A short and decent intro, thanks to the Biblical World for the link.
I would still say he doesn’t go far enough explaining the ethnic conflict, but I’ve beat that dead horse on this blog already. Also, there’s no evidence that the edict of Claudius expelled all the Judeans, but he is still right to suggest that there is “Gentile” pride being critiqued by Paul in Romans.
Yeah, “Chrestus” still sounds to me like it aligns perfectly well with Claudius’ practice of elevating freedmen as advisors — it’s a slave name, the Hellenistic virtue of usefulness appropriate to one’s station. In that sentence from Suetonius, “impulsore Chresto” need have nothing extramural to do with Claudius’ edict, as “expulit” is the guiding verb, not the uproar of Rome — and the Judeans aren’t the subject, but rather the object. “At the instigation of Chrestus, Rome being in an uproar, he expelled the Judeans.”
Of course, I also prefer a worldview without “Christians” in the 1st century, since I think it’s adequately explained by gentile conversion — a change of pistis necessitating a change of nomos, and the attendant confusion among the non-initiate as to what it means to be people of this God in a time when there seems to be a covenant with the gentiles as gentiles.
But you have to admire his consistency — Tom Wright knows his system back and forward. He’s not wrong, on his own terms, and his terms make plenty of internal sense. You can’t dismiss him; you have to learn from him even when you argue with him.