How much did Suetonius know about Christ and Christianity?

[Ken Olson]

All that you say here could be true, however, the histories of Josephus would have been a valuable resource for information on the Flavians, as well as the earlier Emperors for both Tacitus and Suetonius

This has come up on the forum before. Tacitus description of the early history or ethnography of the Jews does not show any acquaintance with Jewish sources such as the LXX or Josephus Antiquities.

https://www.livius.org/sources/content/ ... -the-jews/

The few passages in Tacitus occasionally brought in support of the theory that he knew Josephus works (the TF, the passage about the Dead Sea, and about the portents in the temple in Jerusalem) can all be explained fairly easily in other ways.

viewtopic.php?p=65049#p65049

and they being written in Greek would have been no obstacle for them.

Would it not? We can name several of Tacitus' Latin sources (Cluvius Rufus, Fabius Rusticus, Pliny the Elder). Which historians can we show that Tacitus (or Pliny or Suetonius) knew in Greek?

Best,

Ken

[lclapshaw]

All that you say here could be true, however, the histories of Josephus would have been a valuable resource for information on the Flavians, as well as the earlier Emperors for both Tacitus and Suetonius

This has come up on the forum before. Tacitus description of the early history or ethnography of the Jews does not show any acquaintance with Jewish sources such as the LXX or Josephus Antiquities.

https://www.livius.org/sources/content/ ... -the-jews/

The few passages in Tacitus occasionally brought in support of the theory that he knew Josephus works (the TF, the passage about the Dead Sea, and about the portents in the temple in Jerusalem) can all be explained fairly easily in other ways.

viewtopic.php?p=65049#p65049

and they being written in Greek would have been no obstacle for them.

Would it not? We can name several of Tacitus' Latin sources (Cluvius Rufus, Fabius Rusticus, Pliny the Elder). Which historians can we show that Tacitus (or Pliny or Suetonius) knew in Greek?

Best,

Ken

I was under the impression that educated Romans during that period were likely to know Greek with ignorance of Greek indicating a less educated and hence lower social state, and all three, Pliny, Tacitus, and Suetonius were without doubt educated and part of the upper crust of Roman society.
Weren't the letters between Pliny and Trajan in Greek? Wouldn't Tacitus as governor of Asia in Anatolia be at a disadvantage without knowledge of at least some Greek? Perhaps Suetonius was ignorant of Greek but I hardly would think so with so much important information for a historian being in that language.

This doesn't prove that they read Josephus of course only that it wouldn't be a stretch that they could have. And Josephus would have been an important and contemporary historian writing in Rome, writing in Greek as it was the most common language of educated people in the empire. Even with Roman influence all over the NT material the Greek language was used. Possibly for this very reason.

Not trying to be a pain Ken, just making observations.

[Ken Olson]

I was under the impression that educated Romans during that period were likely to know Greek with ignorance of Greek indicating a less educated and hence lower social state, and all three, Pliny, Tacitus, and Suetonius were without doubt educated and part of the upper crust of Roman society

They probably would have learned some Greek from their grammarians or rhetors. Whether they attained proficiency and retained it I don't know.

Weren't the letters between Pliny and Trajan in Greek?

No, Latin. Most official records and correspondence of the imperial government were in Latin. Local records might well be in Greek and the emperor did have a secretary for Greek correspondence (at least at a later period - not sure about c.110).

Wouldn't Tacitus as governor of Asia in Anatolia be at a disadvantage without knowledge of at least some Greek?

Maybe not. He was a Proconsular governor (i.e., one who had already held the post of Consul). He almost certainly would have had junior/local officials under him who knew Latin and Greek.

Perhaps Suetonius was ignorant of Greek but I hardly would think so with so much important information for a historian being in that language.

It certainly would have been advantageous, but I don't know of any evidence he used Greek sources. There might be some.

This doesn't prove that they read Josephus of course only that it wouldn't be a stretch that they could have.

Yes, they plausibly could have. If we had evidence they knew Greek works that would be one thing. But we can't assume they knew Greek works, let alone particular Greek works, on the basis that educated Romans probably learned some Greek.

And Josephus would have been an important and contemporary historian writing in Rome, writing in Greek as it was the most common language of educated people in the empire. Even with Roman influence all over the NT material the Greek language was used. Possibly for this very reason.

