Commentaria in Numeros
Hence again Lactantius, book IV, chap. xvii, Origen, homily 11 on Exodus, and other Fathers Greek and Latin, whom Serarius cites in his preface to Josue, note that Moses changed his name, and called him Josue instead of Hosee, at the time when he was appointed leader of the army against the Amalecites, and overcame them. For Josue signifies Saviour, who as leader of the people saved his people: as Jesus saved men by fighting and overcoming the demons, Colossians ii, 15. A proof of this is that the name Josue is first read in Exodus xvii, 9, where Josue is appointed by Moses leader of the war against Amalec. Others, however, think that the name Osee was changed into Josue at this time, when he was designated as explorer of the holy land. For then, undertaking the doubtful and dangerous office of exploring a hostile land, exposed to the evident and bitter risk of an ignominious death (namely that, as a spy and traitor, he might be tortured and tormented by the Chanaanites), he voluntarily offered himself for the people. Then, therefore, he appeared keen, magnanimous and undaunted, and therefore worthy to be honoured with this new and august name. So think Justin Against Trypho, St. Augustine, book XVI Against Faustus, chap. xix, Anastasius of Nicaea, Question LV, Abulensis and Oleaster. St. Augustine adds that Josue then bore a type of Jesus Christ, who, about to go into heaven, said to his disciples: “And if I shall go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and will take you to myself.”
So Antiochus, the first of this name king of Syria, on account of a victory won over the Galatians, was called Soter, that is, saviour; and in battle he bore on his standard the figure of the pentalpha with the Greek word for health, as is seen on coins; and he used as military watchword the Greek word meaning to be safe and sound; and he said he had been commanded in his sleep by Alexander the Great to use it: Lucian is witness, Apology for the slip in greeting, and Pierius, Hieroglyphics 41.
From all which it is plain that Jehoscua, or by crasis Josue, is entirely the same name as Jescua, that is, Jesus, and not different, as Galatinus, Pagninus and Jansenius, chap. vii of the Concordance, would have it.
And this is proved from the fact that the Septuagint, Josephus, and Philo, in the book On Charity, everywhere render the Hebrew Jescua, or Josue, by Iesous, that is, Jesus: for Iesous is a trisyllable in Greek, since iota among them is a vowel, which among the Hebrews and Latins is a consonant; next, they render the point tsere under the iod in Jescua by eta, which once sounded as long e; and thirdly, they render the guttural ayin by sigma, for the sake of a gentler pronunciation, as for Maschiach they render Messias. Then the same is plain from Aggeus, chap. i, verse 1, chap. ii, verses 1, 3, 8, and chap. iv, verse 3, in the Hebrew and in our version, where Josue is called Josue, or Jesus; for these two name the high priest Jesus, the son of Josedec (who also was a type of Christ, as supreme Pontiff of the new Testament, as is plain from Zacharias iii, in the verses cited), Jesus or Josue. Finally, of this name in both forms there are the same letters in Hebrew, and the same root, namely yasha, that is, he saved; whence Josue is the same as Jesus, that is, Saviour.
Hence it is plain, first, that they are mistaken who derive the name Jesus from the Greek verb iaomai, that is, I heal, or from the Syriac asa, that is, I heal; as if Jesus were the same as iatros, that is, physician; so Epiphanius, Heresy 29: “Jesus,” he says, “in the Hebrew tongue is called curator, or physician and saviour.” So also Basil, in his Ascetics, and Cyril, Catechesis 10, near the end, derive the name Iesous from the Greek. Where, however, note that although this is not the true reason of the etymology, yet the adaptation and application of the name is right.
It is plain, secondly, that in Hebrew it is to be written Jescua, so that the last letter be ayin, and not Jesu, as the Jews write it, either out of contempt or by a Syrian shortening; nor is it to be written Jescuah, with he at the end: because this signifies salvation, while Jesus signifies Saviour.
