1. Introduction
Heb 4.8 is the only place where Joshua is mentioned in English translations of the book of Hebrews. The author uses Ps 95 (94 LXX/OG) in Hebrews 3 to introduce the behaviour of the wilderness generation as an example for the Christian church not to imitate. As the wilderness generation failed to enter rest because of their lack of faith and faithfulness, so believers are exhorted to labour to enter rest by their faith and faithfulness (Heb 4.11). However, the introduction of Joshua son of Nun provides some difficulty in understanding the author's argument because it appears to contradict the Old Testament account of Joshua's success. In most English translations Heb 4.8 states, ‘For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken of another day later on’ (ESV). Although the Old Testament account portrays Joshua as successfully bringing Israel into the promised land (i.e. the ‘rest’), the author of Hebrews seemingly portrays him as unsuccessful in bringing Israel into rest. One solution to this riddle is to ascribe a typological meaning to the name ‘Joshua’, which in Greek is Ἰησοῦς, and could be translated as ‘Jesus’. In other words, Joshua is used by the author so that readers will find a pattern in which Jesus is the greater example or fulfilment of that pattern. However, I will argue against understanding Ἰησοῦς in Heb 4.8 as a typological reference to both Joshua son of Nun and Jesus the Christ. Instead, an argument is given for the claim that Ἰησοῦς should be translated as ‘Jesus’. Two lines of evidence will demonstrate this. First, the immediate context of the passage will be explored to demonstrate that the ‘Joshua son of Nun’ option causes significant problems in understanding the author's argument, and that taking the referent of Ἰησοῦς to be Jesus the Christ solves these tensions and clarifies the argument. Second, the unanimous use of the nomen sacrum abbreviation to write the name ‘Jesus’ by the early Christian scribes in the earliest manuscripts demonstrates that they interpreted Ἰησοῦς as referring to Jesus the Christ and not Joshua son of Nun. In some ways, the nomina sacra provide an abbreviated commentary on the text for the first six centuries of the church.
2. The Immediate Context and the Typological Argument
The specific referent of Ἰησοῦς in Heb 4.8 has garnered little discussion in the academic community, although some interpreters do note the puzzling appearance of ‘Joshua’ so suddenly in the argument.Footnote 1 One interpreter observes that the sudden appearance of ‘Joshua’ is ‘cryptic’, and another that it ‘looks like a non-sequitur’ in the author's argument.Footnote 2 The default translation, which renders Ἰησοῦς as ‘Joshua’, is commonly assumed; however, interpreters provide few arguments in defence of this translation.Footnote 3 Two examples of this assumption can be seen in practice in recent monographs which make the case for Joshua son of Nun as part of the author's argument in the sermon.
In the first example, Richard Ounsworth in his monograph titled Joshua Typology in the New Testament argues that a ‘greater sense of the unity of the Letter to the Hebrews can be achieved by inferring from the Letter a typological relationship between Joshua son of Nun and Jesus’.Footnote 4 This typological relationship was not necessarily intended by the author, Ounsworth argues, but would have been inferred by the audience.
Ounsworth makes several good observations in his discussion; however, he makes one significant omission: he never provides a positive argument for Joshua as the referent of Ἰησοῦς in Heb 4.8.Footnote 5 Ounsworth simply assumes this translation and spends a significant amount of space demonstrating the typological parallels to Jesus. However, if Joshua is not the referent of Ἰησοῦς, then Ounsworth's argument is undermined. That he did not think it necessary to defend the Joshua reading demonstrates how uncritically the assumption is held.
In a second example, Bryan Whitfield, in his monograph Joshua Traditions and the Argument of Hebrews 3 and 4, argues that the name Ἰησοῦς in Heb 4.8 opens a door to seeing Jesus as the true ‘Joshua’ in regard to two Old Testament Joshua(s): Joshua in the book of Numbers, and Joshua in the book of Zechariah.Footnote 6 He maintains that several themes relevant to the two Joshuas, as they are presented in Numbers and Zechariah, are subtly woven into the text of Hebrews and demonstrate how both the topics of high priest and leader of the people of God can refer to Jesus.
