The case for Jesus' birth in Bethlehem is an interesting one. Jesus was known to be from Galilee, but this presents a serious problem with his messianic claim as the messianic prophecy dictates the messiah must be born in Bethlehem, the ancestral home of King David.
Early Christians had little interest in where Jesus was born until they began to realize the problem with the messianic claim. The story of the Nativity doesn't appear in Mark, thought to be the earliest gospel in the canon. It was later the story of the birth in Bethlehem was concocted. The official story is that Jesus' father was required by the Romans to return to his ancestral home for the official census. So sounds like a great cover story, yes? We now have the motivation why a couple with a very pregnant wife would travel 80 miles on a donkey. Oh wait, no we don't. The Roman census in question did not cover Bethlehem or Galilee, nor did it require anyone to travel anywhere which would be completely unnecessary and illogical. The purpose of the census was taxation, and Roman subjects were taxed by their place of residence, not place of birth.
But hey, why let reality interfere with a great myth, right?
= new reply since forum marked as read