It is plain, thirdly, that the name Jesus is not the same as the tetragrammaton name, nor does it differ from it by the sole letter shin inserted, as a certain one of the Novators, namely Lucas Osiander on Matthew i, thought; and therefore neither is it to be written Jehescuh, with he at the end preceding vau, as he wishes, as though the name of Christ the Lord, Jesus, were altogether different from Josue or Jescua. For that has already been refuted; and by him who says of Christ: “Thou shalt call his name Jesus; for he shall save,” etc. Whence it is plain that the name Jesus is the same as Jescua or Josue, that is, saviour; and that it is not to be written Jehescuh in Hebrew, but Jescua, because Jehescuh does not signify saviour, but Jescua does; nay, Jehescuh is a feigned name, and properly has no Hebrew root. Finally, in the title of the Lord’s cross, which is preserved at Rome in the church of the Holy Cross, this name is written Jescua, not Jehescuh, as Pagninus testifies, an eye-witness, in his interpretation of the names.
You will say: Even Jescua does not signify saviour, but saved, because it has the form of a passive participle. I answer, Jescua is not a participle but a noun, signifying saviour, just as Josue; but nouns differ much from participles both in points and in signification; for jescua alludes to yoshia, that is, he who will save, or certainly to yeshuah, that is, salvation, as if you said, salvation itself, that is, saviour by essence.
You will say secondly: In Isaias vii, 14, and Matthew i, 23, it is said that Christ is to be called Emmanuel, that is, God with us: but this signifies Jehescuh, not Jescua or Josue; for Jehescuh contains all the letters of the tetragrammaton name of God, with only the letter shin inserted. I answer: Even Jehuda contains all the letters of the tetragrammaton name, as do many other names, yet it does not on that account signify the same as the tetragrammaton. Secondly, suppose that it signified the same as the tetragrammaton name, yet it could by no means signify “God with us”: because the tetragrammaton name does not signify this, but simply signifies God. I add that Jehoscua, which is the same as Jescua, has all the letters of the tetragrammaton name, and joined, not cut apart, as in Jehescuh. As to the passages of Isaias and St. Matthew, Justin in his Questions to the Orthodox, Question CXXXV; Tertullian, book Against the Jews, chap. ix; Lactantius, book IV On True Wisdom, chap. xii; and Cyril answer that “they shall call his name Emmanuel” does not signify that Christ is to be so named (for we never read that the name Emmanuel was given to him, but only Jesus, and that at his circumcision), but that he will be Emmanuel, so that he can rightly be called Emmanuel; for “to be called” in Scripture often signifies “to be.”
Then, as Tertullian rightly says above: Emmanuel and Jesus are the same, not in sound but in sense. For to be God with us is to be a saviour: for our salvation and redemption was accomplished by the descent of God to us, nor could it be perfected in any other way. I confess, however, that as God added to Abram and Sarai the letter he of his tetragrammaton name, to signify that he would be born as man of them, so to Josue also he added the same letter, so that Jehoscua contains in itself all the letters of the tetragrammaton name: because by this he wished to signify that Jesus Christ, of whom Josue was a type, would be Jehova, that is, God. Wherefore this name of Jesus was revealed to the Prophets, who signified that the Messias would be called by it, as is plain from Habacuc iii, 18: “I will rejoice in God my Jesus.” Isaias xlv, 8: “Let the earth be opened, and bud forth a saviour,” and everywhere the Septuagint. The Hebrew name masciach, that is, Messias, they render soter, that is, saviour. Whence the ancient Rabbis also, before the time of Christ, foretold that the name of the Messias would be Jesus, as Galatinus teaches from R. Haccados, book III, chap. xx. The Sibyls prophesied the same, as that acrostic teaches of the verses of the Erythraean Sibyl, whose first letters give these words: Iesous Christos Theou Huios Soter, stauros; that is, Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour, cross; which stands at the end of the Sibylline oracles, vol. II of the Bibliotheca of the Holy Fathers, and Cicero cites it, book II On Divination, and thence proves that the poem of the Sibyl is not that of one raving, but of an attentive mind, and of art and thought. The Emperor Constantine also cites it in Eusebius, at the end of this Life, and St. Augustine at length, book XVIII On the City of God, chap. xxiii. The Cumaean Sibyl predicted the same, but enigmatically, who, as Sixtus of Siena relates, book II, under the word Sibylla, prophesied that the number of the letters of the name of the Messias would be 888, singing thus:
But what is the sum of the whole number I will teach: for eight monads, as many decads above them, and eight hecatontads, will signify the name to faithless men: but do thou keep it in mind.