Was Chrestus Jesus?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Chrestiani, a Judeo-Egyptian sect ?

Post by mlinssen »

billd89 wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 8:43 am
mlinssen wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 8:30 amIt's unclear where you get you obviousness. Why does everything need to be Jewish?
Can't Chrestians simply have worshiped something xrestos?
They didn't though.

It was a complex Jewish problem (heterodoxical Judaism), Jewish unrest related to Egyptian/Isis cults. That's what the ancient source says. That's obvious!

The astrologers, furthermore, were probably 'Chaldeans' - Jews who venerated the Celestial Great Serpent. There's a TON of information on that (related) side issue in Mastrocinque [2005], posted previously.

a Suetonius, 'Claudius Tiberius Nero Caesar,' aka Tiberius XXXVI [in turn, in Twelve Caesars]

XXXVI. He suppressed all foreign religions, and the Egyptian1 and Jewish rites, obliging those who practised that kind of superstition, to burn their vestments, and all their sacred utensils. He distributed the Jewish youths, under the pretence of military service, among the provinces noted for an unhealthy climate; and dismissed from the city all the rest of that nation as well as those who were proselytes to 'that religion' [similia sectantes], under pain of slavery for life, unless they complied. He also expelled the astrologers; but upon their suing for pardon, and promising to renounce their profession, he revoked his decree.

1 Tiberius pulled down the temple of Isis, caused her image to be thrown into the Tiber, and crucified her priests."- Joseph. Ant. Jud. 18.3,4*

https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/te ... apter%3D36

I just saw that thread now, interesting. So it did originate in Egypt, but by Jews? I'll have to read the book I suppose, marked it. Thanks
User avatar
billd89
Posts: 1339
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:27 pm
Location: New England, USA

Re: Agathodaimon evolves...

Post by billd89 »

mlinssen wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 8:56 amI just saw that thread now, interesting. So it did originate in Egypt, but by Jews? I'll have to read the book I suppose, marked it. Thanks
I don't know the presumed Roman Chrestiani sect 'originated' in Egypt. This is the complex part. I think it was partly, maybe predominantly, influenced by smthg that existed in Alexandria YES; that Judaic heretics were preaching an (originally) Alexandrian dogma in Rome YES. But had it evolved, was it already smthg 'New' and different? I am uncertain.

If you mean 'Did this Great Serpent Cult definitely originate in Alexandria?' I suspect YES, but I can only say Maybe. I am working on a possible proof (i.e. backup to the Suetonius implication) for that question. The Serpent Motif is also universal, so it - a putative connection of the (hypothetically: Judeo-)Egyptian cult to Roman Chrestiani - must be proven 'very close', distinctly similar. I may not be able to conclusively rule out other possibilities ('same-same but different'), however. It's a work-in-progress.

The Saviour Motif is VERY prominent in the (proto-Gnostic/Judaic?) Egyptian Serpent cults of the period, btw.

Agathodaimon c.25 BC
Image
John2
Posts: 4298
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Was Chrestus Jesus?

Post by John2 »

davidlau17 wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 8:56 pm
John2 wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 6:07 pm To me this is similar to the account of the disturbance in Jerusalem in Acts 21, which calls followers of Jesus Jews, when it had previously called them Christians (or Chrestians). If Acts calls Jesus' followers Jews and Christians (or Chrestians), why is it odd if Suetonius does it?
This is a pretty good point, but I do think there is some distinction to be made here. Acts shows a general hostility towards Judaism. It often uses the term Jews to refer to the Christian enemies of Paul who would prefer to keep Jewish rites and traditions. I interpret it as the author's method of differentiating those he considers "Judaizers" from those he considers "true Christians". The quote by James from Acts 21 would be an exception to this of course... though from Paul's perspective, James too would likely be considered a Judaizer/Jew.

I see James and other Jewish Christian leaders (in Acts and Paul's letters) as being moderates between Paul's "no Torah for anyone" policy and the "Torah for everyone" policy of extremist Christians (like the ones in Acts 21 and the "false brothers" in Galatians). Paul was angry that they didn't approve of his "no Torah for anyone" gospel, but they never agreed to that (Gal. 2:9: "And recognizing the grace that I had been given, James, Cephas, and John ... gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised").

