zhugin

In http://carotta.de/subseite/texte/jwc...t.html#text281 F. Carotta claims that "chresto" in Suetonius' Claudius 25:3 (Iudaeos impulsore chresto assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit) and "chrestiani" in Tacitus' "ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit quos per flagitia invisos vulgus chrestianos appellabat") mean "usury/usurers" (speculators). He translates the sentence in Suetonius as ‘…the Jews who practised usury and thereby caused constant turmoil, he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome.’

About the Tacitus text, see http://www.textexcavation.com/tacitustestimonium.html
About the Suetonius text, see http://www.textexcavation.com/suetoniustestimonium.html

What do you all think about the theory about chresto and chrestiani meaning usurers? I haven't made up my mind regarding this issue yet.

***

Here is a debate (October 2008) between Richard Carrier and Carotta, regarding this matter. I am sorry if I have mixed up entries or are posting them here in the wrong chronological order.

Carrier: Chrestes does mean usurer. It also means prophet, though.

Carotta: This is not true. It does not mean prophet, it can mean soothsayer, what is different.

Carrier: Even if that were true, Suetonius or his source would not likely have minced words over such a minute difference. But it also isn't true. The Liddell & Scott Lexicon (LSL) has as the first and primary definition of Chrestes "one who gives or expounds oracles, prophet, soothsayer" (and, BTW, only as its secondary meaning "creditor, usurer" and as a third meaning "debtor," the exact opposite of a creditor or usurer).

Carrier: Incidentally Chrestus (Chrestos) means in Greek "useful, good, serviceable, nice, beneficial," etc., hence it was a common slave name.

Carotta: It was not only used for slaves, e.g. a famous bearer of the name was a sophist of the 2nd century AD. But it was also used as an adjective, e.g. in epitaphs, in the vocative form, in the meaning of "late", "good dead person". Ergo, also if the chresto of Sueton came from chrestus/chrestos, it would not be necessarily a proper name.

Carrier: And Chrestikos (-ikos being one Greek equivalent of the Latin -ianus, hence Chrestianus = Chrestikos) means the same thing as Chrestos (and not "having to do with usurers," etc.).

Carotta: Is chrestikos used in the considered latin texts? No.

Carotta: This is a translation problem in English. In other languages, you will not find the word "chrêstês" rendered with "profeta", but with e.g. "indovino" (to take the Italian example). In fact "one who gives or expounds oracles" can be called "prophet" only in English, a language in which the foreign words are not always used in their original meaning; but you have to be aware, that it means "indovido", "Wahrsager", i.e. rather "soothsayer", "prophet" being a word which induce to confusion.

Carrier: That doesn't matter. I'm talking about what the word meant in ancient Greek. For example, the Bible was routinely called a collection of oracles. Thus biblical prophets were "those who give or expound oracles" to ancient Greeks. There was no significant difference.

Carrier: That's fictional etymology. Chrestes does not mean speculator (no such reference in the LSL), it means (at its nearest) usurer, but it means that via a completely different verb (kichrêmi) than by which Chrestes means prophet (kraô), so there is no reasoning by which there can be a "common denominator," as these are entirely different words.

Carotta: As this is written in the LSL, a dictionary I have too, together with many others, it is not a new information.

Carrier: Precisely. Hence my problem with someone who would make claims contrary to established standard scholarship.
Carrier: This is like saying that bow means both "bend at the hip" and "the front end of a ship" and therefore the common denominator is pointing forward, "therefore bow means pointing forward." That's nonsense etymology. That kind of silliness belongs in an Alice and Wonderland novel perhaps, not in serious scholarship.

Carotta: This kind of sillines is exactly what occurs in reality. First in the mind of the common people, using the language, who amalgamate words with different etymology, and second in the mind of the scholars, who usually confuse, choosing the acceptation they prefer, mostly for ideological reasons, as Mr Carrier in this case.

Carrier: That has nothing to do with my point. Were this phenomenon the case *here*, then the lexica and textual evidence would *show* it. *That's* my point. You don't just get to make stuff up.

