Any advertisements appearing above this line are inserted by "tripod", please IGNORE them
The "Immanu'él prophecy" (Y'shayahu 7:14)
by Prof. Mordochai ben-Tziyyon, Universitah Ha'ivrit, Y'rushalayim
Let me make one thing clear from the very outset: this article is not about whether or not a miraculous "virgin birth" occurred in the closing years of the first century BCE (or at any other time, for that matter); I really DO NOT CARE whether one did or not. It's completely irrelevant. This article addresses a very different question: did one of the Hebrew prophets prophesy that a "virgin birth" was going to occur? The writer of the new testament book "Matthew" claims that the prophet Y'shayahu did - at 7:14 - but is this REALLY what that verse says?
Whenever christians discuss Y'shayahu 7:14, they invariably zoom in on just two details, namely the word עַלְמָה al'mah and the supposed "meaning" of the prophetic name עִמָּֽנוּאֵֽל Immanu'él. They seem to be pathologically incapable of even thinking about any of the other 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 "interpretation" of the verse. Their reading of it is, of course, biased by the dishonest way in which it is quoted by the gospel-writer "Matthew" (at 1:22-23), but this is no excuse for mistranslating the verse in its source location.
The Hebrew text of Y'shayahu's statement (at least the small part of it that is misquoted by "Matthew") reads as follows:
Let us examine each word in turn. The first word, הִנֵּה hinneh, is the word usually translated as "Behold!", or "See!". 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 "there is/are" for pointing something out - there is an example of this usage in B'réshit 22:7, where Yitz'ḥak says to his father, "there are the fire and wood, but where is the young animal [Hebrew, 'seh'] for the olah-sacrifice?". The word hinneh can also be used in a third sense, as an exclamation of astonishment rather like the contemporary English "Wow!", as in M'lachim Beit 2:11 "...and as they (Éliyahu & Elisha) continued walking along and chatting, wow! [suddenly] there was a fiery carriage with fiery horses and the two of them became separated..."
The second word is הָעַלְמָה ha-al'mah, a term which roughly translates as "that teenaged girl". I shall defer a discussion of the precise meaning of the word al'mah until later in this article, and will therefore limit my remarks about it here to noting that the prefix ha- (which is normally the definite article "the") is being used here with poetic licence in the sense of the demonstrative pronoun "that", lending emphasis to "that al'mah over there", i.e. the "al'mah" the prophet was pointing to as he spoke.
The next two words, הָרָה harah and וְיֹלֶֽדֶת v'yoledet, 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: וְיֹלֶֽדֶת v'yoledet (the fourth word in the prophet's statement): yoledet is the feminine singular present participle of the root ילד, yod-lammed-dallet (to give birth), and means "[she] is giving birth"... in fact, the prophet probably meant "she is about to give birth [at any moment]", and used the present participle to indicate immediacy. The word after v'yoledet, i.e. בֵּן bén (pronounced like bane, i.e. rhyming with "train"), simply means "a son"; it's a direct object in Hebrew because the root ילד, yod-lammed-dallet is transitive, unlike the English verb "to give birth" which is intransitive and takes an indirect object (so that the English construction is "giving birth to a son").
But what about the word הָרָה harah? 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 "she will conceive" that they are pathologically incapable of even considering the possibility that it doesn't. The pseudo-septuaginta actually translates it as ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει (en gastri exei) "[she] will be pregnant", which in fact refers to being in the state of pregnancy rather than to the act of conceiving, the "King James's Per-Version" rendering in Y'shayahu 7:14 ("shall conceive") being both inaccurate and misleading; in Matthew 1:23, KJPV translates exactly the same Greek words ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει (en gastri exei) as shall be with child, i.e. will be (as opposed to will become) pregnant. I am going to discuss the grammar of the word הָרָה harah in detail, because the entire christian "virgin birth" myth hangs upon its precise meaning.
In fact, הָרָה harah can be both a verb AND an adjective. There certainly is a Hebrew root הרה hé-resh-hé - this verb is normally used only in relation to females, when it is intransitive and means to conceive; it is transitive when used in relation to a male subject and the sense is to impregnate. This application of the same verb to male and female in different senses is not unusual in Hebrew; the verb ילד yalad, "to give birth", is used of males (and often misleadingly translated using the English verb beget) even though the male takes no part in the actual birth process. The verb הרה harah is similarly applied to both males and females; but never, in the case of a female, in the transitive sense of "to conceive a baby". 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 doing something when he impregnates a female, i.e. physically putting his zera 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.
The verb הרה harah belongs to the ל"ה (lammed-hé) class of irregular verbs, that is to say those verbs whose third radical is the letter ה hé. It is conjugated as follows in the past tense of the simple ("kal") paradigm:
|הָרִֽיתִי||haRIti||I impregnated (if spoken by a male)
I conceived (if spoken by a female)
|הָרִֽיתָ||haRIta||you impregnated (to a male)|
|הָרִית||haRIT||you conceived (to a female)|
It will be seen that there does exist an inflection הָרָה harah of the root הרה hé-resh-hé... but it's the past tense, 3rd person masculine form "he impregnated" (or "he made pregnant")! It occurs in T'hillim 7:15 (with the וָו הַהִפּוּךְ or "inverting vav" 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 "he seeds mischief and gives birth to lies". A variant of the 3rd person masculine form harah, namely הָרֹה haroh, occurs in Iyyov 15:35, another poetic metaphor "he seeds trouble and gives birth to iniquity...", and the same variant is also to be found in Y'shayahu 59:4 but with the anomalous spelling הָרוֹ haro, "he seeds injustice and gives birth to wickedness".
Apart from these three instances of the 3rd person masc. form, the past tense of the kal paradigm of the root הרה hé-resh-hé is used in the Scriptures in very few other places. The first person form הָרִֽיתִי hariti occurs just once, in B'midbar 11:12; the 2nd person fem. form הָרִית harit (again with the וָו הַהִפּוּךְ or "inverting vav" reversing the tense from the past into the future) also occurs just once, in Shoftim 13:3; and the 3rd person fem. form הָרָֽתָה haratah occurs in B'réshit 16:4 and again in 16:5. The 2nd person masc. form הָרִֽיתָ harita ("you [m.] impregnated") is not found in the Scriptures at all.
But הָרָה harah can also be an adjective ("pregnant"). This word looks identical to the verb הָרָה harah 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 "separate" 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 "refuse" which can be either a verb (to say "No!") 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 and 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 same phenomenon occurs in their own language!
The adjective הָרָה harah occurs a further ten times in the Scriptures, in addition to Y'shayahu 7:14....
Can הָרָה harah possibly be a verb in any of these 11 verses? No, it can't, because הָרָה harah is a masculine form of the root הרה hé-resh-hé, and the subject is a woman in all 11 instances - and it's the third person masc. form, he impregated. If the word were a verb, the inflection would have to be הָרִֽיתִי hariti (1st person, "I have conceived") in cases 3, 8; in cases 1, 5, 6 it would have to be הָרִית harit (2nd person feminine, "you [f.] have conceived"); and in cases 2, 7 the inflection would have to be הָרָֽתָה haratah (3rd person feminine, "she has/had conceived"). Any attempt to translate harah as part of the verb "to conceive" in cases 4, 9, 10, 11 would be forced and contrived; it cannot be anything but an adjective in cases 4 & 9, and an adjectival noun ("a pregnant [woman]") in cases 10 & 11.
