But although he did not abstain from wine he could have remained a Nazarene all the same. For in chapter vi. of _Numbers_, we see that after the priest has waved a part of the hair of a Nazorite for a wave-offering before the Lord, “after that a Nazarene may drink wine” (v. 20). The bitter denunciation by the reformer of the people who would be satisfied with nothing is worded in the following exclamation: “John came neither eating nor drinking and they say: ‘He hath a devil.’... The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say: ‘Behold a man gluttonous and a wine-bibber.’” And yet he was an Essene and Nazarene, for we not only find him sending a message to Herod, to say that he was one of those who cast out demons, and who performed cures, but actually calling himself a prophet and declaring himself equal to the other prophets.[202] The author of _Sod_ shows Matthew trying to connect the appellation of Nazarene with a prophecy,[203] and inquires “Why then does Matthew state that the prophet said he should be called _Nazaria_?” Simply “because he belonged to that sect, and a prophecy would confirm his claims to the Messiahship.... Now it does not appear that the prophets anywhere state that the Messiah will be called a _Nazarene_.”[204] The fact alone that Matthew tries in the last verse of chapter ii. to strengthen his claim that Jesus dwelt in Nazareth _merely to fulfil a prophecy_, does more than weaken the argument, it upsets it entirely; for the first two chapters have sufficiently been proved later forgeries.