Talk:Suetonius on Christians

Time to resolve?

Isn't it time to resolve the issues related to this article? All labels make the article appear untrustworthy and unserious./199.115.115.212 (talk) 12:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, probably so. I think trying to figure out the ablative on "Wikipedians impulsore ... ... Wikipedia expulit" stopped things, but at least Carotta is gone now. The next item is the question of the 3 interpretations of the Latin, and if the 3rd interpretation is mainstream by any Wiki-measure. So let us get a list of the scholars who support that 3rd interpretation and then go from there. History2007 (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a minor point and shouldn't obstruct the article. But reading impulsore Chresto as an agent with expulit is such implausible Latin that I find it hard to believe the scholars cited are used accurately. So I just made an effort to read Slingerland firsthand. I don't see it online, but in looking at Erich S. Gruen's Bryn Mawr review, I find this venerable classicist saying exactly what I did above:

There is, however, a more serious problem. Slingerland's reconstruction rests on his own rendering of Suet. Claud. 25.4. In his view, impulsore Chresto refers not to a stirring up of tumultuous Jews but to a provocation of the emperor against the Jews. The ablative absolute, in short, should go with the verb, not with the participle (pp. 151-168). The case is attractive in principle, but altogether unconvincing in fact. The word order virtually excludes it. (emphasis mine) The ablative absolute occurs within the participial phrase, bracketed by Iudaeos and tumultuantis. If Suetonius had wished to indicate that expulit resulted from impulsore Chresto, he made a botch of it. Slingerland may well be right that Chrestus has nothing to do with Christianity -- but Chrestus also had nothing to do with prodding the princeps.

No Latinist past the intermediate level could accept Slingerland's way of construing the sentence, and at any rate it isn't fatal to what I take to be S's main argument that Chrestus was alive and contemporary with the tumultus. I don't know whether the other scholars are represented accurately, but I'm sorry, this reading of the Latin is just plain wrong. It does not, however, vitiate the argument that this Chrestus lived in the time of Claudius. I would omit the grammatical point altogether from our article, as picayune. While additional objections from Gruen or others are part of the debate and represent varying views, this grammatical point is simply an error of fact from Slingerland. Scholars sometimes make errors; I see them get the numbering of primary source passages, or page numbers, verifiably wrong all the time. WP need not perpetuate copyediting errors, nor any other point of fact that is demonstrably incorrect. I personally would find Slingerland questionable, however, if his understanding of Latin is so poor and yet he chose to base an argument on a supposedly close reading of Latin. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, then could you either suggest or modify that section to get over this minor point so there are just the 2 main interpretations and that section does not become an exercise in Latin. I will support that approach. I think the suggestion above will work if that section just says:

---

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." (or similar English wording)

