Eclectic Topics in no Particular Order
Various Topics Discussed
/>
Matthew 2:23 says "And he went and lived in a city called Nazareth, so that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, that he would be called a Nazarene."
Would it surprise you to know there is no such prophecy? Nope. Totally false. There is nothing in the Hebrew Bible that even comes close to suggesting the messiah will be called a Nazarene. The Hebrew word נֵ֖צֶר / netzer in Y'shayahu / Isaiah 11:1 is a poetic word found three times in the T'nach. It is translated as ‘a scion’, ‘a twig’, and lastly as "a sapling." The Hebrew word נֵ֖צֶר / netzer has three consonants נ-צ-ר / nun-tzaddi-resh. The two acceptable Hebrew names for the town of Nazareth are נָצְרַת / notsrat / nun-tzaddi-resh-tav or נַצֶּרֶת / natseret / nun-tzaddi-resh-tav with a different pronunciation than Notsrat... Both of Hebrew words for Nazareth have the same four consonants נצרת. There is no connection between נֵ֖צֶר / netzer and the Hebrew for Nazareth: נצרת. They don't even share the same root (Hebrew words are based on roots). At first glance those with limited knowledge of Hebrew might assume that they share a root because both נֵ֖צֶר / netzer and natzar / נָצַר (the root for Nazareth) share consonants. However, there are many roots in Hebrew that share consonants but are the roots of completely different words. A perfect example is the word ערב which is the root for erev / עֶרֶב evening, arav / עָרַב a vow, and even arev / עָרֵב -- a co-signer of a loan. The root for the Hebrew word for Nazareth is the verb natzar / נָצַר which means to “guard” or “preserve.” See Sh'mot / Exodus 34:7 where נֹצֵר (it is the first word in that verse). As you can see, it is not the same as the root נֵ֖צֶר / netzer in Y'shayahu / Isaiah 11:. English has a similar concept -- where words are spelled alike but are totally different words. Consider the English word "bat" which can refer to the animal or to a baseball bat... Same spelling, different word. When they sound alike (as in bear) it is called a homonym. When they are spelled the same by pronounced differently (as in natzar / נָצַר and נֵ֖צֶר / netzer) in English this is called a homograph. In English you might say that there is wind if it is blowing, and you wind up a clock (same spelling, different pronunciation)... So no, the term in Y'shayahu / Isaiah 11 has nothing in common with the name of a town called Nazareth. Then there is the fact that the word, נֵ֖צֶר / netzer, is never used as a "name" for the messiah. There is no such passage in the T'nach. Some missionaries try to tie the "called a Nazarene" claim in Matthew to a נָזִיר / nazir (a person who has taken a “Nazirite” vow of abstinence). This term (נָזִיר / nazir) is specified in B'midbar / Numbers 6:2-21: "Speak to the children of Israel, and you shall say to them: A man or woman who sets himself apart by making a nazirite vow to abstain for the sake of the L-rd." Jesus never took such a vow. So the claim is a non-starter. The second letter of נָזִיר / nazir is ז / zayyin while the second letter of נֹצְרִי / notz'ri is צ / tzaddi. Many Christian translations compound the issue by writing the word “Nazirite” with an "a" instead of an "i" in their transliteration of Nazirite to make it "Nazarite" -- perhaps to try to somehow link it to the "Nazarene" non-existent prophecy in Matthew 2:23. The Hebrew word נָזִיר / nazir is totally unrelated to the word נֹצְרִי / notz'ri (Nazarene). Again, missionaries are making a claim based on a lack of Hebraic understanding. Many missionaries shrug off this "little problem" that there is NO prophecy that the messiah will be from the non-existent town of Nazareth. They say it is a “lost prophecy”— or even funnier -- an "oral one" (they say the oral tradition in Judaism is nonsense -- but here they want to use it as proof??). If this was a "lost prophecy" how would the author of "Matthew" know about it? Why would he expect his readers to know of it, too? And what of the town of Nazareth? Someone asked whether this town even existed in the time of Jesus. Well, it is immaterial to a Jew if it did or it didn't but there seems to be more "proof" for didn't than did. Not that it matters. The earliest historical mention of "Nazareth" comes from the 3rd century CE. There is no mention of Nazareth in the T'nach, nor Talmud, nor Josephus -- and Josephus listed all of them! Even an early reference to Nazareth cited by Eusebius has Julius Africanus locating Nazara in Judea in 200 CE... Archeological discoveries may back up the fact that Nazareth didn't exist at the time of Jesus. Last year, 2019, an Israeli archeologist found a house dating back to the time in Jesus in what is today called Nazareth. This is actually the first archeological finding that anyone lived there around the time of Jesus -- but one house does not a town make! Link to a page on the Israeli Antiquities site discussing this topic. In it the lead archeologist says "Until now... no settlement remains have been discovered that are attributed to this period." This one house may or may not point to the existence of Nazareth in the time of Jesus. But (again) if it existed or not is immaterial. There is no prophecy that the messiah will live in such a town or that he will be called a "Nazarene."
0 Comments
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
Categories
All
|