And He Shall Be Called a Nazarene

[Rival]

Actually, Jesus and the Apostles first formed the early Church since that was and is a "community", which is what "ekklesia" means. And they did not have the NT scriptures, plus the Jewish canon had not yet been selected at Jesus' time.

Not to mention Paul's letters were likely not written with the aim of being scripture.

 

[Muffled]

I've dealt with this in more detail in other posts, but the long and short of it is that only the written prophets in the canon have those messages that are for more than their day. Thus the prophecy Matthew refers to must be found in one of them.

I believe you are forgetting that God know what everyone said, otherwise Moses could not have know the details concerning Abraham.

 

[Rival]

and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene.
Matthew 2:23

The verse makes it VERY clear that it is by having lived in Nazareth that Jesus fulfilled the prophecy. Thus, anything that interprets "Nazarene" to be anything other than a citizen of Nazareth would NOT be the prophecy referred to by Matthew.

This thread really had a foregone conclusion, didn't it?

There is no such prophecy, The end.

But folks will trying spinning it.

 

[rosends]

I don't know how carefully you're reading the text of Matthew 2:23? But it doesn't say messiah is from Nazareth. It says he shall be "called" (καλεω) a "Ναζωραιος." Even the Talmud called him Yeshua ha-Nosri (Jesus the . . . .), not Jesus "from." The Talmud uses the definite article heh, Jesus the . . ..

A thorough study reveals that Jesus and his followers weren't necessarily called Nazarenes from Nazareth. Although what they were called probably piggy-backed the fact that Jesus once lived in Nazareth there's quite a bit of sound exegesis that suggests the term associated with Jesus and his disciples entailed far more than the fact that Jesus once lived in Nazareth.

Now, with that out of the way, why don't you address that fact that "Nazareth" is found only one time in the Tanakh (Isaiah 48:6). And that one time, is when, according to Nachmanides, Isaiah is about to reveal the name of God's face, person, son, messiah, who God hid from Israel in Deuteronomy 31:17?

If that doesn't peak the interest of a Jew with a modicum of Hebrew knowledge to go with his scriptural knowledge surely that fact that the one place in the entire Tanakh where the word "Nazareth" is found, and in a passage Nachmanides says relates to Deuteronomy 31:17, has the name of God's face, person, messiah, hidden, in a word, "Nazareth," interpreted and translated (in the KJV) "hidden."



John

a few quick points (as I have not really been following this thread)
1. The talmudic introduction of and association of a person with a place name through a hey coupled with a final yod is precedented. R. Yossi Haglili (Yosi from the Galilee) is listed. In Mas Sukkah, there is Hillel Habavli. These indicate where someone is from.

2. Isaiah 48:6 doesn't mention Nazereth. The word there is unetzurot from the root n-tz-r (via Klein) - other commentators such as the Radak and the Metzudat Tziyon connect it to this root as well.
Qal - נָצַר 1 he watched, guarded, kept; 2 he guarded from danger, preserved; 3 he observed; 4 he kept secret; 5 he kept close, blockaded. NH 6 he put on the safety catch (in a weapon).
— Niph. - נִנְצַר MH 1 was watched, was guarded, was kept; NH 2 was kept close, was blockaded. [Aram.-Syr. נְטַר (= he watched, guarded, kept), Arab. naẓara (= he looked at, considered, examined; but Arab. natur, ‘overseer’, is an Aram. loan word), Ethiop. naṣara (= he looked at, observed), Akka. naṣāru (= to watch over, protect). cp. the collateral form נטר, cp. also נָדִיר ᴵᴵ.] Derivatives: נָצוּר, נִצְרָה, נוֹצֵר, נְצִירָה.

Mishlei has a similar word explained from the same verb ונצורת לב. ונותנת מצור על לבות בני אדם
So where do you see "Nazereth"?