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

---

If that is agreed to via the selection of "or similar English wording", we can move on. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the whole section could de-emphasize the translation exercise and focus on the interpretations? You know these arguments better than I do, but it seems that Slingerland is notable as a view on one end of the spectrum, because he insists that Chrestus is a person at the time of Claudius (plausible on the basis of this sentence in isolation); the grammatical point could be relegated to a footnote. This article, and the similar ones on Tacitus and Lucian, strike me as collections of notes on what was a passing comment in the sources: the articles inevitably devolve into exegesis and commentary (such as the implications of the position of the ablative phrase) because otherwise there's no article. This sentence is a piece of evidence for Claudius' expulsion of some Jews from Rome, where the Suetonius section is about as long as this whole article. (As I recall, this article began as a section in the main Suetonius article that was longer than the rest of the text.) I expect soon to see an article called Impulsore Chresto. Which is to say quite apologetically that I would like to help, but I can't read all these sources, some of which are not available online and would have to be consulted in person, and if I did, I still wouldn't know how to write this as an encyclopedia article instead of exegesis or synthesis. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we should just Afd it before we all die of old age talking about it? But seriously how about just making it a shorter, to the point article and be done with it. Your suggestion about the the grammatical point could be relegated to a footnote is the best option I think, and we can just mention in the text that Slingerland thinks Chrestus was just Chrestus and be done with it. The IPs point is valid in the end. History2007 (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps shorten the sections in which Slingerland et alia get to much undue attention for fringe theories, but keep all information about the passage (Latin, common interpretation etc)./199.115.115.212 (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, how my heart leapt after you faux-proposed the AfD. Agree with both these last comments. S.'s argument doesn't depend on his (mis)reading of the ablative phrase, though I don't think it's fringe to question who this Chrestus is, only a minority view. The Latin sentence (as I understand this discussion) leaves two ambiguities. One, whether the Jews as a whole are being characterized as tumultantes, and hence Claudius expelled them en masse; or whether Claudius expelled those Jews who were causing trouble, and tumultantes is to be translated "the Jews who were causing trouble" rather than "the Jews, who were causing trouble" (the difference in English between a restrictive and non-restrictive relative clause). Two, Chrestus dead or alive is the instigator of the tumultus, but the phrase can't tell us whether Chrestus actually was alive at the time (he may or may not have been). The Latin sentence in isolation can't answer either of those questions. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I guess "impulsor" does not usually refer to dead people, does it? Nevertheless, I found out that this badly worded edit was correct, but I guess this theory, like the Caesar-party Francesco Carotta, is to fringe to be mentioned in this context or at Wikipedia. So I still urge you editors of more skill and wisdom - please fix the article and remove the templates. Who dare speak against this motion?/199.115.115.212 (talk) 23:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Impulsor can, however, be used with a divinity to express that a human is acting under a divine impulse: the OLD records at least one example of this use, and more can be found with the adjectival form impulsus. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you cite this example, please./199.115.115.212 (talk) 02:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm actually seeing this request only now. You are free to consult the Oxford Latin Dictionary yourself, of course, but Impulsor is cited as a cult title of the Roman supreme deity Iuppiter (Jupiter in English) by Varro, Gram. 137 (I'm too lazy to look up the unabbreviated title for you). The noun impulsus, meaning "incitement to action, prompting, impulse," again according to the OLD (sense 2, section a), is used when one is under the influence of a deity. The entry specifically says "of deities," giving selected examples that pre-date Suetonius, a fact of usage which those who wish to think that Chrestus isn't Christ are unhappy to hear. As for a dead man not being capable of being an impulsor, hardly true: think of John Brown, or the continuing inspiration of Che Guevara after death, or rioting or more constructive actions precipitated by the death of a civil rights leader such as MLK or Malcolm X. Or any number of political "martyrs". The dead can most certainly continue to inspire and provoke action. This was very much true in Roman times as well. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Chrestus as adviser to Claudius - Question for Cynwolfe

Hi Cynwolfe, I have a question with regards to your dismissal of the second translation:

1. "Since the Jews constantly make disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome."
2. "Since the Jews constantly make disturbances, at the instigation of Chrestus he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome."

Your argument (above) was "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)."

My Latin is only basic (school level), but German is one of my native languages. The second translation makes perfect sense to me in German, given that the Jewish sentence is part of a longer list of tribes/populations that Suetonius enumerates.

Here is Suetonius: Lyciis ob exitiabiles inter se discordias libertatem ademit, Rhodiis ob paenitentiam veterum delictorum reddidit. Iliensibus quasi Romanae gentis auctoribus tributa in perpetuum remisit recitata vetere epistula Graeca senatus populique R. Seleuco regi amicitiam et societatem ita demum pollicentis, si consanguineos suos Ilienses ab omni onere immunes praestitisset. Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit.

And here is my German translation: Den Lyziern, aufgrund ihrer toedlichen inneren Zwietracht, nahm er ihre Freiheit weg; den Rhodiern, in Anbetracht ihrer Reue alter Verfehlungen, stellte er die Freiheit wieder her. Den Iliern, als roemischem/s Gruendervolk, bewilligte er auf Ewigkeit Steuerbefreiung, etc etc. Die Juden, auf Anraten von Chrestus, da sie staendig revoltierten, verwies er aus Rom."

