ÿþ<html> <head> <title>The "Immanu'él prophecy"</title> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=windows-1255"> <SCRIPT language="JavaScript"> window.moveTo(0,0); window.resizeTo(screen.availWidth,screen.availHeight); function hideAds() { if(document.body.scrollTop<165) window.location.href="#top"; } function popup(url) { window.open(url,"pop","toolbar=no,location=no,directories=no,status=no,menubar=no,scrollbars=yes,resizeable=no,width=600,height=400") } </SCRIPT> </HEAD> <BODY LEFTMARGIN="10" TOPMARGIN="0" BGCOLOR="#FDF5E6" onLoad="hideAds();" onMouseOver="hideAds();" onMouseMove="hideAds();" onKeyUp="hideAds();"> <A NAME="top"><HR></A> <font size="4"> <p align="center"><i><b><font color=RED>Any advertisements appearing above this line are inserted by &quot;tripod&quot;, please IGNORE them</font></b></i></p> <p align="center"><b><font size="5"><b>The &quot;<i>Immanu'él</i> prophecy&quot; (<i>Y'shayahu</i> 7:14)</b></font><br><font size="3"><i>by <a href="mailto:mordochai-ben-tziyyon@hotmail.com">Prof. Mordochai ben</i>-<i>Tziyyon</a>, Universitah Ha'ivrit, Y'rushalayim</i></font></b></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Let me make one thing clear from the very outset: this article is not about whether or not a miraculous &quot;virgin birth&quot; occurred in the closing years of the first century BCE (or at any other time, for that matter); I really <u><b>DO NOT CARE</b></u> whether one did or not. It's <u><b><i>completely irrelevant</i></b></u>. This article addresses a very different question: did one of the Hebrew prophets <u><b><i>prophesy</i></b></u> that a &quot;virgin birth&quot; was going to occur? The writer of the new testament book &quot;Matthew&quot; <u><b><i>claims</i></b></u> that the prophet <i>Y'shayahu</i> did - at 7:14 - but is this <u><b>REALLY</b></u> what that verse says?</p> <p>Whenever christians discuss <i>Y'shayahu</i> 7:14, they invariably zoom in on just two details, namely the word <font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">â·Ü°Þ¸Ô</font> <i>al'mah</i> and the supposed &quot;meaning&quot; of the prophetic name <font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">â´Þ¼¸½àռе½Ü</font> <i>Immanu'él</i>. They seem to be pathologically incapable of even <i>thinking</i> about any of the <i>other</i> words in the verse. But, in focusing exclusively on these two details, they overlook (intentionally or otherwise) several important aspects of the exact language used in the verse, which results in a completely erroneous translation and this leads inexorably to a bizarre and ridiculous &quot;interpretation&quot; of the verse. Their reading of it is, of course, biased by the dishonest way in which it is quoted by the gospel-writer &quot;Matthew&quot; (at 1:22-23), but this is no excuse for mistranslating the verse in its source location.</p> <p>The Hebrew text of <i>Y'shayahu</i>'s statement (at least the small part of it that is misquoted by &quot;Matthew&quot;) reads as follows:</p> <table align="center" cellspacing="8" cols="8"> <tr> <td align="center" dir="rtl"><font face="sbl hebrew" size="7">'â´Þ¼¸àռеÜ'</font></td> <td align="center" dir="rtl"><font face="sbl hebrew" size="7">éÁ°ÞÕ¹</font></td> <td align="center" dir="rtl"><font face="sbl hebrew" size="7">Õ°ç¸è¸Ðê</font></td> <td align="center" dir="rtl"><font face="sbl hebrew" size="7">Ѽµß</font></td> <td align="center" dir="rtl"><font face="sbl hebrew" size="7">հٹܶ½Ó¶ê</font></td> <td align="center" dir="rtl"><font face="sbl hebrew" size="7">Ô¸è¸Ô</font></td> <td align="center" dir="rtl"><font face="sbl hebrew" size="7">Ô¸â·Ü°Þ¸Ô</font></td> <td align="center" dir="rtl"><font face="sbl hebrew" size="7">Դ༵Ô</font></td> </tr> <tr></td> <td align="center"><font size="5"><i>&quot;immanu'él&quot;</i></font></td> <td align="center"><font size="5"><i>sh'mo</i></font></td> <td align="center"><font size="5"><i>v'kara't</i></font></td> <td align="center"><font size="5"><i>b&eacute;n</i></font></td> <td align="center"><font size="5"><i>v'yoledet</i></font></td> <td align="center"><font size="5"><i>harah</i></font></td> <td align="center"><font size="5"><i>ha</i>-<i>al'mah</i></font></td> <td align="center"><font size="5"><i>hinneh</i></font></td> </tr> </table> <p>Let us examine each word in turn. The first word, <font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">Դ༵Ô</font> <b><i>hinneh</i></b>, is the word usually translated as &quot;Behold!&quot;, or &quot;See!&quot;. This word is frequently used by the Prophets to introduce a prophetic declaration of major significance, but it is also used in common speech in the sense of &quot;there is/are&quot; for pointing something out - there is an example of this usage in <i>B'r&eacute;shit</i> 22:7, where <i>Yitz'h&#0803;ak</i> says to his father, <i>&quot;<b><u>there are</u></b> the fire and wood, but where is the young animal </i>[<i>Hebrew, 'seh'</i>]<i> for the <i>olah</i>-sacrifice?&quot;</i>. The word <i>hinneh</i> can also be used in a third sense, as an exclamation of astonishment rather like the contemporary English &quot;Wow!&quot;, as in <i>M'lachim Beit</i> 2:11 &quot;<i>...and as they </i>(<i>&Eacute;liyahu &amp; Elisha</i>)<i> continued walking along and chatting, wow</i>! [<i>suddenly</i>]<i> there was a fiery carriage with fiery horses and the two of them became separated...</i>&quot;</p> <p>The second word is <font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">Ô¸â·Ü°Þ¸Ô</font> <b><i>ha</i>-<i>al'mah</i></b>, a term which roughly translates as &quot;that teenaged girl&quot;. I shall defer a discussion of the precise meaning of the word <b><i>al'mah</i></b> until later in this article, and will therefore limit my remarks about it here to noting that the prefix <b><i>ha</i>-</b> (which is normally the definite article &quot;the&quot;) is being used here with poetic licence in the sense of the demonstrative pronoun &quot;that&quot;, lending emphasis to <i>&quot;<b><u>that</u></b> al'mah over there&quot;</i>, i.e. the <i>&quot;al'mah&quot;</i> the prophet was pointing to as he spoke.