Seutonius mentions that Claudius, “banished from Rome the Jews, who were continually making disturbances at the instigation of one Chrestus.” (Suetonius, The Deified Claudius 25.4). What probably happened here is that Jews were shouting Christ and Seutonius picked up a source that mistook this title for a common name of the time, Chrestus.[1] As Robert Drews argued “Because some Judaeans must have shouted the title Christos often and loud enough to be heard by Latin-speakers, it is likely that the Roman vulgus would have referred to those who did so as Christiani or Chrestiani.”[2] Both Christus and Chrestus would have sounded alike in Latin and in antiquity, people spelled phonetically. This would never happen in Latin where the i and e would ever get confused. But it would happen when transliterating Greek names. In Greek from around the 1st century BCE onwards, ι, ει, and η [i, ei and ē] all represented the sound /i/. The Greek word for “Christians” is spelled Christianos Chreistianos and Chrēstianos This led people to swap between them freely. This can be seen from some Christian funerary inscriptions, such as the following example[3]
O Jesus Chreist, aid the person who wrote this and his whole household.
IG XII,3 suppl. 1238 (undated, Melos)
The inscriptions provided by G. H. R. Horsley give us Χρειστός (Chreistós) and Χρηστός (Chrestós). For the word ‘Christian’, Χριστιανός (Christianós), the third of these inscriptions gives us two variations at once: Χρηστιανός (Chrestianós) and Χρηστειανός (Chresteianós).
This later led Tertullian to exasperate “And even when it is said wrongly ‘Chrestian’ by you…” (Tertullian Apologeticum, 3.5)
As Dunn says, “Christianoi is a Latinism (Christiani), on the model of Herodianoi (Herodians), or Kaisarianoi (Caesareans) – that is, supporters of or members of the faction which regarded the one named as their leader. This suggests that the title was coined by Roman authorities in Antioch who recognized the growing body of followers of the one known as ‘Christ’ as a significant faction within the melting-pot of Jews and Jewish adherents in Antioch.”[4]
Just because Drews successfully argued that Seutonius Claudius 25.4 was about a Christ figure still does not automatically mean it’s about Jesus. There were at least 20 Christ figures that could have been candidates for the original head of this particular movement.[5] Even within Christians own literature Acts admits some were not of the Jesus movement:
While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?” “John’s baptism,” they replied. Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.
Acts 19:1-5
The Baptist movement had existed separately to Christianity in Asia Minor as shown in Acts.
Even though Seutonius Claudius 25.4 reference may have nothing to do with Christians, the reference in Suetonius Nero 16 describes Christianity (and this time he refers to them as Christiani spelt with an ι) as a superstitio as do his contemporaries Tacitus and Pliny. We first get to see this term used by Latin commentators in early second century, a term for a sect Jewish messianists who were seen as troublesome in the Roman Jewish war as seen from Roman commentators in their descriptions of these Christiani.
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.
Seutonius, Nero 16
Seutonius here lumps the Christians in with other devious characters.
In Tacitus we have Chrestians:
So to quash the rumour, Nero produced suspects, and inflicted the most exquisite punishments on them. These people were despised for their disgraces, and popularly known as Chrestians. The name came from one Christus: during Tiberius’ reign the procurator Pontius Pilate had put him to death.
Tacitus, Annals 15.44
Under UV light it showed that Tacitus had originally written ‘Chrestiani’. Ivan Prchlík says “Tacitus’ orthography of the names Chrestiani and Christus, as occurring in the passage … emphasized that the form Chrestiani had been the popular one.” Prchlík suggests Tacitus knew the originator of the movement had been Christos. “In contemporary Greek, however, <ι> and <η> were already pronounced in the same manner, and so the pagans, or at least a majority of them, coming across the title Χριστός certainly considered it a personal name“ just like the name Χρηστός is.[6]
Here is what the Jesus Seminar people say of this in their book After Jesus before Christ:
Chrestiani is what the vulgus called the “partisans of Christus,” whom Tacitus took the trouble to find out had been executed by Pontius Pilatus. … Tacitus ties the term christianus to the traditions of Israel. He is making a distinction within various types of Judeans. Christianus is a type of Judean; any further meaning of “belonging to the party of the Anointed” or of “the good ones” is actually irrelevant to Tacitus. The association with Judea is enough. The transliteration of christianos (Greek) to christianus (Latin) is significant because it signals a Judean provenance, an association with a people of rebellion and resistance. “Christian,” in Latin, refers to yet another troublesome “group from the eastern Mediterranean. The meaning has nothing to do with who they are, but where they come from, and their resulting potential to cause trouble. … Roman writers probably understood christus in Latin as the name or title of an individual. They recognized it as a foreign-sounding word, connected with strange superstitions from Israel, a place of continued rebellion. As the name originated in this place of rebellion, they probably recognized it as signaling rebellion or resistance, for which they were on the lookout with those connected to Israel’s traditions … [7]
“Tacitus’ description in Annals 15.44 of the “Christiani’s” superstitio as dangerous (exitiabilis), sinister (atrocia), an evil (malum), etc. and Suetonius’ portrayal of the “Christiani” in Nero 16.2 as following a “new and dangerous [malfica] superstitio.” [8]Pliny the Younger (who was on about the actual Jesus sect) accuses them of being “infected by this contagious superstition.” (Pliny the Younger, Book 10, Letter 96).
