What Happened at Bethlehem

This discussion consists of excerpts and data derived from Kenneth E. Bailey’s Jesus through Middle Eastern Eyes, which presents a balanced case for a better understanding of the Christmas event.

A List of Errors

The Wednesday class before Christmas is a time for reminding us what happened that glorious night. The traditional understanding of the account in Luke 2:1-18 contains a number of critical flaws. These include:

1.      Joseph was returning to his hometown. In the Middle East, memories of the past run deep, and the extended family’s connection to its village is significant. In such a setting, a man like Joseph could have gone to Bethlehem and told people, “I am Joseph, son of Heli, son of Matthat, the son of Levi,” and most homes would be open to him.

2.      Joseph was a “royal.” That is, he was from the family of King David. The family of David was so well-known in Bethlehem that local people apparently called the town the “City of David” (as is often the case). The official name of the village was Bethlehem. Everyone recognized that the Hebrew Scriptures referred to Jerusalem as the “City of David.” However, locally, many apparently called Bethlehem the “City of David” (Lk 2:4). Being part of that famous family, Joseph would have been welcomed anywhere in town.

3.      In every culture, a woman about to give birth receives special attention. Simple rural communities around the world always support one of their own women during childbirth, regardless of the situation. Are we to think that Bethlehem was an exception? Was there no sense of honor in Bethlehem? Surely, the community would have felt responsible for helping Joseph find adequate shelter for Mary and providing the care she needed. To turn away a descendant of David in the “City of David” would be an unspeakable shame for the entire village.

4.      Mary had relatives in a nearby village. A few months before the birth of Jesus, Mary visited her cousin Elizabeth in the hill country of Judea and was warmly welcomed. Bethlehem was located in the heart of Judea. By the time Mary and Joseph reached Bethlehem, they were just a short distance from Zechariah and Elizabeth’s home. If Joseph had not found shelter in Bethlehem, he would naturally have gone to Zechariah and Elizabeth. Still, did he have time for those few extra miles?

5.      Joseph had time to make proper arrangements. Luke 2:4 states that Joseph and Mary “went up from Galilee to Judea,” and verse 6 notes, “while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered” (KJV, italics added).[2] The average Christian assumes Jesus was born the same night the holy family arrived—hence Joseph’s urgency and willingness to accept any shelter, even a stable. Traditional Christmas pageants reinforce this idea year after year.

The census was in September – October 5 BC during Quintilius’ first administration. The wise men came months later.                                                                                                                          

The “novel” that became a tradition

The source of this misinterpretation comes from about two hundred years after Jesus was born, when an anonymous Christian wrote an expanded account of Jesus’ birth that has survived and is called The Protevangelium of James.[3] James was not involved in this. The author was not a Jew and lacked understanding of Palestinian geography or Jewish tradition.[4] During that time, many wrote books claiming famous people as their authors.

   Scholars date this particular “novel” to around A.D. 200, and it is filled with imaginative details. Jerome, the renowned Latin scholar, critiqued it, as did many popes.[5] It was initially written in Greek but was translated into Latin, Syriac, Armenian, Georgian, Ethiopic, Coptic, and Old Slavonic. The author had clearly read the Gospel stories but was not familiar with the geography of the Holy Land. For example, in the novel, the author depicts the road between Jerusalem and Bethlehem as a desert. In reality, it is fertile farmland.[6] In the novel, as they near Bethlehem, Mary says to Joseph, “Joseph, take me down from the ass, for the child within me presses me to come forth.” [7] Responding to this request, Joseph leaves Mary in a cave and hurries off to Bethlehem to find a midwife. They never make it to Bethlehem. The story also has the wise men coming to the cave. This situation shows the poor chronology of the “novel.”

It was not an inn

But more than this, the very idea of the inn is problematic on many grounds.

First,

Luke uses pandokheion for a commercial inn (cf. Luke 10:36). This common word for an

inn is not found in our text.

Second, the only other use of the noun kataluma in the Gospels

is in Luke 22:11 (and its parallel passage in Mark 14:14), where it clearly does not mean

an inn.

BDAG (lexicon)  ‎In 10:34, Luke uses ‎pandocheion (from panta [all] and cheion [receive]), the more specific term for inn. ‎Kataluma ‎is therefore best understood here as a lodging or a guest-room, as in 22:11; Mark 14:14,

Luke 10:25–27 uses pandocheion for a commercial inn. Such inns were on Roman roads, not hill country routes like Nazareth to Bethlehem.

The third, as we have observed, a man returning to his home village insults his

family or friends by going to an inn.

