ern farmer lived close to nature and in fact did want the animals in his house for at least two reasons he could verbalize. First, the animals helped

sting of the family living room terrace (Wohnterrasse) and a lower level (Hausboden) with mangers (Futtertroger) built into the floor of the former. This same house has an adjoining special guest room (Gastehaus). Such a home precisely fits the requirements of Luke 2:7.26 This leads us to ask whether this option has been considered by modern scholars other than Bishop, Dalmann, Thompson and Miguens. Scholarship has long noted “guest room” as a primary meaning for kataluma. Moulton and Milligan suggest “lodging place” for Luke 2:7 and observe, “Elsewhere in Biblical Greek, e.g. I Kings 1:13 (sic. 1:18), Mk 14:14, it has rather the sense of ‘guest room’.”27 Plummer long ago questioned the translation “inn” for kataluma. He writes: It is possible that Joseph had relied upon the hospitality of some friends in Bethlehem, whose “guest chamber” however was already full when he and Mary arrived. See on xxii.11.28 Leaney used the translation “lodging house,” but does not discuss the question.29 Marshall and Danker reject “inn,” preferring “room in a house,” but then affirm the birthplace to be some place for animals.30 Brown leaves the question unanswered and translates “lodgings” for kataluma.31 In short, Luke’s own meaning of “guest room” has long been recognized but not used in translations due to an inadequate understanding of the wider cultural background of the Palestinian village home with its mangers in the family room. This brings us to an important final question: how has the text been understood in the Middle East itself? Presumably, the cultural origins of the text would be understood here in the Middle East and reflected in translation and commentary. What then do we find? We have observed that Justin allows for time spent in the village and then insists that Joseph found nothing and resorted to a cave outside the village. The cave tradition we have accepted. But why the insistence by Justin and the Protevangelium of James that the birth took place outside the village rather than in it as Luke simply states? After reading a number of Arabic and Syriac fathers’ writings on the question, one has the distinct feeling there is an unspoken subjective pressure to understand the birth as having taken place without witnesses because of the sacred nature of the “mother of God” giving birth to the “Son of God.” Even as the sacraments are consecrated in utter seclusion behind an altar screen, so the eyes of even the faithful might not look on the holy event, even so Middle Eastern Christology, Mariology and piety seem to combine to insist that the birth took place where no eye beheld the divine mystery. For this to be possible the story must take place outside the village in some secluded spot. Is it not possible to assume Justin’s outside-the-village account coming from this kind of theological pressure? We can add to this the early allegorization of the text of the New Testament, where attention is focused on the mystical and allegorical meanings behind words,



