Chris Weimer

Judges 13:5 as said earlier? :huh:

Notsri

Is it really likely, though, that Matthew had a single verse in mind? He says the passage was "spoken through the prophets (plural)." All other specific and direct quotes from the HB are said to have come from "Isaiah" or "Jeremiah" or "the prophet," etc. D.A. Carson also points out in his commentary on Matthew, that aside from the unique usage of "prophets" in 2:23, "only here [in 2:23] does he omit the Greek equivalent of "saying" and replace it with the conjunction hoti, which can introduce a direct quotation, but more probably should be rendered "that," making the quotation indirect...In other words Matthew gives us the substance of several OT passages, not a direct quotation."

Chris Weimer

never said he had only one saying in mind, but mind you that it might be the primary verse and Judges technically is part of the neviim.

Toto

The passage specifically refers to the birth of Samson, not all messiahs to come.

I can see how Christians would not want to apply this directly to the Messiah, since they rejected the requirements of kosher eating. But they may in fact have had an unconventional interpretation of this, as they did of the passage in Isaiah used to "predict" a virgin birth.

Chris Weimer

Yes, the early Christians indeed weren't known for keeping history as history.

Chili

Take no offense to this cweb but what I think is so pity full about the above statement is the implication that if we had better records we might believe (and be happy). The problem is that mythology is not history and history is not mythology so we might believe and any evidence we find in history or even in the sacred scriptures is and will always be like a strike against us.

Atheos

Judges 13:5 clearly refers only to the birth of Samson, not the messiah. Also, this message was delivered by "an angel of the LORD" who ascended back into heaven on the flame of an altar, not just your average sackcloth clad, smelly, dirty, prophet with a scruffy, lice infested beard.

While it's possible that the writer of Matthew 2:23 misunderstood Judges 13:5 I don't see how it's possible that any reasonable person could conclude that the passage in Judges somehow justifies the claim made by "Matthew". Nazarene and Nazarite are not the same thing. One refers to a place from which a person came, the other refers to a vow that included (possibly among other things) abstinance from alcohol and not cutting one's hair.

-Atheos

Chris Weimer

Atheos, as I said earlier, Christians weren't known for keeping history as history. The fall of Sennacherib referenced in Isaiah was taken by Christians to represent the fall of Satan, the "seed" of Abraham instead of referring to the Hebrews was taken to refer to Christ, etc... the list goes on and on forever. It's like the pesharists who took lines from Habakkuk to show how they prophesied current events. No difference with Judges 13:5, IMO.

spin

For the record, neither "Nazarite" nor "Nazerite" are correct forms, despite the fact that some translations may use one of these. The term is "Nazirite" from the Hebrew word NZYR.


spin

Chris Weimer

My Septuagint has Nazir for Judges 13:5, Matthew has Nazwraioc.