News:

If you have difficulty registering for an account on the forum please email antespam@gmail.com. In the question regarding the composer use just the surname, not including forenames Charles-Marie.

Main Menu

Was Jesus Born in a Stable?

Started by revtonynewnham, December 15, 2010, 10:28:18 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

revtonynewnham

Hi

As an offshoot to the discussion on Christmas Trees, etc. I thought this might be of some interest.  It's the basic text of my Christmas sermon in 2008.

Much of the Christmas story as we know it is embroidered with additional bits and pieces which are often more relevant to our culture and thought patterns than those of Matthew and Luke who wrote it in the first place.  I've heard a comment that the carol "In the Bleak Midwinter" has more to do with North Yorkshire in December than with the real situation in Israel 2,000 or so years ago.  To use the technical term, the story has become "encultured".  In some ways, that's not a bad thing, because it can help us understand – but it can enculturation can mask some of the real truths – and that's what's happened here.  As we imagine the story there are shepherds out in snow-covered fields – and they bring a lamb to the infant Jesus.  The baby is born in a stable, and the 3 kings follow a star all the way from their homeland to Bethlehem – and turn up at the stable.  We're so used to hearing the story, that we don't question it – but there are in fact a number of issues – for example, if the wise men followed the star all the way, why did they make a mistake and go to Jerusalem?  But that's something for another time.  This morning I want to look at Luke's account in Ch.2.

During this year I came across a fascinating book.  It's Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes, by Kenneth Bailey, who lived most of his life in the area of the Bible stories.  He raises some interesting questions.  In his chapter on this passage, for example:-
1.   Joseph was returning to the village of his origins.  We don't know if he was actually born there, but we can be pretty certain that some of his extended family still lived there – and reading between the lines of Matthew's account, it seems that he stayed on in Bethlehem for a while after Jesus was born, before having to make a rapid exit to Egypt.  So, he may well have known people who lived in Bethlehem – and even if he didn't, bearing in mind the Jewish reputation for hospitality – and even the Jewish law's demands for hospitality to strangers, he would only have to say who he was – Joseph, son of Heli, son of Mathat to find a warm welcome.

2.   The royal connection – Bethlehem was the birthplace of King David – a major figure in Jewish history.  Matthew was one of his descendants.  Would you turn away someone who has connections in high places?

3.   What about Mary – in virtually every culture, special care is taken of women at the time of giving birth.  Even today, if a child is born in a strange place – even a hospital car park or an ambulance – it makes the news.  Are we really to believe that Bethlehem was an exception?  Would the inhabitants really turn away the heavily pregnant wife of a descendant of the town's most famous son – and possible someone who was a relative?

4.   Even if there was an issue in Bethlehem, Mary herself had relatives in the area – we know for certain of Elizabeth & Zechariah, who she had visited just a few months earlier.  If Bethlehem was no good, why didn't they go there?

5.   Apart for all of this, Joseph had time to make arrangements.  Luke 2:6 says "while they were there" – NOT "as they arrived!"  And are we really to believe that he was such a dawk that he embarked on a long, difficult journey with a heavily pregnant wife without at least thinking through what he would do if the baby decided to put in an appearance?

6.   Finally, what about the shepherds?  If they turned up and saw that the townsfolk had failed in the provision of hospitality and facilities for the birth, wouldn't they take Mary & Joseph off to one of their homes and get their wives and family to help?

Maybe the story of an imminent birth as the couple arrived in Bethlehem is a bit of a myth!  So, where did these ideas come from?  The first known account of the birth of Jesus with various "frills" added is what we can only call a novel, "The Protaevangelium of James" – written not by James, but by someone who is anonymous using James' name to give his writings credibility – something that was fairly common at the time. 

The writer appears to know the gospel accounts, to doesn't have much knowledge of the geography or the culture of the Jewish society – for instance, he says that the road from Nazareth to Bethlehem goes through a desert – it doesn't, it's farmland virtually all the way!  He has the birth of Jesus in a cave just outside Bethlehem – with some rather dubious supernatural goings-on attached to it.