And the exegete is not interested in the humanness of the incarnation in its Palestinian setting.
A revealing retelling of Justin’s account, combined with elaborate allegory, can be seen in the work of the great 12th century commentator of the Syriac church, ibn Salîbî. He interprets Luke 2:7b by saying: Spiritually interpreted, the wrapping with cloths and wraps signifies that the Christ bore our sins and that He was nailed to the Cross in order to cleanse the old man by His blood. Also the cloths and wraps are a sign of poverty and freedom from this world and its goods. He allowed Himself to be put down in a manger so that He could arise on behalf of the human race which is like beasts and animals in that it committed the crime of base rebellion. Thus Christ endured all of this to return us to Himself and to give us the power of life and the drink of the wine of joy. It is said that the manger refers to the tomb because the master will die and be buried in a tomb that looks like a manger. Luke explains the placing of the Christ in a manger by saying that there was no place for Mary and Joseph in any of the lodging places or houses because of the many travelers from the house of David coming for the registration. So the two of them were obliged to go to a cave near Bethlehem which was a shelter for animals (my translation).32 Here we enter an entirely different exegetical world. This venerable father’s account is rich in the spirituality of his age and his tradition is well worth reading. It is of little help, however, in our attempt at recovering the original Palestinian intent of the material. The Arabic and Syriac versions, like Brown, have opted for neutral words, such as “lodgings,” as their traditions focus on the allegories of the medieval period. What, then, does all of this mean for the faithful as we look forward to the recollection of the miracle of the incarnation? We all face the enormous weight of church tradition which surrounds us with the “no room at the inn” mythology. If our conclusions are valid, thousands of good Christmas sermons, plays, filmstrips, films, poems, songs and books will have to be discarded. But is the traditional myth of a lonely birth in a stable a help or a hindrance to the reality the text proclaims? Surely a more authentic cultural understanding enhances the meaning of the story, rather than diminishing it. Jesus was rejected at His birth by Herod, but the Bethlehem shepherds welcomed Him with great joy, as did the common people in later years. The city of David was true to its own, and the village community provided for Him. He was born among them, in the natural setting of the birth of any village boy, surrounded by helping hands and encouraging women’s voices. For centuries Palestinian peasants have been born on the raised terraces of the one-room family homes. The birth of Jesus was no different. His incarnation was authentic. His birth most likely took place in the natural place for a peasant to be born—in a peasant home. We can and should theologize on the glorious resurrected Christ who meets us in the Eucharist. But a proper understanding of the story of His birth forces us to not lose sight of the One who “took upon himself the form of a servant and was found in the likeness of man.” And, after all, it is still possible for us to sing: Ox and ass before Him bow,For He is in the manger now,Christ is born to save,Christ is born to save. (Reprinted by permission from the Theological Review of the Near East School of Theology, Vol. 2, No. II, November 1979.) Recommended Resources for Further StudyJesus ThroughMiddle Eastern Eyes 50 Proofs for the NTNIV ArchaeologicalStudy Bible Footnotes 1 M. Baily, “The Crib and Exegesis of Luke 2, 1–20,” Irish Ecclesiastical Record, 100 (1963), 358–376; R.E. Brown, “VI. The Birth and Naming of Jesus,” in The Birth of the Messiah (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1977), pp. 393–434; J.D.M. Derrett, “The Manger: Ritual Law and Soteriology,” Theology, 74 (1971), 566–571, and “The Manger at Bethlehem: Light on SRosetta Stone

. After almost 200 years of archaeological research in Egypt and Israel, why do so many challenge the Exodus account? The stakes are not small, as the

reliability—on His confidence that the Israelites actually did eat manna in the desert as the Scriptures describe. If this account were not true, then Jesus was wrong, and so are some of His teachings.We should not be surprised, then, that some critics have focused so much attention on this fundamental event in the Bible. They try to discredit the story of the Exodus to undermine its historical validity.Biblical historian Eugene Merrill describes the importance the Exodus has for the rest of the Bible:The exodus is the most significant historical and theological event of the Old Testament because it marks God’s mightiest act in behalf of his people...To it the Book of Genesis provides an introduction and justification, and from it flows all subsequent Old Testament revelation...In the final analysis, the exodus served to typify that exodus achieved by Jesus Christ for people of faith, so that it is a meaningful event for the church as well as for Israel (1996:57–58).Limits of ArchaeologyMany critics who doubt the historicity of the Exodus share a problem: over-reliance on what archaeology can prove. Archaeology is, in fact, a limited and imperfect area of study in which the interpretation of findings, as archaeologists readily admit, is more of an art than a hard science.Archaeologist Edwin Yamauchi points out the limits of this science when he explains: (1) little of what was made or written in antiquity survives to this day; (2) few of the ancient sites have been surveyed and a number have not even been found; (3) probably fewer than 2 percent of the known sites have been meaningfully excavated; (4) few of these have been more than scratched; and (5) only a fraction of the fraction that have been excavated have been published and data made available to the scholarly world (1972: chapter 4).Considering not only the limits but also the positive side of archaeology, it is remarkable how many Biblical accounts have been illuminated and confirmed by the relatively small number of sites excavated and finds uncovered to date. Even though, regrettably, some professionals go out of their way to present a distorted picture of what archaeology does reveal, it does provide some of the strongest evidence for the reliability of the Bible as credible and accurate history.Evidence DestroyedA major challenge in reconstructing an accurate view of history is that, through the ages, most negative or embarrassing evidence was never written down or was intentionally destroyed by later rulers. In fact, the Bible stands in marked contrast to most ancient literature in that it objectively records the facts about Biblical personalities, whether good or bad.When new kings ascended the throne, they naturally wanted to be seen in the best light. So in many nations they covered up or destroyed monuments and records of previous monarchs. This pattern of expunging earlier historical evidence can be repeatedly seen in Egyptian monuments and historical records. For example, after the Hyksos rulers were expelled from Egypt, the Egyptians erased the records of that humiliating period so thoroughly that some of the names and the order of the Hyksos kings remain uncertain.Some time later Pharaoh Thutmosis III destroyed virtually all records relating to Queen Hatshepsut, the previous ruler, whom he despised. Visitors to her famous temple can still see where Thutmosis’s workmen carefully chiseled away her image from the walls of the structure. A few decades afterwards, the ruling priests eliminated virtually all possible traces of the teachings of Pharaoh Akhenaten, who had introduced what they considered to be heretical Egyptian religious reforms.Akhenaten (ca. 1350–1334 BC), the heretical king whose religious reforms were quickly reversed following his death. Mike Luddeni.So it should come as no surprise that the ancient Egyptians would not have wanted to record or even remember what was perhaps their greatest humiliation—the national devastation that occurred when their Israelite slaves won their freedom and Egypt’s might proved powerless to stop them. This attitude is not limited to the past. Even today, some of what went on during the two world wars is still hotly debated by historians on both sides of the issue.It seems too much to hope for, then, that a proud and powerful nation such as Egypt, whose rulers were considered gods, would record that their mighty army was ignominiously crushed by a band of virtually unarmed slaves who had a more powerful deity on their side. This would have embarrassed them in front of the entire known world. It’s more natural to believe they simply licked their wounds and tried to cover up all traces of this humiliating national episode, especially since they are known to have done this on other occasions.Image of Hatshepsut (ca. 1503–1483 BC) seated on a throne, erased by Thutmosis III. Deir el-Bahri, mortuary temple of Hatshepsut at Thebes, Egypt. Bryant Wood.Bias against the BibleBesides these limits of archaeology, an additional problem exists that is seldom noted—the ever-present scholarly bias. It takes only a brief reading of archaeological journals to witness how alive and well human nature is among many of the experts. Differing opinions can stimulate public accusations that are envious, arrogant, spiteful and even hateful.Radio commentator Dennis Prager made an insightful comment about Rabbi Wolpe’s skepticism of the Exodus account noted earlier:According to the [Los Angeles Times] article, most archaeologists...do not believe the Biblical Exodus occurred. That most archaeologists conclude from the alleged lack of archaeological evidence that Jews were never slaves in Egypt and the Exodus to Canaan never took place tells us something about these individuals, but nothing about the Bible or the Exodus.What does it tell us? That most of these archaeologists have the same bias against traditional religious beliefs that most academic colleagues have. Ten years ago, Dr. Robert Jastrow,...founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute...,wrote about this in his book, God and the Astronomers.



Jastrow described a disturbing reaction
Among his colleagues to the big-bang theory—irritation and anger. Why, he asked, would scientists, who are supposed to pursue truth and not have an emotional investment in any evidence, be angered by the big-bang theory?The answer, he concluded, is very disturbing: many scientists do not want to acknowledge anything that may even suggest the existence of God. The big-bang theory, by positing a beginning of the universe, suggests a creator and therefore annoys many astronomers. This anti-religious bias is hardly confined to astronomers. It pervades academia, home to nearly all archaeologists (The Jewish Journal, April 20, 2001, emphasis added).Uphill Battle for BelieversWhen it comes to the Bible, archaeologists and Biblical scholars categorize themselves into two groups: minimalists and maximalists. The minimalists (also called deconstructionists of the Bible) generally hold the view that the Bible is full of myths and is therefore unreliable. So they vigorously try to refute any evidence that supports Rosetta Stone Chinese