tanya

The question involves the interpretation of the Tacitus' manuscript "discovered" in Italy, in a monastery, composed, or perhaps, copied, in the 11th century. This document, part of Tacitus' Annals, claims to portray a disturbance in Rome, caused by followers of Chrestus.

Many would have us believe that those involved in the disturbance referenced by Tacitus, were followers of Jesus, the Christus, i.e. Christians.

χρηστος

To me, this word means either "good", or Mithridates, arch opponent of Rome, a couple hundred years before Tacitus was writing his Annals.

I observe no connection with former slaves. Were slaves in ancient Rome given free access to obey Jewish laws, gather in a temple, participate in Jewish feasts/holidays, worship services--"oh, excuse me, it is Saturday, I have to put on my yarmulke and walk to temple now, I can't help with the usual chores of a slave..."

Not likely. We do agree, don't we, that this disturbance, also described by Suetonius, was attributed to either Jews, or Christians of Jewish background?

For years after the last "Black Panther" had been eliminated, imprisoned, or bed ridden with spinal cord damage, the media still referred to unknown attackers, from the African-American sections of USA neighborhoods, as "black panthers or black panther sympathizers".

Good questions, I don't have a good answer. We don't write "Alexander of Macedonia", do we? Alexander suffices. ditto for Tacitus. The famous Chrestus (M) was obviously very well known to all Roman citizens, at the time of Tacitus.

Though Chrestus was a common name, I suppose context would have clarified to which Chrestus an author had been referring.

We don't have much difficulty differentiating King from King, from king, i.e. ML King, Larry King, king James I.....

I doubt that M. Chrestus had been a source of conflict among Jews in Rome, at any time in their long history there.....

however:

a. Jews, for many millenia, have been famous as healers, Chrestus (M.) was famous as a man who poisoned many people, maybe some Jewish healer was enlisted to treat someone who had been poisoned, and that led to a riot?

b. Maybe someone in the government became ill, and died, and was then thought to have been poisoned, as had been done by Chrestus (M.), two hundred years earlier, and consequently, whether responsible or not, the Jews (and or Jewish Christians) were suspected, and the ensuing riots blamed on them....

c. Maybe the Jews carried on Chrestus (M.)'s tradition of employing poison to achieve political aims, and accordingly were blamed for political unrest, in the era reported by Tacitus...


Even more probable, in my view, is that the entire scenario was concocted, by some celibate monks in a cold, damp monastery in the 11th century...Their internet connection in those days was very slow, so they had lots of time on their hands in the cold winter months.

:huh:

Diogenes the Cynic

Tacitus said "Christus," not "Chrestus." He said "Chrestians got their name from "Christus.


Are we clear on that? Tacitus spells "Christus" with an I. He spells "Chrestians" with an E. He was showing his erudition by making this correction.

Google "Chrestus common name," and you'll find plenty of citations for "Chrestus" being a common name for slaves.

aa5874

You really don't know what you are talking about. You PRESUME you know what Tacitus wrote but have ZERO corroboration that it was Tacitus who composed the passage.

People here are trying to find evidence but you just PRESUME your own evidence.

Again, for hundreds of years, Tacitus Annals with Christus was UNKNOWN to even Apologetics.

Origen and Eusebius used Forgeries in Antiquities of the Jews--- NOT Tacitus Annals with Christus.

Sulpitius Severus at about the 5th century quoted passages that are similar to Annals yet again FAILED to mention Christus.

la70119

Except in the we have it on very high authority that Jesus Christ took on the form of a slave in some of the early Jesus stories.

So who's to say Christus wasn't Chrestus originally? Since the early Christian communities believed Christus took the form of a slave, it would be very logical for Chrestus to be the original name.

Either that, or, because people were confusing Christian with Chrestian, it is quite logical that they also confused Christus with Chrestus.

It could just as likely that Tacitus wrote Chrestus but some Byzantine or Medieval scribe changed it to Christus.

And how can he say Christus was the author of the name Chrestians without giving some sort of explanation?

And we are not even sure if Tacitus actually wrote the sentence about Christus, or any of the rest of the Persecution of the Chrestians passage.

aa5874

Again, HJers are engaged in a Bait and Switch argument.

