New Light on the Birth of Christ

[Peterlag]

To see what really happened around the season of the birth of Christ, we need to glean facts from both the Greek text and from the culture of the ancient Middle East. Thankfully, in many cases, the culture and customs that were common in biblical times still existed in many villages and towns in the Middle East until quite recently, the late 1800s and early 1900s. That was due to the attitude that many eastern people had about change. To us today, we want change, and even expect it. We want “new and better.” But “change” has not been what people in the Middle East traditionally valued. For them, it was an honor to do things the way they had always been done because that honored one’s ancestors, so there was little change in the way things were done from one generation to the next.

Too often, the Greek text alone has been used to try to reveal biblical truth, but that is not enough to rebuild the truth of the biblical events for a very simple reason: when something in a culture is usual, well known, customary, or “standard operating procedure” it's not written about in detail. The ancients did not write about those “normal” details back in their day, and we do not write about them either. For example, if I write a letter to a friend about driving to work every day, I might say “I drive about 15 miles to work every day.” I would never write “I drive to work in my car, which is a large metal, plastic, and glass mobility device on rubber wheels, with a gasoline engine that starts when an ignition key is turned, and I make it move by pedals on the floor.” Everyone in today’s culture knows exactly what I mean when I say “I drive to work.” Perhaps 2000 years from now, if the culture has changed so much that only a few historians know what a car is, they might wish we had described our driving in more detail, but that is not necessary today. In the same way, things that were part of the everyday culture of the Bible times were not described in detail in their writings. Today we must learn about the ordinary things of ancient life by piecing together details from many texts and writings, by using archaeology to study the material culture left to us, and by studying any cultures that still live the same basic way people lived in biblical times.

What we will see as we examine the Christmas Story from both the Greek text of the Bible and the culture of the ancient Near East is that Joseph and Mary arrived in Bethlehem sometime before she gave birth and were taken into the home of a local resident, most likely a relative who was also of the family of David. Mary then gave birth in that home in the same way that women had given birth in small villages in the Near East for millennia. There are many reasons Joseph and Mary would have found a place to stay in a private home in Bethlehem. First, Joseph was returning to his town of origin. Historical memories are long in the Middle East, and family support is very strong. For example, Paul knew he was a descendant of Benjamin (Phil. 3:5), even though Benjamin lived more than 1,500 years before Paul. Given the long family memories in Hebrew culture, once Joseph told people that both he and Mary were descendants of families from Bethlehem, many homes would have been open to them. Also, it's extremely likely that Joseph and Mary already knew relatives in Bethlehem and would have gone to those homes first to find lodging. As we follow the true story of Christ’s birth in the Bible and culture, we will see that this is almost certainly what happened.

Second, both Joseph and Mary were of royal blood, each being from the royal line of David. David was so famous in Bethlehem that Bethlehem was called “the city of David” (Luke 2:4 KJV). Being from the famous family of David would have meant that most homes in Bethlehem would have opened their doors to them, if only for that fact alone. Being able to host a couple who were direct descendants of David would have been an honor and privilege for any family in Bethlehem.

Third, in every culture, women who are pregnant are given special help, and the village of Bethlehem would have been no different. Bethlehem was small at the time of Christ and very few archaeological remains dating to the time of Christ and earlier have even been found there. The prophet Micah wrote “you are small among the clans of Judah” (Micah 5:2 NIV84). The New Testament scholar Kenneth Bailey, who has spent his life living in the East and teaching in Universities in Egypt and Lebanon, properly understood what life was like in villages such as Bethlehem, and he pointed out that Joseph and Mary would never have been turned away in their hour of need. Bailey writes “Was there no sense of honor in Bethlehem? Surely the community would have sensed its responsibility to help Joseph find adequate shelter for Mary and provide the care she needed. To turn away a descendent of David in the city of David would be an unspeakable shame to the entire village.

Fourth, and very importantly, the shepherds who came to see the baby Jesus shortly after his birth had been told by the angel who appeared to them that Jesus was the promised Messiah and their Savior. So, when they found Mary, Joseph, and their Savior, if they in any way felt that he was not being treated well, it surely seems they would have been scandalized and outraged, and immediately taken Joseph, Mary, and the baby to their own houses to properly care for them. The fact that they did no such thing, but left the new family where they were, indicates they felt Mary, Joseph, and the baby were being well cared for. They saw the baby in the manger and were satisfied that they had seen their Messiah and Savior, and so they left and went to tell the good news to the whole area.

