I think it did a good job making it's points based on scripture, word usage and middle eastern custom and traditions. If it were a case being built on circumstantial evidence it would be pretty strong. What the traditional view has going for it is that mostly it's a strong tradition.
A stupid article that adds nothing and quibbles over semantics.
I think it fleshes out the origins of Jesus and makes him more real but I see where you're coming from.
Joseph and Mary were probably not much poorer than anyone else in those days, because almost everyone was.
I could add to the error in the article. The whole section A culture of hospitality and honoring kinship is really based on conjecture and extrapolation. Then in the next section he uses Luke 2:4-6 to somehow indicate they had been there for days. Again conjecture with no solid evidence. Not that it matters but the entire article is evidence for a slippery slide into error. While I do agree that tradition can slip in non biblical truth but this article doesnt add anything.