We don't know when Josephus died, but it's usually thought to be around 100. He might have been alive when Tacitus wrote his earlier works (Agricola and Germania), but probably not when Tacitus and Suetonius wrote their better known works. Josephus Jewish War and Antiquities might well have been available in Rome c. 110. But that doesn't mean they read them. With regard to the Antiquities, reading 20 books in Greek on Jewish history might have been a very unattractive prospect.

Best,

Ken

[lclapshaw]

I was under the impression that educated Romans during that period were likely to know Greek with ignorance of Greek indicating a less educated and hence lower social state, and all three, Pliny, Tacitus, and Suetonius were without doubt educated and part of the upper crust of Roman society

They probably would have learned some Greek from their grammarians or rhetors. Whether they attained proficiency and retained it I don't know.

Weren't the letters between Pliny and Trajan in Greek?

No, Latin. Most official records and correspondence of the imperial government were in Latin. Local records might well be in Greek and the emperor did have a secretary for Greek correspondence (at least at a later period - not sure about c.110).

Wouldn't Tacitus as governor of Asia in Anatolia be at a disadvantage without knowledge of at least some Greek?

Maybe not. He was a Proconsular governor (i.e., one who had already held the post of Consul). He almost certainly would have had junior/local officials under him who knew Latin and Greek.

Perhaps Suetonius was ignorant of Greek but I hardly would think so with so much important information for a historian being in that language.

It certainly would have been advantageous, but I don't know of any evidence he used Greek sources. There might be some.

This doesn't prove that they read Josephus of course only that it wouldn't be a stretch that they could have.

Yes, they plausibly could have. If we had evidence they knew Greek works that would be one thing. But we can't assume they knew Greek works, let alone particular Greek works, on the basis that educated Romans probably learned some Greek.

And Josephus would have been an important and contemporary historian writing in Rome, writing in Greek as it was the most common language of educated people in the empire. Even with Roman influence all over the NT material the Greek language was used. Possibly for this very reason.

We don't know when Josephus died, but it's usually thought to be around 100. He might have been alive when Tacitus wrote his earlier works (Agricola and Germania), but probably not when Tacitus and Suetonius wrote their better known works. Josephus Jewish War and Antiquities might well have been available in Rome c. 110. But that doesn't mean they read them. With regard to the Antiquities, reading 20 books in Greek on Jewish history might have been a very unattractive prospect.

Best,

Ken

Thanks for the clarification on the Pliny/Trajan correspondence Ken.

One reason that I can think of that might make Josephus desirable to read for them would be the references to the Emperors and other important Roman generals and governors described in his histories. But we are getting a little distant from your OP and even if Suetonius did read Josephus we need assume that XC's or even IC XC is mentioned in Josephus at all in its original form. Something that I personally doubt. And again, can we show that Suetonius knew anything at all about XC's?

[neilgodfrey]

There are three passages from Suetonius' The Lives of the Caesars that seem relevant to the history of Christ and Christianity:

First:

Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit

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

OR

He drove out from Rome the Jews who stirred up by Chrestus continually caused unrest. (Claudius 25.4)

It is debated whether Chrestus should be taken to mean Jesus Christ, and Suetonius was referring to the activity of Christian missionaries in Rome, or an agitator with the common slave name Chrestus, or possibly the Jewish Messiah or Jewish Messianism in general (i.e., not specifically followers of Jesus).

I have never thought twice about this "Chrestus" since learning as an undergrad that it was a common slave name. But now for some perverse reason I cannot fathom I am wondering why Suetonius made such a note at all. It was the Jews, he wrote, who were expelled because of their ongoing unrest. Is it not a little odd that the expulsion seems to let Chrestus off since there is no indication that he was expelled with them? And what sort of disturbances were they that were instigated by Chrestus. Would we not expect Suetonius to give just at least one more sentence of explanation?

Second:

During his reign many abuses were severely punished and put down, and no fewer new laws were made: a limit was set to expenditures; the public banquets were confined to a distribution of food; the sale of any kind of cooked viands in the taverns was forbidden, with the exception of pulse and vegetables, whereas before every sort of dainty was exposed for sale. Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition. He put an end to the diversions of the chariot drivers, who from immunity of long standing claimed the right of ranging at large and amusing themselves by cheating and robbing the people. The pantomimic actors and their partisans were banished from the city. (Nero 16.2)

This is another passage that scarcely interested me before. But looking at it again now, is there not something a little out of place here? Suetonius begins by explaining that "abuses" were put down and makes particular mention of unseemly expenditures.

