Q: Matthew 2:23 says that the prophets said, "He shall be called a Nazarene," but such a statement is not in the Old Testament. Whats going on here?
A: Good question. There are basically four proposed solutions popular among Christian commentators --
(1) The people of Nazareth had a bad reputation, as illustrated in John 1:46 (where Nathanael, upon hearing from his brother Philip that the Messiah was Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph, asked, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?") -- so much so that the name "Nazarene" had become a byword for a person of low character. Thus Matthew is merely summing up the sentiment of some Old Testament prophets/psalm-writers that the Messiah would be regarded (initially, or by casual observers) as lowly.
(2) The underlying idea is that "Nazarene," which most people would understand to mean a person from the town of Nazareth, meant to Matthew and his fellow Christians Branch, the Messiah as described in Isaiah 11:1, Jeremiah 23:5-6 and 33:14, and Zechariah 3:8 and 6:12, because the Hebrew term for branch, "netzer," sounds like the root of Nazarene (even though theyre technically not closely connected). For a brief essay that promotes a view sort of like this, see Dennis Bratchers essay at www.cresourcei.org/branch.html .
(3) Matthew is making a phonetic pun, similar to what is done in Genesis 11:9. Although the prophets never said that the Messiah would be from a town called Nazareth, the prophets identification of the Messiah as a "Branch" (NtZR) is ambiguous enough for the term "Nazarene" (NZR-ene) to fit, and this is what Matthew is doing. This is roughly analogous to having a prophecy that says One born of Hamlet shall rule Denmark, and while everyone is looking for a descendant of Hamlet to be born and become the ruler of Denmark, along comes someone named Bourne from a small village (i.e., a hamlet) who conquers Denmark.
(4) Matthew was citing an extracanonical saying which is no longer extant, possibly drawn from an oral tradition or a Testimonium. (The term "Testimonium" can mean various things; in this case I define it as a collection of prophecies and prophetic typology-motifs focusing on Jesus and His role as the Messiah.)
Each solution is a possibility, and none of them strongly outweighs the others in terms of historical plausibility. Among conservative Christians #2 tends to be the most popular explanation, followed by #4. But I tend to tentatively favor interpretation #3.
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
P.S. to Steve Wells: the General Category is getting a bit crowded. When I start Matthew ch. 3, Lord willing, I'd like to post in the "Good Things in the Bible" Category, if that's okay.
A: Good question. There are basically four proposed solutions popular among Christian commentators --
(1) The people of Nazareth had a bad reputation, as illustrated in John 1:46 (where Nathanael, upon hearing from his brother Philip that the Messiah was Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph, asked, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?") -- so much so that the name "Nazarene" had become a byword for a person of low character. Thus Matthew is merely summing up the sentiment of some Old Testament prophets/psalm-writers that the Messiah would be regarded (initially, or by casual observers) as lowly.
(2) The underlying idea is that "Nazarene," which most people would understand to mean a person from the town of Nazareth, meant to Matthew and his fellow Christians Branch, the Messiah as described in Isaiah 11:1, Jeremiah 23:5-6 and 33:14, and Zechariah 3:8 and 6:12, because the Hebrew term for branch, "netzer," sounds like the root of Nazarene (even though theyre technically not closely connected). For a brief essay that promotes a view sort of like this, see Dennis Bratchers essay at www.cresourcei.org/branch.html .
(3) Matthew is making a phonetic pun, similar to what is done in Genesis 11:9. Although the prophets never said that the Messiah would be from a town called Nazareth, the prophets identification of the Messiah as a "Branch" (NtZR) is ambiguous enough for the term "Nazarene" (NZR-ene) to fit, and this is what Matthew is doing. This is roughly analogous to having a prophecy that says One born of Hamlet shall rule Denmark, and while everyone is looking for a descendant of Hamlet to be born and become the ruler of Denmark, along comes someone named Bourne from a small village (i.e., a hamlet) who conquers Denmark.
(4) Matthew was citing an extracanonical saying which is no longer extant, possibly drawn from an oral tradition or a Testimonium. (The term "Testimonium" can mean various things; in this case I define it as a collection of prophecies and prophetic typology-motifs focusing on Jesus and His role as the Messiah.)
Each solution is a possibility, and none of them strongly outweighs the others in terms of historical plausibility. Among conservative Christians #2 tends to be the most popular explanation, followed by #4. But I tend to tentatively favor interpretation #3.
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
P.S. to Steve Wells: the General Category is getting a bit crowded. When I start Matthew ch. 3, Lord willing, I'd like to post in the "Good Things in the Bible" Category, if that's okay.
