In Matthew 2:11 it is stated that the wise men came to a "house" in Bethlehem and found Mary and the young child. This implies that they lived in Bethlehem, not just visited for the taking of a census. Young child does not even imply a newborn babe in my vocabulary either.
This is given further substance by the statement that Herod had all the male children age two and younger slaughtered, believing that the child could be as old as two.
The idea of a Bethlehem residence is given further weight by the story of the families return from Egypt in Matt. 1:20-23. Since Herod's son was now on the throne, Joseph was afraid to return to Judaea, so turned aside into Galilee and settled in the city of Nazareth. This certainly implies that this was the first time they had dwelled in Nazareth, and supports the idea that they were native to Bethlehem.
So, we have a major contradiction in the two Christmas stories, with Luke suggesting a trip to Bethlehem since Joseph was of the house of Judah and must go there to register in the census, and Matthew implying that they lived in Bethlehem in a house, and only went to Nazareth to avoid being found by Herod's son.
Isn't it great how the church has neatly integrated the two stories, with the wise men visiting the babe in the manger shortly after the birth of Jesus, making it appear that it's all one neat story, rather than two totally unreconcilable stories. Makes a much nicer Nativity scene with the camels and wise men, don't you think? Controversy? What controversy? Let's just make them both work together for the "good" of the parishoners!
Really surprised me that the SAB did not point these matters out as contradictions. Peace

