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.
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.