Here is what Pliny had to say:
I had forbidden political associations. I judged it so much the more necessary to extract the real truth, with the assistance of torture, from two female slaves, who were styled deaconesses: but I could discover nothing more than depraved and excessive superstition.
Pliny, Epistulae X.96
Sometimes by concentrating on this area of history we can zoom in too much and miss the overall context of where Christianity fits into history. When Tacitus refers to the “pernicious superstition” of the Christians (exitiabilis superstitio, Tac. Ann. 15.44.3), what does he mean. To study Tacitus overall we get a better idea.
Within the context of Tacitus’ Annals, Superstitio refers to outside religions or cults, including the rites of the Druids, Jews, and Christians. Tacitus refers to the “pernicious superstition” of the Christians (exitiabilis superstitio, Tac. Ann. 15.44.3), and notes that the Jews are denigrated for relying on their superstitions (gens superstitioni obnoxia, Tac. Hist. 5.13.1). In Britain, the Druids are condemned and their sacred grove at Mona is destroyed as the site of their savage practice of human sacrifice (saevis superstitionibus, Tac. Ann. 14.30.3). Despite the denigration of these religions, foreign superstitions flourished in Rome under Claudius (Tac. Ann. 11.15.1). However, Nero persecuted the Christians, famously blaming them for the great fire of Rome, and his punishments were so harsh that even the Roman populace felt sympathy (Tac. Ann. 15.44.2-5).
Shannon-Henderson explains “superstitio. The term has pejorative connotations and indicates “excessive forms of behavior” or “excessive commitment to the gods,” and refers to religious practices outside the realm of the elite-dominated Roman state cult. With this term, Tacitus suggests that the Italians’ fears are “a little excessive,” and implies that they do not understand the situation properly. Much like the soldiers in the Pannonian mutiny who are filled with superstitio and give way to irrational fears during an eclipse (1.28.2), these rural Italians become overly concerned with their river gods at the expense of rationality and practicality. The proper, non-superstitio-influenced way to interpret the flood would have been to recognize it as a prodigy and expiate it according to the traditional apparatus of the state cult, an interpretation Tiberius has refused. The Italians, in their concern for their river gods, advance an alternative interpretation that is irrational, excessive, and not state-sanctioned, as Tacitus implies by using superstitio to describe it.[9] Shannon-Henderson also said “depiction of Vespasian in the Histories, whose excessive interest in astrology, described as superstitio (Hist. 2.78.1), “makes him vulnerable to manipulation” by the populace of Alexandria”[10]
Tacitus’ Fragment 2
“most scholars have . . . adopted the suggestion of Bernays that Sulpicius’s source was none other than a lost portion of Tacitus’ Histories.”[11] The gap in Tacitus Histories is thought to be preserved in Sulpicius Severus Chronica 2.30.6-7. This piece that is preserved is known as: Tacitus’ Fragment 2. Laupot makes the case that Sulpicius used Tacitus as a source[12]:
“ [The] evidence takes the form of the discovery of a significant statistical relationship among the following three words: The metaphor (1) stirps (Latin for branch, descendants) used to describe the (2) Christiani (Latin for messianists) in fragment 2, and (3) Ναζωραῖος and Ναζαρηνός; (Nazorean), describing the New Testament sect associated with the Χριστιανούς (Christians) of Acts 11.26. The connecting link among, as well as the common source for, the three words listed above appears to be the Hebrew netzer (branch, descendants-apparently influenced by Isa 11.1), which both translates into stirps and transliterates into Ναζωραῖος/Ναζαρηνός;”
I will now reproduce Sulpicius, Chronicle:
(2.30.6) It is reported that Titus first deliberated, by summoning a council of war, as to whether to destroy a Temple of such workmanship. For it seemed proper to some that a consecrated Temple, distinguished above all that is human, should not be destroyed, as it would serve as a witness to Roman moderation; whereas its destruction would represent a perpetual brand of cruelty.
