Claudius, the Jews, and the early Christians

[Erik Nelson]

The Nazareth Inscription | Stand to Reason

 

[John 1720]

Mary the mother of Jesus also reportedly Ascended to heaven, as her tomb was found empty when opened after 3 days

according to surviving tradition, that would have been 11 years after the Crucifixion / Resurrection, or somewhere around 41-44 AD = Claudius

Agapius, who had access to the ancient texts, including the lost chronicles of Hegesippus- which were still extant in his day, stated the following about Jesus' mother: "When pure, Mary gave birth to Christ Our Savior, she was thirteen years old; she died aged 51 years and five years after the Ascension of Christ." 1

[1] According to tradition then, her death would have been about AD 36

 

[Ana the Ist]

Claudius was Roman Emperor from 41-54 AD, a scholarly Emperor who often took pains over minutiae - such as promulgating an edict to allow flatulence for public health, reforming the Alphabet by adding the Claudian letters (abandoned shortly after his reign), or the form that signet rings should take. He was known for spending much time in the law courts, reviewing cases and judgements as well.

Suetonius and Cassius Dio report that Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome; and in Acts, Paul meets some of these expellees. The exact year isn't really sure, but Suetonius reports it was due to factional infighting over a certain Chrestus. Based on the Acts reference and probability, this most likely refers to Jesus Christ. Josephus doesn't mention it though, meaning it was probably a partial expulsion, perhaps only the troublemakers that Josephus would approve off (ie. of early Christians).

Now there is a decree carved in stone, by an unnamed Caesar, called the Nazareth decree. This was promulgated in the early first century based on the forms of the carved letters and its vocabulary, meaning it was a decree of either Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula or Claudius. It is a decree against the disturbing of bodies in tombs or moving of entrance stones, threatening the perpetrators with death. It was shipped from Nazareth to France, hence the name, but where exactly it was found is not recorded (but likely somewhere in Galilee is likely).

The decree uses a shortened form of an imperial proclamation, but the fact that it is shortened as merely Caesar, excludes Augustus, as well as the fact that Galilee and Judaea was mostly under Herod for his reign. The actual vocabulary and the exact legal terminology it uses (saying the tomb robbers essentially acted with criminal intent), argues for Claudius: Caligula wasn't much interested in legal niceties, and Tiberius was more a patrician general than spending as much time as Claudius did in the courts. The wording appears very similar to other decrees of Claudius, giving good grounds to believe it to be his. Claudius was close to Herod Agrippa, who in fact had been raised alongside him in the Imperial households. Claudius had established him as a client king and he played an important role during the shaky transition of power to Claudius after Caligula's assassination. Claudius thus interesting himself in Jewish doctrinal affairs is not therefore far-fetched.

The decree does not mention ashes, but refers to actual bodies and stones used to seal or mark graves. This makes it most likely referring to Jewish graves, as they were the only people in the area of the proclamation that practiced inhumation, instead of cremation. Further, while it may hail from the Decapolis or Samaria, its transshipment from Nazareth makes its origin in a majority Jewish area of the 1st century far more likely.

Rome already had laws against desecrating tombs, and usually didn't intervene in such things in an official capacity. Mostly punished by fines, not death. It was judged a civil case to be brought by the relatives of the deceased, unless the desecration brought on the furies or calamity. An Imperial edict against it, likely therefore refers to some especially egregious example thereof. Does not Matthew record that the Jewish authorities accused the Apostles of stealing Jesus' body? Do the Gospels not record the stone was rolled away, that sealed the entrance?

So the micro-managing Claudius expelled Jews over disputes over Christ, and likely promulgated a decree against disturbing bodies and tombs in Jewish areas. In all probability, this would be after 44 AD, when Galilee was absorbed by Rome from the defunct kingdom of Herod Agrippa I. Jesus died during the time of Pilate's rule (26-36 AD). So we have good support here for elements of the account in the Gospels and Acts from Claudius' reign, as well as evidence suggesting a claim of an empty tomb, and a Jewish counterclaim, from within 20 years of Jesus' death.

2 things...

1. Are we talking about the same insane emperor who lined up a bunch of mentally and physically disabled people in the Coliseum and clubbed them to death while dressed as Hercules?

