Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Lucretius · 07-14-2007, 05:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Slaves called Chrestus are often mentioned. It would be interesting to see specific mentions in ancient texts, I think.

A slave name and a mistransliteration do not exhaust the possibilities.

It is true that "Chrestus" is almost universally taken to be a proper name, per the Lewis & Short lexicon:

Chrestus
Chrestô masc abl sg
Chrestô masc dat sg

Lewis & Short offer the following possible referents:

I. A mutilated form for Christus, Lact. 4, 7, 5; hence, Chrestiani, instead of Christiani, was used by many; cf. Tert. Apol. 3 fin.--

II. A Jew at Rome under the emperor Claudius, Suet. Claud. 15 (sic?); v. the commentt. in h. l.--
III. A slave or freedman of Cicero, Cic. Fam. 2, 8, 1.

G. Suetonius Tranquillus [b. ca. 75 ce - d. ca. 150 ce], _De Vita Caesarum_ (ed. Maximilian Ihm) life cl., chapter 25, section 4:

"Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit." (1.88)

English Translation: _Suetonius: The Twelve Caesars_ (tr. Robert Graves), Chapter 25:

"Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances [ca. 49 ce] at the instigation of Chrestus(1), he expelled them from the city."

Interesting that the Suetionius use of Chrestus appears to be accepted in Lewis & Short as being a person quite distinct from Jesus.

Roger Pearse · 07-14-2007, 05:11 AM

L&S are not expressing such an opinion; they are recording the form in the literature.

Lucretius · 07-14-2007, 05:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

L&S are not expressing such an opinion; they are recording the form in the literature.

That is of course true well at least partially
While it is obviously a dictionary and just recording it's usage the fact that it appears to have been accepted by Classical scholars that this is not a reference to Jesus would obviously be reflected in the entry .
IF any serious scholar had raised any concerns that the Suetonius usage had in reality referred to Jesus then this would have been included if only as supplementary note as to the meaning of the Chrestus as used by Suetonius.
The absence of any such notation would to me imply that the consensus among scholars was that this "Chrestus" was a quite distinct person to the Biblical Jesus.

IF the compilers of Lewis & Short had heard of any such claims you would expect to see

Quote:

I. A mutilated form for Christus, Lact. 4, 7, 5; hence, Chrestiani, instead of Christiani, was used by many; cf. Tert. Apol. 3 fin.--

II. A Jew at Rome under the emperor Claudius, Suet. Claud. 15 (sic?); v. the commentt. in h. l.--
IIa A possible mutilated form of Christus op.cit.

III. A slave or freedman of Cicero, Cic. Fam. 2, 8, 1.

Gracchus · 07-14-2007, 05:34 AM

Well if the transliteration was from "khrestos" instead of "xrestos" then the problem has a neat solution. After the time of Constantine, a proclamation for Jesus was indeed "khrestos" (useful), both financially and politically.

Ben C Smith · 07-14-2007, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Thank you Ben -- most interesting, and full of data.

Well, I got the Latin text from your site.

I was actually going to try to get several Tertullianic works in Latin for myself several years ago so as to have easy access to them. Just in time, I found your site, and did not have to go that route.

Ben.

Roger Pearse · 07-14-2007, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Well, I got the Latin text from your site.

I was actually going to try to get several Tertullianic works in Latin for myself several years ago so as to have easy access to them. Just in time, I found your site, and did not have to go that route.

Glad to know that it's useful! Data always is, isn't it?

I'm glad I don't have to scan many Latin texts now, tho. It was a pig to do, and worse longer ago when OCR software was very bad.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ben C Smith · 07-14-2007, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Glad to know that it's useful! Data always is, isn't it?

From Jimmy Neutron, Boy Genius:

Nick: Are you sure about this, Neutron?
Jimmy: Well the data seems to support his hypothesis.
Sheen: Never argue with the data.

(Please do not think ill of me for having watched this movie. I have kids!)

Ben.

Ecrasez L'infame · 07-15-2007, 05:48 AM

Whenever this subject comes up, it's always worth mentioning Robert Graves's odd speculation that the first followers of Jesus called themselves Chrestians or "Simpletons" before they called themselves Christians. Chre^stos certainly can be used as a friendly put-down (chre^stos ei = what a dozy sausage you are!, see meaning II.4.b here), and Graves suggests that the early Christians found the label agreed with their simple lifestyle and unsophisticated morality. Besides, "Simpleton" is less likely than "Follower of the Anointed King" to attract the attention of the authorities!

I can't find any evidence for this idea - I think Graves based it on the Acts of Pilate, but I haven't a Greek text of that so can't check. Of course he had an axe to grind - he was trying to sell his translation of Suetonius, and also to link in with his Indries Shah-inspired theory that Jesus was alive and living in Rome at the time of Claudius. But leaving that aside, I do find the "Simpleton" idea psychologically plausible.

@DCHindley - you're a fan of that demented masterpiece Sacred Mushroom and the Cross! Me too - don't often see it mentioned on this board, quite right too since it's bonkers, but somewhat of a pity as well. Allegro - those whom the gods love...

Robert

premjan · 07-15-2007, 06:36 AM

You mean like "cretin"?

Ecrasez L'infame · 07-15-2007, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by premjan

You mean like "cretin"?

Actually, joking aside - yes.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-14-2007, 05:11 AM	#12
Roger Pearse Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: N/A Posts: 4,370	L&S are not expressing such an opinion; they are recording the form in the literature.

07-14-2007, 05:34 AM	#14
Gracchus Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: California Posts: 359	Well if the transliteration was from "khrestos" instead of "xrestos" then the problem has a neat solution. After the time of Constantine, a proclamation for Jesus was indeed "khrestos" (useful), both financially and politically.

07-15-2007, 05:48 AM	#18
Ecrasez L'infame Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: London, United States of Europe. Posts: 172	Whenever this subject comes up, it's always worth mentioning Robert Graves's odd speculation that the first followers of Jesus called themselves Chrestians or "Simpletons" before they called themselves Christians. Chre^stos certainly can be used as a friendly put-down (chre^stos ei = what a dozy sausage you are!, see meaning II.4.b here), and Graves suggests that the early Christians found the label agreed with their simple lifestyle and unsophisticated morality. Besides, "Simpleton" is less likely than "Follower of the Anointed King" to attract the attention of the authorities! I can't find any evidence for this idea - I think Graves based it on the Acts of Pilate, but I haven't a Greek text of that so can't check. Of course he had an axe to grind - he was trying to sell his translation of Suetonius, and also to link in with his Indries Shah-inspired theory that Jesus was alive and living in Rome at the time of Claudius. But leaving that aside, I do find the "Simpleton" idea psychologically plausible. @DCHindley - you're a fan of that demented masterpiece Sacred Mushroom and the Cross! Me too - don't often see it mentioned on this board, quite right too since it's bonkers, but somewhat of a pity as well. Allegro - those whom the gods love... Robert

07-15-2007, 06:36 AM	#19
premjan Obsessed Contributor Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: NJ Posts: 61,538	You mean like "cretin"?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.