THE NAME ’ISA 266

THE NAME ’I’SA.

[INthe interesting correspondence of Kamil-bin-Aitany, the Moslem convert who took the name of Abdul , he raised a question which has often perplexed others than converts : “ Will you kindly tell me why is styled ’I‘sa in the Moslem books, and did this name exist among the before Mohammed’s time ? ” This question could only arise in the mind of a Beirut Moslem after studying the standard Bible translation, where the name of our Saviour is uniformly rendered as “ Yesooa” and not in the form of “ ’I’sa,’’ by which He is known among Mohammedans. In earlier Arabic trans- lations, for example that printed by Richard Watson, London, 1820, the name is uniformly given as “ ’I’sa,’’ and this is the name used twenty-five times in the Koran* ; from this use it has passed naturally into all Mohammedan literature and speech, from Morocco to the Philippine Islands. The reason why the name of Jesus took this particular form in Mohammed’s is a disputed point on which neither Moslems nor Oriental scholars have so far come to agreement ; nor is the question of the use of this name by missionaries among Moslems in special Bible translations closed. Some of the translations used in Moslem lands uniformly cling to the term “ ’I’sa ” ; others have adopted. various forms of the Greek ’I~croik (Jesus). Some believe that ’I’sa is a deliberate corruption of the term Yesooa, and consists of its radicals written backward. Baidhawi, the Koran commentator, states

* The passages are the following :- 2 : 81, 130, 264 ; 3 : 40, 46, 48, 52, 78 ; 4 : 166, 161, 169 ; 6 : 50, 82, 109, 112, 114, 116 ; 6 : 85 ; 19:35; 33:$; 42:ll; 43:03; 67:27; 61:6, 14. 266 THE MOSLEM WORLD that ’I’sa is the Arabic form for Yesooa ; but Dr. Otto Pautz’ remarks :-“ The Koranic name ‘ ’I’sa ’ on the contrary, represents the Hebrew Esau, the brother of , and since the descendents of Esau were hostile to the people of the Covenant, the later caricatured the name of Jesus by calling Him Esau. Mohammed doubtless took this form of the name from the Jews without being conscious of the evil significance connected with it.” When the Arabic Bible translation was made by Dr. Smith and Dr. Van Dyck, some would have had its style Koranic, that is, adopting idioms and expressions peculiar to Mohammedans, but in the documentary history of this translation we are told that “ All native Christian scholars decidedly objected to this. It was agreed to adopt a simple but pure Arabic, free from foreign idioms, and never to sacrifice sense to a grammatical quirk or a rhetorical quibble, or a fanciful tinkling of words.” t The question of rendering the name of our Saviour in the more familiar form “ ’I’sa’, for the revised Persian Bible and for the languages used among Moslems in East and West Africa is still being discussed. We believe, therefore, that by reprinting in these coluiiins a scholarly investigation of this subject made half a century ago by the Rev. Isidor Loewenthal, we shall confer a favour upon those who desire a reconsideration of this subject, and afford occasion for those who believe that the right rendering has been adopted to confirm their position by answering its arguments. In any case, Mr. Loewenthal undoubtedly proves, we believe, that in ordinary preach- ing to Moslems the missionary is entitled to use that form of the name which is most familiar to his hearers. The paper that follows was read at a meeting of the American (Presbyterian) Mission at Subathu in November, 1860, and printed as a painplilet at Calcutta by the Baptist Mission Press in 1861.--5. 31. 2.3

* Dr. Otto Pautz, “ Bluhnmmed’s Lehre von der Offenbarung.” Leipzig, 1898, page 191. t “ Documentary History of the Translation of the Scriptures into the Arabic Language.” Mission Press, Beirut, 1900, page 28. THE NAME 'ISA 267

THE NAME 'I'SA.

