Yes, but it is also speculative that it refers to Jesus. So, who is it talking about? Because that's what we're trying to decide. The uncertainty alone makes it questionable as a supporting source for Jesus' historicity.
But, remember, the single thing that is not speculative is that the copy we have specifically said "Chrestians" and not the "Christians" that is was changed to. On this basis alone, it is a better supported claim that this is not a reference to Jesus but is instead a reference to Chrestus (as we agree, a common Roman name, which increases the probability it is referring to someone in Rome).
We could stop here, because we're already firmly on "not good evidence for Jesus" ground. But, there's more! A lot more, actually, but I'll keep it simple and stick with your reference to Suetonius.
With Suetonius we have a second, independent attestation for Chrestus, and from someone with no known dog in the race, so we can presume he's relatively free of bias. This Chrestus has the same name as given by Tacitus, is described as having the same characteristics as Tacitus describes, in the same location as Tacitus describes, and during the same time Tacitus describes. Oh, Nirvana! Multiple, independent, disinterested sources are an ancient historian's wet dream.
But, but, could they be referring to different people? Maybe. Could be there were two Chrestuses running around as leaders of criminal gangs warranting historical mentions at the same time in the same place. Not as likely as only one, though. But, even if there were two, neither was said to be named Christ, so there's that to deal with.
> the argument of silence isn't worthy either.
No? Three hundred years of voluminous writings on the history of Christianity, Rome, Nero, Christian persecution, Christian persecution in Rome by Nero, whether or not Jesus was a celestial being or walked the Earth, with supporting historical references thrown about left and right but not one person bothers to bring up a mention of Christ that was in a well-circulated historical treatise by a well respected historian? You dismiss this oddity out of hand? I wonder, where is this hyper-skepticism over things that support your position?
> Re: Testimonium Flavianum
You can read some of the more recent research in a study by Paul Hopper in Linguistics and Literary Studies: Interfaces, Encounters, Transfers (2014: de Gruyter), pp. 147-169 here: Josephus Narrative Anomaly
> Agreed. I was speaking generally of a possible "peep," but there's no way to know.
Right. That's my point. Told you I'd let you win this for me
> Re: Muratorian Fragment & Tatian
Sorry, this got lost in the shuffle. The dating of this canon isn't settled. It's a subject of vigorous, as in knock-down drag-out, debate. The earliest date considered possible is 170's c.e., which would be good for for you, but we'd still be left wondering why Christian writers from before that time don't bother with names if the gospels had them much earlier. On the other hand, there are well regarded experts in the field who date it to the 3rd or even 4th century. These later dates obviously wouldn't be helpful for you.
No one has argued gospels weren't around, just that they were anonymous. Tatian uses the gospel later attributed to Luke, but does not himself attribute it to Luke.
> The 3rd choice is that the authors were common knowledge.
I like that, common knowledge comes in third.
It's been fun!