Gospel stories found in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark are supposed to come from an earlier source “Q”.
Who was the “Q” author?
The person was literate, which narrows the possibilities down to a few categories, but which category is the most probable?
Could “Q” have lived anywhere other than Jerusalem?
“Q” supposedly contained lots of individual sayings by Jesus including long passages such as the Beatitudes. Where could this information have come from if it was not made up?
Blackwell said
Gospel stories found in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark are supposed to come from an earlier source “Q”.Who was the “Q” author?
The person was literate, which narrows the possibilities down to a few categories, but which category is the most probable?
Could “Q” have lived anywhere other than Jerusalem?
“Q” supposedly contained lots of individual sayings by Jesus including long passages such as the Beatitudes. Where could this information have come from if it was not made up?
The most certain thing about Q is that it was a written source or sources, in Greek. If it was one document, it is strange that it passed unnoticed and was not referred to by the early church fathers. After all, gMark, being a rather short text compared to the others was meticulously copied together with the others, even if it did not contain anything important that couldn’t be found in the others. It is therefor better to think of Q as a group of minor texts. That would explain why there is no mention of it in the early sources. And possibly why Luke speaks of “many” sources.
Who might have been in a position to receive information about the sayings of Jesus and then write them down in Greek?
Bart Ehrman, in “How Jesus became God” speculates that there was not just one such person, but three, with L (stories unique to Luke) and M (stories unique to Matthew) in addition to Q.
As you say, it is strange that the Q document was not referred to by the early church fathers, but even more strange if there were three independent authors. Maybe one person wrote all of these texts and each gospel writer got a copy of some of them. In that case, all information may have come from a single source, which upsets the criterion of multiple attestation.
Blackwell said
Who might have been in a position to receive information about the sayings of Jesus and then write them down in Greek?Bart Ehrman, in “How Jesus became God” speculates that there was not just one such person, but three, with L (stories unique to Luke) and M (stories unique to Matthew) in addition to Q.
As you say, it is strange that the Q document was not referred to by the early church fathers, but even more strange if there were three independent authors. Maybe one person wrote all of these texts and each gospel writer got a copy of some of them. In that case, all information may have come from a single source, which upsets the criterion of multiple attestation.
If Q,M and L individually denotes a group of small written sources, there may have been any number of authors, in total. We cannot know if L is a part of a unique Q document that Matthew didn’t care for and M something reversely. M and L may even be expansions invented by Matthew and Luke solely on basis of oral traditions.
We could consider Q,M and L simply as parts of a group of small Greek texts written by people in various communities as an aid in their missionary efforts, lets say in the 50’ies or possibly 60’ies, since there are no allusions to it in the Pauline corpus. May be someone has tried to analyze the Greek style of the Q content to see if there is more than one hand?
gavriel said
If Q,M and L individually denotes a group of small written sources, there may have been any number of authors, in total. We cannot know if L is a part of a unique Q document that Matthew didn’t care for and M something reversely. M and L may even be expansions invented by Matthew and Luke solely on basis of oral traditions.
We could consider Q,M and L simply as parts of a group of small Greek texts written by people in various communities as an aid in their missionary efforts, lets say in the 50’ies or possibly 60’ies, since there are no allusions to it in the Pauline corpus. May be someone has tried to analyze the Greek style of the Q content to see if there is more than one hand?
It should be added that, according to Kloppenborg, about 40 percent of the Q-stuff follows the same order in both Luke and Matthew, so this part may safely be attributed to one document. Since we know that Mark’s order of pericopae was partly followed by Luke/Matthew and partly re-arranged, we may safely assume that a lot of the remaining 60 percent of the double tradition comes from the same document. This strongly suggests that there is one large, dominating document behind the double tradition, but possibly some minors as well.
A problem with the hypothesis that Q was written in the 50’s or 60’s from oral tradition is that this is a notoriously unreliable way to transmit speech, resulting in documents which record what the author thought Jesus might have said or should have said rather than what he actually said. Also, as you mentioned previously, it is very strange that Paul does not comment either directly or in disputes about the correct version. It is as if he had no knowledge of the stream of oral tradition.