(ANItiurstipfioa 1,y tltc Rev. Isitior Loero~trtl~nl,IlItkioiitrry lo thc Ajjhntts.) Language is tlie niediuni through which the xnis- sionary in every country is forced to carry out the commands to prcnch tlie and to teach all nations. Language, originally one, has become many ; and the miracle on the day of Pentecost typified the fact that all nations should each in their own tongue hear of the wonderful works of . All language consists of words, and most languages known to us of words denoting objects, words denoting action, words denoting relation -no others. For the sake of analysis aiid instruction these three classes of words are frequently subdivided, but really there are only these three classes. Words denoting objects, for instance, are subdivided into nouns substantive and nouns adjective, nouns proper and nouns coninion, etc., but really they all form one class. The distinction, for instance, between proper nouns and common nouns is quite factitious, inasmuch as any coiiinion noun may bccoine proper, if the class which it denotes is reduced to a single individual, or if any single individual of the class appropriates the noun, for soine reason, by way of excellence. And indeed all proper nouns are originally coininon nouns, all names are originally mere appellatives : whilst a proper naiiie may again becoiiie a coninion noun. Thus, those whoin the Romans called vulgar or vulgarians, from contempt of their manners, have ever since been known ethno- logically as Bulgarians : and 0x1 the other hand, Frank, the naiiie of a nation, has come to denote a quality generally supposed to have belonged pre-eminently to that nation. So much being settled, tlie next principle to be recog- iiised is that every nation has always claimed, and always exercised, the right of using its own words. No onc dis- putes that what the English 1angua.ge calls heaven, the Persian has a right to call asinan. That the same right is exercised in reference to so-called proper nouns, or names, is evidenced by thousands of instances. The 268 THE MOSLEM WORLD capital of Hungary the Magyar calls Buda, the German calls it Ofen ; one of the principal German rivers the German calls Donau, the Englishman calls it Danube ; the Italian calls his beautiful city Firenze, the English- man calls it Florence ; the Dane calls the capital of his country Kjobenhavn, the Englishman calls it Copenhagen ; the same city is callcd by one nation Genf, by another Geneva, having in sound but one letter in common. It will not do to say that only one can be correct, and all the other designations are corruptions. In one sense, all change, the very principle that produces differences of speech at all, is corruption, in as far as not from any deficiency in the organs of hearing or uttering, but from a deliberate, yet unconscious, preference of the wrong to the right, the confusion of Babel has been perpetuated. But in another, more practical, sense philology knows no more of corruption than chemistry. Each language has its own laws of formation and development, and no language has a right to charge another with corruption. What is euphony to one, is cacophony to another ; the Sanscrit says charman, the Pushto tsarman, the Persian charm, the chamrti ; which of these is corruption ? Very often, it may be said, it is perfectly plain which is the original, and which the corruption (so-called), from the fact that the original signification of a name or a word cannot be gathered from the latter, when it may be obtained from the former. The capital of Western Poland, for instance, is called in the language of the place, the Polish, Poznccn, “ Recognition,” and a beautiful legend is connected with the origin of this name. Rut on maps published alike in Germany, Britain, France, or Italy, we only find the German corruption (if you please) “ Posen,” which has no sense. Still, it has the sense it is intended to convey ; the German, the Englishman, the Frenchman, the Italian, mean precisely the same place by Posen which the Pole designates by Poxnan ; and for its original signification only patriots and antiquarians care, a small minority, they, in the working-day world ; and millions understand what is meant by Posen, but only a few hundreds what is meant by Poxnun. It is on this principle that when the Western teacher i THE NAME 'I'SA 269 comes to a Mohammedan nation, he calls the Supreme Being not by its English, German, French, Hebrew, or Greek name, but he says Khuda or ; the land of the ' bondage he calls neither , nor A~~~TOF,nor Mitzrayim, but Misr ; the ancient home of eloquence and poetry he calls neither Hellas nor Greece, but Yunan ; the celebrated conqueror he calls neither Alexander, nor 'AX&$avspos, but Sikandar, if he wishes to be understood. He would waste breath, if he were to begin by telling his hearers that he could not use the name Sikandar, as that was incorrect, or a corrup- tion; the true name was Alexander, and his hearers should bear in mind that every time he said Alexander, he meant Sikandar. He would soon find to his chagrin that the very same causes which originally produced Sikandar out of Alexander, are still at work in the genius of the language which his hearers and pupils use, and he would perceive before