Jesus: Born In A Barn?

[Odë:hgöd]

.
For most of my life I was led to believe that Jesus was born in a barn. But now I'm
not so sure because it appears to me that he wasn't. Here's how my mind was
conditioned to think:

"She delivered her baby in a stable because there was no vacancy at the inn."

In point of fact, we're not told where Mary delivered; we're only told where she
sheltered her baby.

"She laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn."

What we're looking at there is a lack of adequate space for a new mom to tend her
baby. Inns in those days usually didn't offer private rooms. They often consisted of
a multiple occupancy space, i.e. something like a bunk house, but with no bunks.

Jesus' mom no doubt had brought along a bassinet because she was so close to
delivery, but conditions in the inn during the taxation likely provided little
opportunity for securing the infant's accouterments up off the floor. In other words:
Mary herself chose a stable for sheltering little Jesus because it was safer.

The feed box was crude but actually a very suitable crib. It not only protected little
Jesus from people stepping on him, but it's sturdy wood construction also
prevented someone from accidentally bumping him over in the dark.

It would seem that Mary was not only a conscientious mom, but also a very
practical girl.

There's an alternate scenario I think worth considering.

The Greek word translated "manger" also means "stall", for example:

• Luke 13:15 . . Does not each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or his donkey
from the stall, and lead him away to water?

A stall would've provided Jesus' mom a measure of privacy during delivery; and
instead of having Joseph pick Jesus up and put him in a feed box, Mary could've
just laid him down right beside her on some straw; which means of course that
Luke 2:12 could be legitimately translated like this:

"This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a
stall."

In that scenario, Jesus would've been born in a barn instead of born in the inn and
then later transferred to a barn.
_

 

[Josiah]

Several thoughts....


1. We are not told WHEN Mary and Joseph arrived in Bethlehem. Innumerable children's Christmas programs suggest they arrived while Mary was in labor and gave birth the night of their arrival, but there is NOTHING in either texts that remotely suggests that. It only says "WHILE THEY WERE THERE the time came for her to give birth.


2. "Inn" in Luke 2 is kataluma. It does NOT mean a hotel (there's a different Greek word for a business establishment that rented space or rooms)., and the tiny village of Bethlehem would have had no hotels. Kataluma is not a very precise term, but it can (and often did) refer to ANY space where guests could stay, whether for the night or however long they were guests (often it was just a corner of a room, often it was a corner of the space where the family slept). Nearly all homes had a kataluma, Now, rich people had a guest room but common people only had a guest corner. Jewish hospitality meant that your guest got your best... it was unthinkable to ask a guest to sleep where you would not. Probably all the 100 or so homes in Bethlehem would have had an "inn" (kataluma).


3. The Bible does not say Bethlehem was crowded. Some ASSUME that because of the census but the Romans allowed people to register ANYWHERE (no need whatsoever to go to some JEWISH ancestoral home) and people had an entire YEAR to do so. Bethhelem MAY have been crowded but it may not have been - we simply don't know and the Bible does not say.


4. While Jews of that time and place DID sometimes sleep with the animals (to keep warm in extremely cold weather), it would be very odd to put the family kataluma in a barn! The texts seem to hint the Holy Family was NOT in a kataluma, not in an "inn."


5. The text does not say animals were present. Again, we've seen too many Children's Christmas programs! But it DOES say He was laid in a manger (from which animals ate). These typically were carved from a stone (all the ones found have been such since they'd survived these 2000 years) but they sometimes were made of wood, too. It's POSSIBLE that this was a make-shift bed for Jesus - simply what was avaiable, CERTAINLY unusual but perhaps it worked just fine. Laying Jesus in a manger does NOT mandate ergo they were in a barn or space with animals; possible but not mandated - we just don't know. No, the Holy Family did not have a big SUV in which to bring all the baby supplies they'd need. The oldest tradition IS that Jesus was born in a cave where animals were kept, and that very early tradition should carry weight for us, but the BIBLE doesn't mention animals or a place where normally the animals would be.


6. There simply is no explanation given in the Bible for WHY they were not in a kataluma when Jesus is born. Or where they were instead. IF it's true that not one family (out of perhaps 100 in Bethlehem) would let them stay at their family's kataluma, then that's SHOCKING and there must be some piece of this puzzle we just aren't told. In any case, when the Magi come, they are in a house (maybe in a kataluna).