My translation is quick and dirty because my Latin is only mediocre. But my point is that this German sentence structure stresses first of all the population, and then secondarily stresses how Claudius deals with each population in turn (by placing his action in final position). And then only as an afterthought (placed in the middle of each German sentence) does the sentence provide Claudius's reasoning/motivation. As a whole, the stylistic impression is that of Claudius as a relentless man of action. At least in German.

It would be more "usual" to write the German thus: "Die Juden, da sie staendig revoltierten, verwies er auf anraten von Chrestus aus Rom." But this would stylistically "dilute" the Emperor's decisive action.

I have insufficient expertise to address your other points against the second translation (portraying Chrestus as an adviser to Claudius), but I feel your resort to German syntax as an argument may not be warranted. I would welcome your comment, as well as those of other native German speakers with a better command of Latin than me, with a view to re-instate the Slingerland reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.37.206 (talk) 13:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm in an opposite position: my German is minimal, but I have decades in Latin. Bear with me, as I confess that the intervening months—or can it in fact be years?—have dimmed my recollection of this discussion, and what it is that certain interpreters wanted to make of this sentence. What I was trying to say was that German readers might be in a better position than Anglophones to understand this kind of "bracketing" with inflected languages. I was thinking of the extended adjective construction in German as a comparison.

The normal position for impulsore Chresto would be at the beginning of the sentence if it were to be taken as an ablative absolute (temporal or causal). As I said above, I can't see taking this as an ablative absolute in Suetonian prose. If it's to be taken as an agent noun, it would be placed most often in Latin prose right before the verb, less often after. So the placement in the middle of the direct-object phrase— bracketed by Iudaeos … tumultantis (somewhat like an extended adjective construction in German) makes it as clear as Suetonius could that the phrase impulsore Chresto is to be construed as an agent with tumultantis. Claudius expelled the Jews. The Jews are rioting (or causing trouble, or however one wishes to translate tumultantis) with Chrestus as their instigator. Anyone who wants to argue that somehow you can construe impulsore Chresto with expulit to mean that Claudius acted at the behest of Chrestus would have to show some inarguable examples of the same construction elsewhere in Suetonius. I doubt that such can be found: Suetonius makes it as clear as classical Latin prose can that impulsore Chresto goes with tumultantis. Chrestus is the driving force behind the rioting.

Thank you for your polite reply. To keep this discussion on including/excluding the Slngerland reference simple, I am disregarding your sentences below as they refer to content, not to grammar and style.

First, you seem to have ignored my major point that the Jews are only one group listed among several groups/tribes in that Suetonius passage. In German, this listing has a major impact on the possible choice of sentence structure, as I tried to show: what would sound slightly "unusual" German when taking the Jewish sentence in isolation, makes good sense when the Jewish sentence is read in context with the other tribes. I can imagine that Suetonius could use Latin sentence structure for similar rhetorical effect to make Claudius sound like a man of action (Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit.) rather than like a thoughtful man in the theoretical sentence order you suggest (Iudaeos assidue tumultuantis Roma impulsore Chresto expulit. / Iudaeos assidue tumultuantis impulsore Chresto Roma expulit.)

Put differently, imagine you were Suetonius and wanted to make Claudius sound like a man of action as in the preceding tribal sentences, how would you "unclutter" the verb, and to which position would you shift impulsore Chresto? I think you will find that your options are limited.

Secondly, a new point: my German translation and sentence order gives the German reader a slight hint that Chresto was not simply an adviser to Claudius but an informant who identified the (potential?) problem of Jewish tumults. I do not know whether the Latin reader would have the same impression, but I mention this as a possible explanation why Chresto comes first, and the tumults come second in Suetonius. However, I may be brainwashing myself here slightly, which happens when you look at a sentence for too long.

Thirdly, for the avoidance of doubt, I believe that Chresto is just as easily translated in German as the instigator of the tumults. And going by content, I would agree that that is the more likely solution.

