No Evidence for 1st Century Nazareth

[fallingblood]

Au contraire. IF Josephus had mentioned the biblical Jesus, THEN wouldn't the Christian theologians have used that as proof that the biblical Jesus had actually existed? Because the Christian theologians did NOT mention that passage indicates there was NO mention of Jesus in that passage until it was added much later.

This is just an ignorant argument. Why didn't Christian theologians use Josephus to prove that Jesus existed? Because there was no reason to. One does not have to prove something that everyone accepts for granted. There was no reason to prove that Jesus existed as everyone accepted that. There wasn't any denying that. It was simply accepted. And even when we see those sections quoted from Josephus, they are never used to prove that Jesus existed. So even when we do see them being used, they still are not used to prove Jesus existed, and thus we shouldn't think anyone ever intended to use them in that manner.

So why didn't Christian theologians use those verses? There was no reason to. The shorter verse only briefly mentions Jesus, and adds nothing to his life that is of importance. There was no reason to mention that section unless speaking of James. And that is what we see actually happens.

As for the TF, again, no reason to mention it. It doesn't add anything to the Jesus story. And when one looks at what the original section most likely looked like (deleting the interpolations), it takes away from the Jesus story. It denies that Jesus was Christ even. It really adds nothing of importance, so why waste time using it?

 

[fallingblood]

Some scholars have argued that any synagogue that might have existed in Nazareth was destroyed and hence no trace can be found. Yet 1st Century synagogues have been found in a number of Galilean cities (e.g., Masada, Gamla, Japha, Capernaum), and there are no records of any mass destructions taking place in Nazareth that would have obliterated a synagogue if it existed.

Lived in Nazareth - Jesus Police Website

Do some actual credible research. There have been very few 1st century synagogues found in Galilee. Off the top of my head, I can think of one, possibly two. In Palestine itself, there were few. And that is because synagogues during that time, from what evidence shows us, did not resemble modern day synagogues. Instead, many times they were simply in the house of an individual. It is very much the same manner in which early Christian churches were used. The vast majority simply were in an individuals house. So there is no reason why we should expect to find one. Especially not in a small hamlet like Nazareth.

In the same manner, we have found virtually no 1st century churches either; however, that doesn't mean they didn't exist. For the same reason as we don't find many synagogues, churches during that time were held inside homes.

 

[fallingblood]

Most people believe Jesus was raised in Nazareth. Speaking of Joseph, the Gospel of Matthew (2:23) says: “he made his home in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, ‘He will be called a Nazorean.’” A careful reading of this passage reveals that the writers of Matthew are trying to fulfill the prophecy, not Jesus, and in order to fulfill the prophecy that “He will be called a Nazarean”, Matthew gives his hometown as Nazareth. But in fact, there is no Old Testament prophecy to the effect that a Messiah will come from a place called Nazareth (which is another in the long list of errors that the writers of the Gospel of Matthew made about Old Testament prophecies). The closest we come to any such description is a passage in Judges (13:5) where Samson’s mother is warned: “…the child shall be a Nazarite [nazirarios in Greek, nazir in Hebrew] unto God from the womb, and he shall begin to deliver Israel; out of the hand of the Philistines.” The words Iesou Nazarene (Nazareneus) refer to the fact that Jesus was a Nazarene (or Nazarean), not to the fact that he came from Nazareth. To indicate that Jesus came from a place called Nazareth, the correct wording would have been Nazarethenos or Nazarethaios.

Thus, the idea that Jesus came from Nazareth is a result of a mis-translation of the Old Testament by the writers of Matthew.

Lived in Nazareth - Jesus Police Website

This just shows ignorance to how the Gospel writers work. Scholars are aware that many of the so called prophecies that Jesus fulfilled were never prophecies, or had nothing to do with Jesus. That is no surprise at all, and has been noticed for quite some time.

