absolum - espacio de conocimiento para compartir
Arte Salud
Ecología Mística
Ciencia Antropología, historia...
Otros temas

ANTROPOLOGÍA E HISTORIA > JESÚS FUE CÉSAR

2012
  África antes 3er mundo  
  Akhenaton  
  Alfabeto líbico  
  Alfabeto universal  
  Arqueología inexplicable  
  Biblioteca de Alejandría  
  Calaveras de cristal  
  Calaveras deformes
 
  Calendario maya  
  Casa en Mari  
  Civilización islámica
 
  Códice de Dresde  
  Conquista programada  
  Dioses de Sirio  
  Disco del príncipe Sabu  
  Los Dropa  
  Egiptología Simbólica  
  Enuma Elish  
  Esferas de Costa Rica  
  Eslabones perdidos  
  Esvástica  
  Filosofía Africana  
  Fundamentalismos  
  Gigantes en Iberia  
  Gigantes en Índia  
  Gobekli Tepe  
  Horus vs. Jesús  
  Hopis vs. Sumerios  
  Hutus y Tutsis  
  Kaaba en la Meca  
  Katchinas  
  Laberinto de el Faiyum  
  Laberinto egipcio hallado  
  LABERINTO  
  Laberintos en León  
  Lengua más antigua de...
 
  Libro de Oera linda  
  Líneas de Nazca  
  Marduk, señor dE...  
  Manuscrito Voynich  
  May Day o Beltaine
 
  Mecanismo Antikythera  
  Mega en Cuba  
  México  
  Mucho más antiguos  
  No somos los primeros  
  Origenes del Qigong  
  Pájaro de Sakkara  
  Periodo Presumerio  
  Petroglifos  
  Piedras de Ica  
  Piedras sagradas  
  Pirámides bosnias  
  Pirámides chinas  
  Piri Reis  
  Plomos del Sacromonte  
  Religión del canibalismo  
  Religiones: la llave  
  Risus paschalis  
  Ruinas en el océano  
  Rutas del Sahara  
  Shiva Lingam  
  Sucio dinero  
  Tassili  
  Tiempo Celeste  
  Terrorismo  
Vimanas

Laberintos

Herejías y herejes de nuestro tiempo

Texto original:

carotta.de


 


Jesús fue César

por Francesco Carotta

Julio César, hijo de Venus y fundador del imperio romano, después de su trágico final fue divinizado: Divus Iulius llegó a ser el Dios del imperio. Su culto desaparece cuando aparece el cristianismo.
Jesu Cristo, hijo de Dios y auctor del cristianismo, aparece súbitamente junto a su culto en el siglo segundo. Ningún historiador documenta su presencia, que permanece todavía dudosa.
Un personaje histórico sin culto, un culto sin personaje histórico:
una asimetría complementaria que deja perplejo.

¿Sería quizá Jesús la forma en la cual la historia nos ha trasmitido al Divus Iulius?
¿Se relacionaría el evangelio con la vida de César como las primeras iglesias cristianas con los templos antiguos sobre cuyos fundamentos se apoyan y a partir de cuyos despojos fueron construidas?

Los errores de los copistas y la evolución de la iconografía son detectados y visualizados; el evangelio revela ser la historia de la guerra civil romana, una mutación de las Historiae de Asinio Pollion.

 

Capítulo II - Vitae Parallelae

César y Jesús comienzan ambos su irresistible ascensión en una región situada al norte: Galia y Galilea..

Ambos tienen que cruzar un río fatal: el Rubicón y el Jordán. Una vez atravesados los ríos, ambos encuentran un protector/rival: Pompeyo y San Juan Bautista, y sus primeros seguidores: Antonio y Curio por un lado y Pedro y Andrés por otro..

Ambos están continuamente en camino, finalmente llegan a la capital,  Roma y Jerusalén, en donde al principio triunfan, con todo posteriormente sufren su pasión..

Ambos tienen buenas relaciones con mujeres y tienen una especial relación con una mujer particular, César con Cleopatra y Jesús con Magdalena..

Ambos tienen encuentros en la noche, César con Nicomedes, Jesús con Nicodemo.

Ambos son grandes oradores y de la más alta nobleza, descendiente de Eneas e hijo de David, con todo sin embargo ambos son hombres hechos a sí mismos. Ambos luchan duramente y en última instancia triunfan, por lo tanto cada uno tiene una ‘entrada triunfal’: César a caballo y Jesús en un asno.

Ambos tienen afinidad con la gente del pueblo y ambos se llevan mal con las más altas autoridades: César con el senado, Jesús con el Sanedrín.

Ambos son caracteres combativos, pero también muestran una loable clemencia: la clementia Caesaris y el amor a los enemigos.

Ambos tienen un traidor: Bruto y Judas. Y un asesino que al principio es liberado: el otro Bruto y Barrabás. Y uno que se lava las manos: Lépido y Pilato.

Ambos son acusados de hacerse a reyes: rey de los romanos y rey de los judíos. Ambos son revestidos de reales trajes de púrpura y llevan una corona en sus cabezas: una guirnalda del laurel y una corona de espinas.

Ambos son asesinados: César es apuñalado con dagas, Jesús es crucificado, pero con una herida de lanza en su costado.

Ambos respectivamente mueren en las mismas fechas del año: César en el Idus (15) de Marzo, Jesús el 15 de Nisán.

Ambos son divinizados póstumamente: como Divus Iulius y como Jesús Cristo.

Ambos dejan tras ellos sacerdotes: Marco Antonio y Pedro. Ambos tienen un heredero póstumo: Gaio Octavio adoptado por la última Voluntad y Testamento de César y Juan el discípulos que Jesús adopta mientras que está en la cruz (‘mujer, he ahí a tu Hijo’).

Hay una cosa que no corresponde por ser llamativamente incongruente: César era comandante, mientras que Jesús era un taumaturgo.

Sin embargo, en su oración fúnebre por César, Antonio representó todas las grandísimas victorias de César como milagros.[45] Estos milagros de César incluían la supervivencia de una tormenta[46] e incluso la resurrección de los muertos: el pueblo consideró un milagro que César trajera los honores de Mario ‘desde el Hades a la ciudad’ después de muchos largos años de dictadura de Sulla. [47]

Al contrario, algunos de los milagros de Jesús se refieren a la expulsión de los demonios, que representa de hecho la forma absoluta, teológica, de la guerra.

La imagen que tenemos en la mente generalmente es la de César emprendiendo la guerra sin piedad,[48] en severo contraste con la predicación de amor de Jesús y la venida del reino del dios, que asumimos ser de paz, de amor y de unidad. Esto a pesar del bien conocido pasaje:

    “No penséis que he venido a traer paz a la tierra. No he venido a traer paz, sino espada. Sí, he venido a enfrentar al hombre con su padre, a la hija con su madre, a la nuera con su suegra;  y enemigos de cada cual serán los que conviven con él”.[49]

Y Jesús continúa elogiando a los que acogen a los suyos dándoles sus vituallas. Claramente, éstas son situaciones de guerra civil. Por tanto Jesús trae el reino del Dios explícitamente a través de una guerra civil por él combatida incluso si no la quiso – exactamente como hizo César.

Al contrario, la clementia Caesaris es apenas mencionada, si no es completamente ignorada, aunque para César tenía carácter programático:

    “Este sea el nuevo sistema de vencer, que nos armamos de misericordia y liberalidad.”[50]

Este programa político de amad-a-vuestros-enemigos fue realizado tan consecuentemente, que pereció[51] – como Jesús.

Incluso los límites a su clemencia son los mismos: César perdonó a todos sus enemigos -excepto los delincuentes reincidentes que se burlaban de su clementia;[52] Jesús perdonó a todos los pecadores – excepto los que pecaban contra el Espíritu Santo.[53]

Hasta aquí las características principales del cuadro parecen coincidir. Ahora echemos una mirada más cercana a la gente que rodea César y a Jesús para ver si hay algún paralelo más.

Primera aproximación

Pompeyo, por ejemplo, es decapitado y su cabeza es presentada en una fuente a la persona que supuestamente quería matarlo – exactamente lo que los Evangelios nos dicen que sucedió a Juan el Bautista.

Antonio negocia con los asesinos de César, cena con ellos y disimula; Pedro es reconocido en la fogata de los enemigos y niega a Jesús.

La amante de César, Cleopatra, después de Antonio y madre de los hijos de ellos, es finalmente humillada a los pies de Octavio – Magadalena, que habla con Jesús sobre amor y anuncia la resurrección de Jesús a Pedro, lava los pies del señor con sus lágrimas.

El tío de César Mario, desterrado pero devuelto del Hades, vivía con su esposa Julia y con Marta, una vidente; el allegado de Jesús Lázaro, resucitado de los muertos, vivió con su hermana María y con una mujer llamada Marta, quien anuncia su resurrección.

Ahora nos trasladaremos a los pocos atrezos que mencionamos arriba.

La victoria de César fue sellada por una palmera que brotaba del suelo de un templo. Mientras que la gente le iba dando una ovación extática, aclamándolo rey, agitaba ramas de olivo. Jesús, también, fue aclamado como a un rey, y hasta hoy los ramos de olivo se agitan en el Domingo de Ramos. Su caballo es un burro, lo que es extraño para un rey, ya que el animal no es más rápido que un hombre a pie. Pero el caballo de César debía también tener algo absolutamente extraño, ya que la estatua ecuestre de César en el foro Julio tenía pies humanos.

