According to the Gospel of Matthew Jesus was born of a virgin in fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14. But in the original Hebrew (the language of the Old Testament) the passage in question reads “a young woman” or “maiden” (al’mah) shall give birth. The Hebrew Scriptures were then translated into Greek (the Septuagint) in the 3rd to 2nd century BC, as Hebrew had ceased to be a spoken language by then, having been replaced by Aramaic and Greek within Jewish communities of the time. And the translators chose the Greek word “parthenos” (virgin) for that passage. (The dedicated Hebrew word for virgin is beth’ullah). So a “young woman shall give birth” was mistranslated into a “virgin shall give birth”, an error that was then carried forward into all our modern Bibles. Pretty well every other Gospel episode can be dismantled in a similar way. The Gospels are therefore not derived from eyewitness testimony or memory as claimed by the Church. In fact, there really is only one gospel story, which is the first one written: Mark. And Mark bears all the internal hallmarks of allegory. From that point forward all other gospels are rewrites or spin-offs of Mark, whose original fictional narrative then gets historicized by these later gospels and accepted and promoted as such by the Church of Rome as a means to usurp authority from the Jerusalem Church. These winners of history then went on to write their own story, eclipsing the original form of the religion based on the writings of Paul, whose Celestial Jesus did all of his incarnating, suffering, dying and rising in a sub-lunar heavenly realm, where he had been crucified by the “rulers of this age”, a Pauline reference to the demon powers of the air. This is the mythicist theory of Christian origins, whose leading proponents are scholars such as Richard Carrier, Robert Price (he’s the Bible Geek:awesome Podcast!) and Earl Doherty. Sounds far fetched when you first hear it, but hey, the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, Joseph and Moses,etc.) were considered to be historical figures by the “scholarly consensus” back in the day. That’s now a minority opinion, existing only in the netherworld of Evangelical Christianity. So things change. So yes, the non-historicity of Jesus is a live option that can no longer be easily dismissed.

What is in the bible is
An account of a census that did not happen till (8AD) after Herod was dead, and did not require people to return to their ancestral homes
The supernatural rape and impregnation of a 14 year old girl,
More lies about Herod the great and when he died (4 BCE),
A slaughter of the innocents that is actually stolen from the Talmudic story of the birth of Abraham and King Nimrod 4000 years before
And Christians think this a suitable story for young children.

Even if God were inspiring the writing of this nonsense, wouldn't a wise all-knowing entity know enough to clearly distinguish what happened from all the other virgin-birth myths?

The absence of clarity is the proof of human authorship.

I doubt there was even a baby...