Now in order to understand this all, we have to get into the mind of a first century member of the Jesus movement (which was still under Judaism). They believed that Jesus was the Messiah, that he was the promised one. Some also believed that the entire Hebrew scriptures pointed to their promised one. So, with that belief, they searched scripture in order to find anything they thought resembled what they knew about the life of Jesus, or could help explain problems.

They knew Jesus was born in Nazareth. That is a problem, so they searched scripture and found something that could explain why that was. It is as simple as that.

It also has to be remembered that the first time we hear about Jesus being from Nazareth is in Mark. It isn't attached to prophecy. And since Matthew used Mark as a source, we have every reason to assume that it was already known that Jesus was from Nazareth, and that Matthew added the link to the prophecy after the fact, and in order to explain away a problem.

 

[fallingblood]

The bottom line, therefore, is that we have no idea where Jesus grew up, but we can be reasonably certain that he grew up in the countryside, and not in the city, because Jesus used the language of the villages. When Jesus answered questions or when he used parables, almost all his examples came from the simple life of peasants and villagers. For example, he talked about women making bread, men planting trees, people working in the vineyards, etc. Almost all of his talk about wealth was derisive, as was his attitude toward those who promoted themselves and tried to set themselves above others.

Lived in Nazareth - Jesus Police Website

Yeshua spoke a colorful Galilean dialect of Aramaic, some of its words having two and three meanings, depending on their context. When translated into Greek, however, by clueless Greek scribes, many of these meanings were lost. They only make sense in the original Aramaic tongue. One would need to turn to the Aramaic Pe****ta for study to realize the differences.

This is probably you worst argument yet. Nazareth wasn't a city by today's standards. All of the evidence points to it being a small village composed of peasants. Thus, it would make sense, since Nazareth was a village, Jesus would use the language of the villager. Because he grew up in a village.

 

[fallingblood]

I suggest you stop trying to drive a square peg into a round hole. There is already quite enough of Christianity treating belief and doctrine in the same manner as if it were Absolute Truth.

You need to use the quote feature better. I'm not going to spend time copying and pasting because you can't quote me in a better fashion. I simply don't have the effort to wade through the quotes you do and dig out your responses. It simply is not worth the time.

As for driving a square peg into a round hole, you really are only assuming you have any idea of what I believe. And really, you're the one who's trying to drive a square peg into a slap of concrete.

Jesus and Yeshua are the same person. Jesus is just the Greek transliteration of Yeshua. There is no difference between the two besides their names.

As for the Romanization of Yeshua, that is just ignorance. It shows a complete disregard for what we know of the Gospel writers, especially considering that there is quite a bit of evidence suggesting that some of them were actually Jews.

 

[fallingblood]

this is one of the areas im confused in. im under the understanding that pre 30 jesus has zero historicity and the theology and story was built around his 3 years as a traveling teacher.

When it comes to the child Jesus, most of that is unknown. There are a few things that can be known though based on information about his later life. Being from Nazareth is one of those. Him being a carpenter (or tekton) is also quite probable, and it would tell us what he did with his early life.

We can also deduce that some felt that his birth was not of the best source. That is just based on comments such as labeling Jesus only the son of his mother, and there being no mention of Joseph (as in Mark). There are a few other hints at a less than normal birth as well, but we will leave it at that.

We can also be pretty sure he was a disciple of John, even though that is debatable.

When it comes to pre-30 Jesus, it is shaky ground, but based on things in his later life, we can pull out some clues.

"If" nazareth was in jesus time and he lived there, just when do you think the settlement was inhabited? 10 years before jesus? 20? 40?

the archeology work ive done makes it pretty clear how the people lived after 10 years. 2 or 3 years little is left but you know someone was there and you can gernerally date it by other foundations in an area or atleast see a progression of communities to date properly. even with small glass shards I can date generally within 10 years myself. Thats why the lack of pre CE material of any kind bothers me. They have dated much of that area and dug allot without many clues.

There has also been various problems with digging there. They don't have access to all of the location. The site has remained settled for quite some time, and has undergone the whole pilgrimage ordeal throughout the centuries. Older material would have been used in order to help with later buildings, and in a small town, that would wipe out a lot. That and the buildings from that time period wouldn't have been the best for long surviving.