2. You're aware Chrestus is actually a pretty common name for the time...right?

 

[Radagast]

Jews have been hated through most of their history. The dietary rules and so on have always made Jews the outsiders and the targets of hate. So the hatred of Jews in Roman times is probably a safe assumption.

In fact, it's quite a wrong assumption. Romans were quite happy with dietary rules, and with ethnic groups having their own religion. Jewish troops helped out Caesar in Egypt, so that made Jews friends of Rome.

It was Christians that were hated by Romans (we know this from Tacitus and Suetonius).

It was only after the Jews rebelled against Rome that the Roman army descended on them.

 

[Ana the Ist]

In fact, it's quite a wrong assumption. Romans were quite happy with dietary rules, and with ethnic groups having their own religion. Jewish troops helped out Caesar in Egypt, so that made Jews friends of Rome.

It was Christians that were hated by Romans (we know this from Tacitus).

It was only after the Jews rebelled against Rome that the Roman army descended on them.

The Jewish people rebelled against Rome, under several "messiahs" before and after Jesus. I always thought the schism was best explained by the Jewish religion itself.

You're told you're the chosen people of god, you're told that a certain land is given to you by god....

But it doesn't really mention that for many centuries another tribe is going to basically control your land and what your tribe is allowed to do. You'd have to figure that well before a couple of centuries pass...it's going to get harder and harder to explain why the Romans are in charge.

 

[Radagast]

2. You're aware Chrestus is actually a pretty common name for the time...right?

The most likely meaning of Chrestus here is as a reference to Christ. Otherwise you have to imagine an important Jewish leader that nobody has any record of.

 

[Radagast]

The Jewish people rebelled against Rome, under several "messiahs" before and after Jesus.

Minor revolts until 66.

I always thought the schism was best explained by the Jewish religion itself.

You're told you're the chosen people of god, you're told that a certain land is given to you by god....

Perhaps.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The most likely meaning of Chrestus here is as a reference to Christ. Otherwise you have to imagine an important Jewish leader that nobody has any record of.

Like Jesus lol...

Again, it's a common pagan name. There's literally no reason to believe it was Jesus. You can literally find the name all over ancient writings from Socrates to Plato to Xenophon and others.

This is what's known in common terms as "grasping at straws". It's a honest, if misguided, attempt to find record of Jesus apart from the bible. There's no reason to think there aren't a lot of important Jewish figures who have either passing mention in historical accounts or none at all.


Edit- in Suetonius' writings alone Chresto is the most commonly used epithet. Chrestus is just the proper name form of it...and it's entirely possible that he didn't even know the name of the person being spoken about.

So in order of likelihood...

1. It's most likely a guy literally named Chrestus.
2. It's less likely that it's just a stand in name for a person who Suetonius doesn't know the name of and is just described as "good".
3. It's extraordinarily unlikely that the name refers to Jesus Christ and Suetonius, a scholar of his day, didn't understand the difference between the words for "good" and "anointed".

 

[Ana the Ist]

Minor revolts until 66.

What's minor about them? You had Jewish messiahs leading hundreds of people to battle.

Perhaps.

Well it's a bit like N Korea, right? You can claim that you're doing great and everyone has it worse than you do....

But if anyone actually finds out that isn't really the truth and you're just a subjugated little section of a larger more powerful empire...then people might start to wonder who is "god's chosen people"? Some might even start believing in myths about god destroying your enemies if you just show up to fight them.

That's my take on why about a dozen or so messiahs show up in such a short time.

 

[John 1720]

Like Jesus lol...

1. Again, it's a common pagan name. There's literally no reason to believe it was Jesus. You can literally find the name all over ancient writings from Socrates to Plato to Xenophon and others.
2. This is what's known in common terms as "grasping at straws". It's a honest, if misguided, attempt to find record of Jesus apart from the bible. There's no reason to think there aren't a lot of important Jewish figures who have either passing mention in historical accounts or none at all.

Hi Ana the 1st,
There are two Roman historians that speak of Chrestus and Christians. It might be said one lends support to the other. Let's first read Tacitus in context.

• Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.

