I was going through the Nativity narrative in the Bible recently. Among other things I wanted to check the passages for historical accuracy. In this installment we'll look at the Census in Luke chapter 2, the "Slaughter of the Innocents" in Matthew chapter 2, and Herod who is featured in both books.
The Census
Luke 2:1-4 reads:
In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. 2 This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. 3 All went to their own towns to be registered. 4 Joseph also went from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was descended from the house and family of David. (NRSVUE)
Joseph has to travel to his ancestral home to take part in this new census. Depending on which translation you’re reading Luke 2:2 specifically mentions Quirinius taking the census. There was, in fact, a census in 6 AD referred to as the Census of Quirinius, so far so good. The census was in response to Herod the Great’s death (remember that for later, it will be on the test).
The point of the census was to see the population by area in order to see what Herod had been in control of. This would allow Caesar to appropriately collect property tax from Herod's son, among other things. Why then would the census require people to travel? Wouldn't it defeat the entire purpose of the census?
The truth is the Census of Quirinius didn't require people to travel! In fact, there has never--at any time in history--been a census which requires people to go to their ancestors' hometown from 1,000 years ago! There’s no record of it happening, nor does it make logical sense if you think about it.
That would be the equivalent of me having to fly my ass to Italy, in order to take the United States census; because my Great Great x 40 grandfather lived there. Which, by the way, I don’t have access to a genealogy that goes back that far. I’m guessing most people don’t.
So, if the census doesn't make people move around, why was the census mentioned at all by Luke? It was well known that Jesus was from Nazareth, but the Jews believed the messiah would come from Bethlehem. Luke knew Jesus came from Nazareth, but he needed him to be from Bethlehem. Luke's solution was to invent a story explaining why Jesus was "actually" born in Bethlehem.
Massacre of the Innocents
When Herod saw that he had been tricked by the magi, he was infuriated, and he sent and killed all the children in and around Bethlehem who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had learned from the magi.
Matthew 2:16-18 NRSVUE
Did Herod actually order the death of every baby in Bethlehem? Why no. It may surprise you to learn there is zero historical record of any such massacre ever taking place! Not in Bethlehem and not involving Herod.!
There was documentation of other horrible things Herod had done, including the murder of his own sons, but no records of the massacre of all the babies in an entire city. An event that significant would be recorded somewhere else, certainly.
So, why was it in Matthew if it didn’t actually happen? Matthew was written some 80 years after Herod had died, and Herod had a pretty nasty reputation. Matthew (much like Luke) knowing Jesus was from Nazareth had to come up with a narrative device allowing Jesus to actually be from Bethlehem. Matthew invented a story where Jesus’ family always lived in Bethlehem, but had to flee due to the Massacre.
Herod The Great
One of the common threads between these two stories is Herod. Specifically Herod The Great (or Herod I). This is important to differentiate from Herod Antipas, Herod the Great's son. When Matthew talks about Herod killing children he is referring to Herod I not his son. Matthew also mentions Herod dying before Jesus and his family move to Nazareth, but after they flee to Egypt.
Luke talks about the census taking place before Jesus was born. We know from history, the Census didn't take place until after Herod The Great's death.Therefore, according to Luke, Herod was dead before Jesus was born!
Wait a second! If Herod died before Jesus was born, how did he also order the death of children after Jesus was born, and then die again?!?!
Obviously he didn't. Herod never killed all the babies in Bethlehem, and he certainly didn't come back from the dead to do so. The authors of Matthew and Luke just couldn't agree on when Jesus was born relative to Herod's death.
Conclusion
The authors of Matthew and Luke didn't really care about being historically accurate. They were worried about making Jesus fulfill a prophecy. They didn't have proof he was born in Bethlehem, so they just had to make their own. Luke invents a bizarre version of a census, Matthew make up a massacre, and neither one of them could agree when the whole thing took place.