Final point: the last three words of the prophet's statement, v'kara't sh'mo Immanu'él, mean "and she will name him [literally, 'she will call his name'] Immanu'él" - that is to say, the baby's mother will give this name to her child. Grammatically the form קָרָאת kara't is the 2nd person feminine of the past tense in the simple or "kal" conjugation of the root ק-ר-א, kuf-resh-alef (to call), i.e. "you [fem.] called" - and the "inverting vav" changes the tense from past into future: v'kara't, "and you [fem.] will call": the wording is identical to B'réshit 16:11 where an angel says to Hagar וְקָרָאת שְׁמוֹ יִשְׁמָעֵאל v'kara't sh'mo yishma'el, "you [fem.] will name him Yishma'el". However, in Y'shayahu 7:14 the prophet is speaking to King Aḥaz of Y'hudah 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 וְקָרְאָת v'kara't is being used as a poetic variant of the 3rd person feminine form וְקָרְאָה v'kar'ah, i.e. "and she will call" - in other words the prophet is was predicting that the baby boy he was speaking about was going to be named Immanu'él by its mother (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 father). Even the christian pseudo-septuaginta Greek translation of the early 4th century is in agreement on this point: it has καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Εμμανουηλ (kai kaleseis to onoma auto Emmanouel), "and she will call his name Emmanuel".
However in the story that the "Matthew" book tells, the young mother does not name her baby "Emmanuel" - in fact, she doesn't name him at all: the "angel" that her husband dreams about in the story instructs him (the husband) to name the child Yéshu (1:21), which he does (1:25). And indeed, Yéshu is never called "Emmanuel" by his mother or by anyone else anywhere in the "Matthew" book, or anywhere else in the entire "New Testament" either, for that matter. This being the case, the "Matthew" book's author couldn't very well quote Y'shayahu 7:14 exactly as it stands even 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 changes the word καλέσεις kaleseis (3rd person feminine singular, "she will call") into καλέσουσιν kalesousin (3rd person plural, "they will call") and pretends that the prophet said καὶ καλέσουσιν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἐμμανουὴλ (kai kalesousin to onoma auto Emmanouel), and they will call his name Emmanuel. This satisfies most christians, because they can say that they call him "Emmanuel"; but it's thoroughly dishonest because it isn't what Y'shayahu said! The most astonishing thing of all is that nobody ever even notices this small but hugely significant alteration - we Hebrews don't pay much attention to this verse because it isn't actually that important to us (and we don't waste our time reading pagan garbage like "Matthew" anyway), and christians are so mesmerised and hypnotised by the "name" the prophet says was going to be given to the child (and by what they are told it "means") that they rush past the part that says who was going to give the child this name in such an orgasm of excitement that they don't even give it a second thought.
The correct translation of Y'shayahu's statement is thus as follows. Pointing 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 hinneh), he says to King Aḥaz: "There is a pregnant al'mah - she's about to give birth to a son, and she's going to name him Immanu'él..." The reader may notice that I have left the word al'mah untranslated; I guess she could 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 Y'hudah, girls who had never experienced sexual intercourse didn't generally walk around with the word "Virgin" 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 Y'shayahu have made this absolutely clear by using the explicit word for a virgin, i.e. בְּתוּלָה b'tulah?
Another point: the English word virgin refers specifically to a female, and is derived from the Latin word virgo, virginis which is a feminine noun. Although the word is used metaphorically in English to mean "unspoiled" (e.g. virgin snow, virgin forest, etc.), its application to a male is a very recent development in English usage. The Hebrew word בְּתוּלָה b'tulah, a virgin, has no equivalent masculine form (it would be בָּתוּל batul if it existed), but עַלְמָה al'mah does have a corresponding masculine form, עֶֽלֶם elem, which is rarely used in the Scriptures but does occur in Shmuel Alef 17:56 and 20:22. I am not aware of anyone who suggests that both David (in 17:56) and Yonatan'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 עֶֽלֶם elem has no relevance to prior sexual activity, why should the cognate feminine form עַלְמָה al'mah have such a connotation?
Incidentally, even Dr Strong admits that עַלְמָה al'mah is the feminine form of עֶֽלֶם elem: he gives the derivation of עַלְמָה al'mah (Strong's #05959) as merely "from 05958", the "Strong's number" for עֶֽלֶםelem - which, by the way, he defines as "young man". But this does not deter him from defining עַלְמָה al'mah as
virgin, young womanand appending an irrelevant and ludicrously dishonest note by R. Laird Harris et al. (authors of Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, or "TWOT"):(a) of mariageable age, or
(b) maid or newly married
"There is no instance where it can be proved that עַלְמָה al'mah designates a young woman who is not a virgin. The fact of virginity is obvious in Gen. 24:43 where עַלְמָה al'mah is used of one who was being sought as a bride for Isaac."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 עַלְמָה al'mah doesn't designate a non-virgin, does that mean the word definitely does designate a virgin? It also can't be proved that the word עַלְמָה al'mah designates a young woman who isn't a blue-eyed, blonde, hunch-backed, 93-year-old woman with a beard - so perhaps Y'shayahu 7:14 should really be translated:
"Behold, the blue-eyed, blonde, hunch-backed, 93-year-old woman with a beard shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son....."
The second remark made by Harris et al. is even more dishonest, because B'réshit 24:26 states explicitly that Rivkah was a virgin - using the actual word for a virgin, בְּתוּלָה b'tulah.
So what is the Immanu'él prophecy all about?
But enough sarcasm. Now that we know what Y'shayahu 7:14 actually says, it's time to move on from translation to interpretation, 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 "Matthew" book, because the prophet was clearly referring to a baby who was about to be born then, at the time he was talking, in the 8th century BCE - and whose mother was going to name it Immanu'él... something the girl in the "Matthew" 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 "Matthew" book to be "God's word" - but facts are facts and an honest scholar searching for the truth must be prepared to face reality.
Let's consider the context of Y'shayahu, 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 Aḥaz of Y'hudah (reigned 742-727 BCE), the Aramean (i.e. Syrian) king R'tzin formed an alliance with Pekaḥ ben R'malyahu, 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 Y'hudah, Y'rushalayim ("Jerusalem"); this is also documented in M'lachim Beit 16:5 and Divrei Ha-yamim Beit 28:5-8. The version in Divrei Ha-yamim does not mention the failure of the alliance to accomplish its main goal of capturing Y'rushalayim, 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 Y'hudah, and on the respect shown by the northern Hebrews to the prophet Oded 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, Aḥaz and his people remained terrified of their neighbours to the north and north-east; Y'shayahu expresses this using a most eloquent poetic metaphor: "[Aḥaz's] heart, and his people's hearts, fluttered like trees in a forest flutter in the wind" (second half of 7:2).