Imaginamos la corona en la cabeza de César que era una guirnalda de laurel: la guirnalda triunfal. Esas estatuas de Divus Iulius que lo representan como Soter, Salvador, Redentor, tienen guirnaldas de hojas de roble o de hierba, sin embargo, ambas se asemejan en forma y significado la corona de espinas de Jesús el Salvador[54] – como hemos visto. Jesús, por el contrario, es coronado con una corona de laurel por un legionario como es representado en un sarcófago fechado a partir de 340/370 A.D., en el cual puede ser vista la más antigua imagen conocida de la pasión (fig. 116, p. 387).[55]

Examinemos ahora las localizaciones, comenzando con los pocos nombres mencionados hasta ahora.

La ascensión de César comienza en Galia, la de Jesús en Galilea. César, viniendo de Gallia (Galia), cruza el Rubicón y llega a Corfinium; Jesús, viniendo de Galilaea (Galilea), cruza el Jordán y llega en Cafarnaum (también Caphernaum). Galia y Galilea son regiones adyacentes al norte. Ambos tienen que cruzar los ríos de frontera: el Rubicón separó Galia de Italia, mientras que el Jordán entonces separaba Galilea de la Decápolis y de la Gaulanitis, pero el Evangelista escribe como si Judea estuviera situada inmediatamente al otro lado del río. Corfinium y Cafarnaum respectivamente son las primeras ciudades a las cuales llegan. Los mares tempestuosos que son cruzados por César y Jesús también actúan como fronteras: más allá del mar Jónico está Ionia, como era llamada Grecia en el Oriente;[56] más allá del mar de Galilea otra vez está la Decapolis y la Gaulanitis, pero para el Evangelista es otra vez Judea.

Los mismos atributos y atrezo (desde ahora llamados ‘atrezo’, para abreviar) aparecen en las mismas estructuras. La semejanza de los nombres es asombrosa también: Galia y Galilea, Corfinium y Cafarnaum, Italia o Ionia por un lado y Judea por otro.

Considerando la semejanza de los nombres y la similitud de los escenarios, emerge una secuencia: Gallia + río de frontera + Corfinium = Galilaea + río de frontera + Cafarnaúm. Ahora, si intentamos ampliar esta secuencia, encontramos que César expulsa al comandante del enemigo que ocupa la ciudad de Corfinium; Jesús expulsa el espíritu inmundo de un hombre poseído. Las palabras españolas ocupado/asediado y poseído ambas tienen la misma equivalente latina: obsessus.

Para el caso de Jesús también se trata de poder y lucha, “porque les enseñaba como quien tiene autoridad” como se traduce comunemente el pasaje de Marcos. Tomando a la frase literalmente resulta todavía más clara:

    “pero él les ordenava come el quién tenia el poder”.[57]

El espíritu hostil también lo considera esa manera:

    “¿Qué tenemos que ver contigo, Jesús Nazareno? ¿Has venido a destruirnos?”[58]

Por lo tanto la secuencia puede ser prolongada: Gallia + río de frontera + Corfinium + comandante/asediado + expulsión = Galilea + río de frontera + Cafarnaúm + hombre poseído + expulsión.

Cuando comparamos a César y a Jesús comprobamos la existencia de escenarios y atrezo similares dentro de estructuras y de secuencias análogas.

Por lo que concierne a los nombres, es fácil enumerar la gente alrededor de César y después encontrar sus correspondientes representantes en la historia de Jesús. Contando con la poca gente y lugares mencionados hasta ahora:

Los personajes y sus actores

César : Jesús
Pompeyo : Juan (el Bautista)
Antonio : Simón (Pedro)
Curio : Andrés
Cleopatra : María Magdalena
Nicomedes : Nicodemo
(Décimo) Bruto : Judas
(Marco) Bruto : Barabás
(Casio) Longino : (el centurión) Longino
Lépido : Pilato
Octaviano (Augusto) : Juan (el discípulo amado)
Mario (+ Julia y Marta) : Lazaro (+ María y Marta)
el Senado : el Sanedrín
Galia : Galilea
Rubicón : Jordán
Corfinium : Cafarnaúm
Roma : Jerusalén
Italia/Ionia : Judea

Es visible que son algo idénticos – Longinus = Longinus; Martha = Martha – o pudieron ser considerados. La esposa de Mario podría ciertamente ser llamada María, más probable por los no-Romanos.[59] Sus diferentes funciones – esposa o concubina respectivamente frente a hermanas – son de este modo relativizadas ya que las hermanas son ‘amadas’.[60]

Otros nombres son similares: Gallia > Galilaea, Corfinium > Cafarnaum (que en los manuscritos latinos se escribe Cafarnaum), Ionia > Iudaea. Los dos primeros están en el marco de la común metathesis de las líquidas (‘l’ y ‘r’).[61] En la última observamos que Ionia e Iudaea son absolutamente similares en la escritura griega: IWNIA > IOUDAIA. En la letra decisiva – N versus D – hay solamente una desviación en la dirección de la tercera línea. Que Italia, coincidentemente, no está escrita muy diferentemente – ITALIA > IOUDAIA – podría explicar la confusión en el Evangelio en donde Judea está situada en el otro lado del Jordán así como en el otro lado del mar de Gennesaret.

Lepidus y Pilatus (Pilato) están absolutamente cercanos también en apariencia, pues Pilatus parece una metátesis silábica de Lepidus: Lepidus > Piledus > Pilatus.[62] Idem para Nicomedes – de Bithynia – y Nicodemus – de Bethania.

La diferencia entre Brutus y Barabbas es algo mayor, pero no es infranqueable: Comparando solo el sonido semánticamente relevante – Barabbas es un nombre semítico y en esos idiomas solamente las consonantes y vocales consonadas son de relevancia semántica – tenemos BRVT versus BRAB. Por otra parte el significado de Barabbas se entiende ‘Bar-Abbas’, ‘hijo del padre’, y cuando César fue apuñalado él exclamó a Bruto: ‘tu también, hijo mío?’ Entonces el término ‘hijo del padre’ es apropiado para Bruto.

El resto de nombres paralelos parecen ser diferentes uno de otro: Brutus diferente de Judas, Roma diferente de Jerusalén etc.

Pero con una segunda mirada hay analogías que se detectarán aquí también.

El nombre completo de Brutus, el traidor, era Decimus Iunius Brutus. Iunius puede convertirse en griego como Iunas, apenas como el latino Lucius se convirtió en el griego Lukas.[63] Entonces, Iunas está muy cercano a Judas, comparable al antedicho Ionia = Iudaea, especialmente en el deletreado griego: IOUNAS = IOUDAS. La única diferencia es la tercera línea de N y D. Decimus, por su parte, significa ‘el décimo’, así que Decimus Iunius se podría entender como ‘Junas el décimo’. Y el nombre del traidor en Marcos es ‘Judas, Judas, uno de los doce’.[64]

Mario también, como un ‘proscrito’ – latro en latín – no está acústicamente y visualmente a muchos pasos de Lazaro.[65]

En Johannes (el discípulo Juan), parece que el artículo había sido añadido: Octaviano Augusto, llamado el joven, y a este respecto, el nuevo César, en latín iuuenis, en griego (h)o neos (Kaisar),[66] pronto se convierten oralmente y visualmente en Johannes: iuuenis > Johannes, (h)o neos > Johannes.[67]

Juan (el Bautista) pudo haber podido ser escrito Gnaios en vez de neos: (el) Gnaeus (Pompeius), (h)o Gnaios (Pompeios); o en las fuentes el epíteto más común Magnus, el cual, si la ‘M- ’ es ignorada, se asemeja a Gnaeus: (M)agnus > Gnaeus. Ambas se oyen y leen fácilmente como Johannes: (M)agnus respectivamente Gnaeus > Johannes, (h)o Gnaios > Johannes.[68]

Curio sin embargo, no viene cercano a Andreas (Andrés) tónicamente, sino que lo hace más en el significado como si Curio se originara de uir, ‘hombre’ en latín,[69] justo como Andreas proviene del griego anêr, andros que también significa ‘hombre’. Igual es para el senado y el sanhedrin, lo cual significa simplemente consejo, no solamente en Roma y Jerusalén[70]

Y María Magdalena – María de Magdala, es decir ‘María de la torre’[71] – compite en sentido con Cleopatra. Como amante de César ella podría ser vista como Iulia y como una Iulia ella podría entonces ser una María (véase arriba).[72] Distinto de las otras Marías, en su caso el nombre María de la Torre no sería erróneo del todo, porque la torre en la cual ella resolvió a morir se convirtió en la torre más famosa de todas. Atrincherada en esta torre, ella se opuso a Octaviano hasta el amargo final.[73]

La semejanza que Antonio tiene con Simón (Pedro) tiene algo más color. Interesante, en la mayoría de los casos Pedro es llamado Simón y Simón aparece en la forma del acusativo, con terminación  ‘-a ’, como cuando aparece por primera vez en Marcos: ‘... él vio a Simón...’[74]Simwna, Simona. Pero esto se ve como Antonius, leído de derecha a izquierda:

    ANTONIVS <|> SVINOTNA > SUINWTNA > SIMWNA

– heterográfico: como una palabra foránea aramea en griego.[75]

Con respecto a los nombres de otros lugares, el Rubicón no suena nada parecido a Jordán, y con respecto al significado – si se entiende el Rubicón como ‘el río rojo’ – sólo puede estar conectado con el Mar Rojo. Pero eso está en el quinto pino. Sucedió eso después de cruzar el Rubicón, César también tuvo que cruzar el río Aternus en la frontera de la ciudad, antes de que pudiera entrar sobre Corfinium. El nombre Aternus se podía conectar con el Jordán: dejando a un lado el sonido inicial iota – que ocurre con frecuencia en los idiomas semíticos (como Johannes (Juan), Joseph (José) etc.) – (I)ordanes parece una metátesis[76] de Aternus con un intercambio de los sonidos relacionados ‘t’ y ‘d’:

    Aternus > Artenus > Iordanes.