Carotta: This is another imprecision of Mr Carrier, which proves both, that Mr Carrier has only a superficial knowledge of Greek, and that LSL is not the bible, other dictionaries in other languages being better. The German Menge e.g. knows that chrêstes comes from kichrêmi and from chraô, because kichrêmi is not opposite to chraô (not kraô, as Mr Carrier writes, which is false and does not exist), as Mr Carrier supposes, but comes from it, both meaning primarily "to lend/borrow", both coming from *chrêjo, meaning "to give in use" ("to give oracles" having with "to lend" this in common, that something is given for use).

Carrier: And where and when did Menge say this? (pay attention to the date and obscurity that will be revealed by Carottas answer) (BTW, "*chrejo" is a reconstructed (theoretical) word based on linguistics and would only indicate a word no longer used anywhere near the time we are talking about, thus whether any words can be traced back to it is wholly irrelevant--Suetonius would know nothing about this, and the derivation of the nouns came from the *subsequent*Greek words, which had already split, *not* from the hypothetical prehistoric root--except, of course, via the split derivations, exactly as the LSL says). Yes, I did mean chrao. Typo.

Carotta: Grosswörterbuch Griechisch-Deutsch, von Prof. Dr. Hermann Menge, Berlin, München, Wien, Zürich, 1913, (23)1979, s.v. The first edition was 1913: is it expired? I do not think so, because it is reprinted until today. Is Liddell/Scott more recent? The first edition of Liddell/Scott was 1843, i.e. even older. Do today scholars know ancient Greek better than the scholars of a century ago? I do not know in England or in America, but in Germany surely not. A prove is that old dictionaries of ancient Greek are reprinted in all languages, Liddell/Scott making no exception: New is only the supplement, which for chraôgives nothing relevant. Has Mr Carrier the knowledge to correct Menge? From what I have seen until now, I do not believe it, sorry. Mt Carrier is only able to read in his LSL, his bible, and if something is not written there, he thinks it does not exist, and all other scholars are wrong if they know something that LSL has not noticed.

As one can see, Menge gives—regardless of the reconstructed etymology "*chrejo"—as first meaning of chraô(3) "leihen", i.e. "to lend", "to borrow", and only as a second, derived meaning "(ein) Orakel erteilen, od. geben" i.e. "to give an oracle". Both meanings also in Lorenzo Rocci, (1943) (which in the opinion of my Greek teacher, is also better than Liddell/Scott, often lacunose) s.v.: B: divinare; C: commodare, mutuum dare. Idem A. Bailly (1950: prêter and faire savoir, en particulier d'un oracle, d'un dieu), idem also La Magna/Annaratone. This one, the more recent, first edition 1994, states that for chraô, in the sense of "to lend/borrow", in the present tense, kichrêmi is usually used (come pres. si usa però di solito kichrêmi). This does not allow to say that, as Mr Carrier pretend, "chrestes does not mean speculator, usurer, but it means that via a completely different verb (kichrêmi) than by which chrestes means prophet (kraô)". Chraô does not mean "to lend/to borrow" via kichrêmi, but by itself. It is only so, that kichrêmi was often used instead of chraô, in the present tense. There is no different meaning between both. Menge gives the meaning of kichrêmi as identical with chraô(3), see above. Similar the other dictionaries. Sueton of course knew both meaning of the verb chraô, and there was no necessity for him to use kichrêmi with "impulsore chresto", this "chresto" being an ablative of a past participle and not of a present tense. Notice that it was even not necessary for him to know the other meaning of the word, because, as a Graecism in the Latin—confirmed by the chrestiani of Tacitus—, it was well known even by people who did not speak Greek (assidue tumultuantis / vulgus appellabat).

Carrier: Either could explain Suetonius,

Carotta: This is not true. Only the meaning of speculator, usurer, makes sense in both, Sueton and Tacitus.

Carrier: Suetonius and Tacitus are different authors. They could be talking about different things, using different sources (and prima facie they are--it is only *in theory* that their two discussions are linked, which is fine, but don't confuse theory with established fact). If we can explain the text in Suetonius and Tacitus separately, then we do not need a common explanation for Suetonius and Tacitus together.

