Nazareth, like Capernaum, is a Semitic-language place name...

[StephenGoranson]

Transliterations from one language to another sometimes vary; that is, there is often more than one known transliteration.
For example, what is the capital of China? Is it Peiping, Peking, Pequim, Pekin, Beiping, or Peiping, or Beijing? Or, go to the appropriate Chinese character.
Transliterations sometimes mislead.

Nazareth is an old city, with a Semitic name, spelled with a tsade. Nazarene has been defined in more than one way. (And the Anchor Bible Dictionary article says so.)
These two words have been transliterated into Hellenistic Greek. More than once.
spin chose the transliteration and interpretation of it that he prefers, and gave it more weight than it merits, and, in part, built his view of history on that foundation of sand.
Insisting on one transliteration interpretation, among others, does not make it right, and may mislead.

The International Phonetic Alphabet was and is an attempt to solve the problem, to provide a scientific, agreed-upon way to transliterate.
But even the IPA has shortcomings!
A Professor of Linguistics at UPenn, who is a specialist in phonetics and phonology, explains his view of IPA shortcomings here:
Language Log, "What IPA means now..."
https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=56373

[spin]

Stephen Goranson is fundamentally confused about what is going on here. I have being doing textual analysis, ie what texts can tell about themselves and how they might influence what came after them. I don't know much about the real town of Nazareth other than what might be gleaned from skimming Ken Dark. It is my understanding that Nazareth necessarily existed before the closure of the synoptic gospel tradition: Mt 21:11 wouldn't make much sense to me otherwise.

However, I have indicated many times on this forum there is a chronological development to be seen in the synoptics which starts with Ναζαρενος, passing Ναζαρα and picking up Ναζωραιος along the way, until we end with Ναζαρεθ. Textual analysis. Lk testifies to Ναζαρενος from Mk twice. Mt & Lk both evince Ναζαρα (the lectio difficilior) and both feature Ναζωραιος though apparently different reasons. (Extra information that in no way impacts on the chronological indications from the texts: Mt, as was the writers' wont, needed a prophecy for Nazara in 2:23 and apparently found one in LXX Judges 13:5 concerning Samson, "he will be a Ναζειραιος". As Lk has already used Ναζαρενος, it is reasonable to see that the use of Ναζωραιος is a case of later scribal fatigue, given that it became a more preferred post hoc gentilic.)

The toponym Nazareth, obviously known to later tradents and seen in Mt 21:11, would certainly have drawn the attention of the Matthean redactors had it been present in Mk 1:9. Instead it is neither found in Mt 3:13 or for that matter in 2:23 or 4:13 - the latter two featuring Nazara rather than Nazareth.

This is all textual analysis. If we step out and look at Semitic predecessors to the terms under consideration, we must remember Burkitt - who pointed out the almost exclusive transliteration of the Hebrew TSADE as SIGMA - and ask how it is possible that these four terms were borrowed separately and at different times by different scribes yet each miraculously features a ZETA. The simplest explanation is that they are not derived from the toponym נצרת (NUN-TSADE-RESH-TAW), but from נזיר (NUN-ZAYN-YOD-RESH), ie Nazirite and eventually harmonized with the toponym. People having difficulty with the Nazirite connection with Jesus should remember that Samson connection, Samson who was a Nazirite from birth (and caroused and had relations with women) like Samuel, not bound by a Nazirite vow, and probably should read Stuart Chepley's useful book on Nazirites of Late Second Temple Judaism (2005). (Ray Pritz, 1988, drops the ball here.)

We first have to work out as best we can what the texts indicate before confusing their content with theories about their real world underpinnings. Stephen Goranson insists that we must start with the Hebrew toponym Nazareth and believes that Ναζαρενος is derived from it, though we cannot derive "Nazarene" from Nazareth (Ναζαρεθενος or similar), so some scholars inject Nazara into the discourse as a convenient cognate source, for, though we have no historical mention of it, it could be an Aramaic form of the toponym. Rather than the spitball of unlikely conjectures Stephen Goranson's approach entails, I'll stick with what the texts indicate.

Who can find other Samson connections in the synoptic Jesus tradition?

[StephenGoranson]

As you know, when the Egyptians started to write their language by borrowing (switching to) the Greek alphabet, they added some letters to make it the Coptic alphabet, because Egyptian language has some sounds that Greek did not.
Similarly, Greek and Hebrew or Aramaic are not a complete phonetic match.
So, transcriptions, which are not consistently-spelled anyway, are not something to rely on overmuch, and may not be the key to solving the synoptic problem.
But, if you are going to look at spelling, it may be well to include the possible differences of -aioi and -enoi endings, as the former may be, in some cases, more Semitic-like, and the -enoi (long e) more Hellenistic.

NT does not seem to claim Jesus was a nazir or nazar, nor especially Samson-like. May be a misreading.

Matthew 2:23 does associate Nazareth place and Nazarene description, even if it has more than one meaning.

Why not submit your article to a peer-reviewed publication of your choosing?

Of course Nazareth had a Semitic name; still does, with tsade.

[davidmartin]

Samson? pffft. fluff to embellish Jesus's credentials maybe. or the most likely answer : Netser + Raz. Mystery keepers. Book of Daniel
na·ṣar, נָצַר
raz רָז

נָצַררָז

[spin]

"Who can find other Samson connections in the synoptic Jesus tradition?"

While waiting for Stephen Goranson to say something relevant, and as no-one has taken me up on the Samson connections, I may as well run through those connections I am aware of:

1. Mt 1:21 from LXX Jdg 13:5 "bear a son... for he will save [Jdg: Israel/Mt: his people]"
(The Matthean writer slips in a nice bit of etymologizing in naming him Jesus, which means "Jah saves".)

2. Lk 1:31 again from LXX Jdg 13:5 "[Lk: have/Jdg: take] in womb and bear a son", Lk adding "and you will call him Jesus", as Mt did.

3. Mk 1:24 refers to "[Jesus] Nazarene" and in parallel, "Holy One of God", both referring to Jdg 13:7 in two separate Greek translations, LXX(A) featuring "Nazirite" of God, while LXX(B) has "holy of God", which need I say is a very strong pointer to Mk's Ναζαρηνος being derived from Nazirite.

Including Mt 2:23, there are four references to the Nazirite Samson's birth, three prefiguring the birth of Jesus. Add to this the Magnificat, Mary's song of praise for her blessing (with Jesus), based on Hannah's song of praise over the birth of the Nazirite Samuel in 1 Sam 2:1-10. (We learn about Samuel being a Nazirite from 4QSam(a).)

In linking Samson & Samuel to Jesus the various gospel scribes underline the holy birth of Jesus as a lifelong Nazirite at the beginning of the Jesus tradition, but as a "tradition gene" the notion didn't prove fruitful to later tradents so it wasn't passed on.

(And thanks to Stephen Goranson for correcting my lazy transcription of Ναζαρηνος.)

[davidmartin]

the only problem with that is these are the birth narratives, which are likely the later parts of these gospels. so even if you're onto something here it could then be the gospels trying to make sense of the name, a bit like we're doing here! It could be 'Nazareth' as a place is another attempt at that, although it seems there was such a place. heck, that's why the etymology for a name of a movement seems appealing as, well, it's less than "ideal" the son of God just isn't supposed to belong to a mere sect.. although historicistically there's little alternative to this...

[spin]

the only problem with that is these are the birth narratives, which are likely the later parts of these gospels. so even if you're onto something here it could then be the gospels trying to make sense of the name, a bit like we're doing here! It could be 'Nazareth' as a place is another attempt at that, although it seems there was such a place. heck, that's why the etymology for a name of a movement seems appealing as, well, it's less than "ideal" the son of God just isn't supposed to belong to a mere sect.. although historicistically there's little alternative to this...

Perhaps you didn't read this statement:

I have being doing textual analysis, ie what texts can tell about themselves and how they might influence what came after them.

If your interest is history, you should probably look elsewhere from collections of tradition.

Obviously Mt 2:23 and Mk 1:24 show no interest in birth narratives, but birth narratives do establish Jesus' Naziritehood from birth within the tradition. Further, all four links to Samson (plus the mention of Samuel) supply a functional source for the initial term Ναζαρηνος and the later Ναζωραιος, one that explains the ubiquitous ZETA and one that appears early in the literary tradition, some iterations before the town of Natsrat became involved. The notion of Jesus of Nazareth - a phrase that only appears in the Synoptics in Mt 21:11 - appears not to be at the origin of the Jesus tradition, which shows how traditions can evolve away from their roots.