his own eyes and ears false Sikandar arising out of correct Alexander. The Christian missionary's work among a heathen nation may most briefly be designated to be the making known of the name of Jesus, a name which God has given Him, and which is above every name, " that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth " ; that men might have their sins remitted, be justified, and obt.ain life through this name ; that this name should he believed on, invoked, obeyed, confessed, held fast, trusted in, revered, honoured, magnified, glorified ; that in this name and thanksgiving should be offered, and that as in ancient times miracles were wronght in this name, so now every thing should be done in this name. In other words, the setting forth of the person of Jesus of Nazareth forms the burden of the missionary's preaching. All missionaries agree that the name of this Person should be set forth and taught properly. When the mis- sionary comes to a people who have never in any way heard of this Person, one should think, the missionary would be glad to have an opportunity of retaining, in his preaching and writing, the name of the Saviour, as it has been delivered to us in the Greek Scriptures. Practically, 270 THE MOSLEBf WORLD however, from the very nature of language, the mis- sionary finds this impossible, in many cases. Remem- bering that the name as made known to us in the Scrip- tures is 'Iygoik, we find, for instance, in the Poruba Scriptures, the name to be Jesiisi (pronounced .Jaysoosee) in the Dualla, Jisos (pronounced Jeesaws) in the Otomi, Hezu (pronounced Hayzoo) in the Curacoa, Hezoes (pronounced HnyzoCs), and many other variations, in other languages. When the missionary conies among the Moham- medans, he finds that the person of .Jesus is by no means unknowii among them, but that their sacred book, the Koran, and their entire literature, froin the Arabic downwards, is pervaded by copious allusions to the great prophet of the . On close investigation he finds that many of their notions concerning Him are ex treinely correct,. What they believe concerning Him is this, that was sent to proclaiin the coming of the Wojd, which they know to mean Jesus ; for they find in the Koran that it was announced to the Virgin Mary by angelic agency, " Oh, Mary, God announces to thee the Word, which comes from Him, and His name shall be Masih 'I'sa Ibnu Mariam, honour- able, honourable in this world and the world to come." The Koran then goes on to intimate that He is to be born by the direct agency of God. They know, moreover, that He was born at Bethlehem, of no human father, that He had the power of performing miracles, that He was specially endowed with the , that the miracles €or which His life was most remarkable, were those of healing, and that He even raised the dead to life again ; that He was rejected by the Jews, that He ascended to heaven, and that He will come a second time to destroy His great opponent. The commentator, Husain Waiz, says: 'I'sa Masih is called the Word of God, because He proceeds directly from God ; that whilst He was on the earth, He manifested in word and works, and that He now exercises the same power in the other world as Mediator. When the Mohammedans speak of His being in the fourth heaven, they mean very much what we understand by the Scriptural statement that He sitteth THE NAME ’TSA 27 1 on the right hand of God; for they say that the first heaven is the planetary heaven, the second is the firma- ment. comprehending the fixed stars, the third is that of disembodied intelligences, or the primum mobile, and the fourth is that of the prime Mover, where is situated the of Glory and the Divine Majesty. To the state- ment, of the Koran, that Jesus was endowed with the most wonderful miraculous powers, the commentators add that His power extends to giving life to the soul, and renewal to the heart. Hence Jalaluddin , the greatest favourite, even at the present day, among all the Persian theological poets, constantly calls Jesus the Plzysicinn of Souls. And indeed, the allusions to Jesus, in Mohanirnedan literature, especially to His unlimited hcneficence, to Ris kindness, His meekness, His virtues, and His mirnciilous powers, origin, and departure, are so copious, that one cannot but wonder that there should be any who havc had even a limited acquaintance with such literatnre that could doubt the fact. One Mohammedan poet, quoted by D’Herbelot, addresses Jesus as follows :-

