Talk:Suetonius on Christians/Archive 3

Tags/ Gallio's boat trips/ suggested compromise
This article is quite important in its discussion of one of the few early references, or possible references, to Christ and Christians in secular history. It should not get bogged down into long discussion of Gallio's boat trips. Attempts to reconcile a work of history, Suetonius, with a tendentious work of religious propaganda, Acts of the Apostles, which is full of magical and supernatural occurrences, and proven to be factually incorrect in various statements, are only a side issue here. The numerous tags at the top of the article would lead one to believe that the whole article is untrustworthy, but as far as I can make out, it is only the section about the dating of Paul's trial by Gallio, which is possibly a fictional narrative anyway, that is in dispute. It says "discuss these issues on the talk page' but who is going to read through such a wall of text, name calling and squabbling about Gallio's boat trips? I suggest that section be radically shortened to:
 * "Most scholars agree that the expulsion of some Jews mentioned by Suetonius happened around AD 49-50 and is consistent with the chronology of Paul in the Book of Acts.[4][72][73] The dating related to Acts 18:1-18 is derived from the occurrence of two facts: first the mention of the proconsul Gallio in 18:12 and the existence of an inscription found at Delphi and published in 1905,[74] preserving a letter from Claudius concerning Gallio dated during the 26th acclamation of Claudius, sometime between January 51 and August 52.[75]
 * Some scholars indicate difficulties trying to use Acts for strict chronological indications. Collins and Harrington state that Luke's account may be a conflation of various traditions and not entirely accurate.[84] Jerome Murphy-O'Connor indicates that Acts 18 is "much less precise than appears at first sight." The expulsion was from Rome, but Aquila and Priscilla came from Italy, so they may have stayed in Italy after the expulsion, how long "no-one can say". He also questions the exactitude of what is meant by "recently"/"lately".[85]"

with the footnotes numbering changed of course. People come to this article to read about an early reference in Roman history to Christian history, not hair-splitting about chronology. If spindoktor and history2007 think all that is so important, let them start a new page about Gallio's health and link to it in this article, or put all this into the article Historical reliability of Acts of the Apostles, and take those tags off this article.Smeat75 (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I can't comment on the arguments that have gone on between Spindoktor and History as I'm not smart enough to follow all their points, but I agree that many of these pages are turning into POV wars with more and more hairsplitting with some editors even flagging an entire page as "inaccurate" simply because they disagree about one date buried halfway down the text. Yes, this is a gross over-simplification, but there is a fine line in ensuring that Wiki follows scholarly guidelines to ensure that the text "people" come to read is accurate and turning a page into an English/History 101 class that causes the reader's eyes to glaize over. However, as I said, I'm not an expert on any of these Biblical subjects so I'm probably missing something important. In my mind, finding a compromise where we can all agree on what we all agree on instead of dwelling on what we don't, is always a preferable outcome. Ckruschke (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke


 * I agree with Smeat75 and Ckruschke that an "average Wikipedia user" will find this article to be hard to digest, to say the least. And I also agree that a radical shortening and getting away from great detail and many quotes would be an improvement. But that does not just apply to that section. It applies throughout. The entire Latin text analysis, spelling issue, etc. is just a form of encyclopedic indigestion really. It has far too much detail and far too many scholars are mentioned. I would suggest the shortening of the entire article, presenting the overall scholarly views - given that there is a majority view on most of the issues. It would be best to totally avoid the "X said Y" type jambalaya that is present now. But that will require that you two guys comment on the readability of the final product, even if you do not want to delve into all the details of the citations. I would suggest starting from the top, and shortening throughout. That would certainly be an improvement on what there is now, given that most people will not read this article as is. History2007 (talk) 20:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am certainly willing to keep an eye on the article and put in my two cents as I feel may be useful. I do think something needs to be done so that those tags can be removed since as I understand it such tags are not meant to serve as a "badge of shame" but an indication that work needs to be done on the article. They have been sitting there since September with not much done to try to find a way forward to a tag-less article.Smeat75 (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, if a couple of you guys just comment on it without committing 100 hours this month that may work anyway. So let us go through and make a list of what needs to be done overall, then do it. History2007 (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought about it and let us see what a typical Wikipedia user wants to know:


 * What did Suetonius write?: Just give an English version of the text and avoid the Latin analysis. The Latin analysis leaves most readers puzzled right upfront.


 * What was Suetonius talking about?: A couple of background longer paragraphs of the majority view of the scholars on the context of the passage and a shorter paragraph on the minority views.


