Impulsore Chresto a Christian interpolation?

[Giuseppe]

I want to be short therefore I assume the reader knows already the Eric Laupot thesis about the fragment 2 and the Testimonium Taciteum, etc.

According to fragment 2, assuming it was written by Tacitus or by his source, then the christiani would be the seditious zealots active in Rome and maybe in all the Empire.

The fragment 2 associates the Christiani to zealot Jews in defense of Jerusalem, in 70 CE.

What would do a Christian apologist in order to hide this embarrassing truth?


He would invent an emperor that separates Jews from Christ.

Et voila, that's why he would invent the story of Bar Kochba persecuting the Christians of Galilea. So Orosius says that Hadrian did punish the Jews of Jerusalem but not the Christians.

Et voila, that's why he would insert that famous passage in Suetonius:

Judeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultantes Roma expulit



This would be a strong reason to suspect the passage of Suetonius as a late interpolation, if the fragment 2 is very tacitian.

[Peter Kirby]

First we'd have to know that the passage referred to a "Christ" at all.

[Giuseppe]

I start this thread after my approximate reading of this French article that claims to bring more evidence in support of the thesis of Laupot.

https://www.academia.edu/14384023/Ben_N ... 9v%C3%A8re

After the studies of Bernays (1861) and Laupot (2000) who put in evidence the connections existing between the Latin word stirps and its Hebrew equivalent netser, new elements are conveyed to demonstrate that not only Tacitus wanted to turn against the Anti-Roman sect of Christian-Zealots the messianic prophecy of Isaiah 11.1, but that Christ himself, crucified by the Romans, was called Ben Netser.

I quote the Latin translation of the talmudic passages that, according to Enrico Tuccinardi, would support his view:

Kethubhot 51b

Tradunt Rabbini: Capti a regno, ecce sunt sicut captivi, at capti a latronibus non sunt sicut captivi. Traditio est distinguenda. Quoad regnum et regnum non est difficultas. Ast est quoad regnum Ahashueri, et regnum Ben Nezer. Quoad latrones et latrones, non est difficultas, ast est quoad Ben Nezer, et latrones mundi. Illic Ben Nezer vocatur Rex, Hic vocatur latro.

A Rabbi Salomon Ð dit Rashi (XII CE):

Ben Nezer latro fuit, et cepit urbes, et regnavit iis, et factus est Dux latronum

who is Ben Nezer ?

Attende, qua ratione exponant cornu illud ultimum parvum de Ben Nezer, qui est Jeshu Hannozri et iuxta seriem contextus cum eo coniungunt Regnum impium, quod est Regnum Edom: Edom vero est populus Jeshu..

(page 8, note 14)

Nezer est etiam Nozri maledictus

(p.9, n. 16)

And so Oriosus, VII, 13 :

Iudaeos sane, perturbatione scelerum suorum exagitatos et Palaestinam provinciam quondam suam depopulantes, ultima caede perdomuit, ultusque est Christianos, quos illi Cocheba duce, cur sibi adversum Romanos non adsentarentur, excruciabant; praecepitque, ne cui Iudaeo introeundi Hierosolymam esset licentia, Christianis tantum civitate permissa.

Livre VII,6 :

Anno eiusdem nono expulsos per Claudium urbe Iudaeos Iosephus refert. sed me magis Svetonius movet, qui ait hoc modo:

Claudius Iudaeos inpulsore Christo adsidue tumultuantes Roma expulit

; quod, utrum contra Christum tumultuantes Iudaeos coherceri et conprimi iusserit, an etiam Christianos simul velut cognatae religionis homines voluerit expelli, nequaquam discernitur.

Livre VII,4 :

Tiberius cum suffragio magni fauoris rettulit ad senatum, ut Christus deus haberetur senatus indignatione motus, cur non sibi prius secundum morem delatum esset, ut de suscipiendo cultu prius ipse decerneret, consecrationem Christi recusauit edictoque constituit, exterminandos esse urbe Christianos; praecipue cum et Seianus praefectus Tiberii suscipiendae religioni obstinatissime contradiceret.

Tuccinardi agrees with Carrier that the fragment 2, if written by Tacitus, describes zealots and not the pauline Christians. But Carrier says that if that is the case, then the original subject of fragment 2 is 'zelotes' not christiani. Tuccinardi disagrees with it but he realizes that Carrier's argument is made more strong if the impulsore Chresto of Suetonius is considered a better candidate (than Jesus called Christ) for the founder of the seditious Chrestiani persecuted by Nero.

Contra Carrier, Tuccinardi raises two objections:

1) he points out some passages of the Talmud where the Ben Nezer is clearly Jeshu ha-Notrzi (by him taken for Jesus called Christ) and is called a leader of latrones (curiously, the same lestes mentioned in Josephus).

2) he points out that Oriosus uses the suetonian reference to impulsore Christo (he doens't cite him as impulsore Chresto), togheter with Hadrian destroying Jerusalem but not the Christians, togheter with a Tiberius knowing about Jesus, as apology against the identification of Jesus with the seditious Jews. Orosius reads Suetionius as saying more or less: the Jews were expelled because of their hate against Christ.



The weakness of his argument is clearly his use of late Talmudic passages, even if I recognize that it's surprising the talmudic link between ben Nezer, Jeshu ha-Notzri and the zealots (called latrones).


Objectively, the problem with the Testimonium Taciteum is that it makes sense only if referred to the followers of Chrestus, not of (Jesus) Christ. But if the suetonian impulsore Chresto is an interpolation, then who would be a better candidate for the founder of these Chrestiani if not Jesus called Christ himself?

[Giuseppe]

Curiously, Jay Raskin wrote that the suetonian impulsore Chresto was the same Egyptian Prophet mentioned by Josephus.

Under that hypothesis, then all would agree (Carrier, Laupot and Lena Einhorn).

[iskander]

3. Chrestus, nome proprio o confusione linguistica?

Il nome di persona Chrestus era molto frequente nelle iscrizioni poste sulla via Appia già a partire dalla tarda repubblica, soprattutto sulle tombe e sui muri che si possono vedere a fianco della casa di Rotondo e della tomba di Cecilia Metella dove si legge di un "Chrestus lictor", ovvero attendente di Cesare. Questo induce a pensare che il Chresto citato da Svetonio sia davvero un nome proprio diverso da Christus, quindi riconducibile ad un personaggio che veramente istigò una rivolta dei giudei al tempo di Claudio

http://digilander.libero.it/Hard_Rain/s ... etonio.htm

The name of the person Chrestus was very common in inscriptions placed on the Appian Way, starting in the late Republic, especially on the tombs and on the walls that can be seen next to the Round House and the tomb of Cecilia Metella, where we read of a "Chrestus lictor ", or waiting for Caesar. This suggests that the Chresto quoted by Suetonius is really a name different from Christus, then due to a character who really instigated a revolt of the Jews in the days of Claudius

Google Translate

[Giuseppe]

There is no need of translating it, iskander. It is already known (and his author is a fool Catholic apologist of my knowledge).