It would appear rather obvious Christians derived their name from Christus, according to Tacitus. Of course we know Jesus claimed to be the Jewish Messiah, the Christ and Son of God. Tacitus goes on to explain that He was crucified under Pontius Pilate. Thus the unbelieving Tacitus follows his statement the superstition was checked - at least for the moment. But something seems to have re-energized these Christians. That event being what is recorded in Acts as the birth of the Christian church happens to be the Resurrection. Tacitus then states this belief, which he labels superstition, not only spread to all of Judea but as far west as Rome.
Exploring Suetonius' Nero reference

• During his reign (Nero) many abuses were severely punished and put down, and no fewer new laws were made: a limit was set to expenditures; the public banquets were confined to a distribution of food; the sale of any kind of cooked viands in the taverns was forbidden, with the exception of pulse and vegetables, whereas before every sort of dainty was exposed for sale. Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition. He put an end to the diversions of the chariot drivers, who from immunity of long standing claimed the right of ranging at large and amusing themselves by cheating and robbing the people. The pantomimic actors and their partisans were banished from the city.

Exploring Suetonius reference relating to the expulsion of the Jews during the reign of Emperor Claudius

• Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit​
• Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.

Context: Acts records the same thing. Paul had preached Christ in the Synagogues and had been the target of vindictiveness. It is safe to say the preaching of Christ in the synagogues caused probably not only a stir but in many cases an uproar for in many cases this resulted, to those giving testimony of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection, suffering physical harm.

• Acts 18:1-6 After these things Paul departed from Athens and went to Corinth. And he found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla (because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to depart from Rome); and he came to them. So, because he was of the same trade, he stayed with them and worked; for by occupation they were tentmakers. And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded both Jews and Greeks. When Silas and Timothy had come from Macedonia, Paul was compelled by the Spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus is the Christ. But when they opposed him and blasphemed, he shook his garments and said to them, "Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean. From now on I will go to the Gentiles."

Were Aquila and Priscilla known in Rome? Why, yes they were. When Paul writes his letter to the Romans in later years he writes it to Aquila and Priscilla where the Church of Rome now meets in their house. Were there other Jewish Christians there? Again the answer is yes. We find that there were those present in the church that had preceded his conversion to Christ and were renowned by the Apostles.

• Romans 16:3-6 Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, who risked their own necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles. Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Greet my beloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia to Christ. Greet Mary, who labored much for us. Greet Andronicus and Junia, my countrymen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

What how do I interpret the 'instigation' Suetonius infers? Pretty much classically.

• Definition of INSTIGATE

This seems to fit the historical period. Jews were being converted to Christ first before it bled over to the Greeks, Roman and the rest of the Gentile populace. While Paul was not preaching Christ in Rome in AD41 Aquila and Priscilla were both Jewish and both Christians, and were preaching Christ. Later, after their expulsion as Jews they aligned themselves with Paul's ministry and continued to preach but apparently the Roman Church remembered them quite well - otherwise why name them?

So we have an historical context but what about the glaring 'e' is Chrestus vs the 'i' in Tacitus Christus? Is that a show stopper? I hardly think so. For one the oldest codex with all the books of the New Testament is the Codex Sinaiticus. Within it the scribes misspelled the word Christians as 'Chrestianos' in three places Acts 11:26, Acts 26:28 and 1Peter 4:16

So in order of likelihood...
1. It's most likely a guy literally named Chrestus.
2. It's less likely that it's just a stand in name for a person who Suetonius doesn't know the name of and is just described as "good".
3. It's extraordinarily unlikely that the name refers to Jesus Christ and Suetonius, a scholar of his day, didn't understand the difference between the words for "good" and "anointed".

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But one should always leave an opening to think better of it as more information is made available. It is unusually rare to find a slam dunk in the historical record but I think its safe to say in all probability:

1. It's more likely Suetonius butchered the name and spelling as did later scribes and copyists of the New Testament. Sounds like potato but another says poe-tah-toe.
2. There is no record for some 'unknown' guy stirring up the Jewish population in Rome. That would rise to the proportion of myth. However, there is, quite frankly, much historical support for Christians preaching Christ in Synagogues all over the Roman Empire and meeting strong adversity that sometimes resulted in physical violence. Priscilla, Aquila, Andronicus and Junia were all Jewish Christians tied directly or indirectly to the Roman Church before AD 41. We are told Priscilla and Aquila were kicked out by Claudius edict so we assume other apostolic men and women were as well.
3. Scholars are about 50/50 on this, so your statement about grasping at straws is unfounded. IMHO the evidence clearly is in favor of Suetonius' most likely meant the Jewish population was being stirred up and agitated by the revelation of Christ being proclaimed by those
   
   Chrestians.​

Regards, John 17:20

 

[Radagast]

Again, it's a common pagan name. There's literally no reason to believe it was Jesus.