Carotta: This is a capital theoretical error. A common explanation for two texts speaking of the same matter is more credible than two different.

Carrier: That's not true. By that reasoning, space aliens built the pyramids and the Nasca lines in South America because one explanation for two facts is to be preferred to two separate explanations for two separate facts. The reality is, simplicity can be an indicator but is not an inherent indicator of truth, as should be obvious: most facts in this world have their own independent explanations. There isn't one giant conspiracy theory that explains all historical facts. Since the material in S. and T. is prima facie different, there is no a priori reason to expect them to have a common explanation (you have to *theorize* a link that would warrant looking for a common explanation--that is a crucial distinction here). Thus, if we have *adequate* explanations for these facts (and we do), we do not *need* another explanation (simple or otherwise). This can be demonstrated with Bayes Theorem, if you care to understand the formal logic.

Carrier: Either could explain Suetonius, only if we presume Suetonius didn't understand the Greek in his sources,

Carotta: This is not true. Why should Sueton only understand the meaning soothsayer, but not the meaning speculator?

Carrier: If Suetonius understood *either* he wouldn't have used the Greek word but would have translated it into Latin (or explained he was using Greek). Only if Suetonous thought it was a proper name would he not do that. He didn't do that. Ego he thought it was a proper name. If Suetonous thought Chrestus was a proper name, he couldn't have thought it meant something else "instead" (like usurer).

Carotta: This we had already: it does not become more true by repetiton.

Carrier: It was true the first time. It bears repeating because it doesn't become false by repeatedly denying it.

Carrier: ... which is implausible (he was a renowned expert). If he knew what it meant he would have translated it into Latin.

Carotta: This is stupid. The latin authors used currently greek words, see Cicero, or Tertullian.

Carrier: Yes, and when they do, they usually explain what they are doing.

Carotta: Not usually. Sometimes, exceptionally.

Carrier: That's what I said. For example, when Cicero first uses the word physikos he explains that it is the Greek word for natural philosopher.

Carotta: The fist time, and only because the word had another more common acceptation.

Carrier: Then he goes on using the common Latin form physicus. This sort of thing is all the more common when a word is being used in an obscure sense (as chrestus = usurer would definitely be).

Carotta: This is not true. The ward was not obscure. It is only obscure to us, because it does not appear in literary texts. The word was well known to the people of the city, jargon, as the wording "vulgus appellabat" shows: "quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Chrestianos/Christianos appellabat".

Carrier: First, how do you know? Have you been on the ancient street?
Second, that is exactly what makes the word obscure: as Pliny the Elder explains, commoner's vocabulary and idiom is unfamiliar to literate elites (the people whom Suetonius is writing for) and thus *need* explaining to their readers (and even when not unfamiliar it needs explaining because without the explanation the reader will *assume* the different meaning more familiar to them--e.g. when Aulus Gellius has to stop and explain how the commoner's meaning of Chaldaean is different from what the more educated understood it to mean).

Carrier: In fact, the burden is on anyone who would suggest that Suetonius just casually translitterated a Greek word that is not widely used in Latin (or at all) and didn't tell anyone what he was doing or why (or which sense of the word he meant). Anyone who wants to suggest this must prove such a far-fetched theory before being believed, especially when the plain sense of the passage has Chrestus as a proper noun, i.e. a name, not a common word.

Carotta: The contrary is true: The common word being the lectio facilior, the proper noun the lectio difficilior, the burden is on them who want (or need) to read a proper noun where a common word makes more sense.

Carrier: You must not know what you are talking about. A lectio difficilior is a spelling that is harder or more unusual than the lectio facilior, and these terms only refer to variants (actual different words appearing in texts or marginalia), not to different interpretations of the exact same word spelled exactly the same way. There are no variants here, so these terms don't apply. Moreover, even if we were to invent a new meaning for these formal terms and take them as terms referring to interpretation (semantics) rather than textual reading (transcription), the sentence in Suetonius makes a proper name expected here, and that would make such an interpretation the easier one, not the reverse, and such an unusual Latinism likewise makes the prior probability that this was intended as a proper name very high (since such unusual Latinisms, when not explained to be otherwise, more often than not are proper names).

