On the one hand, from the biblical texts themselves, there are no
compelling reasons to adopt a Nazirite interpretation. First, nowhere in the
LXX is Nazirite rendered Ναζωραιος. Second, a Nazirite explanation simply does not fit the Matthean
Infancy narrative in its own context, nor is it supported by the picture of Jesus
elsewhere in Matthew, Matt 11 presents a notable example:
ήλθεν γάρ Ίωάννης μήτε έσθίων μήτε πίνων, καί
λέγουσιν· δαιμόνιον έχει. ήλθεν ό υίός του άνθρώπου εσθίων και πίνων, και
λέγουσιν· ίδου άνθρωπος φάγος και οινοπότης, τελωνών φίλος και άμαρτωλών.
(Matt 11.18-19) For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they
say, "He has a demon." The Son of Man came (both) eating and
drinking, and they say, "Look, a glutton and drunkard, a friend of tax
collectors and sinners."
On the other hand, Davidic Branch - 'Ανατολή connections, which
complement the Davidic messianic themes prominent in Matthew's first chapter,
have also been discerned in Matthew's second chapter. Furthermore, the
prophetic plurality of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Zechariah, from which the unified
concept of נַצֶר and צֶמַח, as interchangeable Messianic Branch terms, may also
account for the unusual fulfillment formula in Matt 2.23, in which the indirect
speech citation, οτι
Ναζωραΐος κληθήσεται,
fulfills τό ρηθέν διά των προφητών. The prevalence of Davidic imagery, as well
as the lacking of convincing Nazirite material, confirms that the Nazareth-Ναζωραιοςwordplay in Matt 2.23 must refer to Jesus
as the Davidic Branch, the נַצֶר who came from Nazareth. (Charlene McAfee Moss,
The Zechariah Tradition and the Gospel of Matthew [Beihefte zur
Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 156; Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter, 2008], 39-40)