Whitfield makes several excellent observations; however, his argument suffers from the same significant omission as Ounsworth's: at no place in the monograph does Whitfield defend a reading of ‘Joshua son of Nun’ as the referent in Heb 4.8. Whitfield does not entertain a reading of ‘Jesus’ as the primary referent, nor does he argue for the merits of Joshua son of Nun being the primary referent. Once again, that Whitfield did not think a defence of Joshua as the referent of Ἰησοῦς in Heb 4.8 necessary demonstrates how deeply rooted the assumption is.
Such an omission in these two examples is significant because Heb 4.8 is the only place in the entire sermon where Joshua is observed by scholars as explicitly mentioned. Despite this criticism of Ounsworth and Whitfield, both authors do argue for a connection between Heb 4.8 and Jesus. Thus, they both provide many provocative statements concerning how the author may be presenting Jesus as faithful in Heb 3.1–4.13. Commentators’ explanation of Joshua's appearance in the argument is usually presented in one of two ways: (1) Joshua is used as a chronological argument intended to redefine the rest, or (2) Joshua is introduced for the sake of creating a typological pointer to Jesus.
2.1 The Author Uses Joshua as a Chronological Argument for the Redefinition of Rest
The most common explanation of Joshua's appearance in Heb 4.8 is that the author makes a chronological and historical argument which is intended to redefine the nature of the rest.Footnote 7 The conditional statement of Heb 4.8 is correctly taken as a second-class conditional, which communicates the assumption of something which is not true.Footnote 8 Thus, as Paul Ellingworth states, ‘Since the author must have been aware of frequent statements in the Old Testament that God did give his people rest in the time of Joshua … κατέπαυσɛν must imply ‘gave them true rest’”.Footnote 9 Thus, for Ellingworth, the fact that Joshua did lead the people into the promised rest is intended to point to the author's redefinition of rest. Therefore, Joshua did not lead them into the true rest.
Although the author is certainly redefining rest in this passage, he does not do that in Heb 4.8 specifically. Several problems arise from identifying Joshua as a key to the chronological development of rest. First, the author has already redefined the concept of rest in his argument of Heb 4.3–5 and 6–7. Hebrews 4.3–5 clearly points to the rest still being available and believers having the opportunity to enter it. These verses also associate the promised rest with God's creation rest and the Sabbath. Thus, the rest is no longer the promised land. Heb 4.6–7 clearly describes why the wilderness generation did not enter the rest, and also clearly points out that the promised land was not the rest of God. The author's argument in Heb 4.6–7 is the chronological argument which interpreters often associate with Joshua in Heb 4.8. It is in Heb 4.7 that the author states that David, while living in the promised land, observes that a rest is still available.Footnote 10 Thus, if David was living in the promised land, and yet he speaks of a future day of rest, then the author clearly redefines rest as distinct from the promised land.Footnote 11 That David is mentioned as the human author of the psalm is a unique statement in the entire sermon.Footnote 12 The author regularly puts Scripture citations into the mouth of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit (e.g. Heb 2.17–18; 3.7–11; 10.5–7, 15–17). David is the only human author of Scripture recognised in Hebrews. Thus, the author steps away from his normal operating procedure and points out the human author of Ps 95 (94 LXX/OG) in order to make his historical and chronological point.
Second, the author's addition of Joshua and the faithful second generation obscures the argument of the passage and presents Joshua's activity in terms contradictory to the Old Testament. In Hebrews 3 the author utilises the wilderness generation's failure at Kadesh Barnea to illustrate unbelief and unfaithfulness. In light of this, why would the author add Joshua and the second faithful generation to this argument? Several significant differences between the wilderness generation and the second faithful generation warrant emphasis, and, when pointed out, make the author's possible reference to Joshua unneeded and unlikely. For example, the wilderness generation is characterised by unbelief and unfaithfulness, whereas the generation which entered the promised land is successful and faithful. The author uses the wilderness generation to illustrate a failure to be faithful, so why introduce an overwhelmingly positive example of faithfulness (i.e. the crossing of the Jordan) in Heb 4.8? When interpreters opt for Joshua as the referent of Ἰησοῦς, they often inadvertently blend the wilderness generation and the second faithful generation together as if they were the same group. Thus, interpreting the phrase in Heb 4.8 as ‘Joshua did not give them rest’ results in adding two new characters (i.e. Joshua and the faithful second generation) and in contradicting the Old Testament narrative because Joshua did lead the second generation into rest, i.e. the promised land. Furthermore, chronologically the second, faithful generation comes forty years later than the wilderness generation's failure at Kadesh Barnea. Why would the author move in his argument from an illustration of unfaithfulness, by reference to Kadesh Barnea in Hebrews 3, to a redefinition of rest by appeal to David, and then move chronologically backward to Joshua and the faithful second generation's successful crossing of the Jordan forty years after Kadesh Barnea?
Surely the author would have been familiar enough with Joshua's leadership to know that he did in fact lead the next faithful generation of Israelites into rest, i.e. the promised land. Since he has already redefined rest by associating Ps 95 (94 LXX/OG) with David, there is no need to introduce Joshua and the obedient generation. By arguing that Joshua and the faithful second generation of Israelites are in view here, scholars introduce evidence which actually muddies the author's argument and does not contribute any substantial new information.
2.2 A Jesus/Joshua Typology
In addition to the ‘chronological argument for the redefinition of rest’ explanation, a few interpreters explain the introduction of Joshua in Heb 4.8 as a typological nod to Jesus. As noted above, both Ounsworth and Whitfield have written monographs exploring the connections between Jesus and Joshua(s) in the sermon of Hebrews.Footnote 13 They are not alone; several other commentators acknowledge this view even though their discussions are brief. For example, Luke Timothy Johnson states:
The typological reading of the wilderness story is made even more plausible because the name of the leader who finally led the survivors into Canaan was Joshua, which in the LXX appears as Iēsous (see Josh 1:2; 2:6–7). Hebrews makes a point beyond the one that some of the people who came out of Egypt did not enter the land (3:16–18): the land itself is not the real promise! If the Jesus of the past had been able to provide that, then God would not have spoken about another day ‘after these’ (meta tauta), namely the days spoken about in the accounts of the wilderness and conquest.Footnote 14
To summarise, these interpreters conclude that the central typological association is that Jesus and Joshua are both leaders into ‘rest’ even though the definition of rest has shifted. However, if this is the correct typological likeness of the two, then several problems instantly arise. First, assuming for the moment that Heb 4.8 refers to Joshua, the author expressly states that Joshua did not give the people rest. Thus, the issue of his leadership into the promised land is not just slighted, it is turned on its head. Second, if the author intended a Joshua/Jesus typology concerning their leadership, then why did he not develop this with an explicit statement as to their comparative roles?Footnote 15 Why does he seem to mute Joshua's role? This is brought into further focus when we recognise that the author does not include Joshua in his list of the faithful in Hebrews 11; why introduce him here and then abandon his typology when it could have been explicitly beneficial for that argument as well? This will be discussed further below.
3. The Immediate Context and the Argument for Ἰησοῦς as Jesus
Four positive arguments are provided based on context for the referent of Ἰησοῦς to be ‘Jesus’. The first pair are based broadly on the entire sermon, and the last pair are based on the immediate context of Heb 4.8.
3.1 The Use of Ἰησοῦς in Hebrews Points to Jesus as the Consistent Referent
The name Ἰησοῦς is used fourteen times in the sermon. If we exclude Heb 4.8 for the moment, the remaining thirteen uses all clearly point to Jesus.Footnote 16 Several times Ἰησοῦς is coupled with Χριστός making the referent clear. The author's overwhelming use of Ἰησοῦς in the sermon is intended to point to Jesus. This observation, however, is admittedly circumstantial and each context needs to be examined individually. Still it potentially points to a certain default reading of Ἰησοῦς as ‘Jesus’ and not ‘Joshua’. This becomes more significant when we examine the paucity of evidence for Joshua in the entire sermon. Heb 4.8 is the only possible explicit reference to Joshua. This causes us to ask, ‘What specific exegetical detail in the context of Heb 4.8 points to Joshua over Jesus?’
A second observation to note concerning the name Ἰησοῦς is that three of the first four times Ἰησοῦς is used in the sermon are found in Heb 3.1–4.14. The second use (Heb 3.1) and the fourth use (Heb 4.14) are part of an inclusio which provides structural parameters for the author's argument. Furthermore, the name Ἰησοῦς has been used only twice prior to Heb 4.8 at Heb 2.9 and 3.1. Thus, the flow of the author's broader argument up to this point would lead listeners to expect Jesus as a primary referent.
3.2 The Absence of Joshua in the Sermon Points to Jesus as the Referent of Ἰησοῦς
In comparison to the abundant explicit and implicit references to Jesus in the sermon, direct references to Joshua are non-existent (barring possibly Heb 4.8). Admittedly this argument from silence does not prove that Heb 4.8 refers to Jesus. Even if Joshua is not referred to in the remainder of the sermon, it is still possible that Heb 4.8 could refer to him. However, if a part of the author's argument exists where we would expect him to use Joshua, and he does not, then it raises the question of whether the author intentionally avoids pointing his hearers to Joshua throughout his sermon. This should lead interpreters to come back to Heb 4.8 in order to find clear contextual evidence in support of Joshua as the referent to Ἰησοῦς.
The most obvious place where we would expect to find a reference to Joshua is Hebrews 11. The author's well-known repetition of ‘by faith’ connects the exemplars of faithfulness and ultimately points to Jesus as the exemplar of faith par excellence (Heb 12.2).Footnote 17 In Heb 11.24–31, the author recounts Moses’ faithfulness (Heb 11.24–8), then the Israelites’ faith in crossing the Red Sea (Heb 11.29), then the peoples’ faith as demonstrated by the fall of Jericho (Heb 11.30), and finally Rahab's faith as demonstrated by her protection of the spies (Heb 11.31). One verse later, the author provides a further short list of God's people, some with potentially questionable faithfulness: Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel and the prophets.
Two observations immediately come to the forefront. First, Joshua is noticeably absent from the discussion. His role as the leader of the obedient second generation of Israelites into the promised land would appear to be a great potential addition to the author's list of exemplars. Joshua demonstrates his faithfulness at Kadesh Barnea (cf. Numbers 14) even before he has replaced Moses. He continues to demonstrate faithfulness in the narrative of the crossing of the Jordan, the attack of Jericho and the continued conquest of the promised land. That the author omits him from the list in Heb 11.32 raises the question of whether the author is intentionally avoiding mentioning Joshua son of Nun.Footnote 18
A second observation is that the author chose to emphasise the faith of a minor character, Rahab, and characters of spotty faithfulness, Gideon, Samson and Jephthah, instead of Joshua.Footnote 19 Not only is Joshua omitted where we would expect to find him, but minor characters like Rahab and Jephthah are included. David L. Allen states that these verses ‘contain a startling omission and a startling inclusion’ when referring to the excluded Joshua and the included Rahab.Footnote 20 That the author omits Joshua even from this overview points towards his aversion to Joshua.Footnote 21
To summarise this point: the author's lack of explicit reference to Joshua son of Nun in the rest of the sermon, even where we would expect to find him, points to his unwillingness to utilise Joshua in his overall argument. However, to argue against a Joshua referent only partially points to a Jesus referent. Positive evidence in support of a Jesus referent is still necessary.
3.3 The Author's Contextual Argument is Clearer if Jesus Is the Referent of Ἰησοῦς
As noted above, it is often argued by interpreters that the author uses Joshua to set up a chronological argument which redefines rest. This has the unfortunate effect of making the author's argument in Heb 3 and 4 convoluted: in this view his argument moves from an illustration of unfaithfulness, by reference to Kadesh Barnea, to a redefinition of rest by appeal to David, and then moves chronologically backward to Joshua and the faithful second generation's successful crossing forty years after Kadesh Barnea to continue to redefine rest. Furthermore, the fact that the author does not expound on his supposed reference to Joshua makes the logic even more problematic.
However, if Jesus is the intended referent of Ἰησοῦς, then the author's argument moves from failure in unbelief at Kadesh Barnea, to David's redefinition of rest via Ps 95 (94 LXX/OG), and to an explanation that Jesus is the one who grants rest to those who are faithful (Heb 4.8). Furthermore, several interpreters have argued that in Heb 4.10 the singular aorist substantival participle ὁ ɛἰσɛλθών ‘the one who entered’ is actually a specific reference to Jesus.Footnote 22 This is instead of viewing the participle as having a generic reference (‘everyone who enters’). If this is accurate (and I think it is), then it further develops the author's argument in this section by adding that not only does Jesus have the right to withhold rest due to unbelief, but he entered rest because of his faithfulness and invites his brothers and sisters to enter his rest. In other words, believers are not exhorted to rest from their own works, but to enter the rest which Jesus earned from his work of redemption. This explains the author's use of the demonstrative pronoun to clarify the rest in Heb 4.11, ‘therefore, let us hasten to enter that rest’. Believers do not rest from their own works; however, they do enter the rest that was earned by Jesus.
