andrewcriddle

If the passage in Suetonius is authentic (which is IMO very probable) and if it refers to (Jesus) Christ (which is IMO more likely than not) then it seems clear that Suetonius is misunderstanding what happened.

The passage as it stands seems to imply that Chrestus was someone active in Rome during the reigh of Claudius stirring up trouble there.

If what really happened was that Claudius expelled Jews from Rome after controversies about the status of (Jesus) Christ; then Suetonius has muddled the real course of events. He has no idea of who the Chrestus involved was or that this Chrestus has anything to do with Christianity. He would be recording a confused memory that Jews weer expelled under Claudius, (something with other corroboration), and that someone called something like Chrestus was in some way or other involved.

Andrew Criddle

exile

That doesn't seem to work - Suetonius was aware of the existence of Christians (which he spelled correctly!) so would presumably have known something of their beliefs. He was writing at the same time that Pliny, as governor in a province of Asia Minor, mentions Christians in letters to Trajan (who also knew who Christians were). Suetonius and Pliny knew each other.

My conclusion is that Chrestus is a "troublemaker" amongst Jewish exiles in Rome. I'm not sure that Christian tradition claims a large Christian population in Rome during Claudius' reign. Acts mentions JEWS being expelled from Rome at about the same time as Suetonius is talking about - which doesn't
give any more credence to the Christ=Chrestus theory.

Like many of these things, unless the corpse of Suetonius comes back to life we will never know.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Andrew and Exile,

I apologize for my typo in my previous post of February 6th. I meant to write "evidence for interpolation into both Tacitus and Suetonius" rather than "evidence for interpolation into both Eusebius and Suetonius."

I think that the simple hypothesis that Suetonius is misunderstanding what happened does not explain and account for the other odd facts in the case, for example that both Tacitus and Suetonius each contain exactly one reference to Christians and one reference to Christ and in each case one of them is spelled with an "E" instead of an "I".

I have just seen the movie "Troy," I found it to be a movie as dull and silly as "Alexander" was brilliant and exciting. In any case, an early scene takes place at the "Port of Sparta." (This indicates the quality of research done for the movie).

Let us say that we are walking along the beach at Sparta and we find buried in the sand two old watches carefully preserved in watch cases. Inscribed on the watch cases we find two inscriptions: The first inscription says "This is the watch of Albert Einsteino famous twentieth century mathematician and scientist." The other inscription says "This watch was bought by a Jew at the instigation of Alberto Einstein in 1966."

Now we take the watches to the learned professors at Sparta, who happen to be the members of the "Albert Einstein Citizen of Sparta Celebration Committee" and they tell us:

Obviously the two watch cases have nothing to do with each other and were manufactured by two different people as one spells Alberto with an "o" and the other spells Einstein with an "o". The person who made the first watch just spelled the name as he heard it. The person who made the second watch seems to be implying that Albert Einstein was alive in 1966 and obviously he was not. Probably the watch case maker was not referring to the famous Albert Einstein but to someone with a similar name, we have plenty of records of people named Alberto who lived in our town. It was quite a common name you know. He was just confused.

Now we go to the store of the one watch case manufacturer in Sparta -- Pamphilio Eusebio. He tells us eagerly, "Albert Einstein did live here in Sparta. If you are looking for evidence just go to the beach."

So what are we to believe? It seems that some of us believe the learned professors of Sparta -- that the two watches cases are just on the beach by accident, but believe, at least in the second case that it is not proof of Albert Einstein being in Sparta. I, however, suggest that the best evidence points to the fact that Pamphilio Eusebio manufactured and planted the watch case inscriptions and that Albert Einstein had nothing to do with these watches. While ultimately we can't know the truth, we can make some pretty good guesses based on the evidence.

Warmly,

Philospher Jay

andrewcriddle

On Saturday I looked through the standard critical editions of Suetonius.

I couldn't find any reference at all to Cherestus one of the critical editions noted very very weak support for Christus but that was all.

The critical editions appear to all regard Chrestus as the original text of Suetonius with no significant textual evidence for an alternative.

Andrew Criddle

jakejonesiv

No, there is no indication that Christ in the Pauline corpus has anything to do with Jewish messianic expectations or Jewish nationalism. It seems to be little more that a qualifier or surname of Jesus. Jesus the Good maybe?

The use of the Nomina Sacra obsures whether Chrestos or Christos was used in the early texts. But for the
related term "Christian", Sinaiticus has Chrestiani; Vaticanus has Chreistian. :devil3:

I also read somewhere that the earliest known (318 CE) church inscription (the Synagogue of the Marcionites on Mt. Hermon) is dedicated to Chrestos instead of Christos. But I have been unable to independantly verify the claim.

I would like to see documented the earliest extant Christian text where Jesus Christ is unambiguously used. I suspect it wouldn't be much before the fifth century, if then. If there is something before, i would like to know it.

The point is important if JC is deemed to have originated as a pagan god.

Jake Jones :banghead:

Toto

Welcome to II, Jake. Good point about the Nomina Sacra.

Since last posting on this thread, I recall that I have read that medieval manuscripts were copied by one monk reading the manuscript to another, who wrote it down. This is probably the most reliable way of copying, since it avoids the problem of the copier having to continually shift his gaze from one piece of parchment (or whatever medium) to the other, but it seems designed to get homonyms confused.

jakejonesiv

Thanks for the welcome, Toto.
Certainly Chrestos and Christos could be confused by a copyist.

I have been reading the messages here for a few weeks, and over that time my respect for the scholarship and insight exhibited on II has grown tremedously. This is a powerful group. :notworthy

Jake Jones IV

andrewcriddle

Romans 9:5 would suggest otherwise
(I take it you mean the full name not the Nomina Sacra otherwise there are several examples from P46 onwards). One possible example is the fourth century Sinaitic Syriac which translates Christ consistently as Messiah rather than transliterating, hence Matthew 1:1 is 'Jesus Messiah' this indicates an underlying earlier Greek of 'Jesus Christ'

Andrew Criddle

jakejonesiv

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for your help! This is a riddle I have for a long time hoped to resolve.

That is a good point, Andrew. That would give Christ a Jewish ethnic identity, just as Osiris was considered to be an Egyptian. This is one of a handful of texts in the Pauline writings that in a very vague way assert Jesus Christ to be Jewish "according to the flesh" without giving any indication in time or place that he may have lived. Likewise, Jesus is said to have been crucified by unnamed archons (1 Cor. 2:8). Whoever these archons may have been, evil spirits or earthly rulers, no historical anchor is given. It is perplexing that not a gleem of an earthly career appears. :huh:


Yes

Maybe, but not necessarily. The implied Greek source could have contained the Nomina Sacra and the translators could have decided on theological grounds that this represented "Jesus Christ".

I think this is precisely what happened in the process of copying the Greek texts. The earliest extants texts (including GThomas) use the Nomina Sacra instead of spelling out Jesus Christ. This obscures the difference on a textual basis between an original "Jesus Christos" and "Jesus Chrestos." Somewhere down the line (not yet determined), the copyists decided that they "knew" exactly what the Nomina Sacra meant and inserted "Jesus Christ" into the text. They might have been right, who knows, but I can't prove it one way or another based on textual evidence.

The closest I can come is John 1:41, and 4:25, but I am not sure this doesn't make things worse rather than better.

Jake Jones IV

andrewcriddle

Other NT passages where Christ in context a/ clearly means Jesus b/ is seen as someone prophesied in the OT are

Matthew 2:4
Luke 24:26 24:46
Acts 2:31 3:18 17:3 18:28 26:23

Andrew Criddle