Julio

According to a friend [Dr. Bierbower, PhD]
He says Chrestus meant "the benevolent", while Christos meant "the anointed one", which was changed by Rome to support the Catholic cult.
[In other words, Jesus was not the Jewish Messiah or born of a virgin, etc.]
He says the historian Suetonius uses the name Chrestus, when referring to Jesus of Nazareth.
How much truth is there in this?

aa5874

But, no Church writer used any passage from Suetonius to show that Chrestus was Jesus of Nazareth. The words "Jesus of Nazareth" or "Jesus Christ" are not found in the extant writings of Suetonius.

The same applies to the passage of Tacitus' Annals 15.44 where "Christus" is found. Even though Church writers wrote about Nero they never claimed Christus was Jesus of Nazareth. The words "Jesus of Nazareth" or "Jesus Christ" are not found in the extant writings of Tacitus.

Even the writer called Eusebius who wrote the "Church History" supposedly in the 4th century used or RELIED ON the forged "TF" [Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3] instead of Tacitus' Christus and Suetonius' Chrestus which may imply that Eusebius did not know of "Christus" or "Chrestus" up to the start of the 4th century.

Toto

Chrestus means the good or the useful. It was a common name in Rome for slaves. Christos means annointed, and is the Greek word used to translate the Jewish word Messiah.

So far so good

There is no evidence of a deliberate change. By the second century, the Koine Greek pronunciation of Christos and Chrestos would have been the same, and the two spellings were sometimes used interchangeably, or made the subject of word play.

We don't have clear evidence that Jesus existed, much less when he might have been viewed as the Messiah (or the anti-Messiah). It's pretty clear he wasn't born of a virgin, if he was born at all.

Suetonius refers to a Chrestus, but the idea that this Chrestus was a garbled version of Jesus Christ is highly speculative.

It's possible, but highly speculative.

Julio

Thank very much for the information.
Is there then any way of identifying this Chrestus referred by Suetonius as the ringleader [Jesus] of the new religion of those Jews causing trouble for the Emperor, I wonder?

Toto

This is the only mention of Chrestus - otherwise he is lost to history.

The relation of the Jews to the Roman Empire was always a little contentious. There is no need to assume that a new religion was causing trouble.

Julio

Does this imply that this Chrestus was in Rome, or that his followers in Rome were causing trouble?
Is this obscure Chrestus an agitator only in Rome?
Since it was after the destruction of Jerusalem, would it not be possible that the historian was referring to the real Christ of the Jews [who had already died decades earlier]?
Can we speculate that some Paul was involved in the conspiracy?

Doug Shaver

Sure, we can. We can speculate about anything, anytime. But if there's not a scrap of evidence supporting the speculation, then what's the point?

kcdad

I like this explanation... rather than some anonymous slave or servent leading a rebellion in Rome...
""Misspelling of Christus by some ancient Roman sources. The usage indicates the means of transmission of the text to the modern day. For instance:

"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he (Claudius) expelled them from Rome."
- Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, The Twelve Caesars

Many scholars feel that Suetonius was referring to the Christians (who were considered a sub-sect of the Jews).

Why the spelling mistake?

The Latin word Christus comes from Χριστος in Greek. The root of the word, χριω, means "to be oily". Although the Greeks rubbed themselves with oil to bathe, the concept of anointment to pass on an office (or divine favor) was alien to them. It's a Jewish custom.

Chrestus, on the other hand, came from Χρηστος, meaning "good", or "worthy".

So when the Romans encountered a cult started by a man known as "the greasy one", or possibly "the guy who just finished his bath", they were sure they were hearing it wrong. These people had to mean "the worthy one", right? (Emphasis mine.)

What does it tell us?

Most of our Classical texts come to us through the monasteries. We don't have the originals, nor even contemporary copies. What we have are texts copied out, corrected, amended, and commented on by medieval monks.

Any text in which the term appears (such as The Twelve Caesars) does not come to us through the monasteries. A monastic copyist or scribe would have corrected the text to read Christus."

http://everything2.com/title/Chrestus

It explains a lot of why we misunderstand so much... I have never been comfortable with the Greek word CHRIST being the equivalent of the Hebrew word MESSIAH.

Chili

Hi, if you are going to call Catholicism a cult you should use the word occult in that they have knowledge of the divine. From wiki:

"The word occult comes from the Latin word occultus (clandestine, hidden, secret), referring to "knowledge of the hidden".

To remember here is that they 'wrote' the Bible that 2000 years later cultic minds still do not understand, which here now is evidenced by the sheer force of your misnomer.

In my opinion the difference between Christos and Chrestos is based on the difference between James and his brother Jesus who's names are metaphors used to describe two kinds of rebirth that can befall the human condition. In this event the destiny of James is expressed with Christos who is reborn from "below" and Chrestos is expressed with Jesus who was reborn from 'above.' To note here is that Catholics are not Christians but at best are they followers of Jesus.

As outlined in a post by kcdad

First it tells me that that nothing has changed in that Catholicism still is the envy of the world.

My explantion for that is 'just look and see for yourself' and my reason for that is because that is where Christ dwells among us and does not have to come back.

To us Christians must be respected but shunned inside the fock because they are 'slippery when wet' and really haven't got a clue because their Jesus in Matthew did not get into heaven after he was raised from the tomb.

Opposite this is the Chrestos of Rome who was the 'worthy' one to be raised (in Luke and John), and who factually did bring heaven down to earth when he moved Rome in the full assembly of 1,5 and 3. It can now be said that when Jesus brought heaven down to earth it was unaviodable that hell came crashing down with it and has been antagonized by them ever since, invitably so in that they speak a different language ever since they parted company in John 6:66.

Crucial here is the virgin birth from the [perpetual] Immaculate Conception to be juxtaposed with a non-virgin birth from the temple tramp.

Minimalist

Suetonius' "Chrestus" reference is set in the reign of Claudius. Even xtians assert that their godboy had been dead for years by the time Claudius came to the throne.

The reference claims that Chrestus was stirring up trouble which thus even in xtian mythology rules out Chrestus = Christos.