Originally Posted by Strong in Him View Post
He then says; "For if Jesus had given them rest, then he would not afterward have spoken of another day." Clearly, in the context, it should read Moses, or maybe Joshua.
Every 20th Century translation I've seen, including the ASV of 1901 and the New King James, has "Joshua" there.
Now to address the issue of why the King James Bible and many others correctly translated the literal Jesus as Jesus in both Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8, concerning which Daniel Wallace says: Why the KJV has Jesus here is a mystery to me. -
In Hebrews 4:8 we read: "For if JESUS had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day."
Likewise in Acts 7:45 we have: "Which also our fathers that came after brought in with JESUS into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David."
The Greek texts all literally have the name JESUS in these two places, though the contexts refer to the man Joshua. Joshua himself is a pictorial "type" of our Lord Jesus Christ. Joshua, along with Caleb, did believe God had given them the promised land, but the rest of the people entered not in because of unbelief. Later this same Joshua ('Jesus' in Greek) led the people into the land. The promised land typifies the spiritual rest from our own works which was accomplished by the greater Jesus, the Son of God Himself.
Other Bible versions that read JESUS in Acts 7 and Hebrews 4 like the King James Bible are the Latin Vulgate, Wycliffe 1395 - "For if Jhesus hadde youun reste to hem, he schulde neuere speke of othere aftir this dai.", the Great Bible 1540, Taverner's Bible, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, Douay-Rheims 1852 - ""For if Jesus had given them rest, he would never have afterwards spoken of another day." then it footnotes "Jesus"... Josue, who in Greek is called Jesus." , the Geneva Bible 1599, Webster's 1833 translation, Etheridge Translation 1849, the Emphatic Diaglott 1865, Darby's translation 1890, the Julia Smith Translation 1855, The Emphatic Diaglott version of 1865, The Accurate New Testament of 2008, the Holy Scriptures English Jubilee bible of 2010 and the Urim-Thummin Version of 2001. The latest Catholic version, the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version goes back to the Greek reading and reads: "For if Jesus had offered them rest, he would never have spoken, afterward, about another day."
The Spanish Las Sagradas Escrituras of both 1569 and 1999 also read like the KJB, as does Cipriano de Valera 1602 (in both Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8) the Reina Valera Nuevo Testamento of 1858, Spanish Jubilee Bible 2000 and the 2010 Reina Valera Gomez bible, all reading: "Porque si Jesús les hubiera dado el Reposo..." The Latvian N.T. also says Jesus - "Jo ja Jēzus būtu ievedis tos mierā", and the 2009 Romanian Fidela Bible - "Isus" in both Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8.
John Calvins Latin translation kept the name as Jesus - Nam si Iesus requiem illis praestitisset
The Aramaic Bible in Plain English reads: "For if Yeshua, son of Nun, had given them rest, he would not afterward have spoken of another day."
The Geneva Bible also comments regarding Hebrews 4:8 - "For if (b) Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day." - (b) He speaks of Joshua the son of Nun: and as the land of Canaan was a figure of our true rest, so was Joshua a figure of Christ.
Joshua himself was called by four different names including Jeshuah Nehemiah 8:17; Joshua in Joshua 1:1; Jehoshuah in Numbers 13:16, and Oshea in Numbers 13:11. He is mentioned only twice in the New Testament, once in Acts 7:45 and again in Hebrews 4:8. In Greek his name translates as Insous, or Jesus in English. This is exactly the same way "Jesus" is spelled in every case.
Both Hebrews 4:8 and Acts 7:45 the literal Greek "Jesus" refers to the man Joshua, who himself believed God and is the "type" of the true Jesus, who indeed does lead us into the promised land and gives us rest from our own labours. The type and the antitype both have the same name. God Himself inspired the Bible in this way to teach a spiritual lesson.
John Gill remarks in his commentary that Joshua "was an eminent type of Jesus Christ. There is an agreement in their names, both signify a saviour, Joshua was a temporal saviour, Christ a spiritual one; and in their office they were both servants; and in their qualifications for their office, such as wisdom, courage, faithfulness, and integrity. Joshua was a type of Christ in many actions of his life; in the miracles he wrought, or were wrought for him; in the battles he fought, and the victories he obtained."
Bible commentator Matthew Poole (1852) also notes: "Joshua was a type of Jesus, who brings believers into the true rest of the heavenly Canaan as he did Israel into a literal one - Acts 7:45."
The King James Bible and all the others are not in error, as some allege. Rather it gives a literal translation of the Greek name Joshua, and reveals the "type" or divine foreshadowing of the fulfillment which was completed in the Son of God.