Luke 2:7 - No room at the inn?
Posted: December 26th, 2019, 4:00 pm
I originally posted this to another forum, but Barry mentioned to me that Stephen Carlson was active here, and that I should repost it on B-Greek to hopefully generate good discussion.
Luke 2:7: καὶ ἔτεκεν τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς τὸν πρωτότοκον, καὶ ἐσπαργάνωσεν αὐτὸν καὶ ἀνέκλινεν αὐτὸν ἐν φάτνῃ, διότι οὐκ ἦν αὐτοῖς τόπος ἐν τῷ καταλύματι.
Earlier this year, a fellow member at my church said to me something like "Luke did not mean an inn at Luke 2:7, because they didn't have inns in those days." The statement about inns was clearly fallacious, but as Christmas rolled around this year, I thought I would try to look into what he was saying and find the source. I found various articles discussing this 1984 -> 2011 NIV change:
NIV 1984: and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.
NIV 2011: and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no guest room available for them.
And I found one article that went somewhat farther, Carlson's The Accommodations of Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem: Κατάλυμα in Luke 2.7.
Carlson's article was well-researched and well-argued, but not ultimately convincing to me.
-- οὐκ ἦν αὐτοῖς τόπος - dative of possession?
Whatever leading Greek grammars may say, this usage seems well-paralleled as a dative of advantage in the LXX.
LXX Gen 24:23 εἰ ἔστιν παρὰ τῷ πατρί σου τόπος ἡμῖν καταλῦσαι;
LXX Ecclesiasticus 13:22 καὶ οὐκ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ τόπος
LXX Eze 45:4: καὶ ἔσται αὐτοῖς τόπος εἰς οἴκους ἀφωρισμένους τῷ ἁγιασμῷ αὐτῶν
LXX Dan 2:35 καὶ τόπος οὐχ εὑρέθη αὐτοῖς
LXX Reg I 9:22 καὶ ἔθετο αὐτοῖς τόπον ἐν πρώτοις τῶν κεκλημένων ὡσεὶ ἑβδομήκοντα ἀνδρῶν
In each of these, the meaning seems to be "place for us/them/him" not, "our/their/his place"
-- Lack of room due to the birth?
Though Carlson doesn't make this argument, I think that it would be more tenable to accept this as a dative of advantage, and read αὐτοῖς as referring to the mother and her baby, the subject and object referred to in the previous sentence. But the αὐτοὺς in Luke 2:6, including Joseph, makes this too awkward for me to accept: ἐν τῷ εἶναι αὐτοὺς ἐκεῖ.
The wording that I would have expected Luke to use would simply be: διότι οὐκ ἦν τόπος ἐν τῷ καταλύματι
-- What is the τὸ κατάλυμα?
Carlson is correct to point out the vagueness of this term, as a glance at LXX (and broader Greek) usage will confirm. And perhaps the article doesn't necessarily have mean that this κατάλυμα was associated specifically with Bethlehem? Mary and Joseph were on a journey, and the reader should expect that they were staying somewhere and perhaps τὸ κατάλυμα would receive an article on that basis. But the dative of advantage, as I think I've established, seems to contradict this view. Whether they were staying with relatives, or even in a tent (or cave), one expects that they would have had room for themselves. The article in τὸ κατάλυμα then seems to point to an accommodation associated with Bethlehem.
It seems likely, then, that this would be an "inn" of some sort, using that term loosely. See Moeris: "καταγώγιον καὶ κατάγεσθαι Ἀττικοί· κατάλυμα καὶ καταλύειν Ἕλληνες". On that point, I found the discussions here interesting, though very old:
George Campbell's discussion ("The Works of George Campbell, Volume 4", pg. 318ff): https://books.google.com/books?id=C14TA ... &q&f=false
J. R. Major's notes on Luke:
https://books.google.com/books?id=5y5OA ... &q&f=false
Luke 2:7: καὶ ἔτεκεν τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς τὸν πρωτότοκον, καὶ ἐσπαργάνωσεν αὐτὸν καὶ ἀνέκλινεν αὐτὸν ἐν φάτνῃ, διότι οὐκ ἦν αὐτοῖς τόπος ἐν τῷ καταλύματι.
Earlier this year, a fellow member at my church said to me something like "Luke did not mean an inn at Luke 2:7, because they didn't have inns in those days." The statement about inns was clearly fallacious, but as Christmas rolled around this year, I thought I would try to look into what he was saying and find the source. I found various articles discussing this 1984 -> 2011 NIV change:
NIV 1984: and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.
NIV 2011: and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no guest room available for them.
And I found one article that went somewhat farther, Carlson's The Accommodations of Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem: Κατάλυμα in Luke 2.7.
Carlson's article was well-researched and well-argued, but not ultimately convincing to me.
-- οὐκ ἦν αὐτοῖς τόπος - dative of possession?
Whatever leading Greek grammars may say, this usage seems well-paralleled as a dative of advantage in the LXX.
LXX Gen 24:23 εἰ ἔστιν παρὰ τῷ πατρί σου τόπος ἡμῖν καταλῦσαι;
LXX Ecclesiasticus 13:22 καὶ οὐκ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ τόπος
LXX Eze 45:4: καὶ ἔσται αὐτοῖς τόπος εἰς οἴκους ἀφωρισμένους τῷ ἁγιασμῷ αὐτῶν
LXX Dan 2:35 καὶ τόπος οὐχ εὑρέθη αὐτοῖς
LXX Reg I 9:22 καὶ ἔθετο αὐτοῖς τόπον ἐν πρώτοις τῶν κεκλημένων ὡσεὶ ἑβδομήκοντα ἀνδρῶν
In each of these, the meaning seems to be "place for us/them/him" not, "our/their/his place"
-- Lack of room due to the birth?
Though Carlson doesn't make this argument, I think that it would be more tenable to accept this as a dative of advantage, and read αὐτοῖς as referring to the mother and her baby, the subject and object referred to in the previous sentence. But the αὐτοὺς in Luke 2:6, including Joseph, makes this too awkward for me to accept: ἐν τῷ εἶναι αὐτοὺς ἐκεῖ.
The wording that I would have expected Luke to use would simply be: διότι οὐκ ἦν τόπος ἐν τῷ καταλύματι
-- What is the τὸ κατάλυμα?
Carlson is correct to point out the vagueness of this term, as a glance at LXX (and broader Greek) usage will confirm. And perhaps the article doesn't necessarily have mean that this κατάλυμα was associated specifically with Bethlehem? Mary and Joseph were on a journey, and the reader should expect that they were staying somewhere and perhaps τὸ κατάλυμα would receive an article on that basis. But the dative of advantage, as I think I've established, seems to contradict this view. Whether they were staying with relatives, or even in a tent (or cave), one expects that they would have had room for themselves. The article in τὸ κατάλυμα then seems to point to an accommodation associated with Bethlehem.
It seems likely, then, that this would be an "inn" of some sort, using that term loosely. See Moeris: "καταγώγιον καὶ κατάγεσθαι Ἀττικοί· κατάλυμα καὶ καταλύειν Ἕλληνες". On that point, I found the discussions here interesting, though very old:
George Campbell's discussion ("The Works of George Campbell, Volume 4", pg. 318ff): https://books.google.com/books?id=C14TA ... &q&f=false
J. R. Major's notes on Luke:
https://books.google.com/books?id=5y5OA ... &q&f=false