Are there records of King Herod's census in Bethlehem?

Answer 1

There is no record of any census undertaken by King Herod the Great. The Jewish historian, Josephus, does record a census undertaken by the Roman governor, Quirinius, in Syria approximately 6 CE, but that was after the death of Herod and in any case would not have applied to Herod's kingdom. A range of scholarly views about the likelihood of an otherwise unknown census during the reign of King Herod includes:

Steve Mason (Josephus and the New Testament) says that the census of 6 CE must have been the first census undertaken by Rome in the region.

Raymond E. Brown (An Introduction to the New Testament) insists there was never a census during the reign of Herod: "The best explanation is that, although Luke likes to set his Christian drama in the context of well-known events from antiquity, sometimes he does so inaccurately."

Ian Wilson (Jesus: The Evidence) suggests that, by writing of a census during Herod's reign, the Luke gospel's author may have been trying to make it appear that he knew more about Jesus' birth than he actually did.

AnswerHowever, there is record of Quirinius being part of conducting a census that took place during King Herods time. Since Quirinius was in a position of governing more than one time, one being during the reign of King Herod, and another as stated above. Therefore, the possibility of the census taking place and involving Quirinius while King Herod was alive, roughly 10 years before the above mentioned time frame is completely plausible and would give credence to both the Gospel of Luke and Matthew. See the link for information in better detail. AnswerThere is a well documented and accepted list of governors (the position that Quirinius held) since well before King Herod. This does not allow for Quirinius serving a term prior to the one mentioned in The Bible. A census was called under Quirinius, Governor of Syria, however this is historically irreconcilable with the reign of King Herod.

Another answer:

This illuminates another flaw in the erroneous teachings of modern professing Christianity and the story it tells of Jesus' birth. "Herod" isn't mentioned in Luke's chapter 2 account of Jesus' birth during the census.

Herod comes into play YEARS LATER long after Jesus' parents returned home to Nazareth [where they lived]. Contrary to the popular tale told at "Christmastime"... THERE WERE NO MAGI [wise men] AT THE MANGER SCENE during the census. They came in search of the Messiah several years later:

Regarding Herod's despicable act of the "killing the male children" the Bible says:

"...He sent soldiers to kill all the boys IN AND AROUND BETHLEHEM who were TWO YEARS OLD AND UNDER, because the wise men told him the star first appeared to them ABOUT TWO YEARS EARLIER." (Matt.2:16 NLT New Living Translation)

Normally, by that time, Jesus would have been back in Nazareth with His parents... but in point of fact, was with them IN Egypt.

But the Bible doesn't mention "Herod" in connection with the biblically documented "census" of Quirinius in Luke 2. It's the erroneous "birth of the baby Jesus" story that confused modern professing mainstream Christianity has sold to the world as fact.

And not only was Herod ignorant of Jesus imminent birth... the "wise men" weren't at the manger, either. These characters appeared about two years afterward.

The popular accepted tale of Jesus' birth has the wise men "going to the manger in Bethlehem" [and many modern translations of the Bible errantly mention "Bethlehem" in the visitation of the wise men]. But the originally inspired text doesn't say they went to Bethlehem:

"...lo, the star, which they saw in the east, WENT [it moved; the Bible symbolizes ANGELS as 'stars' - see Rev.1:20] before them, till it came and stood over WHERE THE YOUNG CHILD WAS [WHERE the young Jesus was, it doesn't say]... And when they were COME INTO THE HOUSE, they saw the YOUNG CHILD [not a babe in swaddling clothes lying in a manger]..." (Matt.2:9-11 KJV).

The Bible only tells us that "Herod was reigning in Judaea" when Jesus was born... and doesn't mention him having anything to do with Quirinius' census.

Plus, both Herod and the "wise men" don't come into the "story" until some two years after the census. Like the wise men and Herod... even the Jewish scholars were fooled by the "Bethlehem" prophecies, from whence the Messiah was to come. None of them [even those who were to become Jesus' own disciples] dreamed He would be living in Nazareth:

"'Nazareth!' exclaimed Nathanael. 'Can anything good come from there?'" (John 1:46 NLT)

So, the "census" in the Bible wasn't "Herod's"... it was Quirinius' duty and responsibility. Herod's popular connection with it is purely fictional... like much of the rest of the popular fable this world has accepted regarding Jesus birth.

Answer 2

In 6CE, when Quirinius was governor of Syria, with overall responsibility for the territory of Judea, he undertook a census of his entire territory. There is no extant evidence of the census in Bethlehem. So, it is not possible to use the records as evidence of the population at the time, who lived there, or who was born there.

Had the census taken place, as some believe, during the reign of King Herod the Great (died 4 BCE), it would not have taken in Bethlehem, as Herod claimed autonomy for his own territory and did not collect taxes on behalf of Rome.