A blessed Christmas Season to all...


- Josiah




.

 

[JRT]

Travelers in the ancient mid-east would take shelter in a caravanserai. This was a walled open yard which would also contain an inn for the provision of food and lodging for the well-to-do. Peasants would sleep in the courtyard with their animals and purchase firewood and animal feed at the inn. However, I regard all this as moot because Jesus was born at home in Nazareth because there was no census that would require them to travel. Not only are the two birth narratives contradictory they are also mythical.

 

[Lamb]

Travelers in the ancient mid-east would take shelter in a caravanserai. This was a walled open yard which would also contain an inn for the provision of food and lodging for the well-to-do. Peasants would sleep in the courtyard with their animals and purchase firewood and animal feed at the inn. However, I regard all this as moot because Jesus was born at home in Nazareth because there was no census that would require them to travel. Not only are the two birth narratives contradictory they are also mythical.

Well, you contradict what scriptures say and that's God's Word: Luke 2

"In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2 (This was the first census that took place while[a] Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3 And everyone went to their own town to register.


4 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. 5 He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. 6 While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, 7 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."

 

[JRT]

Well, you contradict what scriptures say and that's God's Word: Luke 2

"In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2 (This was the first census that took place while[a] Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3 And everyone went to their own town to register.


4 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. 5 He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. 6 While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, 7 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."

I am very familiar with the Biblical birth narratives.

When the Birth Narrative is examined objectively and in detail one is left with some real questions as to just how historically accurate it is. The earliest New Testament writer, Paul, makes scant reference to the birth of Jesus except to say that it was "according to the flesh" which I would read to mean 'perfectly natural --- nothing special'. About 15 years later the next writer, Mark, makes no mention of the birth at all and begins his narrative with the baptitsm of Jesus. Both Matthew and Luke, writing some 10 to 15 years after Mark, treat the birth in some detail but contradict each other considerably. The first suggestion of the “virgin birth” is in Matthew and that seems to be based on a misinterpretation of a passage in Isaiah. Finally John, writing about AD 95, must have been aware of the birth stories of Matthew and Luke but he, like Mark, includes no Birth Narrative.

At the moment I will focus on the question 'when did the birth of Jesus take place?' In Matt 2:1 he says "in the days of Herod the king". We know from secular sources that Herod (the Great) died in 4 BC. This would suggest that Jesus was born in the last few years of Herod's reign perhaps between 7 and 4 BC. When we turn to Luke we are immediately perplexed. In Luke 2:1-3 he says that it was during a world-wide census "when Quirinius was governor of Syria". We know that Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth in Galilee. We also know that in AD 6 Galilee was attached to Syria and that Quirinius immediately called a census. Already we have a discrepancy of at least 9 years (there is no year '0').


More needs to be said about the census. There is no record of a comprehensive census of the entire (Roman) world. In those days a census was much different than those of today. In Italy periodic censuses were ordered to enroll all men of military age but this happened only in Italy. Elsewhere in the Empire a census had a quite different purpose --- it was to enroll the value of land and/or business assets for the purpose of taxation. Such a census did not require that people return to their ancient home town. Can you just imagine the massive dislocation that would entail? The Romans were a very practical people and the census was not focused on people at all. The census dealt with land and business in place for the purpose of taxation and likely involved an inspection of the property. In the colonies the Romans employed the notorious system of tax farming. This system resulted in very onerous tax burdens.

The Jews of Galilee knew this well and so when Quirinius ordered his census they rose in revolt under the leadership of Rabbi Judas of Galilee. Incidentally Judas was regarded as a messiah. His revolt met with some initial success but a Roman Army dispatched from Syria defeated them. Rabbi Judas with about 2000 of his rebels were captured and they were crucified en masse at Sephoris (just an easy walk from Nazareth). If Luke was correct in his dating then Jesus would have just been born. On the other hand if Matthew was correct Jesus would have been about ten and could possibly have witnessed some of the events surrounding the revolt.

It is hardly necessary to point out that these two Birth Narratives not only contradict each other but they also contradict the historical record.

 

[Josiah]

When the Birth Narrative is examined objectively and in detail one is left with some real questions as to just how historically accurate it is.

Since you reject the truth of Scripture, it seems irrelevant to discuss what Scripture says.

It is hardly necessary to point out that these two Birth Narratives not only contradict each other

No.

but they also contradict the historical record.