Precisamente ocurre eso, que el Rubicón fluye en el Adriático entre Ravena y Senigallia, y así en el mar Gálico, que corresponde estructural y lingüísticamente al ‘mar de Galilea’ – que el Evangelista llama visiblemente el lago de Genesaret – por cuál fluye el Jordán. Finalmente, persiguiendo a Pompeyo además del Rubicón y del Aternus, César tuvo que cruzar el mar Jónico – la posición relativa del Rubicón y el Aternus se asemeja a la posición relativa del Mar Rojo y el Jordán. Además hay cierta semejanza literal coincidente entre el (mar) Ionium y Iordanes.

Con respecto a Roma y a Jerusalén no es necesario que se trate también sobre las diferencias en nombre. El nombre de Roma apenas se menciona en las fuentes antiguas: es generalmente designada como ‘la ciudad’. Por ejemplo, en la cita anterior de Plutarco, donde se divulga que el pueblo vio como milagro que después de largos años de dictadura de Sulla Caesar había traído los honores de Mario desde el Hades ‘a la ciudad’: eis tên polin. La ciudad que era referida en cualquier caso dependía del contexto.[77] Pero si el nombre Roma se menciona explícitamente, como en la frase eis Rômên ‘a (para) Roma’, lo cual ocurre con frecuencia, (H)ierousalêm (Jerusalén) no está a muchos pasos: (EISRWMHN > IEROUSALHM). La otra variante del nombre (H)ierosolyma, incluso contiene las letras de Roma en secuencia: (H)ieROsolyMA.

Referente al significado, observamos lo siguiente:

Hiero significa santo. Hierosolyma es la santa Solyma. Pero Solyma (o Salem)[78] se piensa que significa paz.[79] Así que Hierosolyma no significa otra cosa que ciudad santa de la paz. Pero de hecho ésta era realmente sólo Roma, la ciudad que había asegurado la paz del mundo: la Pax Augusta era proclamada urbi et orbi en el año 17 A.C. y el templo de Jano fue cerrado. Para conmemorar este acontecimiento Augusto había ordenado la construcción de un monumento – la ara pacis –, el altar de la paz. Ahora (H)ieru-Salem refleja ara pacis – en la primera sección por el sonido, en la segunda por el significado:[80] ara > (h)ieru; pacis > salem.

Hemos pasado a través de la corta lista de los nombres mencionados al principio de nuestro capítulo. Hemos establecido que las personas y los lugares que ocurren en las historias de César y de Jesús llevan nombres que están muy cercanos oralmente o visualmente, o parecen la traducción una de otra.

Los nombres del Señor

Como es bien sabido, los nombres sagrados son reflejados en las escrituras del Evangelio por abreviaturas-generalmente la primera y última letra-entonces no podemos comparar el nombre original, sino solamente lo que ha pasado a nosotros. Referente a la abreviatura de Jesús – IêsuS > IS – es valioso observar que IuliuS sería abreviado lo mismo.[81]

Cuando al comparar los nombres completos que han pasado a nosotros, podemos establecer otras cosas interesantes también.

Se acepta extensamente que Jesús es la forma griega del nombre Jeshua, respectivamente Joshua o Jehoshua – que significa literalmente ‘Jahweh ayuda’ o ‘Jahweh salva’, análogamente ‘Salvador’. Si éste es el caso, entonces Jesús puede ser visto como la traducción del griego sôtêr – ‘salvador’, ‘redentor’ – respectivamente euergetês – ‘optime meritus’, ‘benefactor’ – todos títulos de honor de César,[82] apenas como aparecen a menudo en la literatura y están documentados como inscripciones en las bases de las estatuas dedicadas a él en el Este después de Pharsalos.

Ésta es razón suficiente para tener una mirada más precisa a las inscripciones de las otras estatuas consagradas a César en Ionia. ¿Había quizás ya paralelos a los títulos de Jesús?

Esto es una típica dedicación para ser encontrada en las islas Jónicas:

    El pueblo (rinde culto) al César hijo de Gaius Iulius Gaius, Pontifex Maximus e Imperator, [para el segunda (vez) cónsul y dictador], salvador y benefactor [de todos los Griegos].[83]

Sobre el continente en Éfeso, la entonces capital de la provincia multiétnica de Asia, es incluso aclamado como ‘dios de dios’ y ‘salvador universal de la humanidad’:

    “Las ciudades en Asia y las comunidades y naciones (rinden culto) a Gaius Iulius, hijo de Gaius, César, Pontifex Maximus e Imperator, (por) segunda (vez) Cónsul, (el) dios Epiphanes (que aparece, que viene) de Ares y de Afrodite (de Marte y de Venus), el salvador común de toda la humanidad...”[84]

Estos son todos los títulos que nos son familiares con la aplicación a Jesús. Empezando por el último:

El Salvador de todos los Griegos – o incluso el Salvador de toda la humanidad – nos recuerda a nuestro Salvador, porque sôtêr es igual que servator o salvator.

El Benefactor no es mucho más diferente en el significado que nuestro Señor Misericordioso.

El dios Epiphanes, que aparece, viniendo de Ares (Marte) y de Afrodite (Venus) – este también parece familiar a nosotros: Hijo de Dios y de la Santísima Virgen, el Dios encarnado.[85]

Imperador, Cónsul, Dictador – sabemos esto de la Cristología y las litanía, estos son nuestro Todopoderoso, el Pantocrator de los Griegos.[86]

Como hemos visto, pontifex maximus en su forma greiga archiereus megistos contiene Christos como una posible contracción.[87]

Que incluso encontramos semejanzas en los nombres:

Caesar, Kaisar en griego, no es lejanamente removido de Nazara, la más antigua versión de Nazareth, especialmente en de accusativo – Kaisara.[88]

Hijo de Gaius está embarazosamente haciendo pensar en Hijo del Hombre.[89]

Y finalmente – Gaius Iulius, como archiereus megistos, es otro candidato a una abreviatura que podría conducir a Jesús: GAIuS iUliuS > IÊSUS.[90]

Resumiendo – las inscripciones de Caesar en sus más tempranas estatuas de culto en Ionia estarían, en la interpretación cristiana:

    A Jesús, Hijo del Hombre, a Nazareno, a Cristo y el Todopoderoso [ Pantokrator,]To Jesus, Son of Man, Nazarene, to Christ and the Almighty [Pantokrator,][91 Hijo de Dios y Dios encarnado, Señor Misericordioso y salvador de toda la humanidad.

Estos títulos son bien conocidos. Pero es lo más asombroso, incluso las variantes de translación de los nombres y los títulos son justo como bien sabemos.

Jesús, por ejemplo, es no solamente la abreviatura posible de Gaius Iulius, sino coincidentemente también de Divus Iulius (DIuUS iUliuS > Iêsus) y Divi Filius (DIuUS filiUS > Iêsus).[92]

Desde el principio Kaisar (César en griego) fue igualado con kyrios (Señor) debido a la semejanza en sonido.[93] No está documentado que César se llamó a sí mismo dominus, aunque él seguió sentado como un señor cuando una delegación de senadores en el templo de Venus se le acercó, mientras que la pintura cruciforme en el revés de sus monedas evoca el dominio sobre los cuatro puntos cardinales, el dominus terrarum. Se sabe que Augusto no deseó ser llamado señor, que sirve solamente para demostrar que él lo era de hecho. Esta forma de dirigirse llegó a ser normal para los últimos emperadores. Bastante interesante, Jesús también es tratado algo tanto ‘amo’ como ‘señor’, y tan solo se le da el título de ‘señor’ en los tardíos evangelios.[94] Entonces Kyrios, que aparece regularmente en los manuscritos como nomen sacrum en la forma abreviada KC habría podido hacer escabullirse como Kaisar – o Kaisar Sebastos, griego para Caesar Augustus – el cual puede ser cubierto absolutamente de la misma abreviación,[95] en tiempo y lugar donde estaba el tratamiento ‘Señor’ para el Kaisar no más lejos como estaba en tiempo de Caesar.

El nombre antiguo para dictator fue magister populi,he ancient name for dictator was magister populi,[96] lo cuál fue preservado en la forma de tratamiento: magister. Jesús se dirige apenas de esta manera: didaskale, maestro – o en la traducción, rabbi.[97] como si las palabras dictator y magister fueran tomados en su específico significado escolástico.[98] Que los dictados de Jesús son órdenes realmente es probado por el pasaje en Marcos entre otros donde la palabra didaskôn ocurre:

    “pues él los enseñó como uno que tenía autoridad.”for he taught them as one that had authority.[99]

Entonces aquí rabbi puede substituir a magister como la forma de dirección para dictator.

Esta polisemia de los nombres y de los títulos nos deja deducir que hay dobletes y cruces de fraseología,[100] pero esto explicaría exactamente la variedad de nombres, de títulos y de formas de dirigirse a Jesús.

