Like a lot of kids, I was taught that Jesus was born in a manger because Mary and Joseph had to return to Bethlehem to take part in a census. They ended up sleeping in a manger because there was no where else. Supposedly it wasn't a bad deal because at least the animals would keep you warm at night.
How much of the biblical story of Christmas makes sense? Was there actually a Roman census? Did people even have mangers? It seems like you could make the animals sleep outside in the Middle East. I realize its hard to verify the life of Jesus, but the whole thing has always seemed a little fishy.
This is an interesting question and one that I love discussing because it's deeply fascinating. So before I can fully answer your question, I need to provide some context. I'll also need to go into detail about what the authors of the Nativity narratives say, since the issue with your question is that some of what you are saying in your questions do not happen in all the gospels.
We have two complete narratives focusing on the birth of Jesus of Nazareth, one found in the book of Luke and the other the book of Matthew. Both were believed to have been written around the year 80 CE, give or take 10 years. Now it's important to know that many historians believe that both of these gospels were written by people who had contradictory sources. Why do they think that? Because major parts of their stories contradict, which in themselves actually tells us more information about the situation (which I'll explain in detail below.)
I also want to stress that just because there are contradictions, this does not mean I am arguing that the theological points around Jesus are invalid. As Christian historians like John Dominic Crossan or Bruce Metzger have explained, these gospels were written not as historical reference books, but as books that were making theological points about a person the authors believed held strong religious significance. As Historian Crossan explains in his book The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, "differences and discrepancies between accounts and versions are not due primarily to vagaries of memory or divergences in emphasis but to quite deliberate theological interpretations of Jesus.
So let's jump into the sources. Here are the key parts of the book of the two gospels.
** Matthew:**
Luke:
So as you examine a few of these points, it's important to realize that there's huge differences between these two accounts. As historian Bart Ehrman said, "The differences between the accounts are quite striking. Virtually everything said in Matthew is missing from Luke, and all the stories of Luke are missing from Matthew." (1) This doesn't mean they can't tell us a lot, it just means we need to be aware of these differences before examining them from a historical perspective.
So the first point I want to address is about the location where Jesus was born: Bethlehem. Now, you may notice that there are two contradictory reasons why Jesus was born in Bethlehem. In Luke, it says that his parents had to travel to Joseph's (Jesus' father) ancestral home, which would have been Bethlehem. However in Matthew, nothing of this sort is discussed since Matthew implies that they already live in Bethlehem. Why is there a discrepancy? Many historians believe that the discrepancy was a need for the authors to explain how Jesus, a man known to have come from Nazareth could have fulfilled an Old Testament prophecy that the Messiah would have been born in Bethlehem. So both of them had to figure out ways to explain how this worked out. In Matthew, the author explains that Jesus was from there originally, but due to King Herod wanting to execute young male babies, they fled to Egypt before relocating to Nazareth. On the flip side, Luke's sources explained the discrepancy by talking about this Census that should have happened around 6 - 4 BCE.(2) So what do we know about this census? Well, quite a bit actually.
One of those points is that in Luke, the author says that there is a census being required in the Roman Empire that requires all people return to their ancestral home and register for it. However in Matthew, there isn't a census mentioned at all. Rather than try and explain this myself, Bart Ehrman explains it much better than I can:
The historical problems with Luke are even more pronounced. For one thing, we have relatively good records for the reign of Caesar Augustus, and there is no mention anywhere in any of them of an empire-wide census for which everyone had to register by returning to their ancestral home. And how could such a thing even be imagined? Joseph returns to Bethlehem because his ancestor David was born there. But David lived a thousand years before Joseph. Are we to imagine that everyone in the Roman Empire was required to return to the homes of their ancestors from a thousand years earlier? If we had a new worldwide census today and each of us had to return to the towns of our ancestors a thousand years back—where would you go? Can you imagine the total disruption of human life that this kind of universal exodus would require? And can you imagine that such a project would never be mentioned in any of the newspapers? There is not a single reference to any such census in any ancient source, apart from Luke. Why then does Luke say there was such a census? The answer may seem obvious to you. He wanted Jesus to be born in Bethlehem, even though he knew he came from Nazareth. Matthew did, too, but he got him born there in a different way. (3)
Now some folks have tried asserting that the census is referring to the census of Quirinius, who was governor of Syria.(4) However, it wasn't empire-wide, it didn't require folks to relocate, and more important, it didn't happen until 10 years after King Herod died. (5) So, as you can see, there is no evidence that the census happened.
The other point you ask is about a manger. I want to point out that in Matthew, there is reference to the house that Joseph and Mary live in while in Bethlehem. In this scenario, they wouldn't have had to stay in a manger, since they lived in a house. In Luke, we hear that due to the massive migration of millions of people across the Roman Empire, people are having to stay in towns like Bethlehem, and as a result, the inn is full. So the pregnant Mary and her husband Joseph stay in a local stable and Jesus is layed in a manger. While it's likely plausible that someone who owned a stable in a city like Bethlehem could have let a couple stay in their stable, again, evidence suggests that the stories in both Matthew and Luke likely are not true, or if either is, it's impossible to verify any of the claims.
Hope this was helpful. Let me know if you have any other follow ups.
Ehrman, Bart D.. Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them) (p. 33). HarperCollins. 2011
Ehrman, Bart D.. Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them) (p. 31-32). HarperCollins. 2011
Ehrman, Bart D.. Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them) (p. 32). HarperCollins. 2011
Ehrman, Bart D.. Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (p. 39). Oxford University Press. 1999.
Crossan, John Dominic. The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (p. 117). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.
As the chronology of the census by Publius Sulpicius Quirinius conducted in 6 AD after inclusion of Judea into the province of Syria has been explained below, let's move to the other part of the question. Kenneth E. Bailey in his work 'Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes' argues that the story makes a lot of sense although it is customarily depicted by a slightly skewed optics, quite possibly distorted through the cultural changes (people tended to imagine things as being similar to their own milieu). Bailey argues that the term 'καταλύματι' (nom. κατάλυμα) means not the 'inn' (more commonly referred to as e.g. 'πανδοχεῖον', cf. Lk 10:34), but rather a guest room in a regular house. This is corroborated by later passage in Lk 22:10-11, where Jesus tells his students to ask 'Ποῦ ἐστιν τὸ κατάλυμα ὅπου τὸ πάσχα μετὰ τῶν μαθητῶν μου φάγω' (lit. Where is the room where I can eat Passover with my students) and it is clearly stated that the building in question is 'οἶκος' (a house) and the person to be asked is 'οἰκοδεσπότης' (master of the house). In case of an inn, Luke uses the terms 'πανδοχεῖον' and 'πανδοχες' (inn/innkeeper) instead.
This would mean that hosts who arrived earlier had already occupied the guest room, but hosts allowed Joseph and Mary to stay either in their main room (what would make sense given that Mary was entering labour and had to be assisted) adjacent to an animal stall (typical for poorer houses) or on the lower floor, where kitchen, storage and animal stall were located. Said stall or other space reserved for animals were commonly equipped with a manger or trough, often nothing more than a simple indentation in the floor or dividing half-wall. So, it was perfectly possible that Joseph and Mary were admitted to a private house (possibly even belonging to Joseph's relatives) where newborn Jesus was at least temporarily laid in the manger for the lack of better options available.