</p> <p>The next two words, <font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">Ô¸è¸Ô</font> <b><i>harah</i></b> and <font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">հٹܶ½Ó¶ê</font> <b><i>v'yoledet</i></b>, are the critical ones from the point of view of translating the verse correctly. There can be no argument about the meaning of the second of these: <font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">հٹܶ½Ó¶ê</font> <b><i>v'yoledet</i></b> (the fourth word in the prophet's statement): <b><i>yoledet</i></b> is the feminine singular present participle of the root <font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">ÙÜÓ</font>, <i>yod</i>-<i>lammed</i>-<i>dallet</i> (to give birth), and means <b>&quot;[she] is giving birth&quot;</b>... in fact, the prophet probably meant &quot;she is <i>about</i> to give birth [at any moment]&quot;, and used the present participle to indicate immediacy. The word after <b><i>v'yoledet</i></b>, i.e. <font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">Ѽµß</font> <b><i>b&eacute;n</i></b> (pronounced like <i>bane</i>, i.e. rhyming with &quot;train&quot;), simply means &quot;a son&quot;; it's a direct object in Hebrew because the root <font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">ÙÜÓ</font>, <i>yod</i>-<i>lammed</i>-<i>dallet</i> is transitive, unlike the English verb &quot;to give birth&quot; which is intransitive and takes an indirect object (so that the English construction is &quot;giving birth <b><u><i>to</i></u></b> a son&quot;).</p> <p>But what about the word <font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">Ô¸è¸Ô</font> <b><i>harah</i></b>? The meaning of this one word is probably the most contentious issue in the entire Scriptures: it is so important to christians that it means &quot;she will conceive&quot; that they are pathologically incapable of even considering the <i>possibility</i> that it doesn't. The pseudo-septuaginta actually translates it as <font face=arial>½ ³±ÃÄÁv ¾µ¹</font> (<i>en gastri exei</i>) &quot;[she] will be pregnant&quot;, which in fact refers to being in the state of pregnancy rather than to the act of conceiving, the &quot;King James's Per-Version&quot; rendering in <i>Y'shayahu</i> 7:14 (<b>&quot;<i>shall conceive</i>&quot;</b>) being both inaccurate and misleading; in Matthew 1:23, KJPV translates exactly the same Greek words <font face=arial>½ ³±ÃÄÁv ¾µ¹</font> (<i>en gastri exei</i>) as <b><i>shall be with child</i></b>, i.e. will <b><i>be</i></b> (as opposed to <b><i>will become</i></b>) pregnant. I am going to discuss the grammar of the word <font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">Ô¸è¸Ô</font> <i>harah</i> in detail, because the entire christian &quot;virgin birth&quot; myth hangs upon its precise meaning.</p> <p>In fact, <font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">Ô¸è¸Ô</font> <b><i>harah</i></b> can be both a verb <b><i>AND</i></b> an adjective. There certainly is a Hebrew root <font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">ÔèÔ</font> <i>h&eacute;</i>-<i>resh</i>-<i>h&eacute;</i> - this verb is normally used only in relation to females, when it is intransitive and means <i>to conceive</i>; it is transitive when used in relation to a male subject and the sense is <i>to impregnate</i>. This application of the <i>same</i> verb to male and female in <i>different</i> senses is not unusual in Hebrew; the verb <font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">ÙÜÓ</font> <b><i>yalad</i></b>, &quot;to give birth&quot;, is used of males (and often misleadingly translated using the English verb <i>beget</i>) even though the male takes no part in the actual birth process. The verb <font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">ÔèÔ</font> <b><i>harah</i></b> is similarly applied to both males and females; but never, in the case of a female, in the transitive sense of &quot;to conceive <i>a baby</i>&quot;. It is transitive in the rare instances in the Scriptures (which are all poetic metaphors) where it is applied to a male, because the male is actually <i>doing</i> something when he impregnates a female, i.e. physically <i>putting</i> his <b><i>zera</i></b> into her body; but when a female conceives (becomes pregnant), this is something happening inside her body that is beyond her control and in most cases she doesn't even know it has happened until some time later.</p> <p>The verb <font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">ÔèÔ</font> <b><i>harah</i></b> belongs to the <font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">Ü&quot;Ô</font> (<i>lammed</i>-<i>h&eacute;</i>) class of irregular verbs, that is to say those verbs whose third radical is the letter <font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">Ô</font> <i>h&eacute;</i>. It is conjugated as follows in the past tense of the simple (<i>&quot;kal&quot;</i>) paradigm:</p> <table align="center" cellpadding="16" cellspacing="0" border="1" cols="3"> <tr> <td align="center" valign="middle" dir="rtl"><font face="sbl hebrew" size="6"><b>Ը贽Ùê´Ù</b></font></td> <td align="center" valign="middle"><b><i>haRIti</i></b></td> <td align="center">I impregnated (if spoken by a male)<br>I conceived (if spoken by a female)</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center" valign="middle" dir="rtl"><font face="sbl hebrew" size="6"><b>Ը贽Ùê¸</b></font></td> <td align="center" valign="middle"><b><i>haRIta</i></b></td> <td align="center">you impregnated (to a male)</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center" valign="middle" dir="rtl"><font face="sbl hebrew" size="6"><b>Ô¸è´Ùê</b></font></td> <td align="center" valign="middle"><b><i>haRIT</i></b></td> <td align="center">you conceived (to a female) </tr> <tr> <td align="center" valign="middle" dir="rtl"><font face="sbl hebrew" size="6" color=RED><b>Ô¸è¸Ô</b></font></td> <td align="center" valign="middle"><font face="sbl hebrew" color=RED><b><i>haRAH</i></b></font></td> <td align="center"><font color=RED><b>he impregnated</b></font></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center" valign="middle" dir="rtl"><font face="sbl hebrew" size="6"><b>Ը踽ê¸Ô</b></font></td> <td align="center" valign="middle"><b><i>haRAtah</i></b></td> <td align="center">she conceived</td> </tr> </table> <p>It will be seen that there <i>does</i> exist an inflection <font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">Ô¸è¸Ô</font> <b><i>harah</i></b> of the root <font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">ÔèÔ</font> <i>h&eacute;</i>-<i>resh</i>-<i>h&eacute;</i>... but it's the past tense, 3rd person <b><i><u>masculine</u></i></b> form &quot;he impregnated&quot; (or &quot;he made pregnant&quot;)! It occurs in <i>T'hillim</i> 7:15 (with the <font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">Õ¸Õ Ô·Ô´ä¼Õ¼Ú°</font> or &quot;inverting <i>vav</i>&quot; reversing the tense from the past into the future), a poetic metaphor that is difficult to translate satisfactorily because of the dual application of the Hebrew verb to both male and female in two different senses - something like <i>&quot;he seeds mischief and gives birth to lies&quot;</i>. A variant of the 3rd person masculine form <b><i>harah</i></b>, namely <font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">Ô¸è¹Ô</font> <b><i>haroh</i></b>, occurs in <i>Iyyov</i> 15:35, another poetic metaphor <i>&quot;he seeds trouble and gives birth to iniquity...