An alternative hypothesis is that Q was written in the 30’s by a sympathizer in Jerusalem, who kept the document secret (to avoid discovery of association with Jesus) until the 60’s ( by which time Paul was dead), when copies became available. In this case, there is a better chance that the words are authentic but the implication is that at the time of his crucifixion Jesus had followers among the literate class in Jerusalem. This corresponds to the gospel narratives but conflicts with the supposition that Jesus was just a simple peasant who made a nuisance of himself.
It is said that if Jesus had been well-known in Jewish society then there ought to be more independent references to him, but the fallacy of this argument can be seen by considering politicians and entertainers who are well-known in other languages but unknown to English speakers. Also, there are virtually no records of any of the people who were important in Jerusalem in Jesus’s time. Do you consider that this is a valid hypothesis?
Blackwell said
A problem with the hypothesis that Q was written in the 50’s or 60’s from oral tradition is that this is a notoriously unreliable way to transmit speech, resulting in documents which record what the author thought Jesus might have said or should have said rather than what he actually said. Also, as you mentioned previously, it is very strange that Paul does not comment either directly or in disputes about the correct version. It is as if he had no knowledge of the stream of oral tradition.An alternative hypothesis is that Q was written in the 30’s by a sympathizer in Jerusalem, who kept the document secret (to avoid discovery of association with Jesus) until the 60’s ( by which time Paul was dead), when copies became available. In this case, there is a better chance that the words are authentic but the implication is that at the time of his crucifixion Jesus had followers among the literate class in Jerusalem. This corresponds to the gospel narratives but conflicts with the supposition that Jesus was just a simple peasant who made a nuisance of himself.
It is said that if Jesus had been well-known in Jewish society then there ought to be more independent references to him, but the fallacy of this argument can be seen by considering politicians and entertainers who are well-known in other languages but unknown to English speakers. Also, there are virtually no records of any of the people who were important in Jerusalem in Jesus’s time. Do you consider that this is a valid hypothesis?
One would have to analyze the content of Q, to determine which stage of development of early Christianity it corresponds to. May be it is typical for the immediate decades leading up to the destruction of the temple? Your hypothesis is at least valid, but may lack a way of being tested. I think that if a believer collected sayings, he would also look for a way of immediately publishing it, even anonymously, if required. After all, the gospel writers didn’t name themselves in their writings. Another problem is the strong apocalyptic fervour of the earliest period, in which written expositions to guide a future church where not seen as a priority, since Jesus was about to return at any moment. May be written expositions came naturally as a response to the times when the communities understood that Parousia could be far into the future, and that there would be a long period requiring an organized Church. However, there were missionaries at work from very early on, and I find it hard to believe that not some of them used a kind of “cheat sheet” as a memorizing aid.
Evidence for an early origin for the Q document is actually provided by Bart Ehrman in “How Jesus became God” in the chapter “Did Jesus think he was God” where he discusses the criterion of dissimilarity. He gives two examples from Q:-
1. Luke 17:26-30 and Matthew 24:38-40 where Jesus indicates that he is not the ‘Son of Man’, the anticipated messiah.
2. Luke 22:30 and Matthew 19:28 where Jesus tells his disciples, including Judas Iscariot, that they will all become kings of the twelve tribes of Israel after the apocalypse.
He argues that these quotations are unlikely to have been made up after Jesus’s crucifixion so they probably originate from him. By the same reasoning, it is unlikely that the Q author wrote them down after the crucifixion. It is however probable that once they were written down, the words were faithfully copied. Indeed, that is exactly what has happened over the centuries. So this evidence suggests that at least some of the Q document was recorded while Jesus was still alive.
As to why the author might want to keep it secret, being literate he was likely to have had some degree of authority so for him to admit sympathy for someone who had been executed for claiming to be king is a different matter than if he was of no importance.
Blackwell said
Evidence for an early origin for the Q document is actually provided by Bart Ehrman in “How Jesus became God” in the chapter “Did Jesus think he was God” where he discusses the criterion of dissimilarity. He gives two examples from Q:-1. Luke 17:26-30 and Matthew 24:38-40 where Jesus indicates that he is not the ‘Son of Man’, the anticipated messiah.
2. Luke 22:30 and Matthew 19:28 where Jesus tells his disciples, including Judas Iscariot, that they will all become kings of the twelve tribes of Israel after the apocalypse.
