Hebrews 4:8

[Andrej]

This is the first time I've looked at this verse in any detail. OK, your question is on "the son of Nun". I see your point, why would a Greek translator omit it?

But beyond that, and without the intention of drawing in the "Jesus/Joshua" debate, I could not help but notice how the Aramaic phrase "Yeshua son of Nun" also departs from the Hebrew text, which is "Yhoshua son of Nun".

So to apply that to your premise, could it be that the Aramaic writer saw the misplaced Greek word "Jesus/Yeshua"; knew it was really referring to "Joshua/Yhoshua" of the OT, but instead of correcting it to "Yhoshua", (maybe because he had limited knowledge of the Hebrew text, or didn't take the time to look carefully), added the "son of Nun" instead so as not to have it confused it with "Yeshua"; yet leaving in place the misplaced name "Yeshua" from the Greek source text?

FWIW, I am not a primacy buff one way or the other, I just try to make the best sense of things that I can.

i agree with your theory. It is the only logical answer i can currently see. But i don't think there was another was to spell Joshua.

It is my understanding that Jesus and Joshua are 100% the same name. It may not be in Hebrew, because it is Aramaic. Many names have a little different spelling in Aramaic as far as i can tell. Acts 7:45 uses the same spelling. i know of no other mentionings of Joshua in the NT. The LXX uses Iesus (=Jesus) for Joshua as far as i know, just like the Greek NT.