&quot;</i>, and the same variant is also to be found in <i>Y'shayahu</i> 59:4 but with the anomalous spelling <font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">Ô¸èÕ¹</font> <b><i>haro</i></b>, <i>&quot;he seeds injustice and gives birth to wickedness&quot;</i>.</p> <p>Apart from these three instances of the 3rd person masc. form, the past tense of the <i>kal</i> paradigm of the root <font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">ÔèÔ</font> <i>h&eacute;</i>-<i>resh</i>-<i>h&eacute;</i> is used in the Scriptures in very few other places. The first person form <font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">Ը贽Ùê´Ù</font> <b><i>hariti</i></b> occurs just once, in <i>B'midbar</i> 11:12; the 2nd person fem. form <font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">Ô¸è´Ùê</font> <b><i>harit</i></b> (again with the <font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">Õ¸Õ Ô·Ô´ä¼Õ¼Ú°</font> or &quot;inverting <i>vav</i>&quot; reversing the tense from the past into the future) also occurs just once, in <i>Shoftim</i> 13:3; and the 3rd person fem. form <font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">Ը踽ê¸Ô</font> <b><i>haratah</i></b> occurs in <i>B'r&eacute;shit</i> 16:4 and again in 16:5. The 2nd person masc. form <font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">Ը贽Ùê¸</font> <b><i>harita</i></b> (&quot;you [<i>m.</i>] impregnated&quot;) is not found in the Scriptures at all.</p> <p>But <font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">Ô¸è¸Ô</font> <b><i>harah</i></b> can also be an <b>adjective</b> (&quot;pregnant&quot;). This word <i>looks</i> identical to the verb <font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">Ô¸è¸Ô</font> <b><i>harah</i></b> and can only be distinguished from it by examining the grammatical context - there are many examples of exactly the same situation in English, e.g. the word &quot;separate&quot; can be either a verb (to divide into parts) or an adjective (describing something that exists, or is regarded, as a unit by itself) and the two can only be distinguished by examining the grammatical context, and the same is true of &quot;refuse&quot; which can be either a verb (to say &quot;No!&quot;) or a noun (garbage, trash). It is a source of astonishment to me that so many English-speaking christians have such a problem understanding that the same word in Hebrew can be both a verb <i>and</i> an adjective, with identical spelling, and that which part of speech a particular instance of the word is can only be determined by examining the grammatical context - when precisely the <i>same</i> phenomenon occurs in their <i>own</i> language!</p> <p>The adjective <font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">Ô¸è¸Ô</font> <b><i>harah</i></b> occurs a further <i>ten</i> times in the Scriptures, in addition to <i>Y'shayahu</i> 7:14....</p> <ol> <li><i>B'r&eacute;shit</i> 16:11 - &quot;...you are pregnant [<font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">Դ༸ڰ Ô¸è¸Ô</font> <i>hinnach harah</i>] and are about to give birth to a son...&quot;</li> <li><i>B'r&eacute;shit</i> 38:24 - &quot;...your daughter-in-law <i>Tamar</i>... is pregnant [<font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">Ô´à¼µÔ Ô¸è¸Ô</font> <i>hinneh harah</i>] as a result of prostitution...&quot;</li> <li><i>B'r&eacute;shit</i> 38:25 - &quot;...I'm pregnant [<font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">иà¹Û´Ù Ô¸èÔ</font> <i>anochi harah</i>] by the man these things belong to...&quot;</li> <li><i>Shmot</i> 21:22 - &quot;...if men are fighting and they collide with a pregnant woman [<font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">дé¼Á¸Ô Ô¸è¸Ô</font> <i>ishah harah</i>]...&quot;</li> <li><i>Shoftim</i> 13:5 - &quot;...you are pregnant [<font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">Դ༸ڰ Ô¸è¸Ô</font> <i>hinnach harah</i>] and giving birth to a son...&quot;</li> <li><i>Shoftim</i> 13:7 - &quot;...you are pregnant [<font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">Դ༸ڰ Ô¸è¸Ô</font> <i>hinnach harah</i>] and giving birth to a son...&quot;</li> <li><i>Shmuel Alef</i> 4:19 - &quot;...his daughter-in-law, <i>Pinh&#0803;as</i>'s wife, was pregnant and about to give birth [<font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">Ô¸è¸Ô ܸܷê</font> <i>harah lalat</i>]...&quot;</li> <li><i>Shmuel Beit</i> 11:5 - &quot;...I'm pregnant [<font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">Ô¸è¸Ô и๽۴Ù</font> <i>harah anochi</i>]...&quot;</li> <li><i>Y'shayahu</i> 7:14 - &quot;...see that pregnant girl [<font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">Ô¸â·Ü°Þ¸Ô Ô¸è¸Ô</font> <i>ha</i>-<i>al'mah harah</i>] over there...&quot;</li> <li><i>Y'shayahu</i> 26:17 - &quot;...like a pregnant (woman) [<font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">Û¼°ÞÕ¹ Ô¸è¸Ô</font> <i>k'mo harah</i>] who is approaching her time to give birth...&quot;</li> <li><i>Yirm'yahu</i> 31:7 - &quot;...a pregnant (woman) together with one who is actually giving birth [<font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">Ô¸è¸Ô հٹܶ½Ó¶ê</font> <i>harah v'yoledet</i>]...&quot;</li> </ol> <p>Can <font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">Ô¸è¸Ô</font> <b><i>harah</i></b> possibly be a verb in <i>any</i> of these 11 verses? No, it can't, because <font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">Ô¸è¸Ô</font> <b><i>harah</i></b> is a <i>masculine</i> form of the root <font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">ÔèÔ</font> <i>h&eacute;</i>-<i>resh</i>-<i>h&eacute;</i>, and the subject is a woman in all 11 instances - and it's the <i>third</i> person masc. form, <i><u><b>he</b></u> impregated</i>. If the word were a verb, the inflection would have to be <font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">Ը贽Ùê´Ù</font> <b><i>hariti</i></b> (1st person, &quot;<b><i><u>I</u></i></b> have conceived&quot;) in cases 3, 8; in cases 1, 5, 6 it would have to be <font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">Ô¸è´Ùê</font> <b><i>harit</i></b> (2nd person feminine, &quot;<b><i><u>you</u></i></b> [f.] have conceived&quot;); and in cases 2, 7 the inflection would have to be <font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">Ը踽ê¸Ô</font> <b><i>haratah</i></b> (3rd person feminine, &quot;<b><i><u>she</u></i></b> has/had conceived&quot;). Any attempt to translate <b><i>harah</i></b> as part of the verb &quot;to conceive&quot; in cases 4, 9, 10, 11 would be forced and contrived; it cannot be anything but an adjective in cases 4 &amp; 9, and an adjectival noun (&quot;a pregnant [woman]&quot;) in cases 10 &amp; 11.