He argues that these quotations are unlikely to have been made up after Jesus’s crucifixion so they probably originate from him. By the same reasoning, it is unlikely that the Q author wrote them down after the crucifixion. It is however probable that once they were written down, the words were faithfully copied. Indeed, that is exactly what has happened over the centuries. So this evidence suggests that at least some of the Q document was recorded while Jesus was still alive.
As to why the author might want to keep it secret, being literate he was likely to have had some degree of authority so for him to admit sympathy for someone who had been executed for claiming to be king is a different matter than if he was of no importance.
Not only Q, but also the the remaining synoptic material contain sayings that are thought to be close to the thinking of J. The problem is how exactly the chain of transmission has been, from Aramaic oral instructions by J., into written koine Greek. I doubt that any of this material was produced by a bi-lingual witness. This is not to say that bi-lingual witnesses did not exist. I rather prefer the idea that from very early oral traditions, small stories and sayings may have had a life as “cheat sheets” in at least Greek, and from these oral and written traditions, the larger documents evolved. This happened perhaps soon after or at the same time as the communities started to collect and exchange the letters of Paul.
gavriel said
Not only Q, but also the the remaining synoptic material contain sayings that are thought to be close to the thinking of J. The problem is how exactly the chain of transmission has been, from Aramaic oral instructions by J., into written koine Greek. I doubt that any of this material was produced by a bi-lingual witness. This is not to say that bi-lingual witnesses did not exist. I rather prefer the idea that from very early oral traditions, small stories and sayings may have had a life as “cheat sheets” in at least Greek, and from these oral and written traditions, the larger documents evolved. This happened perhaps soon after or at the same time as the communities started to collect and exchange the letters of Paul.
Interesting points, Gav. It’s interesting to hear people ppl talk about Q because they so often seem to miss what it is. I’ve read some who describe it as fiction. Q is, as you no doubt know, or seems to be an artifact of source criticism. The material is very real, it’s simply a question of where it came from. Are you familiar with Mark Goodacre’s argument?
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Similarly,
“A problem with the hypothesis that Q was written in the 50’s or 60’s from oral tradition is that this is a notoriously unreliable way to transmit speech, resulting in documents which record what the author thought Jesus might have said or should have said rather than what he actually said”
This kind of reasoning, you might say, is historically shallow and tends to conflate two very different problems. When Q may have been written “in the 50’s or 60’s” with it’s purported origin in oral tradition. The purported notoriety of transmission, would only have been perceived at some point in a culture relying on the written word; a culture that concerns itself with the accuracy of given accounts. There certainly wan’t a choice of sources. Either you derived your material from oral tradition or not. And since the point of oral tradition was tailoring your story to your audience, no one cared about accuracy. It’s likely that Q contains what Dale Allison refers to as Jesus voice. We could also, just for fun entertain Bauckham’s claim of living memory. What reason do we have to reject the idea that those creating the cheat sheets, may have derived them from eye witnesses?
spiker said
Interesting points, Gav. It’s interesting to hear people ppl talk about Q because they so often seem to miss what it is. I’ve read some who describe it as fiction. Q is, as you no doubt know, or seems to be an artifact of source criticism. The material is very real, it’s simply a question of where it came from. Are you familiar with Mark Goodacre’s argument?
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Similarly,
“A problem with the hypothesis that Q was written in the 50’s or 60’s from oral tradition is that this is a notoriously unreliable way to transmit speech, resulting in documents which record what the author thought Jesus might have said or should have said rather than what he actually said”
This kind of reasoning, you might say, is historically shallow and tends to conflate two very different problems. When Q may have been written “in the 50’s or 60’s” with it’s purported origin in oral tradition. The purported notoriety of transmission, would only have been perceived at some point in a culture relying on the written word; a culture that concerns itself with the accuracy of given accounts. There certainly wan’t a choice of sources. Either you derived your material from oral tradition or not. And since the point of oral tradition was tailoring your story to your audience, no one cared about accuracy. It’s likely that Q contains what Dale Allison refers to as Jesus voice. We could also, just for fun entertain Bauckham’s claim of living memory. What reason do we have to reject the idea that those creating the cheat sheets, may have derived them from eye witnesses?