Fourth, it remains quite uncertain as to whether or

not Bethlehem would have had a commercial inn. Jeremiah tells of a company of people

who stayed at “Geruth Chimham near Bethlehem” (Jer. 41:17). The word “Geruth” may

well mean a lodging place. But even so, this hardly demonstrates that such a place was

still in business and in Bethlehem 500 years later, after Babylonians, Greeks, Ptolemies, Seleucids, and Romans had overrun the area. We are not aware of any evidence

for a commercial inn near or in the village after the exile. Inns, then as now, are found on

major roads. No major Roman road passed through Bethlehem. Small villages on minor

roads have no inns. Brown’s phrase, “the well-known traveller’s inn at or near Bethlehem,” is hardly justified.21

Fifth, any type of inn is culturally unacceptable as a place for the birth

of a child. It is not a matter of privacy (against Dalmann), but rather the deeply felt sense

that a birth should take place in a home. The text does not say that the kataluma was not

fit, but rather that it was full.

Thus, the kataluma was a place where the birth could

appropriately have taken place, and an inn is not such a place. Finally, the Arabic and

Syriac versions for 1900 years have never translated kataluma with the word inn. This

translation is our Western heritage. Thus, from many points of view, “inn” is inadequate

as a translation of kataluma.

The animals

The traditional Middle Eastern farmer lives close to nature and, in fact, wants the animals in his house for at least two reasons. First, the animals help heat the house in winter. Second, when they are in the same room, the villager sleeps assured that they will not be stolen.

The typical home

Simple village homes in Palestine often had but two rooms. One was exclusively for guests. That room could be attached to the end of the house or be a “prophet’s chamber” on the roof, as in the story of Elijah (1 Kings 17:19). The main room was a “family room” where the entire family cooked, ate, slept, and lived. The end of the room next to the door was either a few feet lower than the rest of the floor or blocked off with heavy timbers. Each night, into that designated area, the family cow, donkey, and a few sheep would be driven.

Furthermore, every morning, those same animals were taken out and tied up in the courtyard of the house. The animal stall would then be cleaned for the day. Such simple homes can be traced from the time of David up to the middle of the twentieth century.

The house: the family room is a great long room requiring three sets of pillars to support the roof. Still, the home is one room with the family living room, terrace, and a lower level with mangers built into the floor of the former. This same house has an adjoining special guest room. Such a home precisely fits the requirements of Luke 2:7.

Examples of these homes: Jephthah (Judges 11:29–40), Jesus’ example of a candle lighting a house (Matt 5:14–15), and Jesus condemns a synagogue ruler over His healing of a woman on the sabbath (Luke 13:10–17).

The Shepherds

The angels anticipated this anxiety and told the shepherds they would find the baby wrapped (which was what peasants, like shepherds, did with their newly born children). Furthermore, they were told that he was lying in a manger! That is, they would find the Christ child in an ordinary peasant home such as theirs. He was not in a governor’s mansion or a wealthy merchant’s guest room but in a simple two-room home like theirs. This message was excellent news. Perhaps they would not be told, “Unclean shepherds—be gone!” This message was a sign for lowly shepherds.

   With this special sign of encouragement, the shepherds proceeded to Bethlehem despite their “low degree” (Lk 1:52). On arrival, they reported their story, and everyone was amazed. Then they left “praising God for all that they had heard and seen.” The word all obviously included the quality of the hospitality that they witnessed on arrival. Clearly, they found the holy family in perfectly adequate accommodations, not in a dirty stable. If, on arrival, they had found a smelly stable, a frightened young mother, and a desperate Joseph, they would have said, “This is outrageous! Come home with us! Our women will take care of you!” Within five minutes, the shepherds would have moved the little family to their own homes. The honor of the entire village would rest on their shoulders, and they would have sensed their responsibility to do their duty. The fact that they walked out, without moving the young family, means that the shepherds felt they could not offer better hospitality than what had already been extended to them.

   Middle Eastern people have a tremendous capacity for showing honor to guests. This attitude appears as early as the story of Abraham and his guests (Gen 18:1-8) and continues to the present. The shepherds left the holy family while praising God for the birth of the Messiah and for the quality of the hospitality in the home in which he was born. This event is the capstone to the story of the shepherds. The child was born for the likes of the shepherds—the poor, the lowly, the rejected. He also came for the rich and the wise who later appear with gold, frankincense, and myrrh.

   Matthew informs his readers that the wise men entered the house where they saw Mary and the child (Mt 2:1-12). The story in Matthew confirms the suggestion that Luke’s account describes a birth in a private home.

The Final Story

Joseph and Mary arrive in Bethlehem; Joseph finds shelter with a family. The family has a separate guest room, but it is full. The couple is accommodated among the family in an acceptable village style. The birth takes place there on the raised terrace of the family home, and the baby is laid in a manger. As understood in this way, the birth of Christ was to and among those whom he came to save, not with animals. His birth was like that of many people who lived in the area. Unlike the traditional story, there were no wise men, no trip through a desert, no just in time arrival, no cruel iinnkeeper and no animals surrounding the holy family

Press Esc to exit editor.

You don't have permission to do this. Request access from the site owner.

Request ID: 1767989387.277396184767312129552