Public banquets were limited -- that's about expenditures;
Sales of special foods were limited -- again, that's about expenditures;
Then punishments on Christians ....
Then we move on to public nuisances and worse by addressing behaviours of charioteers and pantomime actors.

What was the public nuisance or drain on finances being caused by Christians? What was it about Christians that would have prompted Nero to "punish" them? No clues are given here. We find it hard to imagine how they were a problem for public finances or public safety and order.

Third:

5 There had spread over all the Orient an old and established belief, that it was fated at that time for men coming from Judaea to rule the world. This prediction, referring to the emperor of Rome, as afterwards appeared from the event, the people of Judaea took to themselves; accordingly they revolted and after killing their governor, they routed the consular ruler of Syria as well, when he came to the rescue, and took one of his eagles. (Vespasian, 4.5).

Now here we have a situation that makes some sense. Vespasian was the master of imperial propaganda and used his suppression of the rebellion there to present himself as something akin to being a "conqueror of the East" and foretold by ancient augurs to become the new ruler of the world.

My question is: how much did Suetonius know about Jewish Messianism, Christ, or Christians? Is there any basis for thinking that he saw the expectation of a ruler coming from Judea, the Chrestus who stirred up the Jews, and the Christians who were given to a new and mischievous superstition were somehow related? It's not apparent to me he saw a connection among the three things.

Best,

Ken

Maybe it's just a passing moment of over-questioning, but I do wonder if we have any secure reason to think that Suetonius had even ever heard of Christians or Christ being associated "way back" in the days of Claudius and Nero and would be bemused to come back today to read what he has been said to have written.

[Giuseppe]

Is it not a little odd that the expulsion seems to let Chrestus off since there is no indication that he was expelled with them?

Chrestus couldn't be expelled: he was a ghost, a spirit-possessor. Just as Thakur couldn't be captured.

[Ken Olson]

My question is: how much did Suetonius know about Jewish Messianism, Christ, or Christians? Is there any basis for thinking that he saw the expectation of a ruler coming from Judea, the Chrestus who stirred up the Jews, and the Christians who were given to a new and mischievous superstition were somehow related? It's not apparent to me he saw a connection among the three things.

Maybe it's just a passing moment of over-questioning, but I do wonder if we have any secure reason to think that Suetonius had even ever heard of Christians or Christ being associated "way back" in the days of Claudius and Nero and would be bemused to come back today to read what he has been said to have written.

Neil,

Interestingly enough, my question was indirectly inspired by James Valliant. I'm now cutting my way James Valliant and Warren Fahy, Creating Christ: How Roman Emperors Invented Christianity (2018), which we discussed previously on this forum:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5054

I haven't quite finished it yet, but I'm not finding the major thesis of the book, as stated in the subtitle, at all credible. The authors' use of archaeological data and ancient symbols and imagery is methodologically ad hoc. In brief, they see a correlation between the dolphin and anchor symbol which the emperor Titus used on some of the coins he had minted during his reign, and the Christians use of the dolphin and anchor symbol pre-dating the cross, to be evidence supporting their thesis that the Flavian emperors created Christianity, or, rather, the kind of Gentile Christianity found in most of the New Testament.

To recap: they think the fact that Titus was the first emperor to use the dolphin and anchor symbol and that the Christians also used this symbol is a striking correlation. But (as you have pointed out) the evidence for Christian use of the dolphin and anchor symbol is from later than the reign of Titus. Also, Titus used several different symbols on his coinage. Do a google images search for Titus Coins and you find an elephant, a pegasus, a winged woman (Victory?) and many others. The Christians too used any different symbols, as V & F's quotation of Clement of Alexandria shows. And other people and groups used the dolphin and anchor symbol (Seleucus and the temple of Neptune). That Titus and Christians should both use a common symbol that others were also using, and alongside several other symbols they used, is not much evidence of anything.

