so designated, inasmuch as the
latter was already old enough to be able to accompany his father.
Gesenius could not avoid acknowledging the weight of this argument, and
declared himself disposed to assume that the Prophet's former wife had
died, and that he had thereupon betrothed himself to a virgin.
_Olshausen_, _Maurer_, _Hendewerk_, and others, have followed him in
this. But this is a story entirely without foundation. In chap. viii.
13, the wife of the Prophet is called simply "the prophetess." Nor
could one well see how the Prophet could expect to be understood, if,
by the general expression: "the virgin" he wished to signify his
presumptive betrothed. _There_ [Pg 65] _is an entire absence of every
intimation whatsoever of a nearer relation of the Almah to the
Prophet_; and such an intimation could not by any means be wanting if
such a relation really existed. One would, in that case at least, be
obliged to suppose, as _Plueschke_ does, that the Prophet took his
betrothed with him, and pointed to her with his finger,--a supposition
which too plainly exhibits the sign of embarrassment, just as is the
case with the remark of _Hendewerk_: "Only that, in that case, we must
also suppose that his second wife was sufficiently known at court even
then, when she was his betrothed only, although her relation to Isaiah
might be unknown; so that, for this very reason, we could not think of
a frustration of the sign on the part of the king." _Hitzig_ remarks:
"The supposition of a former wife of the Prophet is altogether
destitute of any foundation." He then, however, falls back upon the
hypothesis which _Gesenius_ himself admitted to be untenable, that
[Hebrew: elmh], "virgin" might not only denote a young woman, but
sometimes also an older woman. Not even the semblance of a proof can be
advanced in support of this. It is just the juvenile age which forms
the fundamental signification of the word. In the wife of the Prophet
we can the less think of such a juvenile age, that he himself had
already exercised his prophetic office for about twenty years. _Hitzig_
has indeed altogether declined to lead any such proof. A son of the
Prophet, as, in general, every subject except the Messiah, is excluded
by the circumstance that in chap viii. 8, Canaan is called the land of
Immanuel.--_Farther_,--In all these suppositions, [Hebrew: avt] is
understood in an inadmissible signification. It can here denote a fact
only, whereby those who w