 

[pearl]

Nazareth…he shall be called a Nazorean: the tradition of Jesus’ residence in Nazareth was firmly established, and Matthew sees it as being in accordance with the foreannounced plan of God. The town of Nazareth is not mentioned in the Old Testament, and no such prophecy can be found there. The vague expression “through the prophets” may be due to Matthew’s seeing a connection between Nazareth and certain texts in which there are words with a remote similarity to the name of that town. Some such Old Testament texts are Is11:1 where the Davidic king of the future is called “a bud” (nēser) that shall blossom from the roots of Jesse, and JGS 13:5,7 where Samson, the future deliverer of Israel from the Philistines, is called one who shall be consecrated (a nāzîr) to God.

 

[metis]

Not to mention Paul's letters were likely not written with the aim of being scripture.

And it is entirely possible that most "books" in scripture was written to be "scripture". Most theologians that I have read on this, for example, feel that much of Torah was probably passed on as part of oral tradition before eventually being compiled into what we read now.

And even when the Church worked to try and decide the Christian canon, there was lots of controversy dealing with which books to include. Today, we often take things for granted, but if one does the homework one quickly sees that this was very complicated and conjectural.

 

[Rival]

And it is entirely possible that most "books" in scripture was written to be "scripture". Most theologians that I have read on this, for example, feel that much of Torah was probably passed on as part of oral tradition before eventually being compiled into what we read now.

And even when the Church worked to try and decide the Christian canon, there was lots of controversy dealing with which books to include. Today, we often take things for granted, but if one does the homework one quickly sees that this was very complicated and conjectural.

There were really big debates over books such as Esther within the Jewish community, and Revelation for the Christian one. Also I recall the book of Ezekiel almost wasn't included, because of the shocking content it was thought most lay-folks wouldn't be able to understand it.

 

[metis]

There were really big debates over books such as Esther within the Jewish community, and Revelation for the Christian one. Also I recall the book of Ezekiel almost wasn't included, because of the shocking content and it was thought most lay-folks wouldn't be able to understand it.

Deuteronomy was controversial as it just "miraculously" was found in the Temple one day, and Revelation, like you say, and Hebrews were also very controversial, with many local churches not using them until the canon was eventually decided upon.

With Revelation, there was a question of authorship even though it says John on Patmos, plus also the "millennial reign" that shows up nowhere else in scripture or with early Church tradition. With the latter, some at least felt that it might be a reference to Jesus starting his Kingdom on Earth since "1000" has a symbolic value in Jewish tradition, implying large numbers. IOW, it's like saying "Jesus' Kingdom will go on forever!".

 

[dybmh]

according to Nachmanides, Isaiah is about to reveal the name of God's face, person, son, messiah, who God hid from Israel in Deuteronomy 31:17?

Would you please provide a citation for this? I'm having trouble locating it.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I believe you are forgetting that God know what everyone said, otherwise Moses could not have know the details concerning Abraham.

JUst a side not. The prophets did not take dictation from God. They had dreams and visions. They chose what words to convey their messages. I think it is important to remember this. But that is another topic.

Item: we know that Moses did not write the Torah, or at least all of it. From textual criticism, we now understand that the Torah splices together the writings of more than one author.

Third, God may say many things. God speaks to me, but what he says to me personally is only for me. Not for people a thousand years in the future, for example. Unless it is in the written canon, the message is not meant for anyone other than the time in which it was spoken.

 

[Dogknox20]

And the Apostles came before the Church and they had scriptures just fine.
Thank you for sharing your opinion.

.
Fallen Prophet I hope all is well...
The Apostles were the elders of "The Church"! They are the first to hold the office of Bishop.

Acts 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms: ‘Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein’; and, ‘His bishopric let another take.’

The Apostles scripture was the Old Testament the Bible holds the New Testament also!

 

[John D. Brey]

a few quick points (as I have not really been following this thread)
1. The talmudic introduction of and association of a person with a place name through a hey coupled with a final yod is precedented. R. Yossi Haglili (Yosi from the Galilee) is listed. In Mas Sukkah, there is Hillel Habavli. These indicate where someone is from.

I think one exegetical problem is that it can mean both. It can mean Jesus "from" Nazareth. But it can mean Jesus "the" Nazarene. On the latter, we have Acts 24:5, where Paul of Tarsus is called a "ringleader of the Nazarenes" by his Jewish antagonists. Ringleader of the Nazarenes doesn't mean Paul's cadre are all from Nazareth. That term, "Nazarene," came to be associated with Jesus, his disciples, and, in the Talmud, with all Christians. This fact seems to lends itself to Matthew being amazed that Jesus and his clan are all given a title associated with the word for a "branch," just as the prophets said would be the case.

