sharrock

Si, un po'.... ti ho mandato una email.... non vorrei monopolizzare questo filo :blush:

Littlejohn

Ciao sharrock!

Ho risposto alla tua email.


Saluti


Giannino
.

EarlDoherty

I do not often encounter a truly new angle on an old subject (at least new to me), but Littlejohn came up with something which no one, surprisingly, has commented on.

If I understood him correctly (!), what he said would result in this:

Tacitus could have taken "Christus" from Christian sources of his own time in Rome, Latin speakers who by the early 2nd century would have 'translated' the "Christos" from the earlier Greek-language parlance (which itself was a Greek translation of the Hebrew "Anointed-Messiah") into a Latinized "Christus."

BUT, if Tacitus were taking the name or title from an archived report from Judea at the time of the crucifixion (presumably by Pilate or a member of his staff), it would not have been written "Christus" at that time, since no such Latinized translation of "Christos" or the Hebrew "Anointed" would have existed, and certainly not one produced by the prefect's office. If Pilate wanted to convert into Latin the Hebrew "Anointed" or the Christian-Greek "Christos, he would have used something else. ("Christus" as possibly coined by Pilate would have meant nothing back home.) Or, he would have been forced to explain things, which would not have involved the non-existent Latin word "Christus".

I'm not sure it would have been "Unctus", since that would only have conveyed something like "the oiled one". In fact, there would have been no Latin term to convey the concept of a person who had been given some kind of exalted status on the basis of having had an ointment applied to him. Certainly, even if Pilate had become familiar with the concept in Judea, to use any single-word Latin translation of the term could have meant nothing to anyone back in Rome at that time. (This was not the equivalent case for Greek speakers in Judea, since they had adopted "Christos" as a Greek equivalent to 'Anointed One' and included that concept in the word.)

This surely means that Tacitus could not possibly have found such a Latin title in the archives in Rome. The only source for "Christus" for him had to be Christian, and thus it was local hearsay. (And Pilate would not have reported to Tiberius in Greek.)

To relate all this to this thread's topic of Suetonius' "Chrestus" is a little difficult. Did Suetonius himself 'mis-hear' contemporary "Christus" and mistake it for "Chrestus" being largely ignorant on the linguistic background? Or was he consulting some kind of source which used "Chrestus"? That should have been a Latin source, as well. We could get into descending turtles, but surely Littlejohn's point is applicable here. "Chrestus" for a Latin speaker was surely not to be confused with either the Greek "Christos" or some Hebrew/Aramaic Anointed One. This would virtually guarantee that Suetonius' source knew very well that he was referring to a person (in the time of Claudius) by the name of "Chrestus".

I invite anyone to help me try to think this through. Littlejohn may have supplied us with a secure channel with which to arrive at a judgment that Suetonius' "Chrestus" cannot be a reference to Christ. (Whether he agrees with that judgment is another matter.)

Earl Doherty

vid

I agree that Tacitus' Christus seems to be coming from greek sources, and thus hardly from any report by roman pilate in aramaic judea. That was a great point, i have recently read quite a number of "historical evidence" articles, and never saw that before (instead, i saw plenty of much weaker points). Anyone get any "apologetic" response against this point?

But for Chrestus, there are simply too many options. Completely unrelated person, improperly understood Jesus reference coming from camp that called him "good" not "annointed", improperly understood reference and name misheard by Suetonius... I don't see how we can get any further than to enumerate possibilities.

EarlDoherty

Ah, but in regard to the first part of your statement, it is not me you are "agreeing" with. I do not conclude from this that Tacitus is drawing from a Greek source. He is drawing, by hearsay, from a Latin Christian community in Rome.

Or...the other possibility, of course, is that the reference is from a later Christian Latin-speaking interpolator.

Earl Doherty

vid

That's what I meant, community which took "christus" from greek "christos", sorry for wrong expression.

I still don't see how is it impossible that Suetonius was drawing his Chrestus story by misunderstanding group of latin christians who worshipped "Chrestus". I consider it unlikely, but not impossible. Can you explain more about why you think this is impossible ("Chrestus cannot be reference to Christ")? Thanks.

EarlDoherty

It's the end of a long day, my brain is totally clogged. I may have meant Tacitus instead of Suetonius, but I can't even think straight enough to decide that. I'll look at it tomorrow. Too many postings in too many cross-fertilized threads.

Sorry,

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

In the light of day and with a clearer head, I see that what I wrote was what I intended to write. But my final thought may not be as secure as it seemed at the time. As I recall, I was thinking that if "Christus" would have been meaningless to a Latin person, it should not have figured in any Latin source that Suetonius may have been using or which went back to the time of Claudius. I think for some reason I felt that no Latin "Christus" as a coined term for Christos/Messiah could have developed that early in Rome, but that is obviously not necessarily so. I'll think about it through the day, and if I can at all rescue the point I'll let you know. (I did invite others to help me think that through, and you've done that, so thank-you.)

However, my main concern in that post was in regard to Tacitus, and I think the argument in that regard is pretty secure, leading us to the conclusion that Tacitus could not have derived his "Christus" from an archived report from Judea. So it was either Christian hearsay he picked up, or the reference is a Christian insertion.

Earl Doherty

vid

I actually don't really see how someone can argue that Suetonius Chrestus is reference to Christ, if he also takes in mind Suetonius "Christians" reference.

