So we have the writer of the first gospel – let’s pretend his name is “Matthew,” even though the writer of the first gospel didn’t say this. And in his attempt to prove how much his favourite messiah candidate is so ensconced in the Jewish Bible, he “quotes” passages stating that Jesus or his life fulfilled them, whether those passages were messianic in content and context or not. Without going into all those others, he then says in chapter 2:23 the following:
“And [Jesus] came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth so that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.”
Now looking at this, what is it saying? Simply that Jesus living in Nazareth fulfils what the prophets said! And the prophecy that was fulfilled by him living in Nazareth states that he shall be a Nazarene , which, according to a new testament Greek dictionary, simply means an inhabitant of Nazareth.
[This verse is not about a nazirite, which has nothing to do with living in Nazareth, although it should be noted that there is no prophecy that the promised anointed king would be an nazirite either. So it’s irrelevant.)
There are two things that can be drawn from this statement of Matthew when compared to the plain reading of the Jewish Bible:
1) There is no prophecy that states that living in Nazareth has anything to do with being the promised anointed king; and thus
2) “Matthew” did not get this prophecy from the Jewish Bible, the only means of determining who the promised anointed Davidic king will be.
Essentially, “Matthew” was wrong. He made a mistake, a boo-boo.
Now, I understand that there are theories (only theories, since no one can ask “Matthew” what he meant and he didn’t tell anyone) that try to explain away this problem. Some talk about the Hebrew word for “branch” and some talk about this being an indirect quote that comes from many prophets and thus people can only speculate about what it really means. But as I don’t already have the assumption that “Matthew” actually knew what he was talking about and thus don’t need to explain away the verse, I’ll just state the simple facts about this verse.
1) “Matthew” says that Jesus’ being an inhabitant of Nazareth, a Nazarene, fulfils what was said by the prophets.
2) Not one single prophet of the Jewish Bible stated that being an inhabitant of Nazareth or a Nazarene fulfils any messianic criteria.
3) Therefore “Matthew” is wrong.
There’s nothing to add to that.