 * Does Suetonius mention Christ or Christians?: Some discussion of the Christus vs Chrestus issue without a quote bonanza. State the majority view in simple terms, then mention the minority view with less emphasis, as usual.


 * How does this relate to other sources?: One paragraph each about how other sources may be referring this event: one paragraph for Cassius Dio, one for Orosius and one for Acts/Gallio. What these other ancient authors may have written about the same event is really not about Suetonius as such, but about the general analysis of the "Expulsion of some Jews from Rome". That is a separate topic given that there are multiple ancient sources.

If we just keep it to these four key questions that the typical users will ask, avoid the quote bonanza and make it easy to read, we will get a digestible article without fanfare. History2007 (talk) 23:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me History 2007. I would just point out that this article is called "Suetonius on Christians" and that should stay the overwhelming focus of the article in my opinion. I do understand that since Suetonius mentions expulsion of Jews from Rome that must also be discussed, but Seutonius does not say a word about Gallio, much less the Apostle Paul and I just see no reason why Pliny the Elder and Seneca on Gallio's boat trips, the source of so much contention here, need to be mentioned at all, I would say that should go somewhere else on wikipedia.Smeat75 (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, and of course Seutonius does not say one word on Cassius Dio, or Orosius. That is why I think those are also bloated. I think just one short paragraph on Cassius Dio, Orosius and Gallio will be enough. Else they will all have to go - but that might be over trimming it. There probably needs to be a mention of the "date of the expulsion" based on other sources, and that would make a short 3 paragraph section, one paragraph on each of Cassius Dio, Orosius and Gallio. By the way, the real source of contention has never been the boat trips, it has been Dixon Stingerland. That is how it all started. And is best forgotten now. I wish I had never heard of him. But moving beyond him, just a brief section on the possible date of the expulsion will be more than enough. Come to think of it, why not just move most of the expulsion issues out to Claudius' expulsion of some Jews from Rome? It may just pass WP:NOTE, but I am not certain. The reason that makes sense is that different ancient authors may have referred to that, so there is no reason for it to be all parked in the Suetonius article. If no one objects, we can just do that in a day or two and leave a short summary here. Then the overall picture becomes somewhat more clear anyway. History2007 (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "Come to think of it, why not just move most of the expulsion issues out to Claudius' expulsion of some Jews from Rome? "


 * I think that's an excellent idea.Smeat75 (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, so unless someone else has reasons not to do that we can do it. But no text is getting deleted anyway, just re-organized, so it should not be a big deal. History2007 (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * So I started the new page. Will wait for the bot to rescue references - it usually does that in a few hours. There is now just one short paragraph on the date of the expulsion - and the rest is in the new page. That will help this page settle down. Some of the more detailed expulsion items from here may yet move there. The new page needs work, and I may get to do it by the end of the week, else please feel free to do that. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 00:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The article is better already, thank you History2007. A lot can still be cut out from it in my opinion. We agree that the section on the Latin text should go, then when it comes to "Interpretation" can we try to follow Cynwolfe's sound advice above "name-dropping in articles should be confined to only a very few major scholars who best articulate a given view" and get rid of most of those scholars' names. I think all it really needs is something along the lines :
 * Basically, to present the facts briefly as (1) most experts (footnotes identifying most of who those are)think Suetonius means to refer to Jesus but he misunderstood and thought that Jesus was a person then living in Rome. He writes "Chrestus" instead of "Christus" as it was a familiar name to him, as Tacitus may also have done. (2) A minority of scholars (using one name as example, the rest identified in footnotes) believe Suetonius was not talking about Jesus, but an unknown agitator. (3) Others (footnotes say who) think the sentence is too unclear to be much use. I don't think we need reference to singularities like the person who thinks usury is meant. And if we explain about "Chrestus/ Christus" in the first section, we don't need the section on spelling either. I have no opinion about the expulsion section as it is now and the Nero reference section is ok in my opinion. Smeat75 (talk) 03:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, fine, I will try to do things along the lines of your suggestions in a day or so. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 03:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * All good discussions. Unfortunately with my travel schedule, I don't have time to check in very often so I appreciate you both taking this on. Hopefully the concensus building will continue whenever Doktorspin checks in on the thread. Ckruschke (talk) 11:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
 * Actually material is not getting deleted at large, but is in the other page until that gets figured out. I think the one item that does not deserve to be in either page is Francesco Carotta given that his view (that Jesus was Caesar) is so far off from all norms that he easily falls under WP:Fringe. The only other hing will be the simplification of the Latin by moving some of it in the footnotes. So anyway, I will try it in the next day based on the above, then we will see. History2007 (talk) 14:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Next items
Anyway, I touched that up, as discussed above and the previous material is in the Main link anyway. I think the next step is to figure out what to do with the other sections. Maybe we can try this:

1. The Claudius reference . . . 1.1 The passage and the reference . . . 1.3 Disturbance and expulsion

2 The Nero reference

So we merge in the Chrestus, spelling etc. and shorten the Latin issues, etc. Probably the same size as the Disturbance and expulsion text. What do you think? History2007 (talk) 23:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I advise that someone without your tendentiousness (your relying predominantly on theologians) and perhaps knows something about the issues (remember 'Suetonius misheard the name "Cherstus" .. as "Chrestus"'? :facepalm:) does any necessary big changes. -- spin |control 06:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, there we go again. You do not need to start the conversation by name calling and accusations against other editors. Just calm down and discuss the article, and leave agitation for Rome. Now, going back to discussion of article content and the scholarly consensus about how they view the Suetonius passage, the statement that:


 * "most scholars assume that the disturbances mentioned were due to the spread of Christianity in Rome."


 * is sourced to Louis Feldman and I specifically asked for an opinion regarding that statement as an expression of the majority view among scholars on WP:RSN and it was clearly stated there that "Feldman is expert on this field, T & T Clark is a reliable publisher, Feldman's comment is a useful summary of the consensus. Quote it and move on". Regarding the exclusion of some scholars based on being theologian, after discussion you were separately informed on WP:RSN (by user:WhatamIdoing I recall) that there is no prohibition in Wikipedia policy against them. But in any case, those long never ending past discussions do not need to restart. What should be done now is to accept the scholarly consensus per WP:RS/AC, improve the article to be more readable and to the point as suggested above, and move on without fanfare. History2007 (talk) 11:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No name calling, no accusations. Facts. You prop up Bruce, Crossan, Eddy & Boyd, Evans, Koestenberger, Jn Meier, Murphy-O'Connor, Van Voorst, and all the other theologians with Feldman. You left 'Suetonius misheard the name "Cherstus" .. as "Chrestus"' in the article unedited for weeks. I merely stated my preference for someone else to make any major changes in this article. -- spin |control 13:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The long and short of it is that you think I should not edit here... That is focusing on the editor and not on content. That is a no-go in Wikipedia. Now, stop discussion of other editors, and focus on content. History2007 (talk) 13:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a couple of comments for right now. Doktorspin please "Comment on content, not on the contributor." WP:NPA. I thought we were going to delete the reference to Carotta altogether. Is this not a tiny minority view? "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth)." WP:DUE. Every opinion ever held by anybody about the passage does not need to be included, it just becomes confusing.Smeat75 (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Smeat75 on both point. Focus should be on content and not other editors, and we must avoid fringe views. Carotta is really far out WP:Fringe. In general, per WP:Due, majority views should be given prominence and minority views should get less space. And fringe views are to be avoided altogether. Carotta is far out fringe.History2007 (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, well I'm going to go ahead and remove it now. The article has not been improved today with the addition of "an independent writer who thinks that Jesus was Julius Caesar" after the mention of Carotta in my opinion, in fact the insertion of such a far out fringe view is a backwards step.Smeat75 (talk) 23:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no interest in Carotta. I merely contextualized him as not being a scholar and holding a non status quo position: his comment has interest because it is a reasonable idea philologically. -- spin |control at the computer of I.Hutchesson ► 16:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm confused. That edit was made by "Doktorspin (talk | contribs)(→‎Chrestus: Fixed typo & contextualized Carotta & his comment)". I don't see any edits by I. Hutchesson in the article history yet I Hutchesson says "I" contextualized him (Carotta). Are Doktorspin and I Hutchesson the same person? I do not understand the point of using two different names to participate on the same talk page. If I am incorrect about that, could you please provide clarification? Thank you.Smeat75 (talk) 03:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Interesting. But this may just clear the confusion. Someone please tell me that this is not the same editor performing WP:Sockpuppetry with these two accounts... The chances of editing this page, Haven, Julian and then saying "I merely contextualized him" when referring to an edit by another editor seem remote. I will mark the accounts as such. History2007 (talk) 03:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think we can assume that Carotta is a goner and does not need to be here. I think that issue is over now. History2007 (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Ihutchesson: same user as Doktorspin, different account names?
Based on the comment above and the apparent self identification of Ihutchesson with Doktorspin, I started Sockpuppet_investigations/Ihutchesson to clear the issues in any case. History2007 (talk) 03:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The passage and the reference
As discussed above, the Latin text section is yet not readable enough. I suggest the following, more readable form:

--- In Claudius 25 Suetonius wrote in Latin: "Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit" which is generally translated into English as:


 * "Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome."