But underlying their major thesis Valliant and Fahy have another which I think has a lot going for it. They think that the Gentile-friendly Christian writings of the New Testament, and particularly the Gospels and Acts, is a later development from outside Judea and that the Jerusalem church led by James should be understood as a (solely) Jewish messianic movement which might best be interpreted in terms of the sectarian scrolls at Qumran and Josephus' descriptions of Jewish rebels in the Jewish War. I think they probably overstate the connection between messianism and eschatology with violence. Sometimes eschatology brings about violent revolution as the believers try to help God's plan along, but sometimes it encourages them to accept the status quo as they wait for God to bring about change. But I think Valliant and Fahy have seen the disconnect between early Jewish messianism and the Gentile-friendly movement that came to be called Christianity more clearly than most.

To bring this back to Suetonius, they point out that there is no good reason to associate the Jewish agitators in Rome under Claudius and the Christians punished by Nero (both before 70) with the later gentle or Gentile-friendly Jesus who advised turning the other cheek. They may well have been Jewish messianists engaged in rebellion, or at least agitation, against Roman authority.

Best,

Ken

[neilgodfrey]

My question is: how much did Suetonius know about Jewish Messianism, Christ, or Christians? Is there any basis for thinking that he saw the expectation of a ruler coming from Judea, the Chrestus who stirred up the Jews, and the Christians who were given to a new and mischievous superstition were somehow related? It's not apparent to me he saw a connection among the three things.

Maybe it's just a passing moment of over-questioning, but I do wonder if we have any secure reason to think that Suetonius had even ever heard of Christians or Christ being associated "way back" in the days of Claudius and Nero and would be bemused to come back today to read what he has been said to have written.

Neil,

Interestingly enough, my question was indirectly inspired by James Valliant. I'm now cutting my way James Valliant and Warren Fahy, Creating Christ: How Roman Emperors Invented Christianity (2018), which we discussed previously on this forum:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5054

I haven't quite finished it yet, but I'm not finding the major thesis of the book, as stated in the subtitle, at all credible. The authors' use of archaeological data and ancient symbols and imagery is methodologically ad hoc. In brief, they see a correlation between the dolphin and anchor symbol which the emperor Titus used on some of the coins he had minted during his reign, and the Christians use of the dolphin and anchor symbol pre-dating the cross, to be evidence supporting their thesis that the Flavian emperors created Christianity, or, rather, the kind of Gentile Christianity found in most of the New Testament.

To recap: they think the fact that Titus was the first emperor to use the dolphin and anchor symbol and that the Christians also used this symbol is a striking correlation. But (as you have pointed out) the evidence for Christian use of the dolphin and anchor symbol is from later than the reign of Titus. Also, Titus used several different symbols on his coinage. Do a google images search for Titus Coins and you find an elephant, a pegasus, a winged woman (Victory?) and many others. The Christians too used any different symbols, as V & F's quotation of Clement of Alexandria shows. And other people and groups used the dolphin and anchor symbol (Seleucus and the temple of Neptune). That Titus and Christians should both use a common symbol that others were also using, and alongside several other symbols they used, is not much evidence of anything.

But underlying their major thesis Valliant and Fahy have another which I think has a lot going for it. They think that the Gentile-friendly Christian writings of the New Testament, and particularly the Gospels and Acts, is a later development from outside Judea and that the Jerusalem church led by James should be understood as a (solely) Jewish messianic movement which might best be interpreted in terms of the sectarian scrolls at Qumran and Josephus' descriptions of Jewish rebels in the Jewish War. I think they probably overstate the connection between messianism and eschatology with violence. Sometimes eschatology brings about violent revolution as the believers try to help God's plan along, but sometimes it encourages them to accept the status quo as they wait for God to bring about change. But I think Valliant and Fahy have seen the disconnect between early Jewish messianism and the Gentile-friendly movement that came to be called Christianity more clearly than most.

To bring this back to Suetonius, they point out that there is no good reason to associate the Jewish agitators in Rome under Claudius and the Christians punished by Nero (both before 70) with the later gentle or Gentile-friendly Jesus who advised turning the other cheek. They may well have been Jewish messianists engaged in rebellion, or at least agitation, against Roman authority.

Best,

Ken

Thanks for the background to the question, Ken. Yes, as you point out, I also found V&F's use of the anchor-dolphin image problematic, being used by Christians "too late" for one thing.