</p> <p>Final point: the last three words of the prophet's statement, <i>v'kara't sh'mo Immanu'él</i>, mean <i>&quot;and <b><u>she</u></b> will name him </i>[literally, 'she will call his name'] <i>Immanu'él&quot;</i> - that is to say, the baby's <u><i>mother</i></u> will give this name to her child. Grammatically the form <font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">ç¸è¸Ðê</font> <i>kara't</i> is the 2nd person feminine of the past tense in the simple or <i>&quot;kal&quot;</i> conjugation of the root <font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">ç-è-Ð</font>, <i>kuf</i>-<i>resh</i>-<i>alef</i> (to call), i.e. &quot;you [fem.] called&quot; - and the &quot;inverting <i>vav</i>&quot; changes the tense from past into future: <i>v'kara't</i>, &quot;and you [fem.] will call&quot;: the wording is identical to <i>B'r&eacute;shit</i> 16:11 where an angel says to Hagar <font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">Õ°ç¸è¸Ðê éÁ°ÞÕ¹ Ù´éÁ°Þ¸âµÐÜ</font> <i>v'kara't sh'mo yishma'el</i>, &quot;you [fem.] will name him <i>Yishma'el</i>&quot;. However, in <i>Y'shayahu</i> 7:14 the prophet is speaking to King <i>Ah&#0803;az</i> of <i>Y'hudah</i> and it is hardly likely that he would have addressed the king in the feminine gender; the classical commentators are therefore in unanimous agreement that <font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">Õ°ç¸è°Ð¸ê</font> <i>v'kara't</i> is being used as a poetic variant of the 3rd person feminine form <font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">Õ°ç¸è°Ð¸Ô</font> <i>v'kar'ah</i>, i.e. &quot;and <b><i>she</i></b> will call&quot; - in other words the prophet is was predicting that the baby boy he was speaking about was going to be named <i>Immanu'él</i> <b>by its <u>mother</u></b> (which was far more significant then than it may seem today because in those times a baby would normally be named - i.e. formally given its name - by the <i>father</i>). Even the christian pseudo-septuaginta Greek translation of the early 4th century is in agreement on <i>this</i> point: it has <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Isa&c=7&t=LXX#comm/14" target="_blank"><font face=arial>º±v <font color=RED>º±»sõ¹Â</font> Äx D½¿¼± ±PÄ¿æ •¼¼±½¿Å·»</font></a> (<i>kai <font color=RED>kaleseis</font> to onoma auto Emmanouel</i>), &quot;and <u><b><i>she</i></b></u> will call his name Emmanuel&quot;.</p> <p>However in the story that the &quot;Matthew&quot; book tells, the young mother <i>does not</i> name her baby &quot;Emmanuel&quot; - in fact, <i>she</i> doesn't name him at all: the &quot;angel&quot; that her husband dreams about in the story instructs <i>him</i> (the husband) to name the child <i>Y&eacute;shu</i> (1:21), which he does (1:25). And indeed, <i>Y&eacute;shu</i> is never called &quot;Emmanuel&quot; by his mother <i>or</i> by anyone else <i>anywhere</i> in the &quot;Matthew&quot; book, or anywhere else in the entire &quot;New Testament&quot; either, for that matter. This being the case, the &quot;Matthew&quot; book's author couldn't very well quote <i>Y'shayahu</i> 7:14 exactly as it stands <i>even</i> in the pseudo-septuaginta, because such a glaring inconsistency could hardly be explained away - so he resorts to the most dishonest of all tricks: he simply <b><i>changes</i></b> the word <font face=arial>º±»s<font color=RED>õ¹Â</font></font> <b><i>kale<font color=RED>seis</font></i></b> (3rd person <u><b>feminine singular</b></u>, &quot;<font color=RED><u><b><i>she</i></b></u></font> will call&quot;) into <font face=arial>º±»s<font color=RED>ÿÅù½</font></font> <b><i>kale<font color=RED>sousin</font></i></b> (3rd person <u><b>plural</b></u>, &quot;<font color=RED><u><b><i>they</i></b></u></font> will call&quot;) and <b><i>pretends</i></b> that the prophet said <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.com/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Mat&amp;chapter=1&amp;verse=23&amp;version=kjv" target="_blank"><font face=arial>º±v <font color=RED>º±»sÿÅù½</font> Äx D½¿¼± ±PÄ¿æ ¼¼±½¿Åt»</font></a> (<i>kai <font color=RED>kalesousin</font> to onoma auto Emmanouel</i>), <i>and <b><u>they</u></b> will call his name Emmanuel</i>. This satisfies most christians, because they can say that <i>they</i> call him &quot;Emmanuel&quot;; but it's thoroughly dishonest because it isn't what <i>Y'shayahu</i> said! The most astonishing thing of all is that nobody ever even notices this small but <b><i>hugely</i></b> significant alteration - we Hebrews don't pay much attention to this verse because it isn't actually <i>that</i> important to us (and we don't waste our time reading pagan garbage like &quot;Matthew&quot; anyway), and christians are so mesmerised and hypnotised by the &quot;name&quot; the prophet says was going to be given to the child (and by what they are told it &quot;means&quot;) that they rush past the part that says <b><u><i>who</i></u></b> was going to give the child this name in such an orgasm of excitement that they don't even give it a second thought.</p> <p>The <i>correct</i> translation of <i>Y'shayahu</i>'s statement is thus as follows. <i>Pointing</i> to a girl who must have been obviously very pregnant (we know he was actually pointing her out as he spoke because he uses the word <i>hinneh</i>), he says to King <i>Ah&#0803;az</i>: &quot;<b><u><i>There</i></u></b> is a pregnant <i>al'mah</i> - she's about to give birth to a son, and she's going to name him <i>Immanu'él</i>...&quot; The reader may notice that I have left the word <i>al'mah</i> untranslated; I guess she <i>could</i> have been a virgin (although this is rather unlikely, given that she was very obviously heavily pregnant), but would anyone (apart from the prophet himself, perhaps) have even known? In the 8th century BCE in <i>Y'hudah</i>, girls who had never experienced sexual intercourse didn't generally walk around with the word &quot;Virgin&quot; tattooed on their foreheads or with flashing neon signs hanging over their heads! And furthermore, if it had been an important aspect of his prophecy that she was a virgin, wouldn't <i>Y'shayahu</i> have made this <i>absolutely</i> clear by using the explicit word for a virgin, i.e. <font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">Ѽ°êռܸÔ</font> <b><i>b'tulah</i></b>?