Posted on 12/25/2025 9:40:05 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Every December, we tell the Christmas story again.
Joseph and Mary travel to Bethlehem. There is no room at the inn. Jesus is born in a stable and laid in a manger while animals look on. Shepherds receive angelic news in the fields and hurry to see the child. Later, wise men follow a star, seeking out a King born beneath it.
It is a story most of us could tell from memory, shaped as much by hymn and pageant as by Scripture itself. The images are familiar and comforting: a holy family alone in the cold, a quiet night, a humble beginning.
It's also not accurate.
Nothing in the first chapters of Gospel of Luke needs to be changed to correct this inaccuracy. No verses are removed. No theology is revised. But without altering a single word of Luke’s account, several long-standing assumptions carried through the misinterpretation or misunderstanding of a few key words can be clarified — assumptions that have quietly reshaped how the story is imagined.
Luke 2:7: "She wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn."
Luke’s account hinges on the single word "inn." When he explains why Mary and Joseph struggled to find a place to stay, the Greek term he uses is kataluma. Over time, that word has been commonly translated as inn, importing an entire mental picture — a commercial lodging, a keeper, and a refusal at the door.
But kataluma does not mean an inn in that sense. Luke uses a different word elsewhere when he wants to describe a public lodging place. Kataluma is a guest room, typically within a private home.
That distinction matters.
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
In a small town like Bethlehem, swollen by a census requiring families to return to ancestral homes, this would have been unremarkable. Extended families would have filled every available sleeping space in the homes of families who still lived in the town. Hospitality would have been offered as best it could be managed. What ran out was not goodwill, but room. Like an exended family today coming home for Christmas, people were placed where the host could find space for them.
Once the birth is returned to a private household rather than a roadside inn, the rest of the story begins to realign. The question is no longer why Mary was sent away, but where, within a crowded home, a birth could reasonably take place.
There was no room in Tuscany, either.
Similar information in Christianity.com
“Mary and Joseph likely did not stay at a traveler’s inn. They probably stayed at a family home since Joseph’s family was from Bethlehem.
Middle Eastern families traditionally provided food and lodging for guests. We see this costume reflected in how often Jesus, the disciples, and Paul were welcomed into acquaintances’ homes during their travels. Also, a poor and pregnant couple like Mary and Joseph would most likely have asked to lodge with relatives and not a costly traveler’s inn upon their arrival in Bethlehem. Considering the Roman census was in full swing with many visitors in town, and Mary and Joseph would have traveled slowly since Mary was pregnant, his relatives might have already given the guest room to other relatives in town for the census. Since there was “no room at the inn,” they likely stayed in a downstairs room that housed animals.”
https://www.christianity.com/wiki/holidays/what-we-know-about-bethlehem-inn.html#google_vignette
So, let me get this straight... there’s an ongoing scholarly debate on whether the “inn” in Bethlehem was a more like a small hostel or more like a house-share from AirBNB? Okay, some folks apparently have a lot of time on their hands.
“This happens because there aren’t perfect words that translate from one language to another.” Also, the way they described things back then were different. Then add the language thing, oye.
The difference hinges on whether there was hospitality versus inhospitality.
That distinction matters
No...it really doesn’t.
I never interpreted the story as suggesting that ‘ill will’ was the reason they couldn’t get a room, and I never heard it interpreted that way. I just assumed things were full up.
The stable was most likely a cave or carved-out rock area which is how animals were typically sheltered then.
So even then, diversity was an issue... 🤷
No...it really doesn’t.
So... trans women are women?
Some distinctions really do matter, especially in these times when several generations since the rise of frequent long-distance car travel, superhighways and motels has conditioned today's people to think of the conveniences of modern travel and paying to stay at a commercial lodging. the Bible mentions the dangers of travel and of paying for lodging in the story of the Good Samaritan, who rescued a roadside beating victim and paid an innkeeper to take care of his recovery. Whereas, as this article rightfully points out, travelers then with relatives along the way would have stayed at the household of a relative or family friend.
Again, typical common homes were not what we have: insulated and Tyvek-coated milled timber and plywood overlaid with brick, board or vinyl siding; their smallholder residences used earth materials similar to adobe, in blocks or applied to stones, with structural tree trunk or stone columns. If those houses were anything like the farmhouses in ancient Italy that I have seen, they had stalls and stables built on the sides of the first floor and accessible from both inside and outside, so the people could get in to feed or to milk the animals, and so the animals could get out to graze.
The author's description of the birth event taking place in a courtyard doesn't sit well with me, nor does scripture support the implication that multiple women attended the Savior's birth, even though it was the custom. But accommodating Mary and Joseph in an adjoining stable that belongs to a relative's household, that seems very plausible.
A preacher I listen to said they were turned away BECAUSE the lodging house had many people, and if a woman gave birth among them ALL WOULD BE CONSIDERED UNCLEAN till a long cleansing ceremony was held.
So they were in the barn.
The mistranslation probably stems from St. Jerome's interpretation in Latin around 400 AD, which was the first time Luke's gospel in Greek was translated. Jerome's Latin translation of the Bible became the basis for other language translations.