In conclusion, I would like to see the Slingerland reference on Chresto resurrected. It is a recent proposal which may or may not stand the test of time, but an encyclopaedia like Wikipedia should allow some leeway for new research, or new directions of research, albeit with appropriate caveats.

The Latin sentence leaves at least two things ambiguous. It is unclear whether Claudius expelled the Jews, who were rioting; or whether he expelled the Jews who were rioting. The English comma marks the difference between a restrictive and non-restrictive clause. It is unclear from the Latin whether Claudius expelled the Jews en masse because he believed them all to be causing trouble as followers of Chrestus, or whether Claudius expelled only those Jews identified as followers of Chrestus. My feeling is that it would be unlikely for a Julio-Claudian emperor to expel the entire Jewish community, who had been established in Rome for at least three or four generations, and who had regarded Julius Caesar as a special benefactor; and besides this would've been a significant event that we might've heard more about. It seems easier to think that this refers to the earliest Christians, if we take Chrestus here to be Jesus Christ (not unreasonable, but not indisputable), or I suppose possibly to Jews under the influence of an otherwise unknown somebody with the Greek name Chrestos. At any rate, it's up to the historians to consider this question in the context of other evidence, as the sentence is too slight a reference.

This sentence also cannot tell us whether Chrestus is alive or dead at the time of Claudius, or anything about the factuality of his existence. A virtually identical sentence could be composed about the followers of Dionysus—Bacchantes impulsore Baccho assidue tumultantis expulit. One can be an inspirational figure alive or dead, mortal or divine.

But I hope that clarifies a little what I meant by that side remark about the German—it was only a loose comparison to how extended-adjective constructions work. You can't pull the inserted modifying phrase out of the middle of the construction and just construe it wherever you want in the sentence. Cynwolfe (talk) 08:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I was unclear or prolix, but the only point that I'm trying to make is that classical Latin prose style does not permit us to take impulsore Chresto as an agent with expulit. It's irrelevant that you can make up a German translation to say that: that is not what the Latin wants to say. My comparison to German was a passing remark that I hoped would illuminate the grammatical construction; obviously, it has failed to do so, so that remark should be forgotten. No classical Latin prose stylist that I know of—not even Tacitus, the most experimental and "arty" of the prose stylists—would place the agent impulsore Chresto between Iudaeos…tumultantis if it were meant to go with expulit. I will continue to maintain that until I see three or four unambiguous examples from Suetonius that show otherwise. I am completely uninterested in the content of this passage: I'm just telling you what it cannot be taken to say in Latin. As I said, there are at least two points for content-hunters that the sentence leaves ambiguous, and that must be figured out by historical rather than philological method. But Chrestus as the advisor of Claudius rather than an instigator of Jews is simply not a reading that will be plausible to any Latinist, as far as I know. There is no argument for taking it that way unless you can produce other sentences from Suetonius that have the same stylistic-grammatical construction and are unambiguous in meaning. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with your dismissal of the context into which the Chrestos sentence is embedded, but I agree that a statistical analysis of Suetonius would help to ascertain the probability of Slingerland's proposal - has Slingerland done this, do you know? I confess I have not read his work. (That said, I disagree with your approach to statistics: it is not necessary to find "three or four unambiguous examples". It is only necessary to find, say, zero examples and 12 counterexamples in Suetonius. We could then statistically say that the probability of Slingerland being right is less than approximately 1/12. But it is not our job to do this in Wikipedia.)

Slingerland has tried to force a translation onto the Latin that I would characterize as a fringe theory. No Latinist would construe the sentence that way. Or perhaps I'm wrong, and you can show me a Latinist who does, or you can show me examples of Suetonian style that support this outré construal—in which case I'll stand corrected. Find as many translations as you can—published translations of Suetonius as a whole—and see how is this sentence translated by people whose expertise is translating Latin prose. Find critical editions of Suetonius; look at the annotations for this sentence. Don't take my word for it. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Could you please answer my question - has Slingerland already screened Suetonius to obtain your required frequency statistic?