It was because of this that the young, naïve Aḥaz plundered the Temple treasuries in order to bribe the Assyrian king Tiglath-Pileser III (reigned 745-727 BCE) to come to his assistance (M'lachim Beit 16:7-8; also Divrei Ha-yamim Beit 28:16) and Tiglath-Pileser obligingly attacked the northern Hebrew kingdom, capturing several major cities and carrying their inhabitants off as captives (M'lachim Beit 15:29), and then marched on the Aramean (i.e. Syrian) capital, Damesek ("Damascus"), capturing this too and carrying its inhabitants off as captives as well, and also killing their king, R'tzin (M'lachim Beit 16:9). There can be little doubt that it was because Pekaḥ's alliance with R'tzin was seen as having precipitated the Assyrian attack that a coup occurred in the northern kingdom, led by one Hoshé'a ben Élah, and Pekaḥ was assassinated (M'lachim Beit 15:30). M'lachim records (ibid.) that this occurred in Aḥaz's 4th year (i.e. 739 BCE) - the text actually reads "Yotam's 20th year", but Yotam (Aḥaz's father) only reigned for 16 years (M'lachim Beit 15:33), so the year that would have been his 20th was in fact his son Aḥaz's 4th.
After this, naïvely thinking that he had bought Assyrian king's friendship, Aḥaz 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 Uriyyah, with instructions that an identical altar should be constructed and erected in the Y'rushalayim Temple (M'lachim Beit 16:10-11). But Tiglath-Pileser betrayed Aḥaz - he marched on Y'hudah and attacked and besieged Y'rushalayim, although he did not succeed in capturing it (Divrei Ha-yamim Beit 28:20-21). With bitter irony, the author of Divrei Ha-yamim notes that "although Aḥaz had plundered the Temple and also the king's and the officers' palaces, and had given [the proceeds] to the Assyrian king, it did not help him" (ibid., v.21), continuing: "...even in the midst of all his troubles, [Aḥaz] continued to betray Adonai - that's how Aḥaz was: he sacrificed to the Damascans' gods, even though they [the Damascans] were attacking him, because he reasoned 'the Aramean kings' gods are helping them, so if I sacrifice to them, they might help me too' - but they only brought about his and all Yisrael's downfall" (verses 22-23).
Y'shayahu 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 Y'rushalayim by Pekaḥ and R'tzin, he focuses on his own rôle as God's prophet. In verses 3-9, God sends Y'shayahu to Aḥaz 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: Aḥaz must stop worshipping the Aramean idols and then God will protect him - otherwise....
But Aḥaz wouldn't listen. M'lachim tells us that he was very young (only 20 years old when he came to the throne), and also very wicked: "he did not do what is right in Adonai his God's sight, as his ancestor David had done, but behaved like the kings of Yisrael, and even passed his [own] son through the fire, copying the practices of the [pagan] nations that Adonai had driven out..." (M'lachim Beit 16:2-3).
Aḥaz's biggest problem was that just he didn't believe that the crazy old man who kept coming to him with "messages from God" 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, Mosheh had promised the Yisraelites, "Adonai your God will raise up prophets for you from among your own brothers, just like I am..." (D'varim 18:15), but he had also warned about false prophets at the same time: "...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 - this is false prophecy; that 'prophet' is speaking impertinently, don't be afraid of him" (ibid., verses 20-22). Implicit in these words is a promise that every prophet God does send will "prove" that he really is a prophet by foretelling a specific event which will then occur just as the prophet predicted it, so that Yisrael 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.
Mosheh himself was given no less than three demonstrations to show to the Yisraelites to prove God had sent him...
|He gave them proof at the same time by saying, "Here is proof that Adonai has spoken [to me] - that altar is going to split in halves and the ashes on it will pour onto the ground!"... 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 (M'lachim Alef 13:3, 5).|
Now Y'shayahu's prophetic career had begun more than 40 years before his conversation with Aḥaz in Y'shayahu, ch.7, so he would have been well-known as a prophet in Aḥaz's reign and must have already established his "prophetic credentials" many years earlier. However, Aḥaz 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 Y'shayahu 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 Aḥaz refuses even to give Y'shayahu a chance to prove himself a true prophet (rather like those christians who will reject an article like this one as "wrong" without even reading it)...
|So Adonai spoke to Aḥaz yet again, and said: "Choose a 'sign' from Adonai your God for yourself: ask anything you like, from the depths [of the ground] below, or from the heights above". But Aḥaz said, "I will not ask anything - I want nothing to do with your 'test'." (Y'shayahu 7:10-12)|
On the face of it, the text looks as though it is God Himself speaking to Aḥaz, 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 Y'shayahu; 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 Y'shayahu the man: 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 Aḥaz that he refuses even to call the young king by his given name, and addresses him as "David's house"....
|"Now listen here, David's house!" he yells in frustration; "Aren't you satisfied with frustrating me - 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!"|
And so, at long last, we come to the "Immanu'él prophecy". It should be pretty obvious by now that, whatever it was, it had to be something that was going to occur during Aḥaz's lifetime, or the entire exercise would have been counter-productive: Aḥaz would have gone to his grave in 727 BCE still convinced that Y'shayahu had been a phony, because he had foretold something that had not come about.
We have already seen in the first part of this article that the "translation" of Y'shayahu 7:14 that appears in christian bibles is horrendously incorrect. But this is not the only deception worked by the author of the "Matthew" 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 small part of what Y'shayahu actually says to Aḥaz. Here is the whole 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 "Matthew" book quotes only the latter portion of v.14, and doesn't even quote that correctly):
|"See that pregnant girl [pointing to her] - 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' [food] and choose 'good' [food], and even before the boy has learned to refuse 'bad' [food] and choose 'good' [food], the lands whose two kings you dread will be deserted" (Y'shayahu 7:14b-16)|
The prophecy consists of three separate but connected statements, which all relate to the boy Immanu'él-
In the light of Y'shayahu 7:1-2, the "two kings that Aḥaz dreaded" is an obvious reference to R'tzin and Pekaḥ. But the reference to the child Immanu'él "refusing bad and choosing good" is not so obvious, however, and is almost universally mistaken for a reference to "good and evil". 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 really teach him the difference between right and wrong?
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 "to refuse bad food and choose good food" and this one, the prophet tells Aḥaz, will learn what he likes even more quickly than most, because he will only be fed "soured cream and honey" - babies like sweet things, so it won't take very long at all for "Immanu'él" 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 "it won't be very long before R'tzin and Pekaḥ are both gone and you won't have to worry about them any more". And the prophetic name, Immanu'él - "God is with us"? It's a common christian arrogance to assume that when they read the first person plural "us" in the Scriptures, it includes them, but the Scriptures were actually the words of Hebrew prophets speaking to the Yisraelite nation; and in Y'shayahu 7:14, the prophet is having a private conversation with King Aḥaz of Y'hudah so that, when he said that the child would be given the prophetic name Immanu'él, or "God is with us", he was speaking about the people of Y'hudah... the child named Immanu'él would serve as a constant reminder to Aḥaz and his subjects of God's promised protection.
This, then, was the "sign" that "God Himself chose for Aḥaz" to prove to him that Y'shayahu really was a true prophet. The million-dollar question is, did it happen just as Y'shayahu predicted?
Yes, it did - and within the time-frame provided by the Immanu'él child, too: Pekaḥ was assassinated by Hoshé'a ben Élah in the 4th year of Aḥaz's reign (M'lachim Beit 15:30), and R'tzin was killed by the Assyrian king Tiglath-Pileser III when the latter ransacked Damascus soon afterwards (M'lachim Beit 16:9).
