Beccause there was no room for them in the inn....

[Moliere]

I don't have a link but I'll see if I can find one. Last year I watched a documentary on Christ. It was interesting to see some of the ideas that were proposed in the documentary. One of these ideas was that verse 7 of Luke is often mistaken to imply that Joseph and Mary were not staying in an inn at the time they arrived in Bethlehem.

This reading of verse 7 has caused many to believe that Joseph and Mary stayed in a stable instead of an inn. Obviously this is further advanced by the fact that the shepherds found the baby Jesus lying in a manger, however it seemed pretty clear to those in the documentary that the birth and first night of Jesus took place in a lower room of an inn (which would be somewhat like a stable) but that Joseph and Mary most likely stayed at the inn for the duration of their time in Bethlehem.

The reason for this thinking was that if you read verse 7 is specifically implies that Christ was born somewhere with a manger because there was no room in the inn. However, most inns at that time were more open and were obviously not conducive to child bearing, which required some amount of privacy. Joseph and Mary most likely stayed in the inn, and when the time for labor came they moved to a more private area of the inn. Given the crowded nature of the inn at that time, the only private area would have been the lower room (or stable-like area).

Has anyone heard this before? I have to admit I was always led to believe they were basically homeless and living in a stable the whole time and after seeing this documentary and reading verse 7 again it kind of clicked with me. Obviously no one would turn away a pregnant lady regardless of overcrowding.

[mtnbiker]

I guess you haven't read this month's Ensign. The article Glad Tidings of Great Joy says the Greek word that was translated 'inn' can also be translated as 'great room', the same word used for the Upper Room of the Last Supper. It suggests the possibility that Joseph and Mary went to a relative's house, but had no room in the Great Room, so they stayed in the animal quarters of the family's house. It also says the word translated as 'manger' could also be translated as 'crib'.

[Moliere]

I guess you haven't read this month's Ensign. The article Glad Tidings of Great Joy says the Greek word that was translated 'inn' can also be translated as 'great room', the same word used for the Upper Room of the Last Supper. It suggests the possibility that Joseph and Mary went to a relative's house, but had no room in the Great Room, so they stayed in the animal quarters of the family's house. It also says the word translated as 'manger' could also be translated as 'crib'.

I haven't read it yet. I usually wait until the 31st to do that. I'll have to ask my wife about it. Although the suggestion I heard was that they only temporarily went to the lower room to have the birth and most likely didn't stay down there long (maybe one night).

[Solon]

I haven't read it yet. I usually wait until the 31st to do that. I'll have to ask my wife about it. Although the suggestion I heard was that they only temporarily went to the lower room to have the birth and most likely didn't stay down there long (maybe one night).

The greek word is "kataluma" and generally means "inn" or "lodging." It also appears in the Septuagint at Exodus 4.24.

The cave which holds the church of the nativity is pretty much the only undisputed site of a major Jesus-event in all of Christendom. If anywhere is sacred ground, that's it.

Also, the notion that the Roman government would require all people to return to their ancestral homes to be inscribed on the tax-rolls defies credulity. Just a passing thought.

[Viking]

The greek word is "kataluma" and generally means "inn" or "lodging." It also appears in the Septuagint at Exodus 4.24.

The cave which holds the church of the nativity is pretty much the only undisputed site of a major Jesus-event in all of Christendom. If anywhere is sacred ground, that's it.

Also, the notion that the Roman government would require all people to return to their ancestral homes to be inscribed on the tax-rolls defies credulity. Just a passing thought.

I've always wondered if their journey was more a dynamic of shame about the birth and the related circumstances.

[Solon]

I've always wondered if their journey was more a dynamic of shame about the birth and the related circumstances.

Who knows? It's not a deal-breaker at any rate. The "registration" happened, at least according to Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 18.1 and an inscription (and the census is mentioned in Acts 5.37). Problem is, it probably happened about 10 years after the birth of Jesus. Quirinus (Cyrenius in Luke 2.2) became governor of Syria around AD 6, but Herod (Matt 2.1) died around 4 BC.

Leaving aside the year of Jesus' birth, when the registration did happen it's extremely, extremely unlikely that it required people to return to their ancestral homes (we have registration documents from elsewhere in the Roman empire).

Again, just a passing notation. It doesn't really change the story, just suggests that Luke was searching for an explanation of how Jesus of Nazareth was born in Bethlehem.

[Larry 'Moose' Stubing]

I Obviously no one would turn away a pregnant lady regardless of overcrowding.

You do know we're talking about Jews, don't you?