The question is: is this a fringe theory? If it is not, then other scholars and translators will have accepted this reading, and all you need do if you wish to include it is to cite those translators, philologists, or textual critics on the line. If this reading is a fringe theory, then according to WP:FRINGE it should not be included. I have required no "frequency statistic". What I require, per WP:RS, would be sources to warrant the inclusion of what strikes me, a Latinist at a doctoral level of competence, as outré and agenda-driven. If it's a valid reading, then in 2,000 years of reading and editing Suetonius, more than one person will have proposed it. Again, however, don't take my word for it: Erich S. Gruen reviews Slingerland's book, and his review is overall positive. He finds Slingerland's work stimulating. Gruen—who is one of leading classicists of all time on Mid- to Late-Republican and Early Imperial Rome—even singles out the impulsore Chresto crux as an example of Slingerland's bold, fresh interpretation. HOWEVER, and this is a big "however," Gruen points out exactly what I said before I discovered his review: this reading is a near-impossibility in classical Latin prose. Gruen says: Slingerand's reconstruction rests on his own rendering of Suet. Claud 25.4. In his view, impulsore Chresto refers not to a stirring up of tumultuous Jews but to a provocation of the emperor against the Jews. The ablative absolute, in short, should go with the verb, not with the participle (pp. 151-168). The case is attractive in principle, but altogether unconvincing in fact. The word order virtually excludes it. You may read that review here. I'm having trouble finding information about Slingerland himself, but he doesn't seem to be a classicist. Therefore, he is an infinitely less reliable source on how to read a line of Latin than Gruen and the legions of classical philologists, textual critics, ancient historians, and translators who have dealt with this line. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, above you required a frequency of 3-4 occurrences. So I repeat my question: Has Slingerland done such a frequency analysis? [unsigned]

Gruen also committed to this position in his book Diaspora: Jews amidst Greeks and Romans, as cited here. One thing I should clarify is that I haven't considered this phrase as an ablative absolute so much as an agent; but I see how in this instance the two functions would not be discrete. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I would add that because Slingerland's reading of this line has been much discussed (if emphatically rejected), it might be worth stating that "Slingerland's reading of this line as Chrestus the instigator of Claudius's action is unique and rejected by other scholars, notably Erich S. Gruen, as an incorrect interpretation of the Latin syntax." Or something to that effect. What shouldn't happen is giving that reading as if it's plausible. It is not; it is notable because it attracted attention for being wrong. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I would further suggest that you become familiar with talk page decorum: you don't place your own unsigned comment within another user's comment, because someone trying to enter the discussion can't tell who's who. So I'm moving your interpolation above to the end of my comment and marking it as unsigned. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I await your answer on my question:

Above you required a frequency of 3-4 occurrences before you believe Slingerland's translation. So I repeat my question (for the fourth time): Has Slingerland done such a frequency analysis on Suetonius? [unsigned]

Drop the stick, my friend. I don't "require" anything. Before I recalled that Gruen had already torpedoed S's translation in print (and twice), I was modestly trying to allow for the possibility that I was wrong. So I said that the Latin prose construction seemed to me to make Slingerland's reading a near-impossibility, but my view on that could be altered were I to be shown other examples of the same construction—three or thirty; the number doesn't matter in determining the possibility—from Suetonius that would show this construal to be viable. That was an effort to be openminded. I also said that you might be able to test the matter by comparing published translations of Suetonius (in any language, actually!) and by consulting annotated texts of Suetonius. That too was an effort to be open to your position, while admittedly knowing that you would be able to find no such things because they don't exist. (I looked extensively when I participated years ago in this argument.) The burden is on you to present sources that make a counter-argument when we already have an eminently reliable source who states explicitly that Slingerland's translation is wrong, and whose view is accepted by other sources—all of these meeting the criteria of WP:RS. So I don't know what you're asking me to do; I've done my part. I've explained the Latin as best I can, and cited sources that state why Slingerland is wrong on this one point. (The same sources entertain much of what he says, and I said that the notoriety of his translation may make it notable as part of the history of scholarship on this point—for the very reason, however, that it's incorrect, so it should not be given as if it's plausible alternative translation.) Further discussion is pointless unless you can make a source-based argument. What I or any other user may think or say is irrelevant except as a process for generating source-based content. Leave a note on my talk page if you come up with sources. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

