I'm not questioning the traditional identification of Nazareth because I'm impressed by any New Atheist pseudo Archeological claims it didn't exist till the 2nd century. I think that Nazareth is perfectly Ancient but probably wasn't called Nazareth originally being one of the villages of Japhia mentioned in Joshua 19:12-16.
The Problem is Matthew 4:13-15's application of Isaiah 9:1 (which I'd often willfully misread in the past) clearly says that when Jesus left Nazareth for Capernaum He was entering the land of Zebulun and Naphtali, meaning where He was before can't be part of either of those tribal allotments. And both traditional Nazareth next to Japhia and Sepphoris which was my former alternative theory are firmly in Zebulun. Since NT Nazareth was definitely part of the Greco-Roman era definition of Galilee that pretty much narrows it down to Issachar, possibly including areas originally first allotted to Issachar that Manasseh wound up taking according to Joshua 17:11, Judges 1:27, 1 Chronicles 7:29 and 1 Kings 4:12.
Why is Zebulun seemingly already added to Isaiah 9's definition of Galilee since everywhere else the name of Galilee appears in the Hebrew Bible it's just to the sea of Galilee and thus when talking about west of the Jordan tribal allotments only tied to Naphtali? Well Isaiah was contemporary with the Fall of the Northern Kingdom when the people of Naphtali were carried away into captivity by Tilgathpilneser King of Assyria, Zebulun however was among the tribes specifically not deported, they are still there for Hezekiah's Passover. So I think once Naphtali's lands were depopulated the people of Zebulun who had a pretty small allotment originally basically expanded to absorb formally Naphtalite territory. And that's why I believe all of the 12 Disciples except Judas Iscariot were of the Tribe of Zebulun.
The popular theory that the name of Nazareth is related to the Hebrew word for Branch used in Isaiah 11 is often criticized on the grounds that the Hebrew letter Tsade usually becomes a Sigma in Hellenic transliteration, so the spelling of Nazareth in the Greek texts of the NT using a Zeta implies the letter for Z used in the Hebrew or Aramaic was probably Zayin.
Did you know the medieval/modern Arabic name for the city of Jezreel is Zir'in? At first glance I found that weird, but it does descend from the same Semitic root that is the core of the Biblical Hebrew Jezreel, the Hebrew word Zerah commonly translated Seed. And indeed in both Zerah and Jezreel the Hebrew letter for Z is Zayin. Meanwhile the Hebrew letter for N is sometimes used as a Prefix meaning "we will". If Jezreel is the Hebrew and Zir'in the Arabic then it could be that in-between Nazareth was the Aramaic. Meanwhile the meaning of "Branch" is still related poetically.
Joshua 19:18 placed Jezreel in the territory of Issachar which is outlined in Joshua 19:17-23, though it could be that verse is referring to the valley not the city. Being associated with the border it could indeed be an area that was ultimately taken by Manasseh. I think in the NT era those tribally of Issachar were called Iscariot and that the family of Mary was probably of Manasseh.
The Prophet Hosea mentioned Jezreel by name four times in total, thrice in chapter 1 in verses 4, 5 and 11, and then one last time in chapter 2 verse 22. They first speak of YHWH Avenging the blood of Jezreel agaisnt the house of Jehu. The concept being alluded to there is the Goel/Redeemer of The Torah who is supposed to be a Kinsman.
But then the other uses of the name are more positive happy ending references. They also involve Hosea naming one of his sons Jezreel. I think it's reasonable to interpret Hosea as foretelling that the Messiah who will Redeem Israel will be of Jezreel, and that this is the Nazarene Prophecy Matthew 2:23 spoke of. Also Paul in Romans 9:25 quotes passages of Hosea that were in the context of those Jezreel prophecies.
Meanwhile the role that Megiddo plays in the history of Jehu in 2 Kings 9:29 and how it parallels Megiddo's role in the fate of Josiah in 2 Kings 23:29-30 and 2 Chronicles 35:22, has me thinking that the avenging of the Blood of Jezreel agaisnt Jehu is tied to the Eschatological role of Megiddo in Zachariah 12:11 and Revelation 16:16. After all the Valley of Jezreel is also called the Valley of Megiddo.
When Herodotus in Book 2:159 of his histories while discussing Pharaoh Necho refers to the Battle of Megiddo where King Josiah died, he spells the name of Megiddo as Magdolos. Maybe the Magdalene epithet used in The Gospels actually refers to Megiddo?
There is also the matter of Jesus foretelling He would not be accepted in His "own country", or Hometown in some translations (referring to Nazareth) in Luke 4:24, Matthew 13:57, Mark 6:4 and John 4:4. Traditional Nazareth and nearby Japhia/Yafa became Christian in antiquity and still have significant Christian populations to this day, in fact they were majority Christian as recently as the British Mandate Census of 1922 and again in 1931. But Jezreel never became Christian, it was visited by Christian Pilgrims in the 4th century who depict it as still practicing it's Pre-Christian rites, and then Zir'in was a purely Muslim city.
Now you could argue that Muslims view Jesus as a Prophet so Zir'in accepted Jesus as a Prophet and as Messiah Ben-David when they became Muslim, but that's a very roundabout indirect way to accept Jesus. When one converts to Islam it is the Prophethood of Muhammad they are chiefly accepting, Jesus just plays a role in that message. It would be like referring to Christian Europe as Mosaic.
It can also be argued that Jesus meant at the time, clearly all those past Prophets "not accepted in their own town" He had in mind were accepted Posthumously by their Prophecies becoming canonized Hebrew Scripture. And as a proponent of Universal Salvation I believe everyone accepts Jesus eventually. So no I would not rule out traditional Nazareth and look for a city that never became Christian based on this argument alone. It again comes down to these Hosea prophecies, can they arguably be viewed as not fully completely fulfilled till everything in Revelation is fulfilled? I think they can but I don't see it as something to be dogmatic about.
But also just how shocking it is that this city never became Christian even during the Byzantine period when it was the dominant Religion in the region and some Emperors actively sought to persecute those who didn't convert? Jezreel's stubborn refusal to convert is frankly admirable in that context.
