One of the biggest hurdles to accepting the birth narratives as real history is the apparent conflict between them. However, harmonization is possible when considering the sources and chronological clues.

First, the events recounted by Matthew in chapter 2 (in Bethlehem) occurred some two years after the time of the events that took place in the entirety of Luke's narrative. This is determined from Matthew 2:16, where Herod orders the killing of boys two years old and under, in accordance with the time he learned from the Magi.

Second, the two authors likely relied on different sources. Luke, deriving his material from family sources, would have accurate records of the events from the family's perspective. On the other hand, Matthew was authored in Antioch, Syria, and his major sources for his birth narrative were likely the descendants of the Magi themselves.

This explains the differing perspectives. When the Magi found the child in Bethlehem, they would inquire of the family if he was born there, and the answer would be yes. The fact that the family actually lived in Nazareth, under normal circumstances, would not necessarily be a topic of conversation, especially to keep from alerting a jealous Herod. Thus, Matthew's source told him that Jesus was born in Bethlehem; but he knew Jesus and his family were from Nazareth, leading to the explanation of the relocation. Since Matthew does not explicitly state that the family did not originally come from Nazareth, we have a quite understandable tension that is easily resolved rather than an outright contradiction.

Regarding the census, the couple may have remembered their bad census experience and learned to secure lodging early by the time of the Magi encounter, or the events were simply not at a feast date. Furthermore, the census-takings were long, multi-stage affairs, allowing for gradual counting that would not disrupt major feasts.