"disciples were called Christians first in Antioch," and the
missionaries to Antioch, who preached "unto the Jews only," came from
Cyprus and Cyrene, which would naturally lie in the way of fugitives
from Rome to Asia Minor. They would bring the name Christian with them,
and the date in the Acts synchronises with that in Suetonius. Chrestus
would appear to have left a sect behind him in Rome, bearing his name,
the members of which were prosecuted by the Government, very likely as
traitors and rebels. Keim's good opinion of Suetonius is much degraded
by this Chrestus: "In his 'Life of Claudius,' who expelled the Jews from
Rome, he has shown his undoubted inferiority to Tacitus as a historian
by treating 'Christ' as a restless and seditious Jewish agitator, who
was still living in the time of Claudius, and, indeed, in Rome" ("Jesus
of Nazara," p. 33).

It is natural that modern Christians should object to a Jewish Chrestus
starting up at Rome simultaneously with their Jewish Christus in Judaea,
who, according to Luke's chronology, must have been crucified about A.D.
43. The coincidence is certainly inconvenient; but if they refuse the
testimony of Suetonius concerning Chrestus, the leader, why should they
accept it concerning the Christians, the followers? Paley, of course,
although he quotes Suetonius, omits all reference at this stage to the
unlucky Chrestus; his duty was to present evidences of, not against,
Christianity. Most dishonestly, however, he inserts a reference to it
later on (p. 73), where, in a brief _resume_ of the evidence, he uses it
as a link in his chain: "When Suetonius, an historian contemporary with
Tacitus, relates that, in the time of Claudius, the Jews were making
disturbances at Rome, Christus being their leader." Why does not Paley
explain to us how Jesus came to be leading Jews at Rome during the reign
of Claudius, and why he incited them to riot? No such incident is
related in the life of Jesus of Nazareth; and if Suetonius be correct,
the credit of the Gospels is destroyed. To his shame be it said, that
Paley here deliberately refers to a passage, _which he has not ventured
to quote_, simply that he may use the great name of Suetonius to
strengthen his lamentably weak argument, by the pretence that Suetonius
mentions Jesus of Nazareth, and thus makes him a historical character.
Few more disgraceful perversions of evidence can be found, even in the
annals of controversy. H. Horne refers to thi