So, what "Historical record" of the birth of Jesus do you regard as more reliable than the Bible? What specific record of that event would you have us accept instead?




.

 

[pinacled]

I am very familiar with the Biblical birth narratives.

When the Birth Narrative is examined objectively and in detail one is left with some real questions as to just how historically accurate it is. The earliest New Testament writer, Paul, makes scant reference to the birth of Jesus except to say that it was "according to the flesh" which I would read to mean 'perfectly natural --- nothing special'. About 15 years later the next writer, Mark, makes no mention of the birth at all and begins his narrative with the baptitsm of Jesus. Both Matthew and Luke, writing some 10 to 15 years after Mark, treat the birth in some detail but contradict each other considerably. The first suggestion of the “virgin birth” is in Matthew and that seems to be based on a misinterpretation of a passage in Isaiah. Finally John, writing about AD 95, must have been aware of the birth stories of Matthew and Luke but he, like Mark, includes no Birth Narrative.

At the moment I will focus on the question 'when did the birth of Jesus take place?' In Matt 2:1 he says "in the days of Herod the king". We know from secular sources that Herod (the Great) died in 4 BC. This would suggest that Jesus was born in the last few years of Herod's reign perhaps between 7 and 4 BC. When we turn to Luke we are immediately perplexed. In Luke 2:1-3 he says that it was during a world-wide census "when Quirinius was governor of Syria". We know that Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth in Galilee. We also know that in AD 6 Galilee was attached to Syria and that Quirinius immediately called a census. Already we have a discrepancy of at least 9 years (there is no year '0').


More needs to be said about the census. There is no record of a comprehensive census of the entire (Roman) world. In those days a census was much different than those of today. In Italy periodic censuses were ordered to enroll all men of military age but this happened only in Italy. Elsewhere in the Empire a census had a quite different purpose --- it was to enroll the value of land and/or business assets for the purpose of taxation. Such a census did not require that people return to their ancient home town. Can you just imagine the massive dislocation that would entail? The Romans were a very practical people and the census was not focused on people at all. The census dealt with land and business in place for the purpose of taxation and likely involved an inspection of the property. In the colonies the Romans employed the notorious system of tax farming. This system resulted in very onerous tax burdens.

The Jews of Galilee knew this well and so when Quirinius ordered his census they rose in revolt under the leadership of Rabbi Judas of Galilee. Incidentally Judas was regarded as a messiah. His revolt met with some initial success but a Roman Army dispatched from Syria defeated them. Rabbi Judas with about 2000 of his rebels were captured and they were crucified en masse at Sephoris (just an easy walk from Nazareth). If Luke was correct in his dating then Jesus would have just been born. On the other hand if Matthew was correct Jesus would have been about ten and could possibly have witnessed some of the events surrounding the revolt.

It is hardly necessary to point out that these two Birth Narratives not only contradict each other but they also contradict the historical record.

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.

2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

3 And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.]


Who is quirinius?

Quirinius: An Archaeological Biography

“In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) And …

biblearchaeologyreport.com

 

[Lamb]

I am very familiar with the Biblical birth narratives.

When the Birth Narrative is examined objectively and in detail one is left with some real questions as to just how historically accurate it is. The earliest New Testament writer, Paul, makes scant reference to the birth of Jesus except to say that it was "according to the flesh" which I would read to mean 'perfectly natural --- nothing special'. About 15 years later the next writer, Mark, makes no mention of the birth at all and begins his narrative with the baptitsm of Jesus. Both Matthew and Luke, writing some 10 to 15 years after Mark, treat the birth in some detail but contradict each other considerably. The first suggestion of the “virgin birth” is in Matthew and that seems to be based on a misinterpretation of a passage in Isaiah. Finally John, writing about AD 95, must have been aware of the birth stories of Matthew and Luke but he, like Mark, includes no Birth Narrative.

At the moment I will focus on the question 'when did the birth of Jesus take place?' In Matt 2:1 he says "in the days of Herod the king". We know from secular sources that Herod (the Great) died in 4 BC. This would suggest that Jesus was born in the last few years of Herod's reign perhaps between 7 and 4 BC. When we turn to Luke we are immediately perplexed. In Luke 2:1-3 he says that it was during a world-wide census "when Quirinius was governor of Syria". We know that Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth in Galilee. We also know that in AD 6 Galilee was attached to Syria and that Quirinius immediately called a census. Already we have a discrepancy of at least 9 years (there is no year '0').