HJ was an Obscure Apocalyptic preacher according to HJers but all of a sudden he is Christus in Annnals. Jesus Christ in Antiquities of the Jews and the Son of God in Galatians.

We won't fall for the HJers Bait and Switch.

HJers say one thing about their Jesus but present sources of another character.

It is time HJers admit that an historical Jesus cannot ever be recovered without credible sources from antiquity.

It is virtually impossible that Jesus was called Christ, the Son of God, the Savior of Mankind by the supposed Paul and other Apostles with churches and converts throuhout the Roman Empire and still be Obscure.

The HJ argument is like a Bait and Switch. HJers Offer an Obscure Jesus but sell a King of the Jews, the Messiah of the Jews.

Remarkably, HJ would have been the Most significant and well known Jew in the ancient world if he was the Messiah and Son of God as claimed by the Pauline writers.

Tacitus Annals, Antiquities of the Jews and the NT Canon do NOT support an OBSCURE HJ.

EarlDoherty

I'm not sure why you are leaving out Justin's references to "memoirs of the apostles" (in the 150s) which may not be equivalent to the canonical versions, but certainly shows that such accounts were known in some circles. And even Tatian around the same time, in his Apology, suggests that he knows of some "stories" which we can identify with early Gospels, though he doesn't regard them as historical records, but places them on the same footing as the Greek mythical tales.

And I doubt that Marcion's use of some form of Luke is entirely a fiction created by Tertullian. We may not be able to securely date Marcion's Apostolicon, but these indicators would tend to place some kind of Gospel(s) before 150. And Ignatius' letters (even if forged some time after his death) also point to basic knowledge of the Gospel 'life' in the first half of the 2nd century. As you may know, I cannot see any justification for dating the basic Ignatian letters as late as 160, as some do.

And I can't see arguing that Celsus knew nothing of any Gospels. That is pretty clearly the source of his 'knowledge' about Christianity.

I also can't see ignoring the indicators in successive Gospels that the Synoptics cannot be a virtually simultaneous creation all within a few years (either by the Romans or anyone else) but show redaction and evolution of ideas over a certain amount of time, with the character of Mark hardly inviting a date for them starting in the second half of the 2nd century. One example is the imminence of the End and the coming of the Son of Man, both of which look to be virtually dead issues before the middle of the second century.

P.S. On the subject of anachronisms, they may be useful to disprove the early standard dating by scholarship (70-100), but they are less effective in disproving dates of 90-130, let's say. And if the Gospels were originally written as allegorical symbolism, we may be able to excuse the evangelists for not paying enough attention to strict historical application of certain things.

Earl Doherty

aa5874

The second coming was NOT a dead issue in the 2nd century based on Justin Martyr's writings.

[U]First Apology" LII See also Dialogue with Trypho.

The second coming was a fundamental belief of the 2nd century Jesus cult since it was believed to be based on prophecies.

Dialogue with Trypho" XIV The very book of Revelation is about the Expected Second coming of Jesus.

Revelation 22:12 KJV Even 1800 years later Christians are still waiting for the second coming of Jesus.

4321lynx

Hell. I thought the OP title was Papa(nicolau) smear. Change in cell structure...
'bye...

EarlDoherty

I did not say that the Second Coming was a dead issue in the second century. I said that the IMMINENCE of the second coming was a dead issue, certainly by the middle of the century.

Earl Doherty

aa5874

Well, surely No ancient Christian writer claimed they knew when Jesus would return so it is NOT logical at all that the immenence of the second coming was certainly a dead issue in the middle 2nd century.

Now, may I remind you that I do NOT accept the PRESUMPTION that the [u]Pauline writings are before c 70 CE so based on the DATED New Testament manuscripts the Jesus cult most likely STARTED in the 2nd century which would mean the IMMINENCE of the second coming would have been a MAJOR issue at that time.

In another 2nd century writing, Minucius Felix "Octavius", the character Caecillus claimed the Christians THREATENED a Conflagration of the Whole Earth.

'Octavius' It is clear that the second coming with the conflagration of the whole universe was EXPECTED at any time by Christians in the 2nd century.

Imminence of the second coming could NOT have been a dead issue in the mid 2nd century when the Dated evidence suggest the Jesus cult was INITIATED in that same century.