A simple answer "Yes/No/I do not know" would have been nice. Ah well. So to summarise my "cross-examination": you first invoked German to justify removing the Slingerland reference, then abandoned that argument. You then invoked a frequency argument against Slingerland (3-4 occurrences would convince you), now you abandon that too. And now you shift the goalposts again by telling me to go away and do some research. Forgive me if I am doing you an injustice, but I am beginning to get the impression you have not read Slingerland. Worse, that you are unable to focus on the content of my fairly clear messages. (What does that say about your ability to interpret English texts, let alone Latin texts? No offence intended, you clearly are learned. But you are evidently not a gifted interpreter or lawyer.) I now propose to draw the attention of Smeat75 to this discussion in the next 24 hours or so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.21.96 (talk)

I know I shouldn't dignify this personal attack with a response, but at your request on my talk page, I've been trying to help you explore the ways your desired interpretation of the line might be included if it were supported by sources. I thought that those who lacked Latin but knew German might be able to understand how the Latin word order worked by comparison with the German extended adjective construction (if a modifying phrase is placed within the e.a.c., it removes any ambiguity that the phrase might modify or go with something else in the sentence): it was merely an attempt at clarifying for non-Latinists how word order can matter even in a highly inflected language. I have not "abandoned" that comparison; you failed to understand its application, and the effort at illumination had become a mere distraction. I said Slingerland's construal was unconvincing, unless we could find other sentences in Suetonius of similar construction (these exist) that could be plausibly translated this way (but these do not exist). I was giving you an opportunity to find evidence for your case. That would be OR, but in the process of tracking down such, one might discover usable sources: translators, textual critics, philologists or other scholars who have taken the sentence to mean what Slingerland wants. Either these sources do not exist, or insulting me seems a more gratifying pursuit than the effort of locating them. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know that it would be useful to leave a warning on the IP editor's talk page, since s/he is switching between several addresses and might not see a message left on a talk page belonging to only one of them. But the personal attacks and demands made by this editor are unacceptable, and further contributions along these lines should be ignored. Cynwolfe is absolutely right about the meaning of the Latin; the position of impulsore Chresto makes it extraordinarily unlikely that it is an agent with expulit. If Slingerland's mistaken interpretation has attracted some attention in scholarship, as it seems it has, then it may be worth including something about it in this article, but only if criticism such as Gruen's is included. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I apologise to Cynwolfe if my message above is unacceptable. It was not intended to offend but is my sincerely held belief. Please feel free to delete my offending passage above. Cynwolfe's response can then also go because it misses the point (now explained in her homepage). And these lines can then also go. Cynwolfe - please execute.

Uh, if no one has read the Slingerland passage, then why is this discussion happening at all?

Presumably you are referring specifically to my discussion above with Cynwolfe? That discussion happened because her specific argument concerning German is in my view at fault. That discussion is now successfully completed, so it is not "happening" any more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.172.13 (talk • contribs)

Mr./Ms. IP editor, if you want to include this material, the onus is on you to go read Slingerland and the critical responses to him. Until you do, there's no reason to restore any of this material.

I would agree with you if I were introducing the Slingerland reference for the first time. However, the situation is that Smeat75 based a removal decision on Cynwolfe, based in part on what we now have established is a faulty German argument. So in this situation, you or I or Cynwolfe can express a wish and provide supplementary information, but the onus is on Smeat75 to reverse or defend his/her decision. Hope that clarifies the procedure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.172.13 (talk • contribs)

You also seem stunningly resistant to understanding why the phrase impulsore Chresto cannot mean "prompted by Chrestus" here.