These reasons are given in, Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes, Kenneth Bailey, (IVP Academic, Downers Grove, IL, 2008), pp. 25-37, and credit must go to him for enlightening me to the basic truth in this article; that Jesus was born in the home of a loving family in Bethlehem. Bailey, Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes, p. 26.

 

[Mr E]

To see what really happened around the season of the birth of Christ, we need to glean facts from both the Greek text and from the culture of the ancient Middle East. Thankfully, in many cases, the culture and customs that were common in biblical times still existed in many villages and towns in the Middle East until quite recently, the late 1800s and early 1900s. That was due to the attitude that many eastern people had about change. To us today, we want change, and even expect it. We want “new and better.” But “change” has not been what people in the Middle East traditionally valued. For them, it was an honor to do things the way they had always been done because that honored one’s ancestors, so there was little change in the way things were done from one generation to the next.

Too often, the Greek text alone has been used to try to reveal biblical truth, but that is not enough to rebuild the truth of the biblical events for a very simple reason: when something in a culture is usual, well known, customary, or “standard operating procedure” it's not written about in detail. The ancients did not write about those “normal” details back in their day, and we do not write about them either. For example, if I write a letter to a friend about driving to work every day, I might say “I drive about 15 miles to work every day.” I would never write “I drive to work in my car, which is a large metal, plastic, and glass mobility device on rubber wheels, with a gasoline engine that starts when an ignition key is turned, and I make it move by pedals on the floor.” Everyone in today’s culture knows exactly what I mean when I say “I drive to work.” Perhaps 2000 years from now, if the culture has changed so much that only a few historians know what a car is, they might wish we had described our driving in more detail, but that is not necessary today. In the same way, things that were part of the everyday culture of the Bible times were not described in detail in their writings. Today we must learn about the ordinary things of ancient life by piecing together details from many texts and writings, by using archaeology to study the material culture left to us, and by studying any cultures that still live the same basic way people lived in biblical times.

What we will see as we examine the Christmas Story from both the Greek text of the Bible and the culture of the ancient Near East is that Joseph and Mary arrived in Bethlehem sometime before she gave birth and were taken into the home of a local resident, most likely a relative who was also of the family of David. Mary then gave birth in that home in the same way that women had given birth in small villages in the Near East for millennia. There are many reasons Joseph and Mary would have found a place to stay in a private home in Bethlehem. First, Joseph was returning to his town of origin. Historical memories are long in the Middle East, and family support is very strong. For example, Paul knew he was a descendant of Benjamin (Phil. 3:5), even though Benjamin lived more than 1,500 years before Paul. Given the long family memories in Hebrew culture, once Joseph told people that both he and Mary were descendants of families from Bethlehem, many homes would have been open to them. Also, it's extremely likely that Joseph and Mary already knew relatives in Bethlehem and would have gone to those homes first to find lodging. As we follow the true story of Christ’s birth in the Bible and culture, we will see that this is almost certainly what happened.

Second, both Joseph and Mary were of royal blood, each being from the royal line of David. David was so famous in Bethlehem that Bethlehem was called “the city of David” (Luke 2:4 KJV). Being from the famous family of David would have meant that most homes in Bethlehem would have opened their doors to them, if only for that fact alone. Being able to host a couple who were direct descendants of David would have been an honor and privilege for any family in Bethlehem.

Third, in every culture, women who are pregnant are given special help, and the village of Bethlehem would have been no different. Bethlehem was small at the time of Christ and very few archaeological remains dating to the time of Christ and earlier have even been found there. The prophet Micah wrote “you are small among the clans of Judah” (Micah 5:2 NIV84). The New Testament scholar Kenneth Bailey, who has spent his life living in the East and teaching in Universities in Egypt and Lebanon, properly understood what life was like in villages such as Bethlehem, and he pointed out that Joseph and Mary would never have been turned away in their hour of need. Bailey writes “Was there no sense of honor in Bethlehem? Surely the community would have sensed its responsibility to help Joseph find adequate shelter for Mary and provide the care she needed. To turn away a descendent of David in the city of David would be an unspeakable shame to the entire village.

Fourth, and very importantly, the shepherds who came to see the baby Jesus shortly after his birth had been told by the angel who appeared to them that Jesus was the promised Messiah and their Savior. So, when they found Mary, Joseph, and their Savior, if they in any way felt that he was not being treated well, it surely seems they would have been scandalized and outraged, and immediately taken Joseph, Mary, and the baby to their own houses to properly care for them. The fact that they did no such thing, but left the new family where they were, indicates they felt Mary, Joseph, and the baby were being well cared for. They saw the baby in the manger and were satisfied that they had seen their Messiah and Savior, and so they left and went to tell the good news to the whole area.