Jerome's was not the first translation from the Greek. In fact, the reason Pope Damasus asked Jerome to put together what would become known as the Vulgate was because there were so many inferior translations out there that he wanted there to be one, good, common translation that everyone who know how to read could read, Latin being the common, or "Vulgar" language at that time.
Jerome's version of Luke 2:7 is:
"Et peperit filium suum primogenitum, et pannis eum involvit, et reclinavit eum in praesepio, quia non erat eis locus in diversorio."
In Latin, diversorio means "inn" or "lodging house."
More broadly, diversorio means "inn · lodging house · public/private accommodation · quarters · stopping place", while the Greek kataluma can mean "inn · lodging place · guest room". So they both mean pretty much the same, including both "inn" and "private dwelling/guest room" as possible translations.
If anyone bears the responsibility for the English speaking world to commonly read and speak this word as "inn", one could probably point to the two venerable English translations from the 1600's, the Douay-Rheims (for Catholics) and the King James (for Protestants), both of which translate the word as "inn".
I think you’re right. This doesn’t create any real difference to the story, but it’s nice to be more accurate.
There was no such census. At least not one anyone has ever verified actually occurred.
EWTN Catholic Q&A
Luke 2:1-3
Question about the census of Quirinius:
Dear Father, the problem with the census of Quirinius in 6 A.D.in relation to the birth of Jesus is a big historical problem. As you well know, Quirinius was not the governor of Syria when Jesus was born in 4B.C.? Luke has Jesus born when Quirinius was governor in 6 A.D. and Matthew has Jesus born in the time of Herod around 4 B.C. I have been reading on this for some time now on how to reconcile this mistake in scripture but to no avail. Could you please explain this problem to me?
Answer by Fr. John Echert:
The Gospel of St. Luke records:
2:1 In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled. 2:2 This was the first enrollment, when Quirin'i-us was governor of Syria. 2:3 And all went to be enrolled, each to his own city. 2:4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, 2:5 to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. 2:6 And while they were there, the time came for her to be delivered. 2:7 And she gave birth to her first-born son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths, and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.
As a well-educated Gentile writer of the ancient world and in accord with custom of the time, St. Luke dates biblical events such as the circumstances of the birth of Christ in the context of world events and persons associated with the Roman Empire. Even apart from divine inspiration it is hardly likely that someone as careful as St. Luke would make a glaring error with regards to such associations, and the absolutely inerrancy of the Bible assures us infallibly that there is no error. Yet some modern scholars are convinced—wrongly, of course—that St. Luke is in error in dating the birth of Christ as he does in this text, arguing that Caesar never ordered an empire-wide census and that the census of the Roman governor Quirinius did not occur until 6 AD. What can be said about this matter? First we must insist that whether or not we can solve the seeming inconsistency, we must affirm that there is no error on the part of the Evangelist, for then God Himself would be in error with regards to His Word. From there we may speculate as to possible solutions.
Various solutions have been proposed, including the following. Some would read the Greek of the text to read that this census was an earlier census than the more widely known census of 6 AD, namely, “This was an earlier census than when Quirinius was governor of Syria.” If that is the case, the census could have been done by Quirinius prior to his position as governor of Syria or even by Herod the Great. Others have suggested that St. Luke only intended to give an approximate date, though I find this less satisfying as a solution. More recently, some have suggested that this “enrollment” was not for tax purposes but was to swear allegiance to Augustus at a time when he was being proclaimed as a savior of the world type figure—about 2 BC. Even more interesting, however, is what Justin Martyr records of Quirinius, namely, that he was a procurator (governor) in Judea at the time of the birth of Christ. As such, he may have undertaken the census—perhaps regarding the allegiance to Augustus—at this time.
At any rate, what is increasingly clear is that we are not so certain about what St. Luke had in mind nor are we entirely certain about what transpired two thousand years ago. St. Luke was much closer in time and place and had excellent sources. If he had made a glaring historical error, it is likely that early manuscripts would have attempted to correct such a text, which is not the case. Quirinius was a Roman political representative in the region at the time of the birth of Christ, and so what St. Luke writes is all the more credible, even if the census of which the Evangelist writes is known to us only by his Gospel testimony. Much of what transpired in the ancient world—especially regarding more remote and obscure parts of the Empire—was never recorded or has been lost in the sands of time.
For a careful treatment of this topic, I recommend the extensive study note on this found in the recently published RSV-CE Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: The Gospel of Luke. It contains excellent notes by Dr. Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch.
God bless,
Father Echert
We have no reason to believe it was a relative.
Without having to look, there was no mention that they were at cousin Eddy’s.
Stables were often the 1st floor of homes. Or they could be adjunct structures.
What is important to the story is that our Lord and Savior was born in a stable and was laid lying in a manger. He did not arrive in a bed, he did not arrive at a Holiday Inn Express. He arrived humbly and it amplified his glory.
The rest are nits to pick.
IMHO
[And no, trans women are NOT women.]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.