</p> <p>Another point: the English word <i>virgin</i> refers specifically to a <i>female</i>, and is derived from the Latin word <i>virgo</i>, <i>virginis</i> which is a feminine noun. Although the word is used metaphorically in English to mean &quot;unspoiled&quot; (e.g. virgin snow, virgin forest, etc.), its application to a male is a very recent development in English usage. The Hebrew word <font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">Ѽ°êռܸÔ</font> <b><i>b'tulah</i></b>, a virgin, has no equivalent masculine form (it would be <font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">Ѽ¸êÕ¼Ü</font> <b><i>batul</i></b> if it existed), but <font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">â·Ü°Þ¸Ô</font> <b><i>al'mah</i></b> <u><b>does</b></u> have a corresponding masculine form, <font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">ⶽܶÝ</font> <b><i>elem</i></b>, which is rarely used in the Scriptures but does occur in <i>Shmuel Alef</i> 17:56 and 20:22. I am not aware of anyone who suggests that both <i>David</i> (in 17:56) and <i>Yonatan</i>'s servant who he sent to retrieve the arrows during his archery-practice (in 20:22) had never slept with a woman prior to this incident! And if <font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">ⶽܶÝ</font> <b><i>elem</i></b> has no relevance to prior sexual activity, why should the cognate feminine form <font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">â·Ü°Þ¸Ô</font> <b><i>al'mah</i></b> have such a connotation?</p> <p>Incidentally, even Dr Strong admits that <font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">â·Ü°Þ¸Ô</font> <b><i>al'mah</i></b> is the feminine form of <font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">ⶽܶÝ</font> <b><i>elem</i></b>: he gives the derivation of <font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">â·Ü°Þ¸Ô</font> <b><i>al'mah</i></b> (Strong's #05959) as merely &quot;from 05958&quot;, the &quot;Strong's number&quot; for <font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">ⶽܶÝ</font><b><i>elem</i></b> - which, by the way, he defines as &quot;young man&quot;. But this does not deter him from defining <font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">â·Ü°Þ¸Ô</font> <b><i>al'mah</i></b> as<blockquote>virgin, young woman<blockquote>(a)&nbsp;of mariageable age, or<br><br>(b)&nbsp;maid or newly married</blockquote></blockquote>and appending an irrelevant and ludicrously dishonest note by R. Laird Harris <i>et al.</i> (authors of <i>Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament</i>, or &quot;TWOT&quot;):<blockquote><i>&quot;There is no instance where it can be proved that </i><font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">â·Ü°Þ¸Ô</font><i> <b>al'mah</b> designates a young woman who is not a virgin. The fact of virginity is obvious in Gen. 24:43 where </i><font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">â·Ü°Þ¸Ô</font><i> <b>al'mah</b> is used of one who was being sought as a bride for Isaac.&quot;</i></blockquote>As it happens, the first of these remarks is true, but so what? Consider the specious logic of that argument: just because it cannot be proved that <font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">â·Ü°Þ¸Ô</font> <b><i>al'mah</i></b> <b><u>doesn't</u></b> designate a <b><i>non</i></b>-virgin, does that mean the word definitely <b><u>does</u></b> designate a <b><i>virgin</i></b>? It <b><i>also</i></b> can't be proved that the word <font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">â·Ü°Þ¸Ô</font> <b><i>al'mah</i></b> designates a young woman who <b><i>isn't</i></b> a blue-eyed, blonde, hunch-backed, 93-year-old woman with a beard - so perhaps <i>Y'shayahu</i> 7:14 should really be translated:<blockquote><i>"Behold, the blue</i>-<i>eyed, blonde, hunch</i>-<i>backed, 93</i>-<i>year</i>-<i>old woman with a beard shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son....."</i></blockquote></p> <p>The second remark made by Harris <i>et al.</i> is even more dishonest, because <i>B'r&eacute;shit</i> 24:26 states <b><u>explicitly</u></b> that <i>Rivkah</i> was a virgin - using the <b><u>actual</u></b> word for a virgin, <font face="sbl hebrew" size="5">Ѽ°êռܸÔ</font> <b><i>b'tulah</i></b>.</p> <p><br><b>So what is the <i>Immanu'él</i> prophecy all about?</b></p> <p>But enough sarcasm. Now that we know what <i>Y'shayahu</i> 7:14 actually <i>says</i>, it's time to move on from <b>translation</b> to <b>interpretation</b>, i.e. figuring out what the heck the prophet was talking about. It should now be obvious that it has no connection with the baby whose birth is described in ch.1 of the &quot;Matthew&quot; book, because the prophet was clearly referring to a baby who was about to be born <i>then</i>, at the time he was talking, in the 8th century BCE - and whose mother was going to name it <i>Immanu'él</i>... something the girl in the &quot;Matthew&quot; book story (which is supposed to have taken place some 740 years later) never did. I understand that this will be deeply upsetting to the many christians who genuinely and sincerely believe the &quot;Matthew&quot; book to be &quot;God's word&quot; - but facts are facts and an honest scholar searching for the truth must be prepared to face reality.</p> <p>Let's consider the context of <i>Y'shayahu</i>, ch.7. The chapter begins with a brief historical episode (verses 1-2) which relates how during (actually, right at the start of) the reign of King <i>Ah&#0803;az</i> of <i>Y'hudah</i> (reigned 742-727 BCE), the Aramean (i.e. Syrian) king <i>R'tzin</i> formed an alliance with <i>Pekah&#0803; ben R'malyahu</i>, the king of the northern Hebrew kingdom (reigned 758-739 BCE) and how they had together mounted an abortive joint attack on the capital of <i>Y'hudah</i>, <i>Y'rushalayim</i> (&quot;Jerusalem&quot;); this is also documented in <i>M'lachim Beit</i> 16:5 and <i>Divrei Ha</i>-<i>yamim Beit</i> 28:5-8. The version in <i>Divrei Ha</i>-<i>yamim</i> does not mention the failure of the alliance to accomplish its main goal of capturing <i>Y'rushalayim</i>, that writer concentrating instead on the massive losses (both in terms of casualties suffered and prisoners-of-war taken) that were inflicted on the people of <i>Y'hudah</i>, and on the respect shown by the northern Hebrews to the prophet <i>Oded</i> who instructed them to free the southern captives and send them home (verses 9-15). But although they had succeeded in repelling the attack on their capital city, and although the large number of prisoners-of-war who had been taken during the fighting had been returned, <i>Ah&#0803;az</i> and his people remained terrified of their neighbours to the north and north-east; <i>Y'shayahu</i> expresses this using a most eloquent poetic metaphor: &quot;[<i>Ah&#0803;az</i>'s] heart, and his people's hearts, fluttered like trees in a forest flutter in the wind&quot; (second half of 7:2).