"Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit"

[Poetic Justice]

SUETONIUS 'CLAUDIUS' XXV

"Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit"

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

 Did quite a bit of googling, so I have read a little bit of both
sides of this argument?

FWIW Biblical evidence (I'm an Atheist) i.e. 'St. Paul in Corinth'
also supports what seems to be the mainstream date of the expulsion @ 49
to early 50AD.

My 1st problem is with the translation of 'Chresto/Chrestus' using the
'Latin Word Study Tool' which translates into "A Jew at Rome under the
Emperor Claudius".
 Also many websites put in (Claudius) after Chresto/Chrestus.

That name was a common Greek slave and Freeman name at the time but I
see their point on narrowing it down to a *possible* certain person in
this timeframe.
 Although it would bias any other explainations.

Now what I find odd is Suetonius doesn't mention why "the Jews
constantly made disturbances".
 You'd think that would deserve a mention esp if it was against Roman
authority (taxes, edicts, restrictions, etc.) and done "constantly"?

 It seems to me that in-fighting among themselves might be a labelled
a "disturbance"?

And "at the instigation of Chrestus" I find it odd the Romans didn't
capture this man and crucify him as a major example.
Esp if he was "constantly" causing these "disturbances" *in Rome* and
they couldn't find him by rewards or torturing his followers?

 In the grand scheme of the 1stC Roman Empire this is a very minor
event.

I'm wondering could the verbal/written chain of command from the lead
soldier quelling these disturbances if they were infact infighting
between Jews and the new cult of Jewish Christians have understood they
were fighting over a new doctrine and reported a dead cult leader's name
as the reason which he also might have gotten wrong (translation)?

Or as it moved up the verbal/written chain of command to the Emperor's
aid/scribe and ear it went from an unknown Roman name Christus (I
assume) to a word very common and very similiar man's name Chresto and
recorded as such.

 And 50+yrs later Suetonius reads of this minor incident and reports
it just as it was written?

Not knowing Latin perhaps I am missing something in the translation?

My question is, which seems more likely;

A very small minority in a 1m+ city infighting an even smaller minority
of their own people over a major point in their religious doctine.
But a possible spelling error rules that out as a proveable historic
event?

Or a man with just one name with high odds it's not because he is a
slave and a Freeman would have a 2nd name, leads multiple disturbances
within Rome but is never caught or heard from again either as a Jewish
hero or villan.

Which leads to the Emperor exiling the Jewish community.
Regards, Walter

..And Paradise Was Lost...like teardrops in the rain...

[Ed Cryer]

The most famous mention of early Christians by a Roman comes from
Tacitus' Annals 15.44; the Great Fire of Rome (64AD).


"Such indeed were the precautions of human wisdom. The next thing
was to seek means of propitiating the gods, and recourse was had to the
Sibylline books, by the direction of which prayers were offered to
Vulcanus, Ceres, and Proserpina. Juno, too, was entreated by the
matrons, first, in the Capitol, then on the nearest part of the coast,
whence water was procured to sprinkle the fane and image of the goddess.
And there were sacred banquets and nightly vigils celebrated by married
women. But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and
the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that
the conflagration was the result of an order.

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and
inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their
abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the
name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of
Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a
most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke
out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome,
where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find
their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made
of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense
multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as
of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their
deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and
perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and
burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.
Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in
the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a
charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who
deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of
compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to
glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed."

******************************

Claudius expelled the Jews in 49AD. The fire happened in 64AD.

My personal opinion runs like this.
"Chrestus" = Christ. The former was a quite common Greek name; the
latter meant "Anointed" and didn't sound like a name.
Early Christianity had a strong militant tendency and some Christians
actually tried to spread the fire which probably broke out accidentally.

Ed

[Poetic Justice]

Ed Cryer wrote;

>The most famous mention of early
>Christians by a Roman comes from
>Tacitus' Annals 15.44; the Great Fire of
>Rome (64AD).

And it seems very accurate to what likely took place, he neither blames
Nero or the Christians for starting the Fire.
He just reports the 'belief' (rumor) that Nero did and to get the heat
(pun) off himself blamed the Christians who nobody cared for anyway.

Suetonius on the other hand places *all* the blame on Nero;
ex-consuls seeing Nero's Chamberlains torching their estates,
war-engines demolishing stone granaries, Nero singing in costume 'The
Sack of IIium' and Nero's men looting after the Fire.