Nuestra experiencia ya vista continúa: nos damos cuenta para nuestra sorpresa que los títulos de César en las bases de las estatuas dedicadas a él anticipan los de Cristo – en todo así como palabra por palabra. Las diferencias se pueden explicar por abreviaturas regulares – como en Gaius Iulius > Jesus o archiereus megistos > christos – o por una traducción ingenua – como en el Hijo de Gaius > Hijo del hombre o dictador > rabbi – o por simples errores en la escritura – Kaisar > Kyrios y Kaisara > Nazara.

Éstas son las aberraciones y las alteraciones típicas que ocurren en el desarrollo de una tradición, en la cual transmission orale[101] a través de varios idiomas así como las acciones escritas de redactores y de copistas se enredan uno a otro. La crítica textual ha demostrado que éste también ha sido el caso con los Evangelios.

Los errores en la escritura no son inusuales y las otras anomalías siguen estando también dentro de los límites de qué es usual en las transiciones entre los idiomas: se preserva el sonido y el deletreado, o el significado es, o una combinación de ambos. Éste es un mecanismo bien conocido que ocurre no solamente en etimologías populares y empeoramientos en el tentativo de mejorar[102] pero también en traducciones escuelas oficiales, como por ejemplo en la traducción de los términos latinos al griego, la segunda lengua oficial del imperio.[103]

Porque todavía no hemos realizado una comparación basada en el contexto, no sabemos aún si los errores o las etimologías del pueblo estaban realmente implicados. Ésta es la razón por la que nos quedamos con diversas hipótesis que están situadas una al lado la otra, que son posiblemente mutuamente exclusivas y se pueden solo ser pensadas dentro de procesos de tradición oral o escrita. Por ejemplo, si Johannes pudo haberse evolucionado del latín iuvenis o del griego (h)o neos, o de (M)agnus, Gnaeus o (h)o Gnaios.

Debe ser observado ahora que ambos fenómenos pueden conducir a un deslocalización,[104] de modo que el paisaje imaginado que acompaña la historia pueda hacer una transición de Roma a Jerusalén. Cuando oímos ‘Sanhedrin’, pensamos en Jerusalén más bien que en Roma, aunque se sabe que ‘Sanhedrin’ significa ‘senado’. Y si asociamos normalmente César a Romanos, no significa necesariamente que la escena está situada en la ciudad de Roma: todas las autoridades a lo largo del imperio en aquella época eran Romanas. ¿Es la ciudad de Roma o el mundo de Roma? ¿urbs o orbis?

No obstante es rudimentario nuestro estudio de los paralelos ha sido hasta ahora, las semejanzas observadas entre los nombres de personas y de lugares referentes César y a Jesús son tan regulares que un examen más cercano es recomendable considerar si la Vita Caesaris habría podido ser el ejemplar para los Evangelios.

En primer lugar necesitamos hacer una pregunta crucial, porque si no puede contestada del todos otras preguntas se hacen superflua:

¿Dónde está la cruz en la historia de César?

__________

Notas de II. Vitae Parallelae

[45] App. BC 2.146 : [...] en qaumati autwn ekasta poioumenoV. [<]

[46] Dio Cass. HR 44.44.4. App. BC 2.150.625: Kaisari de h te IonioV qalassa eixe, ceimwnoV mesou plwth kai eudioV genomenh [...]. Dio Cass. HR 41.46.3: exefhnen eauton kaqaper ek toutou kai ton ceimwna pauswn. [<]

[47] Plut. Caes. 5: kai qaumasaV wsper ex Aidou dia cronwn pollwn anagonta taV Mariou timaV eiV thn polin. [<]

[48] Apparently it is willingly repressed that Caesar was pontifex maximus from the beginning of his career, and that he was honored during his lifetime with cultic practices and after his death as a God. Here is just one example representative of many others: in his preface to Rasmussen (1967) the editor lists: ‘Caesar was a politician and statesman, conqueror, discoverer and general at the same time—and not least an orator and writer of rank [...]’. The pontifex maximus, son of Venus and God of the Empire is not mentioned—it is left to specialist studies (cf. inter alia: Wlosok (1978), Price (1984), Clauss (1999) or Cancik / Hitzl (Ed.) (2003)). [<]

[49] Mt. 10:34-36. Cf. Martial (Poet of the first century ad), Epigrams, ix, 72-73:
cum gener atque socer diris concurreret armis
maestaque civili caede maderet humus.
A common school translation recites:
‘When Caesar and Pompey each attacked the other
And son killed father and brother his brother.’
http://www.lingua.co.uk/latin1/tour/authors/martial/
It is not a literal translation, having lost the ‘dire arms’ and the ‘mournful earth becoming wet from the civil massacre’, but it makes clear that the gener and the socer, the ‘son in law’ and the ‘father in law’, were Pompeius and Caesar fighting one another in a civil, and yes, a domestic war.
If we compare the text of Martial with Mt. 10:34-36 in Latin (Vulgate)—
Nolite arbitrari quia pacem veneri mittere in terram: non veni pacem mittere sed gladium. veni enim separare hominem adversus patrem suum, et filiam adversus matrem suam, et nurum adversus socrum suam: et inimici hominis, domestici eius.
—-we see that gener and socer, ‘son in law’ and ‘father in law’, have become nurus and socer, ‘daughter in law’ and ‘mother in law’. The reason lies in the fact that Matthew is citing Micah 7:6:
‘For the son dishonoureth the father, the daughter riseth up against her mother, the daughter in law against her mother in law; a man’s enemies are the men of his own house.’
But in Micah there is no reference to a ‘sword’ or other ‘arms’, although to ‘blood’ in Mch 7:2. So Martial’s verses are closer to Matthew’s passage than Micah’s. It is conspicuous that a text like this from Martial was present here, before Matthew himself or later copyists substituted it with the inevitable midrash, in this case a citation of Micah. [<]

[50] Letter of Caesar to Oppius and Cornelius, in: Cic. ad Att. 9.7 c : Haec nova sit ratio vincendi, ut misericordia et liberalitate nos muniamus. Stauffer (1957), p. 20 , translates: ‘Das muß die neue Siegestaktik und Sicherheitspolitik sein, daß wir Vergebung üben und eine freie und festliche Welt schaffen—This must be the new tactics of victory and security politics that we grant forgiveness and create a free and festive world’. Cf. Suet. Jul. 75. [<]

[51] This is attested of him by the Church Fathers also—cf. Orosius Hist. 6.17.1 , who says that Julius Caesar perished in the attempt to construct the political world anew, contrary to the example of his predecessors, in the spirit of clemency: Caesar Roman rediit: ubi dum Reipublicae statum contra exempla maiorum clementer instaurat, auctoribus Bruto et Cassio, conscio etiam plurimo senatu, in curia viginti et tribus vulneribus confossus interiit.’ [<]

[52] Dio Cass. HR 44.46.5-6 : pantaV osoi mh kai proteron pote alonteV up¢ autou hlehnto afeiV. to men gar touV pollakiV epibouleuontaV oi aei peripoieisqai mwrian, ou filanqrwpian enomize[...]. [<]

[53] Mk. 3:29 : oV d¢ an blasfhmhsh eiV to pneuma to agion, ouk ecei afesin eiV ton aiwna, alla enocoV estin aiwniou amarthmatoV[...]. [<]

[54] Dio Cass. HR 44.4.5 ; Gel. 5.6.11. [<]

[55] Detail of the passion-sarcophagus in: Hinz (1973-81), I Fig. 74 . Cf. note 157, ill. 116, second scene from left. [<]

[56] Today Greece is still called Ionia by the Turks and the Arabs, and the Greeks are still Ionians. But also in the West the term is more comprehensive than one thinks. So the Ionian islands are less likely to be the eastern ones in front of the Ionian coast-line of Asia minor like Chios and Samos, but rather the western islands in the Ionian sea, the islands in closer proximity to Italy like Corfu, Cephalonia etc. [<]

[57] Mk. 1:22 : hn gar didaskwn autouV wV exousian ecwn. [<]

[58] Mk. 1:24 : Ti hmin kai soi, Ihsou Nazarhne; hlqeV apolesai hmaV; [<]

[59] In Rome the woman receives the name of her father’s gens, but sometimes even scholars make the mistake of naming her after her husband—so Caesar’s wife Pompeia is called ‘Iulia’ by Appianus (BC 2.14). The differing accent, Mária and María results from the different rules of the Latin and Greek accentuation. Gr. Mários/María like Ky´rios/Kyría. [<]

[60] Jn. 11:5. [<]

[61] For the metathesis of the liquids in the Aramaic cf. Stanislav Segert (41990), 3.7.2.5. Like Greek Herakles > Latin Hercules; German Riegel > Czech lígr. The variations in the vocals are insignificant, even more so to ears that are familiar with Semitic languages. In the Aramaic—as in the other Semitic languages—only the consonants are semantically relevant. A similar phenomenon exists in the Indo-European languages only as a residuum, for example in English: begin, began, begun. If we were to also only pen the consonants, the relationship of the three words would be more striking. Common denominator: bgn. [<]

[62] For eventual doublets that can be generated from different names, among them especially ‘Lepidus’ see note 100. [<]

[63] Concerning short forms with -aV cf. Chantraine (1933), p. 31 sq. [<]

[64] Mk. 14:43 : IoudaV eiV twn dwdeka. [<]

[65] Cf. the respective meaning of the Italian derivatives: ladro —‘thief, rogue’—and lazzarone —‘scoundrel, villain, lout’. [<]

