Sivut kuvina

ne interpretation of it in Dr. Hammond's and and Whitby's comments Burkett says it denotes the SAVIOR” -- Bishop Patrick's and Lowth's comment takes no notice of it: Dean Stanhopo interprets it “ the SAVIOR :" Mather, after laying JOSHUA is an HEBREW name “ which 4 is in the GREEK JESUS,” adds with Calvin, “ it is the SAVIOR :" Mr. Wogan (cited p. 40,) interprets it “the SAVIOR ;” and indeed many others, some of whom, it may be, took it on truft ; and some of the Jews also understood it to carry with it this sense, at least, with the CHRISTIANS. Yet great as these authorities may appear to be, they thould have no undue influence on our judgment in our enquiry after truth, any more than they should be causelessly disregarded. And there is no little room to fufpect that many of them, both ancients and moderns, did not themselves think this was, or did not intend it as the precise meaning of the name ; because we shall see they have actually given us another. Though, had they all agreed in this interpretation, it is notwithstanding very clear from SS that this cannot be the whole of its fignification.

For, if this only be supposed to be its meaning, then it has no other sense than the forf name OsHea, and consequently such interpretation leaves no ground for the alteration of his firft name into that of JeHOSHUA or JOSHUA: nay,


H 2

makes the text contain a repetition, that must seem unbecoming divine wisdom. For then the passage in Num. xiii. 7. will run thus, Moses called tbe name of [OsHea] the SAVIOR, the son of Nun, (JeHOSHUA) the savior. So that such version is greatly deficient and cannot be received, as leaving no mark of difination between OsHeA and JeHos HUA, which yet there certainly must be. One would therefore almost wonder this should have been so much countenanced, if it was not clear from these interpretations that their authors understood it to be a word of a fimple form, and therefore to signify nothing but the SAVIOR.

Eusebius's version of it by “ the HEALER," and Cyril's and Epiphanius's, in the places cited above, fall of course, because they assign it to it, as a word of GREEK extraction, when it has been proved to be Hebrew, and this by the confession of the former two.

The firft of whom we shall find bas given the true interpretation of it from the Hebrew, as the latter has translated it The SAVIOR.

Cyril of Alexandria (in his Oration. in occursum DOMINI, p. 386,) makes it [owingia ndx soTERIA LAOU] the SALVATION OF THE PEOPLE; a version which is indeed distinct from that of OsHea the SAVIOR," and would evince the change of name. But there is no part of the name which stands for

" the people ;


so that this is not the meaning, though CHRIST is what this speaks, and what, I apprehend, this author took from the ANGEL's words in St. Matt. i. 20. He shall save His [acov LAON]

people, &c.

Theophyla&t's translation is not less erroneous on this account. For he renders it [ws owo as OS SOSAS] AS ONE SAVING, or LIKE a SAVIOR ; whereas there is nothing in the word, which fignifies as ; and therefore this meaning must be also rejected.

But we find from them that it was not always considered as a name consisting only of one word, nor this version of it “ The SAVIOR” always thought to be its full meaning. Indeed what, I should suppose, gave rise to this notion, after an inattention to its true derivation and sense, was the occurrence of the word apparently as a varb in 1 S. xvii. 47. Jehovah (101' Jehosto] saveth not with the sword and spear; and in Ps. cxvi. 6. I was brought low, and HE (1997] helped me. For the word differs in nothing from the name but the inserted letter ['Jod] J. But then, first, it may

here be understood as a noun and title of God, importing that Jehovah was a JeHOSHUA, being and doing what the name fignifies, (as He takes, we have seen, the title of [OsHea] the SAVIOR, p. 16,) and then nothing uncommon


will appear in its form : (a) Secondly, it is diftinguilhed from the name by the insertion of this letter []J: Thirdly, the same objection lays against its fignifying no more than this word is thought to do; for in this case both names, JehOsHua and Oshea will have the same meaning, and there be no foundation for the change of name.

Some may have more readily thought this a fimple word, thus formed from [27°ur JoSHIO] He fall save, because they saw Jehona. THan and JONATHAN, and Jehoram and JoRAM, JeHOSEPH and Joseph, &c. in the language : for when the one were imagined to have been abbreviations of the others, it was not surprizing JesHUA should have been supposed the contract word for JeHOSHUA : which


(a) The regular future form is [39999] Justo, as may be seen in Pf. Iv. 13. lvii, 4. IJ. xxiii. 22, & al. Therefore Robertson and others, finding the [7] stand in the way, say, it is added in order to constitute the conjugation Hipbil, accord. ing to the usage in the Chaldee tongue, after (5] Jod etban, and is a quiescent letter in the regular form fometimes, by virtue of the ftrange compofing quality of a point. In answer to which it may be remarked, ift. that the future of the conjugation Hipbil is clearly formed without the [JE: 2dly. that it is a quicscent in the regular form is a mere affertion, as appears from the absurdity of supposing that added, which is not to be seen or beard. in a word. So that it can by no means be made a verb according to the ordinary rules of grammar. Wbence I suspect it to be a descriptive name given this perfon, with the [*] JOD to denote, as usual, the thing already effe&ted to the perfons, and importing Him to have been what JeHOSHUA Thall be found to signify. Which I am the more induced to do, from this constant treatment of these words, which begin with [07"] JI, as compound names,

therefore Drufius thought it to be, though it is unfair to deduce the sense of the word at full length from what the contract word (then like the future [ywa] Jeso) fignifies. But the truth is, these are not the contracted forms of the others. " The[] Jeh prefixed to proper names stood," “ according to the sentiments “ of fome," as Schindler tell us, (a) “ for the « LORD," though he, without any evidence, gainsays it. Marius de Calafio often treats it as such, as well as Broughton. Pafor, and Schotanus in his Manual understood [0] Jen in Jehosaphat to have this meaning, rendering it “ the LORD will judge,(more literally "the « LORD THE JUDGE,” he Bearing the name as the figure of Him, who is fo.] This name and JeHONATHAN and JeHozaBaD are ranked by Noldius amongft the proper names compounded of [97] Jeh, THE LORD; and all who have interpreted the names looked upon it in this view.

Whence Walton and Cruden translate Johanan, “ Grace of the LORD” (more properly signifying, “ The LORD, the GRACIOUS “ one”]; JehOIADA, “the knowledge of the “ LORD,” (more properly denoting, “ The “ LORD TO BE KNOWN"]; Jonathan the “ gift of the LORD” (ftriétly “ The LORD 6 THE MADE TO BE GIVEN ONE"], Joh.


(a) Under the word (77.) Jir.

« EdellinenJatka »