Your statement does not make sense, I think. Can you please rephrase and quote the relevant passage by Cynwolfe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.172.13 (talk • contribs)

Feel free to persist in this unhelpful attitude, but at least take note that Cynwolfe is not the only editor here who says that this passage cannot be understood the way Slingerland argues—I agree wholeheartedly. What's more, Cynwolfe has cited a review by an emeritus professor at Berkeley who says the same thing. I don't quite understand why you have drawn out the discussion to this length, but it's really a waste of your time. If you want to make a genuine contribution here, try reading Slingerland's work, or (more preferably) find some other facet of this article to explore. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The reason why impulsore Chresto cannot mean "prompted by Chrestus" has been explained in detail above. It's clear that you've already read the relevant posts, since you are still harping upon the point Cynwolfe made about German syntax. You seem more interested in being obstinate than trying to understand what others are saying, though, so I don't think it's worth my effort to go over this again. I'll just say that I see no reason at all to restore anything based on Slingerland at this point. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Akhilleus, I have re-read the posts above, twice, but I do not understand which sentence (by Cynwolfe?) you are referring to. Please appreciate it is rather a convoluted discussion above - we are possibly talking at cross-purposes. I am genuinely interested in what you mean, even though your comment and conclusion is probably irrelevant to my query to Smeat75 (the main topic here). Please therefore take my request seriously, and show me the sentence you are referring to, rather than speculating that I may have not read the posts, or that I may be stunnungly resistant, or stubborn, or whatever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.172.13 (talk • contribs)

Here is the basic point: the position of the phrase impulsore Chresto between the noun Iudaeos and its participial modifier tumulantis means that it must be construed as part of the phrase Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantis; it cannot be understood with expulit. This point is based on a basic understanding of Latin word order that any student ought to develop at the intermediate level. This is a point that Cynwolfe made in posts that are now in Talk:Suetonius_on_Christians/Archive_3 and in posts that are currently on this page. Moreover, Cynwolfe found a review of Slingerland's book by Erich Gruen, an eminent classicist, that makes the same point: word order means Slingerland's interpretation is impossible. I can't help but notice that you seem to have ignored the quote from Gruen, but instead quite rudely continued "cross-examining" Cynwolfe. If you'd like to show that you're not stunningly resistant or stubborn, read the quote from Gruen, and stop getting distracted by your focus on German adjective constructions or frequency arguments. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. That is all clear to me. But what you seemed to say (twice) is to dispute the English phrase "prompted by Chresto". Now, you have still not quoted me the pertinent discussion section as requested (reminiscent of Cynwolfe's behaviour, by the way - work on it please). I continue doubting that such a discussion line exists. My working hypothesis is that you have simply misphrased your complaint. No problem. Anyway, I am shifting your section and my reponses into the section where it belongs. This is to unclutter the section dedicated to Smeat75, which is about a different topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.172.13 (talk • contribs)

Actually, here's a few things you can "work on": 1) sign your posts by typing four tildes at the end of your comment. It's hard for people to follow discussion when comments are unsigned. I have been adding your signature, but if you are interested in constructive discussion, surely you can learn this small component of Wikipedia etiquette. 2) Pay better attention to what other people are saying. I am not disputing anything about the English phrase "prompted by Chresto", I am talking about the meaning of the Latin phrase impulsore Chresto in Suetonius 25.4. It cannot mean what Slingerland wants it to mean, as both Cynwolfe and I have already stated. 3) Stop demanding that other editors look up or quote posts that you are perfectly capable of finding on your own, especially because you have already made reference to them in your previous posts. The post where Cynwolfe quotes Gruen is on this very page, I have trouble imagining that you are unable to find it. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Query for Smeat75: motivation for Slingerland deletion?

On 13 August 2013 you deleted the Slingerland translation, giving this justification:

"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."

As you can see from the section above, I have tried to find out Cynwolfe's rationale why she thinks Slingerland's translation is impossible. Cynwolfe has now retracted her "German explanation", and has then proposed a frequency argument (she says she would need to see, in Suetonius, 3-4 occurrences of Slingerland's proposed construction). But she has then failed to follow through her frequency proposal, and has then basically told me to go away and do my own research.