These reasons are given in, Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes, Kenneth Bailey, (IVP Academic, Downers Grove, IL, 2008), pp. 25-37, and credit must go to him for enlightening me to the basic truth in this article; that Jesus was born in the home of a loving family in Bethlehem. Bailey, Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes, p. 26.

Not only is that speculative, it’s contradictory where scripture is concerned.

The city was overcrowded and everyone there would be of that same line, since that is what Caesar’s order demanded. There is no indication that either one have them had ever been to Bethlehem before, is there?

My line comes from Norway. I’ve never been to Oslo. If it was ordered that everyone of Norwegian descent report at once to Oslo, or Bergen or whatever town you great great great grandparents hailed from, would there be some inherent expectation that the red carpet is rolled out for me so many centuries later? Even if my ancestor was Eric the Red himself, how many thousands would be of the same boat?

 

[Peterlag]

Not only is that speculative, it’s contradictory where scripture is concerned.

The city was overcrowded and everyone there would be of that same line, since that is what Caesar’s order demanded. There is no indication that either one have them had ever been to Bethlehem before, is there?

My line comes from Norway. I’ve never been to Oslo. If it was ordered that everyone of Norwegian descent report at once to Oslo, or Bergen or whatever town you great great great grandparents hailed from, would there be some inherent expectation that the red carpet is rolled out for me so many centuries later? Even if my ancestor was Eric the Red himself, how many thousands would be of the same boat?

It was a 32 page booklet that I read from a friend who knows the Old Testament well. I could only post a small part here. He and I do not speculate. We work with our scope of the customs and our scope of the Scriptures. Much of it made a lot more sense than Christ being born in a barn.

 

[Jim B]

Not only is that speculative, it’s contradictory where scripture is concerned.

The city was overcrowded and everyone there would be of that same line, since that is what Caesar’s order demanded. There is no indication that either one have them had ever been to Bethlehem before, is there?

My line comes from Norway. I’ve never been to Oslo. If it was ordered that everyone of Norwegian descent report at once to Oslo, or Bergen or whatever town you great great great grandparents hailed from, would there be some inherent expectation that the red carpet is rolled out for me so many centuries later? Even if my ancestor was Eric the Red himself, how many thousands would be of the same boat?

It's obvious that you don't understand the prevalent culture of the region during the time that Jesus was born. Your example of being of Norwegian descent is irrelevant. You would do well to read "Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes" by Kenneth Bailey.

 

[Mr E]

It's obvious that you don't understand the prevalent culture of the region during the time that Jesus was born. Your example of being of Norwegian descent is irrelevant. You would do well to read "Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes" by Kenneth Bailey.

You’d do well to read scripture.

You dismiss it in favor of a pamphlet? That’s hilarious. Spare me the lecture on relevance.

 

[Enoch111]

Joseph and Mary arrived in Bethlehem sometime before she gave birth and were taken into the home of a local resident, most likely a relative who was also of the family of David.

More EGREGIOUS NONSENSE from Peterlag. That is a good handle since Peter has been lagging behind in Bible truth for a long time.

 

[Jim B]

You’d do well to read scripture.

You dismiss it in favor of a pamphlet? That’s hilarious. Spare me the lecture on relevance.

I read, and more importantly understand Scripture.

Calling "Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes" by Kenneth Bailey a pamphlet shows your ignorance. It is an excellent 443-page book by a well-respected Christian scholar.

You ignorance is anything but hilarious; it is tragic.

 

[Peterlag]

More EGREGIOUS NONSENSE from Peterlag. That is a good handle since Peter has been lagging behind in Bible truth for a long time.

So you think Joseph dragged the woman through the snow while she was ready to deliver any minute and then found a barn at the last minute?

 

[Peterlag]

I read, and more importantly understand Scripture.

Calling "Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes" by Kenneth Bailey a pamphlet shows your ignorance. It is an excellent 443-page book by a well-respected Christian scholar.

You ignorance is anything but hilarious; it is tragic.

I have looked over some of these guys over the years. Books like "Eastern Customs of the Bible" By Bishop K. C. Pillai ​

 

[Mr E]

I read, and more importantly understand Scripture.

Calling "Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes" by Kenneth Bailey a pamphlet shows your ignorance. It is an excellent 443-page book by a well-respected Christian scholar.

You ignorance is anything but hilarious; it is tragic.

Are you the unnamed "friend' that @Peterlag mentions? He's the one who put the 'pamphlet' forward, I was merely responding to his mention of it. Did you read and understand that?

