(11) The Gardens of Nero. The Gardens of Nero were in the Vatican, near St. Peter's. Within these, in the Neronian persecution, A. D. 64, after the great conflagration, Christians, wrapped in skins of beasts, were torn by dogs, or, clothed in inflammable stuffs, were burned as torches during the midnight games; others were crucified.
(12) The Jews in Rome. The connection of the Romans with Palestine caused Jews to settle at Rome in considerable numbers. On one occa sion, in the reign of Tiberius, when the Jews were banished from the city by the emperor, for the misconduct of some members of their body, not fewer than four thousand enlisted in the Roman army which was then stationed at Sardinia (Sue ton. Tib. 36; Joseph. Antiq. xviii, 3, 4). These appear to have been emancipated descendants of those Jews whom Pompey had taken prisoners in Judaea and brought captive to Rome (Philo. De Leg. ad Cai. p. 1°14). From Philo also it appears that the Jews in Rome were allowed the free use of their national worship, and generally the ob servance of their ancestral customs. Then, as now, .the Jews lived in a part of the city appro priated to themselves (Joseph. Anizq. xiv, io, 8), where, with a zeal for which the nation had been some time distinguished, they applied themselves with success to proselytizing (Dion. Cass. xxxvii, 17). They appear, however, to have been a rest less colony; for when, after their expulsion under Tiberius, numbers had returned to Rome, they were again expelled from the city by Claudius (Suet. Claud. 25). The Roman biographer does not give the date of this event, hut Orosius (vii, 6) mentions the ninth year of that emperor's reign (A. D. so). The precise occasion of this expul sion, history does not afford us the means of de termining. The words of Suetonius are, Iudoos, impulsore Chresto, assi due tumultuantes, Ronza expulit'—`11e expelled from Rome the Jews con tinually raising disturbances under the impulse of Chrestos.' (13) Reference to Christ and Christians. The cause here assigned for their expulsion is that they raised disturbances, an allegation which, at first view, does not seem to point to a religious, still less to a Christian, influence. And yet we must remember that the words bear the coloring of the mind of a heathen historian, who might easily be led to regard activity for the diffusion of Christian truth, and the debates to which that activity necessarily led, as a noxious disturbance of the peace of society. The Epicurean view of life could scarcely avoid describing religious agi tations by terms ordinarily appropriated to martial pursuits. It must equally be borne in mind that the diffusion of the Gospel in Rome—then the very center and citadel of idolatry—was no holi day task, but would call forth on the part of the disciples all the fiery energy of the Jewish char acter, and on the part of the Pagans all the vehemence of passion which ensues from pride, arrogance, and hatred. Had the ordinary name of our Lord been employed by Suetonius, we should, for ourselves, have found little difficulty in understanding the words as intended to be ap plied to Jewish Christians. But the biographer uses the word Chrestus. The us is a mere Latin termination; but what are we to make of the root of the word, Chrest for Christ? Yet the change is in only one vowel, and Chrest might easily be used for Christ by a Pagan writer. A slight difference in the pronunciation of the word as vocalized by a Roman and a Jew would easily cause the error. And we know that the Romans
often did make the mispronunciation, calling Christ Chrest (Tertull. Apol. c, 3; Lactant. Inst. iv, 17; Just. Mart. Apol. c, 2). The point is im portant, and we therefore give a few details, the rather that Lardner has, under Claudius (vol. i, 259), left the question undetermined. Now in Tacitus (Annal. xv, 44) Jesus is unquestionably called Chrest (quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Christianos appellabat. Auctor nominis ejus Chrestus) in a passage where his followers arc termed Christians. Lucian, too, in his Philopatris, so designates our Lord, playing on the word Chrestos, which, in Greek, signifies `good;' these are his words: 'Since a Chrcst (a good man) is found among the Gentiles also.' And Tertullian treats the difference as a case of ignorant mispro nunciation. The mistake may have been the more readily introduced from the fact that, while Christ was a foreign word, Chrest was customary; lips therefore that had been used to Chrest would rather continue the sound than change the vocali zation. The term Chresto occurs on inscriptions (Heumann, Sylloge Diss., i, 536), and epigrams in which the name appears may be found in Martial vii, 55; ix, 28). In the same author (xi, 91) a diminutive from the word, namely, Chrestillus, may be found. The word assumed also a femi nine form, Chresta. There can, therefore, be little risk in asserting that Suetonius intended to indi cate Jesus Christ by Chrestus; and we have al ready seen that the terms which he employs to describe the cause of the expulsion, though. pecu liar, are not irreconcilable with a reference on the part of the writer to Christians. The terms which Suetonius employs are accounted for, though they may not be altogether justified by those passages in the Acts of the Apostles, in which the collision between the Jews, who had become Christians, and those who adhered to the national faith, is found to have occasioned serious disturbances (Kuinocl, Acts xviii :2; Rorsal, De Christo per errorcm in Chrest. Comm., Groning. t7r7). This interpretation is confirmed by the fact that a Christian church, consisting of Jews, Proselytes, and Pagan Romans, had at an early period been formed in Rome, as is evident from the Epistle of Paul to the Romans; which Christian commu nity must have been in existence a long time when Paul wrote (about A. D. so) that epistle (see Rom. i :8-13) ; and Meyer (Commentar der Brief an die Ranier Einleit., sec. 2) is of opinion that the foundations of the church in Rome may have been laid even during the lifetime of our Lord. It is also worthy of notice that Luke, in the book of Acts (xviii :2), when speaking of the decree of Claudius as a banishment of all the Jews from Rome, adverts to the fact as a reason why two Christians, Aquila and Priscilla, whom we know (Rom, xvi :3) to have been members of the Ro man church, had lately come from Italy; these the apostle found on his arrival at Corinth in the year A. D. 51. Both Suetonius and Luke, in mentioning the expulsion of the Jews, seem to have used the official term employed in the de cree; the Jews were known to the Roman magis trate; and Christians, as being at first Jewish converts, would be confounded under the general name of Jews ; but that the Christians as well a,s the Jews strictly so-called were banished by Clau dius appears certain from the book of Acts; and, independently of this evidence, seems very prob able, from the other authorities of which mention has been made.