I am therefore concerned that your deletion of the Slingerland translation is based on a single, inconsistent and digressive expert. I propose that the Slingerland translation should be reinstated as suggested by Akhilleus above. I hope editors other than Cynwolfe will then discuss the appropriateness of including the Slingerland translation, with a view to retaining or deleting Slingerland. (For avoidance of doubt, let me say that I have not read the Slingerland reference and therefore do not know how solid his arguments are, neither do I know whether literature exists supporting him.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.123.7 (talk • contribs)

Minority view?

@NebY and Karma1998: The Jewish and Pagan authors are almost irrelevant to the historical Jesus and the historicity of Jesus, according to Bart Ehrman. Only fanatical atheists and fanatical Christians think these authors make or break the historicity of Jesus. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Is that the issue here? I didn't reinstate that material because I think it reflects on the historicity of Jesus. It's only scholars discussing whether Suetonius is referring to him. NebY (talk) 20:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Ehrman didn't exactly say that, he has argued for the importance (though not total) of Tacitus on Christ and Josephus on Jesus; however, as you correctly pointed out, even if those passages weren't there, that wouldn't change much, since we would still have Pauline epistles and the Gospels. As for Suetonius, he said that this passage may refer to Jesus, but we are not sure. I had removed this passage since it made the page contradictory, but I'm open to discussion.-Karma1998 (talk) 21:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

The page isn't contradictory. It's describing scholars disagreeing. It's not our job to say who's right and delete the rest, so long as we're mindful of WP:UNDUE. Indeed, when Ehrman's scholarly overview is that it's disputed (and irrelevant to the historicity of Jesus), we'd be failing our readers not to describe different views to about the extent that we do, though much more might try their patience! NebY (talk) 22:34, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@NebY: Well, let's leave it like it is, then.--Karma1998 (talk) 12:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Suetonius vs Cassius Dio

"Scholars generally agree that these references refer to the same event.[59]"

Is that so? Cassius Dio talks of a ban on potentially seditious gatherings and explicity states that it was not an expulsion (due to, basically, logistical reasons - the Jewish community was too large to kick them all out). Bruce ("Christianity Under Claudius", Bull. John Rylands Lib. 44, March 1962) disagreed that Cassius and Suetonius refer to the same event. Rather, he argued that the ban on gatherings was an initial Claudian measure (in the early-mid 40s AD) mainly due to a desire to prevent a repetition of the Alexandrian riots (38 CE) (which have no attested indication that Christianity played any part in them), and that, when tensions within the Jewish community of Rome escalated later in that decade (probably due to Christian proselytizing, as "Chrestus" would have been a highly unusual name for an observant Jew or Jewish Christian), he ordered the expulsion of at least the troublesome part of the Roman Jewish community.

(Acts claims the entire Jewish community was expelled, but Acts is conspiciously evasive about the religious status of Priscilla and Aquila when they are first encountered - as it has to be in a) claiming there was no Christianity in Rome until the - almost certainly fictional as narrated - Petropauline missionary effort, but b) presenting P&A as "model second-generation Christians" for the reader to look up to and to strive to imitate, as they probably were within still-living memory when Acts was composed. This is impossible without fudging - except perhaps by appealing to divinely transmitted miraculous knowledge of the deeper workings of Christian (as opposed to Yohananine) baptism as expounded by P&A to Apollos, or by explicit mention of Pauline instruction - but there is not even an indication of either, despite Acts being quite willing to use such tropes at other occasions. So the Acts narrative should be considered a streamlined paraphrase, as they say in movies, "based on actual events", giving a roughly correct general impression but unreliable in the details.)

At any rate, the differences between Suetonius' and Cassius' words are too large to dismiss - they are in direct and explicit contradiction if they do refer to the ame "event" (as opposed to "process" - if Cassius reports an early stage of Claudius "pacifying" policy, and Suetonius the ultimate development, the contradiction simply disappears and a consistent scenario of increasing pressure results). 18:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.182.114.91 (talk)

"Unknown person"

That's disrespectful language. Say instead, "a person, of whom we have no information.". Period! 2600:4040:9838:E600:501D:9A77:6763:367 (talk) 02:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)