What impact does it make on the story, to think that there was NO ROOM at an Air BnB (room for rent) and the newborn babe was placed in a manger (feeding trough) rather than NO ROOM at an actual Inn? Or stretch it farther-- The baby was wrapped in swaddling cloths and placed in a manger (feeding trough) because there was NO ROOM at their relatives' guest room?

It makes no difference.

Bailey's thesis relies on his "feeling" that the young couple would have had relatives in town. Okay. I can go along with that. And he surmises that most folks had a one or two room house AND a guest house. Really?

They all had guest houses--? κατάλυμα --everyone had one, according to Bailey. They all had extra rooms, but they kept their animals in the one or two room quarters where they themselves lived.

But let's play along with Bailey's imaginings..... There were relatives of Mary and Joseph, these 'royal blood' kinfolk AND these relatives had an extra room..... BUT WAIT. There was no room in that room for them. That's what the scriptures make clear. So to follow Bailey's logic, these relatives did NOT make room in their spare room for the VERY pregnant Mary.

And that's not even the worst of his error.

 

[Aunty Jane]

These reasons are given in, Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes, Kenneth Bailey, (IVP Academic, Downers Grove, IL, 2008), pp. 25-37, and credit must go to him for enlightening me to the basic truth in this article; that Jesus was born in the home of a loving family in Bethlehem. Bailey, Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes, p. 26.

Does it bother you that the scriptures do not agree with this man's theory? I cannot even begin to understand why the Bible's narrative is even in question, since scripture is inspired by God...it is not the work of men....

At the outset it helps to remember the purpose of these Biblical accounts in Matthew and Luke. They are not biographies; they are Gospels. The distinction is important. In a biography, the author may fill hundreds of pages, endeavoring to show how his subject developed into the figure that is so well-known. So their accounts are not rambling biographies filled with unnecessary details. Of the four Gospel records, Matthew’s and Luke’s are the only two that tell of Jesus’ birth and childhood. Their aim, however, is not to show how Jesus developed into the man he became. Jesus’ followers recognized that he had existed in heaven before he ever came to the earth. (John 8:23) So Matthew and Luke did not draw on Jesus’ childhood, but they related incidents that suited the purpose of their Gospels.

So, what was their purpose in writing them? The word “gospel” means “good news.” Both men had the same message—that Jesus was the promised Messiah, or Christ; that he died for mankind’s sins; and that he was resurrected to heaven. But the two writers had markedly different backgrounds and wrote for different audiences. Matthew, a former tax collector, shaped his account for a largely Jewish audience. Luke, was a physician, who wrote to the “most excellent Theophilus”—who possibly had some high position—and, by extension, to a broader audience of Jews and Gentiles. (Luke 1:1-3) Each writer selected incidents that were most relevant to and most likely to convince his particular audience. Thus, Matthew’s record stresses the Hebrew Scripture prophecies that were fulfilled in connection with Jesus. Whereas Luke, on the other hand, follows the more classic historical approach that his non-Jewish audience might have recognized.

Not surprisingly, their accounts differ. But the two do not, as some critics claim, contradict each other. They complement each other, dovetailing nicely to form a more complete picture.

The scripture that undoes this man's theory is Luke 2:1-7...
"Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Au·gusʹtus for all the inhabited earth to be registered. 2 (This first registration took place when Qui·rinʹi·us was governor of Syria.) 3 And all the people went to be registered, each one to his own city. 4 Of course, Joseph also went up from Galʹi·lee, from the city of Nazʹa·reth, into Ju·deʹa, to David’s city, which is called Bethʹle·hem, because of his being a member of the house and family of David. 5 He went to get registered with Mary, who had been given him in marriage as promised and who was soon to give birth. 6 While they were there, the time came for her to give birth. 7 And she gave birth to her son, the firstborn, and she wrapped him in strips of cloth and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the lodging place."

Just this scripture alone rules out anyone giving them private lodging because of their "royal" connections (as has been mentioned by @Mr E) .....everyone who came to be registered was of the same family line of King David. There was no room at the Inn, because so many had come to Bethlehem, "David's city" to be registered......so the Inn Keeper, seeing that Mary was very close to giving birth, allowed them to occupy the stable where Jesus was born, and "laid in a manger".

Shepherds were privileged to hear and see the angelic announcement of Jesus' birth.....they told the shepherds....
"Do not be afraid, for look! I am declaring to you good news of a great joy that all the people will have. 11 For today there was born to you in David’s city a savior, who is Christ the Lord. 12 And this is a sign for you: You will find an infant wrapped in strips of cloth and lying in a manger.” (V 10-12)

There is no connection whatsoever to the man's theory.....from the scriptural viewpoint....so how can he promote it as truth?

