"He Shall Be Called a Nazarene" - An Error in the Bible?

[PaulAckermann]

and came and lived in a city called Nazareth. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophets: "He shall be called a Nazarene."
Matt 2:23

Everybody pick up your Bible Concordances and look for this verse in the Old Testament. You will not find it. It does not exist in the OT.

So was Mattew making this up? How can he say that this fulfills prophesy when this prophesy was never even recorded in the Old Testament?


So if this is a error, how can the Bible be the inerrant Word of God?

Merry Christmas!

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

and came and lived in a city called Nazareth. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophets: "He shall be called a Nazarene."
Matt 2:23

Everybody pick up your Bible Concordances and look for this verse in the Old Testament. You will not find it. It does not exist in the OT.

So was Mattew making this up? How can he say that this fulfills prophesy when this prophesy was never even recorded in the Old Testament?


So if this is a error, how can the Bible be the inerrant Word of God?

Merry Christmas!

Why?

The verse does not say, "As it is written in God's Scriptures," it says "through the prophets."

A blessed Christmas season to you, too!


Pax!


- Josiah


PS You must be aware that the Catholic Church also teaches that the Bible is inerrant.

 

[Stinker]

and came and lived in a city called Nazareth. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophets: "He shall be called a Nazarene."
Matt 2:23

Everybody pick up your Bible Concordances and look for this verse in the Old Testament. You will not find it. It does not exist in the OT.

So was Mattew making this up? How can he say that this fulfills prophesy when this prophesy was never even recorded in the Old Testament?


So if this is a error, how can the Bible be the inerrant Word of God?

Merry Christmas!

Mt.2:23 is from Isaiah 11:1 Then a shoot will spring from the stem of Jesse (the father of king David) and a branch from his roots will bear fruit.

The Hebrew word for branch is attributed to Jesus and is the word netzer. It is translated in the New Testament writings as nazareth, (a town in Galilee). Though the village or town of Nazareth is not listed in the Old Testament nor by any secular sources till into the middle of the 1st century, it does not mean that such a tiny place did not exist.

Some Bible scholars maintain that the New Testament writers were trying to show a parallel between Jesus and the location of what is now the town of Nazareth. They believe that there were many more plants, bushes and trees in this location than elsewhere in Galilee. So this is the reason for (Mt.2:23).

 

[Shimshon]

Yes, it does exist. The word Nazarene means one who is consecrated. The Hebrew root word is 'nazir' or nazar.

1. to dedicate, consecrate, separate
2. (Niphal) to dedicate oneself, devote oneself
3. (Hiphil) to keep sacredly separate
4. (Hiphil) to be a Nazarite, live as a Nazarite

The term and the 'vow' come from the old testement.


Numbers 6:13; Judges 13:5; 1 Samuel 1:11;

And as mentioned in reference to the nazir.
Isaiah 53:1,2 Amos 2:10-12;
Samson was one of the most well know nazarene's.

The nazir was a shadow of Messiah just as the prophets were. Holy and set apart to God only doing his will.

This is what it means when the text refers to the prophets claiming he will be a Nazarene.

John 1:45 Philip found Natan'el and told him, "We've found the one that Moshe wrote about in the Torah, also the Prophets -- it's Yeshua Ben-Yosef from Natzeret!"

That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets. Not by one prophet, but the summing up of a number of prophecies. No prophet had declared in express terms that he should be called a Nazarene. They, however, did apply to Christ the term Nezer, from which Nazareth is derived; the Nazarites, of whom Samson was one, were typical of Christ; the meanness and contempt in which Nazareth was held was itself a prophecy of one who "was despised and rejected." See Isa. 11:1; Jer. 23:5; 33:15; Zech. 3:8; 6:12.

 

[Shimshon]

If you will notice, many times in the new testement it states; 'as was written by the prophet.......' and then it has the quote from the tanakh. Then there are times where it states; 'as was written by the prophets......' and it does not give quotes. Because it is not a specific quotation but a reference to the general message given. As in this cas of the Nazir, or Nazarene.

 

[PaulAckermann]

Mt.2:23 is from Isaiah 11:1 Then a shoot will spring from the stem of Jesse (the father of king David) and a branch from his roots will bear fruit.

The Hebrew word for branch is attributed to Jesus and is the word netzer. It is translated in the New Testament writings as nazareth, (a town in Galilee). Though the village or town of Nazareth is not listed in the Old Testament nor by any secular sources till into the middle of the 1st century, it does not mean that such a tiny place did not exist.

Some Bible scholars maintain that the New Testament writers were trying to show a parallel between Jesus and the location of what is now the town of Nazareth. They believe that there were many more plants, bushes and trees in this location than elsewhere in Galilee. So this is the reason for (Mt.2:23).

I am afraid that any atheist or other skeptic would find this a cop-out.

Matthew explicitly quotes from a prophet "He shall be called a Nazarene". To say that an explicit quote refers to a verse that only has one word in it, and that word even translated entirely differently, is a reach.

To says that Mattew was only trying to point out that there were a lot of plants there seems also a reach.

 

[PaulAckermann]

Why?

The verse does not say, "As it is written in God's Scriptures," it says "through the prophets."

A blessed Christmas season to you, too!

I like your answer. Could you explain it more?

PS You must be aware that the Catholic Church also teaches that the Bible is inerrant.

Yes. And I agree with everything the Catholic Church teaches.

 

[PaulAckermann]

Yes, it does exist. The word Nazarene means one who is consecrated. The Hebrew root word is 'nazir' or nazar.

1. to dedicate, consecrate, separate
2. (Niphal) to dedicate oneself, devote oneself
3. (Hiphil) to keep sacredly separate
4. (Hiphil) to be a Nazarite, live as a Nazarite

The term and the 'vow' come from the old testement.


Numbers 6:13; Judges 13:5; 1 Samuel 1:11;

And as mentioned in reference to the nazir.
Isaiah 53:1,2 Amos 2:10-12;
Samson was one of the most well know nazarene's.

The nazir was a shadow of Messiah just as the prophets were. Holy and set apart to God only doing his will.

This is what it means when the text refers to the prophets claiming he will be a Nazarene.

Here is the passagew in its context:

But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Then after being warned by God in a dream, he left for the regions of Galilee, 23 and came and lived in a city called Nazareth. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophets: "He shall be called a Nazarene."
Mattew 2:22 - 23

He moved into the city of Nazareth, and that fulfilled the prophecy that he shall be called a Nazarene.

I had nothing to do with Jesus consecrating Himself. It had nothing to do with him living a separated life.

These things are true about Jesus, but that is not how Matthew is using this prophesy.

It is simply because Jesus was raised in the city of Nazareth.

John 1:45 Philip found Natan'el and told him, "We've found the one that Moshe wrote about in the Torah, also the Prophets -- it's Yeshua Ben-Yosef from Natzeret!"

This does not mean that the Moses wrote that the Messiah was to be in Nazareth (which he never wrote), but that there would be a Prophet like him. This was fullfilled in Jesus from Nazareth.

 

[PaulAckermann]

If you will notice, many times in the new testement it states; 'as was written by the prophet.......' and then it has the quote from the tanakh. Then there are times where it states; 'as was written by the prophets......' and it does not give quotes. Because it is not a specific quotation but a reference to the general message given. As in this cas of the Nazir, or Nazarene.

Not sure what you are talking about here, the quote do exist in the English translation for this verse.

and came and lived in a city called Nazareth. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophets: "He shall be called a Nazarene."

See http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=mt+2:23&t=nas&st=1&new=1&sr=1&sc=1&l=en

Anyway, New Testament Greek does not have quotes at all. The English translators added quotes in the Bible for readability. So I do not think we should read any signnificance on whether or not quotes are used.

 

[PaulAckermann]

About two years I was confronted with this argument from an atheist. He was so sure he had us Christians over the barrel.

Most of the explanation I read here seem contorted and hard to understand. If I had used any of these explanations, all the atheists on that forum (I was outnumbered) would hasve laughed me off the forum.

But the answer I gave to the atheist was so simple, so easy to understand, that the atheist no longer wanted to talk about it. He knew he was the one over the barrel. And no other atheist challenged me.

The answer was very similar to the one given by CaliforniaJosiah. The answer is so simple and so direct, that it completely shuts up the atheists on this verse.

And yet why is it that so many Christian commentators miss it?

 

[PaulAckermann]

Well, here is my explanation that completely dumbfounded this atheist:


Look at the verse again.

and came and lived in a city called Nazareth. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophets: "He shall be called a Nazarene."
Matt 2:23


This verse says it was "spoken", it was not "written" down. This is why there is no verse in the Old Testament. The Old Testament has the prophesies that were written down, but this one was oral.

The Old Testament Jews took great stock in oral tradition. Jesus condemned them for holding to human tradition at times when it went againt the Word of God. The Talmud is a collection of some of oral sayings that were said by Moses but were not written down in the Pentateuch.

Obvious, one of the prophets orally taught that the Messiah would be a Nazarene, not meaning He would be from the Nazarite order, but that He would be raised in Nazareth. This was not written down. This was never written down, but it was carried on from generation to generation by word of mouth.

So what Matthew wrote was correct. It was spoken by the prophets. He did not write that it was ever written down. That was a false assumtpion from my atheist opponent, and many readers on this thread.

But why do Protestant commentators go through all sorts of contortions to come up with explanations that any skeptic would just laugh at? Why avoid the simple, direct explanation in favor of complicated explanations that seem to be mere cop-outs?

The reason is that the simple, direct explanation is too Catholic! In order to accept the simple explanation, one must admit that oral tradition can sometimes contain the words of God. It means that, although Jesus condemned tradition when it goes against the Word of God, that sometimes oral tradition can contain the Word of God.

And since oral tradition can sometimes contain the Word of God, Matthew can quote from oral tradition and show how Jesus fulfilled it.

But for Protestants to admit that oral tradition can at times be valid would set a dangerous precedent. They would prefer to have contorted explanations that makes makes them laughingstocks to outsiders than to admit that their Catholic brothers could be right.

 

[thereselittleflower]

A perfect example of Oral Sacred Tradition . ..

Another one is Jesus appealing to the authority of Oral Sacred Tradition regarding Moses' Seat and the scribes and pharisees sitting in it, to give authoritative backing to His command to His disciples to obey the scribes and pharisees, even though they were hippocrites . . . .

No where in the OT do we see "Moses' Seat" or the scribes and pharisees sitting in it.


.

 

[PaulAckermann]

A perfect example of Oral Sacred Tradition . ..

Another one is Jesus appealing to the authority of Oral Sacred Tradition regarding Moses' Seat and the scribes and pharisees sitting in it, to give authoritative backing to His command to His disciples to obey the scribes and pharisees, even though they were hippocrites . . . .

No where in the OT do we see "Moses' Seat" or the scribes and pharisees sitting in it.


.

Great point.


If I had not become a Catholic, I would have had to become a liberal Protestant who believed that there were errors in the Bible.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The Old Testament Jews took great stock in oral tradition. Jesus condemned them for holding to human tradition when it went againt the Word of God.

Hum. Interesting, that coming from you...
You seem to be embracing the Protestant position that all is accountable to God's Holy Scriptures - or at least that Jesus did.


But, was the rubric of Jesus that WHATEVER a Teacher says is inerrant, authoritative and equal to the Word of God if it didn't go against the Word of God? Whatever isn't specifically denied is inerrantly true and the Holy Word of God? Is THAT the rubric you are suggesting Jesus had?

Obvious, one of the prophets orally taught that the Messiah would be a Nazarene, not meaning He would be from the Nazarite order, but that He would be raised in Nazareth. This was not written down. This was never written down, but it was carried on from generation to generation by word of mouth.

Well, there are other options here.
But, going with your assumption, let's say some unnamed Prophets did specificly teach He would come from the town of Nazareth and Matthew isn't making the point that He would be called "dispised." Then, the God has inspired in Holy Scripture that this is so, God has inspired that message - albeit in this case later than usual, but it's still inscripturated - a part of what Catholics and Protestants agree is the inerrant Word of God, where God is in Author.

The reason is that the simple, direct explanation is too Catholic! In order to accept the simple explanation, one must admit that oral tradition can sometimes contain the words of God.

Well, when God tells me it's so in a particular case, I'd have no issues with that. But when Joseph Smith tells me, well... We are nowhere told to look to the Catholic denomination or the Infallible Pope or the Vicar of Christ for such. GOD inspired Matthew to write such - and it's recorded in that Book which Catholics call "The Word of God and no greater assurance of credence can be given."

And since oral tradition can sometimes contain the Word of God, Matthew can quote from oral tradition and show how Jesus fulfilled it.

Certainly Matthew can, by divine inspiration as a penmen of God - guided so as to do so without error. But I'd be careful about assuming that therefore whatever the Catholic denomination or Methodist denomination or LDS denomination says is equal in authority and normative function to the Holy Word of God.

The truth is, NONE of the men the Catholic denomination labels "Early Church Fathers" was an Apostle, penmen or Prophet - and only a couple of them even met one (none of them ever met Christ). Most of them lived centuries later. Apples and oranges to ME.

But for Protestants to admit that oral tradition can at times be valid would set a dangerous precedent. They would prefer to have contorted explanations that makes makes them laughingstocks to outsiders than to admit that their Catholic brothers could be right.

I don't have to accept that every SOURCE of information in the NT is correct in order to accept that the NT is correct. Luke clearly indicates that he investigated things. I have no idea who he talked to or what he read - and it doesn't matter. In the words of the Catholic Church, "The Bible is the Word of God." "The Bible is inspired by God. What does this mean? It means that God is the Author of these books. God inspired the penmen to write as He wished and guided them to do so without error." I think that includes any sources they might have used. But just because Luke may have spoken to some man does not mean that everything that comes from that man is therefore inerrant, authoritative and apostolic. And just because God can work outside of His Word doesn't mean we can. Just because I believe God does not mean I therefore, on that account, must believe any teacher who self-claims to be just as authoritative and inerrant.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Well, here is my explanation that completely dumbfounded this atheist:


Look at the verse again.

and came and lived in a city called Nazareth. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophets: "He shall be called a Nazarene."
Matt 2:23


This verse says it was "spoken", it was not "written" down. This is why there is no verse in the Old Testament. The Old Testament has the prophesies that were written down, but this one was oral.

The Old Testament Jews took great stock in oral tradition. Jesus condemned them for holding to human tradition at times when it went againt the Word of God. The Talmud is a collection of some of oral sayings that were said by Moses but were not written down in the Pentateuch.

Obvious, one of the prophets orally taught that the Messiah would be a Nazarene, not meaning He would be from the Nazarite order, but that He would be raised in Nazareth. This was not written down. This was never written down, but it was carried on from generation to generation by word of mouth.

So what Matthew wrote was correct. It was spoken by the prophets. He did not write that it was ever written down. That was a false assumtpion from my atheist opponent, and many readers on this thread.

But why do Protestant commentators go through all sorts of contortions to come up with explanations that any skeptic would just laugh at? Why avoid the simple, direct explanation in favor of complicated explanations that seem to be mere cop-outs?

The reason is that the simple, direct explanation is too Catholic! In order to accept the simple explanation, one must admit that oral tradition can sometimes contain the words of God. It means that, although Jesus condemned tradition when it goes against the Word of God, that sometimes oral tradition can contain the Word of God.

And since oral tradition can sometimes contain the Word of God, Matthew can quote from oral tradition and show how Jesus fulfilled it.

But for Protestants to admit that oral tradition can at times be valid would set a dangerous precedent. They would prefer to have contorted explanations that makes makes them laughingstocks to outsiders than to admit that their Catholic brothers could be right.

I agree with your conclusion. But I wouldn't use this as an occasion to beat up Protestants with it. All religions 'hold the truth in unrighteousness' in order to control their adherents; even the RCC.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Great point.


If I had not become a Catholic, I would have had to become a liberal Protestant who believed that there were errors in the Bible.

and then you have the prophecy of Enoch that is not in the Old Testament either . . . I guess the author of Jude just pulled it out of thin air . . . Couldn't possibly be extra biblical Tradition that is authoritative . . just couldn't possibly be that the writers of the NT scriptures held extra biblical Tradition to be authoritative . . .