Yes, but if it wasn't Jesus, it was a Jewish leader named Chrestus who had a significant impact and who history doesn't mention even once.

No, the most likely explanation is that Chrestus refers to Christ. It's far from certain, of course.

"Christos" referring to an "anointed" person would have been totally unfamiliar to a Roman. It's a specifically Jewish usage, from the LXX -- in classical Greek, the word means "ointment." It could easily be misunderstood for "Chrestus," which was afaik a common name for freed slaves.

 

[Radagast]

What's minor about them? You had Jewish messiahs leading hundreds of people to battle.

That's right. Minor civil disturbance. Nothing to make a fuss about. Don't even need a legion, just detach a couple of centuries.

And then in 66 it got serious. That's why they call it the First Jewish–Roman War. Several Roman legions were involved.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Hi Ana the 1st,
There are two Roman historians that speak of Chrestus and Christians. It might be said one lends support to the other. Let's first read Tacitus in context.

I have a better idea....let's not. After all, the thread is about Suetonius passage...not the Tacitus one. There's no real point in discussing the validity of the Tacitus passage...because whether or not it's valid doesn't affect the validity of the Suetonius passage.

Exploring Suetonius' Nero reference

• During his reign (Nero) many abuses were severely punished and put down, and no fewer new laws were made: a limit was set to expenditures; the public banquets were confined to a distribution of food; the sale of any kind of cooked viands in the taverns was forbidden, with the exception of pulse and vegetables, whereas before every sort of dainty was exposed for sale. Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition. He put an end to the diversions of the chariot drivers, who from immunity of long standing claimed the right of ranging at large and amusing themselves by cheating and robbing the people. The pantomimic actors and their partisans were banished from the city.

Although this passage doesn't mention Jesus....it is useful. It seems Suetonius is well aware that they were called Christians and not Chrestians...which are completely different words. The word christ means anointed the word chrest means good. If he was calling Christians christians and not Chrestians then it seems extremely unlikely that he would have mixed up the two words by accident.

As I mentioned previously chrest or chresto is the most commonly used term by Suetonius when describing someone. That's why scholars have such a hard time believing that he made a mistake in using it to refer to a person.

Exploring Suetonius reference relating to the expulsion of the Jews during the reign of Emperor Claudius

• Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit​
• Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.

Context: Acts records the same thing. Paul had preached Christ in the Synagogues and had been the target of vindictiveness. It is safe to say the preaching of Christ in the synagogues caused probably not only a stir but in many cases an uproar for in many cases this resulted, to those giving testimony of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection, suffering physical harm.

The claim being made here is that the passages written by Suetonius and Paul are the same thing. Simply pointing to them and claiming they are the same isn't evidence of anything....it's just a claim.

I don't want to come off as condescending...but it's important that you understand the difference between a claim and evidence of a claim. So far, you only have a claim here.

• Acts 18:1-6 After these things Paul departed from Athens and went to Corinth. And he found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla (because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to depart from Rome); and he came to them. So, because he was of the same trade, he stayed with them and worked; for by occupation they were tentmakers. And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded both Jews and Greeks. When Silas and Timothy had come from Macedonia, Paul was compelled by the Spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus is the Christ. But when they opposed him and blasphemed, he shook his garments and said to them, "Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean. From now on I will go to the Gentiles."

Were Aquila and Priscilla known in Rome?

Do you have any non-biblical sources of this? The bible isn't evidence of its own claims....again, it's just a claim.

Why, yes they were. When Paul writes his letter to the Romans in later years he writes it to Aquila and Priscilla where the Church of Rome now meets in their house. Were there other Jewish Christians there? Again the answer is yes. We find that there were those present in the church that had preceded his conversion to Christ and were renowned by the Apostles.

Church of Rome?

• Romans 16:3-6 Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, who risked their own necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles. Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Greet my beloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia to Christ. Greet Mary, who labored much for us. Greet Andronicus and Junia, my countrymen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

What how do I interpret the 'instigation' Suetonius infers? Pretty much classically.

