Bock

Nativity Feedback and Issues of Timing – Dec 19

Well, I have not received many feedback comments on this site about the movie, but I have received several emails from folks who enjoyed it. What I like best is the authentic feel of the first century and a serious attempt to wrestle with the human dilemma Mary and Joseph found themselves in. I agree with the response that gave special kudos to the actor who played Joseph. He was superb. My own sense is that Mary was played in a little too low key a manner at least in certain scenes, although given the restricted role of women in the time we should not expect her to give free vent to all her emotions.

Well, I have not received many feedback comments on this site about the movie, but I have received several emails from folks who enjoyed it. What I like best is the authentic feel of the first century and a serious attempt to wrestle with the human dilemma Mary and Joseph found themselves in. I agree with the response that gave special kudos to the actor who played Joseph. He was superb. My own sense is that Mary was played in a little too low key a manner at least in certain scenes, although given the restricted role of women in the time we should not expect her to give free vent to all her emotions. Her reaction to the angelic announcement did not express enough surprise and shock initially in my view. I mean, can you imagine getting that word? Those who know the account also know that the magi and shepherds would not have been at the scene at the same time (millions of nativity scenes otherwise notwithstanding!). The normal limit people give of two years seems to me off as well. (Herod was probably trying to be sure he got the child and so probably extended the time frame needed to be sure) The first forty days before a trip to the temple for cleansing after the birth seems a more likely time frame for the magi visit with the dream of warning coming sometime close to that temple visit by the family of three. Of course, no one knows, since we have to put that puzzle together without having all the pieces we need.

4 Comments

  • lmathew2

    question about birth of Jesus
    Hey Dr. Bock, a few weeks ago I watched one of Dr. Kenneth Bailey’s DVD’s entitled “A Clear View of the Birth of Jesus”. In the first of the 4 lectures (the most interesting, the others seemed irrelevant and uninteresting), he mentions that Jesus was probably not born in a stable at all. He said the homes during this time had an extra room for the livestock to come in at night, and the room sat lower than the main floor. At the edge of the main floor next to the livestock room there were mangers. He also says the word translated as “inn” is an inaccurate translation, and should be translated “guestroom”, because most houses had a guestroom, and in this case it would have already been occupied (there was no room for them in the “guestroom”.

    He draws this conclusion b/c there is a specific greek word for “inn”, and it is not the word used here, and Luke uses the actual term for “inn” later on in his Gospel (Good Samaritan). And Luke also uses the Greek term translated by most people as “inn” in Luke 2 (kataluma, or something like that), later on in his Gospel when Jesus is telling his disciples that a man will lead them to an “upper room” where the passover will take place.

    Bailey also makes another point by saying that Bethlehem was the city of David, and Joseph is in the lineage of David, and therefore almost every home would have been open for him to stay at, thus they would not have needed to stay at an inn. He makes another point by stressing the hospitality of middle eastern peasants, and when the shepherds came and left, they most certainly would not have let them stay in a stable as is traditionally believed, but they would have invited them to their own homes, which the text does not allude to.

    With this being said, I think Bailey brings up some interesting points here, and I’m sure you have heard some of them before. But you seem to hold to a more traditional translation of the text. What are some of your thoughts on this?

    Luke

  • bock

    Nativity Answer – dlb
    What Jesus was placed in was a manger or an animal feeding trough. What is discussed is where was the family placed. If there was “no place for them at whatever,” we obviously are in an exceptional kind of situation (thus the normal cultural rules may not apply). This suggests to me either a cave where animals were kept or some type of room where the animals were.

    • lmathew2

      Right, I know that. But
      Right, I know that. But Bailey was saying the mangers or animal troughs were located at the edge of the living room area, where the livestock could feed out of at night or during bad weather since the livestock room would have been at a lower level. Thus Bailey argues that Mary and Joseph are in a living room of a local family since there was no room for them in the guestroom.

      With this being said, what is your response, and does the text permit this? Is this a hermeneutical option. It seemed interesting to me since I have never heard it, have you heard this translation before?

      Luke

      • bock

        Manger et al – dlb
        Luke:

        I am aware of options like this. All I am saying is that the idea that the scene is a somewhat normal one following custom is not suggested by the overall emphasis of the passage of the humble surroundings of the birth. If they stayed with a local family, then why mention no room at the inn. The situation then is not so unusual. The text could have simply said some in Bethlehem welcomed them.