[66] O neoV Kaisar respectively Kaisar o neoV—so Octavianus Augustus is often called to distinguish him from the older (Nicolaus Damascenus Vit. Caes. 14 : presbuvtero") or great Caesar (Nic. Dam. Vit. Caes. 107: megavlo"). Cf. i. a.: Nic. Dam. Vit. Caes. 14, 16, 17, 32, 36, 37, 51, 107; Plut. Brut. 27.1 , Cic. 43.6, 44.1 and Plut. Ant. 16.1 ; App. BC 3.21, 32 and 33 . If there was no pressing danger of confusion the ancient historians simply called him CaesarKaisar.
N.B.: We transcribe here—and from now on—the Greek article ‘o not with ‘ho’ but with ‘(h)o’ or even ‘o’,—as well as the other words beginning with spiritus asper—because in the late Hellenistic time we are concerned with, the ‘h’ was not pronounced and was no longer written: the diacritical signs, the accents, the esprits etc. were introduced at a later time. The classical transcription here would give the wrong impression and lead us astray. [<]

[67] Iuuenis > o neoV > Iwan(n)hV. There are many examples in the Romance languages of the incorporation of the article into the name—witness the French Lorient (< l’Orient), Lancelot (< l’Ancelot < Anselo < Anguselus), the Italian Labbadia (<l’Abbadia), etc.
The acoustic transition to Johannes (John) also occurs when the Greek o neoV is omitted and the Latin iuuenis is supposed as the starting point. The presence of a ‘v’ in the Italian form of both words giovane and Giovanni (and its absence in the popular Gianni) would speak for the direct derivation of the name Iwavn(n)h" from the Latin iuuenis. A modern example for young > John is the football (resp. soccer) player Elber—who was called il giovane Elber in Italy ‘the young Elber’ when he came from Brazil at a young age—and was later called Giovane in Germany as well—but with the accent of Giovànni: Giovàne, instead of gióvane. [<]

[68] Because of the weak and aspirant pronunciation of the Greek ‘g’—and because of the appearance of the writing. [<]

[69] Model: curia < co-uiria, meeting of men. [<]

[70] Nicolaus Damascenus (i. a. Vit. Caes. xxiii 82) regularly calls the Roman Senate sunevdrion. The distinction between synedrion, ‘(Greek) council’ and synedrium, ‘Jewish council’, which is often made in German, is arbitrary. In English the perspicuity of the relation between senate and synedrion is lost, because the last is rather called sanhedrin, using a pseudo-Hebraic word, in fact a late hebraization of an authentic Greek word, composed of syn, ‘together’ and (h)edra, ‘seat, sitting, session’. The Greek word synedrion indicates simply a council, i. e. in Rome the senate. [<]

[71] Aramaic migdol, ‘tower’ respectively ‘castle’. Hence the frequency of places with this addition. [<]

[72] It is striking that all women who are related to Jesus or who are close to him are called Maria. [<]

[73] Plut. Ant. 74: auth de qhkaV ecousa kai mnhmata kateskeuasmena perittwV eiV te kalloV kai uyoV. [<]

[74] Mk. 1:16 : eiden Simwna. [<]

[75] Cf. the reputed relic of the titulus crucis, the sign on Jesus’ cross, with a text written from right to left, Greek and Latin: BSUNERAZA(H)N.SI / RSVNIRAZAN.I—for IS.N(H)AZARENUSB / I.NAZARINVSR, here obviously in imitation of the Jewish way of writing; the Greek line is a mere Greek transcription of the Latin line rather than a translation, in contrast to all the Greek citations of the Gospels, so that this titulus crucis can hardly be considered authentic, even if some devout scholars persist in doing so. Anyway, if authentic, it documents the possibility of writing Greek and even Latin in reversed script in a Jewish context. If not authentic, it documents the inveterate tendency to write Greek and even Latin in reversed script, in order to appear authentic. In fact, in archaic times the Greeks—like the Egyptians and Etruscans—did not always write from the left to the right, but also from right to left. Sometimes they wrote one line to the right and the next line to the left: boustrophedon, which means: as oxen reverse during ploughing (cf. the inscription of the Cretan city of Gortyn about its municipal right). It is also assumed that the Septuagint was transcribed in Greek letters first and was then translated with occasional perceptual errors, amongst them the ones due to the misreading of the direction in which various words were to be read (cf. Wutz (1925) . Apart from the Septuagint, transcriptions of Hebrew texts are contained in the writings of Flavius Josephus, Origenes, Eusebius, Epiphanes, Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion. For the heterographical use of the Aramaic in the Persian cf. Segert (41990), 1.7.6. So it is conceivable that a copyist has taken the name Antonius to be a reversed, heterographically inserted Simona and that he has ‘corrected’ the supposed mistake. [<]

[76] The metathesis, the reordering of sounds, often occurs in transitions between languages, sometimes combined with a wrong etymology. So for example, wasp— (from the Latin vespa) was in Old English wæps, as if it had come from wefan —‘to weave’—although in this case the etymology could, as an exception, be correct. [<]

[77] N.B.: This expression—eiV thn polin, pronunciation: Is tem bolin—became Istambul, the proper Turkish name for the city of Constantinople. This is similar to the Arab medina, which signifies ‘city’ generally but ‘The city’ as well. [<]

[78] LXX and Philo write Salhm, Flavius Josephus Ant. J. 1.180 writes Soluma. [<]

[79] Paul in Heb. 7:1 sq calls Melchisedek basileuV Salhm by following Gn. 14:18 and explains it as ‘king of peace’. Philo leg. all. 3.79 : Melcisedek basilea thV eirhnhVSalhm touto gar ermhneuetai. [<]

[80] Similar to the German Regensburg, which sounds like ‘Castle of Rain’, derived from Latin Castra Regina, which can be erroneously understood as ‘Queen’s castle’: castra > Burg, ‘castle’ (straight translation); regina > Regen, ‘rain’ (translation by sound—thus changing the meaning). In fact Regen, Lat. Regina, is neither the rain nor a queen, but the name of the river flowing there. [<]

[81] Older manuscripts—i. a. P. Bodmer II (= P 66)—write IC, only more recent ones like the Bezae Cantabrigiensis (= D) write—IHC. [<]

[82] Cf. i. a. App. BC 2.106 : schmata te epegrafeto taiV eikosi poikila, kai stefanoV ek druoV hn ep¢ eniaiV wV swthri thV patridoV, w palai touV uperaspisantaV egerairon oi periswqenteV. [<]

[83] Cf. Raubitschek (1954) , p. 69 , (B), (C), (F), (G), (J), (K), (M), (N), (O): the many similar inscriptions have the following common denominator:
O DHMOS GAION IOULION GAIOU UION KAISARA TON ARCIEREA KAI AUTOKRATORA
[ UPATON KAI DIKTATORA TO DEUTERON] SWTHRA KAI EUERGETHN [ TWN ELLHNWN APANTWN ] . In square brackets we have the titles that were omitted or were formulated in another manner in one or the other inscription. The accusative indicates that these are not only dedications but in fact are consecrations. [<]

[84] Die Inschriften von Ephesos (The inscriptions of Ephesos), part II, 1979 , Nº 251 : AI POLEIS AI EN THI ASIAI KAI OI DHMOI KAI TA EQNH GAION IOULION GAIOU UION KAISARA TON ARCIEREA KAI AUTOKRATORA KAI TO DEUTERON UPATON TON APO AREWS KAI AFRODEITHS QEON EPIFANH KAI KOINON TOU ANQRWPINOU BIOU SWTHRA. [<]

[85] Like Jesus, Caesar was also «Son of God». Because the Julii were generally considered to be descendants of Venus via Julus and Aeneas and especially he, the favorite son, who had consecrated his victories to her: Venere prognatus. Cf. Cic. Ep. ad fam. 8.15.2.14; c. vii Id. Mart. 49. Linguistically there is to note, that ‘Son of God’ in Greek can also mean ‘Son of the Goddess’, because qeoV is a commune and also means Goddess, e. g.: h DioV qeoV, h ZhnoV qeoV, verbatim ‘she the Zeus’ God’, i. e. the daughter of Zeus; cf. also Dio Cass. HR 41.61.4: en tw thV NikhV naw [...] kai thn qeon authn [...]. Hence uioV qeou (Mk 15:39; Lk 1:35) and thus also uioV tou qeou(passim)—can also mean ‘Son of the Goddess’. So Dio Cassius says of Caesar, analogous to the inscription from Ephesos, that he is ek thV AfrodithV (HR 44.37.4), descended ‘from Aphrodite’, while the parallel place in Appianus (BC 146) speaks of qeou genesewV ‘his origin from God’ (not ‘from the Goddess’, although ‘from Venus’ is meant here). The ‘from Ares’ in the inscription from Ephesos—instead of the expected ‘from Anchises’—originates from the marriage of Mars and Venus, a notion familiar to the Greeks, because it had come to the Romans from them (cf. Wissowa (21912) p. 292). Here ‘from Ares’ alludes politically to Caesar as the new Romulus, who was the son of Mars (cf. also the temple of Mars Ultor which was later consecrated to Caesar by his adoptive son Octavianus; the same Augustus was to name his nephew and adoptive son Caius Caesar ArhoV uioV). Possibly it also alludes to the fact that Caesars’ father descended on the mothers’ side from the Marcii Reges, who stemmed from Ancus Marcius (cf. Suet. Jul. 6.1), with (etymologically correct) derivation of Marcius from Mars. Caesar had sacrificed to both deities, Mars and his ancestral mother Venus, at midnight before the battle at Pharsalos: App. BC 2.68.281: quomenoV te nuktoV meshV ton Arh katekalei kai thn eautou progonon Afrodithn [...].
Jesus Son of God
can thence stand for Caius Iulius Venere prognatus. But since (uioV thV) AFRODITHS is very close to (uioV tou) ANQRWPOU in tone and appearance of writing, hypothetical mix-ups between ‘Son of Man’ and ‘Son of God’ cannot be completely ruled out.
Theós
can stand for divus. The fact that theós can only relatively rarely be found on the pedestals of Ionian statues, even more seldom on the earlier ones (on which instead archiereus or archiereus megistos, i. e. pontifex maximus, is written), is explained thus: that those with theós probably came later, in the time after Munda, when the title divus was bestowed upon Caesar. Cf. Raubitschek (1954). [<]