Paul was at least willing to pretend to be Torah observant around Jews (1 Cor. 2:9: "To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law -though I myself am not under the law- so as to win those under the law"), and I think this is what he is presented as doing in Acts 21.

And since Acts is pro-Jewish Torah observance and approved of Paul and calls Christians Nazarenes, I see it as being a Nazarene or pro-Nazarene Jewish Christian writing, since these are characteristics of Nazarene Jewish Christianity.

To a Roman historian like Suetonius, such distinctions between Palestinian Jewish-Christians, Hellenized Jewish-Christian, or Gentile-Christians wouldn't be very relevant or necessary. One would imagine he would only use one term - and if he knew of the term Christian, it seems likely he would use that one.

On the other hand, the Claudius 25 quote could be read to mean that all Jews were banished from Rome, and to a Roman pagan at the time, Christianity was just considered a sect of Judaism (i.e. how the notes posted by MrMacSon interpret the situation). If it's the case that Suetonius considered Christianity to be a branch of Judaism, and all Jews were banished from Rome, then it would make sense that he would include them under the umbrella term of Jews.
Giuseppe wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 10:09 pm
davidlau17 wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 8:56 pm it would make sense that he would include them under the umbrella term of Jews.
Suetonius calls the Christiani a "new" superstitio so he introduces a distinction between Jews and Christiani.


But there are two different time periods here. Acts says that Jesus' followers were first called Christians in Antioch sometime in the 40's or 50's CE, so the term may not have been as widely known or used in the time of Claudius in the 40's and 50's as it was in the time of Nero in the mid to late 60's. Paul never uses the term, for example, and I gather his letters (the seven "authentic" ones at least) are seen as being written in the 40's and 50's. So it may have been appropriate for Suetonius to call Chrestus' followers in the 40's or 50's "Jews" and Nero's victims in the 60's "Christians."
Last edited by John2 on Sat Jan 15, 2022 2:32 pm, edited 2 times in total.
John2
Posts: 4298
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Was Chrestus Jesus?

Post by John2 »

John2 wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 7:25 pm
MrMacSon wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 6:41 pm
John2 wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 5:16 pm
MrMacSon wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 4:43 pm
  • Claudius 25 is about Jews in Rome. It's not clear who or even what Chrestus is/was, or if that entity was ever in Rome
But as I said in the OP, "since Jesus wasn't in Jerusalem or even alive at the time of this disturbance [in Jerusalem in Acts], his presence would not have been necessary for Christians to cause a similar disturbance in Rome.

Sure, but Claudius 25 specifies

"... Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus ..."

"at the instigation of Chrestus" suggests Chrestus was instigating in the present tense


It seems similar to me to what Hegesippus says about people being led astray by Jesus after his death in EH 2.23.10-12.

10. ...there was a commotion among the Jews and Scribes and Pharisees, who said that there was danger that the whole people would be looking for Jesus as the Christ. Coming therefore in a body to James they said, 'We entreat you, restrain the people; for they are gone astray in regard to Jesus, as if he were the Christ. We entreat you to persuade all that have come to the feast of the Passover concerning Jesus; for we all have confidence in you. For we bear you witness, as do all the people, that you are just, and do not respect persons.

11. Therefore, persuade the multitude not to be led astray concerning Jesus. For the whole people, and all of us also, have confidence in you. Stand therefore upon the pinnacle of the temple, that from that high position you may be clearly seen, and that your words may be readily heard by all the people. For all the tribes, with the Gentiles also, have come together on account of the Passover.'

12. The aforesaid Scribes and Pharisees therefore placed James upon the pinnacle of the temple, and cried out to him and said: 'You just one, in whom we ought all to have confidence, forasmuch as the people are led astray after Jesus, the crucified one, declare to us, what is the gate of Jesus.'

Another thing I'd like to add is that Jesus was believed to still be alive after his death. That's what Christianity is and his followers believed they were in communication with him. Jesus was very present for Christians and was expected to arrive from heaven soon.

For examples, Mk. 9:1: "And he said to them, “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.”

Mk. 14:61-62: "Again the high priest questioned him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?”

