The connection of the Romans with Palestine caused Jews to settle at Rome in considerable numbers. On one occasion, in the reign of Tibe rius, when the Jews were banished from the city by the emperor, for the misconduct of some mem bers of their body, not fewer than four thousand enlisted in the Roman army, which was then stationed in Sardinia (Sueton, 7-1b. 36 ; Joseph. Antig. xviii. 3. 5). These appear to have been emancipated descendants of those Jews whom Pompey had taken prisoners in Juda, and brought captive to Rome (Philo, De Leg. ad Cai., p. 1014). From Philo also it appears that the Jews in Rome were allowed the free use of their national worship, and generally the observance of their ancestral cus toms. Then, as now, the Jews lived in a part of the city appropriated to themselves (Joseph. Antig.
xiv. io. 8), where, with a zeal for which the nation had been some time distinguished, they applied themselves with success to proselytising (Dion Cass., xxxvii. 17). They appear, however, to have been a restless 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, but Orosius (vii. 6) mentions the ninth year of that emperor's reign (A.D. 5o). The precise occasion of this expulsion history does not afford us the means of determining. The words of Suetonius are, judxos, impulsore Chresto, assidue tumultuantes, Roma expulit He expelled from Rome the Jews continually raising disturbances under the impulse of Chrestos.' 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 colouring 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 agitations by terms ordinarily appropriated to martial pursuits. It must equally be borne in mind that the diffu sion of the gospel in Rome—then the very centre and citadel of idolatry—was no holiday task, but would call forth on the part of the disciples all the fiery energ,y of the Jewish character, 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 in tended to be applied to Jewish Christians. But the biographer uses the word Chrestus. The :is 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 vocalised 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., c. 3 ; Lactant., Inst.,iv. ; Just. Mart., c. 2). The point is important, 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 fiagitia invisos vulgus Christianos appellabat.
Auctor nominis ejus Chrestus) in a passage where his followers are termed Christians. Lucian, too, in his Philopatris, so designates our Lord, playing on the word Ximor6s, which, in Greek, signifies 'good these are his words--ei rtixot Xpncrrin Kai iv glycol., K. T.X., since a Chrest (a good man) is found among the Gentiles also.' And Tertullian (ut supra) treats the difference as a case of ignorant mispronunciation : Christianus perperam Chres tianus pronunciatur a vobis, nam nominis certa est notitia penes vos.' 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 sation. The term Chrest occurs in inscriptions (Heumann, Syllose Diss., i. 536), and epigrams in which the name appears may be found in Martial (vii. 55 ; ix. 28). In the same author (xi. 9i) a diminutive from the word—namely, Chrestillus— may be found. The word assumed also a feminine form, Chresta, as found in an ancient inscription— ' Hoc, virtus, fatigue decus et amabile nomen, Dote pudicititv, celebrata laboribus actis Vitx, Chresta jacet condita nunc tumulo.' We subjoin a few lines from Martial (vii. 55) : Nulli munera, Chreste, si remittis, Nec nobis dederis, remiserisque, Credam te satis esse liberalem.' There can therefore be little risk in asserting that Suetonius intended to indicate Jesus Christ by Chrestus ; and we have already seen that the terms vvhich he employs to describe the cause of the ex pulsion, though peculiar, 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 disturb ances (Kuinoel, Acts xvfii. 2; Rorsal, De atria() per errorem in Chrest. Comm., Groning. 1717). 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 community must have been in existence a long time when Paul wrote (about A.D. 59) that episde (see Rom. i. 8 13) ; and Meyer (Commentar der Brief an die Riinzer Einleit., sec. 2) is of opinion that the foun dations 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 men tioning the expulsion of the Jews, seem to have used the official term employed in the decree ; the Jews were known to the Roman magistrate ; and Christians, as being at first Jewish converts, would be confounded under the general name of Jews ; but that the Christians as vvell as the Jews strictly so called were banished by Claudius appears cer tain from the book of Acts ; and, independently of this evidence, seems very probable, from the other authorities of which mention has been made.