[86] In our consecration-inscriptions the Latin title imperator is rendered as autokratôr. Jesus is called pantokrator, the almighty, which sounds like a blend of imperator with autokratôr or of hypatos (consul) with autokratôr. But also the apantôn of tôn hellênôn apantôn could be heard as panto-. In the Gospel it is said that Jesus had exousia —authority, full power. The classical Latin translation of exousia is potestas respectively imperium (cf. Magie 1905, p. 11, 68 and 121). So exousia respectively pantokrator could represent a collective term for the different political titles of Caesar that were sometimes mentioned together or sometimes alternately: autokratôr, hypatos, diktator—imperator, consul, dictator. [<]

[87] The nomen sacrum, the abbreviation for XPICTOC, XP, is an anomaly because in most abbreviations, the first and the last letter are the ones preserved—QEOC > QC, IHCOYC > IC etc. Thus the normal abbreviation is XC. So it would be conceivable that the abbreviation XP may have replaced the abbreviation for KAICAP, KP, through a writing error: K > X. [<]

[88] Jesus Nazarene is the name and sometimes the address of Jesus. The possessed man of Capernaum in Mark addresses him that way. Nazarênos—NazarhnoV—is generally understood as ‘of Nazareth’. Outside of Mark, sometimes NazwraioV is found instead, but this variation is also interpreted as an adjective to Nazareq—explicitly so in Matthew 2:23. The Septuagint has NazhraioV. The annotation by Bauer (61988), Sp. 1077, that ‘the linguistic bridge from Nazaret to NazwraioV is difficult to construct, and one has to assume that NazwraioV had another meaning before it was connected to Nazaret’, something that cannot be emphasized too much. For Nazareth there is also the variation Nazara which could be older (cf. Lk. 4:16: Kai hlqen eiV Nazara). If we compare in Greek the roots of Nazarênos and Nazareth with CaesarNAZAR > KAISAR—then the difference appears to be minimal (the differing letters—the inital N and K —both consist of three lines: only the beginning and the direction of the last line differ a bit; S and Z can be confused; I dissipates easily and it could be held for the commonly appearing dash of the Z : Z- . Whereas Nazara is close to Kaisara (the Greek accusative of Caesar) and also Nazareth is close to Kaisareia (Greek Caesarea: the name of several cities), so Nazarênos looks like Kaisarianos: Jesus Nazarene could stand for Gaius Iulius Caesar. [<]

[89] Caius Iulius Caesar was ‘son of Caius’, pronunciation ‘Gaius’. Understood as having the meaning of ‘son of Gaia’, ‘son of Mother Earth’, the name Gaius stood for the concept of ‘man, human’ par excellence to the farmers which the Romans were (cf. the vow of marriage of the Roman woman: Vbi tu Gaius et ego Gaia —‘Where you (will be) man of earth, likewise I (will be), woman of earth’). This is especially the case for Greek ears (In Greek Caius is written Gaios, like Gaia, gê, the earth. Cf. gh, ga or gaia —gê, gâ or gaî—for ‘earth’ and in English ‘geography’; gaihioVgaiêios—‘born of the earth, coming from the earth’, poetical since Odyssey 7.24; also ghgenhV gêgenês—‘born of the earth, son of earth, native, autochthon’), and—translated—also for Aramaic ears (‘Adam’, name of the first man and ‘man’ in general, is derived from adamâ, ‘earth, arable land’. According to Gn. 2:7: ‘And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground [...]’—a play on words; Gn. 5:2: ‘Male and female (men) created he them [...] and called their name Adam (man)’—both times ‘Adam’. For Christ as ‘the new Adam’ cf. Rom. 5:14; 1 Cor. 15:45). So Jesus Son of Man can stand for Caius Iulius Cai filius. However, since both parts of the name (i. e. Caius Iulius and Cai filius), as demonstrated in the inscriptions, can be easily confused in the Greek—especially when written without a space between the words, as was usual at that time: GAIONIOULION GAIOUUION, gaionioulion gaiouuion— many a son of man can also stand for Caius Iulius. (The frequent occurrence of son of man82 times in the four Gospels—as well as its use: never as an address, would attest to this.) [<]

[90] Gaius Iulius as a proper name cannot endure: it is too long. Proper names shrink in usage to a maximum length of two syllables. Johannes becomes Jannis, Jean, Sean, Ian or John, etc. and if officialdom tries to preserve the full form it shrinks just as much in practise—so the German Johannes to Hans for example, or the Italian Giovanni becomes Gianni; of course Johannes can be abbreviated according to the modern trend to Jo but it has to become shorter. The same thing happens to other names with three or more syllables: Margarita becomes Margit or Rita, Joseph can remain (it only has two syllables, but there is in German the option of Sepp), but Giuseppe (three syllables) becomes Beppe, Francesco becomes Franco, Checco, Paco or Franz etc. (but François can remain): always the maximum of two syllables.
The same tendency toward one or two syllables can be observed in the names of towns: Colonia becomes Köln, Confluentes Koblenz, Mogontiacum Mainz, Forum Livii becomes Forlì etc. Gaius Iulius has four syllables. The abbreviations, only Gaius or only Iulius, rule themselves out because they would lead to confusions. The name has to contract itself. As a comparison Forum Iulii, which became Fréjus, could help us to understand the process (apparently the vulgar tongue started from the undeclined basic form F orum Iulius: Forum Iulius > Fre-jus). This shows that the second link of our combination Iulius becomes -ius (-jus). The unaccented middle syllable then fades (cf. i. a. Pope (1934): vigilare > veiller; regina > reine; nigrum > noir; legere > lire, etc.). So Gaius Iulius will have as an intermediate stage Gais-jus. The initial soft ‘g’ becomes ‘j’, whereas the spirant ‘s’ absorbs the semivowel ‘j’ of the second link; then the accented vowel in the first link closes itself to ‘e’ (especially in the case of the Greek Gaios, because it is understood as a dialectal version of gêios —pronunciation ‘ghêios’—Dorean gavio" / Attean ghvio"): Iêsus, Greek IHCOYC.
Gaius Iulius > Gais-jus > Iêsus >
IhsouV.
Gaius Julius
and Jesus can be one and the same name, the one in its elaborate form and the other in the everyday one. [<]

[91] The titles in the square brackets correspond in the Christology, besides basileus and kyrios, to others that are typical for Caesar— victor, triumphator, imperator, even Caesar —or for Augustus— dux, custos, princeps and Augustus. Cf. Cancik (1975), p. 118. That dictator is missing in Christology may be based on the fact that the title was prohibited after Caesar’s murder. Hence Octavianus took the title princeps. [<]

[92] At the time when the Gospels originated, which means a century or so after Caesar’s death, there were so many Caesars and Julii that it became common to call Caius Iulius Caesar rather Divus Iulius, ‘the divine Julius’ (cf. the titles of Suetonius’ emperor-biographies). Because Divus Iulius was his cult-name it would be conceivable that we should assume Diuus Iulius as the starting point for the short name Jesus instead of Gaius Iulius.
Remarkably—in this case also, the short form would be Jesus. The development of the second element would be at first the same: Iulius > -ius (-jus). What can become of Diuus is illustrated to us by the development of diu pater (from an original dieu pater) which became Ju-piter: the ‘d’ before ‘iu’ was eliminated. That this rule was valid also later can be seen in the evolution of diurnus which led to the French jour and to the Italian giorno. So Diuus at first becomes Iuus. The intermediate stage would be Iuus-jus. Then the spirant ‘s’ would absorb the semivowel ‘j’: Iuusus. Finally the accented syllable would lead to a narrowing of the vowel as before— Iêsus.
Diuus Iulius
> Iuus-jus > Iuusus > Iêsus > IhsouV.
Moreover, we have to notice here that also Caesar’s adoptive son Octavianus became Caius Iulius Caesar Cai filius by his adoption—and hence he had practically the same name as the father (the cause was the condicio nominis ferendi: in order to claim the inheritance C. Octavius Thurinus had taken the name of his adoptive father and he was called Gaius Iulius Caesar Cai filius Octavianus from then on. The equality of names proved itself to be a political trump. His opponents like Antonius denigrated him as Octavianus, sometimes Thurinus as well. Today he is called mostly by his later title of honor: Augustus. Cf. Cancik (1975), p. 118). When his adoptive father shortly after was consecrated, the adoptive son was from then on called Caius Iulius Caesar Divi filius —‘son of God’. But because Caesar was also son of God as descendant of Venus there was practically no possibility of distinguishing them.
Coincidentally we also arrive at the short name Jesus when we use Divi Filius as the starting point (instead of Caius Iulius or Divus Iulius). We would namely have to assume Diuus Filius as the undeclined basic form (see the above example ‘Fréjus’). Diuus becomes Iuus, as we have seen before, Filius to fius (disappearance of the unaccentuated syllable). Then the dental fricative ‘s’ would absorb the labiodental fricative ‘f’: Iuusus. And from here on again Iêsus.
Diuus Filius
> Iuus-fius > Iuusius > Iêsus > IhsouV.
All Roman roads lead inevitably to Jesus.
We have to reckon with the possibility that Caesar and Octavianus Augustus have competed to generate the name Jesus. Or—expressed differently—we have to be prepared for at least two Jesus-figures. [<]