 

[Adam]

I don't know if this applies to ancient Judea, but at least in much of the ancient world, it was customary to take in a traveller if they were of the same people and social status as you (or higher status). For this reason, inns were never a first choice for travellers (and most places wouldn't have an inn at all unless in a large city or along a well-travelled route). So if this were Hebrew custom as well, then it would imply that all the locals who were taking in guests already had taken in as many as they could (due to the census) and Mary's delivery was too urgent to continue knocking on every door in town and they went to the place most likely to be able to accept them, which turned out to also be overcrowded.

 

[Mr E]

It's not only as though Bailey, through his surrogates here- is saying that scripture got it wrong as if it was a translator who got their words mixed up. Oops! Did I say Inn? I meant he was born in the home of a loving family in Bethlehem. Did I say there was no room? I meant that there was no room in the extra room, so the baby was born in the living room.... with the farm animals.

These reasons are given in, Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes, Kenneth Bailey, (IVP Academic, Downers Grove, IL, 2008), pp. 25-37, and credit must go to him for enlightening me to the basic truth in this article; that Jesus was born in the home of a loving family in Bethlehem. Bailey, Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes, p. 26.

Bailey is insisting that Luke was incompetent. That Luke got it wrong. Or that Luke was unreliable. Or worse yet-- that the eyewitnesses that Luke interviewed were unreliable, making Luke's whole gospel then-- unreliable. He's impugning eyewitness testimony.

Now many have undertaken to compile an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, like the accounts passed on to us by those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the word from the beginning. So it seemed good to me as well, because I have followed all things carefully from the beginning, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know for certain the things you were taught.

If --as @Jim B and @Peterlag here propose, Bailey is right and Luke is wrong on this most basic set of facts at the very beginning of the story-- then what part of the story could be relied upon?

No, Luke got it right. Bailey imagined something else, and suckered a few gullible souls along his way.

Just as there was no room at the Inn, or no room in the extra room-- there is no room for this fantasy version of Bailey's. It's pure conjecture without a purpose beyond diminishing the history we have recorded at Luke's hand in scripture, preserved from the start, first from those who witnessed the events.

Did Luke not consider the testimony of the shepherds? Of course he did-- he mentions them as central characters at the event. Not mentioned? These 'saved the day' relatives that Bailey pulled out of his hat.

 

[Cassandra]

I have a question.
Why would they go to an inn first if they had relatives there? Or friends even? It isn't like they were made of money. If there were other places to stay, an inn would be the last place they would go.

I can't believe folk here are saying Luke is wrong, and that some dude has this right. I don't care how many pages the "pamphlet" has

And that cut upthread about reading and understanding scripture? If Luke is wrong, what is there to understand?

And the snow thing? Hyperbole much? Who said anything about snow/

 

[Peterlag]

It's not only as though Bailey, through his surrogates here- is saying that scripture got it wrong as if it was a translator who got their words mixed up. Oops! Did I say Inn? I meant he was born in the home of a loving family in Bethlehem. Did I say there was no room? I meant that there was no room in the extra room, so the baby was born in the living room.... with the farm animals.



Bailey is insisting that Luke was incompetent. That Luke got it wrong. Or that Luke was unreliable. Or worse yet-- that the eyewitnesses that Luke interviewed were unreliable, making Luke's whole gospel then-- unreliable. He's impugning eyewitness testimony.

Now many have undertaken to compile an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, like the accounts passed on to us by those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the word from the beginning. So it seemed good to me as well, because I have followed all things carefully from the beginning, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know for certain the things you were taught.

If --as @Jim B and @Peterlag here propose, Bailey is right and Luke is wrong on this most basic set of facts at the very beginning of the story-- then what part of the story could be relied upon?

No, Luke got it right. Bailey imagined something else, and suckered a few gullible souls along his way.

Just as there was no room at the Inn, or no room in the extra room-- there is no room for this fantasy version of Bailey's. It's pure conjecture without a purpose beyond diminishing the history we have recorded at Luke's hand in scripture, preserved from the start, first from those who witnessed the events.

Did Luke not consider the testimony of the shepherds? Of course he did-- he mentions them as central characters at the event. Not mentioned? These 'saved the day' relatives that Bailey pulled out of his hat.

Can you imagine you are a Jewish shepherd working at night and angels come to you and tell you that your promised Messiah, God's Son was just born and they tell you to go see him. And you find this Son of God, your Messiah in an outside barn. And then you leave him there and go home to your house. Can you really imagine that?

