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

[StephenGoranson]

...so writing about how these names may or may not be transliterated into Greek may miss that point.
What does Nazara or other variant spellings mean in Greek?

[spin]

You don't know which Semitic source lies behind the Greek (in its various forms) and you can't show that - in its earliest usage - Ναζαρενος was a gentilic rather than an epithet (though you've assumed the former [ABD]). You might benefit from F.C. Burkitt's "Syriac Forms of New Testament Proper Names" [OUP for the British Academy] esp. p.16 and appendix 3. It's old (1912), but the general silence over it in the literature tells an interesting story.

[maryhelena]

You don't know which Semitic source lies behind the Greek (in its various forms) and you can't show that - in its earliest usage - Ναζαρενος was a gentilic rather than an epithet (though you've assumed the former [ABD]). You might benefit from F.C. Burkitt's "Syriac Forms of New Testament Proper Names" [OUP for the British Academy] esp. p.16 and appendix 3. It's old (1912), but the general silence over it in the literature tells an interesting story.

Nice to see you posting, spin - your wit has been missed....

[StephenGoranson]

I have read Burkitt.
His publication has been cited numerous times. There has not been a "general silence" about it. For example, it was cited in G. Kittel, ET, Theological Dictionary of the NT.
There is a great deal of literature on Nazareth, plus excavation, and the Caesarea inscription find, since 1912.
Greek transliteration of Semitic languages is not always a reliable basis.

PS. The comment about ABD is not accurate.
PPS. Burkitt has even been reprinted by Gorgias Press.

[spin]

One citation doesn't imply "numerous", but it does show "general silence". The Kittel reference ignored the point that Burkitt made, as you did.

And this is you assuming that Ναζαρενος was a gentilic in ABD:

"Thus questions on the formation of the gentilic remain."

But once again you have not responded to the substantive issues preferring to confirm what you believe. Once again you've ended a conversation.

You don't know which Semitic source lies behind the Greek (in its various forms) and you can't show that - in its earliest usage - Ναζαρενος was a gentilic rather than an epithet (though you've assumed the former [ABD]). You might benefit from F.C. Burkitt's "Syriac Forms of New Testament Proper Names" [OUP for the British Academy] esp. p.16 and appendix 3. It's old (1912), but the general silence over it in the literature tells an interesting story.

[StephenGoranson]

I gave one example of Burkitt being cited and another case of it being reprinted.
I could give bibliography of many other citations.
Do you dispute that, or do I need to provide a dozen or so to show your claim false?

Anchor Bible Dictionary, "Nazarenes," IV: 1049ff, by me, includes:
"....In general, Nazarene means either (1) a person from Nazareth, or (2) a member of a religious group whose name may have other connotations...."
And I gave several views.
Do you dispute that?

[StephenGoranson]

For starters, mentions of Burkitt's publication:
1912 The Times [London] Thursday, Jan. 25, 1912, Issue 39804, p. 11, column 2 [oral presentation 1912; published 1913]
1912 The Athenaeum; London Iss. 4411, (May 11, 1912): 532
1912 Expository Times
1913 JTS v.14, p.474
1913 Menzies
1914 Champlin Burrage, Nazareth and the Beginnings of Christianity: A New View Based Upon Philological Evidence, Preface: "Among the books I consulted, I would name with a special sense of obligation Professor F. C. Burkitt's valuable paper entitled _The Syriac Forms of New Testament Proper Names_ (Proceedings of the British Academy, vol. v, London, 1913;...."
1914 Abbott
1914 JQR, v.4, p.296
1915 Robertson
1915 Willoughby
1916 G. H. Box, p28
1917 Souter
1920 or earlier G. F. Moore
1920 McLachlan, p. 99
1920 Foakes-Jackson
1920 Kirsopp-Lake
1923 Grammar
1924 Milligan
1926 Jennings. Lexicon
1928 J. of the Palestine Exploration Society, v.8. page 25.
1928 Hastings
1932 JQR
1934 Headlam
1935 BURKITT'S WRITINGS, PROFESSOR, Journal of Theological Studies; London Vol. 36, (Jan 1, 1935):
1935 Guignebert
1938 Bernhard Leven
1939 Rimmer
1950 Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium: Subsidia (?)
1952 Margolis FS p. 35
1960 Guilding
1967f Orientalistische Literaturzeitung - Volumes 16-18 - Page 573
1968 Didaskaleion - Volume 2 - Page 134
1969 Ellis, Wilcox, M. Black FS
1970 Duprez, p. 23
1979 Chilton p. 312
1982 Kjaer-Hansen, p. 386
1983 Baarda, according to google books advanced
1986 Thesis
JEROME'S REVISION OF THE GOSPELS (VULGATE)
HARRISON, REBECCA R.   University of Pennsylvania 
1987 Drijvers, p. 273
1987 Greenspoon, p. 164
1989 Martin Hengel, The Zealots, page 417
1989 Rochus Zermuund, p.92
1991 JBL p.284
1991 Thesis
Syriac Gospel translations: A comparison of the language and translation method used in the Old Syriac, the Diatessaron, and the Peshitto
Lyon, Jeffrey Paul.   University of California, Los Angeles
1992 Wilson, p.52
1994 Lyon, xvii
1995 Rongcalia, p.57
1997 RHPR, p.262
1999 DGK Taylor p. 211
1999 Jesus of Nazareth. O'Neill, J C.  J. of Theological Studies; London Vol. 50,n.1, (Apr 1999): 135-142.
2007 Wilkinson p. 199
2008 Salm
2010 Timm p.537
2011 reprint, Gorgias Press, Series: Analecta Gorgiana 894
2012 S. Lee
2018 Z. Safrai p. 489
2019 Metzger (collection) p. 118
2020 Wassermann