I also find myself leaning in favour of that "school of thought" that sees no evidence for actual Jewish messianic movements until after 70 CE -- though I'm quite prepared to change my mind -- and would expect something slightly different in Suetonius if that was what the "Jewish/Christian problem" in Rome was.

But if Claudius and Nero were responding to messianic agitations in Rome then did they not do an adequate job of handling their respective problems? Surely a few expulsions and executions were enough to keep the problem under wraps without the convolutions and obvious risks of failure involved in concocting a new Roman-friendly Jewish type religion to fool the followers into submission. If Claudius and Nero failed to nip the problem in the bud then we would expect some evidence to that effect, would we not? (Should we thin of Christian scribes not interpolating but expunging passages from Suetonius and Tacitus that are evidence of messianic trouble-makers prior to 70 CE?)

As for one case study of the types of disturbances related to messianic hopes: Compare the followers of the messiah Sabbatai Sevi in the seventeenth century: they expected his imminent rise to power and made nuisances of themselves in ways that directly related to this messianic expectation:

1- they (many of them) abandoned economic trade thus disrupting businesses in some communities;
2 - some of them made nuisances of themselves by violently intimidating/attacking those who did not believe in their messiah and those who mocked them for their beliefs. They felt emboldened to act violently in towns where they were clearly in the majority.

There is evidence that the sectarians some of whose members engaged in these practices were fearful that the state authorities would punish them.

In other respects and with few isolated exceptions they appeared to be part of the Jewish "cult" (sabbath meetings and prayers).

Our information is very sparse of course, too sparse to enable any certain conclusions, but I do find myself wondering if what we read in Suetonius is what we would expect if his messianists were in large enough numbers in Rome at that time (which is another problem to work through) to be causing the sort of trouble that would arise from messianism per se.

Followers of Sabbatai may not be relevant, but if not, I still have a hard time getting my head around the sorts of problems caused by the Jews over messianic beliefs. Contrast the apparently messianic Jewish revolts in Cyrene. Now those appear to have had messianic associations and appear to have been provoked by Roman mistreatment. Even on a small scale does that appear to be the sort of thing facing the Julio-Claudians?

[ABuddhist]

Second:

During his reign many abuses were severely punished and put down, and no fewer new laws were made: a limit was set to expenditures; the public banquets were confined to a distribution of food; the sale of any kind of cooked viands in the taverns was forbidden, with the exception of pulse and vegetables, whereas before every sort of dainty was exposed for sale. Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition. He put an end to the diversions of the chariot drivers, who from immunity of long standing claimed the right of ranging at large and amusing themselves by cheating and robbing the people. The pantomimic actors and their partisans were banished from the city. (Nero 16.2)

This is another passage that scarcely interested me before. But looking at it again now, is there not something a little out of place here? Suetonius begins by explaining that "abuses" were put down and makes particular mention of unseemly expenditures.

Public banquets were limited -- that's about expenditures;
Sales of special foods were limited -- again, that's about expenditures;
Then punishments on Christians ....
Then we move on to public nuisances and worse by addressing behaviours of charioteers and pantomime actors.

What was the public nuisance or drain on finances being caused by Christians? What was it about Christians that would have prompted Nero to "punish" them? No clues are given here. We find it hard to imagine how they were a problem for public finances or public safety and order.

I recall a person (perhaps Earl Doherty?) raising the same issues in order to suggest that the reference to Christians had been inserted or edited afterwards. I can understand the claim that the reference might have been edited - with the original reference perhaps being to some type of criminals' gang (similar to the charioteer/criminals in the next sentence).

[lclapshaw]

But underlying their major thesis Valliant and Fahy have another which I think has a lot going for it. They think that the Gentile-friendly Christian writings of the New Testament, and particularly the Gospels and Acts, is a later development from outside Judea and that the Jerusalem church led by James should be understood as a (solely) Jewish messianic movement which might best be interpreted in terms of the sectarian scrolls at Qumran and Josephus' descriptions of Jewish rebels in the Jewish War.

I think that a lot of us studying this issue, without a need for a historical IC based on the Gospels (Mark), come to this very conclusion. Further, I propose that XC's is a creation of the writer of Acts somewhere in the mid 2nd century, retrojected into the past by them.

Very much the way it looks to me anyway.