2. Isaiah 48:6 doesn't mention Nazereth. The word there is unetzurot from the root n-tz-r (via Klein) - other commentators such as the Radak and the Metzudat Tziyon connect it to this root as well.
Qal - נָצַר 1 he watched, guarded, kept; 2 he guarded from danger, preserved; 3 he observed; 4 he kept secret; 5 he kept close, blockaded. NH 6 he put on the safety catch (in a weapon).
— Niph. - נִנְצַר MH 1 was watched, was guarded, was kept; NH 2 was kept close, was blockaded. [Aram.-Syr. נְטַר (= he watched, guarded, kept), Arab. naẓara (= he looked at, considered, examined; but Arab. natur, ‘overseer’, is an Aram. loan word), Ethiop. naṣara (= he looked at, observed), Akka. naṣāru (= to watch over, protect). cp. the collateral form נטר, cp. also נָדִיר ᴵᴵ.] Derivatives: נָצוּר, נִצְרָה, נוֹצֵר, נְצִירָה.

Mishlei has a similar word explained from the same verb ונצורת לב. ונותנת מצור על לבות בני אדם
So where do you see "Nazereth"?

The Hebrew word for the city of Nazareth, to this day, is the consonants נצרת or נצרות. And those are the consonants found at Isaiah 48:6. What they mean in Isaiah 48:6 is subject to interpretation. And fwiw, Isaiah 48:6 is the only place in the entire Tanakh where the word exists with a vav so that the word is closer to nazareth than the slightly more frequent nazarat (the consonants without the vav).

There's another problem in Isaiah 48:6. Every other place that the word "keep" or "guard" is found throughout the Tanakh, it's attached to a word delineating what is being "kept" or "guarded." For that reason we read in Ibn Ezra's commentary:

6. Thou hast heard, see all this. What thou hast heard, all has come. And will not ye declare that this is the case? Behold, I have shewed thee new things from this time, even hidden things, that are kept (בצורות=נצורות) with the Omniscient alone.​

Right after the bracketed comment about two Hebrew words being equal there's a footnote in the commentary that says:

The word כמן . . . seems to be omitted in the Hebrew text.​

The word said to be omitted from the text (כמן) means to hide something away. Without that word, כמן, nothing is being said to be "guarded," if that's indeed what the consonants נצרות are being interpreted to mean? Ibn Ezra picks up on this serious problem, i.e., using the word נצרות without saying what's being guarded. Again, the statements associated with נצר or נצרת always have a secondary word that's the thing being guarded, preserved, or watched over. Nowhere in the Tanakh is the word used as it's being used in Isaiah 48:6.

Something is being said in Isaiah 48:6 that's not consistent with how the verse is being interpreted in the MT and the KJV. The verse doesn't say what's being hidden or guarded. It implies that the word "nazareth" is both the hidden thing, and the guarding of the hidden thing. Which is how I've interpreted it. I.e, "nazareth" means to guard something, and in this hapax legomenon, Isaiah 48:6, "nazareth" is both the thing being guarded (i.e., the title that will be attached to the suffering servant of Deutero-Isaiah) and the way its being guarded, e.g., by being hidden in the word meaning "to guard."



John

 

[John D. Brey]

according to Nachmanides, Isaiah is about to reveal the name of God's face, person, son, messiah, who God hid from Israel in Deuteronomy 31:17?​

Would you please provide a citation for this? I'm having trouble locating it.

In his commentary on Deuteronomy chapter 31 Nachmanides says:

He told them all that would occur to them. This is similar to what is said, "Because I knew that thou art obstinate, and thy neck is an iron sinew etc., therefore I have declared to thee from old; before it came to pass I announced it to thee."​

His specific comments are answering Deuteronomy 31:18-21, where God says he will hide his face from Israel because they're obstinate and he allegedly knows their nature and thus what they intend to do with the covenant when their stubborn heart gets free from Moses and is prospering in the land.