• Definition of INSTIGATE

This seems to fit the historical period. Jews were being converted to Christ first before it bled over to the Greeks, Roman and the rest of the Gentile populace. While Paul was not preaching Christ in Rome in AD41 Aquila and Priscilla were both Jewish and both Christians, and were preaching Christ. Later, after their expulsion as Jews they aligned themselves with Paul's ministry and continued to preach but apparently the Roman Church remembered them quite well - otherwise why name them?

I've got no idea why he would name them...I also don't understand why you would think it's evidence of anything.

Again, please try to keep in mind the distinction between claims and evidence. They are not the same.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But one should always leave an opening to think better of it as more information is made available. It is unusually rare to find a slam dunk in the historical record but I think its safe to say in all probability:

1. It's more likely Suetonius butchered the name and spelling as did later scribes and copyists of the New Testament. Sounds like potato but another says poe-tah-toe.

The problem with the idea that Suetonius just made a mistake in spelling is given to you above. It's clear that in the Nero reference, Suetonius did know that they were Christians and not Chrestians.

1. There is no record for some 'unknown' guy stirring up the Jewish population in Rome. That would rise to the proportion of myth. However, there is, quite frankly, much historical support for Christians preaching Christ in Synagogues all over the Roman Empire and meeting strong adversity that sometimes resulted in physical violence. Priscilla, Aquila, Andronicus and Junia were all Jewish Christians tied directly or indirectly to the Roman Church before AD 41. We are told Priscilla and Aquila were kicked out by Claudius edict so we assume other apostolic men and women were as well.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you saying that because Suetonius wrote about this Chrestus, other historians should have mentioned him as well? Why would you think that?

There's plenty of historical figures that are only briefly mentioned in passing by many ancient historians (probably every ancient historian) who are never mentioned by anyone else. It's not like they had newspapers (even if they did, it's not like we'd expect copies of them to exist) and it's not as if ancient historians were all writing about the same topics.

1. Scholars are about 50/50 on this, so your statement about grasping at straws is unfounded. IMHO the evidence clearly is in favor of Suetonius' most likely meant the Jewish population was being stirred up and agitated by the revelation of Christ being proclaimed by those
   
   Chrestians.​

Regards, John 17:20

I don't think it's as evenly split as you're claiming. If we only look at historians who don't have a dog in this fight (only those who don't have an interest in proving or disproving the existence of Jesus) I'd suspect that they lean heavily towards the passage not referring to Jesus Christ.

 

[Radagast]

The word christ means anointed the word chrest means good. If he was calling Christians christians and not Chrestians then it seems extremely unlikely that he would have mixed up the two words by accident.

Like I said, "Christos" referring to an "anointed" person would have been unfamiliar to a Roman. It's a specifically Jewish usage, from the LXX -- in classical Greek, the word means "ointment." It could easily be misunderstood for "Chrestus," which was afaik a common name for freed slaves.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Like I said, "Christos" referring to an "anointed" person would have been unfamiliar to a Roman. It's a specifically Jewish usage, from the LXX -- in classical Greek, the word means "ointment." It could easily be misunderstood for "Chrestus," which was afaik a common name for freed slaves.

You can't argue that he's both a credible reliable source as a historian and also too dumb to know what he's writing about.

 

[Radagast]

You can't argue that he's both a credible reliable source as a historian and also too dumb to know what he's writing about.

I didn't say he was dumb. I said he was unaware of the language of the LXX.

Please don't misquote me.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

2 things...

1. Are we talking about the same insane emperor who lined up a bunch of mentally and physically disabled people in the Coliseum and clubbed them to death while dressed as Hercules?

You are either confusing Claudius with Caligula or Commodus. The former frequently dressed up in mythologic themes and was quite sadistic, while the latter dressed specifically as Hercules and partook of Gladiatorial bouts. None of this has to do with Claudius - citation?

2. You're aware Chrestus is actually a pretty common name for the time...right?

Not a common Jewish name at all. Suetonius explicitly records disturbances within the Jewish community, and there are zero instances of any Chrestuses within the Jewish communities of the appropriate times and places. It is not an uncommon Pagan name though, so this is an instance akin to someone hearing Yanni did something and rendering it Johnny, or Chaela and a Japanese making it Kira, or somesuch. They mistook the unfamiliar for the familiar. It is clearly an intra-Jewish dispute here in Suetonius, so to assume it refers to an Jewish individual Chrestus is making assumptions based on no sources or examplars whatsoever.