As for how long it had been around at the time of Jesus, I can't remember off the top of my head. But it wasn't an incredibly long time.

 

[Biblestudent_007]

Some little cities and villages are forgotten because people move away.

 

[roger_pearse]

It becomes obvious that Origen added the part about the biblical Jesus supposedly being the brother of James because no other Christian theologian BEFORE EUSEBIUS who read the works of Josephus ever mentioned that being part of what Josephus wrote.

Only two of the Fathers display any acquaintance with Antiquities 11-20. Josephus' works did not travel down the years together, but were copied by hand in chunks. Antiquities, being long, was copied in groups of 10 books.

The two fathers are Origen -- who quotes this passage -- and most of whose works are lost; and Julius Africanus, almost none of whose works survive.

Quite how we get logically from "a 3rd century author quotes this" to "therefore it is not authentic" I don't quite know. Most people would consider the reverse was the case!

But arguments from the silence of earlier authors -- always a rubbish argument, considering that 99% of ancient literature is lost -- are simply not valid. I never mention Obama in my own posts -- if my posts were all that survived from 2011, would that be proof that he didn't exist? Or worse, if this post was one of them, would this be proof that *I* invented Obama?

One other thought: people with valid arguments to make about history base them on the ancient evidence. People trying it on, always have to find reasons to ignore the evidence, to manufacture a silence in order to argue that the silence means that their pet theory is true. The method of argument is enough to refute the claim.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

 

[Tellurian]

Again, you need to read Celsus. Yeshu ben Pantera does not show up until many years later. And if one actually reads the story, and compares it to what Celsus stated, there are some problems. And again, Yeshu ben Pantera does not show up until much later. So there is no reason to assume he was used as a foundation for Jesus.

More so, if you read Celsus, you would see that he accepts that Jesus, the one that Christianity worships, the one we see in the Bible, did in fact exist. He never makes a case for there being multiple people behind the Jesus story. He accepts as fact that Jesus existed.

The story of Jesus having the father of a Roman soldier, was for Celsus, the reason why the virgin birth story was made up. He accepts the idea that Christians do in fact say that Jesus was born of a virgin; however, he argues against that. And that is why he used the story of the Roman solider, in order to argue against the Christian idea that Jesus was born of a virgin. This only supports the fact that Celsus in fact did accept that Jesus did exist.

Again, if you read Celsus, if you took any time to do so, you would see that your argument is basically as good as a 1 and a half cent penny. And again, Celsus accepted the fact that Jesus, the one Christians worship, the one who is spoken of in the Bible, was a historical figure. He doesn't suggest that he was made up of various characters.

You say "Yeshu ben Pantera does not show up until many years later", but then you say Celsus "used the story of a Roman solider (sic)", indicating the story of a Jesus who was the son of the Roman soldier Pantera did exist at an earlier time, and why he shows up both in the works of Celsus as well as in the Talmud. Obviously, Celsus did believe that Jesus the son of the Roman soldier Pantera did exist, but Celsus was critical of many of the gospel stories supposedly recording the events in the life of Jesus the son of Pantera.

You recommend reading Celsus, but that is not possible because the Christians destroyed all copies of his The True Word, and all we have today is Origen's Contra Celsum which just includes some statements of what Origen claims Celsus wrote. Did you read he analysis at the link I provided?

 

[roger_pearse]

This is just an ignorant argument. Why didn't Christian theologians use Josephus to prove that Jesus existed? Because there was no reason to. One does not have to prove something that everyone accepts for granted. There was no reason to prove that Jesus existed as everyone accepted that. There wasn't any denying that. It was simply accepted.

Indeed so. In fact, far from denying that Jesus existed, Christian haters of the period rather enjoyed pointing out that he was a low-born chap -- not even a Roman citizen! -- who was executed in a shameful manner. You can see this in Minucius Felix' "Octavius", for instance.

