« EdellinenJatka »
iii. 16. vi. 51.) (a) herein following the vulgate and the versions at the end of the Bishops Bible. So that we have abundant evidence against the opinion that these names are simple or uncompounded words. In consequence of which that of JeHOSHUA or Jesus being such falls to the ground, as well as its interpretation as such, so inconsistent with the declaration of the name's being different from OsHea.
(a) Answerable to this is (NeT HANEEL the same as the GR. NATHANAIL) THE GIVEN INTERPOSING GOD, the name of the captain, the type of CHRIST, Num. ii. 5o who though man is yet in confirmation of His DIVINITY, represented, ver. 7, as [ELI-AB] MY INTERPOSING GOD THE FATHER ; Job. · 10. as [ELIZUR] THE GOD THE ROCK; ver. 12, as [SHALUMIEL] THE RETRIBUTING GOD; ver. 14, as [ELIASOPH) THE GOD THE GATHERIR; ver. 18, as (ELI-SHAMA] THE GOD THE HEARKENING ONE; ver, 20, as (Gamal-JEL] THE RECOMPENSING GGD; ver. 22, as [ABI-DAN] THE FATHER THE AVEN
ver. 25, as [Ani-Ezer] THE UNITED HELPER &c.
С НА Р.
Ć H A P. IV.
The name JehOsHU A proved to be a compound
word from the testimonies of Jews and CHRIS-
AVING seen that we are not to regard
JEHOSHUA as a single or uncompounded word, nor to seek the full meaning in it as luch, it remains that the name must be a com
And though it appears many have rendered
THE SAVIOR, yet truth thus supported by Ss, however neglected through some omiffion
precipitate compliance with received opinion, is to, and actually should weigh with the unprejudiced mind more than ten thousand
Not that it is eligible, for a man's peace, to be single in a sentiinent, or that I would be thought to be so in the subject be
fore us. For we have the authority of very eminent persons, Jews as well as CHRISTIANS in the primitive and latter ages to witness its being a compound, even those who have translated it as one word ; and, besides this, the confessed ufuage of the language.
First, we have the authority of the Jews. Philo says, (a) “Moses also changes the name “ (NEHE' OSEE or] Oshea into [IHEOTN] “ JESUS, (his word for JosHUA) tranforming " the quality into a habit : For Osee is inter“ preted what sort of one he was," (namely a SAVIOR Or SALVATION)“ but JESUS [ENTH66 PIA KTPIOT SOTERIA KURIOU] THE SAL" VATION OF THE LORD, the name of the os most excellent habit, &c.” In which palsage, however he errs, 1, in transposing the words, 2dly, in rendering it as ISAIAH, THE SAVIOR THE LORD; and 3dly, in not allegorizing but disguising the sense, he notwithstanding gives us the words he judged it compounded of, (KURIOS] THE LORD (GR. for 179 leh) and (SOTERIA,]SALVATION (Gr. for yvin) OSEE, Oshea, OsHua or Hosea. The Jew who instructed Jerom looked on it also in this light, as we shall see. And if the author of Toldoth
(a) De nomin, mutatione, p. 825.
(b) A treatise printed in Wagenseil's. Telaignea sarana, and wrote in the 12th century before R. Lijman's Nizzecbon.
Jesus forced to acknowledge him, when speaking of his birth, &c. to be called  JeHQSHUA, the writer of Nizzechon vetus tells us p. 165 it is a compound, and argues from it as fuch, saying, “ if the adversary” (the CHRISTIAN) urges If. vii. 14, “ Behold a virgin shall “ bring forth a fon and thou shalt call His name “ EMMANU-EL (i. e. GOD WITH US), and is
pleased to say that here he (JESUS) is called [5X BL] GOD; you must answer, if this was good reasoning I can find out gods for you
according to the names. Such is the name " Samu-EL, &c. for the monks themselves
interpret Samu-EL in their tongue, The NAME OF Him God, &c. of which kind very many names are found in SS. If the adversary goes on to except, but the very name itself, by which He was distinguished, demonstrates this, for Jesus in HEBREW
THE SAVIOR” (an allowed proof that SAVIOR and God are convertible terms)
you must answer, it never was, nor does the genius of the language admit that a word with
out an [v] AIN” (for some I have shewn have written it without, contrary to the 70 and their own conceffions, and then argue as if therefore it had none) “ should ever be de
rived from the root of [yvin Musio] THE
SAVIOR" a title we have seen this person reveal himself by: though knowing the fallacy
-Je [ירושע] may for the like reafon fay it of
of the argument he says) “ add also that we
() 66 HOSHUA, which” (to shew they understood  Oshes to be the same name as Musio, he aflerts)“ is (vouip no Jeh Mus10] The LORD " THE SAVIOR.” Now, not to dwell on the absurdity of their supposing we may conclude · all, whose names have the name of God compounded with them, to be Gods, instead of gathering from their bearing these as types, that all alike shewed He would be (EMMANUEL) God with us, it is evident the Jews and monks did then view JeHos HuA as a compound, which had the name of God in it, and palpably convict themselves of a most unjust error in writing it (10) Isu, when (1017) JeHOSHUA is thus allowedly the Hebrew for the GREEK (IHOYE) Jesus.
Secondly, CHRISTIAN writers represent the naine as a compound. Eufebius, refuting his other version, exprefly tells us [1080TE de COTNIAN ENTHPIA] (a) Joshua is JAO THE SALVATION : where he, ift, by Jao refers to (JAH) the Lord, writing it as Macrobius did JAO, whom he calls the supreme God, or taking in the ['] v, or on in the name,
as fome names are ended with this: 2dly, by [SOTERIA] THE SALVATION he refers to HosHUA; the words the
Jews (a) Demonfir, Evang. 1. iv, ç, 17, p. 199, 200, Edit. Coon. 1688.