An example of this:The manuscripts of Suetonius are divided on reading either Chresto or Christo. Margaret Williams, Early Classical Authors on Jesus (2022), p. 103, n. 28.On the powerful support supplied by the MSS for Chrestus as the original reading, see Jobjorn Boman, ‘Inpulsore Cherestro? Suetonius’ Divus Claudius 25.4 in Sources and Manuscripts’, SBFLA (2011): 355–76, who concludes that the few Christ-spellings that occur most likely are conjectures by Christian scribes or scholars. For Orosius’s Christian makeover of Div. Claud. 25.4, see H. Dixon Slingerland, ‘Suetonius, Claudius 25.4, Acts 18, and Paulus Orosius’ Historiarum adversum paganos libri VII: Dating the Claudian Expulsion(s) of Roman Jews’, JQR 83 (1992): 127–44. Besides quietly substituting Christus for Chrestus, Orosius also introduces the idea that the ‘tumult’ in which the Jews were engaged was caused by their opposition to Christ.
A substitution of this kind is natural for scribes that interpret it as a reference to Jesus Christ.
In terms of a situation where there is no contrary manuscript evidence, but where a discussion still takes place: while a majority of Tacitean scholars view the Annals 15.44 reference to be to Christus, following the manuscript and appreciating the contrast with the vulgar appellation Chrestiani (in the uncorrected manuscript), the suggestion of Chrestus there has also been made, conjecturally.
https://www.academia.edu/26841558/The_M ... ersecution
I believe that the Christus of M2 has similarly been corrected (as one hand had already tried to correct the Chrestiani to Christiani) from Chrestus. Such alterations were rife, as when, from Orosius in the fifth century to William of Malmesbury in the twelfth, the reading of Chrestus in Suet., Claud. 25.4 was ‘corrected’ to Christus. And it makes the most logical sense for Tacitus to say that Chrestianus would come from Chrestus.
Statistics: Posted by Peter Kirby — Thu Nov 07, 2024 9:03 pm