In the vast and often sharp field of online interreligious debate, it is common to encounter detractors who, armed with prepackaged lists of alleged “contradictions” in the New Testament, challenge the integrity of the sacred texts. Some time ago, I faced one such case: a self-proclaimed rabbi who questioned the historical validity of the Gospel of Matthew, specifically pointing to the passage in Matthew 2:23, which states that Jesus dwelt in a town called Nazareth, “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, ‘He shall be called a Nazarene.'”

The accusation was blunt: no such prophecy exists in the Tanakh (Old Testament). Therefore, it was concluded that the evangelist had invented a non-existent text out of ignorance.

What was curious about that exchange was not only the firmness of the defense of the sacred text, but the reaction of the interlocutor: absolute silence. Despite being a user accustomed to debating publicly on his website, my detailed response was never published, much less answered. The echo of that silence was, in reality, the most eloquent answer.

Below, I present a reworked version of that rebuttal, converted into an article on the 1st-century Jewish mindset and the true mechanics of exegesis in this passage.

1. The Problem of Bias: Teacher or Apprentice?

Approaching any ancient system of thought with a predisposition to find flaws usually clouds judgment. To fairly criticize a text, one first requires the humility of an apprentice—the capacity to say: “I know this system well enough that I can debate its specific points.”

In the case of Matthew 2:23, the critic made a fundamental error in his reading, for the evangelist never said that “a prophet” spoke this, but rather “the prophets” in the plural. in ancient composition, this does not indicate a literal quote from a single verse, but a deductive conclusion—a synthesis of prophetic concepts. Thus, this should have been the starting point for our critic friend.

2. The Remetz Method and the 1st-Century Mindset

To understand Matthew’s deduction, it is imperative to grasp the Jewish hermeneutical tools that have accompanied this culture for centuries, such as Remetz (allusion). Here, Matthew uses a compilation of prophetic ideas through this method to explain Jesus’ residence in Nazareth.

Those who criticize this through an anachronistic lens often apply a double standard. For instance, the exegesis found in the Talmudic tractate Eruvin 99a (line 11 from the bottom) regarding Proverbs 8:36—interpreting it to mean that “he who blows his nose in the presence of his rabbi is worthy of death”—utilizes a level of hermeneutical association that no one questions with indignation within its own context. Similarly, the Midrash on Ecclesiastes 2:8 shows us how the mind of ancient Jewish sages operated. Therefore, requiring the New Testament to conform to a literalistic Western rigor—while being a user of these very methods from classical Rabbinic Judaism—is intellectually dishonest.

3. The N-TZ-R Root and the Prophetic Wordplay

To unravel Matthew’s reasoning, we must look at the Hebrew language and word roots. Two prophets use the root N-TZ-R:

• Isaiah 11:1: Uses the word Netzer (נצר – trunk shoot / branch) in the singular, directly linked to the Mashiach (Messiah): “And a shoot shall come forth from the stump of Jesse, and a Netzer shall sprout from his roots.”

• Jeremiah 31:6 [31:5 in Spanish/Hebrew versification]: Uses the word Notzrim (נצרים – watchmen / guardians) in the plural, without a direct messianic connection.

The name of the town, Natzrat (Nazareth), phonetically and etymologically alludes to Netzer (the trunk shoot), and not to the “guardians.” Therefore, by stating that He dwelt in Nazareth to fulfill what was spoken by the prophets, Matthew is applying a classic hermeneutical device within the Judaic mode of analysis—a kind of exegetic word puzzle drawn from the words of the prophets.

4. Parallels in Rabbinic Tradition: The Formula “Do Not Read… But…”

As noted, this type of connection is far from alien to the Hebrew context. The Talmud and Midrashic literature—which recorded the oral tradition where these hermeneutical devices were taught—are filled with the formula “Do not read [this word], but rather [this other word]” (Al tikra… ela…):

• In Talmud Bavli, Yoma 38a: “Do not read Brotim (Cypresses), but Beritim (Covenants).”

• In Yoma 75b: “Do not read Avirim (Mighty ones), but Evarim (Limbs / Body parts).”

Likewise, in the Sifrei on Devarim (Deuteronomy), the sages discuss how prophecies are fulfilled (mekaiem) through associations of words and concepts (such as the use of Avrech in Genesis 41:43 or the term Hadrach in Zechariah 9:1).

A modern example of this can be seen among the followers of Nachman of Breslov: although they no longer live in the original Ukrainian city, they call their movement Breslov or Breslev because this word shares the exact same letters as the Hebrew phrase Lev Basar (לב בשר – “a heart of flesh”), prophetically linking it to Ezekiel 36:26.

5. The Route of the Messiah According to the Prophets

If we connect the dots as a 1st-century scholar would have done, the residence of the Messiah unfolds as follows:

1. His initial geographic origin: Bet Lechem (Bethlehem), as predicted by Michah (Micah 5:2 [5:1 in Spanish]).

2. The setting of His manifestation: The land of Galil (Galilee), as announced by Isaiah 8:23–9:1 [9:1–2 in English] and even the Zohar (II, 8b–9a), indicating that His public revelation would begin there.

3. His specific residence in Galilee: The town of Natzrat, linked directly to the prophecy of the Netzer (the Branch / Shoot) in Isaiah 11:1.

This prophecy could be legitimately understood through the mindset of the era via a dual reading:

• “Do not read Netzer, but Natzrat,” understanding that the prophet pointed directly to the geographical location of the messianic shoot.

• Or by recognizing that the Netzer (the olive shoot) would find its physical home in the town of Natzrat.

Conclusion

The alleged “discrepancies” of the New Testament are nothing more than evidence of a deep ignorance regarding the 1st-century literary, exegetical, and cultural rules of Judaism among most readers and experts today—rules and heritage that those ancient writers received (kabbalah in Hebrew) through oral tradition. Thus, Matthew committed no geographical error, nor did he invent a quote. He simply utilized a hermeneutical method to connect the root used by the prophets with the historical reality of the Messiah, considering it essential for his readership.

Understanding this requires setting aside bias and entering the richness of ancient Hebrew thought. That critic preferred silence in the face of evidence; we, on the other hand, have the opportunity to rediscover the depth of the text when we read under those hermeneutical rules that have accompanied the biblical text for centuries—rules that are so widely ignored and marginalized today.

Author: Dr. Liber Aguiar