</p> <p>It was because of this that the young, na&iuml;ve <i>Ah&#0803;az</i> plundered the Temple treasuries in order to bribe the Assyrian king Tiglath-Pileser III (reigned 745-727 BCE) to come to his assistance (<i>M'lachim Beit</i> 16:7-8; also <i>Divrei Ha</i>-<i>yamim Beit</i> 28:16) and Tiglath-Pileser obligingly attacked the northern Hebrew kingdom, capturing several major cities and carrying their inhabitants off as captives (<i>M'lachim Beit</i> 15:29), and then marched on the Aramean (i.e. Syrian) capital, <i>Damesek</i> (&quot;Damascus&quot;), capturing this too and carrying its inhabitants off as captives as well, and also killing their king, <i>R'tzin</i> (<i>M'lachim Beit</i> 16:9). There can be little doubt that it was because <i>Pekah&#0803;</i>'s alliance with <i>R'tzin</i> was seen as having precipitated the Assyrian attack that a coup occurred in the northern kingdom, led by one <i>Hosh&eacute;'a ben &Eacute;lah</i>, and <i>Pekah&#0803;</i> was assassinated (<i>M'lachim Beit</i> 15:30). <i>M'lachim</i> records (<i>ibid.</i>) that this occurred in <i>Ah&#0803;az</i>'s 4th year (i.e. 739 BCE) - the text actually reads &quot;<i>Yotam</i>'s 20th year&quot;, but <i>Yotam</i> (<i>Ah&#0803;az</i>'s father) only reigned for 16 years (<i>M'lachim Beit</i> 15:33), so the year that <i>would have been</i> his 20th was in fact his son <i>Ah&#0803;az</i>'s 4th.</p> <p>After this, na&iuml;vely thinking that he had bought Assyrian king's friendship, <i>Ah&#0803;az</i> himself made a trip to Damascus to meet with him personally and was shown the great idolatrous altar in the temple of the Aramean gods. He sent details of its construction back to his own priest, a man called <i>Uriyyah</i>, with instructions that an identical altar should be constructed and erected in the <i>Y'rushalayim</i> Temple (<i>M'lachim Beit</i> 16:10-11). But Tiglath-Pileser betrayed <i>Ah&#0803;az</i> - he marched on <i>Y'hudah</i> and attacked and besieged <i>Y'rushalayim</i>, although he did not succeed in capturing it (<i>Divrei Ha</i>-<i>yamim Beit</i> 28:20-21). With bitter irony, the author of <i>Divrei Ha</i>-<i>yamim</i> notes that <i>&quot;although Ah&#0803;az had plundered the Temple and also the king's and the officers' palaces, and had given </i>[<i>the proceeds</i>]<i> to the Assyrian king, it did not help him&quot;</i> (<i>ibid.</i>, v.21), continuing: <i>&quot;...even in the midst of all his troubles, </i>[<i>Ah&#0803;az</i>]<i> continued to betray Adonai</i> - <i>that's how Ah&#0803;az was: he sacrificed to the Damascans' gods, even though they </i>[<i>the Damascans</i>]<i> were attacking him, because he reasoned 'the Aramean kings' gods are helping them, so if I sacrifice to them, they might help me too'</i> - <i>but they only brought about his and all <i>Yisrael</i>'s downfall&quot;</i> (verses 22-23).</p> <p><i>Y'shayahu</i> doesn't mention any of this in chapter 7. After the brief historical introduction (verses 1-2), which makes reference to the joint attack on <i>Y'rushalayim</i> by <i>Pekah&#0803;</i> and <i>R'tzin</i>, he focuses on his own r&ocirc;le as God's prophet. In verses 3-9, God sends <i>Y'shayahu</i> to <i>Ah&#0803;az</i> with a message not to be afraid of the two kings who had just attacked him. The prophet is not told to reproach the frightened young king explicitly about the idolatry he has lapsed into, but the implication is obvious: <i>Ah&#0803;az</i> must stop worshipping the Aramean idols and then God will protect him - otherwise....</p> <p>But <i>Ah&#0803;az</i> wouldn't listen. <i>M'lachim</i> tells us that he was very young (only 20 years old when he came to the throne), and also very wicked: <i>&quot;he did not do what is right in <i>Adonai</i> his God's sight, as his ancestor <i>David</i> had done, but behaved like the kings of <i>Yisrael</i>, and even passed his </i>[<i>own</i>]<i> son through the fire, copying the practices of the </i>[<i>pagan</i>]<i> nations that <i>Adonai</i> had driven out...&quot;</i> (<i>M'lachim Beit</i> 16:2-3).</p> <p><i>Ah&#0803;az</i>'s biggest problem was that just he didn't believe that the crazy old man who kept coming to him with &quot;messages from God&quot; really was a true prophet. There were lots of false prophets around in Biblical times, just as there are today. Seven and a half centuries earlier, <i>Mosheh</i> had promised the Yisraelites, <i>&quot;<i>Adonai</i> your God will raise up prophets for you from among your own brothers, just like I am...&quot;</i> (<i>D'varim</i> 18:15), but he had also warned about <i>false</i> prophets at the same time: <i>&quot;...any prophet who dares to say in God's Name something that he has not been commanded to say, or who speaks in the name of any false god, is to be executed. And if you are wondering 'how are we to know what is false prophecy?'... well, when a 'prophet' makes a prediction in God's Name and it does not come about, and does not happen</i> - <i>this is false prophecy; that 'prophet' is speaking impertinently, don't be afraid of him&quot;</i> (<i>ibid</i>., verses 20-22). Implicit in these words is a promise that every prophet God <i>does</i> send will &quot;prove&quot; that he really is a prophet by foretelling a specific event which will then occur just as the prophet predicted it, so that <i>Yisrael</i> would know without any doubt that God really did send this man (or woman, several female prophets are mentioned in the Scriptures) to deliver His messages.</p> <p><i>Mosheh</i> himself was given no less than <i>three</i> demonstrations to show to the Yisraelites to prove God had sent him... <ol> <li>turning his walking-stick into a snake and then back into a walking-stick (<i>Shmot</i> 4:2-4),</li> <li>making his own hand infected with <i>tzara'at</i> (&quot;leprosy&quot;) and then immediately healing the infection (<i>ibid</i>., verses 6-8), and</li> <li>making water turn to blood when poured onto the ground (<i>ibid</i>., v.9).