The problem as I understand it is that there had to be both Betlehem as you mention, but also Nazareth (because of "he will be called Nazarene", can't remember who said it). So having the family move for the birth was a neat solution.
The earliest gospel (Mark, by widest consensus) has nothing about the birth (or childhood).
Of course invention in the Gospels doesn't prove Jesus didn't exist. But it does make trouble for literalists.
(What I had heard was that *either* he was born at the time of the census of Quirinus, 6 CE, *or* he was born under Herod, who died in 4 BCE. But again, as above)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-02-06 11:54 am (UTC)The earliest gospel (Mark, by widest consensus) has nothing about the birth (or childhood).
Of course invention in the Gospels doesn't prove Jesus didn't exist. But it does make trouble for literalists.
(What I had heard was that *either* he was born at the time of the census of Quirinus, 6 CE, *or* he was born under Herod, who died in 4 BCE. But again, as above)