Toto

There are various ways of making the puzzle pieces fit, none of which can be proven. The terms Christos and Chrestos might have been interchangeable. Paul's letters might have been cleaned up to change any reference to Chrestos (we don't have any copies that predate about 180, I believe.) Is there any reference to Christ from Paul that indicates that he had a Jewish messiah in mind? A quick search finds no reference that indicates annointing or messiah: Biblegateway search

Toto

I can't find a good online source for this, but the Greek words chrestos and christos were pronounced differently in ancient Greek, but by about the 2nd or 3rd century, both would have been pronounced the same. This vowel shift probably took place at different times in different parts of the Roman Empire.

Chris Weimer

I'd even put the vowel sounds as being the same in the early 1c BCE due to Coptics use of the letter eta sounding like the Greek iota. It would have been a slight change, though, the difference between pit and Pete instead of the Ancient Greek pit/Pete (iota) and pay (eta).

fta

G.A. Wells argues that Suetonius's passing reference to "Christians" being executed is an intrusive interpolation.

While on the subject of "i before e", Arthur Drews' Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus claims that some manuscripts of Suetonius refer to riots being instigated by "Cherestus" rather than "Chrestus". Does anyone have more details on this textual variation?

exile

This is from

http://www.christianism.com/html/add36a1.html

There seems to be more significance in the words of the Roman historian Suetonius [friend of Pliny (knew Tacitus?)] (77-140 A.D.), who tells us in his Life of Claudius (c. 25) that that emperor "expelled from Rome the Jews because, at the instigation of Chrestus, they were perpetually making trouble" (Claudius Judaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit). If we only knew precisely who is meant by this Chrestus! The name in the text is not "Christus," but "Chrestus" [see 1864] (and in some manuscripts Cherestus), which is by no means the usual designation of Jesus, while it is a common name, especially among Roman freedmen. Hence the whole passage in Suetonius may have nothing whatever to do with the question of Christianity. It may just as well refer to any disturbances whatever caused among the Jews by a man named Chrestus, and it does not say much for the "scientific" spirit of theologians when they interpret it in their own sense without further ado. [note: for age comparisons: Lucian c. 117 - c. 180]

An attempt has been made to connect the passage in Suetonius with the messianic expectation of the Jews, and to interpret it in the sense of referring either to quarrels in the Jewish community at Rome owing to the belief of those who held that Jesus was the Messiah they all expected, or to a general agitation of Roman Judaism on account of its
messianic ideas and hostility to the pagan world. The first alternative, however, is not very helpful in view of the fact that, when Paul came to Rome about ten years afterwards to preach the gospel, the Jews there seem to have known nothing whatever about Jesus; and, according to the account in Acts, his arrival led to no disturbance among them.1 The second alternative, on the other hand, contains no evidence for the historicity of Jesus, as, even if we substitute Christus for Chrestus, "Christus" is merely the Greek-Latin translation of "Messiah," and the phrase "at the instigation of Chrestus" would refer to the Messiah generally, and not at all necessarily to the particular Messiah Jesus as an historical personality.2
In any case, HOWEVER WE INTERPRET THE PASSAGE OF SUETONIUS, IT HAS NO BEARING WHATEVER ON THE QUESTION OF THE HISTORICITY OF JESUS. Jülicher and Weinel admit this when they omit Suetonius in their enumerations of profane witnesses. J. Weiss also admits: "The passage in the time of Claudius 'impulsore Chresto' betrays so inaccurate a knowledge of the facts that it cannot seriously be regarded as a witness" (p. 88).

Toto

Suetonius "Cherestus" from: The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus, by Arthur Drews [1865 - 1935], Tr. Joseph McCabe.

I can't find any other mention of it.

fta

This wouldn't be the first time Drews' lack of references frustrated subsequent researchers.

ficino

Good points here.

Philosopher Jay uses a principal rule of textual criticism: "lectio difficilior potior" ("the more difficult reading is more authoritative"). It's more likely that a copyist will falsely "correct" a hard-to-understand reading to one that is easy to understand, than the reverse. Just as Jay say, it's harder to explain why an earlier copyist would change "christianos" to "chrestianos" than to explain why he would copy "chrestianos" if it already stood in his model.

The Oxford Greek Dictionary says that eta and iota sounded the same in Greek by "early Byzantine times." Dionysius of Halicarnassus, writing in the first century B.C., still distinguishes the sounds of those vowels. There are a few earlier examples, but confusion between eta and iota in Attic inscriptions starts around 150 A.D. The Gothic writer Wulfila confused epsilon-iota and iota but not iota and eta. Cf. W. Sidney Allen, Vox Graeca, 74-75. The vowels "e" and "i" never sounded the same in Latin, though. Speakers of Latin therefore talked about "chrestiani" and "christiani," and I'm not persuaded that Greek speakers weren't making a similar distinction. I'd judge that Suetonius and Tacitus were capable of distinguishing the two adjectives as well as the names Chrestus and Christus.

Christian apologists have to admit that these "chrest-" passages CANNOT be used as evidence for the historical Jesus. The most they can say is that the evidence they provide is not clear.

Chris Weimer

If you put an early dating on Coptic, which one could make for an argument around 100's BCE, then the iota and eta distinction no longer exists. Coptic took the Grekk alphabet and applied it to the Egyptian sounds, so you get iota as representing both a short i and long i (ee) but eta only representing a long i.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Ficino,

While we cannot take use this for evidence of an historical Jesus, perhaps we can take this as evidence for interpolation into both Eusebius [should be Tacitus - see post #23] and Suetonius.

We have to imagine that Suetonius was so sure that his audience would know who Chrestus was that he did not find it necessary to tell his audience who this Chrestus fellow was. Did he really expect his audience to remember the Jewish leader of a rebellion in Rome that happened almost 70 years before? Perhaps, but only if it was a famous incident. If it was famous we would expect to find it mentioned in Josephus, Philo or at least by other Roman historians. We don't. Since the mention is singular to Suetonius we have to also wonder why he did not elaborate?

We have to conclude that the most possible case is that the passage in interpolated. The writer wanted to sound like a sophisticated Roman pronouncing Christ as Chrestus, just as the Tacitus interpolator wanted to sound like a sophisticated Roman pronouncing Christian as Chrestianos. In other words, comparing the Tacitus references with the Suetonius references, we find in the Tacitus text what could be an early Roman pronounciation of Christian (Chrestianos) and a later pronounciation of Christ, while Suetonius gives us an early Roman pronouncian of Christ (Chrestus) and a later pronounciation of Christian. The two name references are nearly mirror images of each other.

Tacitus: Chrestianos - Christ
Suetonius Chrestus - Christian

One possible conclusion is that the same person did both interpolations. He wanted to be sophisticated and use the probably correct latin terms, but he was afraid that it would confuse some readers who did not speak Latin if he used both Chrestianos and Chrestus. He thus splits the differences between the two texts. This way someone who just reads Tacitus may figure it out and someone who just reads Suetonius will figure it out.

Notice that Eusebius in Church History tells his readers to consult Latin records in reference to these early Christian events, but he uncharacteristically does not tell us which Latin Records to consult. Perhaps it did not matter because he had given enough details for a reader of either Suetonius or Tacitus to get what he wanted, and had presented it in what he presumed was the original Latin, at least paritally, so one could not accuse him of forgery.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay