Comments on BiblePlaces Blog: "No Room in the Inn"

I would only like to say one thing. Matthew 1:20.....

2009-11-17T06:42:06.498-06:00

I would only like to say one thing. Matthew 1:20...But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto hime in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy WIFE: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

Matthew 1:24-25 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto hime his WIFE: And knew her ot till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

I seriously doubt considering God's view of fornication and adultery that he would have Mary being an unwed mother and I think the Word of God states that very clearly. Read the King James Version.

I realize that this is past the date of original p...

2009-05-18T23:13:28.353-05:00

I realize that this is past the date of original posting - but I'd like to add information. During festivals and large gathering (like the census),people of property or people who could rent property would establish "khans" or Inns. Areas that were somewhat protected, provided pens for livestock, had water and a communal fire or oven for baking. Space was rented or bartered for-like camp grounds today. Mary and Joseph were not accomodated mainly due to her pregnancy and the post childbirth rituals that were part of Jewish Law. (see Leviticus 12) If they had been allowed space in the Khan, then it would have been deemed "unclean" and the entrepreneur would have lost his income. While this seems harsh to us, it was the Jewish custom itself which led to their being housed in the stable. I do not believe that they were rejected by relatives necessarily, nor that the baby's illegitmacy was in question, since Joseph had assumed his paternity.
I also disagree that a pregnant women would be given priority back then. Women were second class citizens, and childbirth was common. (consider other Oriental cultures even today) Should you disagree as to the "khan" vs guest house - the same childbirth laws would apply.

Excellent analysis and comments. I've often wonde...

2007-12-25T12:54:00.000-06:00

Excellent analysis and comments.

I've often wondered why Mary made the trip to Bethleham at all, so late in her pregnancy. This was a culture where families were counted through the male lines, so wouldn't Mary have normally been accounted for by her husband (or father for an unmarried girl)?

Seems to me that in a culture where the punishment for infidelity included the option of stoning to death, and given the kind of mindset some in related cultures still hold to today (i.e. Honor Killings of female relatives who've disgraced the famiy name), I wonder if Joseph didn't keep Mary with him for her own protection.

This view would also fit well with the idea that they were rejected by their own relatives in Bethleham, where they were offered only shelter with the animals rather than in the "upper rooms" with the other guests...

It all has the "feel" of a good fit with the words in the Biblical account, but of course, as always, interpretation is fraught with chances for error.

The main theme of the story remains the same - Christ entered the world in the least glorious conditions imaginable.

G.M. - I wore short sleeves in the daytime, but to...

2006-12-20T02:25:00.000-06:00

G.M. - I wore short sleeves in the daytime, but to answer your point: I have been in fields near Bethlehem on Christmas morning and seen a shepherd with his flock. He told me that he had spent the night out there with them. That doesn't prove that Jesus was born in December, but I think it casts doubt on those who suggest it impossible on the basis of the weather.

Hey Al,I just viewed your profile because your "ce...

2006-12-19T20:40:00.000-06:00

Hey Al,
I just viewed your profile because your "central Washington" reference made me curious. I'm from Othello! Small world, really.

>>>Al Sandalow, did you see "lots of people in fie...

2006-12-19T11:59:00.000-06:00

>>>Al Sandalow, did you see "lots of people in fields with sheep" at noon or midnight?

I understand the point you’re trying to make and I have no special interest in defending a winter birthday for Jesus. I still think assumptions have been made about shepherds and winter that many not fit the facts on the ground.

I don’t think there are many shepherds that sleep in the fields with their sheep at any time of year in Israel now. But tending animals in the winter still goes on in many places. I have seen Basque shepherds in – believe it or not – the hills of southern California in the winter staying with their flocks out in the sagebrush 24 hours a day.

Here in the cattle country of central Washington state, ranchers are often out in their fields at all hours of the night in the winter, because that that is when most calf’s and lambs are born. Sometimes nature needs a little help and the colder it is, the more likely a newborn will freeze up and die.

It does not seem unlikely to me that even on a winters night, a group of hired men, who’s job it was to tend the sheep, might not be gathered into a small camp in the fields where sheep are penned for the night, sleeping and taking turns standing watch for thieves, predators, or new lambs.

The coldest overnight temperatures I experienced in January were only in the low 40’s F. I know it can get colder than that, but I camp out in temperatures that cold regularly in the Sierras and Cascades.

Todd, did you wear your short-sleeves during the d...

2006-12-19T11:21:00.000-06:00

Todd, did you wear your short-sleeves during the daytime or in the night? Please let us know what the approximate difference is between Monday's daytime high & nighttime low.

Al Sandalow, did you see "lots of people in fields with sheep" at noon or midnight?

>>"But don't tell anyone; it's too cold for shephe...

2006-12-18T11:54:00.000-06:00

>>"But don't tell anyone; it's too cold for shepherds to be out tending their flocks in December!"

First time I was in Bethlehem was early January and I saw lots of people in fields with sheep. I began to realize that commentaries were filled with assumptions written by people who had never been to Israel.

However, it was 5 degrees F here this morning. Good think Jesus wasn't born in central Washington.

Al - it is possible that there is another interpre...

2006-12-18T07:12:00.000-06:00

Al - it is possible that there is another interpretation than family rejection; I just think it is the most likely one.

I don't know how to prove that they had family living in Bethlehem, but certainly other family were in town for the census at the same time. Given that people tended to move around a lot less in antiquity than we do, I would be surprised if some of their family did not live there.

I don't know if we can say anything about the people of Nazareth's acceptance of Mary. Perhaps they had more time for it to "sink in" than did the family in Bethlehem who had "one shot" to show her what they thought of her loose living.

Who can know, but maybe Joseph bought a house in Bethlehem after the passage of some time? He could have done some business in the meantime, and Matthew suggests that Joseph intended to return to Bethlehem from Egypt.

What is snow? It's short-sleeve weather here. But don't tell anyone; it's too cold for shepherds to be out tending their flocks in December!

Mary and Joseph were indeed married before Jesus' ...

2006-12-17T17:46:00.000-06:00

Mary and Joseph were indeed married before Jesus' birth. In Matthew 1:24-25 my NASB makes it clear:
"And Joseph...took [Mary] as his wife, and was not knowing her until she gave birth to a Son"

But, what if Matthew is using the phrase "was not knowing her" synonymously with "did not marry her?" He then would be saying, "Joseph confirmed that he would take Mary to be his wife, but did not actually marry her until after she bore Jesus."

A couple of reasons behind this interpretation would be:
(a) the word translated "virgin" cannot apply to a girl who is married, even if she has not yet had intercourse;
(b) weddings are usually followed by a wedding night "consumation," and postponing this would be considered so culturally improper that Joseph would simply postpone the wedding itself.

I will note that these two reasons alone fail to persuade me, because they are based on norms that did not exist in the case of Mary and Joseph. Virgin usually implies being unmarried; this is only an implication though, because most brides cease being virgins on the wedding night. If Joseph took Mary as his wife immediatly, he would of course refrain from "knowing" her until after Jesus' birth, to honor Isaiah's prophecy. You cannot use customs observed in normal situations to disprove unique actions in this extremely unique circumstance.

This alternate interpretation I suggested then must be examined by the Greek grammar and surrounding context. If it does not pass these tests, then the straight-forward reading in English is the same as the original recipients understood from the Greek. (I don't know enough Greek yet to determine this; someone pull out their Greek NT and examine the passage.)

My point is not whether Mary and Joseph were shunned or not, but that the text says clearly that Mary and Joseph were married before Jesus' birth, and any case for understanding Matthew 2:24-25 differently is weak.

Perhaps I have missed something in this argument. If I have, please teach me; I want to learn.

Good questions. No for sure answers. It should be ...