Carotta: We always use foreign words, in all languages. In English more than 50% of the words are borrowed from French, Latin or Greek. There are words, that cannot be translated. Do you really think that calf means the same than veal, sheep the same than mutton, and pig the same than pork? If yes, please, do not invite me to your dinner, Sir.

Carrier: Comparing modern English with ancient Latin style is not a scholarly argument. Those languages are socially, culturally, and historically different in their use and development.

Carotta: Yes, but the reasons why foreign words are used instead of the indigenous ones, are always the same:

Carrier: Which is entirely irrelevant here.

Carotta: the foreign word has another nuance, and with negative connotation is more pejorative. It is easier and more effective to insult with a vulgar foreign word as with a literary own one. And this was the case. This word "chrestiani/christiani" was used by the people in order to insult them quos per flagitia invisos [erant]. If we suppose that the word came from a person called "Chrestus/Christus" this person would have to be known by all people and hated by all people, "per flagitia", "because of his abominable iniquities". Like if one today says of somebody "he is a Judas". But such a famous "Chrestus/Christus" is not documented, not in Rome for the time of Nero. Although the scholion speaks of Tiberius and Pontius Pilatus, the supposed "Christus" of the scholion was known in Rome, by the people, only later, and a supposed slave "Chrestus" never known.

Carrier: Most people mentioned in T. and S. are documented nowhere else. That's the sad fact of ancient history: almost no documentation on anyone survives, and that means for most people named, we know nothing beyond a single author or passage somewhere.

Carrier: You are again confusing Tacitus with Suetonius. That scholion is in Tacitus. It is conspicuously *not* in Suetonius. That's my point.

Carotta: Ergo we are obliged to stay with an ablative of "chrêstês" in the hypotext of Sueton and with a "chrestiani" in the hypotext of Tacitus, and accept that the scholion of the Tacitean text can only date from a time where the anti-Christian polemic started, the time of Celsus giving the terminus post quem.

Carrier: We are not so obliged at all. That's my point. The Mediceus scribe wrote [] Christ, never any [] Chrest. So there is no hypertext to explain.

Carrier: But the text that says that doesn't say Chrestus. That's my point.

Carotta: But it was also used as an adjective, e.g. in epitaphs, in the vocative form, in the meaning of "late", "good dead person". Ergo, also if the chresto of Sueton came from chrestus/chrestos, it would not be necessarily a proper name.

Carrier: Yes, but whatever it "was," Suetonius (or his source) clearly took it as a proper name.

Carrier: Chrestikos is Greek. The Latin equivalent is Christianus. I don't know if Chresticus (the way the Greek would be printed in Roman letters) is used anywhere in Latin literature, but I doubt it. Latin authors would probably use what they considered the appropriate Latin form (Chrestianus) or more likely a Latin translation (of Chrest-). My point is that Chrestianus in Latin would mean what Chrestikos means in Greek, which was a word in use with a known definition.

Clivedurdle

http://loveshakbaby.com/2007/11/scary-scary-nur.html

Spoon - to make love in a romantic manner - Anglo Indian 19th use.

Toto

Where was this debate held?

2004 thread on Carotta

Another one

zhugin

In which posts is the usurer theory discussed?

Toto

I don't recall that the usurer theory was discussed, but Carotta's general use of fake linguistic derivations was.

zhugin

Earl Doherty and Carotta.

Doherty: Carrier's arguments are by far superior.

Carotta: This is another form of the majority fetichism. As if the question were which arguments are superior or inferior. The question is what applies, what fits, what is correct, what solve the enigma. Superior means nothing if it is still not enough.

Doherty: "Chrestus" in Suetonius is presented as a name (the instigator), not as a category term.

Carotta: Name and category term is not the right opposition here: the right one is proper name (noun) and common noun. In any case this is a poor argument. How will Doherty know that chresto is the name of a person? Is this noun written with an uppercase initial in the manuscripts? Is this always the case?

Doherty: In Tacitus (whether authentic or not), if the crowd "called" them "Chrestianos" this again is a name or title. We would not say something like "the citizens called them bus-drivers."

