There are certain parts of Paul’s letters that we typically pass over in silence. The long lists of greetings, in particular, are flyover territory for expository preachers. “Greet Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas, …” The congregation is probably snoring already.
And yet such passages can, on occasion, furnish us with beautiful examples of coincidence without design. Consider this passing reference in Romans 16:3-4:
Greet Prisca and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, who risked their necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks but all the churches of the Gentiles give thanks as well.
A nice compliment—but stay a while and examine what this means.
First, the fact that this greeting appears in the epistle to the Romans suggests that Prisca and Aquila are inhabitants of that city. Now flip to Acts 18:2, where Paul encounters “Aquila, a native of Pontus, recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome.” So Prisca (a diminutive form of “Priscilla”) and Aquila were originally inhabitants of Rome, perhaps recently returned once the expulsion under Claudius ceased to be enforced. This is one point of coincidence.
Second, notice that Paul calls them “fellow workers in Christ Jesus.” What did they do to deserve that commendation? Again, from Acts 18, we find that Paul stayed with them (18:3), and when he left, they departed with him (18:18). From this, it would be a fair inference that they were fellow workers with him, though only Paul’s greeting in Romans makes this fact explicit.
Third, Paul says that they “risked their necks” for his sake. How so? See Acts 18:12-17, where Paul is dragged before the Roman tribunal and Sosthenes is beaten by the mob. If Aquila and Prisca were Paul’s fellow workers Christ Jesus in Corinth, it is clear that they, too, were exposed to dangers.
Fourth, Paul indicates that the churches of the Gentiles give thanks for them. Given the themes of the entire letter, this singling out of the Gentiles seems to have more than ordinary significance. And going back to Acts 18:2, we find that Aquila was a Jew, expelled from Rome when the emperor Claudius, exasperated with riots in the Jewish quarter that had something to do with a fellow named “Chrestus” (a common Roman misspelling of “Christus”), decided to evict the Jews. Yet they were working with Paul, who in this very city declared that he was turning from the Jews to the Gentiles and from that time forward conducted a highly effective mission among them (18:5-11). So Prisca and Aquila, though Jews, took part in the ministry to the Gentiles. And that is how they earned the thanks of the Gentile churches.
Once more, from this same list of greetings, consider Romans 16:1-3:
I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church at Cenchreae, that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints, and help her in whatever she may need from you, for she has been a patron of many and of myself as well.
Why commend a servant of the church at Cenchreae? Paul is writing, apparently, from Corinth. Perhaps Cenchreae is, then, in the neighborhood of Corinth. But we need not even consult a map (which would bear this out), as we find from the book of Acts that Paul himself, upon leaving Corinth, visited Cenchreae (Acts 18:18).
Thus the apparently barren lists of greetings furnish us with numerous points of indirect correspondence—consistency and even harmony, but without verbal borrowing—with the events in the historical narrative of Acts.
I think the issue is not who Suetonius is referring to by the proper name “Chrestus” (even Wikipedia has a good article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suetonius_on_Christians)
The issue of historical significance is the correlation between what Luke wrote in Acts 18:2, and what Suetonius wrote (much later, since he is dated AD 69- AD 122, so it is not likely that Luke ‘borrowed’ from him).
There is an excellent, very scholarly work on the Book of Acts,
http://www.amazon.com/Book-Acts-Setting-Hellenistic-History/dp/0931464587/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1382126358&sr=8-1&keywords=the+book+of+acts+in+the+setting+of+hellenistic+history
that documents these historical and archaeological correlations in great detail.
I am not impressed by this argument. All an atheist has to do is point out to the possibility that the author of acts used Paul’s letters as one of his sources.
The problem with this is that all of Paul’s mentions of Aquilla are simple greetings while Luke elaborates in Acts that she is no longer in Rome because the Jews were expelled. Any atheist who denies Aquilla’s existence would have the burden of proof of explaining why Paul would exhort people to greet a fictitious person. I sincerely doubt that this can be done.
Actually, Aquilla is the husband; Priscilla (“Prisca” is diminutive) is the wife. Otherwise, spot on. Besides, we’ve already seen in other installments in this series that the author of Acts probably doesn’t have access to Paul’s letters.
