Talk:Suetonius

General Info
Cf. "Multa sub eo et animaduersa seuere et coercita nec minus instituta: adhibitus sumptibus modus; publicae cenae ad sportulas redactae; interdictum ne quid in popinis cocti praeter legumina aut holera ueniret, cum antea nullum non obsonii genus proponeretur; afflicti suppliciis Christiani, genus hominum superstitionis nouae ac maleficae; uetiti quadrigariorum lusus, quibus inueterata licentia passim uagantibus fallere ac furari per iocum ius erat; pantomimorum factiones cum ipsis simul relegatae;" Cf. Dbz (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC) && 22:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Per . the oldest extant MS, the ‘Memmianus’ (M, Parisinus 6115), was probably copied at Tours around 820. (Rand 1926, 37–38).
 * Per Suetonius (c. 121 CE), the only Latin “Christiani” attestation is in: “Cayo Suetonius Tranquillus, Nero, chapter 16, section 2”. perseus.tufts.edu.
 * The spelling christiani "seems to be the original reading"; cf. J. Boman, Inpulsore Cherestro? Suetonius' Divus Claudius 25.4 in Sources and Manuscripts, p. 355, n. 2

Chrestus
"[Per] the widespread conviction that “Chrestus” is Christ. As Slingerland points out, more fully than any predecessor, the name appears with reasonable frequency in the epigraphic evidence, encompassing persons of freedman or free born status, some of lowly origin, some of relatively prominent station. Nothing suggests Jesus Christ here. The passage indeed implies that Chrestus the impulsor was in Rome when these events transpired. And it will not do to save the Christian hypothesis by postulating Suetonius’ ignorance. Nor does Acts 18:1-3 help the cause, for its reference to Jews expelled from Rome who joined Paul in Corinth does not suggest that they were Christians when they left Rome. Orosius’ interpretatio christiana rests on no evidence independent of Suetonius. Slingerland reaches a proper and salutary conclusion: the burden of proof rests with those who wish to identify Chrestus with Christ, not those who distinguish them (pp 169-217)." Cf. Slingerland, Howard Dixon (1997). Claudian Policymaking and the Early Imperial Repression of Judaism at Rome. Scholars Press. pp. 151–168. ISBN 978-0-7885-0425-9. – Dbz (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting, why not add it yourself? — Oxyaena   Harass  22:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Suetonius ⇔ Tacitus
Carrier (18 September 2018). "A Baptist Goofs His Reading of Tacitus and Suetonius". Richard Carrier Blogs. [Per Sommer’s argument] “In Suetonius we see the name ‘Chrestus’ being used in relation to Jews making disturbances” while “Tacitus says this disturbance was fabricated by Nero’s administration in order to find a scapegoat for the fires.” Suetonius, “then, makes perfect sense if we look at what else Tacitus says.” This is false. It makes zero sense. Quite the opposite of “perfect sense.”

• Suetonius mentions no connection between Nero, Christians, and the burning of Rome.

• Suetonius (at least in the text we now have) mentions that Nero persecuted Christians. He also discusses Nero’s connections to the burning of Rome. He never connects the two, nor discusses them anywhere near each other.

• Suetonius does not just use the name Chrestus “in relation to Jews making disturbances.” That’s a deceptive way to word the matter, which conceals all the evidence against Sommer’s theory.

• Suetonius says Chrestus was himself, the man, the instigator of disturbances.

• …and of riots, not arson.

• Suetonius makes no connection at all between this Chrestus and any fire, much less the burning of Rome, which Suetonius devotes a whole other section to elsewhere in the biography of Nero.

• Suetonius never mentions whom Nero accused or punished for the burning of Rome. He only mentions Chrestus as a rioter whose acts were punished by Claudius, and in his biography of Claudius, not Nero.

• Suetonius says this literally in the Latin: it says Chrestus is the man who instigates; not the idea that instigates or the object of instigation.

• Suetonius does not say this man lived in Judea in the 30s A.D. He says this man was alive in Rome in the 50s A.D. In no possible way can this be a description of the Christian Jesus.

• Suetonius describes Jews, not Christians, being punished for riots started by Chrestus. Suetonius, though knowing what Christians are (as he mentions Nero persecuting them), evinces no knowledge of any connection between this disturbance and Christianity.

• Suetonius does not mention Nero persecuting Chrestians. Only Christians. And not in connection with the burning of Rome. Whoever Suetonius had read Nero punished for that fire, Suetonius fails to tell us. So no assumptions can be made about who he thought it had been. Dbz (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)