First Suetonius knew there were some "christians", and defined them by "mischievous superstition". Then, he talked to some other christians, and misunderstood their actions worshipping Jesus as making "disturbances at instigation of Chrestus", without actually realizing they belong to same group of "christians" he already wrote about. How? (Note that it doesn't matter for sake of this argument if Christos->Chrestus name shift was done by christians or suetonius, or if Chrestus was more original spelling).

If those were the same group of "Christians" worshipping "Chrestus" both times, how could he name their belief first "mischievous superstition" and later "disturbances at instigation of Chrestus"?

Argument for "chrestus" being "jesus christ" already requires supposition that Suetonius misunderstood things in order to explain "disturbances instigation". Now to get this to accord with "christians" reference, you need another big supposition. That is very weak reasoning, if there is outright explanation that doesn't require any suppositions.

I have yet to hear some strong argument which would explain how this Chrestus could be reference to deity of those same "christians" persecuted by Nero. Most arguments I have heard so far very ignorant of this problem, and the rest were very weak, basically just claiming that is is *possible* chrestus is reference to christ.

Littlejohn

Hello EarlDoherty!

Sorry, Earl, do you are referring to my English because not good, or to my necessary "reticence" about the exposition of the topics that affront? ... Unfortunately are still far from completion of my book and I can not yet reveal things that need to the moment remain unpublished. You are a writer and I think that you should understand what I mean ...

Yes, this is possible. Tacitus may have learned, at least in theory, the name Christos from Christian sources of his time and then having latinized in the form "Christus." However, to support such a view one must necessarily ignore that the historian Suetonius spoke of Chrestus and not "Christus", that in the works of such writers, Suetonius and Tacitus, is found the word "chrestians", which Justin Martyr, Tertullian and Lactanzius complain that the pagans call Jesus "Chrestus" and his followers "chrestians", which in Gaul the Christians were called (and still are today!) "Chrestians", which in ancient synagogues marcionite can be found written as " Isu Chrestos ", and so on.

From all this you should at least imagine that if Tacitus not called Jesus "UNCTUS" (correct rendering of the word in Latin greek Christos and of the hebraic "Maschah") he should call it "Chrestus" as all other pagans, which had been learneds or not.

Whether you believe it or not, Jesus was known in Rome as "Chrestos" and NOT as Christus. The latter term was familiar in the world of Judeo-Christianity of Antioch and in that of the Egyptian cult of Serapis. (the cross, in this context, was purely symbolic and referred to the ideal stretched signs that joined some heavenly asters, such as those representing Osiris (hence Serapis) and Horus (the Osiris' son).

In Alexandria priests of Serapis, annually or every other temporal cadence, organized processions led by a high priest who carrying a cross, became a symbol of the same Serapis. The cross was followed by 12 priests, who represented the twelve constellations through which was performed the apparent journey of the Sun during the year. Each priest was one of these constellations, which seemed to "follow" the god Sun. This aspect entered the composition of Catholic worship, along with many other diverse elements. (in a closely similar way happened with the cult of Isis, combined with that of Serapis: the cult of Isis, in Catholic worship, became the cult "Marian" of the Jesus' mother)

"..I'm not sure it would have been "Unctus", since that would only have conveyed something like "the oiled one".."

Why?.....UNCTUS is the exact equivalent of the Latin greek Christos and dell'ebraico Maschah (or Maschiah) and therefore also of English "Anointed."

Whether Christos, Maschah or Unctus were nothing other that attributes and not the real name of Jesus. If Pilate actually had to do with the Nazarene, then he should bring in its fantomatic report the name Jesus followed, magari(*), by his patronymic (son of ...) but not with an attribute, also in Greek-language instead of Latin: the OFFICIAL language of the Empire!

Some time ago I posted, in forums Italians, a long message to demonstrate the absolute falseness of what appears from Chapter 44 of the XV book of the Tacitus' Annales. As soon as I will be able to "extract" from my "incasinato" (disorderly) archive, I will post also here. I do not have the expertise to determine if the whole work, ie Annales, was falsified, as alleged by some writers of the '800s, but I think being able to demonstrate that at least the Chapter 44 of the XV book is the result a late falsification.

I feel extremely unlikely such a hypothesis. Suetonius wrote "Chrestus" sincet was so that Jesus was known in Rome (see above)

It could not be in Rome then a scholar, estimated that, which ignored the Greek language (the famous "koinè"). This applies also and especially for individuals responsible for important governmental functions, such as consuls, procurators or employees administrations (or secretariats) of these important institutions (**), because the greek language was the best known of all ' empire, before or shortly after Latin. From this it follows that a writer or a scholar whatever, greek acquaintance of language, would NEVER confused Christos with Chrestos, being decidedly different meanings of two terms!

This hypothesis, namely that the confusion between the two terms, is shamelessly pursued by apologists Catholics of all times, accustomed to consider ignorant their interlocutors!

I believe exactly the opposite! .. I am convinced that Suetonius was actually referring to Jesus of Nazareth! .. To establish it with comfortable certainty, is absolutely necessary to know much more about Jesus of Nazareth, and this is not possible simply referring New Testament literature!


All my best regards

_________

Notes:

(*) - magari = perhaps + at least

(**) - Suetonius, precisely, held one of these positions in the provinces of Asia.



Littlejohn
.