3.4 A Referent of Jesus for Ἰησοῦς Provides Subject Consistency for Both Clauses in Heb. 4.8
In Heb 4.8, modern translations and interpreters regularly supply different subjects for the first and the second clause. The Greek omits the subject of the second verb, and it must be supplied by the reader. The most likely candidate to be the subject of the second clause, on the basis of proximity, is the subject of the first clause. However, if Joshua is the subject of the first clause, then he cannot be the one speaking about another day. For this reason, modern translations often insert ‘God’ as the speaker in the second clause (e.g. NIV, ESV, NET, NRSV, FC, Lu). Some translations (e.g. NASB, NKJV, GuNB) keep the ambiguity by adding ‘he’ as the understood speaker. That leaves readers to wrestle with the antecedent of this pronoun.
This ambiguity disappears if Jesus is the referent of Ἰησοῦς in the first clause, because both clauses can be read naturally as having the same subject. Thus, Jesus does not give the wilderness generation rest, and Jesus also speaks about another day of rest. If this is the case, then Jesus’ speaking concerning another day must be associated with Ps 95.7 (94.7 LXX/OG) as just cited in Heb 4.7. By understanding the referent to be Jesus, one can interpret the Greek according to the most straightforward meaning: the subject of the second clause is also the subject of the first clause. However, this raises two questions: how can it be said that Jesus did not give the people rest? And how can Jesus quote Ps 95.7 (94.7 LXX/OG)?
3.5 Jesus Does Not Fail; the People Do
In regard to the first question, interpreters could argue against Jesus as referent because this would make the sentence state that Jesus had somehow failed to bring the people into rest.Footnote 23 However, this is not problematic. The author has clearly stated multiple times that it was the wilderness generation who failed due to their unbelief (Heb 3.19; 4.2, 6). No culpability need be placed on Jesus. Jesus did not bring them into rest because of their unbelief and unfaithfulness. This fits well with the conditional tone of the author's warning passage in that believers are warned not to miss out on entering the rest (Heb 4.1, 11). Thus, Jesus has earned the rest, and believers enter that rest by faith.
3.6 Jesus Speaks the Scriptures
In regard to the second question (‘Does the author portray Jesus as speaking Ps 95 (94 LXX/OG)?’), we see that this is a continuation of the author's pattern in the sermon as a whole.Footnote 24 For example, the author introduces his sermon by stating that Jesus is the current revealer of God's word (Heb 1.2). God has spoken through various intermediaries in the past (e.g. Moses); however, in these days he speaks through Jesus. This sets up a key theme, which runs throughout the sermon, of the Son speaking God's word, and the challenge to the auditors to pay careful attention (e.g. Heb 2.1–3).Footnote 25
Furthermore, at two places within the sermon, the author puts Old Testament passages explicitly into Jesus’ mouth. In Heb 2.12–13, Jesus quotes Ps 22.22 (21.22 LXX/OG) and Isa 8.17–18 (LXX/OG). He declares God's name to his brothers, announces his trust in God and accepts ownership of God's children. Another clear example occurs in Heb 10.5–10, wherein Jesus declares his obedience to do God's will using the words of Ps 39.6–8 LXX/OG. Thus, the author portrays Jesus as God's ‘last days’ revelation and also as one who speaks the Old Testament.