 

[Mr E]

Can you imagine you are a Jewish shepherd working at night and angels come to you and tell you that your promised Messiah, God's Son was just born and they tell you to go see him. And you find this Son of God, your Messiah in an outside barn. And then you leave him there and go home to your house. Can you really imagine that?

I don't have to imagine it. I can read about it in scripture.

 

[Peterlag]

I don't know if this applies to ancient Judea, but at least in much of the ancient world, it was customary to take in a traveller if they were of the same people and social status as you (or higher status). For this reason, inns were never a first choice for travellers (and most places wouldn't have an inn at all unless in a large city or along a well-travelled route). So if this were Hebrew custom as well, then it would imply that all the locals who were taking in guests already had taken in as many as they could (due to the census) and Mary's delivery was too urgent to continue knocking on every door in town and they went to the place most likely to be able to accept them, which turned out to also be overcrowded.

An old and familiar rendition of the Christmas Story goes like this: Joseph took Mary on the journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem when Mary was on the verge of giving birth, and he took her in the cold and wet month of December. The couple arrived there in the nick of time because it turned out to be the night Jesus was born—our December 25th.

Another story we often hear is the night they arrived, there were no rooms available in the local inn, and apparently, no one would take the young couple into their homes, so Joseph and Mary had to make a place for themselves in a local stable.

And so we often hear that Joseph and Mary were there alone when she gave birth to her firstborn child, Jesus, on that cold December night. She put the newborn baby in the stable manger, which was a feeding trough for the animals.

Sometime later that night shepherds arrived to see the baby. They had been told by angels that the Messiah had been born, so they came to see him and then left and spread the word about him in the area around Bethlehem. That same night three kings also arrived at the stable. They had followed a star to Bethlehem to see the newborn Messiah. They gave the young couple gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh, and then left for their homeland. Sometime after the three kings left, an angel told Joseph to take Mary and the baby and go to Egypt, which they did. After spending some time there, Joseph and Mary returned to Nazareth with the baby Jesus. At that point the traditional Christmas Story comes to an end.

The picture painted by the traditional Christmas Story is not a pretty one, but a cold and selfish depiction of the people of Bethlehem, and frankly, of Joseph as well, if indeed he took his very pregnant wife on the multi-day journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem, which would have been uncomfortable for her no matter what the weather. However, December is the rainy season in Israel and travel would be cold and miserable. Furthermore, the journey could also be quite dangerous if Mary went into labor along the way, or if it started to snow, which it sometimes did in December in the higher elevations of Judea. The last part of the trip, from Jericho to Jerusalem, was a steady climb of almost 3,500 feet in 15 miles, and if the road was wet or snow- covered it could be treacherous.
Equally as problematic is that, although most people of every age and culture would go out of their way to help a young pregnant woman in need, somehow the people of the village of Bethlehem closed their doors to this young woman about to give birth, and she ended up delivering her baby in the cold, unheated stable, with just her and her husband. Furthermore, the shepherds arrived and knew that this newborn baby was the Messiah, their Savior, but instead of taking the baby and his parents back to the comfort and support of their own homes, they left them in the unheated stable—with their Savior in the feeding trough! Could all these seemingly hardhearted things be true, and is that really the picture of the birth of Christ that the Word of God paints for us? Or is the real Christmas Story joyful and love-filled, but one that has been hidden from the eyes of many Christians?

The modern understanding of the birth of Jesus comes largely from extra-biblical works and traditions imported into the Gospels, rather than from the Bible. However, some of the tradition has been sustained by mistranslations in many of the English versions, and also by people not carefully reading what the Bible actually says. Much misinformation came from a document that was widely circulated in the early centuries of the Christian era. It is referred to by scholars as the Protevangelium of James and was likely written in the third century AD.

The Protevangelium is the first document scholars are aware of that refers to Jesus being born close to Mary’s arrival in Bethlehem, although it contradicts the Bible because it says that Jesus was born in a cave before Joseph and Mary even reached Bethlehem. We do not know exactly how large a part the Protevangelium played in developing and solidifying the tradition that Mary gave birth to Jesus in a stable in a cave the very night she and Joseph arrived in Bethlehem, but it did play an important part. Other parts of the Christmas Story were added through the years. For example, there is evidence that the Church Father Origen (185-253 AD) started the tradition that there were three Magi, and even though John Calvin and other ministers who were part of the Protestant Reformation rejected the number three, the tradition stood firm.