One note Tim, Phoebe was a Deacon of the church, so in this context not servant. That is a common miss-transliteration based on both a medieval and modern notion that women couldn’t possibly be a deacon. She is also the one credited with the charge of not only reading but explaining the letter to the Romans to the Roman churches, therefore she also preached. She was one of Paul’s benefactors (not patron as the ESV transliterates it), which as I am sure you know, is a very important person in any Roman citizen’s life.
Just being helpful. 🙂
Are you yourself kind of a deacon? 😉
Actually, I’m on the way to becoming a pastor…but I’ve got to finish my philosophy degree first. 🙂
That’s very interesting and raises an obvious question: do you already have a boyfriend?
Don’t worry, since I am in Europe there is no risk I mean it seriously :=)
On my blog I deal mostly with issues concerning the philosophy of religion from a progressive Christian standpoint, so you might be interested to take a look now and then.
Friendly greetings in Christ.
2013/10/17 Disqus
I’m willing to bet that versions of the Mormons move to Salt Lake City also have some names which crop up more than once.
‘And going back to Acts 18:2, we find that Aquila was a Jew, expelled from Rome when the emperor Claudius, exasperated with riots in the Jewish quarter that had something to do with a fellow named “Chrestus” (a common Roman misspelling of “Christus”), decided to evict the Jews.’
Chrestus was still alive and causing riots?
How commonly did Romans misspell ‘Christus’? Once every century?
Steven Carr wrote: “I’m willing to bet that versions of the Mormons move to Salt Lake City also have some names which crop up more than once.”
Well, you lost your bet because unlike the Bible The Book of Mormon does not cover the history of the early Mormon church. The last event recorded in The Book of Mormon purportedly occurred around 421 A.D. long before the late 1820’s founding of the Mormon church, so there are no names cropping from the Mormon migration in the BOM.
Steven Carr wrote: “Chrestus was still alive and causing riots?”
No of course not, the Gospels, the writings of Josephus, the writings of Tacitus all talk about Jesus being executed and then a resurgence of the followers of Christ. Dr. McGrew is referencing the Roman historian Suetonius who wrote, “Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from the city.” This historical snippet backs up Acts 18:2 which ties in with Romans 16:3-4. Face the inconvenient truth, Steven, there is a great deal of evidence that shows that the NT relates real historical facts–your fantasy that the NT is a fictional book has been shattered.
‘Dr. McGrew is referencing the Roman historian Suetonius who wrote, “Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from the city.”‘
So McGrath claims the Romans wrote that Jesus was still alive and causing riots in Rome.
And McGrew claims this proves Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem 12 years earlier.
And McGrath claims he can prove that people called Aquila existed, just like Mormons can prove Brigham Young existed…..
Steven Carr wrote: “So McGrath claims the Romans wrote that Jesus was still alive and causing riots in Rome.”
No, Dr. McGrath is not saying that, you’re simply misunderstanding what Suetonius wrote. Suetonius was saying that the teachings of the no longer present Chrestus (a variation on the spelling of Christ), caused the rioting in Rome in 49 A.D. that lead to the eventual expulsion of Jews.
Steven Carr wrote: “And McGrath claims he can prove that people called Aquila existed, just like Mormons can prove Brigham Young existed.”
Aquilla is mentioned in both Romans, which is recognized by Biblical scholars as an authentic Pauline letter, and Acts and the mention of her in Acts is associated with a known historical fact, the expulsion of the Jews from Rome, so I think we can be quite confident that she existed. Even though Brigham Young is not mentioned in the Book of Mormon there is ample evidence that he existed. Both Aquilla and Young are obviously historical figures. What’s your point?
Steven Carr wrote: “Why can’t McGrath find Judas, Nazareth, Lazarus, Bartimaeus, Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, Thomas, Barabbas, Simon of Cyrene, etc etc in Paul’s letters?”
This is the argument from ignorance fallacy, it does not follow that because Paul didn’t mention these people in his letters they didn’t exist. It’s ridiculous to expect Paul to mention everyone who had anything to do with Jesus’ ministry on earth. Why in the world would Paul discuss Barabbas in his letters to various churches? It makes no sense.
Steven Carr wrote: “I love Keith’s demolition job on McGrath’s point that the Gospels and Paul’s letters cover different time periods, by his pointing out that the Book of Mormon and the history of the Mormon Church *also* cover different periods!”
