Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

"Chrestus" = Christ (finale)

Expand Messages
  • Jon Peter
    ... Ian, I did so in my post last Tues. on Agrippa, and again on Fri. or so, titled Chrestus=Christ (Earl). You replied to neither. Did you see them? The
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 28, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      Ian wrote:

      > OK Jon, all ya gotta do is gettit to have significance 160 years earlier!
      >
      >
      > Ian
      >
      >

      Ian, I did so in my post last Tues. on Agrippa, and again on Fri. or so,
      titled "Chrestus=Christ" (Earl). You replied to neither. Did you see them?

      The essential point is that "Chrestus" as a corruption of Christos is well
      attested. ("Chrestians"=Christian counts as part of the same corruption of
      course). This is what Latins called the Church and its leader.

      Weeks ago we began all this with Suetonius' "Chrestus." I pointed out that
      the absence of any qualifier to this from Sue., such as saying "this is
      Chrestus, the centurion from wherever" argues in favor of interpreting this
      as a reference to Christ. As you know, any single-name or otherwise
      unqualified reference to a person in ancient history accts is extremely
      rare. To insert a name without some further identifier wouldn't make sense
      stylistically. On the contrary, the absence of some identifier would require
      an explanation.

      You said you could produce other "Chrestus" references, but have not done
      so.

      And good luck finding a "Chrestus" other than Christ, who makes sense as a
      troublemaker among Jews in Rome a decade after the crucifixion.

      As I've said, Suetonius could have corrected this, and surely would have, to
      avoid readers confusing this with Jesus Christ.

      I also noted that St Peter was in Claudian Rome preaching "Chrestus" at
      precisely this time. In a dozen years the persecution under Nero began, and
      when it did, "Chrestus" became established in the Latin lexicon as the name
      for you-know-who. Likewise "Chrestians" were his followers.

      Is my case for "Chrestus" absolutely certain? Of course not. But, given
      Tacitus' repetition of the term only a generation later, and Agrippa's
      "Christians" in this period, my case deserves to be called "likely" by any
      reasonable standards.

      Regards,

      Jon
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.