Diogenes the Cynic

Stephen, I think this is a surprisingly tendentious offering for you. You're reading an awful lot into "House of David" and I think that your suggestion that Joseph really lived in Bethlehem and was in Nazareth hunting for a wife or "on business" is specious and contraindicated by the text. For instance, there's the fact that Joseph apparently had nowhere to stay in Bethlehem (I know you address that below, so more on that in a moment), but I think a more salient point is that Luke has Joseph and family return to "their own town" of Nazareth after the birth (again, more on that in a moment).
Come now, Stephen. It places the birth in Bethlehem but do you mean to suggest that Luke intended to imply that there was a wedding in between the time that Joseph and Mary got to Bethlehem and when Mary gave birth?
Again, I have to say I think this is specious. For one thing, Luke gives us no reason to believe that the wedding couldn't have taken place in "their own town" of Nazareth and I frankly cannot quite fathom why you believe that a birth in Bethlehem implies there must have been a wedding in Bethlehem. Maybe you think that childbirth requires it (and some later redactors appear to have agreed since the TR version of this passage has the word gune inserted into it, making Mary Joseph's "betrothed wife" [the KJV says "espoused wife"] instead of just his "betrothed") but a pregnancy should have required that too, so I'm not sure that Luke's characterization of Mary as merely being Joseph's "betrothed" is especially meaningful. I also don't think it's Likely that Luke intended for his audience to understand that any wedding took place in Bethlehem.
The plain meaning of the text is that Joseph lived in Nazareth and that he only travelled to Bethlehem for the census. Don't get ahead of yourself. You haven't proven the text says any more than that yet.
What is the basis for your translation of kataluma as "loft" rather than inn? Liddell and Scott gives the definitions "lodging." "billet" and "provision of quarters" but it does not give a definition of "upper room" or "loft." In addition, the Scholars Edition of The Complete Gospels gives a note that the inn was probably a caravanasary -- a place where travellers slept communally in one room rather than in separate quarters and that "there was no place in the inn" should probably read as "there was no place to give birth inside and that the stable was chosen for privacy rather than necessitated by a literal lack of space. I honestly think you're reaching here.
What is your reasoning for supposing that Joseph owned land in Nazareth? And if he did, why did he have to scratch out a subsistance living as a sub-peasant tekton instead of farming? Why should your hypothesis be preferred over a plain reading of the text which would indicate that Nazareth was Joseph's "own town," that he was in Bethlehem "because he was of the house and lineage of David," and that he returned to his "own" town after Jesus was born?
This is disingenuous. You haven't shown that there is an "agreement" by Luke that Joseph had a house in Bethlehem and a plain reading suggests otherwise.
I disagree. because he was of the house and lineage of David" is a far cry from "because he lived there."
Luke doesn't say that. Luke says he was going there for a census and mentions nothing about a wedding.

Diogenes the Cynic

Not until 6 CE.
Not until 6 CE.
Yes. Aftere Herod the Great died his kingdom was split up among his sons. Antipas got Galilee and retained it as a tetrarchy throughout the alleged life of Jesus. Just so you're clear on this, that means Galilee was NOT a Roman province. Archalaeus got Judea and he sucked so bad that he was removed from power in 6 CE and Judea was annexed as a province. That was when Quirinius got direct control over Judea and that was when the Romans imposed their first census (but only on Judea, not Galilee).
It doesn't matter. All that matters is when he became governor over JUDEA and that happened in 6 CE.
I'm amused that an interest in historical accuracy strikes you as "queer." I find that rather revealing.

spin

The nature of books is that they can be doubted. There is nothing rude in that. One doesn't need proof to doubt something. When one has evidence regarding the significance of a text which puts it in conflict with another work (here Lk and Mt), one needs to confront the evidence honestly without the subterfuge of name calling and hiding behind the Holy scriptures.


spin

S.C.Carlson

In today's culture, the stigma of illegitimacy has largely disappeared. Not so, however, in antiquity. When else would the marriage occur, if not before Jesus's birth? In Luke's account, where else would the marriage occur except in Bethlehem? Luke's story only makes sense if Joseph and Mary had their wedding in Bethlehem since she was "betrothed." That means that Bethlehem is where Joseph's family home was.

Stephen

Steven Carr

Did Joseph have a home in Bethlehem, or any family there, where they could have stayed?

Diogenes the Cynic

The stigma would have already been there just by virtue of Mary being pregnant.
Nazareth.
This conclusion relies on nothing but your own assumption that they must have gotten married before the birth, but Luke doesn't so much as a suggest that a wedding took place in Bethlehem before the birth and it seems to me to be extraordinarily unlikely that he would expect his audience to understand that, especially since he has no place for them to go when they get to town . When exactly did this wedding take place and why doesn't Luke say anything about it?

S.C.Carlson

Luke's characterization of Mary as "betrothed" in 2:5 is a strong reason that he did not contemplate a prior wedding in Nazareth.

Stephen

spin

The story tells us the child was born in a manger because they could find no place to stay. They had sought temporary lodgings at a kataluma, an accommodation for guests, ie an inn. Luke doesn't support this hypothesis. There is no reason from the text to believe that they got married in Bethlehem. It is unsupported conjecture (on whoever's part).

Luke has the pregnant Mary going off with Joseph to give birth in a manger., for everyone to see, if you are worried about stigma. You know, unmarried woman traveling with man, nudge, nudge, wink, wink. She doesn't look half-overweight, now does she? Matthew's version makes much more sense: they were each living in Bethlehem and, after the angel, Joseph takes her into his house so she could hide out until after the pregnancy.


spin

S.C.Carlson

I cited Luke 22:11. Here's more from Malina and Rohrbaugh's Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, p. 376:

While the Greek word in Luke 2:7 can sometimes mean "inn," it normally refers to a large finished room attached to a peasant house and is best translated "guest room." The only other use of the term in the New Testament is in the story of the Last Supper (Mark 14:14; Luke 22:11), where is translated "upper room." The normal room for a commercial inn (pandokeion) is used by Luke at 10:34; such an "inn" was a place that "receives all." The fact that there was no "place" for Joseph and Mary in the guest room of the home thus meant that someone who socially outranked them already occupied it.

They also note, based on Bethlehem's small size, that the small village "almost certainly had no commercial inns anyway."

Stephen

S.C.Carlson

And the problem with this assumption is?