I’m not sure why you think this is a “demolition job.” The Gospels do cover earlier history than Acts and Romans. The Book of Mormon doesn’t cover any history from the early Mormon church. So, what’s your point?
Steven Carr wrote: “Find evidence Judas existed and you will worry sceptics.”
All the evidence you need is in the Gospels.
‘All the evidence you need is the Gospels.’
Sorry you just failed there.
Strike 1
KEITH
Suetonius was saying that the teachings of the no longer present Chrestus (a variation on the spelling of Christ), caused the rioting in Rome in 49 A.D. that lead to the eventual expulsion of Jews.
CARR
This is is gibberish.
Suetonius said Chrestus was instigating riots.
Strike 2
CARR
I also asked you to provide evidence that Chrestus was a common mispelling of Christus, as McGrew claimed.
You did not.
Strike 3.
You’re out!
More importantly, while McGrew can claim all he likes that Paul’s letters show Jesus was circumcised (he actually did that!), he remains a purveyor of trifles, until he can produce some real evidence about important things.
Who the hell cares whether or not McGrew can prove Jesus was circumcised (apart from McGrew who is baffled that he can’t convert atheists by offering them such titbits)
Steven Carr wrote: “Suetonius said Chrestus was instigating riots.”
It is possible that Suetonius was confused in thinking that Jesus was still residing around Jerusalem or Rome. If he did believe that Jesus was still residing in Roman territory then this would put him at odds with Acts and his contemporary Tacitus, so we could just say that he was mistaken. If Suetonius did mean to say the Jesus was still alive and present in Roman territories and he was correct about this, it would be quite astounding because the Gospels, early church traditions, Josephus, the Talmud and Tacitus all state that Jesus was executed, and most of these sources say that the followers of Jesus reported seeing him after his execution. This would mean that 1) Jesus was a real historical figure and 2) he somehow survived a Roman execution. Any way you slice it you’re mythicist enterprise would be sunk.
Getting back to the main point of the Suetonius allusion, Suetonius does confirm that the account in Acts of why Aquilla was no longer in Rome.
Steven Carr wrote: “Sorry you just failed there.”
Not so fast, self-appointed ump, because you’re begging the question against the NT. Judas is mentioned in all four Gospels and Acts. Most common people don’t get mentioned in one single major text that has a lifespan of 2,000+ years, and here Judas, a common person, has received references in five major documents. If we follow you’re logic then if you are not mentioned in over five major documents that that survive more than several centuries you never existed! You better get to work doing something notable so you can get recorded in over five historical texts–it would be a shame if you never existed.
Steven Carr wrote: “I also asked you to provide evidence that Chrestus was a common mispelling of Christus, as McGrew claimed.
You did not.”
Was it common misspelling? Perhaps. Suetonius spelled it this way and translators not that this is a version of Christ.
So, what is your claim in all this? Are you saying that Aquilla is a made up figure? If so, what evidence do you have that Paul and Luke made her up?
Steven Carr writes,
“I also asked you to provide evidence that Chrestus was a common mispelling of Christus, as McGrew claimed.”
Oh, well, if all that’s holding you back is that you need someone to do your homework for you on this little point about Suetonius, then let me oblige.
The probable change in the second Medicean manuscript is from chrestianos to christianos, not from Chrestus to Christus. The name Christus is unaltered in this manuscript, which is the only MS of Tacitus that contains the former alteration. There are no other probable alterations in this passage.
And there is no need to reach for a conspiracy theory. Justin Martyr makes a play on the misspelling, First Apology 4.5. Tertullian makes fun of the Romans’ inability to pronounce “Christian” properly, Apology 3 and Ad Nationes 1.3.9, etc. There is a parallel sort of transcriptional error in the Greek of Codex Siniaticus at Acts 11:26, Acts 26:28, and 1 Peter 4:16. In short, the emendation of chrestianos to fix the misspelling does not indicate any nefarious intent. In fact, most authorities consider that the emendation is itself evidence for the authenticity of the passage, since the original blunder is an error that a Christian scribe would be unlikely to make.
For more information on the matter of popular confusion and interchange of Chrestus for Christus, see Helga Botermann, Das Judenedikt des Kaisers Claudius: Römischer Staat und Christiani im 1.Jahrhundert (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1996), pp. 72-95.