The question of whether it means that Claudius expelled all of the Jews or only those making disturbances has been discussed among scholars. Some scholars see further complexity in the Latin text and a less common reading may be that Chrestus instigated Claudius to expel the Jews. ---

Some references need to be added, but the "dissertation in the footnotes" type of item is probably not needed. History2007 (talk) 19:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Better in the footnotes than the body copy, though. It would be interesting to weigh sources against that "less common" reading, which in my view is pure fringe. Rhetorically, it simply isn't possible that Suetonius meant impulsore Chresto as the causal agent for the main verb expulit, because he placed it between Iudaeos and tumultantis: everything between those two words goes together (readers of German will understand this kind of construction too). If S. had intended an ambiguity, he would've placed impulsore Chresto either at the beginning of the sentence (where it would serve as an ablative absolute with the non-existent participle of esse) or less likely at the end, or between tumultantis and Roma. If he wanted impulsore Chresto to be read with expulit, he would've placed the phrase right before the verb. So that reading just makes no sense, and it's why an article like this needs also to draw on commentaries by philologists and other classicists who know how to read Suetonius on his own terms (for both linguistic nuance and cultural context), not just as "evidence" on a particular point. I like your approach here, but you've inserted a causal element that isn't explicit in the original. The ambiguity that does exist in the original is better rendered with "He expelled the Jews from Rome who were constantly making disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus." Except that in English, a comma will make the difference between a restrictive and non-restrictive clause, and affect the meaning. So I don't quite know how to handle that. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think your dismissal of the third approach to impulsore Chresto is valid. It may not be what the writer intended, but don't think of the phrase as an ablative absolute. It's more like an ablative instrumental. Consider Plautus (Mostellaria 4.3), Me suasore atque impulsore id factum audacter dicito ("Boldly confess that from me, advisor and prompter, it was done"). Note no esse. The verb expulit seems to have a double accusative Iudaeos and tumultantis and how they relate is through the verb. There is no direct grammatical link between Iudaeos and tumultantis, no relative pronoun, no propter. If tumultantis relates through the verb rather than attached to Iudaeos, then there is no problem with the location of "impulsore Chresto". Whatever the case, this third approach is supported by three cited scholars in books from scholarly publishers. -- spin |control at the computer of I.Hutchesson ► 15:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't say the phrase was an ablative absolute! I said exactly the opposite, and you completely misread me. There IS no participle for esse, which is an infinitive, so yes, me suasore is an exact example of the rhetorical structure S. would've used if he'd intended the kind of ambiguity that an ablative absolute would produce. That was my point. Instead, he placed the phrase about as far away from expulit as he could without making it look like an ablative absolute, since the conventional position for an agent is directly before its verb. I'm not sure what you think tumultantĩs is, but it's a present active participle that modifies Iudaeos and nothing else in the sentence. It could also be read as a genitive singular with a short i, but there doesn't seem to be any reason to do so here. It isn't a double accusative; it's a noun and its modifier, a rhetorical bracketing that makes clear that everything between Iudaeos and tumultantis goes together, rather like an extended-adjective construction in German. A relative pronoun would be used with a finite verb in a subordinate clause. You don't use a relative pronoun with a participle, nor would you use propter with a participle that simply modifies a noun: causality is one of the things a participle can express, which is why History2007's translation isn't wrong, but rather makes causality explicit when it's only implicit in the participle. And just because a scholar is an expert in one field doesn't mean she's an expert in another: a Biblical scholar can be top-notch without knowing the nuances of Classical Latin prose style. Tacitus, for instance, might well have placed impulsore Chresto at the end of the sentence for a rhetorical flourish, where in English it would be preceded by a dash: "—[all] at the instigation of Chrestus." The real ambiguity involves tumultantis, which is equivalent to qui + a finite form of the deponent tumulari. Using a relative clause would've resulted in a very inelegant sentence, and S. would've had to choose between subjunctive (in a stronger expression of causality) and indicative, which would merely state the circumstances. As it stands, the ambiguity is unresolvable as to whether he meant "the Jews, who were making disturbances" (all Jews, who are characterized collectively as making trouble) or "the Jews who were making disturbances," which would mean he expelled only those Jews involved in a group of perceived troublemakers. History2007 is right that this sentence cannot prove which was intended, and knowledge of the broader historical context is required. But just as 2 + 3 = 5 no matter how many kindergarteners' papers you show to the contrary, impulsore Chresto cannot be an agent with expulit. Scholars can be wrong or make mistakes, and we seem to have sources who discount this supposed interpretation, which in turn seems to derive from the intermediate Latin student's misconception that with an inflected language you can just throw words anywhere and let the chips fall where they may. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In passing, I didn't say that you said it was an ablative absolute. Reread and see. I merely pointed out that for the reading you were trying to invalidate the notion of ablative absolute wasn't called for. Tumultuantis is certainly a PAP. And Claudius is the understood agent. -- spin |control at the computer of I.Hutchesson ► 19:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, the easiest and best way would be if you would please modify my first cut above to improve it based on your comment. I actually just called it a "less common" reading not to open a new Pandora's box on that. I have no objection to, and would encourage getting rid of the third (far less common) reading altogether. But in pragmatic terms, if you could modify what I wrote and add it below here, then we will converge towards a brief and readable text that a typical Wiki-user could digest. In any case, I guess what you suggest is:

--- In Claudius 25 Suetonius wrote in Latin: "Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit" which is generally translated into English as:


 * "He expelled the Jews from Rome who were constantly making disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus."

The question of whether it means that Claudius expelled all of the Jews or only those making disturbances has been discussed among scholars. ---


 * But in any case, it is better if you just modify it and we will get close to a final version that way. History2007 (talk) 00:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll try to make a more helpful contribution. I think I had my virtual e-hands on a Divus Claudius commentary the other day. I appreciate your efforts here to respond to multiple voices all at once. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Fine, I think if there are no objections in a day or two, we should just fix that Latin text item in place based on your suggestion, given that you know more about it so we can move on. One side note is that regarding the reading of Chrestus agitating Claudius being fringe, I later remembered that there were historical as well as textual/linguistic problems there in that the person would have "needed access" to Claudius to be able to agitate him, and there were only a small number of candidates for that. I do not remember where I read it now, but the reasoning was that there were just too few historical possibilities for who that person could be, a couple of names had been floated but scholars at large discounted those as unlikely etc. So that has two separate problems. But that is just a side remark. I will wait for you to fix that section when you can, then we can continue with the rest. History2007 (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please do not manipulate this into your desired theory of fringes. It won't work. There are scholars in scholarly works who support the view from the Latin that Chrestus agitated Claudius and there are no published scholarly views opposing the analysis. -- spin |control at the computer of I.Hutchesson ► 16:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no manipulation whatever. So do hold off on that. What you need to do, as requested below, is provide a "list of scholars" who support the 3rd reading. I think Slingerland is one, but how many others are there? That is what you need to do. Get a list, and we will follow policy. Very simple. History2007 (talk) 21:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but this reading is so contrary to the standards of Classical Latin prose style that it could only be proposed by those who are trying to find "evidence" that there was a person named Chrestus active in the time of Claudius to whom this refers. I have no opinion on that, or whether this Chrestus is supposed to be Jesus, or somebody else. But the rhetorical construction of this sentence cannot be used to support that view. It doesn't preclude the existence of a Chrestus at the time of Claudius either. But impulsore Chresto is extremely unlikely to be an agent with expulit. It makes no syntactical sense, and if that's what Suetonius intended, he wouldn't have gone out of his way to place the phrase in precisely the position in this sentence where it was least likely to be construed that way. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, that was why I at first just called it the "least common reading", so that this Pandora's box did not have to open. So from the Wikipedia perspective the situation is this:


 * Who are the scholars who support the 3rd reading and how widespread is that reading?
 * If there are "a good number of them" (good number to be decided) it will be a "minority view" and can be included. But if there are just 3 or 4 then it is a tiny minority and may have to be excluded.

Personally I do not care either way, as long as the Latin section is made easier to read, based on the initial comments that started this discussion by Smeat75 and Ckruschke that the typical Wikipedia reader does not want hair-splitting but wants to know what the Suetonius reference is about.I do not think it will make much difference to the world if someone published an item that Chrestus agitated Claudius, for very few readers are likely it believe it anyway.