Jesus was not a reputable person in antiquity, and the manner of his death was considered as discrediting him. In consequence we see heresies like docetism, or Marcionism, where some story is made up that Jesus was not really crucified, but that a phantasm or appearance was. Such ideas would be unnecessary apart from the social stigma.

As for the TF, again, no reason to mention it. It doesn't add anything to the Jesus story. And when one looks at what the original section most likely looked like (deleting the interpolations), it takes away from the Jesus story. It denies that Jesus was Christ even. It really adds nothing of importance, so why waste time using it?

One of the accusations made against Jesus was that he was a sorceror -- a capital charge in Roman times. The TF would appear to support that charge.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

 

[outhouse]

When it comes to the child Jesus, most of that is unknown. There are a few things that can be known though based on information about his later life. Being from Nazareth is one of those. Him being a carpenter (or tekton) is also quite probable, and it would tell us what he did with his early life.

We can also deduce that some felt that his birth was not of the best source. That is just based on comments such as labeling Jesus only the son of his mother, and there being no mention of Joseph (as in Mark). There are a few other hints at a less than normal birth as well, but we will leave it at that.

We can also be pretty sure he was a disciple of John, even though that is debatable.

When it comes to pre-30 Jesus, it is shaky ground, but based on things in his later life, we can pull out some clues.

thats about where im at with it.

I dont doubt him being a disciple to John though.

tekton leaves a wide open range, but we get the point.

That and the buildings from that time period wouldn't have been the best for long surviving.

dont imagine much would be left. I still go to sites like that and find clues of previous cultures though based on the mess people leave behind. I have never been to a known house site yet that didnt give some kind of clue.

 

[fallingblood]

You say "Yeshu ben Pantera does not show up until many years later", but then you say Celsus "used the story of a Roman solider (sic)", indicating the story of a Jesus who was the son of the Roman soldier Pantera did exist at an earlier time, and why he shows up both in the works of Celsus as well as in the Talmud. Obviously, Celsus did believe that Jesus the son of the Roman soldier Pantera did exist, but Celsus was critical of many of the gospel stories supposedly recording the events in the life of Jesus the son of Pantera.

You recommend reading Celsus, but that is not possible because the Christians destroyed all copies of his The True Word, and all we have today is Origen's Contra Celsum which just includes some statements of what Origen claims Celsus wrote. Did you read he analysis at the link I provided?

I find it funny how you don't actually deal with the vast majority of the arguments offered to you. In fact, I'm still waiting to see your argument as to why my article on Josephus and Jesus is so bad. I mean, you did dismiss it quite a few times, and I am still waiting to see why. However, I doubt I will ever see an actual argument as to why my information was lacking.

But for this post. Jesus ben Pantera is a specific figure. You admit such. We see this individual being introduced in the Talmud, which is the place where we see the name first appear. Celsus never refers to Jesus as such. Celsus insteads relates a story in which the father of Jesus is a Roman soldier named Pantera. The difference is quite a bit, when one actually reads about Jesus ben Pantera (or Yeshu ben Pantera to be more accurate) in the Talmud.

When one reads of Yeshu ben Pantera in the Tosefta and Talmud, one will notice that what we do hear about this fellow does not resemble the man Celsus is speaking of. From what we can gather, they are probably speaking of two different individuals. In fact, it is not until even later, with the Toledot Yeshu that we hear about Jesus being the illegitimate son of a Roman solider, and that account is of such a late date it really can not be held as credible in any sense.

When we do see Celsus speak of Jesus though, he does make it clear that he is speaking of the Jesus that Christians worshipped. Celsus makes it clear that he is speaking of Jesus, the Jesus we know of from the Bible. He may have been convinced that Jesus was the son of a Roman solider; however, he still accepted the idea that Christians believed that Jesus was born of a virgin.

Again, Celsus never doubted that Jesus actually existed. He doubted some of the stories that revolved around him. But he did not deny that Jesus existed.

