Why do you have this weird fixation on defending the accounts of the gospel as if they are historical fact when we know that they are not?
This isn't to argue for Bethlehem, but to say that insisting on Nazareth is a dogmatic position, rather than a reasonable one. Nazareth isn't "one hundred and eleven", but "twelfty take nine" that someone made up as they didn't like the idea of "eleventy-one" that someone else made up (though the whole 111 thing was a terrible analogy anyway).
floydro: you might want to double check the ide that Luke suggests the census was in the time of Herod the Great. Which King Herod Luke is talking about at a particular time is never specified by him, and Herod's name doesn't come up in relation to the census. But what else can we expect from dogma-based, rather than evidence-based, arguments. ;)
Compare it to watching tv in a household, one person says they ALwayys have to watch shows the other ones likes, while in reality it might be 3/20 but just ones he really hates, and dont realize 12/20 are programs HE chooses (but somehow he feels that doesnt count, "yea but thats the news, yea but thats a great show, yea but we Allways watch that" etc. So he unconsciously downplays it. (and perhaps a bit consciously..) Because he thinks it is logical to watch them or doesnt even realize it anymore.
people's vision are often skewed because attention is drawn to things that stand
same goes for local knowledge a pubquiz in country A will have other questions than in country B