(col. 28)
This change is written by Moses in very few [words] (Numbers 13), at that time when he sent the spies into Canaan. But that it had already been done before seems to be proved from those places where, before that time, Joshua is always [called] Joshua, but nowhere Osee: Exodus 17, 24, 32, 33; Numbers 11. There are three opinions. The first: that this change was made when that legation of the spies was being established, and therefore, beforehand, by anticipation, he was called Joshua. For since the books of Exodus and Numbers were written after almost all the things done in Egypt and the desert, they can, in the narration of the deeds, use names which were imposed later. So [holds], in question 55, Anastasius of Nicaea; Justin, Against Trypho; St. Augustine, book 16 Against Faustus, ch. 19; Tostatus and Oleaster. The second opinion, of Origen himself (homily 1 on Joshua): [that] he was so called after the return from that legation, when — the [people being] tumultuous, mourning, despairing — he himself, by warning and exhorting, restrained, consoled, [and] raised them up. The third: indicated by Oleaster, and approved from its origin (homily 11 on Exodus) by St. Augustine (sermon 93, On the Season), by Theodoret (question 34 on Exodus): [that] already once, when he was first to be sent to wage war against the Amalekites, he obtained this name. And this seems more consonant with the truth. Just as Scripture did not call [him] Abraham before he received this name from God, but always Abram, both in the Hebrew and Greek and the Latin text, so also it would not [have called him] Joshua, but Osee. For what need would there have been of that anticipation? And does this opinion rightly agree with those things which the same [Origen] noted, in the same homily, about the most beautiful type of our JESUS? Origen, when he says: “I first find the name JESUS in Exodus, and I wish to observe when first the name JESUS is named. ‘Amalech,’ it says, ‘came on the morrow.’ Moses confesses he cannot, and Israel was being beaten, and Moses said to Jesus [Joshua] in Raphidim. This is the first appellation of Jesus. ‘Choose,’ he says, ‘for yourself mighty men out of all the sons of Israel, and go out and fight with Amalech on the morrow.’ Moses confesses that he himself cannot lead the army, confesses that he cannot obtain [the victory], although he had led it out of the land of Egypt; and therefore, he says, he called [him] Jesus and said, ‘Choose for yourself men, and go out.’ You see to whom the waging of war against Amalech was yielded. In this first [instance] we learn the name, where we see him first as leader of the army — not [him] on whom Moses enjoined the leadership, but [him] to whom he yielded the leadership. Moses cannot choose mighty men: ‘Thou,’ he says, ‘choose for thyself mighty men out of all the sons of Israel.’ And it came to pass, when he lifted up his hands, Israel prevailed; when he let down his hands, Amalech prevailed. Then, therefore, Jesus prevails the more, and then conquers, when Moses lifts up his hands. But that people was overcome by Amalech, because now he was not lifting up his hands, but they were let down downward. For these are they to whom it is said: ‘If you believed Moses, you would perhaps believe me also; and behold, you wish to kill me, who keep not the law.’ For, the law ceasing among them, and the works of the law — [they] who, while they seek to establish their own justice, are not subject to the justice of God — the hands of Moses are let down, unbelief prevailed, the people is overcome.” And therefore the text of Numbers could be rendered from the Hebrew and Greek thus: “And Moses called Osee, son of Nun, Joshua.” Lactantius (book 4, ch. 17): “That Jesus [Joshua] bore the figure of Christ, who — when he was first called Auses — Moses, foreseeing the future, ordered him to be called Jesus, so that, since he had been chosen leader of the army against Amalech (who was attacking the sons of Israel) and was to war down the adversary, he might, through the figure of the name, lead the people into the land of promise. And therefore he also succeeded Moses, to show that the new law…
(col. 29)
…[to succeed the old law, that is,] the [law] given through CHRIST JESUS was to succeed the old law, which had been given through Moses.” Tertullian (Against the Jews): “When Auses, son of Nave, was destined to be Moses’ successor, he is certainly transferred from his former name: he begins to be called JESUS. For we say beforehand that this was a figure of things to come. For, since JESUS CHRIST was to bring the second people — which is we, the nations that formerly tarried in the desert of the world — into the land of promise flowing with milk and honey (that is, into the possession of life eternal, than which nothing is sweeter); and [since] this was to come about not through Moses (that is, not through the discipline of the law), but through JESUS (that is, through the grace of the new law), we being circumcised with a rock-knife — that is, with CHRIST’S precepts (for CHRIST was foretold as a Rock in many ways and figures) — therefore that man, who was being prepared for the images of this mystery, was also inaugurated with the figure of the Lord’s own name, so that he might be named JESUS. And again afterward: JESUS, on account of the future mystery of His name, confirmed to him His own name, which He Himself had given him — because He had ordered that he be called thenceforth not Angel, nor Auses, but Jesus.”