There are problems with all hypotheses proposed to the solution of the synoptic problem. So far, I have become convinced that the hypothesis that both Matt and Luke used Mark and Q independently is the one with the fewest problems(i.e. some few so-called minor agreements against Mark). It has an optimum of simplicity and explanatory power. “Mark without Q” may be simpler, but has less explanatory power and more problems. If Luke knew and used both Mark and Matt, then you have to explain why he largely disassembles Matt’s double-tradition material relative to Mark, giving it a new relative position to other Markan material in his own gospel. This alone speaks strongly in favour of Luke’s independence of Matt, and that the double-tradition material really is a written source or sources as previously explained.
Q probably came about in the same way as Mark, that is, it’s author collected and arranged free-floating pericopae. May be some of this material consisted of minor scripts, while others were also stories that were told over and over again in the community sermons or gatherings.
spiker said
gavriel said . If Luke knew and used both Mark and Matt, then you have to explain why he largely disassembles Matt’s double-tradition material…
Not sure I understand this point.
Well, this is a major argument against the hypothesis that Luke used Matthew, in place of Mark and Q independently.
Assume the existence of a double-tradition material (DT hereafter) in Luke and Matt, which is either lifted from Q or by Luke’s copying of Matt’s non-Markan content.
Assuming that Luke used Matt, one would expect that Luke would use DT together with the surrounding passages or context that Matt has taken from Mark. But he doesn’t do that. He puts DT together with his own selections from Mark. Had he been copying from Matt, he would have used a fair amount of Matt’s arrangements of DT and Mark. That is why it is a better explanation to say that Luke used a Q-source independently of Matthew. If so, we should in fact expect to find Luke’s DT-stuff in his own combinations with Mark.
This is still not quite clear to me, but let me give you my sense of it.
gavriel said
Well, this is a major argument against the hypothesis that Luke used Matthew, in place of Mark and Q independently.
Actually, I think the issue is whether Luke used Mark and Matthew or more precisely, that the material attributed to Q is derived from Matthew. This is to say the Q hypothesis is only necessary if Luke did not know Matthew.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
as Farrer observed,
“…the hypothesis wholly depends on the incredibility of St. Luke’s having read St. Matthew’s book. That incredibility depends in turn on the supposition that St. Luke was essentially an adapter and compiler. We do not now, or ought not now, so to regard him. And being once rid of such a supposition, we can conceive well enough how St. Luke could have both read St. Matthew’s book as it stands, and written the gospel he has left us. Then at one stroke the question is erased to which the Q hypothesis supplied an answer. For the hypothesis answered the question, “From what does the common non-Marcan material of Matthew and Luke derive, since neither had read the other?”
If there is no difficulty in supposing St. Luke to have read St. Matthew, then the question never arises at all. For if we find two documents containing much common material, some of it verbally identical, and if those two documents derive from the same literary region, our first supposition is not that both draw upon a lost document for which there is no independent evidence, but that one draws upon the other. It is only when the latter supposition has proved untenable that we have recourse to the postulation of a hypothetical source. Now St. Matthew and St. Luke both emanate from the same literary region-both are orthodox Gentile-Christian writings-composed (let us say) between A.D. 75 and A.D. 90, in an area in which St. Mark’s Gospel was known. Moreover, St. Luke’s own preface informs us that he writes “in view of the fact that several authors have tried their hands at composing an account of the things fulfilled among us”. He claims to know, and, one would naturally suppose, to profit by, more than one gospel-narrative other than his own. By all agreement he knew St. Mark’s, but what other did he know? It would be natural for him to know St. Matthew’s, supposing always that it had been in existence long enough.
Assuming that Luke used Matt, one would expect that Luke would use DT together with the surrounding passages or context that Matt has taken from Mark.
Why? Thi is a bit confusing DT without relying on the existence of Q would be Mark and Matthew so I’m not sure why we would think Luke would use material derived from Mark and Matt “together with the surrounding passages or context that Matt has taken from Mark.” After all, Luke is purportedly using Mark.
I think you need to consider this from the vantage point of Luke’s preface.
BTW my initial impression is that you were asking why Luke would use a source, he considered unreliable.
In that context the explanation would be contained in his famous preface:
“Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[** you do not have permission to see this link **] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.”
