"Chrestus" = Christ (finale)
- Ian wrote:
> OK Jon, all ya gotta do is gettit to have significance 160 years earlier!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
You said you could produce other "Chrestus" references, but have not done
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