Jesus The Guy Who Just Finished His Bath

Quote:Misspelling of Christus by some ancient Roman sources. The usage indicates the means of transmission of the text to the modern day. For instance:

"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he (Claudius) expelled them from Rome."
- Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, The Twelve Caesars

Many scholars feel that Suetonius was referring to the Christians (who were considered a sub-sect of the Jews).

Why the spelling mistake?

The Latin word Christus comes from Χριστος in Greek. The root of the word, χριω, means "to be oily". Although the Greeks rubbed themselves with oil to bathe, the concept of anointment to pass on an office (or divine favor) was alien to them. It's a Jewish custom.

Chrestus, on the other hand, came from Χρηστος, meaning "good", or "worthy".

So when the Romans encountered a cult started by a man known as "the greasy one", or possibly "the guy who just finished his bath", they were sure they were hearing it wrong. These people had to mean "the worthy one", right?

What does it tell us?

Most of our Classical texts come to us through the monasteries. We don't have the originals, nor even contemporary copies. What we have are texts copied out, corrected, amended, and commented on by medieval monks.

Any text in which the term appears (such as The Twelve Caesars) does not come to us through the monasteries. A monastic copyist or scribe would have corrected the text to read Christus.

This whole Chrestus thing needs some serious study!

Maybe they were trying to refer to him as "the snake oil salesman."

Jesus the oleaginous?

No wonder he's such a slippery son-of-a-god. That explains his folllowers as well.

Indeed.

But there is an interesting thing with this Chrestus shit. Not only does Suetonius mention "Chrestus" in Rome in Claudius' reign but ultra violet photographs of the only surviving manuscript of Tacitus' Annales show that the word he used was "chrestianos" which a later scribe clumsily tried to erase to make "christianos."

But there are at least two instances of the name "Chrestus" being used in Asia Minor in the first century BC and in those cases it seems to be in the literal sense of "the Good." (Socrates Chrestus and Mithradates Chrestus) and then there is the Roman funerary inscription which must pre-date 37 AD because it refers to a slave by the name of Faustus who belongs to Antonia Minor who buys a funeral urn from a man named Jucundus Chrestiani.

Chrestus, or Chrestianos was being used as a cognomen among the lower classes in Rome long before the story - even if the NT is taken at face value which would be stupid beyond the point of stupidity - could have spread to Rome itself.

Certainly in the early first century Chrestus was not a misspelling of Christos. Later on, it appears, xtian scribes tried to correct the "error" whenever they came across it and the correction may have been innocent. They may have believed that it was a simple spelling error.

But, like "where" and "whore" these are completely separate ideas with one letter different and in both cases it makes a difference.

Here's that ultraviolet photo of the manuscript showing the smoking gun:



And they would have got away with it if it hadn't been for those meddling historians with their science.

(Cue special pleading and ad hominems in 3... 2... 1...)

There is one manuscript for Tacitus' Annales Books 1-6 and one manuscript for Books 11-16. 1-6 dates to the 9th century BC and the one that gets xtians' knickers in a twist is an 11th century copy. This is the one that a scribe tried to "correct" by changing the "e" in chrestianos to an "i."

Of course, by definition, we have no way of knowing how many times these books had been recopied between the second century when Tacitus wrote them and the 11th century when we have evidence of tampering.

All we know for certain is that:

1 - some scribe tried to make a correction changing chrestianos to christianos in the 11th century, and

2- no xtian writer in antiquity makes reference to Nero's supposed persecution of xtians for the Great Fire of 64 until Sulpicius Severus in the early 5th century.

But "chrestus" keeps showing up in the record and it is pretty easy to see how xtians, with their eye on marketing, would have preferred Jesus the Good to Jesus the Oily.

(September 28, 2013 at 2:50 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Indeed.

But there is an interesting thing with this Chrestus shit. Not only does Suetonius mention "Chrestus" in Rome in Claudius' reign but ultra violet photographs of the only surviving manuscript of Tacitus' Annales show that the word he used was "chrestianos" which a later scribe clumsily tried to erase to make "christianos."

But there are at least two instances of the name "Chrestus" being used in Asia Minor in the first century BC and in those cases it seems to be in the literal sense of "the Good." (Socrates Chrestus and Mithradates Chrestus) and then there is the Roman funerary inscription which must pre-date 37 AD because it refers to a slave by the name of Faustus who belongs to Antonia Minor who buys a funeral urn from a man named Jucundus Chrestiani.

Chrestus, or Chrestianos was being used as a cognomen among the lower classes in Rome long before the story - even if the NT is taken at face value which would be stupid beyond the point of stupidity - could have spread to Rome itself.

Certainly in the early first century Chrestus was not a misspelling of Christos. Later on, it appears, xtian scribes tried to correct the "error" whenever they came across it and the correction may have been innocent. They may have believed that it was a simple spelling error.

But, like "where" and "whore" these are completely separate ideas with one letter different and in both cases it makes a difference.

This whole thing reminds me of when a preacher or some big doctorate of theology wants to push a given idea or doctrine that is not supported by the bible he will go well out of his way to support a shoe string of an idea with all sorts of unnamed historical texts and 'common usages, of a given term not one of his followers will EVER care to question. I have you the kudo because you now have fully become what you curse and spit at in Christianity.

Great job Minnie! If your not careful you might wind up with an doctorate of divinity from an online school that these 'snake oil salesmen' tend to apply for.

Thank you for demonstrating that your are a fucking idiot one more time, Drippy.

You have nothing useful to contribute but that does not stop you from dropping your jesus shit wherever you go.


Fuck him and you. Now run along. The adults are talking.

That's one ad hominem to the Dr with the itch. One ad hominem I'm bid. Any advance on one ad hominem? ...Will anyone give me a special pleading? Come on now, ladies and gents, you're not going to let this beautiful thread go for just one ad hominem, are you?

(September 28, 2013 at 3:59 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Thank you for demonstrating that your are a fucking idiot one more time, Drippy.

You have nothing useful to contribute but that does not stop you from dropping your jesus shit wherever you go.


Fuck him and you. Now run along. The adults are talking.

In the 10,000 posts you posted in this web site how many of them were little more than online obscenities that disparaged anyone who does not think like an old hippy?

Minnie you are a pusher of snake oil and now can be labeled a hypocrite as well. For you are condemning the structure that the vast majority of your posts were built on.

You don't seem to like it when your tactics have been turned onto you. Don't worry Minnie I won't be sniping your posts with the ad homin cheap shots you have been awarded for. I get that's you thing, and don't want to take it from you. But know from time to time when your hypocrisy exceeds critical mass I will be taking the minimalist road out.