It has been said thus far [that] these two names are, in their very signification, absolutely the same, and that by either mode the hero whose book is now in hand is named. Yet it has also been said [that] it can happen [that] certain names are proper, of which one is attributed to one [person], not to another. I have seen thus far very few, yet some, to whom the appellation Iosua was proper. But who [ever] was called JESUS — in the Turkish histories I read of no one. For in [the histories] of that Sultan Bajazet — who was the true mockery of human felicity (as [is] noted [on] Judges ch. 1) — his sons they name Isa, whom Laonicus calls Iesus, and another Iesus, the younger brother of this one; and again another, the son of Brenezes, whom (book 6) he had called by the same name “Iessen,” as the Pandect Turcicus notes, [and] Leonclavius (fol. 189 and 271). But among Christians the constant piety of [our] elders has hitherto preserved [it], that a name brought from heaven, announced by an Angel — in which [is] the salvation of the whole world, by which the Son of God is named in heaven and on earth, to be venerated by the Angels themselves, to be adored by men, to be dreaded by the Demons — should be imposed on no one thereafter. There are, among some [peoples], certain detestable [names], and such as men do not deign even to utter. “Pig,” as Elias says in the Tishbi, the Jews are unwilling to name, but they call it generally “dabar,” that is, “thing.” “Scellius”… Aristophanes used to say [it], from whom [comes] also the proverb “I abominate the son,” and his name. Chrysostom (1 to the Corinthians, homily 5) [says] that the names of those who deceive others are not to be brought forth. And [that] the name of the heretic Acacius be abolished, Anastasius the Pontiff desired (epistle to Athanasius the Emperor). On the contrary, there are certain other names so magnificent, splendid, ample, and august, that they are worshipped rather even with silence — just as, among the Jews, יהוה, the tetragrammaton — or [that] certainly they are by no means made common, nor imposed on many. On the birthday of Antoninus, Diadumenus was born; and yet Macrinus the father did not dare to call [his] son “Antoninus,” because that name was Imperial, as Aelius Lampridius records. Just as, therefore, on account of detestation (although in the Ebrach monastery of Franconia [there was one named] Densebius, that is, “of the Devil,”
(col. 53)
…[of the Devil] the tomb — just as at Würzburg I know a Charterhouse built by [one named] Teufel — no one wishes to be called Judas or Lucifer, so, on account of the highest veneration, no one [wishes to be called] JESUS. Samuel Macrochianus (in the last chapter): “It is, in Arabic, IESVS; and no one can be called by that name.” And Abulensis (Numbers 13, question 36) thinks it also more convenient, for this reason, that in our Bibles the name Iosua be used, rather than — [as] in the Greek or Latin [ones] which [derive] from those — Iesu. Because, when the Athenians had slain Hippias the Tyrant — Harmodius and Aristogiton [having done it] — it was provided by law (as [it is] in Gellius, book 9, ch. 2) “lest these very names of theirs, which seemed devoted, as it were, to public liberty, be imposed on any of the slaves, by anyone.” But what liberty [is] greater, or more august, than that which through JESUS was procured for the whole world of lands? What Tyrant [is] more monstrous than he from whose Tyranny all peoples were delivered? Domitian afflicted Metius Pomposianus with punishment, because he had called [his] slaves by the most illustrious names of the leaders Mago and Hannibal, as [Suetonius] relates in his life (ch. 10). But what [are] these to the heavenly name of the King of kings, the Lord of lords? Truly indeed, in Isocrates, Demosthenes, and the other writers, everywhere are read Athēnaîoi [Athenians]. But when the discourse is about women, although the analogy of speaking would seem to demand it, we do not commonly read Athēnaîai, but only Atthídes and Attikaí. It seemed unworthy, namely, that — when the Goddess of that city (although false) was called Athēnē and Athēnaía — her name should be communicated to many; as other [examples] may be brought from Varro by St. Augustine (book 18 City of God, ch. 9), and from Metaclides by his Scholiast, Ludovicus Vives. And indeed, the conciliation of salvation which is contained in that most holy name [is] with that perfection and excellence which befits CHRIST the Lord, [and] which can befit neither any of men nor of Angels, nor ever did befit. “He alone,” says Cyril of Jerusalem (catechesis 10), “is called JESUS by [his] true name, having [his] appellation from salutary medicine.” And St. Bernard (sermon 15 on the Canticle): “Judaea too,” he says, “had certain [men called] Jesus, whose names glory with empty [titles]. For those neither shine, nor feed, nor heal. Therefore the synagogue is in darkness, still hitherto laboring with hunger and infirmity, and it shall not be healed, nor satisfied, until it know my JESUS to rule over Jacob, and the ends of the earth.” And again more briefly (sermon 1 on the Circumcision): “JESUS is called as [being] the Son of God. For not after the manner of the former ones does this JESUS of mine bear an empty or inane name. There is not in it the shadow of a great name, but the truth.” And sermon 2: “The name JESUS was called by the Angel, before he was conceived in the womb. Called plainly — not imposed. Namely, this name to him is from eternity. From [his] own nature he has [it], that he be Saviour. Innate to him is this name, not given by human or Angelic nature.” And in this manner it is more truly said [that] before our JESUS there was no Jesus, than in that manner which Galatinus hands down (book 3, ch. 20). Nor, therefore, is it consonant at this time that anyone among us Christians be named Jesus. And therefore D. Schoppius rightly rebukes Julius Scaliger in his Elenchus, because he — in that little book on the overthrows of kingdoms — wrote [that] in his family [there was] a JESUS the Nazarene, born of a certain John, [to be classed] with the Apostles Peter, John, and Andrew — if, however, “Jesus” is to be added, and not “Nazarene” alone. Yet “Iosua” someone could more easily be named, just as Iosue [Joshua].
(col. 54)
…[Thus] some are called Adam, Abraham, Samuel, David, Israel — as St. Bridget’s brother, in her Revelations (book 6, ch. 95). But, on account of the same signification of reverence, in no Polish dominions (extending so far and wide) is anyone wont to be named Maria — so that the Poles wonder [that] the name is so frequent among other nations; and, lately, in a royal little daughter, who is now dead, they [gave], as if unusual and new, the surname “Anna Maria.”