[spin]

Folks can see just what I mean here. No response to substantive issues.

Instead, he has chased up some citations of Burkitt without demonstrating their relevance to Burkitt's argument regarding a zeta in Greek for the Hebrew TSADE - which is why Burkitt was mentioned. The cursory nature of the list effort can be demonstrated by the fact that two names in the list ( Foakes-Jackson and Kirsopp-Lake) represent the same book, which has an appendix by neither (by G.F.Moore) that deals with Burkitt. Box (Virgin Birth) cites the work, but doesn't discuss its Nazareth argument, as does Abbott. Robertson (Grammar of the Greek NT) cites Burkitt in relation to other issues. Alexander Souter cited Burkitt for Bethzatha and Dalmanoutha: Jennings does the same. Milligan, though brief, does more in a sentence than most of those previously mentioned. In all, StephenGoranson's list appears to be a rather fruitless waste of time. He has since added more names to the list. What's obvious is that a search for "Burkitt Syriac Forms..." was made without checking the relevance of the results. Many are of no use other than to show what lengths one might go to in order to avoid dealing with the topic.

For those interested, here's Burkitt (Appendix 3):

"The Greeks habitually represented Semitic TSADE by simple SIGMA. Besides words like Σιον for ציון (TSADE-YOD-WAW-NUN), which is after all an exclusively Biblical and Jewish name, we have Σιδων for צידון (TSADE-YOD-DALET-WAW-NUN) and Σαρεπτα for צרפת (TSADE-RESH-PE-TAW). No rule, however, is without apparent exceptions, and in view of the importance of the statement made above (p. 16) that in hardly any instance Greek ZETA stands for Semitic TSADE, it is worth while to examine the names in the Greek Bible (besides 'Nazareth') in which ZETA is apparently so used." (Letter spelling added)

Burkitt then gives the whole repertoire of ZETA for TSADE, ten exemplars in the whole Greek corpus of relevant Hebrew texts, nine of which are isolated instances, many in obscure and often late manuscripts. One exemplar occurs multiple times in the LXX with mixed transliteration, the town of Segor/Zoara, yes, some with ZETA others with SIGMA. In an unrelated Greek geography text (Cl. Ptolemy) it has a ZETA, suggesting that the Hebrew writers used an unrepresentative form of the toponym, which some transliterated with the expected SIGMA, while others knowing the real name used the ZETA.

The substantive issues (for the third time) that need a response:

You don't know which Semitic source lies behind the Greek (in its various forms) and you can't show that - in its earliest usage - Ναζαρενος was a gentilic rather than an epithet (though you've assumed the former [ABD]). You might benefit from F.C. Burkitt's "Syriac Forms of New Testament Proper Names" [OUP for the British Academy] esp. p.16 and appendix 3. It's old (1912), but the general silence over it in the literature tells an interesting story.

[StephenGoranson]

spin recently made three claims:
1) That Burkitt's "Syriac Forms of New Testament Proper Names" was largely ignored.
That is plainly false.
2) That my Nazarenes article did not include mention of differing views.
That is plainly false.
3) That Greek variable transliterations of Nazareth are more important than Semitic evidence.
That is plainly false.

[spin]

spin recently made three claims:
1) That Burkitt's "Syriac Forms of New Testament Proper Names" was largely ignored.
That is plainly false.

Yes, of course. Ignore the context. Forget the title of your thread.

2) That my Nazarenes article did not include mention of differing views.
That is plainly false.

Show me this claim. Seems to me you've lost the plot.

3) That Greek variable transliterations of Nazareth are more important than Semitic evidence.
That is plainly false.

I didn't make such a claim in this thread. I did say that "you don't know which Semitic source lies behind the Greek" and you certain have done nothing to suggest otherwise. I work with what we have, ie names written in Greek. You work with nothing.

Your o.p. implied a false assumption, ie that I held some notion that the Greek forms "Nazara, Nazarene, etc." needed to mean something in Greek, as though they were Greek names. How daft is that? It seems you were just trying to pick a fight, but you didn't have the weapons to do so.

Your major contribution in the thread was a species of bibliography one might expect from one untrained in scholarly practice, a bib from which no-one will gain any benefit. It was just a pointless slapdash effort at oneupmanship.

I leave you in your quagmire. I hope you have your waders.