בן נצר, because He was He who had been promised by Isaiah. But this supposition is correct thus far only, that, no doubt, this appellation was chosen by the Jews with a reference to the circumstance that the Christians maintained that Jesus was the נצר announced by Isaiah, just as, for the very same reason, they also assign to Him the names נצר נאפוף "adulterous branch," and נצר נתעב "abominable branch" (from Is. xiv. 19); comp. _Eisenmenger_ I. S. 137, 138. But _Gieseler_ is wrong in deriving, from this reference to Is. xi. 1, the origin of the appellation, be it properly or mainly only. Against that even the very appellation is decisive, for in that case it ought to have been _Nezer_ only, and not _Ben-Nezer_. _Gieseler_, it is true, asserts that he in whom a certain prophecy was fulfilled is called the "Son of the prophecy," and in confirmation of this _usus loquendi_ he refers to the circumstance that the pseudo-Messiah under Hadrian assumed, with a reference to the כוכב in Numb. xxiv. 17, the name בן כוכב or בר כוכבא, in so far as the star there promised had appeared in him. But this confirmation is only apparent; it can as little be proved from it, that Christ could be called _Ben-Nezer_ because He was He in whom the prophecy of the _Nezer_ was fulfilled, as it can be proved from the appellation _Ben Nezer_ that that pseudo-Messiah could be called _Bar Cochba_, only because it was believed that in him the prophecy of the star was fulfilled. _Reland_ has already proved (Geogr. II. p. 727) that _Barcochba_ probably had that name because he was a native of Cocab, a town or district in the country beyond Jordan. And the reason why he laid such special stress upon that descent was, that he sought a deeper meaning in this agreement of the name of his birth-place with the designation of the subject of the prophecy in Numb. xxiv. Moreover the supposition that, by the Jews, he in whom some prophecy was fulfilled, was called the son of that prophecy; that, _e.g._, the Messiah, the Servant of God, the Prince of Peace were called the Son of the Messiah, &c., is not only destitute of all foundation, but is, even in itself, most improbable. To this must still be added the consideration that this interpretation of _Ben-Nezer_ is opposed by the constant interpretation of the Jews. _Jarchi_, in a gloss on that passage of the Talmud referred to, explains _Ben Nezer_ by: "He who has come from the town of Nazareth." _Abarbanel_ [Pg 108] in his book _Majenehajeshua_, after having quoted from _Jalkut Shimeoni_ the passage in question, observes: "Remark well how they have explained the little horn in Daniel vii. 8, of the _Ben Nezer_ who is Jesus the _Nazarene_." From the Lexicon _Aruch_ which forms a weighty authority, Buxtorf quotes: "נצר נצרי המקלל Nezer, (or Ben Nezer), is the accursed _Nazarene_." _Finally_--It could not well be supposed that the Jews, in a contest where they heap the most obnoxious blasphemies on Christ,