I find it interesting that in all the New Testament and subsequent comment, the name ‘Jesus’ (the Romanised vision of his name) is used in preference to his proper Jewish name ‘Yeshua’ i.e. Joshua.
Why? I can understand that the Romans might have felt that Jesus was a suitable Roman translation of the name, but surely we could manage better than that, particularly as there is a good reason to use the ‘English’ version as it appears elsewhere in the Bible. Or better still, why not use the original Jewish ‘Yeshua’ to distinguish between the new and the old Joshua.
The previous ‘Joshua’, who is the subject of one whole book of the Old Testament, was the person who led the Jewish nation into the physical promised land. The new Joshua (Jesus) is the one who has lead his followers into the spiritual promised land.
Having said that, it is quite unlikely that the name Jesus will be changed because the weight of history and the use of that name in so many languages and publications. However, recognition of the link between the old and new testaments of the old physical promised land and the new spiritual promised land needs to be better recognised.