As for reading Celsus. Yes, his works themselves may not have been preserved. However, like you said, Origen did preserve them to a point, meaning that we can still read what Celsus wrote. And really, you need to do exactly that.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

There was no evidence for Troy for a long time until they discovered it.
The word "Nazareth" means "Place of the Nazarenes". The very point of "What good can come from Nazareth" is from Pharisees who disapproved of the Sect. At what point did the city suddenly spring up? As for the Archaeological evidence of it being a "Roman military camp", a Bath house is hardly such evidence. If anything, it could have been a city of tents like other "sect cities" that was built up later (sometime after the Jewish destruction apparently as if the Romans allowed the Jews to rebuild right after), but even then, when was it built?

Location: Nazareth identified with: En Nasira (Nazerat) in Galilee.

Luke [4v29] the people of Nazareth sought to throw Jesus from the brow.
Some have identified that brow with a rocky cliff some 40 feet high located south west of that city.

It is Nazarene [Hebrew: ne'tser, 'sprout]
Jesus the Nazarene was from Nazareth.
Zechariah describes a king-priest whose name is Sprout,
That prophecy applies to Jesus the Nazarene, the great spiritual temple builder. -Zech 3v8; 6vs12,13

 

[angellous_evangellous]

One of the accusations made against Jesus was that he was a sorceror -- a capital charge in Roman times. The TF would appear to support that charge.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

:biglaugh:

It shouldn't amaze me what people make up about "Roman Times."

But it still does.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Yeshua spoke a colorful Galilean dialect of Aramaic, some of its words having two and three meanings, depending on their context. When translated into Greek, however, by clueless Greek scribes, many of these meanings were lost. They only make sense in the original Aramaic tongue. One would need to turn to the Aramaic Pe****ta for study to realize the differences.

It shouldn't amaze me what people will make up about this kind of thing.

But it does.

For some inexplicable reason, this isn't funny.

 

[fallingblood]

It shouldn't amaze me what people will make up about this kind of thing.

But it does.

For some inexplicable reason, this isn't funny.

I have been amazed quite a few times in this thread. And just to think, instead of doing all of that research, I could have just been making things up and postin them on the internet.

 

[godnotgod]

As for driving a square peg into a round hole, you really are only assuming you have any idea of what I believe. And really, you're the one who's trying to drive a square peg into a slap of concrete.

I don't care what you believe.

You continue to insist that a town called Nazareth existed in spite of the FACT that there is NO achaeological evidence to support your preposterous claim. That is driving a square peg into a round hole.

If what you claim is true, put your money where your mouth is. Show us the hard evidence to support your claim. Until you come forth with real evidence, for all practical purposes, no hamlet, village, or even town or city called 'Nazareth' ever existed in the 1st century BC.

Same criteria holds true for Santa's workshop at the North Pole.

 

[fallingblood]

I don't care what you believe.

You continue to insist that a town called Nazareth existed in spite of the FACT that there is NO achaeological evidence to support your preposterous claim. That is driving a square peg into a round hole.

If what you claim is true, put your money where your mouth is. Show us the hard evidence to support your claim.

Otherwise....

Otherwise you have no idea how history works. You conveniently dismiss the evidence for Nazareth and subscribe to everything that supports your idea. I have already provided multiple arguments as to how we know Nazareth existed during that time. The very fact that Jesus is said to be from there, by authors who would have know if the village existed or not, even though by doing so caused various problems that had to be explained away, shows that it is most reasonable to conclude that Nazareth existed during that time. Add to that the fact we have found archeological evidence datin from that general time period, we have more than enough evidence showing that Nazareth existed during hat time.

All you have presented is wild ideas that really have no basis in anything. The fact that you continue to try to say Jesus didn't exist but that Yeshua did, even though they are the same person, shows that you are not interested in doing any resalearch or even really listen to anyone else.

 

[godnotgod]

Otherwise you have no idea how history works.

If YOU knew how 'history works' you would not be using the Bible as a historical source. The Bible is not a historical document; it is a religious one.

