aa5874

The words "christian or christians" are not mentioned at all by Paul in his epistles, or any of the general epistles, and not even in the gospels, only the author of Acts used the words twice.

The author claimed that the name Christians was first used in Antioch, during one of Paul's evangelical mission. Acts 11.26..."And the disiples were called Christians first in Antioch."
But, strange, Paul does not refer to anyone as a Christians in his Epistles at all.

Next, in Acts 26.28, "Then Agrippa said unto Paul, "Almost thou persuadest me to become a Christian."

Now, from Suetonius.."Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome......"

So we can deduce that Suetonius' Christians are all Jews but Paul's ministry and calling is to preach to the Gentiles.

Romans 11.13, "For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office. "

By 64 CE, the Gentile Christian Church in Rome was already established, according to Paul, however Suetonius claimed only Jews were instigated by Chrestus.

It appears to me that Suetonius' Chrestus is not Paul's Christ.

DCHindley

Suetonius does not mention "Christians" in that passage, but Jews who were egged-on by "Chrestus." We do not know if Suetonius is referring to a person, or was being sarcastic and referring to someone he thought was a fast talker, suggesting he must have been using chreston (an ointment though to have magical properties) to bewitch a superstitious group.

In the first case, it likely is not a reference to Christians, unless he misunderstood a reference to Christians - possibly misspelled as "Chrestians" as a reference to a person.

If the latter case, he could be referring to Jewish messianists (this is what the term "christians" probably referred to originally if you ask me) or Christians, but spoke of the ringleader as if a common slave using drugs to bewtich gullible people due to similarity of the name Chrestus to the word chreston. Remember that in Suetonius' time, many Jews who had been (un)fortunate enough to have been captured rather than killed in the rebellion of 66-74 CE, were then slaves.

DCH

Minimalist

Note that in Suetonius' "Life of Nero" he makes reference to "christians" per se.

From Suetonius, Life of Nero, 16.2

Comparing this reference to the aforementioned Life of Claudius, it would seem that Suetonius was making some distinction between the two. Realistically, how much time could separate his writing of Claudius from Nero?

(Note, also, no mention of any involvement in the great fire.)

Timetospend

The word is also used in 1 Peter 4:16
16 Yet if any of you suffers as a Christian, do not consider it a disgrace, but glorify God because you bear this name.
NRSV

Probably just means that the word was not used much.

Thanks,

aa5874

According to Tacitus, Annals 15.44 ".....but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular....."


Did this repression occur when the Jews, instigated by Chrestus, were expelled from Rome?

Vivisector

My reading of Tacitus suggests that he (Tacitus) considered Jesus's crucifixion as the event that temporarily repressed the superstition.

Cheers,

V.

aa5874

[QUOTE=Timetospend;4969930][QUOTE=aa5874;4967536]The words "christian or christians" are not mentioned at all by Paul in his epistles, or any of the general epistles, and not even in the gospels, only the author of Acts used the words twice.
I missed that one in 1Peter 4:16. However, it is quite remarkable that Paul did not use the word "Christian" at all in any of the epistles, bearing in mind that the author of Luke claimed that it was during Paul's one year of evangelism in Antioch that followers of Jesus Christ were first called "Christians".

Minimalist

The lack of ancient christian references to Tacitus' comment makes me think that it is a later creation/insertion. No one, not even Eusebius, seems to know about the Tacitus passage.

aa5874

There is no "Jesus" at all in Annals 15.44, the name is "Christus". Pilate may have crucified many Jews and perhaps one was called Jesus and there was someone else named Christus.

You must consider that the story of Jesus may have been fabricated using information about other persons and events.

Vivisector

Right you are, and sloppy of me. Substitute "Christus" for "Jesus" in my earlier post. My unstated assumption was to equate Tacitus's "Christus" with Jesus.

Thanks for the correction.

V.