So we can at least say Luke is familiar with “many” efforts to “draw up an account” It’s fair to suppose that Luke is not writing in the way we might write a paper based on two or three sources . This is to say, he didn’t just sit down to write with copies of Mark and Q. Instead, he is writing from having “carefully investigated everything from the beginning” It’s reasonable to speculate that his account is just as much a corrective of these early sources.
BUT, I still have the impression I am not quite following you here; that there is something I’m missing.
gavriel said
Not only Q, but also the the remaining synoptic material contain sayings that are thought to be close to the thinking of J. The problem is how exactly the chain of transmission has been, from Aramaic oral instructions by J., into written koine Greek. I doubt that any of this material was produced by a bi-lingual witness. This is not to say that bi-lingual witnesses did not exist. I rather prefer the idea that from very early oral traditions, small stories and sayings may have had a life as “cheat sheets” in at least Greek, and from these oral and written traditions, the larger documents evolved. This happened perhaps soon after or at the same time as the communities started to collect and exchange the letters of Paul.
If there were “cheat-sheets”, who wrote them?
As for the Q author, there are only a few possible categories, but which category is most probable?
When were the “cheat-sheets” written?
If the Q author was compiling these “cheat-sheets” while Paul was active, why does he not mention them?
As mentioned previously, there is evidence which suggests that some “cheat-sheets” were written while Jesus was still alive.
Blackwell said
As for the Q author, there are only a few possible categories, but which category is most probable?
When were the “cheat-sheets” written?
If the Q author was compiling these “cheat-sheets” while Paul was active, why does he not mention them?
As mentioned previously, there is evidence which suggests that some “cheat-sheets” were written while Jesus was still alive.
a few possibilities!? There are any number of possibilities depending on where and when Q was written. “
If Memory serves, Gav seems to think Q is a series of cheat sheets so either they were written prior to Q or asking when they were written is like asking when Q was written.
Yea there’s little if no evidence for anything being written while Jesus was still alive.
Why? Thi is a bit confusing DT without relying on the existence of Q would be Mark and Matthew so I’m not sure why we would think Luke would use material derived from Mark and Matt “together with the surrounding passages or context that Matt has taken from Mark.” After all, Luke is purportedly using Mark.
I think you need to consider this from the vantage point of Luke’s preface.
BTW my initial impression is that you were asking why Luke would use a source, he considered unreliable.
In that context the explanation would be contained in his famous preface:
So we can at least say Luke is familiar with “many” efforts to “draw up an account” It’s fair to suppose that Luke is not writing in the way we might write a paper based on two or three sources . This is to say, he didn’t just sit down to write with copies of Mark and Q. Instead, he is writing from having “carefully investigated everything from the beginning” It’s reasonable to speculate that his account is just as much a corrective of these early sources.
BUT, I still have the impression I am not quite following you here; that there is something I’m missing.
Maybe I was not clear enough – English is not my mother tongue. This is a quite interesting discussion, and I believe Ehrman has devoted some posts to it.
I introduced the term DT, just to denote passages that is found in both Luke and Matthew, but NOT in Mark. The term says nothing about where the content comes from, it is just a technical term.
Assume that Matthew wrote first, and took material from Mark and mingled it with DT, wherever it came from. Later came Luke and made selections from Matthew copying all of DT and much of Matthews use of Mark and something also directly from Mark. However, he wouldn’t be able to see the boundaries between DT and Mark in Matthew, as Matthew put together, unless he made a thorough text-critical study like modern scholars do. Therefor one should in this case expect that Luke would take many sections consisting of Matthew’s combinations of DT and Mark. But Luke does not do that. Assuming he really copied from Matthew, he dissected every DT+Mark passage from Matthew and singled out its native DT and disconnected it from its juxtaposition with Mark as created by Matthew. Every! Then he took this original DT mined from Matthew and mingled it with his own selections from Mark. This is a hypothesis that is hard to believe.
On the other hand, If M&L used Mark independently, not knowing each other, one has to explain four or five really difficult so-called minor agreements against Mark in the “triple tradition” material. The triple tradition consists of pericopes found in all three gospels. In these cases Luke and Matthew has the same improvement of the Markan original pericope, using the same Greek terms in their improvements, not found in Mark. These passages suggest that one or the other copied the improvement from the other, but not from Mark.
