labarum
Master of the Arts
Posts: 122
|
Post by labarum on Feb 20, 2014 22:49:38 GMT
In the argument over the various passages (Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, Suetonius), one of the oddest is the reference to someone named "Chrestus" who caused a problem among the Jews that led to Claudius expelling them. Many notable scholars have supported the claim that this was a reference to Jesus while others claim it must be someone else. I have a hunch that I want to run by those interested in this subject and please feel free to punch holes in it. My main concern is to judge the passage correctly.
One point argued in favor of it being Jesus is that it seems odd that Suetonius would just drop the name in out of nowhere as if it needed no introduction. The Christus/Chrestus distinction is not really an issue since that confusion occurred frequently - Justin Martyr and Tertullian even made puns about it. Nor is the claim that Chrestus was a common name an issue since it was primarily common among gentile slaves and this was apparently a Jew.
On the other hand, I find it hard to believe they are referring to Jesus for one simple reason: Acts 18:2. Here the same incident is mentioned in passing and no connection to the Christians is made. Since Acts frequently cites early persecution of the Christians, why would they omit this one if they brought the subject up and attribute it to a ruckus among the Jews?
So here is my hunch: Suetonius was known to have been in charge of the imperial archives. At some point during the reign of Claudius, a wave of Messianic fever broke out (a frequent occurrence in the Second Temple period), whether there was a specific individual in mind I leave open to speculation, and references were noted to the Jews doing something on behalf of the "Christus/Chrestus" that caused problems. Suetonius, reading this in the archives many decades later, incorrectly assumed that Christ was the same Christ of the Christians and thus saw it as just another problem among those following that vile superstition.
Any comments?
|
|
|
|
Post by sandwiches on Feb 21, 2014 10:30:23 GMT
Acts 18:2. Here the same incident is mentioned in passing and no connection to the Christians is made. Since Acts frequently cites early persecution of the Christians, why would they omit this one if they brought the subject up and attribute it to a ruckus among the Jews?
Because it was Claudius who expelled the Jews? Luke is usually at pains to show that it was the Jews, not Jesus or Paul or any early Christians/followers of The Way who were behind any trouble. Hence best to leave mention of this to simply Claudius having expelled the Jews, rather than going into an explanation that it was something to do with trouble involving Christians and Jews.
Acts in any case merely says
18: 2 And he found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla (because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to depart from Rome); and he came to them.
It doesn't refer to the cause of the expulsion or say anything about it unlike Suetonius who says Claudius:
``expelled the Jews from Rome, who were continually making tumults, being moved thereunto by one Chrestus,''
|
|
labarum
Master of the Arts
Posts: 122
|
Post by labarum on Feb 21, 2014 13:00:42 GMT
Acts 18:2. Here the same incident is mentioned in passing and no connection to the Christians is made. Since Acts frequently cites early persecution of the Christians, why would they omit this one if they brought the subject up and attribute it to a ruckus among the Jews?Because it was Claudius who expelled the Jews? Luke is usually at pains to show that it was the Jews, not Jesus or Paul or any early Christians/followers of The Way who were behind any trouble. Hence best to leave mention of this to simply Claudius having expelled the Jews, rather than going into an explanation that it was something to do with trouble involving Christians and Jews. Acts in any case merely says 18: 2 And he found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla (because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to depart from Rome); and he came to them.
It doesn't refer to the cause of the expulsion or say anything about it unlike Suetonius who says Claudius: ``expelled the Jews from Rome, who were continually making tumults, being moved thereunto by one Chrestus,'' In Acts, there are accounts where Paul and other Christians would preach among the Jews, a ruckus would ensue, and the Jews then turned to the authorities to punish those "causing the ruckus." In fact, such an account occurs in the remainder of Chapter 18. My point is that if this were one more such event, it would be odd not to have the real cause mentioned and just attribute it to something occurring among the Jews. They certainly could have placed the blame on the Jews here for the disturbance and make the case for their innocence in the disturbance. Unless, of course, it had nothing to do with Jesus but to some other Messianic candidate (or even a general belief that the Messiah's unveiling was near). In any case, the main points are that 1) the disturbance was not related to the Christians and that's why it was never mentioned. 2) the accounts in the records made mention of some figure "Christus/Chrestus." 3) Suetonius reading those accounts later mistakenly believed that was the same "Christus/Chrestus" that was the center of controversy in his own day. |
|
|
|
Post by sandwiches on Feb 21, 2014 13:30:34 GMT
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suetonius_on_Christians#Disturbance_and_expulsionJames D.G. Dunn states that most scholars infer that "Suetonius misheard the name 'Christus' (referring to Jesus as Christ) as 'Chrestus'" and also misunderstood the report and assumed that the followers of someone called Chrestus were causing disturbances within the Jewish community based on his instigation
|
|
|
|
Post by sandwiches on Feb 21, 2014 13:48:43 GMT
Whoops - that got posted before I finished! I meant to add this just seems the most likely explanation. Luke was partly about painting Christianity as a respectable, misunderstood religion that Rome had nothing to fear from (Suetonius and other Roman writers give a glimpse that it was not regarded in this light). An alternative translation of what Suetonious said is "He expelled from Rome the Jews constantly making disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus". (Not all the Jews in Rome necessarily).