We also know that the traditional belief became much easier to sustain as the center of Christian culture moved from the Middle East to Europe. Daily life in Europe was quite different from daily life in Israel. For example, in Europe, people had Western-type barns for animals, but in Israel they did not. So as the centuries passed, when the Bible was read in Europe, the fact that Jesus was laid in a manger contributed to the tradition that he was born in a stable, which is not what happened.

Mistranslations in some English Bible versions helped sustain the modern Christmas tradition. For example, the King James Version and a few other English versions say that Mary was “great with child” (Luke 2:5) instead of just saying she was “pregnant” like the Greek text says and which many modern versions translate correctly. There is no biblical evidence that Mary was “great with child”—in fact, love and logic would lead us to conclude she was not on the verge of giving birth when she traveled to Bethlehem. Another misleading translation that occurs in the King James Version as well as many modern ones is the phrase “there was no room for them in the inn.” That mistranslation contributed greatly to the development of the traditional Christmas Story. A much more correct translation is “there was no space for them in the guest room.”

 

[Peterlag]

The story of the night of Christ’s birth needs to be relearned, not only because truth matters and what actually happened is important, but because the true Christmas Story shows the love and sacrifice that people make to help each other and the true joy of giving so that others can be blessed. What actually happened is a much more redemptive rendition of the Christmas Story than the townspeople of Bethlehem closing their hearts and shutting their doors to a young pregnant woman in need.

 

[-Phil]

Immaculate conception is a bit of a mind bender, as it’s not quite the same as being born. It’s conception; conceptual.

 

[Peterlag]

It seems clear that Joseph, who loved Mary and knew that she was pregnant with the Messiah, would not have made Mary make that journey when she seemed to be close to giving birth. Also, we know from the culture that Joseph and Mary would not have made the trip alone—just a man and wife walking down the road. Both the Bible and historical records show that travel was dangerous because robbers and brigands often attacked vulnerable people who, if they escaped alive, were often stripped of everything they had with them, even their clothes ( Luke 10:30). Barry Beitzel writes, “Contrary to popular understanding, neither Luke nor Matthew say that Mary made the trip on a donkey (or any other animal). According to Keener, A donkey could cost between two months and two years wages, depending on its age and condition, but most peasants who could save enough would buy one, as they were extremely important even in small-scale farming. Luke, however, makes it clear that Jesus was born into a poor family and the lack of reference to an animal contributes to this depiction” (Barry Beitzel, Lexham Geographic Commentary on the Gospels, Lexham Press, Bellingham, WA, 2017), p. 13.

Although the traditional Christmas Story has Joseph and Mary traveling and arriving in Bethlehem in the winter, Joseph would not have taken Mary on that journey in the cold season. Travel in the winter was difficult and dangerous for several reasons. One was simply the hardship of the extra clothing and supplies that a person had to take along with them as they traveled. Winter travel was cold, wet, and muddy, so it involved lots of extra supplies, and much more so if Joseph considered that Mary might have gone into labor on the road. Winter travel also included the possibility of snow. If it did snow, the paths became very slick and dangerous, especially as one neared Jerusalem where the hills were high and steep.

Joseph would not have risked Mary falling and hurting herself and the baby by making an unnecessary winter trip. The Roman government gave people ample time to register themselves in their ancestral city, so there was no need for Joseph to take Mary on a difficult winter trip when he could take her in the fall or spring. From the geography and culture, we can safely conclude that Joseph did not take Mary to Bethlehem in the winter. How Far Along in Her Pregnancy was Mary? Although the King James Version, translated in 1611, says that Mary was “great with child,” that is not what the Greek text says. The Bible never says how far along in her pregnancy Mary was when she and Joseph made the trip to Bethlehem. The Greek text simply says Mary was “pregnant.” There is no biblical evidence that Mary was “great with child,” and in fact, she was at least weeks, and more likely even months, away from giving birth.

It is quite possible that the translators of the King James Version added that Mary was “great with child” because they were influenced by the traditional Christmas Story itself. That seems to be the case, which is remarkable for a couple of different reasons. For one thing, when the King James Version was translated, Richard Bancroft, the Bishop of London, compiled a list of rules that were to govern the translation, and the first rule was: “The ordinary Bible, read in the church, commonly called the Bishop’s Bible, is to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit.”

