Does Mt 2:23 support Tradition?

[Windfish]

Mat 2:23:

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.

This prophecy is nowhere to be found in the Old Testament and is, thus, an example of traditions outside Scripture.

Here are Protestant objections:

biblelight.net/nazarene.htm

I am personally not convinced by them. What do you think? I was listening to this Protestant apologist, and he suggests that “Nazerene” was used as a metaphor that alludes to actual OT prophecies.

 

[JoeT777]

This prophecy is nowhere to be found in the Old Testament and is, thus, an example of traditions outside Scripture.

Here are Protestant objections:

biblelight.net/nazarene.htm

I am personally not convinced by them. What do you think? I was listening to this Protestant apologist, and he suggests that “Nazerene” was used as a metaphor that alludes to actual OT prophecies.

The author, presumably, Michael Scheifler makes a convoluted argument that rests on supposition. It’s an empty argument. It starts by quoting Matthew: “And coming he dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was said by prophets: That he shall be called a Nazarene.” (Matthew 2:23). Catholics hold that since the town of Nazareth is not in the Old Testament it implies a verbal Tradition, not dependent on the written word. It is however a good example,.

The argument implies, without overtly stating it, since it is found in the Gospels that it’s not a Tradition handed down verbally – it’s written. This of course misses the entire point of Tradition. Furthermore, that the Tradition of Nazareth is better defined than Roman Catholic Traditions. Mr. Scheifler fails to understand that Tradition and Scripture must validate each other, they cannot exist apart. Catholics do not teach outside Scripture; conversely, Scripture doesn’t teach a subjective tradition, i.e. things not found in Catholic Tradition. The fact that Nazarene is used derisively doesn’t add an advance of his argument. Nor does the argument advance understanding the etymology of Nazarene mean ‘a shoot’ or flower (Cf. Isaiah 11:1). Then he astonishes everyone with his intellect by announcing the greatest find since peanut butter on sliced bread: the derivative of Nazarene comes to us from St. Jerome’s "Ad Marcellam”.

What is funny, that while St. Jerome doesn’t address this issue directly (I don’t think) there are other contemporary Church Doctors, such as Saint John Chrysostom, that say this was a verbal Tradition. In fact, you might say it’s a tradition that we see this verse supporting Tradition.

Michael Scheifler’s arguments are meaningless. And what if this isn’t a good example of ‘Tradition’, what does it change?

JoeT

 

[diggerdomer]

This prophecy is nowhere to be found in the Old Testament and is, thus, an example of traditions outside Scripture.

Here are Protestant objections:

biblelight.net/nazarene.htm

I am personally not convinced by them. What do you think? I was listening to this Protestant apologist, and he suggests that “Nazerene” was used as a metaphor that alludes to actual OT prophecies.

From NAB footnote:

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 Isaiah 11:1 where the Davidic king of the future is called “a bud” (neser) that shall blossom from the roots of Jesse, and Judges 13:5, 7 where Samson, the future deliverer of Israel from the Philistines, is called one who shall be consecrated (a nazir) to God.