Compare with Luke's : Claudius had commanded all the Jews to depart from Rome
Luke's version could be seen as Aquila was an inoffensive Jewish tentmaker who had had the misfortune to have to leave Rome because ALL the Jews were expelled. Paul, a fellow Jew and tentmaker naturally met up with him (not clear at this point that Aquila was a Christian - perhaps he was but Luke does not expressly say so).
Claudius seems to have been quite pro-Jewish. Seems unlikely Claudius would have expelled all the Jews from Rome?
Would Luke want to digress into a full explanation for the presence of Aquila in Corinth involving the admission that Aquila was a Christian expelled from Rome by the Emperor himself as one of those involved in disturbances among the Jews? And that this was some sort of error on the part of the Emperor himself, who did not realise it was the Jews as usual who started the trouble?
|
|
labarum
Master of the Arts
Posts: 122
|
Post by labarum on Feb 21, 2014 18:31:15 GMT
Whoops - that got posted before I finished! I meant to add this just seems the most likely explanation. Luke was partly about painting Christianity as a respectable, misunderstood religion that Rome had nothing to fear from (Suetonius and other Roman writers give a glimpse that it was not regarded in this light). An alternative translation of what Suetonious said is "He expelled from Rome the Jews constantly making disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus". (Not all the Jews in Rome necessarily). Compare with Luke's : Claudius had commanded all the Jews to depart from RomeLuke's version could be seen as Aquila was an inoffensive Jewish tentmaker who had had the misfortune to have to leave Rome because ALL the Jews were expelled. Paul, a fellow Jew and tentmaker naturally met up with him (not clear at this point that Aquila was a Christian - perhaps he was but Luke does not expressly say so). Claudius seems to have been quite pro-Jewish. Seems unlikely Claudius would have expelled all the Jews from Rome? Would Luke want to digress into a full explanation for the presence of Aquila in Corinth involving the admission that Aquila was a Christian expelled from Rome by the Emperor himself as one of those involved in disturbances among the Jews? And that this was some sort of error on the part of the Emperor himself, who did not realise it was the Jews as usual who started the trouble? On the matter of Aquila and Priscilla being Christians, it is pretty clear they are (Acts 18:26). Also, if I remember correctly "Priscilla" is the diminuitive form of Prisca and Paul mentions a pair Aquila and Prisca in his letters on more than one occasion (in Rome and Corinth) so the implication is they are Christian missionaries. All that aside, I am curious as to your opinion on whether Suetonius might have assumed the Chrestus was the Christ of the Christians. |
|
labarum
Master of the Arts
Posts: 122
|
Post by labarum on Feb 21, 2014 19:32:33 GMT
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suetonius_on_Christians#Disturbance_and_expulsionJames D.G. Dunn states that most scholars infer that "Suetonius misheard the name 'Christus' (referring to Jesus as Christ) as 'Chrestus'" and also misunderstood the report and assumed that the followers of someone called Chrestus were causing disturbances within the Jewish community based on his instigation I agree there was much confusion on the Christus/Chrestus matter and pointed this out on my first post. However, that doesn't really matter for my hunch since I am guessing the trouble was with some sort of Messianic candidate (whether Jesus or not). My point is that Suetonius BELIEVED it was the Christ of the Christians (whether it was or not is an interesting side issue) and that this is why he did not have to describe the person involved. In other words, my argument is that Suetonius knew that Christianity was centered on a person they called the Christ and thought the one referred to earlier was that Christ. Again, whether that person was Jesus or not is a secondary issue. |
|
|
|
Post by sandwiches on Feb 21, 2014 20:20:42 GMT
On the matter of Aquila and Priscilla being Christians, it is pretty clear they are (Acts 18:26).
But that is not made clear in Acts 18:2? In fact it is not even explicitly stated in Acts 18:26 though yes they were Christians -
He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.
Were Aquila and Priscilla aready Christians when they met Paul? Luke (though a very skilled writer) does not make that clear.
Paul mentions a pair Aquila and Prisca in his letters on more than one occasion (in Rome and Corinth) so the implication is they are Christian missionaries.
Scholars tend to think that Luke (the probable author of Acts) probably did not have access to the Letters of Paul (or at least did not expect them to be published?)
When we compare the letters of Paul with Acts it tends to show that Luke in Acts tended to put a certain gloss on matters (as with all historians, for what historian is "objective"?). This does not mean that he was dishonest but that maybe his sources suggested a viewpoint other than that of the view presented in Paul's letters and that he was partly writing for apologetic reasons.
All that aside, I am curious as to your opinion on whether Suetonius might have assumed the Chrestus was the Christ of the Christians.
Why would he assume otherwise?
15 or so years after the death of Christ Hellenists were proclaiming that Jesus was the Messiah and perhaps more than the Messiah in Rome and some Jews took no more kindly to it than many of those to whom Paul attempted to preach the same message elsewhere, including in Corinth?
Alternatively, some random bloke called Chrestus caused trouble among the Jews in Rome to the extent they endangered their relations in Rome to the point of being expelled by a pro-Jewish Emperor?
|
|
