xoc

They have already been rendered differently so people aren't about to change things now.

Besides, there would have to be a firm decision on "which" name to use. For the same name the Bible uses Joshua, Jesus, and even Yeshua in Zecheriah. At least with having the different renderings of the name it becomes clear which person we're talking about. If you really wanted to go back to Hebraic roots you'd also have to start calling the Bible books by their Jewish names, call Mary "Miriam", Paul "Shul" (I recall a Messiahnic rabbi called Paul Rabbi "Shul", alhtough it might have been "Shaul" ), etc. Then we might want to render the Greek straight out too and call John Johannes etc. etc... and nobody but those with such linguistics training would understand who was being talked about. A lot of biblical characters have 2 names anyway so it doesn't seem like a big deal to use the names we already use.

CX

Just woolgathering. I do chalk it up to tradition. I was just trying to figure out the origin of that tradition and the rationale behind it. I don't think there would be an "advantage" per se of refering to Jesus as Joshua. It would likely only serve to obfuscate the text to English readers.