Did Acts 18:2 Use Suetonius

[Secret Alias]

Aquila and Priscilla are mentioned in Paul's letters they are not an invention by the author of Acts.

I think that the personal references at the ends of the letters were additions to the original material in the second century. I think Paul's original messianic (for lack of a better terminology) outbursts were softened by these random allusions to fellow-workers and the reassuring reference to him "having friends and acquaintances." The original gnostic figure of "the apostle" was elusive and larger than life. He had no equal among those born of women. The new additions fall into a pattern of bringing this secret apostle down to earth. He was no longer remembered as sitting at the hand of God, a doppleganger for Christ. Now in the hands of the orthodox editors he was boring and ultimately bourgeois. He had a job and family. His madness was relegated to periodic "outbursts" - still strangely "captured" and preserved in the MSS and for which he infrequently apologized to his readership.

But if the real apostle was really ashamed of his ravings - why didn't he just edit out his boasts and shouts in his final draft? The MSS of the early Church were all like Adv Marc with the "multiple drafts/multiple editors" of its introduction. The question by the end of the second century was who (which tradition) had the best MSS? No one questioned the wide variation that existed between MSS and communities.

Acts fit the Pauline letters with the intention of making the apostle a caricature of his former self. He was now "a boasting windbag" with friends - a sociable mental case rather than a mere run of the mill mad messiah. The portrait in Acts was preferable to the historical lunatic megalomaniac who actually founded the Christian Church.

[Ethan]

Suet. Cl. 25:5
He(Claudius) banished from Rome all the Jews, who were continually making disturbances at the instigation of one Chrestus.

Act 18:2
And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome) and came unto them.

Chrestus is a name primarily used in Pontos
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates_Chrestus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithridates_Chrestus

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... t=chrestus

Mithridates obeyed the order, but he put an army at the service of Socrates, surnamed Chrestus, the brother of Nicomedes, king of Bithynia

[11] The Romans decided to restore Nicomedes and Ariobarzanes at the same time, each to his own kingdom, and sent thither for this purpose an embassy, of which Manius Aquilius was the chief, and ordered Lucius Cassius, who was in charge of the Asiatic country around Pergamus

John 3:1 ( Nicodemus of Pontus-Bithynia)
There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus(of Bethany), a ruler of the Jews:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicomedes_IV_of_Bithynia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bithynia_and_Pontus

Matthew 2:22 ( Archelaus of Pontus)
But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archelaus_(general)


Matthew 27:2 - Pontius Pilate
1. -ius part of the name Pontius means 'of' ( of Pontus)

Mithridates Chrestus - Mithra Christ

Chrestus and his brother were honored by the Dionysius, the gymnasiarch on the Greek island of Delos.[4] Another dedication survives in Athens, by a gymnasiarch of statues of Chrestus and his brother to the Greek Patron God Zeus on behalf of Chrestus and his brother apparently in recognition of his aid to sailors and traders

As sole King, Mithridates VI showed clemency towards his mother and brother, by not executing them. He did, however, imprison both of them.[6] Laodice died in prison of natural causes. It is unclear whether Chrestus also died in prison from natural causes or was later tried for treason and then executed on the orders of Mithridates VI.[6] When they died, Mithridates VI gave his mother and brother a royal funeral.

[Secret Alias]

This is where your argument falls off the rails:

Chrestus is a name primarily used in Pontos

You haven't established that Chrestos was more popular there than it was anywhere else. Back to the drawing board.

[Secret Alias]

Pontius is Oscan for “fifth." The Latin equivalent would be Quintus. Quintitu is the genuine Latin form, while Pontius Is the latinized Oscan form found on inscriptions of Campania and Samnlum. https://books.google.com/books?id=nQ4LA ... an&f=false
Detailed discussion here - https://books.google.com/books?id=LWRSC ... th&f=false

[Ethan]

The original messiah or Teacher of Righteousness predates Jesus roughly 100 years , making him a contemporary of Mithridates Chrestus and
his grandfather was Antiochus IV (son of Antiochus III the Great), this explains the chronological gap between the Old & New Testament. Anachronism.

[Secret Alias]

The original messiah or Teacher of Righteousness predates Jesus roughly 100 years , making him a contemporary of Mithridates Chrestus and
his grandfather was Antiochus IV (son of Antiochus III the Great), this explains the chronological gap between the Old & New Testament. Anachronism.

Are you writing these posts from a sanitorium? It is obvious you suffer from the 'I have an idea that has taken control of my brain' syndrome that is prevalent at the forum. Hope you get better soon.

[Secret Alias]

The author of the Apology used Suetonius too -

Consult your histories; you will there find that Nero was the first who assailed with the imperial sword the Christian sect, making progress then especially at Rome.

[Secret Alias]

I think the Apology knows also of a Greek forgery of the writings of Marcus Aurelius:

So far from that, we, on the contrary, bring before you one who was their protector, as you will see by examining the letters of Marcus Aurelius, that most grave of emperors, in which he bears his testimony that that Germanic drought was removed by the rains obtained through the prayers of the Christians who chanced to be fighting under him.