Since the author does not hesitate to view Old Testament Scripture as spoken by Jesus, we are free to consider whether the author intends Jesus to be the one speaking in Heb 4.8. In fact, understanding Jesus as the speaker may clear up some of the ambiguous pronouns in Heb 3.7–4.8. In Heb 3.7 the Holy Spirit speaks Ps 95.7–11 (94.7–11 LXX/OG). The first verse cited is a call to listen to ‘his’ voice. The Holy Spirit warns readers via the psalm to listen to another voice, i.e. ‘his’ voice. The discussion of ‘his voice’ (Heb 3.7) then moves to direct citation in the first person: ‘I said …’ (Heb 3.10), and ‘I swore …’ (Heb 3.11).Footnote 26 At first, it seems simplest to assume that this first-person voice is God's; however, the author continues to be ambiguous in his use of pronouns in Heb 3.15, 18; 4.2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 until he becomes explicit in Heb 4.8.Footnote 27 This points to Jesus as the ‘voice’ in Ps 95 (94 LXX/OG).Footnote 28
The author only specifies clearly one speaker and that happens in Heb 4.8, if we conclude that the referent of Ἰησοῦς there is Jesus.Footnote 29 The ambiguity surrounding the speaker of the Old Testament which has continued throughout the argument is now potentially clarified: Jesus is the one who speaks the good news and the warning of Ps 94 LXX/OG.Footnote 30 As A.T. Hanson observes, ‘[t]here is nothing whatever surprising in the thought of Christ as the speaker of Psalm 95, since in 10.5 sq. our author attributes Psalm 40.6–8 to the Son’.Footnote 31
The application of this point to Heb 4.8 is that no good reason exists to argue against Jesus as the referent of Ἰησοῦς due to him being the one who speaks. In fact, a solid argument can be made that he is, indeed, the primary speaker of the Old Testament in Heb 3.1–4.13.
3.7 Heb 4.8 in its Immediate Context: Conclusion
A. T. Hanson's comment that ‘Ἰησοῦς in verse 8 may very well be intended to mean quite literally Jesus, and not Joshua’ is an affirming opinion from one scholar who sees Jesus as the referent of Ἰησοῦς.Footnote 32 However he is not alone, even though other interpreters do not explicitly argue for a referent of ‘Jesus’ in Heb 4.8. That Ounsworth, Whitfield, Moore, and Westfall all see pointers in the immediate context to signify that Jesus is a vital part of the argument in Heb 3.1–4.13 is on the right track. By viewing the referent of Ἰησοῦς in Heb 4.8 as Jesus, their inclinations are substantiated and concrete evidence is obtained to support some of their views.
The purpose of this section was critically to engage Heb 4.8 in order to determine whether the referent of Ἰησοῦς is Jesus or Joshua. Although Joshua is traditionally taken to be the referent in the verse, there are significant problems with this reading. The two most common explanations of the author's argument raise more questions than they solve. In regard to the Jesus/Joshua typology, the author does not clarify the nature of the typological connection, and the connection proposed by scholars is actually undermined by the author's denial of Joshua's provision of rest. The most common explanation of Heb 4.8, however, is that the author redefines rest from promised land to Sabbath rest. Yet, the addition of Joshua and the faithful, successful second generation causes considerable dissonance with the author's argument and creates tension with the Old Testament narrative. This is in addition to the point that the author has already redefined rest via David and, thus, there is no need for introducing Joshua: he adds nothing to the author's argument.
If Ἰησοῦς is read as Jesus, however, these logical tensions within the author's argument disappear. Instead, we find that the author continues to discuss the very topic which he raised in Heb 3.1: Jesus’ faithfulness. Jesus, by speaking the words of Ps 95 (94 LXX/OG), has rejected the Kadesh Barnea generation because of their unbelief/unfaithfulness, and by contrast has himself been faithful to complete his ultimate test of faithfulness (i.e. death on the cross), whereby he has established his own rest from his own works. This reading of Ἰησοῦς is consistent with what precedes Heb 3.1–4.13 and what follows: Ἰησοῦς refers consistently to Jesus, Ἰησοῦς speaks the Old Testament, the accomplishments of Ἰησοῦς are regularly the author's central point (the benefits of which are applied to the listeners), and Ἰησοῦς has become our great ἀρχηγός of faith (Heb 2.10, 12.2).
4. The Evidence of the nomina sacra
4.1 The Referent of the nomen sacrum for Ἰησοῦς in the New Testament
The early Christian scribal practice of abbreviating certain words and titles in manuscripts provides a window into how Heb 4.8 was read in the early church and provides insight into whether the referent of Ἰησοῦς was understood as Joshua or as Jesus by the early church.Footnote 33 At several places in the New Testament the name Ἰησοῦς does not refer to Jesus the Christ (e.g. Luke 3.29; Col 4.11). Did the scribes of the early New Testament manuscripts treat every mention of the name Ἰησοῦς uniformly and write the nomen sacrum or did they distinguish whether the referent was Jesus the Christ, in contrast to another person such as Joshua or a different Jesus? In other words, did they interpret the name Ἰησοῦς and write it with the nomen sacrum when it was referring to the Lord Jesus Christ, and did they spell the name out fully with no nomen sacrum when it was about someone other than Jesus the Christ? Several examples will show that the early scribes did interpret the name Ἰησοῦς according to its referent. If Ἰησοῦς referred to Jesus the Christ, then the nomen sacrum was used. If Ἰησοῦς referred to someone else, then often (although not universally) the name was fully spelled out (i.e. plene).