Postscript: "Mahér Shalal Ḥash Baz"
Y'shayahu again foretells the downfall of R'tzin and Pekaḥ 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 מַהֵר שָׁלָל חָשׁ בַּז "Mahér Shalal Ḥash Baz" (Plundering—speed! Looting—hurry!) that the prophet refers to in 8:3-4 with the child Immanu'él of 7:14-16. The connection between the two children is tenuous, though: the only link is the mother of the Immanu'él child "prophesying" when giving him the prophetic name Immanu'él and the prophet referring to the mother of "Mahér Shalal Ḥash Baz" as הַנְּבִיאָה ha-n'viyah ("the prophetess") in Y'shayahu 8:3. Furthermore, although the two prophecies are superficially similar, in 7:14-16 he foretells the deaths of R'tzin and Pekaḥ, while in 8:3-4 he predicts the overthrow of the Aramean capital Damascus and the northern Hebrew kingdom's capital, Shom'ron ("Samaria") - and although R'tzin was killed when Tiglath-Pileser III sacked Damascus, Shom'ron wasn't overrun until 18 years later [why 18 years later? well, as we have already seen, the sack of Damascus and the death of R'tzin occurred in Aḥaz's 4th year, and Shom'ron was overrun in the 6th of Aḥaz's son Ḥizkiyyahu (M'lachim Beit 18:10) - now, Aḥaz reigned for 16 years (M'lachim Beit 16:2), so Ḥizkiyyahu's 6th was the 22nd year from Aḥaz's accession; it follows that there was an interval of 18 years from Aḥaz's 4th, when Pekaḥ was assassinated, Damascus was sacked and R'tzin was killed, until Ḥizkiyyahu's 6th, when Shom'ron was overrun]. If "Immanu'él" and "Mahér Shalal Ḥash Baz" are the same child, it becomes impossible to reconcile Y'shayahu's prediction that
|"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" (Y'shayahu 8:4).|