More needs to be said about the census. There is no record of a comprehensive census of the entire (Roman) world. In those days a census was much different than those of today. In Italy periodic censuses were ordered to enroll all men of military age but this happened only in Italy. Elsewhere in the Empire a census had a quite different purpose --- it was to enroll the value of land and/or business assets for the purpose of taxation. Such a census did not require that people return to their ancient home town. Can you just imagine the massive dislocation that would entail? The Romans were a very practical people and the census was not focused on people at all. The census dealt with land and business in place for the purpose of taxation and likely involved an inspection of the property. In the colonies the Romans employed the notorious system of tax farming. This system resulted in very onerous tax burdens.

The Jews of Galilee knew this well and so when Quirinius ordered his census they rose in revolt under the leadership of Rabbi Judas of Galilee. Incidentally Judas was regarded as a messiah. His revolt met with some initial success but a Roman Army dispatched from Syria defeated them. Rabbi Judas with about 2000 of his rebels were captured and they were crucified en masse at Sephoris (just an easy walk from Nazareth). If Luke was correct in his dating then Jesus would have just been born. On the other hand if Matthew was correct Jesus would have been about ten and could possibly have witnessed some of the events surrounding the revolt.

It is hardly necessary to point out that these two Birth Narratives not only contradict each other but they also contradict the historical record.

When you discard God's Word as being true then you pretty much devalue whatever it is you try to claim.

 

[JRT]

When you discard God's Word as being true then you pretty much devalue whatever it is you try to claim.

I approach the bible much like a prospector would approach his claim. I am prepared to search for the shining nuggets of wisdom and insight but I am also prepared to have to shift a lot of rubble in order to find them. I do not discard God's Word" for the simple reason that it is wrong to describe the Bible as such.

 

[Lamb]

I approach the bible much like a prospector would approach his claim. I am prepared to search for the shining nuggets of wisdom and insight but I am also prepared to have to shift a lot of rubble in order to find them. I do not discard God's Word" for the simple reason that it is wrong to describe the Bible as such.

What document could ever hold any higher esteem for a Christian? I mean, the Holy scriptures are God-breathed. There are no other documents that are like that. So to go to any others to give proof or evidence is not going to hold any clout here.

 

[JRT]

What document could ever hold any higher esteem for a Christian? I mean, the Holy scriptures are God-breathed. There are no other documents that are like that. So to go to any others to give proof or evidence is not going to hold any clout here.

It has taken me many decades to form my beliefs and that faith journey has not been an easy one. Forty years ago I thought that I was a very rare bird but since then I have found that I have plenty of very good company. Others have walked and are walking a similar faith journey. I certainly do not drag the name of Jesus through the mud when I take a respectful but objective view of his life and teachings. To me, Jesus is what a complete and fulfilled human life looks like. He is my brother and my teacher. He has pointed me powerfully in the direction of God. I try to look in that direction and not to stare at his finger. I try always to live an ethical and a moral life serving God and mankind in peace and in hope and in love. I do not always succeed but that just encourages me to try again and try harder. When I present my beliefs it is not in an effort to convert anyone but rather to share my faith journey in fellowship just as others share theirs. I can honestly say that I understand your position because it was mine at one time.

 

[Confessional Lutheran]

Yeah, Jesus was born in a stable because there was no room for them to stay in a guest house. I know that our society has to do all it can to contradict the Word of God with theories that are themselves unproven ( and yet are accepted as " Gospel"), but our society is just as fallen as the rest of unredeemed humanity. The Holy Scriptures are reliable, can be whole heartedly trusted and they should be. Here are a few links that might be profitable to Christians who might be hearing the voice of the world a little too loudly right now: Martin Luther, the Rule of Faith, and the Bible - Mere Orthodoxy | Christianity, Politics, and Culture, The Creation of Adam and Eve according to Martin Luther - World Wide Wolfmueller, Brief Statement of LCMS Doctrinal Position - The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, Statement of Scriptural and Confessional Principles - The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (lcms.org). I can only pray that those souls reading this would click on these links.

It's too easy to forget that some things are a matter of eternal importance to souls and souls are reading these entries through human eyes. When I was younger, I wanted to reconcile secular science with Holy Scripture myself and fancied myself a fine philosopher. That leads to a very bleak and depressing wilderness. God saw what I was doing and He had mercy on me and I can only hope that He will use the testimonies of good Christians like @Lämmchen, @ImaginaryDay2 and @Josiah to lead people away from what is essentially a secular " theology" that relies on faith as much as it does on evidence. May the Lord's peace be with you all.