2006-12-17T14:40:00.000-06:00

Good questions. No for sure answers. It should be noted that according to Matthew, Joseph and Mary were married by the time they get to Bethlehem. We can only guess how early in the pregnancy they were married (though, certainly after her visit to Elizabeth), nor do we know how much the people of Bethlehem knew about the events leading up to the birth.

The other question is how connected was Joseph to any relatives in Bethlehem. One tradition identified the residents of Nazareth as people from the tribe of Judah who returned to Nazareth from Babylon around 100BC. If that’s true and Joseph is a descendant of those people, his family might not have lived in Bethlehem for 600 years. Joseph may not have had any close relatives in Bethlehem at the time.

Finally, a mother giving birth. I know in our culture, births are a big deal. But, I wonder how much deference would have been given to a 15-16 girl, who was at best a distant relative. If you already had one or two families staying at your too small house, would you turn them out or try to find a small, out of the way, spot for someone to have a baby? We know she is in a house when the magi show up, so someone at some point put them up for some time.

It is interesting to think that people in Bethlehem could have been less accepting of Joseph and Mary that the people of Nazareth

PS-If your short on holiday spirit there in Jerusalem, I would be happy to let you have some of our snow.

Todd, the BDAG Lexicon agrees with you, saying tha...

2006-12-17T13:27:00.000-06:00

Todd, the BDAG Lexicon agrees with you, saying that "kataluma" is a "lodging place," understood here as a "guest room."
In the name of economics, Bible editors are often asked to fudge a translation a little. When people flip through a Bible to see if they like it, they most often go to the "famous" passages. The clearest example for me is John 3:16. I don't think you will find a version that does not say, "For God so loved the world." If I were to translate it from say, the UBS text, I would have it, "For in the same way God loved the world..." This would convey that John was connecting the story of the golden serpent in the desert (being lifted up and God granting salvation from snake bite death to those who looked at it) with Jesus.
So the argument over whether Bethlehem could have had an "inn," in my opinion, is moot.
It is my understanding that in the typical Hebrew house, the animals were kept in the bottom floor, while the family lodgings were on the upper stories (for a well-to-do family, otherwise there was one floor where everyone - people and animals - slept). I think you have a valid point here as well, Todd. If Mary was pregnant, she would have been given a priority. The fact that she was forced to give birth where ever the animals were gives evidence that she was being shunned.

Ok, Al, tell me who ranks higher than a woman abou...

2006-12-17T10:30:00.000-06:00

Ok, Al, tell me who ranks higher than a woman about to give birth? The fact that she wasn't given better accommodations should be telling us something. I think it stretches credibility more to suggest that she was given a better situation, when the point of the narrative is that the baby was laid in a manger because there wasn't a better option. I don't think it's too hard to imagine in their culture that an unwed couple would be shunned; that was true in our own until recent years. I certainly concede that my suggestion can't be proven; my basic point though was about the inn and whether there could have been one in Bethlehem.

Luke 2:7 "and she gave birth to her firstborn, a ...

2006-12-17T10:21:00.000-06:00

Luke 2:7 "and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn."

Todd, you are right about the “inn” translation. For the rest, I think the honest truth is that we just don’t have enough information to fill in all the details we want. So much is based on one short sentence. I know that it was not uncommon to have a space in a home (or in front) where you might house a few animals at night. I think of the caves hollowed out behind homes in Nazareth. Having a feed trough around doesn’t necessarily mean you are in a barn or a cave used as a stock pen.

In fact, assuming Bethlehem was filled with others who needed to be counted for a census, any guest room in homes would have had multiple people in them. Not a good place for childbirth. Perhaps setting Mary up in a place normally used for housing a few animals, was the best that could be done in the circumstance, not a sign of rejection.

Mr. Grena,You have supported my point by finding t...

2006-12-17T03:03:00.000-06:00

Mr. Grena,

You have supported my point by finding the most obscure English versions where it is translated otherwise. The point is that all the major ones translate it as "inn" (and "khan" is just another word for "inn").

