also in 1 Sam. xxv. 18; 1 Chron. xii. 40. As little difficulty can arise from the Dual form, which may be explained from the circumstance that fig-cakes commonly consisted of a double layer of figs, or of double cakes (_Hesych._ παλάθη--which Greek word is a corruption of the Hebrew דבלה--ἡ τῶν σύκων ἐπάλληλος θέσις), and the Dual is used in reference to objects which are commonly conceived of as a whole, consisting of two parts, even when several of them are spoken of. That this explanation of the Dual is correct, is proved from the circumstance, that it occurs also as the name of a Moabitish town, _Beth-Dibhlathaim_, Jer. xlviii. 22, and _Dibhlathaim_, Num. xxxiii. 46, which, probably, was famous for its fig-cakes.--There existed another special reason for the prophet's choosing the Dual in the masculine form, viz., that there was the analogy of other proper names of men--as Ephraim, etc.--in its favour; and such an analogy was required,--for, otherwise, the name would not have been, as it was intended to be, a riddle. Our whole exposition, however, which was already in substance, although without proper foundation and justification, advanced by _Jerome_, is raised above the condition of a mere hypothesis, by its being compared with chap. iii. There, the words, "They turn themselves to other gods, and love grape-cakes," are a mere paraphrasis of "_Gomer Bath Dibhlaim_." It scarcely needs to be remarked, that the difference betwixt grape-cakes 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 perfect propriety, 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."