“I am,” said Jesus, “and you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.”

Rev. 22:20: "He who testifies to these things says, 'Yes, I am coming soon.' Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!"

Gal. 1:15-16: "... God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me ..."

1 Cor. 9:1: "Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?"


So it's easy for me to imagine extremist Christians (like the ones in Acts 21 and the "false brothers" in Galatians) causing a disturbance in Rome at the "instigation" of Jesus while expecting him to arrive at any moment to deal with the governing authorities in Revelation-style.

In the big picture I see this as being Fourth Philosophic nonsense, i.e., "that one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth."
davidlau17
Posts: 141
Joined: Wed May 29, 2019 9:45 am

Re: Was Chrestus Jesus?

Post by davidlau17 »

John2 wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 1:34 pm I see James and other Jewish Christian leaders (in Acts and Paul's letters) as being moderates between Paul's "no Torah for anyone" policy and the "Torah for everyone" policy of extremist Christians (like the ones in Acts 21 and the "false brothers" in Galatians). Paul was angry that they didn't approve of his "no Torah for anyone" gospel, but they never agreed to that (Gal. 2:9: "And recognizing the grace that I had been given, James, Cephas, and John ... gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised").

Paul was at least willing to pretend to be Torah observant around Jews (1 Cor. 2:9: "To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law -though I myself am not under the law- so as to win those under the law"), and I think this is what he is presented as doing in Acts 21.

And since Acts is pro-Jewish Torah observance and approved of Paul and calls Christians Nazarenes, I see it as being a Nazarene or pro-Nazarene Jewish Christian writing, since these are characteristics of Nazarene Jewish Christianity.
Is James consistently presented as a moderate regarding the "Torah for everyone" policy though? Paul says that the "false brethren" were sent to Antioch by James, after all. And the Epistle of James, which at the very least was written by someone partial to the philosophy of James, emphasized following of the law to every last point (James 2:10: "For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.") If we look beyond the NT, Hegisippus depicted James as someone who adhered strictly to a Nazarite vow.

Basically, I'm somewhat skeptical regarding whether James as presented in Acts is an entirely accurate depiction of the man. If James and Paul had very strong disagreements regarding the applicability Mosaic Law, and if both men were respected figures to varying degrees among different subgroups of a still emerging Christian community, then the author(s) of Act would have decent reason to try to reconcile those differences. Whoever authored Acts is clearly partial to Paul's philosophy, and as you alluded to, Paul was flexible when it came to the following of Mosaic Law.

As for whether Acts can be properly characterized as a Nazarene (or pro-Nazarene) text, this would depend on how you define the term "Nazarene". Tertullian and Jerome indicate that the Jews originally called the Christians "Nazarenes" on account of Jesus being born in Nazareth. Epiphanius refers to a "heretical" sect called the Nazarenes as Christian adherents of Mosaic Law, and he further suggests that, at one time, all Christians were known as Nazarenes, though I doubt they chose to refer to themselves as such. At Paul's trial in chapter 24, he is accused of being the ringleader of the "Nazarenes", but Acts tends to call the early Christians "followers of the Way". Paul similarly refers to his sect as "the Way" at that same trial.
John2 wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 1:34 pm But there are two different time periods here. Acts says that Jesus' followers were first called Christians in Antioch sometime in the 40's or 50's CE, so the term may not have been as widely known or used in the time of Claudius in the 40's and 50's as it was in the time of Nero in the mid to late 60's. Paul never uses the term, for example, and I gather his letters (the seven "authentic" ones at least) are seen as being written in the 40's and 50's. So it may have been appropriate for Suetonius to call Chrestus' followers in the 40's or 50's "Jews" and Nero's victims in the 60's "Christians."
This may be the case. Technically, I think it's more likely that he would refer to them as "Chrestians", though I'm hesitant to overemphasize that distinction. A later redactor may have changed the one letter.
John2
Posts: 4298
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Was Chrestus Jesus?

Post by John2 »

davidlau17 wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 7:49 pm
Is James consistently presented as a moderate regarding the "Torah for everyone" policy though? Paul says that the "false brethren" were sent to Antioch by James, after all.