Luke 3.29 provides an example of the early Christian scribes discerning the difference between Jesus the Christ and, in this case, Joshua. Luke provides a genealogy of Jesus the Christ and located within that genealogy is one ‘Joshua son of Eliezer’. The scribes have rendered the name Ἰησοῦς with the nomen sacrum when referring to Jesus the Christ at the head of the genealogy in Luke 3.23. Ἰησοῦς in Luke 3.23 is uniformly rendered with the nomen sacrum in the manuscripts and codices.Footnote 34 However, when Luke mentions Ἰησοῦς son of Eliezer in v. 29, who is not Jesus the Christ, then the scribes interpret that referent for readers by not rendering it with the nomen sacrum. The Codices Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus plus the manuscript 𝔓4 all spell out the name Ἰησοῦς. Thus, they demonstrate that when the referent is clearly Jesus the Christ, as in Luke 3.23, they will use the nomen sacrum; however, when the referent is not Jesus the Christ, as in Luke 3.29, they designate this by writing out the full name:Footnote 35
Colossians 4.11 provides another helpful example. Paul refers to an individual whose name is ‘Jesus who is called Justus’. Codices Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Alexandrinus all spell out the name Ἰησοῦς in this verse and do not use the nomen sacrum. Thus, they show by their lack of use of the nomen sacrum that they are interpreting the referent of Ἰησοῦς as someone other than Jesus the Christ. However, one manuscript, 𝔓46, does use the nomen sacrum in this instance and shows that there was not absolute consistency in this pattern.Footnote 36 Because 𝔓46 is one of our earliest manuscripts, one wonders if maybe the practice was more mechanically applied early in manuscript production and then developed nuance in later manuscripts and codices.
4.2 The Role of the nomen sacrum for Interpreting Ἰησοῦς in Heb 4.8
In light of the near-universal and systematic use of the nomen sacrum by Christian scribes to indicate the word Ἰησοῦς in biblical manuscripts and codices, and in light of the Christian scribal practice to use the nomen sacrum generally only when the referent of Ἰησοῦς is Jesus the Christ as opposed to another Jesus or Joshua, we can examine specifically Heb 4.8 to determine whether the early Christian scribes read Ἰησοῦς as referring to Jesus the Christ or Joshua son of Nun. What follows will first present the only two manuscript remnants which contain Heb 4.8 that predate the codices of the fourth and fifth centuries. Then the three codices Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus will be examined. Finally, the fifth- or sixth-century Greek–Latin diglot Codex Claromontanus will be discussed. The Latin reading is believed to be one of the earliest Latin translations (i.e. Vetus Latina), based on a Greek source text prior to the Vulgate.Footnote 37
4.2.1 𝔓46 (ca ad 200): Heb 4.8a
First, the earliest manuscript is 𝔓46, which has been dated by Philip Comfort and David Barrett to the early- to middle-second century. The Nestle-Aland edition of the Greek text dates it slightly later, to ca 200 ad. Comfort and Barrett, in The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts, provide a transcription of the manuscript.Footnote 38 One can clearly see the nomen sacrum for Jesus in v. 8 in the letters iota, eta and sigma with a single bar over all three. Thus, the scribe of 𝔓46 appears to identify the referent as Jesus and not Joshua.Footnote 39
4.2.2 𝔓13 (3rd or 4th cent.): Heb 4.8a
Second, the manuscript 𝔓13 is dated by Comfort and Barrett to the early-third century, and by Nestle-Aland to the third or fourth century. Once again, Comfort and Barrett provide a transcription of the text.Footnote 40 In this text the nomen sacrum is rendered by two letters: iota and sigma with a single bar which covers both. Once again, the scribe is clearly signalling that the referent is Jesus and not Joshua. It is also worth noting that the form of the nomen sacrum is slightly different from 𝔓46 in that it uses two letters rather than three.