‘I Man’s afflictcd hcnrt draws its consolation from Thy words, The soul anew receives life and vigour when sho only hears Thy name pronounced. Jf ever man’s spirit can soar to the contemplation of the mystery of the Godhead, It is hecause from Thee lie receives the light of knowledge, and by Thee lie is drawn irresistibly.” It would appcar then at first sight, that the missionary would be glad to find the Mussulman acquainted with so much of the sacred history ; there is, at least, some point of contact, of common standing ground between him and his opponents ; they believe certain facts as well as we to be indisputable history ; the missionary might take advantage of this to demonstrate and explain important truths, and proceed eventually from these truths, to correct the misapprehensions, misconceptions, and faulty and defective notions in the opponent’s mind, and thus perhaps be able ultimately to show the incorrectness of certain statements in his sacred books. For it may be considered as established by this time, that it is erroneous to suppose that a creed which is not wholly false, must 272 THE MOSLEM WORLD be first entirely destroyed and uprooted before the truth can be successfully applied. Where there are even mere germs of truth, they sometimes need only the right culture to awaken them to vitality, and where there are but faint remains of the truth, let the superincumbent inass of rubbish and debris but be carefully, no matter how toilsomely, removed, and long-hidden foundations will be brought to light after centuries of concealment, and testify too strongly to the truth for the latter then to be so easily rejected. MissionarieR, I say, might be supposed to be glad to find so much vantage-ground of which they might avail themselves in their great struggle for the truth. And such has been the course of most missionaries who have had to do with Mohammedans in various countries. In India, however, there have been some who are ready to give up this apparent advantage, snd who would prefer to bring before the Rrlohammedans an entirely new personage by the name of Yusuu, of whom neither they, nor their fathers, nor anybody else has ever heard before.* They would abandon all advantage, as they do in fact, from an unwillingness to use the name by which the Mohammedans know our Saviour, namely, ’I’su. It has already been shown that on linguistic grounds the Arabs, and any nation after them, have a full right to use this or any other name to designate Jesus of Nazareth. Many objections, however, have been urged to the continued use of this name among missionaries, but they may conveniently, as to their main purport, be reduced under two heads. The first is that the ’I’sa of the Mohammedans is not the Jesus Whom we adore. They believe of Him many miracles which are not recorded in Scripture, and they have removed t4he two great pillars of the Christian system by denying His death, and His divinity. To this objection it may be answered, in the first place, that these defeots would continue to exist in the Mussulman’s creed, even if we were able, in some way, * Some missionaries seem to be in the habit of pronouncing the name &&, but the way in which it is spelt, makes any pronun- ciation but Yzreicci quite impossible. THE NAME 'I'SA 273 to change the name 'I'sa into Yusua in their entire litera- ture, sacred and profane, as well as in the minds of the whole Mussulman world ; a change of a name could not alter their doctrine. When a Mohammedan should hear a missionary pronoiince the name of Him whom the Mussulman knows beforehand to be the subject of the missionary's preaching-if he should licar him pro- nounce '1'98, Yusua, he would only put it down as one of the many odd pronunciations of these Feringhis, though he might think it particularly odd that they should thus mispronounce the name of their own prophet. But, in fact, this objection is of far too wide a sweep to be forcible at all, when applied to the name of our Saviour alone. A missionary might well wish to alter the entire language of those among whom he labours, if he would eradicate at one pull the false and soul-destroying notions that attach to almost all the specific terms the missionary is using in his preaching and in his teaching. It is not the person and the work of our Saviour alone m to which the false religionist is in such grievous error, but sin, righteousness, justice, mercy, heaven, , forgiveness, , prayer, all these terms have been per- verted from the truth, and none of them suggests to the Moslem and to the idolater what they suggest to those who are taught by the Bible, But we cannot think of discarding the terms themselves ; we take those in the actual languages that had originally the true meaning, or such as have now a meaning in some measure approach- ing the truth, and use them in order to teach the whole, full, pure, truth. Whenever the missionary, in his preach- ing to a promiscuous assembly, uses words for the ideas mentioned or similar ones, he is conscious that at least half his audience, who may not be used to niissionary preaching, attach wrong conceptions to them, and yet he can only explain partially, only correct some miscon- ception, only teach a few men ; he cannot think of intro- ducing entirely new terms. Nay, even the designation of that one great centre towards which, after all, every pretends to aspire, and the aspiration after which forms the one unfailing connecting link between the Christian missionary T 274 THE MOSLEM WORLD and all heathens of every name, namely Goi), with how many false notions is it even encumbered in the Moham- medan’s mind ; how utterly different a being is He in his mind from what He is in the mind of the Christian; the just Judge lost in the Sovereign, the Father lost in the King, the prayer-hearing Parent lost in a dread ’~dyq,the Person lost in a grand pantheistic Nega- tion, the ever-present One in R universal Nothing. A11 these fearful misconceptions must be corrected, but we cannot change the name by which He is known. Were