But the Bishop’s Bible did not read “great with child,” it only spoke of Mary, “which [who] was with child.” The King James translators translated the New Testament from the Greek text, and the Greek simply reads that Mary was pregnant. The Greek word in Luke 2:5 is egkuos (Strong’s #1471 ἔγκυος), and it simply means “pregnant.” We know the King James translators knew the meaning of the Greek word egkuos because earlier English Bibles translated from the Greek text simply read “pregnant.” The Tyndale New Testament of 1534, the Coverdale Bible of 1535, Matthew’s Bible of 1537, the Great Bible of 1539, the Douay Rheims Bible of 1582 and 1610, the Bishop’s Bible of 1595, and the Geneva Bible of 1599 all just said that Mary was pregnant. Today’s modern versions also just say that Mary was pregnant (cp. CEB; CSB; ESV; NAB; NASB; NET; NIV; NRSV; RSV). Interestingly, the Bibles that were basically revisions of the King James Version, which include the English Revised Version of 1885 and the American Standard Version of 1901, followed the KJV and read “great with child,” but that stopped with the Revised Standard Version of 1952 and the New American Standard Version of 1977, which simply read that Mary was pregnant. The New King James Version, based on the same manuscripts as the original KJV, came out in 1982 and it, too, simply says that Mary was pregnant.

Since the Greek text does not tell us how far along in her pregnancy Mary was, we must use what we know from the culture and from Joseph’s love for Mary to guide us in getting a basic idea. Joseph loved Mary and knew that she was carrying the promised Messiah so he would not have risked taking her to Bethlehem when he thought she might be close to giving birth, so we can safely conclude that she was many weeks and more likely even months away from giving birth when the couple traveled to Bethlehem.

Also, we must keep in mind that at that time in history women did not know when they would give birth. Women would get bigger and bigger and feel the baby kicking, and they would know that the time was “soon,” but “soon” could be very close or weeks away. In the ancient world, labor seemed to come “suddenly” (cp. 1 Sam. 4:19; 1 Thess. 5:3). There is every reason to assume that Joseph would not risk Mary going into labor and having baby Jesus somewhere on the road between Nazareth and Bethlehem, and the best way to assure a safe arrival in Bethlehem was to not wait to travel until what seemed like the last days of Mary’s pregnancy, but to travel weeks or even months earlier. It is also possible that they were influenced by John Wycliffe’s handwritten New Testament (c. 1382-1395),
which was a translation from the Latin Vulgate. Interestingly, Wycliffe’s translation has “great with child” even though the Latin Vulgate itself just reads that Mary was pregnant. It is possible that John Wycliffe himself was influenced by the traditional Christmas Story.

In this case, it's very helpful that the King James Version translates Luke 2:6 quite literally, because it shows that it was “while they were there” in Bethlehem that the “days” were fulfilled, and Mary gave birth. The NIV and most modern versions are a little more idiomatic and use “time” instead of “days,” so some of the emphasis and details of the Greek text are lost. Luke 2:6 (NIV84) While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born. In saying “while they were there” and in using the word “days” Luke 2:6 tells us that Joseph and Mary did not arrive in Bethlehem the night she gave birth. As the Gospel of Luke says, Mary gave birth “while they were there.” The quite literal King James Version follows the Greek text and says, “the days” were fulfilled when Mary gave birth. This is very important because in the New Testament, the plural use of “days” always refers either to some number of literal “days” or to a period of time. The plural word “days” is never used for just one day or a matter of hours. Had Joseph and Mary arrived the day Mary gave birth, the Greek text would have used “day” or “hours” not the plural word “days.” The biblical scholar R. C. H. Lenski writes that the day of Jesus’ birth “was not the day of Joseph’s and Mary’s arrival....”

R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Luke’s Gospel, (Augsburg Publishing House, Minneapolis, MN, 1946),
p. 126.

Since Joseph and Mary had been staying in Bethlehem for a while before Jesus was born, they would have had plenty of time to find adequate housing. The idea that Joseph and Mary arrived in Bethlehem the night Jesus was born and the “inn” was full so Mary had to give birth in a stable is just tradition. Even if Joseph and Mary arrived in Bethlehem but no one would take them into their homes, their relatives Zechariah and Elizabeth lived only a short distance away, in the hill country of Judah (Luke 1:39, NASB). Joseph and Mary could have gone there with only a little effort. In fact, Mary had visited Elizabeth early in her pregnancy (Luke 1:40). Understanding the Bible accurately shows that Joseph and Mary were being well cared for in a home in Bethlehem when Jesus was born. It's important to notice that the Bible never tells us when Jesus was born except that it was in the late evening after sunset or at night. The Bible does not tell us the year, month, or day. The traditional date, December 25th, is just tradition. Scholars have come to different conclusions about when Jesus was born, but they vary widely.