[93] This is documented for koíranos, which is close to kyrios in both meaning and sound. Cf. the play on words of Areios ouk agaqon polukaisarih—‘More than one Caesar is not a good thing’ (Plut. Ant. 81)—a paraphrase of Odysseus’ ouk agaqon polukoiranih—‘More than one master is not a good thing’ (Iliad 2.204)—which enticed Augustus to murder Caesarion, the real son of Caesar and Cleopatra. [<]

[94] Mark and Matthew speak in only one passage of Jesus as ‘the Lord’, O kurioV: Mk. 11:3 = Mt. 21:3. In addition, Mark uses this term only once as a form of address (7:28). Matthew has it several times. Only Luke uses it more often. At the time of Matthew and Luke (between 70 and 100 ad) the term dominus = kyrios as a designation of and an address to the emperor had established itself, following Oriental custom. [<]

[95] The Greek KAISAR SEBASTOS respectively KAICAP CEBACTOC for the Latin CAESAR AVGVSTVS is the common name of the later emperors, which was abbreviated in different ways in inscriptions and on coins and finally with the simple K.Ç. (cf. von Aulok (1957-68), nr. 19, coin of Traianus from Amasia in the Pontus). While on the Latin emperors’ coins the title pontifex maximus was regularly written, mostly abbreviated p. m. , on the Greek ones the correspondent archiereus megistos is found extremely seldom (if we do not err lastly on a coin of Caligula-Augustus from Crete with the obverse inscription GAIOS KAISAR SEB. GERM. ARC. MEG. DHM. EXOU UPA). This is probably connected with the fact that except for Augustus who could only become pontifex maximus i. e. archiereus megistos after the death of Lepidus in 12 bc , all other emperors normally took on the title as a rule at their enthronement already, so that at least in the Greek-speaking East archiereus megistos was an understood attribute of Kaisar Sebastos. This would mean that the title archiereus megistos had become ownerless in the East—and could be usurped. [<]

[96] Accordingly the magister equitum, the Grand Master of the Horse, was his proxy. [<]

[97] Cf. Jn. 1:38: ‘Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master)’. Rabbi, o legetai meqermhneuomenon Didaskale. It could also be translated: ‘Rabbi—that is master, translated’, then ‘Rabbi’ would be the translation of ‘Master’. [<]

[98] Cf. in English ‘dictation’, ‘to dictate’, see also the German ‘Dichter’ (poet, writer), as well as the address ‘Master’. Rabbi too is originally an address—‘(my) Lord’—which later took on the meaning of (law)teacher. [<]

[99] Mk. 1:22 : hn gar didaskwn autouV wV exousian ecwn [...]. [<]

[100] We have seen that if sound and meaning fall apart, for the one name Caesar, two can emerge in the Gospel: so Iesus as a possible translation of servator or as a result of the wearing off of Gaius Iulius respectively Divus Iulius or Divi Filius. Thus two persons in the Caesar story can stand for one in the Gospel—or vice versa. For example:
Lepidus > Pilatus
(preservation of the sound)
Praetor Lepidus > Petrus
(the sense of Lepidus, misunderstood as lapis, lapidis, ‘stone’; the sound from praetor)
Or vice-versa:
praetor (Lepidus) > Petrus
praetor (Antonius) > Petrus
praetor (Brutus) > Petrus
 [<]

[101] Concerning the oral transmission of information, there is the well known experiment: a picture is shown to the first student, who has to describe it to the next one and so on. It is then possible to follow the transformation of the story. If the picture was of a woman in black who undresses in front of a man in white, the result can be that a white man has raped a black woman: Thus a medical examination by a doctor turns into a rape. Provided, of course, that there are racial problems in the area. The story is totally different at the end but the requisites are the same: woman/black/naked, man/white/power.
In such experiments that examine the spreading of rumors (or of information heard through the grapevine), at first a simplification of the original story is observed, which tends toward the threefold unity of time, place and action like in the old theater. Only later does embellishment take place, the function of which, however, is to explain rationally and credibly that which has become incomprehensible. Therefore requisites, changed by folk etymology, may generate others that fit into the new picture and support the requisites in their new function. In the example mentioned above the discarded garment could be torn suddenly, or a bed or a knife may appear. But above all a great deal can be argued round and round: the interpretation gets the upper hand. Sub-themes will also arise which seek to correct contradictions caused in the main story, etc.
It is virtually impossible to trace a narration found at the delta of an oral river back to its source. But if we have both, the mouth and the (supposed) source, it is easy to determine, by the comparison of the requisites, if one is the source of the other or not. So if ‘grapevine’ effects did become incorporated in the Gospels, then, in the process of verification of our hypothesis, we first have to pay attention only to the requisites and set the story they are embedded in aside for the moment. In this way a possible filiation may be detected. [<]

[102] For an example of a transition through three languages cf. i. a., the medicinal herb Erythraea which the Greeks named after the centaur Chiron Kentaurion, Latin centaurium (cf. Plinius, Nat. hist. 25.66): misunderstood as centum aurum (‘hundred gold pieces’), in German/Dutch it went beyond the Hundertgulden, ‘hundred guilders’, to the Tausendgüldenkraut, ‘thousand guilders herb’. Sometimes transitions are not provable. The Hindi word for ape— markata —is found again in meerkat: a small long-tailed monkey very fond of climbing (e. g. a southern African mongoose, especially the suricate). A Portuguese mediation, marcata, misinterpreted as mar cata, ‘see cat’, seems to be obvious but it is not substantiated (Cf. Kluge 211975, s. v. Meerkatze).
It is particularly in the names of flora and fauna that the folk language is mistaken in determining the origin, inferring the wrong mediator from the sound and then proceeding to a fantastic origin: the Zizyphus iuiuba, with its characteristic fruits, the ‘red or Chinese dates’ is called, according to the botanical name, ‘common Jujube’ in German, but the thorny shrub or tree of the Jujube, became Judendorn, ‘thorn of the Jews’ in the vernacular. A similar thing happened to the Helianthus tuberosus, a root tasting like artichoke which was named after the sunflower girasole, ‘turning with the sun’, by the Italo-Americans, and became Jerusalem artichoke in the USA, albeit not an artichoke and not from Jerusalem (communication by Erika Simon).
The role played by a third term as an attraction pole in the mechanism of folk etymology is illustrated by the German radikal, ‘radical’ > ratzekahl, ‘absolutely bare’, influenced by tabula rasa; idem with the French forcené < f or-senné, ‘out of mind’, with the influence of energumène. For the incorporation of the article cf. the assistant of Commissaire Moulin in the French TV-criminal series: Katzmann, ‘cat-man’, called Shalom (< chat l’homme). For the incorporation of other particles cf. the German nickname Owi for the smiling Jesus-child in the crib, from the Christmas-song: Stille Nacht ... Gottes Sohn oh wie lacht / Liebe aus deinem göttlichen Mund / da uns schlägt die rettende Stund, / Christ in deiner Geburt...—Gottes Sohn oh wie lacht, ‘Son of God, O how love laughs from out Thy godly mouth...’ > Gottes Sohn, Owi, lacht, ‘God’s Son, Owi, laughs’...: oh wie, ‘oh, how’, was bound together to Owi, and taken for the proper name of the Jesus-child.
It is not unusual that animals pop up in folk etymology providing an outlet for the people’s respective love or hatred of them.
Elephants never roamed around the London Elephant and Castle and one would seek the castle in vain. The name is the legacy of a visit by a Spanish princess, when the common people had to shout out in her language : ‘A l’infante de Castilla!’.
The Mäuseturm, ‘mice-tower’, near Bingen on the river Rhine owes its name not to any mice but to the Maut, ‘toll’, that was exacted there: when the memory of the ancient Maut was long gone, popular idiom turned the Maut-tower into a Mice-tower (German Maus/Mäuse = mouse/mice).
Buffalo
are not to be found in the American city called Buffalo, nor any bison, but there is a beautiful river, christened beau fleuve by the French, which naturally sounded like Buffalo to the ears of the Englishman.
People insist on calling police by animal names in all languages: in Germany they are called Bullen (bulls), in French poulets (chickens), in England pigs, in Italy poia and puia (buzzard). Different animals, as we see, but they have one thing in common: they always are the animal whose name in the respective languages corresponds most closely to the respective language’s word for police (polizia, Polizei, etc). It does not matter which animal, the main thing is that it is one. And how far removed phonetically the animal’s name is from the respective word for policeman/police is determined by chance: in the word Bullen the hissing end-sound is missing, in the words pigs and puia the ‘l’, etc. The main thing being that they are approximately called by their name!
We must not forget that this is not about the development of language in the sense of Indo-European linguistics with its regular sound shifts, but about folk etymologies, folk ‘etymolocheats’ one could say. This is particularly the case with folk etymologies arising from feelings of awe—the so-called occultatives. We can observe how far removed this can be from the laws of sound shift. This happens if e. g. a Bavarian while cursing conceals his Sakrament! (sacrament) behind a Sack Zement! (sack of cement), or also when a Venetian covers his ostia! (the sacred Host) with ostrega! (the humble oyster). We see how sometimes sounds disappear or how they can originate out of necessity, as in this case the ‘r’, ‘z’ and ‘g’. The main thing is they are hidden, right under our noses!
Folk etymologies can also lead to symbolic reinterpretations. The sausage, e. g., stands for anal or sexual associations in almost all languages, depending on its form and size from hot dog to Negersäckel, ‘black man’s pouch’, the term for blood-sausage in German rural areas. Almost everywhere—but not in Northern Italy. There, sausage is used as a synonym for stupidity: a salame, ‘salami’, is an idiot. The reason is that a big salami is called a salamon, which sounds like Solomon —the epitome of the wise man. So it is said of anyone who was behind the door when the brains were handed out that he is no ‘Solomon’, but rather a ‘salamon’—a big salami. So salami became a synonym for stupidity—contrary to its namesake. Anyhow the new association also helped to expose some sacerdotal pseudo-wisdom, wrapped in biblical Latin, as brainwashing of the people: an enlightening side effect!
Could this have occurred with us in the same way as in the former times of the Church, when the priest scarcely knew any Latin and the people none, leading to inevitable slips of the pen and the tongue, funny misunderstandings and roguish corruptions: Hoc est corpus > hocus-pocus. In nomine pax > kannst wechsle, Max? —‘can you change, Max?’: originally a play on words between nomen, ‘name’, and nummus, ‘coin’). Or also on the base of a different language : Salam aleikum > ich zahl, wenn ich vorbei kum. —‘I’ll pay when I come by’.
Is the Gospel the missal of the poor in spirit?
Folk etymologies always occur when vernacular is involved. When, however, scholars cause it one speaks of Verballhornungen (erudite corruptions/bastardizations/transmogrifications). The result is often still more exciting. He who gave his name to this process—of making things worse rather than better by changing the sense whilst intending to correct what was supposedly wrong—was no layman but a scholar, a printer from Lübeck, Germany: Joh. Balhorn the younger. In 1586 he edited the ‘Lübische Recht’, the law of the city of Lübeck, ‘Auffs Newe vbersehen, Corrigiret’. The printer was blamed for the fateful erroneous improvements of the editors. Actually ‘one should write ‘Verbalhornung’ (ver-Balhorn-ung) with only one ‘l’, but this would present the danger of it being read as ‘Verbal-hornung’—and this would be another Verballhornung. For this reason ‘Verballhornung’ is written with two ‘l’’s: is this not itself one: ‘Ver-ball-hornung’?
As a matter of fact there are only a few genuine folk etymologies: most of them are scholarly corruptions, that are decreed to be folk etymologies once they are detected in order to preserve them like forcené and Tausendgüldenkraut.
And there are things that the scholars do not want to admit because of ideological reasons. So the Indo-European philologists with their tribal idea of languages according to the maxim that ‘the inheritance goes through the bood’, only accept words of consanguinity, and conversely all noble words have to be of consanguinity. So meerkat (literally ‘sea-cat’) is not permitted to originate from the Indian markata, and Arbeit, ‘work’, has to be a German word because of the deutsche Wertarbeit, ‘German quality work’. So it is fabulated that the word Arbeit originated from an Indo-Germanic root *orbho-, which means ‘orphaned’ and then became the Germanic *arbhêjô, ‘am an orphaned (and hence obliged to heavy work) child’. There’s a rub in this explanation: Arbeit, ‘work’, never meant ‘child or servant labor’, but from the beginning the meaning was ‘utilizing nature, agriculture’ or even ‘hardship’ (Cf. Kluge 211975 , s.v. Arbeit). Further, the word Arbeit comes from the south—in the north we already have Werk, work, etc. And in the south there is a word that means ‘utilizing nature, farming’ and ‘trouble’ as well, which is the medieval Latin laborat(um). Since the initial ‘l’ sound is often lost in words because it is taken to be the definite article (cf. German Oleander < lorandum or Venetian osmarin < l’osmarin < rosmarin), we may assume an aborat as the intermediate stage which could become, by metathesis of the liquid, arabot as the possible basic form for the origin of the Slavic rabota (by the loss of the ‘a’ which was taken to be a Greek article) and the Old High German arabeit. But this is not even allowed to be considered: where would we end up? [<]

