caf -- First a comment about the choice of Bible versions before I respond to your critique on this point. I know that every translation whether ancient or modern has its limitations, certainly including the one I regularly use, the NIV. However, in Isaiah 1:11, "new branches," as rendered in the GNB is just one of the categorical reasons I could not encourage anyone to use the GNB as a general resource. The Hebrew text is singular, the Greek translation of the text is singular, and every actual translation I've seen (including the Jewish Tanakh) is singular. One branch is pictured. There is no good reason for the variation from the actual text in the GNB. The version could have been true to its own style, and more true to the text by paraphrasing "just as a new branch sprouts from a stump..." There are too many similar lapses in the GNB to be satsifactory.

essay wrote: Now, caf, I really think that is 'stretching it' far more than any of allusions I provided. I understand that the Hebrew word for 'branch' is built on the consonant group NZR. And there is no question that Isaiah is referring to the promised Messiah here. But Matthew says 'prophets', plural. Which other prophet(s) made such a reference? And given that there are many hundreds of OT references to the Messiah, comprising many thousands of words, I would think that just about any town that Joseph might have chosen could very well have had a name that could be compared with some such OT quote. So, is this prophecy or coincidence?

caf -- Regarding "the prophets," I thought we already had a general understanding of the fact that Isaiah is part of the category of books in the Hebrew canon called "the prophets," as in Matthew 5:17, 7:12, 11:13, 22:40, and 26:56. However, as noted below, Isaiah was not the only source Matthew, and his readers, had in mind. There is a body of prophecy under consideration. Regarding the hundreds of prophetic statements about Christ, no, not just any town in Israel would have sufficed, but yes, it is amazing, far beyond credible coincidence, how the vast array of prophetic statements come together in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.
By the way, the term "Nazarene" or "of Nazareth" was not only deemed significant by Matthew. Altogether we have about 30 references that remind us Jesus was from Nazareth and called a Nazarene in the gospels and Acts. It was a term associated with his followers (Acts 24:5) and used as a title or proper name by Christ himself (Acts 22:8) and by demons (Mark 1:24). Both the friends and the enemies of Jesus were very familiar with the identification (Acts 3:6, 26:9, 6:14). The name carried weight and meaning, both positive and negative, and was deemed significant by those first followers of Jesus, and their opponents. Matthew gives us one insight into the meaning and association that the friends and enemies of Jesus saw in that designation.

Here are the words of a few other authors on the subject:

Back in the 13th century Thomas Aquinas wrote in Summa Theologica P(3)-Q(35)-A(7)-O(2), Further, it is said (Matthew 2:23) that it is written of Christ that 'He shall be called a Nazarene'; which is taken from Isaiah 11:1: 'A flower shall rise up out of his root'; for 'Nazareth' is interpreted 'a flower.'

In the 19th Alfred Edersheim wrote, in The Life and Times of Jesus The Messiah, St. Matthew, indeed, summarizes the whole outward history of the life in Nazareth in one sentence. Henceforth Jesus would stand out before the Jews of His time ? and, as we know, of all times ? by the distinctive designation: 'of Nazareth,'(Notsri), Nazwrai~ov 'the Nazarene.' In the mind of a Palestinian a peculiar significance would attach to the by-Name of the Messiah, especially in its connection with the general teaching of prophetic Scripture, And here we must remember, that St. Matthew primarily addressed his Gospel to Palestinian readers, and that it is the Jewish presentation of the Messiah as meeting Jewish expectancy. In this there is nothing derogatory to the character of the Gospel, no accommodation in the sense of adaptation, since Jesus was not only the Savior of the world, but especially also the King of the Jews, and we are now considering how He would stand out before the Jewish mind. On one point all were agreed: His Name was Notsri (of Nazareth). St. Matthew proceeds to point out, how entirely this accorded with prophetic Scripture ? not, indeed, with any single prediction, but with the whole language of the prophets. From this the Jews derived not fewer than eight
designations or Names by which the Messiah was to be called. The most
prominent among them was that of Tsemach, or 'Branch.' {In accordance
with Jeremiah 23:5; 33:15; and especially Zechariah 3:18} We call it the most prominent, not only because it is based upon the clearest Scripture-testimony, but because it evidently occupied the foremost rank in Jewish thinking, being embodied in this earliest portion of their daily liturgy: 'The Branch of David, Thy Servant, speedily make to shoot forth, and His Horn exalt Thou by Thy Salvation....Blessed art Thou Jehovah, Who causeth to spring forth (literally: to branch forth) the Horn of Salvation' (15th Eulogy). Now, what is expressed by the word Tsemach is also conveyed by the term Netser, 'Branch,' in such passages as Isaiah 11:1, which was likewise applied to the Messiah. Thus, starting from Isaiah 11:1, Netser being equivalent to Tsemach, Jesus would, as Notsri or Ben Netser, {So in Be R. 76} bear in popular parlance, and that on the ground of prophetic Scriptures, the exact equivalent of the best-known designation of the Messiah (The Branch s His Name}. The more significant this, that it was not a self-chosen nor man-given name, but arose, in the providence of God, from what otherwise might have been called the accident of His residence. We admit that this is a Jewish view; but then this Gospel is the Jewish view of the Jewish Messiah.
But, taking this Jewish title in its Jewish significance, it has also a deeper meaning, and that not only to Jews, but to all men. The idea of Christ as the Divinely placed ?Branch? (symbolized by His Divinely-appointed early residence), small and despized in its forthshooting, or then visible appearance (like Nazareth and the Nazarenes), but destined to grow as the Branch sprung out of Jesse's roots, is most marvellously true to the whole history of the Christ, alike as sketched 'by the prophets,' and as exhibited in reality. And thus to us all, Jews or Gentiles, the Divine guidance to Nazareth and the name Nazarene present the truest fulfilment of the prophecies of His history.

caf -- Some authors have also connected the name Nazarene to the separated ones of the Old Covenant, the Nazirites (see Numbers 6). In about 200 AD Tertullian wrote this: The Christ of the Creator had to be called a Nazarene according to prophecy; whence the Jews also designate us, on that very account, Nazerenes after Him. For we are they of whom it is written, "Her Nazarites were whiter than snow;" even they who were once defiled with the stains of sin, and darkened with the clouds of ignorance. But to Christ the title Nazarene was destined to become a suitable one, from the hiding-place of His infancy, for which He went down and dwelt at Nazareth, to escape from Archelaus the son of Herod. (The passage to which he referred is Lamentations 4:7.)

essay wrote: Of course, Luke tells us that Nazareth was Joseph's home in the first place.

caf -- Matthew doesn't tell us where Joseph's encounter with the angel of the Lord took place, when Mary was his pledged wife. He doesn't tell us the first place Mary and Joseph lived together. He does tell us Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:1), no matter where Joseph and Mary had been before that, and that the family later went to Nazareth, after some uncertainly about where they should go, and there Jesus was raised (Matthew 2:21-23). Luke of course tells us the same thing about Jesus being born in Bethlehem and the family settling in Nazareth where Jesus was raised (Luke 2:4ff, 2:39). The two accounts include unique stories, and complement each other.