we to change the name of our , and the Mohammedan should ask us-and the question has been put frequently-whether Yusua and ’l’sa were two different persons, we could not say Yes, for he holds too much of the truth concerning Jesus of Nazareth. What he holds concerning Him is almost altogetlier true, he only does not hold the whole truth. Were he to ask further, Why, then, do you alter the name by which we know Him? some missionaries are inclined to answer, Because ’I’mis not the name given Him by the mgcl, as we arc informed in the Gospel of Matthew. This, indeed, forins the sccond, and perhaps the principal, objection to the usc of thc naiiie ’I’sa. ‘The allegation is, that tlic original naine has been corrtcpl,led, some say, by accidciit, others, clcsigncclly, though sonic of the latter again ascribc tlic “ corruption” to tlic malignity of the Jews, whilst others say that Mohaniined purposely changed the collocation of the letters of the name, in order to obscure its signification. This allegation rests upon such a variety of iiiisappre- hensions, that it is hardly possible to deal briefiy with it. In the first place, we inquire, what is the original form of the name ? In the passage where the name is recorded with the reason for its imposition, we find it to be ’I~~oik,a word written in Greek characters in a Greek gospel. This, then, is the original name, one might suppose. For centuries this was the opinion, and the early Greek fathers who were but little acquainted with Hebrew, endeavoured to derive the name from the Greek verb Idopal, “to heal,” in order to obtain the meaning from it which seemed to be necessitated by the THE NAME 'I'SA 275 annunciation of the aiigel : " Thou shalt call His iiaiiic 'I~coGs, for He shall save His people from their sins." The name in the inspired record, then, is simply 'Iqaoik, nothing more. Exegetical philology, a human science, be it observed, whose inferences, however correct, can never be equal in binding authority to a plain Scriptural statement, subsequently found that the name 'IqaoCs, in two passages of the New Testament, and in numerous ones of the Old, was the Greek equivalent (corruption, your modern missionaries would say) for the Hebrew WW: Yehoshua. The link between the old original form and the Greek 'I~ooGs,may be found in a later form of the Hebrew name, which also appears in the latest books of the Old Testament, viz. pPi: Yeshua, which on the principle of the objectors here contended against, is a plain corruption. And again, granting YJW to be the form intended by the Greek 'I~UOGS,we shall find this, that is the Greek name, a most egregious corruption (still on the principle of the objectors), because of the three radicals, the first has been softened away into a mere vowel, the second has been changed froin shin into s, and the third, the characteristic one Y, has disappeared altogether. If we inquire after the meaning of tlie naitic, ivc shall find that the word 'I~cJo;~ in Greek has 110 iiieaning wliatsoevcr, in itself considered, that the old form Yehoshw means "God his Saviour," a meaning which would not be applicable to the interpretation of tlie , and that the abridged form Yeshzcn has no iiieaniiig in the known graminar of tlie Hebrew language. The most probable account of the matter is that YW being in sound very much like the abstract noun xYW', the meaning of the latter, namely, " salvation," was attached to the name. Granting, then, the Hebrew form of the name 'Iqcroik to be W! the Arabic form ~+cat a glance shows itself to be a somewhat violent change, inasmuch as the f which in the Hebrew word is the last, is in the Arabic the first consonant. Nearly twenty years ago, the Rev. Jowett, then one of the secretaries of the British and Foreign Biblc Society, in a letter to the Calcutta TT! 276 THE MOSLEM WORLD Auxiliary Bible Society, in which he wisely deprecates the excessive zeal manifested by the two parties for and against the retention of the name ’I’sa, as if the progress of the Gospel depended upon the form of a name, suggests that the change inay have been accidental. True philology was comparatively young in t’hose days, but even then an accurate student of languages would have hesitated to ascribe any linguistic changc to accident. There is a reason and a law for all such changes ; a language may somctinies be found to be wanton in the mutations in which it scems to delight, but there will be found t’o be method and causality even in its wantonness ; ZZLSUS natztrce, monsters, and accidents are as exceptional in the genesis of words, as they are in that of men, animals, and vegetables. It will be seen presently that the form ’I’m is not due to an accident. The next opinion, namely that the form ’I‘m cJ.