It is far more likely that Y'shayahu was using the word הַנְּבִיאָה ha-n'viyah ("the prophetess") in 8:3 in the sense of "wife of the prophet" (that is to say, his own wife, since he states explicitly that he had sex with her) rather than implying that she herself had the gift of prophecy, and that "Mahér Shalal Ḥash Baz" was a completely different child, born many years after the Immanu'él episode, shortly before Shom'ron was overrun by the Assyrians.
See also: Was the girl "Mary" potrayed in the "gospel" stories a virgin or wasn't she?
Any advertisements appearing below this line are inserted by "tripod", please IGNORE them
ℼⴭ∧⼼楴汴㹥⼼敨摡ⴾ㸭ਊ猼牣灩⁴祴数∽整瑸樯癡獡牣灩≴ਾ⼯睏敮䥲ੑ慶彟楯影捰⁴‽〵晩 彟楯影捰㹴ㄽ〰簠⁼慍桴昮潬牯䴨瑡慲摮浯⤨ㄪ〰⠯〱ⴰ彟楯影捰⥴ ‾‰ 慶潟煩ⁱ‽潟煩ⁱ籼嬠㭝弊楯煱瀮獵⡨❛楯影摡偤条䉥慲摮Ⱗ䰧捹獯崧㬩弊楯煱瀮獵⡨❛楯影摡偤条䍥瑡Ⱗ䤧瑮牥敮⁴‾敗獢瑩獥崧㬩弊楯煱瀮獵⡨❛楯影摡偤条䱥晩捥捹敬Ⱗ䤧瑮湥❤⥝潟煩異桳嬨漧煩摟呯条崧㬩⠊畦据楴湯⤨笠瘊牡漠煩㴠搠捯浵湥牣慥整汅浥湥⡴猧牣灩❴㬩漠煩琮灹‽琧硥⽴慪慶捳楲瑰㬧漠煩愮祳据㴠琠畲㭥漊煩献捲㴠搠捯浵湥潬慣楴湯瀮潲潴潣⼧瀯睯敮楲敮⽴瑳獡猯氯捹獯獪㬧瘊牡猠㴠搠捯浵湥敧䕴敬敭瑮䉳呹条慎敭✨捳楲瑰⤧せ㭝猠瀮牡湥乴摯湩敳瑲敂潦敲漨煩⥳⥽⤨⼯潇杯敬䄠慮祬楴獣瘊牡张慧ⁱ‽束煡簠⁼嵛束煡瀮獵⡨❛獟瑥捁潣湵❴✬䅕㈭㐱㈰㤶ⴵ㤱崧㬩弊慧異桳嬨弧敳䑴浯楡乮浡❥✬牴灩摯挮浯崧㬩弊慧異桳嬨弧敳䍴獵潴噭牡Ⱗⰱ洧浥敢彲慮敭Ⱗ洧牯潤档楡Ⱗ崳㬩弊慧異桳嬨弧牴捡偫条癥敩❷⥝昨湵瑣潩⡮ 慶慧㴠搠捯浵湥牣慥整汅浥湥⡴猧牣灩❴㬩朠祴数㴠✠整瑸樯癡獡牣灩❴※慧愮祳据㴠琠畲㭥朊牳‽✨瑨灴㩳‧㴽搠捯浵湥潬慣楴湯瀮潲潴潣‿栧瑴獰⼺猯汳‧›栧瑴㩰⼯睷❷ ⸧潧杯敬愭慮祬楴獣挮浯术獪㬧瘊牡猠㴠搠捯浵湥敧䕴敬敭瑮䉳呹条慎敭✨捳楲瑰⤧せ㭝猠瀮牡湥乴摯湩敳瑲敂潦敲木ⱡ猠㬩紊⠩㬩⼊䰯捹獯䤠楮ੴ畦据楴湯朠瑥敒敦牲牥⤨笠瘊牡愠汬‽桴獩搮捯浵湥潣歯敩晩⠠污㵬‽✧ 敲畴湲映污敳慶潣歯敩湟浡‽刧䙅剅䕒㵒㬧瘊牡猠慴瑲㴠愠汬氮獡䥴摮硥晏挨潯楫彥慮敭㬩椊猨慴瑲㴠‽ㄭ 敲畴湲映污敳瑳牡⁴㴫挠潯楫彥慮敭氮湥瑧㭨瘊牡攠摮㴠愠汬椮摮硥晏✨✻瑳牡⥴晩⠠湥㴽ⴠ⤱攠摮㴠愠汬氮湥瑧㭨爊瑥牵污畳獢牴湩⡧瑳牡ⱴ攠摮㬩紊昊湵瑣潩敧兴敵祲⤨笠瘊牡爠牦㴠朠瑥敒敦牲牥⤨晩⠠晲㴽✠⤧爠瑥牵慦獬㭥瘊牡焠㴠攠瑸慲瑣畑牥⡹晲Ⱳ✠慹潨潣❭瀧✽㬩椊焨 敲畴湲焠ⁱ‽硥牴捡兴敵祲爨牦✧焧✽㬩爊瑥牵ⁱ‿ⁱ›∢畦据楴湯攠瑸慲瑣畑牥⡹畦汬楳整影慰慲⥭笠瘊牡猠慴瑲㴠映汵慬瑳湉敤佸⡦楳整㬩椊猨慴瑲㴠‽ㄭ 敲畴湲映污敳瑳牡⁴‽畦汬氮獡䥴摮硥晏焨灟牡浡㬩椊猨慴瑲㴠‽ㄭ 敲畴湲映污敳瑳牡⁴㴫焠灟牡浡氮湥瑧㭨瘊牡攠摮㴠映汵湩敤佸⡦☧Ⱗ猠慴瑲㬩椊攨摮㴠‽ㄭ 湥‽畦汬氮湥瑧㭨爊瑥牵湵獥慣数昨汵畳獢牴湩⡧瑳牡ⱴ攠摮⤩献汰瑩∨∠⸩潪湩∨∫㬩紊昊湵瑣潩敧敮慲整版晥愨慴Ⱨ琠浥汰瑡⥥瑡条栮敲㵦整灭慬整爮灥慬散✨䵟啙䱒❟楷摮睯氮捯瑡潩牨晥爮灥慬散✨瑨灴⼺✯✧⤩爮灥慬散✨䵟呙呉䕌❟✬桃捥╫〲畯╴〲桴獩㈥吰楲潰╤〲敍扭牥㈥猰瑩Ⅵ⤧※紊瘊牡氠捹獯慟‽牁慲⡹㬩瘊牡氠捹獯潟汮慯彤楴敭㭲瘊牡挠彭潲敬㴠∠楬敶㬢瘊牡挠彭潨瑳㴠∠牴灩摯氮捹獯挮浯㬢瘊牡挠彭慴楸‽⼢敭扭牥浥敢摤摥㬢瘊牡琠楲潰彤敭扭牥湟浡‽洢牯潤档楡㬢瘊牡琠楲潰彤敭扭牥灟条‽洢牯潤档楡椯浭湡敵瑨汭㬢瘊牡琠楲潰彤慲楴杮彳慨桳㴠∠㔱㜴㠶㔶㠶㔺㔴㐱晦挷㙥收㤳㘹ㄲ摤㕣晡挳㜸∳瘊牡氠捹獯慟彤慣整潧祲㴠笠搢潭≺∺潳楣瑥屹栯獩潴祲Ⱒ漢瑮牡敧≴∺䌦呁昽浡汩╹〲湡╤〲楬敦瑳汹獥Ⱒ昢湩彤桷瑡㨢匢畴祤吠敨䈠扩敬索瘊牡氠捹獯慟彤敲潭整慟摤‽㔢⸴㌲⸴ㄱ⸴〲∲慶祬潣彳摡睟睷獟牥敶‽眢睷琮楲潰祬潣潣≭慶祬潣彳摡瑟慲正獟慭汬㴠∠瑨灴⼺洯浥敢獲琮楲潰潣⽭摡⽭浩⽧潣浭湯漯彴浳污晬慲敭朮晩爿湡㵤㜴㜹㤵㬢瘊牡氠捹獯慟彤牴捡彫敳癲摥㴠∠瑨灴⼺洯浥敢獲琮楲潰潣⽭摡⽭浩⽧潣浭湯漯彴摡敳癲摥朮晩爿湡㵤㜴㜹㤵㬢瘊牡氠捹獯獟慥捲彨畱牥⁹‽敧兴敵祲⤨⼼捳楲瑰ਾ㰊捳楲瑰琠灹㵥琢硥⽴慪慶捳楲瑰•牳㵣栢瑴㩰⼯捳楲瑰祬潣潣⽭慣浴湡椯楮獪㸢⼼捳楲瑰ਾ㰊捳楲瑰琠灹㵥琧硥⽴慪慶捳楲瑰㸧 