[103] In the bilingual Roman Empire, Greek correspondences were sought for the Latin terms of the official Roman language. In Leipzig in 1905, David Magie published a treatise on the manner of how the Roman festive vocabulary was rendered in Greek, and he identifies three methods which followed each other in the course of the centuries: in the most ancient times by comparison (comparatio) —so for example populus was rendered as dêmos —later, when there were no longer any Greek correspondences, firstly by translation (interpretatio) —so for example censor became timêtês —and finally by adoption, borrowing of the Roman terminology (transcriptio)— a process where dictator did not become autokratôr, but rather diktatôr instead (Cf. Magie 1905).
But if we take a look at which word succeeds amongst the different possible variants, we find an astonishing fact: for the word senatus it is not the classical boulê that becomes accepted, nor even gerousia, qua meaning the best translation, but (besides synedrion) synklêtos. For imperator (sometimes also for dictator) autokratôr, ‘absolute ruler’, was said. For lictor, the usher with the lictor-bundles, it was said liturgos, ‘functionary, servant of the state’. For Augustus, the title of the emperor Octavianus and then of his successors too, it was said Sebastos, ‘revered (Sir)’. If we list all these correspondences, we detect the attempt to choose words that are close in sense as well as in sound. Actually, to preserve the sound, diminutions of sense were tolerated:
senatus
> synklêtos / imperator resp. dictator > autokratôr / lictor > liturgos / Augustus > Sebastos.
It is seen very clearly with synklêtos, which means ‘called together, convoked’ (and hence more appropriate as the translation of comitium calatum) and also with dictator, who indeed ruled by himself but did so within the framework of the constitution and so was not sui iuris —he was not an ‘autocrat’; the same goes for imperator, who in his original sense of victor was more likely a nikatôr, a ‘winner’; it also goes for lictor, who got his name from ligo, the ‘bundle’ he carried—he was not just a simple ‘civil servant’; and it applies to Augustus, a name that the Romans took partly from augeo, ‘to increase, to let it grow’ and partly from observation of the flight of birds (ab avium gustu) —so it did not stand for a typical ‘revered one’ at all.
It is striking that the resemblance of sound was always aimed at the ending of the word and only at the beginning of the word if possible.
We rather have to be astonished that in general the other names in the Gospels remain so close to those of Caesar’s vita. Seemingly the similarity of sound was more important for the editors of the Gospels than for the magistrates: After all, they had to proselytize; the civil servants did not have to convince anybody.
With respect to Caesar’s official titles the Greek terms in comparison to the Latin ones are shown to be similar:
Dictator
stays: diktator; consul is translated: hypatos; imperator is rendered as autokratôr, which is not a correct translation. For the word means the same as the Latin sui iuris —between ‘absolute ruling’ and ‘plenipotentiary’. Even in the combined meaning of ‘unlimited lord and master’ autokratôr represents dictator better than imperator. Apparently it was chosen because autokratôr is phonetically closer to imperator —like the later sebastos is closer to augustus. A comparable situation is observed between the titles pontifex maximus and archiereus megistos. Arch-iereus would be enough, because arch- already gives the idea of maximus, like iereus that of pontifex: but yet we find in addition also its full form, even if pleonastic, probably because archiereus megistos is rhythmically and phonetically close to pontifex maximus. [<]

[104] The classic example here is the London Elephant and Castle: As we have seen above it originates from: ‘A l’infante de Castilla!’. This disappoints the tourist who expects to see the castle of a Maharaja and imagines himself in India.
In the Paris Metro one can fantasize being on a railroad trip through Europe: Anvers, Rennes, Liège, Plaisance, Danube, Crimée, Stalingrad... or, following Napoleon: Solferino, Campo-Formio, Wagram, Austerlitz, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre (the last one is a French corruption of Winchester), Pyramides —the last one points to Caesar: Alésia, Rome etc.
In the US one keeps on coming across doublets of European towns: Paris, Venice, Amsterdam, Toledo etc.—without counting the ‘New’ ones: New York, New Orleans etc. In polyglot Switzerland it is even easier to be sent on a journey: thus an American travel guide once counselled caution because all the towns have three names there, a German, a French and an Italian one, for example: Basel/Bâle/Basilea, Genf/Genève/Ginevra or ... Luzern/Lausanne/Locarno (sic!—these three being really three different cities).
In America, names that were originally European have sometimes experienced a second mutation and migration: so it is thought that the people called Cajun or Cajan, half-bloods in the South of Alabama and Mississippi, received their names from the Acadian, descendants of French speaking immigrants from Louisiana who were forcibly resettled.
Stereotype city-names like for example the many called Heliopolis or Nikopolis caused confusion, especially those which were named after a ruler like Alexandria, Seleukia, Antiochia, Ptolemais, Caesarea etc. The greater the ruler’s house and duration of the dynasty, the more prevalent the city-name and the greater the confusion, occurring in former times just as it sometimes occurs among modern historians: in which Antiochia or in which Caesarea did this or that event occur? To which Alexandria did Caesar want to relocate the capital of the Empire? The context decides. But what if it is precisely the context that is misleading? Or what if the location itself determines the context? Then an event is suddenly located at another place and the context is fantasized accordingly. Then we find ourselves in a right mess!
Our suspicion is that the Gospels are exactly such a mess. We need to find the original ingredients, and this is only possible if we detect the first delocalization. [<]

 



 
 
2005-2019   ©opyleft   -   www.absolum.org   -   absolum.org[en]gmail.comSOBRE ESTA WEB