Commentaire de Gilles
sur Ce que l'Histoire dit de Jésus


Voir l'intégralité des commentaires de cet article

Gilles Gilles 22 avril 2008 11:44

Forst

"Ce passage est si incongru et apologétique ("c’était le Christ"), qu’il a poussé la plupart des lecteurs, par exemple Voltaire, à le considérer totalement apocryphe."

De ce que je sais, aucune source écrite crédible du point de vu des historiens existe sur Jesus. En ce qui concerne ce commentaire à propos du Christ, lire ceci qui montre que le terme Christ, non seulemnt trés répandu avait une signification large....

The Greeks used both the word Messias (a transliteration) and Christos (a translation) for the Hebrew Mashiach (Anointed). The word Christos was far more acceptable to the pagans who were worshiping Chreston and Chrestos.

According to The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, the word Christos was easily confused with the common Greek proper name Chrestos, meaning "good." According to a French theological dictionary, it is absolutely beyond doubt that Christus and Chrestus, and Christiani and Chrestiani were used indifferently by the profane and Christian authors of the first two centuries A.D. The word Christianos is a Latinism, being contributed neither by the Jews nor by the Christians themselves. The word was introduced from one of three origins : the Roman police, the Roman populace, or an unspecified pagan origin. Its infrequent use in the New Testament suggests a pagan origin.

According to Realencyclopaedie, the inscription Chrestos is to be seen on a Mithras relief in the Vatican. According to Christianity and Mythology, Osiris, the sun-deity of Egypt, was reverenced as Chrestos. In the Synagogue of the Marcionites on Mount Hermon, built in the third century A.D., the Messiah’s title is spelled Chrestos. According to Tertullian and Lactantius, the common people usually called Christ Chrestos.


Voir ce commentaire dans son contexte