I prefer to look at the big picture, there a just too many elements of the gospels that make the Jesus story hard to swallow as anything other than a myth.
For example in the Luke acount:
In the Gospel of Luke account,
Mary learns from the
angel Gabriel that she will conceive and bear a child called Jesus. When she asks how this can be, since she is a virgin, he tells her that the
Holy Spirit would "come upon her" and that "nothing will be impossible with God". She responds: "Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word".
[7]
The style here is first person, yet who is recording this event? It is told as if a cameraman is standing in the background. This is a common theme in the NT, like the narrative of JEsus in the wilderness or the garden of Gethsemane. All are told in first person, but there could have been no witnesses present. Did Jesus and Mary later on say, hey guys, let me tell you the story about the virgin birth, or about the garden? I don't think so. These were written in this manner as stories of fiction, not historical records of fact.
There were only 2 accounts of the Jesus' birth, in Matthew and Luke, the writers of MArk and John are totally silent on the matter. Since th writers of Matthew and Luke based their text on Mark, they can only be taken as added stories for effect only.
From Wiki:
Many modern scholars consider that the two Gospel accounts present two different and conflicting narratives, and view both stories as "pious fictions".
[5] E. P. Sanders describes them as "the clearest cases of invention in the Gospels".
[6]