So in both cases one has to come up with more supportive explanations to explain difficulties with the source model. But it is very much simpler to find a plausible explanation for the “minor agreements” problem, than finding an explanation for “Luke the master textual critic”, as explained above.
If Luke and Matthew independently took selections from Q and Mark, it would explain very well why both of them have their own juxtapositions of DT and Mark.
spiker said
a few possibilities!? There are any number of possibilities depending on where and when Q was written. “
If Memory serves, Gav seems to think Q is a series of cheat sheets so either they were written prior to Q or asking when they were written is like asking when Q was written.
Yea there’s little if no evidence for anything being written while Jesus was still alive.
No , I think Q could have been produced from cheat sheets, but ended up as at least one large document available to Luke and Matthew.
Blackwell said
If there were “cheat-sheets”, who wrote them?
As for the Q author, there are only a few possible categories, but which category is most probable?
When were the “cheat-sheets” written?
If the Q author was compiling these “cheat-sheets” while Paul was active, why does he not mention them?
As mentioned previously, there is evidence which suggests that some “cheat-sheets” were written while Jesus was still alive.
This is speculation. But it is completely plausible that missionaries traveling in the 40’ies collected stories and sayings, producing minor scripts as an aid in their preaching, since Paul was writing at least from the forties and onward.
I do not think that anything was written when Jesus was alive. Most of his adherents were illiterate and during this period, they were expecting the Son of Man to arrive very soon. It would take many years of reorganization to attract learned people with the ability to preach and write.
When Luke speaks of “many” attempts, he cannot have in mind only Q, Mark and Matthew, that is not “many”, that is “some”. Further, if he knew Matthew, he would hardly call it a “try”. Matthew is not a “try”, it is a pretty impressive gospel.
gavriel said
Maybe I was not clear enough – English is not my mother tongue.
No, Gav Your English is fine. I think this has more to do with perspective/ knowledge
perhaps more a matter of how the subject is understood.
I introduced the term DT, just to denote passages that is found in both Luke and Matthew, but NOT in Mark. The term says nothing about where the content comes from, it is just a technical term.
Thanks. It might be easier to describe this as source or the source.
Assume that Matthew wrote first, and took material from Mark and mingled it with DT, wherever it came from.
Yea, here’s the problem, I think, Farrer/Goodacre see Matt as the source.
To me this suggests that M or Matthew’s special source(s) is the origin of what you refer to as DT; if this is the case, it would seem M might either contain Q ( I am totally ignorant of what M is supposed to be) or that Matt could have drawn from
M and Q.
Later came Luke and made selections from Matthew copying all of DT and much of Matthews use of Mark and something also directly from Mark. However, he wouldn’t be able to see the boundaries between DT and Mark in Matthew, as Matthew put together, unless he made a thorough text-critical study like modern scholars do.
I think I agree with the point about “a thorough text-critical study” and don’t think Luke’s mastery of the material would have gone that far. To be sure, while The Critical Method was far from being developed, we shouldn’t forget examples like Jerome who simply didn’t have either the intellectual framework or peer support nourishing his critical acumen. Do we have any basis for believing Luke was such a critical thinker? This might work better if we had concrete examples to analyze.
No , I think Q could have been produced from cheat sheets, but ended up as at least one large document available to Luke and Matthew.
That idea MIGHT be the basis for memorization techniques. Consider that the pithy, aphoristic nature of Jesus teachings are really an artifact of oral transmission rather than the original teaching style. Of course, there is nothing barring those features from the original speaker: maybe they were more memorable because the originator expressed them in that way.
I don’t know if I can agree with your opinion about Matt. On the one hand, Luke’s description was, I think about an orderly account. On the other hand, I had once sought to reread the NT and it soon got the impression that Matt’s account was driven by the desire to show Jesus fulfilled certain prophecies; a game of prophecy Twister, if you like: Put your right hand on out of Egypt, your left foot on The angel said it’s safe to go back home then reach way over to the angel didn’t know (or was not being straight with Joseph) Herod’s son Archelaus would be ruling in his place and put your big toe on Joseph would then need to sneak off to Nazareth-not out of fear of Archelaus, but to “fulfill what was spoken through the prophets: “He shall be called a Nazarene.”
Of course, according to some out here that just meant he was part of some odd sect not really from Nazareth because the word can better be read as Nazarene rather than Nazareth n stuff.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert