Names?

[Athetotheist]

"And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene."
(Matthew 2:23)

Which prophets?

[marke]

"And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene."
(Matthew 2:23)

Which prophets?

Marke: I suspect there were Jewish prophets who prophesied about Jesus' miraculous birth and early life who were not recorded in the Bible.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to marke in post #2]

I suspect there were Jewish prophets who prophesied about Jesus' miraculous birth and early life who were not recorded in the Bible.

For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father
(Hebrews 1:5)

This is a rhetorical question, not given to receive an answer. The argument being made is that God never said such a thing to any angel.

Now, if God ever had said that to an angel, where would you look for documentation of it? You would look in the Bible, wouldn't you? Because if there were confirmation of God saying that to an angel, the Bible is where it would be. Right?

So, following the logic of Hebrews 1:5......

To whom did any prophet ever say that the Messiah would be called a Nazarene?

[marke]

[Replying to marke in post #2]

I suspect there were Jewish prophets who prophesied about Jesus' miraculous birth and early life who were not recorded in the Bible.

For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father
(Hebrews 1:5)

This is a rhetorical question, not given to receive an answer. The argument being made is that God never said such a thing to any angel.

Now, if God ever had said that to an angel, where would you look for documentation of it? You would look in the Bible, wouldn't you? Because if there were confirmation of God saying that to an angel, the Bible is where it would be. Right?

So, following the logic of Hebrews 1:5......

To whom did any prophet ever say that the Messiah would be called a Nazarene?

Marke: I don't know that God told us which prophets said Jesus would be called a Nazarene.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to marke in post #4]

I don't know that God told us which prophets said Jesus would be called a Nazarene.

Then how do you know that any prophets did?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #1]

Scholars speak of three main alternatives:

1. Matthew had Isaiah 11:1 in mind, connecting the Hebrew word netser with Nazarene

2. Matthew is pulling upon various texts that speak to being despised and rejected (passages like Psalm 22:6-7, Isaiah 53:3) and connecting that with the general attitude of someone from Nazareth

3. Matthew cites a prophecy from a non-Biblical source that is lost to us

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #6]

1. Matthew had Isaiah 11:1 in mind, connecting the Hebrew word netser with Nazarene

The word netser simply means "branch". Matthew claims that Jesus, as Messiah, will be called a Nazarene because of a connection to the town of Nazareth.

2. Matthew is pulling upon various texts that speak to being despised and rejected (passages like Psalm 22:6-7, Isaiah 53:3) and connecting that with the general attitude of someone from Nazareth

Again, Matthew's claim is that Jesus as Messiah would be called a Nazarene because he lived in Nazareth. He also claims that a prophet declared it.

3. Matthew cites a prophecy from a non-Biblical source that is lost to us

Then how do you know that God didn't speak to an angel as in Hebrews 1:5 in a non-Biblical source that is lost to us?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #7]

On option 1, yes, netser means 'branch'. The reasoning would be that Matthew is connecting the town of Nazareth with the root netser in that prophecy and that Jesus fulfills this prophecy by being called a Nazarene from that town.

On option 2, yes, Matthew claims Jesus fulfills what the prophets have said by being called a Nazarene. Nazareth was seen as a lowly or humble place (such as seen in John 1:46). There are various prophecies speaking of the Messiah's humble origins. Matthew even shares one a few verses earlier about him coming from Bethlehem. Matthew also contrasts Jesus' humility with the pride of the Jewish religious and political leaders in the city of Jerusalem. This would fit in with a major theme at the beginning of Matthew.

As to your point about option 3, are you asking how would we know that we haven't lost messages from God that contradict a message within the Bible? Or something else?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #8]

On option 1, yes, netser means 'branch'. The reasoning would be that Matthew is connecting the town of Nazareth with the root netser in that prophecy and that Jesus fulfills this prophecy by being called a Nazarene from that town.

It doesn't matter what Matthew tries to connect. He claims that a prophet said that the Messiah would be called a Nazarene. The fact that he can't even name the prophet illustrates the weakness of the claim.

On option 2, yes, Matthew claims Jesus fulfills what the prophets have said by being called a Nazarene.

When it comes to the prophets saying that the Messiah would be called a Nazarene, there's nothing to fulfill.

As to your point about option 3, are you asking how would we know that we haven't lost messages from God that contradict a message within the Bible? Or something else?

I'm asking how you can conveniently assume that a nonexistent prophecy was just "lost" to avoid admitting that it's just nonexistent.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #9]

There isn't just one way someone can write about a prophecy. There is no rule that says the prophet has to be named (and, in fact, they often aren't). There is also no rule that one must think hyper-literally (and, in fact, that is a modern thing). It absolutely matters what the author is trying to connect by writing the way they do. What doesn't matter is how others think they should have done it to be of any worth.

As to assuming a lost source exists, I personally think it's the weakest of the three, but it doesn't have to be reached by assumption (although plenty of people grab onto anything that gets the conclusion they want). It can be reasoned to. If one didn't think the netser or 'humility' options were good ones, it becomes whether it's more reasonable to believe we lost the prophetic text or to believe that Matthew is appealing to something he made up when talking specifically to the type of audience that knows what the prophets have said and not said. To think Matthew did the latter is a ridiculous withholding of the philosophical principal of charity. So, even though it's probably the weakest of the three I mentioned, it's still better than a theory that Matthew just made up a non-existent prophecy and then appealed to it as common knowledge.