But earlier in the text he mentions Nero's brutal treatment of the
Christians but doesn't tie it to the Fire.

>Claudius expelled the Jews in 49AD. The
>fire happened in 64AD.

Claudius dies a decade before the Fire so it's possible they were
allowed to return or perhaps at this stage it was just Jewish Christians
that have returned to Rome with a mission to spread their religion?

>My personal opinion runs like this.
>"Chrestus" = Christ.

I agree, it just seems logical.

>The former was a quite common Greek
>name; the latter meant "Anointed" and
>didn't sound like a name.

I agree, so many possibities for a typo:-), like a Jewish source with an
accent reporting a Greek name to a Latin speaking soldier and up the
ranks to the Emperor via his Greek Imperial Slaves.

>Early Christianity had a strong militant
>tendency and some Christians actually
>tried to spread the fire which probably
>broke out accidentally.

I believe that the fire was accidental, it happened all the time but
usually to a lesser extent and we know about the many other big fires
before and after this one.

And I have always thought it was very possible that a handful of
religious zealots saw their chance to reek revenge on the Roman Empire
or believed it was a sign from God for the faithful to retaliate?

A longshot but who knows perhaps one of them was caught in the act,
ID'ed (by dress?) or killed and Nero had just cause to blame the
Christians?

Below is a snipnet from a Uni Professor and author about a 'Sirius
prophecy' and 'vengeful texts' but I've never found anyone who
colaborates his findings.

Thanks Again...Regards, Walter

www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/previous_seasons/case_rome/clues.html

"Certainly, it's hard to know whether to trust the allegations in the
writings of Tacitus.

What about the explanation offered by Nero, that the Christians were to
blame?

At least one scholar believes Nero was on the mark.
Professor Gerhard Baudy of the University of Konstanz in Germany has
spent 15 years studying ancient apocalyptic prophecies.

He has learned that in the poor districts of Rome, Christians were
circulating vengeful texts predicting that a raging inferno would reduce
the city to ashes.

"In all of these oracles, the destruction of Rome by fire is
prophesied," Baudy explains.
"That is the constant theme: Rome must burn.

This was the long-desired objective of all the people who felt
subjugated by Rome."

  Moreover, the Book of Revelation, written a mere 30 years later,
seems to equate evil with Rome.
The Whore of Babylon, the source of this evil according to Revelations,
is described as having seven heads.
"The seven heads are seven mountains,"

Revelations says. Rome, of course, is famously known as the city of
seven hills.

What's more, an ancient Egyptian prophecy that would have been well
known in the Christian quarters of Rome foretold the fall of the great
evil city on the day that the dog star, Sirius, rises.

In 64 A.D., Sirius rose on July 19, the very day the great fire of Rome
began. Baudy believes that, bearing this prophetic date in mind, some of
the Christians, maltreated and embittered, may have started the fire --
or perhaps lit additional fires, adding fuel to the larger conflagration
-- in hopes of realizing their prophecies."

[Ed Cryer]

The first few generations of Christians had an utterly abominable
reputation amongst better-off Romans. Notice the very words that Tacitus
and Suetonius use of their sect.
It must have been worse than being a Jew in Nazi Germany in the 30s for
those poor souls.
How did they get the reputation? Three points.
1. Christian apologists put it down to a misunderstanding of the
Eucharist; the body of Christ symbolically eaten, like cannibals eating
babies.
2. The temples of many, many gods of all kinds and sizes co-existed
alongside each other throughout the Roman world. The Christians with
their one God, refusal to bow to a divine emperor, refusal to sign up in
the army, keeping aloof, including many slaves and lower classes, must
have really stood out as different. And then when the prejudice set in
and they went more underground and adopted secret symbols such as the
sign of the fish, well, that must have spread even more fear and loathing.
3. The very name must have sounded anarchistic to educated Romans. I
guess inside Judaea and surrounding provinces "Anointed one" was
understood to be the Messiah, but in Rome it probably sounded more like
"anointed with wine".

Nietzsche wrote that early Christian values were the very
turning-of-the-tables against standard Roman ones; a complete reversal
of what Romans took to be healthy and good.
You can certainly see his point. They must have appeared to Romans as
did early "Cynics" in the Greek world; ready to cast all your values
straight into your face.

Ed