That pseudo-linguistic analysis is full of it. The 'TZ' sound is one letter: the 'Z' is another. Hebrew words are formed from (sometimes 2 or 4 but usually)3-consonant roots: the word for 'branch' would be 'N/TZ/R': the word for 'Nazarene' would be 'N/Z/R/?' - since '-ene' isn't a proper Heberw word ending, it's not clear what if any the 4th sound would actually be.
The center consonant being a different letter entirely, it is hard to imagine how the two words could be related AT ALL, never mind 'not closely'! - unless one or the other is some exceptipon to the rules of Hebrew grammar.
The whole business about 'Nazareth' is also bunk: the indications are that Nazaret' was not even founded by the first centure CE.
What's going on there? The simplest answer would be that Matthew 2:23 is a later interpolation, and that it was simply made up as were many other 'details'.
But of course those committed to a concept of BiblicaL inerrancy would never shave that close with Occam's Razor, would they?
The center consonant being a different letter entirely, it is hard to imagine how the two words could be related AT ALL, never mind 'not closely'! - unless one or the other is some exceptipon to the rules of Hebrew grammar.
The whole business about 'Nazareth' is also bunk: the indications are that Nazaret' was not even founded by the first centure CE.
What's going on there? The simplest answer would be that Matthew 2:23 is a later interpolation, and that it was simply made up as were many other 'details'.
But of course those committed to a concept of BiblicaL inerrancy would never shave that close with Occam's Razor, would they?