But there's still another problem – what about the manger and the inn?  They are clearly mentioned in Luke's account.  I'll come back to the manger in a moment – let's take a look first at Luke's statement "because there was no room at the inn."  Superficially, it seems to support the traditional ideas of the Christmas story – but in fact it appears that the translators of the English Bible – going right back to Tyndale – were influenced by the traditional story.  Luke, as you know, wrote in Greek, and the word that has been translated "inn" is kataluma.  This word appears 3 times in the New Testament – twice in Luke's gospel.  The other two appearances are translated as "guest chamber" – in both Mark's and Luke's account of the preparations for the last supper.  Why would Luke change the meaning of a word in the course of the same document – that doesn't make sense – and the case is even more obvious when we see that, in the story of the Good Samaritan, the Greek word for inn is "pandocheion".  So it appears that Luke isn't writing about an inn at all, but a guest room in a private house. 

With that in mind, let's turn our attention to the phrase "she laid Him in a manger" which is at the root of the confusion.  In English thought, a manger is an animal feeding trough – and animals are kept either in fields or in barns or stables – hence if Jesus was put in a manger to sleep immediately after His birth, then He must have been born in a stable.  Q.E.D.  But that's not the case – it was only the wealthy who had separate stables and barns – for the ordinary people, the "working class" if you like – of which Mary & Joseph were a part despite the connections with royalty, things were somewhat more basic!  The average home consisted of one, or maybe two rooms.  If there were 2, then the second room, either attached to the end of the house, or built on the flat roof, was the "guest chamber" – that's how the upper room of the last supper is described. 

So Mary & Joseph turned up – probably by pre-arrangement – at a relative's house, only to find that the guest room was already occupied.  Now the main room – the family room – was the ultimate in open-plan living.  The same room served for living, eating & sleeping – and at one end, usually next to the door, was a slightly lower area with a barrier between it and the main part of the room, which was where the family's few animals – a few sheep, maybe a cow and a donkey were penned overnight – being tied up outside during the daytime.  The animals were kept indoors overnight both to provide warmth, and to keep them safe from thieves – much the same considerations as in English medieval farmhouses.  So, when Mary is about to give birth, the men would be cleared out, leaving the women – and probably a local midwife – to deal with the birth of the baby.  And given that the house was obviously crowded, the manger – often a hollow cut into the floor by the barrier, or a wooden manger for sheep, was an obvious safe place to put the baby.  Personally, I think the use of the wooden manger is more likely – it could be moved into the main room.


Whatever you think of all this, there's one thing that is unchangeable in the Christmas story, and that is that God became man – Immanuel, God with us, and the Jesus went on to die on the cross on Calvary to sort out man's sin and to open a way for each and every one of us to have a relationship with Him.  Will you accept His free gift of salvation this Christmas?

Every Blessing

Tony

David Pinnegar

Dear Tony

Oh dear  . . . sorry, I appear to be leading you into publishing heresies further! :-)

But I don't think they are heresies at all. In reading our texts we have to look through the eyes of interpretation, our own interpretation, translators' interpretations, incompatibilities in language (the Babel Effect), inexpressiveness of words and their incompatibilities with ideas, interpretations of those passing down the aural heritage and the interpretations and expression into language of the source writer or relater of the story.

History is a foreign country, and you cover this entirely.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIj6fWRl8-A
03:00

Of John Sperling's . . . .

The word in Greek to mean "mansion" or "country house" was here chosen as the greek word for "sheep pen" or "cattle fold".

So perhaps the legend of the stable has come from a misinterpretation of the Greek? Perhaps Jesus was born in a mansion, country house or palace according to his Royal status? But Dad was a humble carpenter . . .

Is any of this to be literally understood or is pure symbolism the point of the story?

It's well worth watching
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00wqfcx/Pompeii_Life_and_Death_in_a_Roman_Town/

Mary Beard explains how the mules turning the flour mills for the bakery were kept in the baker's house and this was only a wall away from the next door posh house - 51:30 or so. So Palace, Hovel, Stable, Manger. Probably all much closer together than we can imagine.

It's in a similar way that I take the expression of the Son of God as being a metaphorical invitation for us all.

Best wishes

David P