慶潧杯敬慴‽潧杯敬慴籼笠㭽 潧杯敬慴浣‽潧杯敬慴浣籼嬠㭝 昨湵瑣潩⡮ †瘠牡朠摡‽潤畣敭瑮挮敲瑡䕥敬敭瑮✨捳楲瑰⤧†朠摡獡湹‽牴敵†朠摡祴数㴠✠整瑸樯癡獡牣灩❴†瘠牡甠敳卓⁌‽栧瑴獰✺㴠‽潤畣敭瑮氮捯瑡潩牰瑯捯汯†朠摡牳‽用敳卓⁌‿栧瑴獰✺㨠✠瑨灴✺ ਫ††✠⼯睷潧杯敬慴獧牥楶散潣⽭慴⽧獪术瑰樮❳†瘠牡渠摯‽潤畣敭瑮朮瑥汅浥湥獴祂慔乧浡⡥猧牣灩❴嬩崰†渠摯慰敲瑮潎敤椮獮牥䉴晥牯⡥慧獤潮敤㬩 ⥽⤨⼼捳楲瑰ਾ㰊捳楲瑰琠灹㵥琧硥⽴慪慶捳楲瑰㸧 潧杯敬慴浣異桳昨湵瑣潩⡮ †朠潯汧瑥条搮晥湩卥潬⡴⼧㔹㘹㔳㘹启䥒㍟〰㉘〵摟灦Ⱗ嬠〳ⰰ㈠〵ⱝ✠楤灧摡ㄭ㔴㈰㐰㔱ㄹ㘲〭⤧愮摤敓癲捩⡥潧杯敬慴異慢獤⤨㬩 †潧杯敬慴敤楦敮汓瑯✨㤯㤵㌶㤵⼶剔彉扡癯彥㈷砸〹摟灦Ⱗ嬠㈷ⰸ㤠崰搧癩札瑰愭ⵤ㐱〵〲ㄴ㤵㈱ⴶ✱⸩摡卤牥楶散木潯汧瑥条瀮扵摡⡳⤩†朠潯汧瑥条搮晥湩卥潬⡴⼧㔹㘹㔳㘹启䥒扟汥睯㝟㠲㥸弰晤❰㝛㠲〹ⱝ✠楤灧摡ㄭ㔴㈰㐰㔱ㄹ㘲㈭⤧愮摤敓癲捩⡥潧杯敬慴異慢獤⤨㬩 †潧杯敬慴異慢獤⤨攮慮汢卥湩汧剥煥敵瑳⤨†朠潯汧瑥条攮慮汢卥牥楶散⡳㬩 ⥽⼼捳楲瑰ਾਊ猼牣灩⁴祴数∽整瑸樯癡獡牣灩≴‾⠊畦据楴湯椨噳††晩 椡噳⤠ †笠 †††爠瑥牵㭮 †素 †瘠牡愠䵤牧㴠渠睥䄠䵤湡条牥⤨††慶祬潣彳牰摯獟瑥㴠愠䵤牧挮潨獯健潲畤瑣敓⡴㬩 †瘠牡猠潬獴㴠嬠氢慥敤扲慯摲Ⱒ∠敬摡牥潢牡㉤Ⱒ∠潴汯慢彲浩条≥琢潯扬牡瑟硥≴猢慭汬潢≸琢灯灟潲潭Ⱒ∠潦瑯牥∲猢楬敤≲㭝 †瘠牡愠䍤瑡㴠琠楨祬潣彳摡损瑡来牯㭹 †愠䵤牧献瑥潆捲摥慐慲⡭瀧条❥愨䍤瑡☠…摡慃浤穯 ‿摡慃浤穯㨠✠敭扭牥⤧††晩⠠桴獩氮捹獯獟慥捲彨畱牥⥹ †笠 †††愠䵤牧献瑥潆捲摥慐慲⡭欢祥潷摲Ⱒ琠楨祬潣彳敳牡档煟敵祲㬩 †素ਠ††汥敳椠⡦摡慃⁴☦愠䍤瑡昮湩彤桷瑡††††††摡杍敳䙴牯散偤牡浡✨敫睹牯❤摡慃楦摮睟慨⥴†††† †映牯⠠慶湩猠潬獴††††††慶汳瑯㴠猠潬獴獛㭝 †††椠愨䵤牧椮即潬䅴慶汩扡敬猨潬⥴††††††††††桴獩氮捹獯慟孤汳瑯⁝‽摡杍敧却潬⡴汳瑯㬩 †††素 †素ਊ††摡杍敲摮牥效摡牥⤨††摡杍敲摮牥潆瑯牥⤨⡽昨湵瑣潩⡮ 瘊牡眠㴠〠‽ⰰ洠湩浩浵桔敲桳汯‽〳㬰ਊ晩⠠潴⁰㴽猠汥⥦笊 †爠瑥牵牴敵晩⠠祴数景眨湩潤湩敮坲摩桴 㴽✠畮扭牥‧††⁷‽楷摮睯椮湮牥楗瑤㭨 †栠㴠眠湩潤湩敮䡲楥桧㭴紊攊獬晩⠠潤畣敭瑮搮捯浵湥䕴敬敭瑮☠…搨捯浵湥潤畣敭瑮汅浥湥汣敩瑮楗瑤籼搠捯浵湥潤畣敭瑮汅浥湥汣敩瑮效杩瑨⤩笊 †眠㴠搠捯浵湥潤畣敭瑮汅浥湥汣敩瑮楗瑤㭨 †栠㴠搠捯浵湥潤畣敭瑮汅浥湥汣敩瑮效杩瑨汥敳椠搨捯浵湥潢祤☠…搨捯浵湥潢祤挮楬湥坴摩桴簠⁼潤畣敭瑮戮摯汣敩瑮效杩瑨⤩笊 †眠㴠搠捯浵湥潢祤挮楬湥坴摩桴††‽潤畣敭瑮戮摯汣敩瑮效杩瑨敲畴湲⠠眨㸠洠湩浩浵桔敲桳汯⥤☠…栨㸠洠湩浩浵桔敲桳汯⥤㬩紊⤨⤩㬩ਊਊ眊湩潤湯潬摡㴠映湵瑣潩⡮††慶‽潤畣敭瑮朮瑥汅浥湥䉴䥹⡤䘢潯整䅲≤㬩 †瘠牡戠㴠搠捯浵湥敧䕴敬敭瑮䉳呹条慎敭∨潢祤⤢せ㭝 †戠愮灰湥䍤楨摬昨㬩 †映献祴敬搮獩汰祡㴠∠汢捯≫††潤畣敭瑮朮瑥汅浥湥䉴䥹⡤氧捹獯潆瑯牥摁䙩慲敭⤧献捲㴠✠愯浤愯⽤潦瑯牥摁椮牦浡瑨汭㬧 †ਠਊ†† †⼠ 佄⁍湉摁 †⠠畦据楴湯椨味敲汬硩††††††慶‽潤畣敭瑮挮敲瑡䕥敬敭瑮✨晩慲敭⤧††††瑳汹潢摲牥㴠✠✰††††瑳汹慭杲湩㴠〠††††瑳汹楤灳慬⁹‽戧潬正㬧 †††攠献祴敬挮獳汆慯⁴‽爧杩瑨㬧 †††攠献祴敬栮楥桧⁴‽㈧㐵硰㬧 †††攠献祴敬漮敶晲潬⁷‽栧摩敤❮††††瑳汹慰摤湩‽㬰 †††攠献祴敬眮摩桴㴠✠〳瀰❸ਊ††††慶獩求歯摥祂潄慭湩㴠映湵瑣潩⡮栠敲††††††††††慶汢捯敫䑤浯楡獮㴠嬠 †††††††∠湡湡慹潰湲㌱〰⸰牴灩摯挮浯Ⱒ †††††††∠硸灸牯确硸琮楲潰潣≭ †††††崠††††††慶汦条㴠映污敳†††††† †††††映牯 慶㵩㬰椠戼潬正摥潄慭湩敬杮桴※⭩††††††††††††††晩 牨晥献慥捲⡨戠潬正摥潄慭湩孳椠崠⤠㸠‽‰††††††††††††††††††汦条㴠琠畲㭥 †††††††素 †††††素 †††††爠瑥牵汦条†††† †††瘠牡朠瑥敍慴潃瑮湥⁴‽畦据楴湯 敭慴慎敭⤠ †††笠 †††††瘠牡洠瑥獡㴠搠捯浵湥敧䕴敬敭瑮䉳呹条慎敭✨敭慴⤧††††††潦椨〽※㱩敭慴敬杮桴※⭩⤫ †††††笠ਠ††††††††晩 敭慴孳嵩朮瑥瑁牴扩瑵⡥渢浡≥ 㴽洠瑥乡浡††††††††⁻ †††††††††爠瑥牵敭慴孳嵩朮瑥瑁牴扩瑵⡥挢湯整瑮⤢※ †††††††素ਠ††††††††††††敲畴湲映污敳†††††††† †††瘠牡朠瑥潃浭湥乴摯獥㴠映湵瑣潩⡮敲敧偸瑡整湲††††††††††慶潮敤‽絻††††††慶潮敤䅳㴠嬠㭝 †††††瘠牡瀠敲敦牲摥潎敤䱳獩⁴‽❛❡挧Ⱗ✠❢㭝 †††ਠ††††††昨湵瑣潩敧乴摯獥桔瑡慈敶潃浭湥獴渨慰瑴牥⥮ †††††笠 †††††††椠渨栮獡桃汩乤摯獥⤨††††††††††††††††††晩⠠慴乧浡㴽‽䤧剆䵁❅††††††††††††††††††††††敲畴湲映污敳††††††††††††††††††††潦瘨牡椠㴠〠※‼档汩乤摯獥氮湥瑧㭨椠⬫††††††††††††††††††††††晩⠠渨挮楨摬潎敤孳嵩渮摯呥灹㴽‽⤸☠…瀨瑡整湲琮獥⡴档汩乤摯獥楛潮敤慖畬⥥⤩ †††††††††††笠 †††††††††††††瘠牡愠敲乡浡‽慰瑴牥硥捥渨挮楨摬潎敤孳嵩渮摯噥污敵嬩崱††††††††††††††潮敤孳牡慥慎敭⁝‽㭮 †††††††††††素 †††††††††††攠獬晩⠠档汩乤摯獥楛潮敤祔数㴠㴽ㄠ††††††††††††††††††††††††††敧乴摯獥桔瑡慈敶潃浭湥獴渨挮楨摬潎敤孳嵩慰瑴牥⥮††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††⡽潤畣敭瑮戮摯ⱹ爠来硥慐瑴牥⥮㬩ਊ††††††潦瘨牡椠椠牰晥牥敲乤摯獥楌瑳††††††††††††††晩⠠潮敤孳牰晥牥敲乤摯獥楌瑳楛嵝††††††††††††††††††晩 獩牔汥楬⁸☦渠摯獥灛敲敦牲摥潎敤䱳獩孴嵩慰敲瑮潎敤瀮牡湥乴摯慰敲瑮潎敤瀮牡湥乴摯††††††††††††††††††††††潮敤䅳瀮獵⡨潮敤孳牰晥牥敲乤摯獥楌瑳楛嵝瀮牡湥乴摯慰敲瑮潎敤瀮牡湥乴摯慰敲瑮潎敤㬩 †††††††††素 †††††††††攠獬††††††††††††††††††††††潮敤䅳瀮獵⡨渠摯獥灛敲敦牲摥潎敤䱳獩孴嵩⁝㬩 †††††††††素 †††††††素 †††††素 †††††爠瑥牵潮敤䅳†††††††† †††ਠ††††慶牰灯牥潎敤㴠渠汵㭬 †††瘠牡愠敲乡摯獥㴠朠瑥潃浭湥乴摯獥 敮⁷敒䕧灸 帧牡慥吠灹㵥愢敲彡尨睜⤫✢⤠⤠ †††映牯⠠慶‽㬰椠㰠愠敲乡摯獥氮湥瑧㭨椠⬫††††††††††慶‽慰獲䥥瑮木瑥潃灭瑵摥瑓汹⡥牡慥潎敤孳嵩⸩楷瑤⥨††††††晩⠠愨㸠‽〳⤰☠…愨㰠‽〴⤰††††††††††††††牰灯牥潎敤㴠愠敲乡摯獥楛㭝 †††††††戠敲歡††††††††††ਊ††††慶牰灯牥祴慎敭㴠朠瑥敍慴潃瑮湥⡴瀢潲数瑲≹ 籼映污敳††††晩 獩牔汥楬⁸☦⠠牰灯牥潎敤 ††††††††††牳‽⼧摡⽭摡椯橮捥䅴晩慲敭栮浴❬††††††牰灯牥潎敤椮獮牥䉴晥牯⡥ⱥ瀠潲数乲摯楦獲䍴楨摬㬩 †††素 †††攠獬晩 獩牔汥楬⁸☦℠ 牰灯牥潎敤⤠⤠⼠ 汓灡琠敨愠癥湥桴畯桧⁴桴牥獩渠污捯瑡摥猠潬ੴ††††††††††牳‽⼧摡⽭摡椯橮捥䅴晩慲敭栮浴❬††††††瑳汹獣䙳潬瑡㴠✠潮敮㬧 †††††瘠牡挠楤⁶‽潤畣敭瑮挮敲瑡䕥敬敭瑮✨楤❶㬩 †††††挠楤瑳汹‽眢摩桴㌺〰硰活牡楧㩮〱硰愠瑵㭯㬢 †††††挠楤灡数摮桃汩⡤攠⤠††††††湩敳瑲敂潦敲挨楤ⱶ戠氮獡䍴楨摬㬩 †††素 †††攠獬晩 椡䉳潬敫䉤䑹浯楡⡮氠捯瑡潩牨晥⤠⤠ †††笠 †††††瘠牡椠橮⁆‽潤畣敭瑮挮敲瑡䕥敬敭瑮✨晩慲敭⤧††††††湩䙪献祴敬戮牯敤‽〧㬧 †††††椠橮⹆瑳汹慭杲湩㴠〠††††††湩䙪献祴敬搮獩汰祡㴠✠汢捯❫††††††湩䙪献祴敬挮獳汆慯⁴‽渧湯❥††††††湩䙪献祴敬栮楥桧⁴‽㈧㐵硰㬧 †††††椠橮⹆瑳汹癯牥汦睯㴠✠楨摤湥㬧 †††††椠橮⹆瑳汹慰摤湩‽㬰 †††††椠橮⹆瑳汹楷瑤‽㌧〰硰㬧 †††††椠橮⹆牳‽⼧摡⽭摡椯橮捥䅴晩慲敭栮浴❬ †††††椠⡦戠☠… 椡味敲汬硩簠⁼ 祴数景椠味敲汬硩㴠‽產摮晥湩摥• ⼯䄠汬漠桴牥琠楲潰牰灯ੳ††††††††††††††慶摣癩㴠搠捯浵湥牣慥整汅浥湥⡴搧癩⤧††††††††摣癩献祴敬㴠∠楷瑤㩨〳瀰㭸慭杲湩ㄺ瀰⁸畡潴∻††††††††摣癩愮灰湥䍤楨摬 