Problem Management — religious Q&A
No Room In The Inn

First, the quotation is no room in the inn, not at, and the simple answer is that the whole phrase is a bad translation.

Translations are based on linguistics, with ambiguities being resolved by historical context and remaining ambiguities being resolved by traditions originating from as near that time as possible. Though most of the Bible is well translated following such principles, occasionally tradition was given more importance than it should have been. Luke 2:7 is one such instance.

Traditionally, the ancient god Mithras was born in a cave or similar rocky place, and as Romans adopted Christianity they merged their old myths with the new religion. It soon became common belief that it was Jesus that had been so born, especially as cave-stables were not unusual at that time. In more recent times, the cave eventually became seen as a free-standing stable or barn.

But there is nothing in the Bible, explicit or implied, to indicate that Jesus was born under such unusual circumstances. It's the transplanted ancient Roman tradition that guided this mistranslation and belief.

That most people misremember this as at the inn rather than in the inn is an indication of its incorrectness. One wouldn't say that there isn't any room in an inn, because obviously inns contain many rooms. Saying at would have been more appropriate for what most people think this expression means, but that's not what Luke said, or meant. So why did he say in?

Luke also uses the word inn in the parable of the Good Samaritan. In that case the original Greek word was pandocheion. But in Luke 2:7, the Greek word translated as inn is katalyma. Katalyma appears in both Luke 22:11 and Mark 14:14, and in both those cases however, it is translated as guestchamber.

If Luke had really meant inn, he would have used pandocheion, not katalyma. Linguistically, the correct translation is guestchamber, not inn. Young's Literal Translation version renders it as there was not for them a place in the guest-chamber.

Bethlehem was a very small town, of at most a few dozen houses; it's very unlikely it was large enough to have its own inn. The main part of each house in Bethlehem would have typically had a room with a raised section where the family slept, and a ground-level section where they ate and worked during the day and where their animals were kept at night (to protect the animals and to warm the house). Almost every house also had another room, which was used for storage or, when needed, as a guestchamber.

Throughout the Middle East it was, and often still is, considered a common duty to provide accommodation for visitors, whether relatives, friends, or strangers. The idea of sending people to stay in a stable would have been too disrespectful to imagine. And even if the unimaginable had happened, consider the response of the shepherds had they seen that appalling situation: surely they would have moved the family immediately into one of their own houses as welcome guests of their own family. But none of that ever happened, because the family was never in a stable to begin with.

Luke of course didn't describe such details, because his readers would already take such things for granted.

Now consider what the Bible actually does say.

• This was a special time (a Roman census, and possibly also the Feast of Tabernacles), and many people were temporarily staying in their ancestral villages. Joseph himself would almost certainly have wanted to officially maintain his family's connection with the City of David.
• Mary and Joseph were of direct lineage of King David, by far the most famous person Bethlehem had ever produced. They would have been considered very honoured guests.
• Notice that while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. This wasn't an emergency birth, they were already there, and possibly had been for many days. (They had passed through Jerusalem an hour or so before reaching Bethlehem, so if birth really had been imminent they would surely have found lodging there rather than continuing on to Bethlehem, where supposedly they had no idea where they would stay.)
• Several families might have been sharing that guestchamber, or perhaps it was a small room. Either way, when it came time to give birth, Mary was moved elsewhere simply because there wasn't enough room in the guestchamber for the delivery.
• The main room of the house would have been appropriate, providing space for the midwife and others attending the birth.
• Because that area of the house was normally used for animals at night, there would have been stone feeding troughs built into the walls. Cleaned and lined with straw, one of these mangers would have formed a perfect crib for the infant.

As with many of the traditions of Christianity, the Biblical facts are quite different. In this case if we properly translate the clause as because there wasn't enough room in the guestchamber, the whole basis for the traditional Nativity Scene disappears. It has no linguistic or historical support, and remains only for those that want to cling to the ancient Roman traditions.

Should I also mention that the wise men (not necessarily three) didn't visit Bethlehem, or that the birth wasn't in December?