Carotta: Another logical error: Chrestianos is not chresto.

Doherty: Much of Carotta's arguments are not rational.

Carotta: All what differ from Doharty's thinking is not rational. Why not the contrary?

Doherty: It is not necessary that Suetonius' readers were familiar with a "Chrestus" in Rome almost a century earlier.

Carotta: Why is he writing "Chrestus" with an initial uppercase? What justify this? How does Doharty know that chresto comes from "Chrestus"? Because he has read it in the books of other people, having in their turn read it in the books of other people, and so on, all without thinking and checking?

Doherty: And he is identifying the 'instigator' in his one statement simply by giving his name.

Carotta: Why "he"? How will Doharty know that it is a "he" and not an "it"? Because he has assumed it? This is a circle.

Doherty: Suetonius is probably drawing it from an earlier account (now lost) and knows no more about it than the name itself.

Carotta: Suetonius had been a bybliothecis, a studiis, and ab epistulis, i.e. he had not only access to the libraries in Rome he was responsible for, but also to the imperial archives, being the director of the chancery, in charge of the documentation of the emperor. So to suppose that Suetonius of all people was an ignorant and did not know what he wrote is a colossal aberration.

Doherty: In Tacitus, I think it a bizarre idea that anyone would think that Nero would round up usurers and slaughter them in this manner, and anyway, why would usurers be thought to have burned down the city of Rome?

Carotta: Why should this be a bizarre idea? Nero applied evidently the Talion law: the incendiaries were burned and those torn to pieces by dogs can only have been the speculators, the ‘bloodsuckers’. Nero could avert the suspicion of having himself commissioned the fire of Rome only by punishing those who had bribed the incendiaries, and these were, in the opinion of the people, the building speculators, of whom Nero was suspected to be the accomplice. The punishments had to be exemplar, in order to show that he was not their accomplice. It is only logical.

Or is it bizarre only because it destroys the myth of Nero having burnt Rome and persecuted the Christians?

spin

The thing that is obvious from the text of Annals 15.44 that the term Chrestianus is derived from the name Christus, not from Chrestus a name that also existed and can be found in Roman epigraphy. If the passage is correct about Christus, then the original form which underlies the earliest Tacitus manuscript for the group, ie Chrestiani doesn't derive from Christus. As the manuscript is quite late, it's hard to make much of a case over something which may have been an error of transmission, such as what one might expect from a scribe with a French background, who may have written Chrestiani unconsciously, then the text was corrected to Christiani as it stands today.

One would expect Christiani from Christus; that it was corrected thus suggests that Chrestiani was simply an error.

The statements regarding crimes and punishments may be interesting, but I see no references at all, so I cannot look into the matter or comment.

As to the reference to Suetonius's brief comment about the disturbance cause by a Chrestus, is it relevant to christianity at all? Chrestus is a name that was in use in Rome.


spin

EarlDoherty

I would like to point out that the exchange above between myself and Carotta was not authorized. I sent those very "off-the-cuff" comments to a third party who had asked my opinion on this thread (one I was not aware of before) and those comments were sent to Carotta without my knowledge. They were hardly organized for a proper debate, and in any case I don't conduct debates between third parties. (And with the exception perhaps of a couple of people here, I am not in the habit of calling someone "not rational" to their face.)

As for Carotta's final comment, my new chapter on Tacitus for the second edition of The Jesus Puzzle, does not support authenticity for Nero's persecution of Christians at the time of the great fire. That part at least of the story is very unlikely to have happened at all, something I argued in favor of with Ben several months ago here, as some of you may remember.

Earl Doherty

zhugin

Excuse me for posting third hand party debates, but until people of different opinions in this matter actually discuss it with eachother (which was what this thread was ment for), this is apparently the only thing possible to do, if one wants to view the different arguments. BTW calling someones arguments not rational I don't regard as the same as calling a person not rational.

Toto

I gather that these are not "debates" -t that you have taken comments from Carrier and Doherty and gotten Carotta to respond?

This is a bit irregular, at the very least.