Clearly Bethlehem was crowded, but this seems to be the result of an enrollment, not a festival. You are correct that I am reading some context into my interpretation of why there was no room in the guest room. I suggest that 1) the guest room in question is belongs to one of their family, since that would be a natural place to stay, and 2) the lack of room cannot simply be explained by a first-come, first-served basis since Mary was pregnant. What I think best explains the lack of room in the guest room is her unwedded state. I think that is a better explanation than that Jesus was born at Sukkot. Since you link four times to this article suggesting Jesus was born during Sukkot, I'll take that as a hint that you want me to interact with it.

I read this article last week and I thought it so worthless that I didn’t bother to mention it on this blog. Maybe Jesus was born on Sukkot, but not for any of the reasons given.

1. Jesus did come and “tabernacle” with men, but that doesn’t he was born on the day of tabernacles. It sounds good in a sermon, but there is no evidence.

2. Strips of cloth were used in the temple. Jesus was wrapped in swaddling clothes in Bethlehem. I don’t see the connection.

3. All baby boys were circumcised on the eighth day. Were they all born on the first day of Sukkot?

4. Good thing their tents had a hole or they never would have seen the star. Wise men back then never went outside.

5. Shepherds weren’t out with their flocks in the winter; I’ve answered that myth above.

6. Quirinius was governor in 1 B.C.? Herod died in 1 or 2 A.D.? I guess I must have missed this new data. If it’s true, it is very important and should be the focus of this article.

Wacky theories get media attention because they are "news," but that doesn’t mean they withstand even the most basic analysis.

Todd, thanks for bringing this facet of the story ...

2006-12-15T21:57:00.000-06:00

Todd, thanks for bringing this facet of the story to our attention. Your interpretation is "very interesting" (Jodi Magness taught me an important lesson this week), but I think "TOPOS" (place/room) is important too.

You say you checked "dozens of English translations" & found that they all render "KATALUMATI" as "inn", but here are some alternate readings from editions in my library:

"no room for them in the place where people stay for the night"--New Life Version (1993)

"no room for them in the place where travelers lodged"--New American Bible (1970)

"no room where they were lodging"--Lamsa's Holy Bible (1957)

"no place for them in the lodging room"--New World Translation (1961/84)

"no room for them to lodge in the house"--New English Bible (1970)

"no room for them in the house"--Bible in Basic English (1974)

"no room for them in the living-space"--New Jerusalem Bible (1992)

"no room for them inside the khan"--Moffatt's Holy Bible (1926)

I have no idea what a "khan" is, but the translations are very consistent in their transmission of the idea that Bethlehem was unusually crowded at this particular time. This reading supports the view that Jesus was probably born at a time when many Jews were attending one of the annual feasts in nearby Jerusalem, possibly in Sep/Oct near/during Sukkot, which coincidentally would also be a more likely time for shepherds to be in the fields at night, which coincidentally would also follow from clues provided in the first chapter of Luke regarding the timing of John the Baptist's conception/birth.

It seems to me that a good time for people to travel for the census was when they'd be traveling anyway, like between the Feast of Trumpets & Day of Atonement, or between then & Sukkot. I'm guessing that they took the census first, & then a large number would travel to Jerusalem for Sukkot.

I'm Greek-illiterate, but based on how the experts have translated it, I'd prefer "they were not in the place [TOPOS] where they were lodging" (i.e., they happened to be in an outdoor booth/manger when she went into labor). There's nothing at all to support your suggestion that the family rejected her, but I agree with you that they were not in the booth/manger because they were late arriving into town & couldn't find a room in the Bethlehem Inn. They were probably already there for the census staying with Joseph's family before Sukkot began.

Thanks for spelling this out for me.I did not real...

2006-12-15T11:22:00.000-06:00

Thanks for spelling this out for me.

I did not realize that Christ's own relatives rejected him at birth as an illegitimate child. I had always thought of it as being just the town's people.

Our Saviour, truly, had a humble birth.

Yeah for the TNIV! They have "guest room."

2006-12-15T07:08:00.000-06:00

Yeah for the TNIV! They have "guest room."