(2.30.7) But others, on the contrary, disagreed-including Titus himself. They argued that the destruction of the Temple was a number one priority in order to destroy completely the religion [per Severus. Tacitus or another classical author would have used the word superstitio (alien religious belief). Compare Hist. 5.8 and Ann. 15.44 (exitiabilis superstitio)] of the Jews and the Christiani: For although these religions [i.e., superstitiones] are conflicting, they never the less developed from the same origins. The Christiani arose from the Jews: With the root removed, the branch [stirps] is easily killed’.[13]
Josephus gives a parallel to this account in War 6.236-243, but this is a biased account in favor of Titus. Severus has probably preserved Tacitus’ less biased account.
Like Robert Drews, Laupot doesn’t think the Christiani in Tacitus are the same Christians as “Pauls Christians” (Laupots expression).[14] As Drews thinks, “ the label Christiani, or Chrestiani, was probably used by Latin-speakers for fervent Judaean nationalists, who had little in common with New Covenant “Christians” other than their belief that Jesus had ascended into Heaven”[15]. Paul was a Jewish missionary used to getting beaten by both Jewish and Roman authorities- “ Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. [39 lashes is a Jewish punishment] Three times I was beaten with rods …[this is a Roman punishment] (2 Cor. 11:24-25). This would bring out a cautious manner in Paul, and make him and his gentile converts branch away from any apocalyptic nationalist movement that he had joined. I suspect the original Jesus movement were fervent national apocalyticists just like the rest of the Messianic Jewish movements, Paul would have steered his converts away from that (Romans 13:1-7). This would have made Paul’s Christians branch away from all those Jewish apocalyptic nationalists such as those persecuted by Nero in the aftermath of the great fire. This is what leads Drews and Laupot to draw a distinction. Edwin Johnson has said in his book Antiqua Mater that the Romans used the term Christiani as a name for Jewish Messianists.[16] He shows that the Roman commentators of the time simply named any messianic Jews as Christiani. It is more than likely that the term Christiani was a generic term for Jewish messianists. It is worth repeating the last line of the quote above in light of this:“The Christiani arose from the Jews: With the root removed, the branch [stirps] is easily killed’.” (Sulpicius, Chronicle 2.30.7).
Here Christiani simply meant all the rebellious Jewish messianists that caused so much trouble in the Roman war. The nazorean movement that Jesus joined only started to adopt the name Christiani for themselves in the second century as attested by their 2nd century document- The Acts of the Apostles.[17] The use of the term Christians is used anachronistically in Acts 11:26, (and also used anachronistically by Tacitus) but was more likely only adopted by this Nazorean group at the time of composition. “Christianity first appears in our sources once again in the early second century, that is, in the Apostolic Fathers (Ignatius, Magn. 10.1-3; Rom. 3.3; Phil. 6.1; Mart. Pol. 10.1).”[18]
[1] Cicero mentions a person called Chrestos in his Fam. Ep. 2.8.
[2] Robert Drews, “Judaean Christiani in the Middle Decades of the First Century”, Journal of Early Christian History, 13:2, p.53.
[3] G. H. R. Horsley, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, 3: A Review of the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri Published in 1978 (North Ryde, Australia: Ancient History Documentary Research Centre, 1983), 129–36.
[4] Dunn, James D. G., The Partings of the Ways, Between Christianity and Judaism and their significance for the character of Christianity, 2nd Ed. (SCM Press, 2006) p. xv.
[5] https://jamestabor.com/messiahs-in-the-time-of-jesus/
[6] Ivan Prchlík, “Tacitus’ Knowledge of the Origins of Christianity.” Acta Universitatis Carolinae, Philologica 2/ Graecolatina Pragensia, (2017), pp. 96 f.
[7] Erin Vearncombe et al, After Jesus Before Christianity
[8] Eric Laupot, “Tacitus’ Fragment 2: The Anti-Roman Movement of the “Christiani” and the Nazoreans”, (2000), Vigiliae Christianae 54, p.237.
[9] Kelly E. Shannon-Henderson, Religion and Memory in Tacitus’ Annals, (Oxford, 2019), p.29.
[10] , Kelly E. Shannon-Henderson, ibid, p.51.
[11] Feldman, Louis H., Studies in Hellenistic Judaism, (Brill, 1996), p.2
[12] Laupot, ibid, p.233
[13] Laupot, ibid, p.234
[14] Laupot, ibid, p.234
[15] Drews, ibid, p.54.
[16] Johnson, Edwin, Antiqua Mater: A Study of Christian Origins, (Trübner & Co., Ludgate Hill, 1887), ch1.
[17] Pervo, Richard I., Dating Acts: Between the Evangelists and the Apologists (Polebridge Press, 2006). Pervo comes to the conclusion that Acts of the Apostles has a date range of 110-120 CE due to its use of Paul’s epistles, Pastorials and Josephus.
[18] Dunn, ibid, p. xvii.
Dave Allens blog 