So when he draws a direct parallel with (he quotes) Isaiah 48:4-5, he's setting up the statements in Isaiah 48:6 precisely as I've implied he's doing. Of all the verses in the Tanakh that Nachmanide's brilliant mind might associate with God hiding his face from Israel ---in Deuteronomy 31:18--- he goes immediately to Isaiah 48:4-5, where the very next verse has God implying that the very thing he hid from Israel, and even said he hid from Israel, in the final codification of the Law, the Torah, Deuteronomy 31:18, he's now, amazingly, going to reveal to Israel hundreds of years after the codification of the Law, and hundreds of years before Saul of Tarsus claims he himself is removing the veil over the face of God that was hiding it from Israel. Isaiah beats Saul of Tarsus to the punch by pointing out that the face of God will be given a title that will both guard it and hide it from the unsuspecting: nazareth.

Ironically, the Talmud calls those who do suspect such a thing: nazarenes.




John

 

[John D. Brey]

So when he draws a direct parallel with (he quotes) Isaiah 48:4-5, he's setting up the statements in Isaiah 48:6 precisely as I've implied he's doing. Of all the verses in the Tanakh that Nachmanide's brilliant mind might associate with God hiding his face from Israel ---in Deuteronomy 31:18--- he goes immediately to Isaiah 48:4-5, where the very next verse has God implying that the very thing he hid from Israel, and even said he hid from Israel, in the final codification of the Law, the Torah, Deuteronomy 31:18, he's now, amazingly, going to reveal to Israel hundreds of years after the codification of the Law, and hundreds of years before Saul of Tarsus claims he himself is removing the veil over the face of God that was hiding it from Israel. Isaiah beats Saul of Tarsus to the punch by pointing out that the face of God will be given a title that will both guard it and hide it from the unsuspecting: nazareth.

Ironically, the Talmud calls those who do suspect such a thing: nazarenes.

Someone who appreciates the legitimacy of the exegesis above might wonder how and where Isaiah's mind might have come to contemplate something so ironic as the fact that messiah will himself, as well as the title he comes to be know by, be associated with a branch נצר?

A new truth that claims to be more than a heretofore unrecognized aspect of, or conclusion from, an old truth ceases to be truth and enters the realm of fantasy and delusion.

Rabbi Samson R. Hirsch, The Hirsch Chumash, Shemos, p. 590.​

Since Rabbi Hirsch is correct, we should like to know where Isaiah got the idea of messiah's name or title being associated with a branch, a nazar, such that his name or title becomes nazar-ish? "Notzrim' is the modern Hebrew word for Christians (No·tsri, נוֹצְרִי) and one of two words commonly used to mean "Christian" in Syriac (Nasrani) and Arabic (Naṣrānī, نصراني)" (Wikipedia, Nazareth).

Ironically, I just typed נצרת into a Google Hebrew to English translator and got "Nazareth." But when I added the vav (נצרות), added only in Isaiah 48:6, I get "Christianity." Surely the people setting up the translator at Google aren't in cahoots with the exegesis offered here that points out that נצרות (with a vav) is a hapax legomenon in the Tanakh found only at Isaiah 48:6? . . . Which nevertheless doesn't address where Isaiah got the idea that the face of God, the human mask of God, messiah, might acquire the title "nazar" making him nazar-ish, or eth, or ot?

In a gall-nut shell, we could say this topic has been covered almost too thoroughly in the very recent thread become essay, The Private Parts of the Torah, where we learn that the face of God, the branch, Nehushtan, as it were, was, and is, is where Isaiah gets the idea that the face of God hidden in Deuteronomy 31:18 is none other than the testimony given through Nehushtan, who, like the nazarene in Isaiah 48:6, is going to get taken out of the temple, outside the gates of Jerusalem, and thrown a good beating (the Hebrew word for the treatment the Jewish religious authorities throw the branch that's the face of God, Nehushtan, at 2 Kings 18:4, i.e., בתת, means, according to Gesenius: "To Beat, To Hammer . . .").

In Exodus 16:34, after Moses tells Aaron to lay the manna before the "face" of the Lord, you know, the one being hidden in Deuteronomy 31:18, and revealed in Isaiah 48:6, Aaron summarily marches right up to Moses' branch, also known as Nehushtan, and places the manna before the branch of the Lord.