Paul says that "certain men came from James" and does not call them false brothers (and that Peter and the other Jews and Barnabas joined them).

And the Epistle of James, which at the very least was written by someone partial to the philosophy of James, emphasized following of the law to every last point (James 2:10: "For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.")

The letter of James (which I think is genuine) is addressed to Jews ("To the twelve tribes of the Dispersion"), in keeping with what Paul says in Gal. 2:9 ("James, Cephas and John... gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised").

If we look beyond the NT, Hegisippus depicted James as someone who adhered strictly to a Nazarite vow.

Right, and I think this is why James is presented as being concerned about Nazirite Christians in Acts 21:23-24.

"Therefore do what we advise you. There are four men with us who have taken a vow. Take these men, purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so they can have their heads shaved.


Basically, I'm somewhat skeptical regarding whether James as presented in Acts is an entirely accurate depiction of the man. If James and Paul had very strong disagreements regarding the applicability Mosaic Law, and if both men were both respected figures to varying degrees among different subgroups of a still emerging Christian community, then the author(s) of Act would have decent reason to try to reconcile those differences. Whoever authored Acts is clearly partial to Paul's philosophy, and as you alluded to, Paul was flexible when it came to the following of Mosaic Law.



Acts approves of Paul and is pro-Jewish Torah observance and calls Christians Nazarenes, and these are characteristics of Nazarene Jewish Christianity. I do think Acts (naturally enough) wants to put the best spin on Christian history, but it doesn't seem to contradict anything in the letters of James and Paul.

And the letter of James ends by saying, "My brothers, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring him back, consider this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and cover over a multitude of sins," and I think this would apply to Paul overstepping his bounds by ""teach[ing] all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or observe our customs" (as Acts 21:21 puts it).

As for whether Acts can be properly characterized as a Nazarene (or pro-Nazarene) text, this would depend on how you define the term "Nazarene". Tertullian and Jerome indicate that the Jews originally called the Christians "Nazarenes" on account of Jesus being born in Nazareth. Epiphanius refers to a "heretical" sect called the Nazarenes as Christian adherents of Mosaic Law, and he further suggests that, at one time, all Christians were known as Nazarenes, though I doubt they chose to refer to themselves as such. At Paul's trial in chapter 24, he is accused of being the ringleader of the "Nazarenes", but Acts tends to call the early Christians "followers of the Way". Paul similarly refers to his sect as "the Way" at that same trial.

Jewish Christians are presented as being pro-Torah and accepting Paul and are called Nazarenes in Acts (among other things), and these are characteristics of Nazarene Jewish Christianity according to church writers. Nazarenes did not call themselves Nazarenes, but they were okay with other Christians calling them that, which is why I think Acts is a pro-Nazarene writing, because it espouses the views of what church writers call Nazarene Jewish Christianity.
davidlau17
Posts: 141
Joined: Wed May 29, 2019 9:45 am

Re: Was Chrestus Jesus?

Post by davidlau17 »

John2 wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 8:18 pm Paul says that "certain men came from James" and does not call them false brothers (and that Peter and the other Jews and Barnabas joined them).
My mistake. That's right, yes. Still, you have to admit, Paul seems to view those men who came from James with a certain amount of antagonism, considering they compelled Peter and others to eat separately from the Gentiles.
John2 wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 8:18 pmThe letter of James (which I think is genuine) is addressed to Jews ("To the twelve tribes of the Dispersion"), in keeping with what Paul says in Gal. 2:9 ("James, Cephas and John... gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised").
That's true. To be honest, I hadn't considered "to the twelve tribes of the Dispersion" opening.
John2
Posts: 4298
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Was Chrestus Jesus?

Post by John2 »

davidlau17 wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 8:54 pm
Still, you have to admit, Paul seems to view those men who came from James with a certain amount of antagonism, considering they compelled Peter and others to eat separately from the Gentiles.

Absolutely. As I said above, "Paul was angry that they didn't approve of his 'no Torah for anyone' gospel," and conversely James seems angry with Paul about it in his letter, but at the end of the day Paul was willing to pretend to be flexible (as per 1 Cor. 9:20) and James was willing to "bring him back" (as per James 5:19).
Post Reply