Stop talking about history when at the same time you refuse to acknowledge the complete lack of archaeological evidence, which is hard historical evidence, that a 1st century place called 'Nazareth' existed. It did not. Period.

You conveniently dismiss the evidence for Nazareth

I and outhouse have been demanding the evidence from the get-go, but you have come up with NOTHING! Maybe you fail to understand the meaning of the word 'evidence'. You know...as in 'FACTS'? So...now that we know what we are looking for, show us the evidence for YOUR idea that Nazareth existed at the time of Jesus.

and subscribe to everything that supports your idea.

What 'idea'? I am not the one with any 'ideas'. YOU and others are the ones proposing that a town or city called 'Nazareth' existed in the 1st century. That is an idea. When we go there and look, there is no evidence to support YOUR idea. That there is no evidence is not an idea. It is a FACT.

I have already provided multiple arguments as to how we know Nazareth existed during that time.

Your 'arguments' are not evidence. They are mere conjecture on your part, and not very scholarly conjecture at that.

The very fact that Jesus is said to be from there,

That it is a fact that he is 'said' to be from there does not mean he actually was from there. Your argument is based on hearsay, which is not factual, and your logic is faulty. It is a FACT that it is said that Santa Claus is from the North Pole, but that does not make it so.

by authors who would have know if the village existed or not,

How would YOU know what the credibility of the 'authors' is/was? The fact is that they were NOT the authors. The actual authors are unknown. You just want to use whatever you may find to support your religious beliefs, and that is not scholarly. Stop making things up to suit your fancies.

even though by doing so caused various problems that had to be explained away, shows that it is most reasonable to conclude that Nazareth existed during that time.

More nebulous conjecture and faulty logic on your part. The only 'reasonable' thing you can show me about Nazareth is the archaeological evidence. I know. You're saving it up for the end, huh?

Add to that the fact we have found archeological evidence datin from that general time period, we have more than enough evidence showing that Nazareth existed during hat time.

All you have presented is wild ideas that really have no basis in anything. The fact that you continue to try to say Jesus didn't exist but that Yeshua did, even though they are the same person, shows that you are not interested in doing any resalearch or even really listen to anyone else.

I already know the standard presentation. It is full of holes. That is why we are here. I have already demonstrated one very important FACT to you, which you conveniently choose to ignore: that the name of Yeshua is real and has real meaning, while that of Jesus is the result of several mistakes and has no meaning whatsoever. On that fact alone, Yeshua cannot possibly be the same person as Jesus. Yeshua is real. Jesus is fictional. You have zero historical evidence to show that Jesus is a real person. This, in fact, has been the conclusion of many biblical scholars, far more knowledgeable than you.

As for Yeshua on Mt. Carmel, we have this:

THE ARAMAIC NAME of John the Baptist is Yuhana, and we learn from his book that when he died his death was reported to the Nazorean central Temple on Mt Carmel:


"Yuhana has left his body, his brothers make proclamations, his brothers proclaim unto him on the Mount, on Mount Carmel. They took the Letter and brought it to the Mount, to Mount Carmel. They read out the Letter to them and explain to them the writing, - to Yaqif (James) Beni-Amin (Yeshu) and Shumel (Samuel/Shimeon). They assemble on Mount Carmel." [1]



So in this ancient Aramaic scroll we have reference to the death of Yuhana being reported to three named Beni-Amin, Yaqif and Shimeon. These are the Aramaic names of Yeshu (Son of Amin[2] or Beni-Amin), and Yeshu’s two brothers James (Yaqif) and Shimeon (Shumel). All three brothers are connected with the sacred Mount of Carmel and with the temple there and would eventually lead the Nazorean Sect. At the death of such an important Nazorean as Yuhana, it was protocol that such be reported to the central Temple and to those who preside there. These three sons of Miryam[3] and Yoseph are the ones to which the death of Yuhana is reported to. The first of these brothers, Yeshu, is immediately appointed successor to Yuhana. After Yeshu’s death in 30 AD. the second brother James (Yaqif ) will assume leadership. When Yaqif is killed in 64 AD. the third brother Shumel will succeed him. Shumel himself was reportedly martyred in the reign of Trajan (98-117 AD), bringing to a close the presidency of these three sons of Miryam. They, with their female counterparts, presided over the Naziruthian system of enlightenment and purification for more than 70 years. Their home and seat of authority was the Temple at Carmel.