+c is due to Jewish malignity, was first broached by Maracci, the Roman Catholic editor of the Koran, and repeated by Prof. E. Henderson, in a letter to the London Religious Tract Society, dated April 26th, 1843. Maracci thought the Jews had endeavoured to assimilate the name to that of Esau. This, too, is a mistake. The Jews consider it a sin to write or pronounce the name of our Saviour ; their usual designation of Him is “The Crucified One.” There are, however, two instances that evidence what the form of the name in Hebrew was in the early centuries of the Christian era. A Jewish- Christian sect, the Valentinians, spelled it ~m’! and, in accordance with Rabbinical modes of thought, fancied that the name consisted of the initials of three words, namely, y?y?! n?9y njn: of heaven and earth. In a Jewish history of Jesus, in itself libcllous and blasphenious, and but little known cven among tlic Jews, but of considerable antiquity, tlic naiiic is spelt in the same way. Maracci adduces nothing to corroborate his conjecture. But the most prevalent opinion among certain mis- sionaries seems to be that which ascribes the form of the name to Mohammed as its author. In order to THE NAME 'I'SA 277 deprive the name of its significancy, say they, he altered the position of the radicals. But, on close inspection, this opinion is found to be the most erroneous imaginable. Let it be remembered that the name has no meaning in Greek, that its meaning in the Hebrew is a matter of doubt and conjecture, and whatever its meaning be, it would have it only in the Hebrew. The same letters transferred into any other language, no matter how closely related that language be to the Hebrew, will not necessarily have the same meaning, if any. If Mohammed had wished to give our Saviour a name which should not have the meaning of Saviour or salvation, or should have no meaning at all in Arabic, he need have done nothing but transfer the siipposed Hebrew letters into Arabic, as our missionaries are attempting to do, and he would have succeeded to perfection. For, although the Hebrew verb Y* means to save, the corre- sponding Arabic verb rjin all its multitudinous significations, has none of that sense; so that the trouble of changing t,he name would have been quite siipererogatory. The form u+c 'I'sa is due to a law of the Moham- medan or perhaps more properly the Oriental mind. In the masterpieces of Oriental architecture, rhetoric, and poetry, the most striking characteristic is that of correspondence or proportion. The indescribable beauty of the Taj, for instance, lies in its unrivalled purity of symmetry and proportion, line answering to line, cupola to cupoI&, minaret to minaret, ornament to ornament ; it has an exquisitely designed on the one side, and a building in every respect resembling it, as its Jawab or Response, on the other, though quite useless, on account of its position, for the purpose of . This severe law of beauty even drove the builder to attempt the erection of another, responsive Taj on the other side of the river. The same phenomenon may be often observed in Mohammedan architecture, though perhaps nowhere else in such perfection. The same principle, doubtless arising from organic sensibility, has produced in Oriental literature, whether Hebrew, Arabic, Persian, , or Pushto, a style 278 THE MOSLEM WORLD quite sui qenwis, inimitable, hardly ever appreciated by Occidentals, and frequently widely differing from our taste ; witness the parallelisms, sometimes amounting to sevenfold, and the frequent paronomasia of the Hebrew Scriptures ; the equal rhythmic cadences of the Koran, sometimes sustained throughout whole pages and chapters ; in Persian, again, the nicely-balanced clauses, the laboured adaptation of words, and forms of words, to one another, the assonance, the jingle, pervading even prose ; then in poetry, the same rhyme sustained through- out an entire poem, and the habitual epigrammatic antitheses, so rare in the languages of Europe ; indeed, rhyme is confessedly a product of the East. A consideration of these peculiarities will put us in B position to estimate aright certain changes of names in thc Koran sufficicntly numerous to enable us to recognise the law by which they have been produced. Jt is none other than this, that names connected in some way, either historically cognate, or brought together in the sacred record, must rhyme together. This law will leave one name usually unaltered, as far as possible, and so slightly modify the other as to produce a rhyme, or at least an assonance. Hence Habil (Abel) is left unchanged, but Kain is changed into Kabil. becomes, close enough, Harun, but , to rhyme with it, is changed into Karun. Jalut contains the same radicals as , but rhymes with it as ; it would probably have been Salut, but the change into Talut connects the name with the root J'L (tala) " he was tall," and appeared therefore more apropos. Eber is made, in the Koran, to play a part similar to that of , which is Nuh in Arabic, having the same letters as the Hebrew word; hence Eber's name is changed into . So certain two are called Harut and Marut. Here is a series, then, thatawill stand thus :- Habil - Kahil Harut - Marut, NU^ - Hud, IIarun - Karun, Jalut - Talut ; what lhen more natural than that &+ the prophet of THE NAME 'TI'SA 279 the Christians, should be made to form an assonance with uwpthe prophet of the Jews ? &,.is the proper Arabic forin for the Hebrew nqjn Moshe = . It may be furthermore obeerved that some of these rhyming names are demonstrably older than Mohammed; and from the way they are used in the Koran, they have a71 the appearance of being already familiar to the reader." There is, then, no corruption in the name 'I'm that the missionary shoulcl t