.

 

[IisJustMe]

And yet why is it that so many Christian commentators miss it?

Let me explain it. It is because it is extremely difficult for me or any other who rejects oral tradition as divinely inspired and on an equal footing with the written word to believe that any atheist or agnostic would accept such an explanation as having any validity whatsoever. In fact, their response would most likely be "So, if you can't prove anything from the Scriptures, all you have to do is claim it has been passed down orally, and you're covered?" And of course, we cannot claim that and have any hope of winning such a person to Christ, because their question would be valid, and without authoritative answer.

I know the importance of oral tradition in many denominations, but with the only authority for oral tradition being the insistence of those denominations' leaders that it is valid. The argument is circular and carries no weight. I understand many who accept oral tradition as divinely inspired believe they can point to Scripture to prove their point, but proper exegesis of the passages cited simply does not, in the end, offer that proof.

The fact is, the answer regarding Jesus being "set apart" is the proper answer, and there are countless passages in the Old Testament that testify to His divinity and Godship. The word "Narareth" in the Bible is translated from the Greek nazoraios. which is nothing less than a direct translation from the Hebrew naziyr, translated in the Old Testament English versions as "Nazirite" which of course means "consecrated one."

I have no problem with your adherence to the belief that oral tradition is divinely inspired. Not, that is, until it begins teaching doctrine that is not Scripturally based. Then I have a problem. But I do not question your faith or your salvation, unless you give me reason to think you have not believed in the sacrifice at the cross for the cleansing of your sins. God bless and keep you, and bring the Christ of our Father into your thoughts and acts every day of your life.

 

[IisJustMe]

and then you have the prophecy of Enoch that is not in the Old Testament either . . . I guess the author of Jude just pulled it out of thin air . . . Couldn't possibly be extra biblical Tradition that is authoritative . . just couldn't possibly be that the writers of the NT scriptures held extra biblical Tradition to be authoritative . . . .

The inclusion of one minor passage in an extrabiblical and uninspired book (How do I know it is uninspired? Because it did not survive intact, as did the rest of the inspired works. And by the way, the "Book of Enoch" is not written by the prophet Enoch of the Old Testament, as the writer speaks of events nearly a thousand years after Enoch lived as being in the writer's past.) is not sufficient to pull in every single extrabiblical work under the umbrella of inspiration. The fact this one small nugget survived and made its way into Jude's letter -- a letter written, by the way, by a half brother of Jesus -- does not mean the rest of the work was inspired. In fact, as I pointed out above, if it was inspired, it would have survived en toto.

Again, I do not wish to offend. I simply wish to point out that the assumptions made on the word of men -- the only basis of support for oral tradition as divinely inspired -- is an error we as believers cannot afford to make.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Matthew 21
11 And the people said: This is Jesus the prophet, from Nazareth of Galilee.

A Nazarene was not a religious title, but the name of the city in which Christ came, and the quote from Matthew just shows he will be ‘from Nazareth’…as are the Apostles called Galileans…
Because they are from Galilee.
Mark 1
9 And it came to pass, in those days, Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized by John in the Jordan.
The Prophets were simply telling where He would be coming from and considered as His origin. [where He resided] but Matthew uses the language of the times…or the translation is faulty.
[ene…ian] as an ending of the city name means the person was brought forth from that particular place.
Such as a person coming from say…Pittsburgh, would be called a PittsBurgh’er’.
Luke 1
26 And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth,
Apparently it was His family’s origin…and His childhood place of residence.
There was one other mention in the NT of a Nazarene, which used in a derogatory fashion [a slur] against the Apostles who followed Him.
Spoken by a secular hearer of a case. One who wanted to have a sentence against Paul.
Whereas Peter calls them Christians. Which is a loving term….for he would only call his beloved brethren something out of love.

 

[silentpoet]

As an aside there are numerous books mentioned in the Bible(I can think of at least 2 references off the top of my head) that we no longer possess. There are scriptures and books which we only have vague reference to. One example is when Jesus talks of an individual, I think an angel, arguing with the devil. It refers back to a text we no longer have, or at least an oral tradition.