</li> </ol> There is also an explicit example of a prophet providing proof of his &quot;prophetic credentials&quot; in <i>M'lachim</i>: just as <i>Yarov'am</i>&nbsp;I was about to inaugurate the altar of his idolatrous temple at <i>Beit</i>-<i>El</i> (see <i>M'lachim Alef</i> 12:28-29), an unknown, un-named prophet (traditionally identified as <i>'Iddo</i> &quot;the Seer&quot;, who is not mentioned at all in <i>M'lachim</i> but whose name appears in <i>Divrei Ha</i>-<i>yamim Beit</i> 9:29 &amp; 12:15, and also in 13:22 where he credited with having composed a <i>&quot;Midrash&quot;</i>) arrived from <i>Y'hudah</i> and made the astonishing announcement that one day a descendant of King <i>David</i> by the name of <i>Yoshiyyahu</i> would come to the throne of <i>Y'hudah</i> and would defile that idolatrous altar by burning human bones on it (<i>M'lachim Alef</i> 13:2 - this did actually happen 330 years later, as recorded in <i>M'lachim Beit</i> 23:15 and <i>Divrei Ha</i>-<i>yamim Beit</i> 34:5). However the un-named prophet didn't expect anyone to accept him as a prophet on trust....</p> <table align="center" width="90%"> <tr><td><i>He gave them proof at the same time by saying, &quot;Here is proof that <i>Adonai</i> has spoken [to me]</i> - <i>that altar is going to split in halves and the ashes on it will pour onto the ground!&quot;... and immediately the altar split in halves and the ashes on it poured onto the ground, exactly as the prophet had foretold by God's command</i> (<i>M'lachim Alef</i> 13:3, 5).</td></tr> </table> <p>Now <i>Y'shayahu</i>'s prophetic career had begun more than 40 years before his conversation with <i>Ah&#0803;az</i> in <i>Y'shayahu</i>, ch.7, so he would have been well-known as a prophet in <i>Ah&#0803;az</i>'s reign and must have already established his &quot;prophetic credentials&quot; many years earlier. However, <i>Ah&#0803;az</i> was only in his early twenties at the time of his conversation with the prophet, so this would have happened long before he was born. God and <i>Y'shayahu</i> therefore challenge him to put the prophet to the test, and to demand any proof of his own choosing (a totally unprecedented offer), but the wicked <i>Ah&#0803;az</i> refuses even to give <i>Y'shayahu</i> a <i>chance</i> to prove himself a true prophet (rather like those christians who will reject an article like this one as &quot;wrong&quot; without even <i>reading</i> it)...</p> <table align="center" width="90%"> <tr><td><i>So <i>Adonai</i> spoke to <i>Ah&#0803;az</i> yet again, and said: &quot;Choose a 'sign' from <i>Adonai</i> your God for yourself: ask anything you like, from the depths [of the ground] below, or from the heights above&quot;. But <i>Ah&#0803;az</i> said, &quot;I will not ask anything</i> - <i>I want nothing to do with your 'test'.&quot;</i> (<i>Y'shayahu</i> 7:10-12)</td></tr> </table> <p>On the face of it, the text looks as though it is God Himself speaking to <i>Ah&#0803;az</i>, but we have already seen in verses 3-4 at the beginning of the chapter that God didn't speak directly to this defiant young idol-worshipper, but instead sent messages to him through <i>Y'shayahu</i>; and it is evident from the language of verse 13 that it is, in fact, the prophet who is speaking here rather than God Himself. Verse 13 gives a rare glimpse into the human side of <i>Y'shayahu</i> <i>the man</i>: his patience exhausted, he gets so angry with the rebellious, defiant young king that he loses his temper with him! In fact, he gets so angry with <i>Ah&#0803;az</i> that he refuses even to call the young king by his given name, and addresses him as &quot;<i>David</i>'s house&quot;....</p> <table align="center" width="90%"> <tr><td><i>&quot;Now listen here, <i>David</i>'s house!&quot;</i> he yells in frustration; <i>&quot;Aren't you satisfied with frustrating me</i> - <i>do you have to frustrate my God too? You are going to have a 'sign', whether you want one or not, and if you won't choose one for yourself, God will choose it for you!&quot;</i><br>(<i>Y'shayahu</i> 7:13-14a)</td></tr> </table> <p>And so, at long last, we come to the &quot;<i>Immanu'él</i> prophecy&quot;. It should be pretty obvious by now that, whatever it was, it had to be something that was going to occur during <i>Ah&#0803;az</i>'s lifetime, or the entire exercise would have been counter-productive: <i>Ah&#0803;az</i> would have gone to his grave in 727 BCE still convinced that <i>Y'shayahu</i> had been a phony, because he had foretold something that had not come about.</p> <p>We have already seen in the first part of this article that the &quot;translation&quot; of <i>Y'shayahu</i> 7:14 that appears in christian bibles is horrendously incorrect. But this is not the only deception worked by the author of the &quot;Matthew&quot; book in 1:22-23. He plays two more dishonest tricks - he quotes the prophet's words completely out of context and, as if that isn't enough, he only quotes a <i>small part</i> of what <i>Y'shayahu</i> actually says to <i>Ah&#0803;az</i>. Here is the <i>whole</i> of the prophecy as it occurs in the Hebrew text, extending from the middle of v.14 to the end of v.16 (the writer of the &quot;Matthew&quot; book quotes only the latter portion of v.14, and doesn't even quote that correctly):</p> <table align="center" width="90%"> <tr><td><i>&quot;See that pregnant girl </i>[pointing to her] - <i>she's about to give birth to a son and she will name him Immanu'él... he will get only soured cream and honey to eat, so that he will learn to refuse 'bad' </i>[<i>food</i>]<i> and choose 'good' </i>[<i>food</i>]<i>, and even before the boy has learned to refuse 'bad' </i>[<i>food</i>]<i> and choose 'good' </i>[<i>food</i>]<i>, the lands whose two kings you dread will be deserted&quot;</i> (<i>Y'shayahu</i> 7:14b-16)</td></tr> </table> <p>The prophecy consists of three separate but connected statements, which all relate to the boy <i>Immanu'él</i>-</p> <ol type=i> <li>a pregnant girl, whom the prophet points out as he speaks, is close to giving birth, and is going to name her child <i>Immanu'él</i> (second half of v.14);</li> <li>the child will be fed only on soured cream and honey, which will teach him to &quot;refuse bad&quot; and &quot;choose good&quot; (v.15); and</li> <li>even <i>before</i> the child has learned to &quot;refuse bad&quot; and &quot;choose good&quot;, both the kings that <i>Ah&#0803;az</i> &quot;dreads&quot; will be gone (v.16).