[1] Sidra Dyahya (Book Of John)/Drashe Dmalke (Discourses Of Kings) 26

[2] Amin, or Amun, was one name of the Nazorean’s Highest God. Beni meant “son of”.

[3] “Virgin” Mary


3 Brothers on Carmel*-*The Order of Nazorean Essenes

*****

 

[godnotgod]

What type of Aramaic did Jesus speak? Aramaic ceased to be a uniform language during the anti-Semitic period of the Hellenistic Seleucids prior to the Maccabean revolt. During this period various dialects began to form on a regional basis, each with variations in pronunciation and vocabulary. These influences caused Aramaic to divide into a Western Branch with several dialects and an Eastern Branch with its dialects. The five periods of Aramaic, dating from 1000 B.C.E., are as follows:


Old Aramaic 1000 BCE to 700 BCE.
Imperial (Official) Aramaic 700 BCE to 200 BCE.
Middle Aramaic 200 BCE to 200 CE.
Late Aramaic 200 CE to 700 CE.
Modern Aramaic 700 CE to present

Jesus spoke the Galilean dialect of Middle Western Aramaic. The Galilean dialect was recognizable by Judeans much as a deep south dialect of English is recognized in the United States. Likewise, the Galilean dialect was considered provincial by the Judeans. Galileans had a tendency to drop the gutturals much like the Cockney "Enry" for Henry. An initial aleph was usually dropped, which explains why Jesus' good friend Alazar was called `Lazar by Jesus and eventually Latinized in the Vulgate to Lazarus. It is also why Simon Peter was recognized as a Galilean outside of the house of Caiaphas.

After a little while the men standing there came to Peter. "Of course you are one of them," they said. "After all, the way you speak gives you away!" Matthew 16:73

http://www.historian.net/NTHX.html
*****

"The Hebrew name for Jesus, Yeshu, is evidence for the Galilean pronunciation for the period, and is in no way abusive. Jesus was a Galilean, and therefore the ‘a’ at the end of his name, Yeshua, was not pronounced" (Jewish Sources in Early Christianity, 1987, 15). This fact can also be substantiated by referring to the educated comments of the great theologian, Professor Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, in the NIDNTT (Colin Brown, ed), II, 331,332). [NIDNTT stands for New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology.]

http://www.biblicalresearchinstitute.com/lectures/lec1.htm
*****
SCHOLARS

"Start with Yeshua. That's his name, not 'Jesus.' It's what his father and mother and his brothers and sisters called him and it's how his followers knew him. Probably the name was pronounced in the rough regional dialectr of Galilee as 'Yeshu'... (Akenson, 2000, p. 57)."

"In pre-exilic times, the name Yehoshua consisted of ... two roots. The first, yeho, is the theophoric referring to God. The second, shua, means "help" and the name meant, "Whose help is YHWH/God." In 2nd temple times, it became a practice NOT to use full theophorics to prevent accidentally voicing the name of God so the theophorics were truncated and Yehoshua became Y'shua. In the Galilee, Aramaic was pronounced differently and Galileans dropped their alefs and ayins like Cockney English drop their H's. Jesus' Galilean friends would have called him Yeshu. Therefore, in Judea and formally, his name was Yeshua, yehSHOO-ah, and in the Galilee his name was pronounced Yeshu, pronounced YEHshoo. Because of strong Hellenistic influence in Palestine at the time, some Jews with the name of Yeshua used a Greek transliteration of the name. Yeshua ben Sirach was one of them who went by the name IHSOUS, pronounced YAYsoos. Hence, Yeshua was rendered IHSOUS." (Jack Kilmon, 2006)

http://www.jesuspolice.com/common_error.php?id=1