So in any case, I suggest that you guys list the scholars who support this 3rd reading and agree on its being either a "minority view", or a "tiny minority view", then we will see. But I do not see this as an earth shaking issue for the planet in either case. History2007 (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

OR based on apparent misuse of source
An anonymous editor using Mary Ellen Snodgrass (Encyclopedia of the Literature of Empire, USA 2010, p. 270) added:


 * The late second century Church father Tertullian most certainly refer to the passage in Nero 16.2, when he writes: "We read the lives of the Cæsars: At Rome Nero was the first who stained with blood the rising faith."

This is what Snodgrass wrote:


 * In Scorpiace (Antidote for the scorpion’s sting, ca. a.d. 211), the Carthaginian polemist Tertullian used Suetonius as a source by quoting Lives of the Caesars as proof that Nero was the first Roman emperor to murder Christians.

I'm reverting this last edit as its specific claim is not based on the source, but the assumption that Snodgrass alludes to Nero 16.2, Snodgrass does not mention any specific text. -- spin |control 12:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Although I reluctantly recognize that poor writing may at times conceal sound thought, recent edits to this article have been ungrammatical snippets that cause me to wonder how well the source material is understood and represented. I repeat myself by saying that all these articles on Classical sources for 1st-century Christianity should be merged into a coherent whole that explains context and scholarly methodology, because presenting each little passing comment in Suetonius, Tacitus et al. as an independent article leads inevitably to exegesis and commentary, not an encyclopedia article.Cynwolfe (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I will resist commenting on the developments of these confessional articles. I've already been to war over this particular one. -- spin |control 13:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * So, Spin, which passage in Suetonius' Lives you believe Snodgrass does mean that Tertullian refers to, if not Nero 16.2?/78.78.173.84 (talk) 15:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It certainly isn't a Wiki editor's job to speculate on such things. Snodgrass cites Tertullian and says no more. Thus ends the tale. Your second attempt shows by your placing together of Snodgrass's reference to Tertullian with this material (ie novel synthesis) that you believe that Nero 16.2 was intended. It's not a Wiki editor's job to insert their beliefs into the text. -- spin |control 13:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There is certainly no other passage in Suetonius mentioning Christians and Nero, but I have elaborated and corrected the earlier statement, to clarify the matter./199.115.115.212 (talk) 02:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This statement shows that you are still doing original research. It is simply not for the editor to work on such assumptions as yours here "certainly no other...". -- spin |control 04:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I would like some other user than Doktorspin to look at my edits about Tertullian./199.115.115.212 (talk) 02:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * ...When you yourself can see that you, by expanding your material from Snodgrass, are merely indulging someone else's speculation who you agree with, while noting contrary speculations on the issue and not improving the article, just expanding it. I'm sure though, one can find quite a few other apologists willing to speculate on it in print. -- spin |control 04:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In which way is it apologetic to state that Tertullian probably knew of Suetonius' passage about Christians? Tertullian cites "the lives of the Cæsars", so it's not an unfounded speculation that Suetonius' work is ment, especially since there is an actual passage about Christians in this work. Or do you believe this is fake or something?/199.115.115.212 (talk) 14:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't know what Tertullian has in mind. He doesn't quote his source, so we just don't know. You've already cited Birley who points to Tacitus as possibly the intended source! My comment was about the fact that apologists are willing to go beyond the evidence and present their opinions as fact. -- spin |control 16:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Revisions to article
Since this article has been sitting here for years now with tags on it and no discussion going on to improve or change anything, I decided to be WP:BOLD and fix it (or fix it in my opinion, anyway). First of all, as Cynwolfe explained on 4 April on this page, the passage cannot possibly mean ""From Rome he (Claudius) expelled the perpetually tumultuating Jews prompted by Chrestus.", that is a tiny minority WP:FRINGE view, so does not need to be in at all. It is discussed to some extent in the footnotes, it can stay there. Then I shortened the "Interpretation" section drastically, it seemed to quote every scholar who had ever had an opinion on the matter and a number of them said more or less the same thing. There has been discussion on this page for months and months about how this section was too long, but nobody was doing anything about it. So I drastically shortened it, but it might still be too long, it was as Cynwolfe said above, "unreadable". Then I took off all the "disputed" etc tags. Smeat75 (talk) 04:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Boman clearly stated that the translation was supposed to be non-committal in regards to Slingerland et alia and the usual translation by Rolfe et alia. The clause "prompted by Chrestus" could, in Boman's translation, be a reference to the Jews ("the ... Jews prompted by Chrestus") as well as Claudius ("he ... prompted by Chrestus"). So it is not a fringe translation. I do not think Cynwolf was refering to Boman's translation, but to Slingerlands./108.59.13.41 (talk) 07:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)