4.2.3 Codex Vaticanus (03) (4th cent.): Heb 4.8a (folio 1514, column 3)Footnote 41
Third, we move to a codex of the fourth century. Codex Vaticanus has a very clear text of Heb 4.8. In uncial letters one can clearly see the iota and sigma with a single bar over both letters. The scribe is clearly marking the referent of Ἰησοῦς as Jesus.
4.2.4 Codex Sinaiticus (01) (4th cent.): Heb 4.8a (folio 289v, column 3)Footnote 42
Fourth, Codex Sinaiticus, which is also dated to the fourth century, contains a legible Heb 4.8 that begins at the bottom of column 3 and continues to the top of column 4 of folio 289b. It is in Heb 4.8a at the bottom of column 3 that the nomen sacrum is found. One can clearly read the uncial iota and sigma with a single bar spanning both letters. The scribe has clearly indicated that Jesus is the referent of Ἰησοῦς.
4.2.5 Codex Alexandrinus (02) (5th cent.): Heb 4.8a (folio 140r, column 2)Footnote 43
Fifth, the Codex Alexandrinus is from the fifth century. Once again, the uncial letters for iota and sigma are present with a single bar spanning both letters. The scribe has designated the referent of Ἰησοῦς by the nomen sacrum.
4.2.6 Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (04) (5th cent.): Heb 4.8 (folio 45r)Footnote 44
Sixth, the Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus is also dated to the fifth century and originally recorded a biblical text which has been effaced in order to reuse the material for a different purpose (i.e. it is a palimpsest). Because of this process, the underlying text of Heb 4.8 is difficult to discern; however, it is still clear that the nomen sacrum is used to point to a referent of Jesus for Ἰησοῦς. The scribe has written an iota and a sigma with a bar over both letters.
4.2.7 Codex Claromontanus (06) (6th cent): Heb 4.8 (folio 481v)Footnote 45
Seventh, the final Greek Codex is Claromontanus, which is dated to the sixth century. This fascinating example is a Greek–Latin diglot, which on the Greek side corresponds to the previous examples in using the nomen sacrum to mark the referent of Ἰησοῦς. The scribe has written an iota and a sigma with a bar above them which points to Jesus as the referent. However, it appears that a scribe has also written, in a different-colour ink, the full name Ἰησοῦς to the right of the nomen sacrum. In this example we see perhaps our earliest challenge to seeing the referent of Ἰησοῦς as Jesus the Christ, and instead Joshua son of Nun is considered. Furthermore, on the next page (482v) the Latin translation of the Greek text contains the nomen sacrum in Latin in Heb 4.8: quoniam si ihs. Thus, in this example we get two pieces of evidence for Jesus the Christ being the referent. If the Latin translator understood Ἰησοῦς to be Joshua son of Nun, then he could have clearly translated Ἰησοῦς fully written out instead of using the nomen sacrum.Footnote 46
4.2.8 The nomen sacrum in Heb 4.8: Conclusion
To summarise the above evidence concerning the earliest Greek manuscripts of Heb 4.8 and the great codices of the fourth, fifth and sixth centuries, we see that they are unanimous in writing Ἰησοῦς using the nomen sacrum until the sixth-century Codex Claromontanus. Thus, since these manuscripts and codices could have designated the referent of Ἰησοῦς as Joshua son of Nun by completely spelling out the name, and yet they have used the nomen sacrum, we can conclude that all the earliest manuscript witnesses for Heb 4.8 agree that the referent of Ἰησοῦς in Heb 4.8 was Jesus the Christ and not Joshua son of Nun.
5. Conclusion
In this article, I have sought to critically evaluate the translation of Ἰησοῦς in Heb 4.8 as referring to Joshua son of Nun and consequently to offer a typological interpretation of the name as referring to Jesus the Christ. The argument set forth is that Ἰησοῦς was intended by the author of Hebrews to refer to Jesus the Christ. Taking Jesus the Christ as the referent not only fits the immediate context better but also removes the interpretive questions which taking the referent to be Joshua introduces. Furthermore, in their use of the nomen sacrum, the Greek manuscripts of the first six centuries provide a unanimous witness to Jesus the Christ as referent in Heb 4.8.
Acknowledgements
I appreciate the helpful feedback from both my colleagues at Cedarville University, who heard an initial proposal of this essay, and the NTS reviewer.
