PhilosopherJay

Let us suppose for a moment that Chrestus was a real historical figure identified by Suetonius.

Consider this, the “Annals” of Tacitus were published around 117 C.E.


According to Wikipedia, Suetonius wrote his “Twelve Caesars” in AD 121 during the reign of the emperor Hadrian,”

It is hard to imagine that Suetonius had not seen Tacitus’ “Annals.’ It was certainly the latest complete account of people he was writing his book about. It seems absurd to think he could have not known about it or not read it.

Let us assume that Suetonius had read “Annals” and it said

Let us assume he thought that Chrestus and Christus were the same person, just spelled differently or that Tacitus had originally written Chrestus, which seems to make more sense i.e., Chrestians were derived from Chrestus.

How could he have written “As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome?" Knowing that Tacitus had written just four or five years before that Christus/Chrestus was killed during the time of Tiberius/Pontius Pilate, how could he make a statement implying that Christus/Chrestus was still alive in the time of Claudius? At the very least, he would have had to correct Tacitus, otherwise people would be confused as to who was telling the truth. How could Chrestus be dead in 30-36 and alive at Rome in 50?

It would be like an historian writing that King Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette congratulated Napoleon upon his becoming Emperor. Obviously such a thing would be ridiculous for an historian to write knowing that Louis and Marie were executed in 1793 and Napoleon wasn't coronated till 1804.

It would make perfect sense, if the original statement in Tacitus had read:

If this was the case, Suetonius would only be adding information. He would be adding that Claudius dealt with Chrestus and his Jewish followers by expelling them from Rome. He would be contrasting Claudius' handling of them with expelling them from Rome.

Now note this. Justin Martyr tells us:

We recently found a cup saying "Magician Through Chrestus" or "to Chrestus the Magician."



We have one source saying Chrestus in Rome during the time of Claudius. We have this cup suggesting that Chrestus was a magician. We have another source saying Simon the magician was in Rome during the time of Claudius. How many Jewish magicians with a big following could have visited Rome in the time of Claudius causing a commotion? Could Simon and Chrestus be one person?

Another question is could the gospels be a fictionalized version of the life of Simon Magus?

More Speculation:
What if Tertullian got it wrong. What if the Romans correctly identified Chrestus as the original title of the executed magician as the gnostics and Marcion testifies. But certain Jews didn't want "A Good One" derived from Plato's idea of "the Good," but wanted "An Anointed One" to prove that the Jews had killed their promise Messiah/King. Wouldn't they look through their scriptures to prove that things that happened to Simon Magus had been foretold by Yahweh's prophets and try to prove that he was not "the Good One" sent by the Platonic "Good" in opposition to Yahweh, but was sent by Yahweh himself?

spin

The latter is certainly wrong. δια doesn't mean "to".

And what I see is: διαχρηστον though I've seen people trying to read it: δια χρηστου. Look at this:



You can see that the last letter visible on the cup is the 1st on the third line of the alphabet table, not the 2nd on the last line, ie a nu (ν) not an upsilon (υ).

What this means is that there is no gap between δια and χρηστον. If there were, we'd have δια followed by an accusative (see L&S entry, B.III.1 for your options, not hopeful).

I notice Witherington tries translating this "ointment" (διαχριστος), which is in fact a possibility.

The other part of the text reads ογοισταις, whatever that means. I've seen it translated "the magician", but "the magician" is ο γοης (nominative) and γοητο- with other cases, looking quite different from the target form (see L&S). This means, whatever ογοισταις is, it isn't "the magician". It appears to be a feminine plural dative. To say more one would need a picture of the other side of the vessel.

hjalti

Here's a picture of some of the other side:

squiz

It is worth noting that Justin Martyr seems to have got it wrong regarding the statue on the Tiber:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_M...oni_Deo_Sancto
To me this shows just how easy it was (and is) for stories to get mangled.

aeebee50

I have heard of Simon the Sorcerer and what I had was that he was flying and Peter prayed to God to stop him. I did not have my resources at hand, but found something on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Magus I do not know about being a magician.

stephan huller

If you heard about 'Simon the Sorcerer' how don't you know about him being a magician? What do you think the word sorcerer means?

aeebee50

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sorcerer
or
http://www.google.com/search?q=Sorce...iw=897&bih=389
could be
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorcerer.
Sorcerery could mean anything you want. To me, magic is something for entertainment, but I do not think sorcerery is for entertainment.

Toto

These days, we know that there is no magic that violates the laws of nature. Magicians are illusionists who entertain. Sorcerers are characters in fantasies. At least I hope we all know that?!?

That was not the case in the first century of the common era.

aeebee50

Good point, thanks.

spin

The initial omicron is clear.



The only things noticeable from the letters are that the gamma is a capital and there appears to be a base stroke for the tau. There are no gaps or separators between any letters. It would seem then that we are still looking at a plural dative, ie "to" them or "for" them. But as the letters stand (ογοισταις) they represent no known noun. That's probably why they've tried with γοης, "magician" (it's found as a plural in 2 Tim 3:13, γοητες). But then the initial omicron has no meaning, indicating a nominative singular, while the noun's case ending is dative plural.

(The reason why the letters appear so clearly is that there was a coating, a 'slip', applied to the vessel when it was baked. The slip was darker than the clay, so the letters cut into the clay are clearer. The base shows the actual color of the pottery.)

[HR=1]100[/HR]
And Simon in Acts 8:9 practices magic (μαγευω). That's why he's called Simon the Sorcerer.