3.9 Luke 2:7 – οὐκ ἦν αὐτοῖς
τόπος ἐν τῷ καταλύματι
The traditional identification of
the κατάλυμα in Luke 2:7 as a commercial inn is interwoven with the notion that
it was the census that brought them there at the time of Jesus’ birth. In this
view, Mary and Joseph hurried to Bethlehem in the final stages of Mary’s
pregnancy, and on arrival, having no significant relationships in the town,
were obliged unsuccessfully to seek residence at the inn. The problems with
this account, not least that such a scenario is almost inconceivable in the
social milieu of first-century Judea, have been rehearsed with particular
clarity by Bailey. Implicit in such formulations of this story is a narrow
window for registration, hence the frantic journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem.
Given the communication systems of the time, however, it is difficult to
imagine how any census could apply the rigid deadlines that this scenario
suggests. If, however, there was a wider window for registration, it is harder
to understand why Mary and Joseph would have chosen such an unpropitious time
to travel.
Supposing, instead, that the κατάλυμα
was a small room in a private house, markedly different options emerge,
especially if, as Carlson proposes, οὐκ ἦν αὐτοῖς τόπος indicates lack of space
in that room for the birth and postnatal care of a baby, rather than lack of a
room per se. Removal from the story of the fully occupied inn opens up
the possibility of a more leisurely arrival in Bethlehem, in the firm
expectation of accommodation with relatives, and perhaps even in Joseph’s
family home. Moreover, as Carlson suggests, this provides a possible setting
for the marriage of Joseph and Mary, who could then have established themselves
for an extended stay in private lodgings – the κατάλυμα – attached to the
family house while they awaited the baby’s birth. On the usual reading of Luke
2:1-5, this sojourn in Bethlehem coincided with the census registration window;
if, however, Mary and Joseph were residing with Joseph’s relatives, the census
is no longer actually necessary as a reason for their presence in Bethlehem. If
Bethlehem was Joseph’s home town (as Luke 2:3 implies), it would have been a
logical location for their marriage and for their early married life.
Since, in this reconstruction,
the census is superfluous as an explanation of why Jesus was born in Bethlehem,
a chronological dislocation between Luke 2:1-5 and Luke 2:6-7 is possible. The
implications of reinterpreting κατάλυμα as a room in a private house rather
than a commercial inn are thus potentially significant not just for
understanding Luke’s depiction of the birth scene, but for making sense of the
function of the census in Luke’s narrative. He uses it not to explain how Mary
and Joseph got to Bethlehem, but to demonstrate that they genuinely belonged
there. (David J. Armitage, “Detaching the Census: An Alternative Reading of
Luke 2:1-7,” Tyndale Bulletin 69, no. 1 [2018]: 92-93)
