To me, this is a question that is even silly to ask.
We have two gospels that refer to Jesus' birth, and both of them put the birth in Bethlehem.
Matthew 2:1- "After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod..."
The magi came asking the king where was the new "king of the Jews." Herod consulted the scribes who indicated the prophets say the Messiah will be born in Bethlehem (the city of "Bread" or the city of David- his home town). They based this on Micah 5:2- "But you Bethlehem in the land of Judah..out of you will come a ruler who will be the shepherd of my people Israel" (David was a shepherd who became king 300 years before Micah). The magi found Jesus in Bethlehem as a child (not an infant) in a house (2:11). Herod found out and tried to kill all babies under two years old (one of many horrible violent things Herod did). Note that this gives a specific time, place, rulership, and characterizes the rulership of Herod as violent (which it was). Matthew was written within 50 years of the death of Jesus.
Luke 2 gives a fuller narrative. Saying he was born in a place that houses animals (stable/cave/garage type place-Ken Bailey). The environment of shepherds out in the field fits in well with Bethlehem which grows sheep for the Passover sacrifice, and was the home of David- and has multiple pastures even today. Luke also gives a reason for Joseph and Mary to travel to Nazareth though she was pregnant. A census was to be taken and the governor of Syria (naming Quirinius the governor 6 BC- 12 AD) enforced it. Again, there are specific names, specific details, and places. Luke too was written 50-60 years after the death of Jesus as a way to preserve the "eyewitness account" (Lk. 1:2). Doubtless, some eyewitnesses were still living when Matthew and Luke were written and could testify to it. They, unlike some other pseudo or later gnostic "gospels" were widely accepted by the living Apostles, their immediate disciples
For example by the end of the 2nd century (like 180 AD) Irenaeus and Tertullian wrote of the churches' wide acceptance of the four gospels and Tatian even wrote a harmony of the four gospels by then. Mary, who could have testified to the birth narrative died somewhere between 43-48 AD. Perhaps her death prompted the writing down of the oral tradition.
The other two gospels ignore the birth narrative. Mark begins with the ministries of John and Jesus' baptism. John begins speaking of the logos made flesh- a theological description of the birth. There is no dispute among the canonical texts of the New Testament as to the place of Jesus birth. John 7 says "we know where this man is from; when the Christ comes, no one will know where he is from." This is not a contradiction of Bethlehem as Jesus' birthplace. It could be seen as muddying the water about the tradition that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem for it seems to indicate a belief that the Messiah would just appear out of nowhere. But it is also possible, to be seen as from some place but be born some place else. Julius Caesar was seen as "from Rome" but he was born in Subarra not far from Rome. Woodrow Wilson was seen as "from Princeton" where he served as president of the university. He could also have been said to have been from Augusta, Georgia or Columbia, SC where he spent his boyhood but he was actually born in Staunton, Virginia.
Some of the earliest post Biblical writers speak of Jesus being born in Bethlehem. Justin Martyr speaks of Jesus being born in a cave in Bethlehem (180 AD). Origen also speaks of Jesus being born in a cave in Bethlehem. The Infancy Gospel of James (2nd century found at Nag Hammadi) has Jesus being born in Bethlehem. There is no other Christian text that has him being born anywhere else.
Bart Ehrman (in a 12/21/2022 blog) along with some other Jesus' Seminar scholars seem to think that an argument from silence is stronger than the argument of people who actually talked with Jesus and eyewitnesses (like Matthew and Luke). I would say disinterest about where Jesus was born may mean that it doesn't matter to the ones who are disinterested. But that does NOT mean that it contradicts the clear testimony of biblical and post biblical references to the birth of Jesus. Ehrman seems to infer that Matthew and Luke's writings were not good enough because they were prejudiced toward Jesus' being born in Bethlehem. But the same could be said of both Ehrman and John Dominic Crossan. They do not believe in miracles, or the divinity of Christ or the physical resurrection. They have brought their own presuppositions to this debate- trying to make Jesus in their own image. Should we trust scholars who would erase Christian tradition more than those who were around eyewitnesses to the event? There is no DNA or archaeological evidence that would make those modern scholars more certain or trustworthy. Most would say that corroborated witnesses closer to the time are more reliable than those making educated guesses later on with their own prejudice against prophesy and scriptural reliability.
But there is another strong strand of evidence for the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem. It is found in the oral tradition of those in Bethlehem who pointed to the exact cave where Jesus was born. Tradition says that a cave in Bethlehem was venerated as the birth place of Jesus. Hadrian built a pagan temple to Adonis there in the second century so people would stop venerating the place. Constantine's mother, Helena, asked the locals in Bethlehem where was the place of the birth of Jesus, and then she built a church there in the fourth century. It was destroyed but Justinian built the Church of the Nativity over the spot in 530 AD. In our day we see similar things. We may not remember where Martin Luther King's boyhood home was until he became a great leader. Then those in his neighborhood can say it is at 234 Sunset Ave in NW Atlanta. Similarly, Woodrow Wilson spent several years in Columbia SC as a boy. When he became president, people remembered he the house was at 1705 Hampton Street and today it is well preserved. We know where many of the Roman emperors were born (Hadrian and Trajan 9/15/53 in Italica Spain near Seville for example). The tradition of the people confirmed with text of scripture- with no other valid early text giving a named alternative, adds up.
The ultimate "we-know-better-than scripture" pride is very strong in the Jesus' Seminar and Ehrman. In the 19th century there was a movement that said that no scripture was valid unless it was corroborated by another text. The Bethlehem narrative is corroborated in both Luke and Matthew. But the Jesus Seminar folk think they have the right to say what was authentically true or not in scripture by a vote is disrespectful to the writers and elevates them as judges over scripture. The spiritual danger in this is that if we can pick and choose what we want to be valid or not- we can pick and choose parts that are easy or comfortable for us. This is the ultimate eisegesis- putting our prejudices into or above the text. This means we don't have to listen to the text when we disagree with it or just don't want to. Bruggemann was a great scholar and he constantly urged his students to listen to the text of scripture rather than ignoring the parts that are hard or that do not make sense to us right away. If we listen to the earliest witnesses- and they differ in content- but agree in substance- Jesus was indeed born in Bethlehem.