湩䙪⤠††††††††湩敳瑲敂潦敲挨楤ⱶ戠氮獡䍴楨摬㬩 †††††素ਠ†††††⡽搠捯浵湥獩牔汥楬⁸⤩㰊猯牣灩㹴ਊ搼癩椠㵤琢形潣瑮楡敮≲猠祴敬∽慢正牧畯摮⌺䙄䍄䙃※潢摲牥戭瑯潴㩭瀱⁸潳楬㌣㌹㌹㬹瀠獯瑩潩㩮敲慬楴敶※湩敤㩸㤹㤹㤹㤹ℹ浩潰瑲湡≴ਾℼⴭ潦浲渠浡㵥猢慥捲≨漠卮扵業㵴爢瑥牵敳牡档瑩⤨•摩✽敨摡牥獟慥捲❨㸠㰊湩異⁴祴数∽整瑸•汰捡桥汯敤㵲匢慥捲≨猠穩㵥〳渠浡㵥猢慥捲㉨•慶畬㵥∢ਾ椼灮瑵琠灹㵥戢瑵潴≮瘠污敵∽潇∡漠䍮楬正∽敳牡档瑩⤨㸢㰊是牯㹭㰊瑳汹㹥昊牯⍭敨摡牥獟慥捲††楷瑤㩨㤠㘱硰††慭杲湩›‰畡潴㠠硰††潰楳楴湯›敲慬楴敶ਊ潦浲栣慥敤彲敳牡档椠灮瑵笠 †栠楥桧㩴㐠瀰㭸 †映湯楳敺›㐱硰††楬敮栭楥桧㩴㐠瀰㭸 †瀠摡楤杮›‰瀸㭸 †戠硯猭穩湩㩧戠牯敤潢㭸 †戠捡杫潲湵㩤⌠㑆㉆㥅††潢摲牥›瀱⁸潳楬䈣䉂䈸㬸 †琠慲獮瑩潩㩮戠捡杫潲湵ⵤ潣潬〳洰慥敳漭瑵ਬ††††††††潣潬〳洰慥敳昊牯⍭敨摡牥獟慥捲湩異孴祴数∽整瑸崢笠 †眠摩桴›〱┰潦浲栣慥敤彲敳牡档椠灮瑵瑛灹㵥琢硥≴㩝潦畣††潢摲牥挭汯牯›䄣䐲㔰㬴 †戠捡杫潲湵ⵤ潣潬㩲⌠晦㭦 †戠硯猭慨潤㩷〠〠硰ㄠ瀲⁸㐭硰⌠㉁い㐵ਊ昊牯⍭敨摡牥獟慥捲湩異孴祴数∽畢瑴湯崢笠 †瀠獯瑩潩㩮愠獢汯瑵㭥 †琠灯›瀱㭸 †爠杩瑨›瀱㭸 †漠慰楣祴›㬱 †戠捡杫潲湵㩤⌠䙄䍄䙃††潣潬㩲⌠㘴㜳㐳††楷瑤㩨ㄠ㔲硰††畣獲牯›潰湩整㭲 †栠楥桧㩴㌠瀸㭸 †戠牯敤㩲渠湯㭥紊昊牯⍭敨摡牥獟慥捲湩異孴祴数∽整瑸崢昺捯獵縠椠灮瑵瑛灹㵥戧瑵潴❮㩝潨敶Ⱳ昊牯⍭敨摡牥獟慥捲湩異孴祴数✽畢瑴湯崧栺癯牥笠 †戠捡杫潲湵ⵤ潣潬㩲⌠㕁䕃㘵††潣潬㩲⌠晦㭦紊昊牯⍭敨摡牥獟慥捲湩異孴祴数∽整瑸崢昺捯獵縠椠灮瑵瑛灹㵥戧瑵潴❮⁝††慢正牧畯摮挭汯牯›㔣䄲䑅㭆 †挠汯牯›昣晦㰊猯祴敬ਾ㰊捳楲瑰ਾ畦据楴湯猠慥捲楨⡴笩 †ਠ††⼯搠瑥牥業敮攠癮物湯敭瑮ਠ††慶敳牡档敟癮ਠ††晩⠠祬潣彳摡睟睷獟牥敶湩敤佸⡦⸢摰∮ ‾ㄭ †††猠慥捲彨湥⁶‽栧瑴㩰⼯敳牡档ㄵ瀮祬潣潣⽭⽡㬧 †素攠獬晩⠠祬潣彳摡睟睷獟牥敶湩敤佸⡦⸢慱∮ ‾ㄭ †††猠慥捲彨湥⁶‽栧瑴㩰⼯敳牡档ㄵ焮祬潣潣⽭⽡㬧 †素攠獬†††猠慥捲彨湥⁶‽栧瑴㩰⼯敳牡档ㄵ氮捹獯挮浯愯✯††瘊牡猠慥捲彨整浲㴠攠据摯啥䥒潃灭湯湥⡴潤畣敭瑮献慥捲敳牡档⸲慶畬⥥瘊牡猠慥捲彨牵‽敳牡档敟癮猫慥捲彨整浲楷摮睯漮数⡮敳牡档畟汲㬩ਊ敲畴湲映污敳紊㰊猯牣灩㸭㰊瑳汹㹥 †⸠摡敃瑮牥汃獡筳慭杲湩〺愠瑵絯㰊猯祴敬ਾ搼癩椠㵤琢形摡•汣獡㵳愢䍤湥整䍲慬獳•瑳汹㵥搢獩汰祡戺潬正椡灭牯慴瑮※癯牥汦睯栺摩敤㭮眠摩桴㤺㘱硰∻ਾ愼栠敲㵦栢瑴㩰⼯摡牴捡業楮瑳牥慩㕬挮浯振楬正敮⽷愿㘽㜳㤳∴琠瑩敬∽畢汩潹牵漠湷眠扥楳整愠⁴牔灩摯挮浯•瑳汹㵥昢潬瑡氺晥㭴眠摩桴ㄺ㘸硰※潢摲牥〺㸢㰊浩牳㵣栢瑴㩰⼯祬氮杹潣⽭祬琯印瑩⽥浩条獥是敲䅥㉤樮杰•污㵴䴢歡潹牵漠湷映敲敷獢瑩湯吠楲潰潣≭猠祴敬∽潢摲牥〺※楤灳慬㩹汢捯≫⼠ਾ⼼㹡ਠ㰊楤⁶摩∽摡损湯慴湩牥•瑳汹㵥搢獩汰祡戺潬正椡灭牯慴瑮※汦慯㩴敬瑦※楷瑤㩨㈷瀸⁸㸢㰊捳楲瑰琠灹㵥琢硥⽴慪慶捳楲瑰㸢椊琨灹潥祬潣彳摡℠㴽∠湵敤楦敮≤☠…氢慥敤扲慯摲•湩氠捹獯慟⥤笠 搠捯浵湥牷瑩⡥祬潣彳摡❛敬摡牥潢牡❤⥝⼼捳楲瑰ਾ⼼楤㹶㰊搯癩ਾ⼼楤㹶㰊捳楲瑰琠灹㵥琢硥⽴慪慶捳楲瑰㸢椊琨灹潥祬潣彳摡℠㴽∠湵敤楦敮≤☠…猢楬敤≲椠祬潣彳摡 †潤畣敭瑮眮楲整氨捹獯慟孤猧楬敤❲⥝⼼捳楲瑰‾ℼⴭ愠摤摥㜠㈯′ⴭਾ搼癩椠㵤䘢潯整䅲≤猠祴敬∽慢正牧畯摮⌺䙄䍄䙃※潢摲牥琭灯ㄺ硰猠汯摩⌠㤳㤳㤳※汣慥㩲潢桴※楤灳慬㩹潮敮※楷瑤㩨〱┰椡灭牯慴瑮※潰楳楴湯爺汥瑡癩㭥稠椭摮硥㤺㤹㤹ℹ浩潰瑲湡㭴栠楥桧㩴〹硰椡灭牯慴瑮㸢ਠ搼癩挠慬獳∽摡敃瑮牥汃獡≳猠祴敬∽楤灳慬㩹汢捯Ⅻ浩潰瑲湡㭴漠敶晲潬㩷楨摤湥※楷瑤㩨ㄹ瀶㭸㸢㰊牨晥∽瑨灴⼺愯瑤慲正洮湩獩整楲污⸵潣⽭汣捩湫睥㼯㵡㌶㌷㐹•楴汴㵥戢極摬礠畯睯敷獢瑩瑡吠楲潰潣≭猠祴敬∽汦慯㩴敬瑦※楤灳慬㩹汢捯㭫眠摩桴ㄺ㘸硰※潢摲牥〺㸢㰊浩牳㵣栢瑴㩰⼯祬氮杹潣⽭祬琯印瑩⽥浩条獥是敲䅥㉤樮杰•污㵴䴢歡潹牵漠湷映敲敷獢瑩湯吠楲潰潣≭猠祴敬∽潢摲牥〺※楤灳慬㩹汢捯㭫∠⼠ਾ⼼㹡ਠ搼癩椠㵤昢潯整䅲彤潣瑮楡敮≲猠祴敬∽楤灳慬㩹汢捯Ⅻ浩潰瑲湡㭴映潬瑡氺晥㭴眠摩桴㜺㠲硰㸢㰊晩慲敭椠㵤氢捹獯潆瑯牥摁䙩慲敭•瑳汹㵥戢牯敤㩲㬰搠獩汰祡戺潬正※汦慯㩴敬瑦※敨杩瑨㤺瀶㭸漠敶晲潬㩷楨摤湥※慰摤湩㩧㬰眠摩桴㜺〵硰㸢⼼晩慲敭ਾ⼼楤㹶㰊搯癩ਾ⼼楤㹶ਊ