So you see Isaiah isn't the brilliant prophet you may have thought he was. It's all there in black and white for anyone with a modicum of scriptural knowledge so long as they can read the Hebrew before it's distorted by the Masoretic text.

Isaiah could be considered a dunce of a prophet in the sense that when he claims the face of the Lord, God's face, is hidden in Nazareth, or in the word for branch, he's clearly preaching, prophesying, to a choir, who are laughing in his face, since they already know the branch of the Lord that's the face of God, the branch the Masoretes' forebearers drug outside the gates of Jerusalem (2 Kings 18:4), threw a good beating, precisely because a small cadre of Jews could read the hand writing on the wall to know not just whom, or what, this branch of the Lord represented, i.e., God's face, but also the hypocrisy and sin the religious leaders were engaging in 2 Kings 18:4-5 and John 18:4-5.

Behold my servant shall be like a branch desirable too look at שכל. He shall be lifted up נשא and be very highly exalted with strength מאד, so that when he's bound as a prisoner כאסר [2 Kings 18:4] many are naturally disoriented and astonished at the sight. For now, he no longer has the original salvific beauty that caused us to desire him [Isaiah 63:11-13]. And yet this (his) disorienting visage is consecrated above all other men by the very marring associated with his being bound [they paralyze my hands and feet so that I am powerless (R. Hirsch, Tehillim 22:17)]. He’s lifted up by his hands and feet, by the hand of God, higher than any man, just like the branch in Moses’ hand [Isaiah 63:11-13]. So that just like Nehushtan, and like the branches of the cedars of Lebanon, cut off to make the temple, his appearance is now a shrine (Isaiah 53:9), and his form תאר is consecrated above all the sons of Adam to such a degree that his visage can no longer be fancied merely man. For this reasons, as the high priest of all mere men, he shall sprinkle the multitude of Gentile nations.

Isאiah 52:13-15.​

John

 

[rosends]

I think one exegetical problem is that it can mean both. It can mean Jesus "from" Nazareth. But it can mean Jesus "the" Nazarene. On the latter, we have Acts 24:5, where Paul of Tarsus is called a "ringleader of the Nazarenes" by his Jewish antagonists. Ringleader of the Nazarenes doesn't mean Paul's cadre are all from Nazareth. That term, "Nazarene," came to be associated with Jesus, his disciples, and, in the Talmud, with all Christians. This fact seems to lends itself to Matthew being amazed that Jesus and his clan are all given a title associated with the word for a "branch," just as the prophets said would be the case.

Except you said that the construction in the talmud doesn't mean "from" and now you concede that it could mean from. Can you show me where in the talmud, the hey introduces a place name and follows with a yod and doesn't mean "from _____"? Citing the gospels doesn't support an argument about the talmud.

The Hebrew word for the city of Nazareth, to this day, is the consonants נצרת or נצרות.

But your claim was that the name appears in the biblical text and it doesn't. A word appears which shares the consonants in a post biblical Hebrew place name. That's very different. The vocalization is completely different and the Mishlei word is identical with one of the spellings you provide, making it a better candidate (and invalidating your "only" claim).

I'll leave you be with your interpretations. Good luck.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

.
Fallen Prophet I hope all is well...
The Apostles were the elders of "The Church"! They are the first to hold the office of Bishop.

Acts 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms: ‘Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein’; and, ‘His bishopric let another take.’

The Apostles scripture was the Old Testament the Bible holds the New Testament also!

The Apostles and Bishops existed before the Catholic Church.

They were not members of the Catholic Church.

 

[Dogknox20]

The Apostles and Bishops existed before the Catholic Church.
They were not members of the Catholic Church.

.
Fallen Prophet You will have to prove your accusation! FACT: Before Jesus ascended he established a Church: ONE Church!
Jesus commissioned his Church to Teach all nations and to make Disciples of all nations by Baptizing them!
Before Jesus ascended he gave his Church AUTHORITY of God! AND.. Jesus also promised to be ALWAYS with his Church to the end of time!

Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to his Church on Pentecost as he promised to send a paraclete to guide them into all truth!
Fallen Prophet QUESTIONS:... Did Jesus lie? Did the Holy Spirit fail Jesus and us?! Is Jesus still with his established Church or did Satan somehow overpower Jesus and take Jesus' holy body from Jesus!? Again.. Jesus promised to be ALWAYS With his Church to the end of time!

The Apostles were Christ Followers = Christians who grew the Catholic Church the one church Jesus established before he ascended!
Peter was the first Shepheard! Peter was given the the Key by Jesus in person, he is the Key Holder the Chief AUTHORITY!
All the early Church Fathers were Catholics.. All claimed linage back to the Apostles!
They baptized infants, they ate the flesh of Jesus, they drank his blood. The early Church fathers were Bishops in the Catholic Church with AUTHORITY to command men!
The Early Church Fathers with the authority of Jesus forgave sins! IF...

Fallen Prophet if the early Church fathers were NOT in the one church Jesus established then the question arises; where is this "one Church" Jesus established at today!?
Example of one early Church Father....Ignatius (below)
Ignatius wrote to the Trallians. “Obey the bishop as if he were Jesus Christ” (2:2, 1). “Do nothing apart from the bishop,” he wrote to the Philadelphians (7:2). To the Smyrnaeans he gave the same advice: “You should all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ did the Father . . . Nobody must do anything that has to do with the Church without the bishop’s approval” (8:1).
He wrote to Polycarp (the words were also meant for the latter’s entire flock in Smyrna): “Pay attention to the bishop so that God will pay attention to you. I give my life as a sacrifice (poor as it is) for those who are obedient to the bishop, the presbyters, and the deacons” (6:1). To the Trallians he wrote: “You cannot have a church without these” (3:2).
Ignatius wrote: A.D. 110 “When the bishop is present, there let the congregation gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (8:2).

Fallen Prophet Did you read this? just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church”! A.D. 110

Fallen Prophet Please reply with your proof; there was no church and the answers to the questions posed!

Acts 8:1 On that day a great persecution broke out against the church in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria.

=Acts 9:4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”

 

[dybmh]

according to Nachmanides, Isaiah is about to reveal the name of God's face, person, son, messiah, who God hid from Israel in Deuteronomy 31:17?

I'm still stuck at "Isaiah is about to reveal the name of..." The name of God in the later chapters of Isaiah is given. Search for "יְהֹוָ֥ה צְבָא֖וֹת שְׁמֽוֹ". You'll see it specified several times. Note that this is given a few verses prior to 48:6.

[Nachmanides] draws a direct parallel with (he quotes) Isaiah 48:4-5, he's setting up the statements in Isaiah 48:6 precisely as I've implied he's doing

I simply don't see a connection between Nachmanides comments and the name of God's face, or person, or son, etc... If it's an implication you're making then it shouldn't be attributed to Nachmanides.

The connection between Deuteronomy 31:17-21 and Isaiah 48:4-5 is that the verses in Isaiah 48 corroborate the prophecy in Deuteronomy 31.

Where is Nachmanides drawing a direct parallel to the name of God's face, or God's person, or God's son as you claimed?

 

[dybmh]

the Talmud calls those who do suspect such a thing: nazarenes.

Citation please. With Talmud quotes it's very important to provide a way for the reader to look at the actual Aramaic. The text of the Talmud is often cryptic. Context and precision is lacking without reviewing what is actually written.

 

[John1.12]

Matthew 2:23
So the family went and lived in a town called Nazareth. This fulfilled what the prophets had said: “He will be called a Nazarene.”

Here is my challenge. Where in the Tanakh (OT) is this so called prophecy that he will be called a Nazarene? Now I really must insist that this prophecy be concerning the town of Nazareth, since Matthew makes it ALL about Nazareth. So please, no references about Nazarites -- that is something completely different. If you can't come up with a direct quote of "He shall be called a Nazarene," I will settle for any prophecy that the Messiah will come from the city of Nazareth.

The problem is that no such prophecy exists. The author of Matthew simply made it up out of whole cloth. It is a big, big, big problem for the credibility of the gospels.

23And 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.
. The prophets spoke it; they did not write it.

Simple .