And Eusebius:

It is reported [1416] that Marcus Aurelius Cæsar, brother of Antoninus, [1417] being about to engage in battle with the Germans and Sarmatians, was in great trouble on account of his army suffering from thirst. [1418] But the soldiers of the so-called Melitene legion, [1419] through the faith which has given strength from that time to the present, when they were drawn up before the enemy, kneeled on the ground, as is our custom in prayer, [1420] and engaged in supplications to God.
2. This was indeed a strange sight to the enemy, but it is reported [1421] that a stranger thing immediately followed. The lightning drove the enemy to flight and destruction, but a shower refreshed the army of those who had called on God, all of whom had been on the point of perishing with thirst.

3. This story is related by non-Christian writers who have been pleased to treat the times referred to, and it has also been recorded by our own people. [1422] By those historians who were strangers to the faith, the marvel is mentioned, but it is not acknowledged as an answer to our prayers. But by our own people, as friends of the truth, the occurrence is related in a simple and artless manner.

4. Among these is Apolinarius, [1423] who says that from that time the legion through whose prayers the wonder took place received from the emperor a title appropriate to the event, being called in the language of the Romans the Thundering Legion.

5. Tertullian is a trustworthy witness of these things. In the Apology for the Faith, which he addressed to the Roman Senate, and which work we have already mentioned, [1424] he confirms the history with greater and stronger proofs.

6. He writes [1425] that there are still extant letters [1426] of the most intelligent Emperor Marcus in which he testifies that his army, being on the point of perishing with thirst in Germany, was saved by the prayers of the Christians. And he says also that this emperor threatened death [1427] to those who brought accusation against us.

[MrMacSon]

I'm with Ethan. So much of what we know about early Christianity is, as SA/SH knows, tenuous. But there is a theme of Pontus / -Bithynia floating through enough writings to pique curiosity and interest, as well as the ties to various people, and events like the Council of Nicea (and other Ecumenical Councils).

[MrMacSon]

The statement in Tacitus:

There was a debate too about expelling the Egyptian and Jewish worship, and a resolution of the Senate was passed that four thousand of the freedmen class who were infected with those superstitions and were of military age should be transported to the island of Sardinia, to quell the brigandage of the place, a cheap sacrifice should they die from the pestilential climate. The rest were to quit Italy, unless before a certain day they repudiated their impious rites. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... apter%3D85

The reference to Egyptian and Jewish worship (or rites, as another translation has it) is interesting, as the name Chrestus/Chrestos [& other versions thereof] may have been as popular in Egypt as in Greek-related regions. And there are indications shipping from Egypt to regions like Pontus and vice versa created significant cultural ties (and spread Egyptian religions to Pontus and other coastal regions of Asia Minor in 1-3 a.d.).

Also, interestingly the next passage Annals 2.86, refers to a key aspect of Christian doctrine, the Vestal virgin -

Next the emperor brought forward a motion for the election of a Vestal virgin in the room of Occia, who for fifty-seven years had presided with the most immaculate virtue over the Vestal worship. He formally thanked Fonteius Agrippa and Domitius Pollio for offering their daughters and so vying with one another in zeal for the commonwealth. Pollio's daughter was preferred, only because her mother had lived with one and the same husband, while Agrippa had impaired the honour of his house by a divorce. The emperor consoled his daughter, passed over though she was with a dowry of a million sesterces. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... apter%3D86

Whether a slightly different translation of Ann 2.86 makes a difference is hard to know -

The emperor then moved for the appointment of a Virgin to replace Occia, who for fifty-seven years had presided over the rites of Vesta with unblemished purity: Fonteius Agrippa and Domitius Pollio he thanked for the public-spirited rivalry which had led them to proffer their own daughters. Pollio's child97 was preferred, for no reason save that her mother was still living with the same husband, while Agrippa's divorce had impaired the credit of his house. As a solatium to the rejected candidate, the Caesar presented her with a dowry of a million sesterces.
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/R ... s/2C*.html

I think this is interesting and cogent -

Tacitus was a senator reviewing the actions of an earlier Senate. I think Adamczewski is correct in seeing Acts 18:2 as being a blending of Suetonius and Tacitus making the actual underlying claim likely unhistorical. In other words, it might have been true that Aquila was a Jew who left Rome because of the Senate decision mentioned in Tacitus. But the specifically 'Christian Aquila' who left Rome because of the specific 'Christian disturbance' in Suetonius does not follow.

It isn't clear that Chresto was Christian in the first place. The Acts account seems to have patched together a story of a Chrsitian named Aquila from Pontus from:

1. the story of the famous targumist Aquila who was a Jew (not a Christian) from Pontus
2. the story of Jewish expulsions from Italy at the time of Claudius in Tacitus
3. the story of an uprising in Rome during the reign of Claudius by a Jew named Chresto in Suetonius
4. (d) the similarity in the name of Chresto and Christos
5. perhaps even an early understanding of the crucifixion taking place during the reign of Claudius in Irenaeus

(e) of course is the weakest link. But the hybrid character Aquila of Pontus the Christian (a figure who likely never existed any more than the legends of Philo the Christian or the like) is fused on to a hybrid Christian 'disturbance' in Rome. This makes the whole Acts account seem dubious and as a dubious story or calculation it was likely made after the publication of both Tacitus and Suetonius.