Chrestus and Christus were often confused by pagan writers. The early apologists frequently complain about this, and it is common to assume a Chrestus reference may mean Christus in later times. The only reason it is 'controversial' here, is because it is so early. Premiere Roman experts like Mommsen and Goldsworthy, agree it likely references Christ. Acts references expelled Jewish Christians and Josephus doesn't mention a general expulsion - which he surely would have. So an expulsion of Christian agitators fits the various sources' mentions and lack thereof. Arguing Chrestus a title of YHWH or such is a better argument than what you presented here, but still a much weaker one.

Regardless, even if it doesn't reference Christ, it changes nothing to the fact of the Nazareth Inscription. For Claudius was connected to Jewish affairs as no other Caesar was, and this explanation fits best. It is merely a factor of caution and bias here, that the obvious conclusions aren't more readily made.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

You can't argue that he's both a credible reliable source as a historian and also too dumb to know what he's writing about.

Suetonius is notorious for just verbatim giving his sources' forms. He is essentially a shock-writer - he isn't a Tacitus, Polybius or Livy. He commonly uses different forms and spellings for the same people, if his sources did. This is no argument. Where did you get it? From Carrier or somesuch useless disingenuous source, I'd wager.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

What's minor about them? You had Jewish messiahs leading hundreds of people to battle.




Well it's a bit like N Korea, right? You can claim that you're doing great and everyone has it worse than you do....

But if anyone actually finds out that isn't really the truth and you're just a subjugated little section of a larger more powerful empire...then people might start to wonder who is "god's chosen people"? Some might even start believing in myths about god destroying your enemies if you just show up to fight them.

That's my take on why about a dozen or so messiahs show up in such a short time.

Tacitus records interventions in Judaea by the Syrian Governors. No major interventions occured prior to the First Revolt. The most serious one was Quirinius and the tax revolt in Galilee, or the 41 uprising that needed reinforcements. Josephus mentions three big ones, who were all local in effects. While Judaea was restive, it was easily controlled by the four (later five) cohorts placed there. So about 2000 Roman Legionaries managed to hold the whole province for 60 years.

Edit: To quote Tacitus, Annals Book V.

"After Herod's death, a certain Simon assumed the name of king without waiting for Caesar's decision. He, however, was put to death by Quintilius Varus, governor of Syria; the Jews were repressed; and the kingdom was divided into three parts and given to Herod's sons. Under Tiberius all was quiet. Then, when Caligula ordered the Jews to set up his statue in their temple, they chose rather to resort to arms, but the emperor's death put an end to their uprising. The princes now being dead or reduced to insignificance, Claudius made Judea a province and entrusted it to Roman knights or to freedmen; one of the latter, Antonius Felix, practised every kind of cruelty and he had married Drusilla, the grand-daughter of Cleopatra and Antony, and so was Antony's grandson-in‑law, while Claudius was Antony's grandson.
Still the Jews' patience lasted until Gessius Florus became procurator: in his time war began."

 

[Erik Nelson]

Like Jesus lol...

Again, it's a common pagan name. There's literally no reason to believe it was Jesus. You can literally find the name all over ancient writings from Socrates to Plato to Xenophon and others.

This is what's known in common terms as "grasping at straws". It's a honest, if misguided, attempt to find record of Jesus apart from the bible. There's no reason to think there aren't a lot of important Jewish figures who have either passing mention in historical accounts or none at all.


Edit- in Suetonius' writings alone Chresto is the most commonly used epithet. Chrestus is just the proper name form of it...and it's entirely possible that he didn't even know the name of the person being spoken about.

So in order of likelihood...

1. It's most likely a guy literally named Chrestus.
2. It's less likely that it's just a stand in name for a person who Suetonius doesn't know the name of and is just described as "good".
3. It's extraordinarily unlikely that the name refers to Jesus Christ and Suetonius, a scholar of his day, didn't understand the difference between the words for "good" and "anointed".

So who know exactly all these other Chrestus's? Please give specific examples. And cite your sources.