</li> </ol> <p>In the light of <i>Y'shayahu</i> 7:1-2, the &quot;two kings that <i>Ah&#0803;az</i> dreaded&quot; is an obvious reference to <i>R'tzin</i> and <i>Pekah&#0803;</i>. But the reference to the child <i>Immanu'él</i> &quot;refusing bad and choosing good&quot; is not so obvious, however, and is almost universally mistaken for a reference to &quot;good and evil&quot;. While it is certainly true that man's freedom to choose between doing right and doing wrong is a recurring theme throughout the Scriptures, this is not the meaning here. Look at the prophet's exact words and then ask yourself this: does what a baby is given to eat <i>really</i> teach him the difference between right and wrong?</p> <p>Anyone who has ever tried to spoon-feed an infant knows that you can't get a baby to accept something he doesn't like. He will turn his face away from the spoon and, even if you succeed in forcing the stuff into his mouth, he will spit it right out again. Babies learn very quickly &quot;to refuse bad <i>food</i> and choose good <i>food&quot;</i> and this one, the prophet tells <i>Ah&#0803;az</i>, will learn what he likes even more quickly than most, because he will only be fed &quot;soured cream and honey&quot; - babies like sweet things, so it won't take very long at all for <i>&quot;Immanu'él&quot;</i> to realise that honey tastes nice and soured cream doesn't. In other words, the 3-verse prophecy is a very long-winded and somewhat poetic way of saying &quot;it won't be very long before <i>R'tzin</i> and <i>Pekah&#0803;</i> are both gone and you won't have to worry about them any more&quot;. And the prophetic name, <i>Immanu'él</i> - &quot;God is with us&quot;? It's a common christian arrogance to assume that when they read the first person plural &quot;us&quot; in the Scriptures, it includes <i>them</i>, but the Scriptures were actually the words of Hebrew prophets speaking to the Yisraelite nation; and in <i>Y'shayahu</i> 7:14, the prophet is having a private conversation with King <i>Ah&#0803;az</i> of <i>Y'hudah</i> so that, when he said that the child would be given the prophetic name <i>Immanu'él</i>, or &quot;God is with us&quot;, he was speaking about the people of <i>Y'hudah</i>... the child named <i>Immanu'él</i> would serve as a constant reminder to <u><b><i>Ah&#0803;az</i> and his subjects</b></u> of God's promised protection.</p> <p>This, then, was the &quot;sign&quot; that &quot;God Himself chose for <i>Ah&#0803;az</i>&quot; to prove to him that <i>Y'shayahu</i> really was a true prophet. The million-dollar question is, did it happen just as <i>Y'shayahu</i> predicted? <br><br> Yes, it did - <i>and</i> within the time-frame provided by the <i>Immanu'él</i> child, too: <i>Pekah&#0803;</i> was assassinated by <i>Hosh&eacute;'a ben &Eacute;lah</i> in the 4th year of <i>Ah&#0803;az</i>'s reign (<i>M'lachim Beit</i> 15:30), and <i>R'tzin</i> was killed by the Assyrian king Tiglath-Pileser III when the latter ransacked Damascus soon afterwards (<i>M'lachim Beit</i> 16:9). <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><a name="ps"><b>Postscript: &quot;<i>Mah&eacute;r Shalal H&#0803;ash Baz</i>&quot;</b></a></p> <p><i>Y'shayahu</i> again foretells the downfall of <i>R'tzin</i> and <i>Pekah&#0803;</i> at the beginning of chapter 8, once more employing the symbolism of a young child to provide a time-frame for his prediction. The classical Hebrew commentators identify the child symbolically named <font face="sbl hebrew">Þ·Ôµè éÁ¸Ü¸Ü ׸éÁ Ѽ·Ö</font> &quot;<i>Mah&eacute;r Shalal H&#0803;ash Baz</i>&quot; (Plundering&mdash;speed! Looting&mdash;hurry!) that the prophet refers to in 8:3-4 with the child <i>Immanu'él</i> of 7:14-16. The connection between the two children is tenuous, though: the only link is the mother of the <i>Immanu'él</i> child &quot;prophesying&quot; when giving him the prophetic name <i>Immanu'él</i> and the prophet referring to the mother of &quot;<i>Mah&eacute;r Shalal H&#0803;ash Baz</i>&quot; as <font face="sbl hebrew">Է༰ѴÙиÔ</font> <b><i>ha</i>-<i>n'viyah</i></b> (&quot;the prophetess&quot;) in <i>Y'shayahu</i> 8:3. Furthermore, although the two prophecies are superficially similar, in 7:14-16 he foretells the deaths of <i>R'tzin</i> and <i>Pekah&#0803;</i>, while in 8:3-4 he predicts the overthrow of the Aramean capital Damascus and the northern Hebrew kingdom's capital, <i>Shom'ron</i> (&quot;Samaria&quot;) - and although <i>R'tzin</i> was killed when Tiglath-Pileser III sacked Damascus, <i>Shom'ron</i> wasn't overrun until 18 years later [why <i>18 years</i> later? well, as we have already seen, the sack of Damascus and the death of <i>R'tzin</i> occurred in <i>Ah&#0803;az</i>'s 4th year, and <i>Shom'ron</i> was overrun in the 6th of <i>Ah&#0803;az</i>'s son <i>H&#0803;izkiyyahu</i> (<i>M'lachim Beit</i> 18:10) - now, <i>Ah&#0803;az</i> reigned for 16 years (<i>M'lachim Beit</i> 16:2), so <i>H&#0803;izkiyyahu</i>'s 6th was the 22nd year from <i>Ah&#0803;az</i>'s accession; it follows that there was an interval of 18 years from <i>Ah&#0803;az</i>'s 4th, when <i>Pekah&#0803;</i> was assassinated, Damascus was sacked and <i>R'tzin</i> was killed, until <i>H&#0803;izkiyyahu</i>'s 6th, when <i>Shom'ron</i> was overrun]. If <i>&quot;Immanu'él&quot;</i> and &quot;<i>Mah&eacute;r Shalal H&#0803;ash Baz</i>&quot; are the same child, it becomes impossible to reconcile <i>Y'shayahu</i>'s prediction that</p> <table align="center" width="90%"> <tr><td><i>&quot;before the child knows how to call out 'Daddy' or 'Mummy', the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Shom'ron will have been carried off before the Assyrian king&quot;</i> (<i>Y'shayahu</i> 8:4).</td></tr> </table> <p>It is far more likely that <i>Y'shayahu</i> was using the word <font face="sbl hebrew">Է༰ѴÙиÔ</font> <i>ha</i>-<i>n'viyah</i> (&quot;the prophetess&quot;) in 8:3 in the sense of &quot;wife of the prophet&quot; (that is to say, his <i>own</i> wife, since he states explicitly that he had sex with her) rather than implying that she herself had the gift of prophecy, and that &quot;<i>Mah&eacute;r Shalal H&#0803;ash Baz</i>&quot; was a completely different child, born many years after the <i>Immanu'él</i> episode, shortly before <i>Shom'ron</i> was overrun by the Assyrians.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p align="center"><i>See also:</i> <a href="virgin.html" target="_blank"><b>Was the girl &quot;Mary&quot; potrayed in the &quot;gospel&quot; stories a virgin or wasn't she?</b></a></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><hr><font size="2"><i>All the material on this page is entirely original.</p></font> <p align="center"><i><b><font color=RED>Any advertisements appearing below this line are inserted by &quot;tripod&quot;, please IGNORE them</font></b></i></p> </font> </body> </html>