 

[Lamb]

It has taken me many decades to form my beliefs and that faith journey has not been an easy one. Forty years ago I thought that I was a very rare bird but since then I have found that I have plenty of very good company. Others have walked and are walking a similar faith journey. I certainly do not drag the name of Jesus through the mud when I take a respectful but objective view of his life and teachings. To me, Jesus is what a complete and fulfilled human life looks like. He is my brother and my teacher. He has pointed me powerfully in the direction of God. I try to look in that direction and not to stare at his finger. I try always to live an ethical and a moral life serving God and mankind in peace and in hope and in love. I do not always succeed but that just encourages me to try again and try harder. When I present my beliefs it is not in an effort to convert anyone but rather to share my faith journey in fellowship just as others share theirs. I can honestly say that I understand your position because it was mine at one time.

If it weren't for God's Word then you wouldn't even know Jesus.

 

[pinacled]

Yeah, Jesus was born in a stable because there was no room for them to stay in a guest house. I know that our society has to do all it can to contradict the Word of God with theories that are themselves unproven ( and yet are accepted as " Gospel"), but our society is just as fallen as the rest of unredeemed humanity. The Holy Scriptures are reliable, can be whole heartedly trusted and they should be. Here are a few links that might be profitable to Christians who might be hearing the voice of the world a little too loudly right now: Martin Luther, the Rule of Faith, and the Bible - Mere Orthodoxy | Christianity, Politics, and Culture, The Creation of Adam and Eve according to Martin Luther - World Wide Wolfmueller, Brief Statement of LCMS Doctrinal Position - The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, Statement of Scriptural and Confessional Principles - The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (lcms.org). I can only pray that those souls reading this would click on these links.

It's too easy to forget that some things are a matter of eternal importance to souls and souls are reading these entries through human eyes. When I was younger, I wanted to reconcile secular science with Holy Scripture myself and fancied myself a fine philosopher. That leads to a very bleak and depressing wilderness. God saw what I was doing and He had mercy on me and I can only hope that He will use the testimonies of good Christians like @Lämmchen, @ImaginaryDay2 and @Josiah to lead people away from what is essentially a secular " theology" that relies on faith as much as it does on evidence. May the Lord's peace be with you all.

How do you know he was born in a stable.
What evidence is there?

 

[Josiah]

How do you know he was born in a stable.
What evidence is there?

The Bible says nothing about animals or a stable.....

However, it does mention a manger (used to feed animals), and some hold this IMPLIES animals. However, we cannot know for sure since mangers were portable and may simply have been used by the Holy Family.

Ancient TRADITION says that Jesus was born in a cave in which animals were kept. And this certainly is textually POSSIBLE and personally I'd give that tradition considerable weight, but we can't be sure and the Bible does not say that.

The text IS reliable... but sometimes it's important to note what the Bible SAYS and does NOT say.


A blessed Christmas season to all....


Josiah



.

 

[Confessional Lutheran]

How do you know he was born in a stable.
What evidence is there?

You suppose they put feeding troughs in the same areas where humans live?
Manger | Definition of Manger by Merriam-Webster (merriam-webster.com)

Tradition based on evidence gleaned from the Bible is how I know that the Blessed Virgin Mary gave birth to Our Lord and Savior in the humblest of circumstances, in space provided for livestock. Many truths we cling to we cling to by faith, backed up by Scripture and centuries of tradition Why was Jesus born in a manger? | GotQuestions.org.

 

[pinacled]

You suppose they put feeding troughs in the same areas where humans live?
Manger | Definition of Manger by Merriam-Webster (merriam-webster.com)

Tradition based on evidence gleaned from the Bible is how I know that the Blessed Virgin Mary gave birth to Our Lord and Savior in the humblest of circumstances, in space provided for livestock. Many truths we cling to we cling to by faith, backed up by Scripture and centuries of tradition Why was Jesus born in a manger? | GotQuestions.org.

Most live stock would be grazing for food. A trough may of possibly been used for watering during times when an animal was away from a water source. Many wells are historically known of throughout the whole of israel.
As for a nomadic people such as shepherds living in tents or a family caravan traveling long distances.
Sure, yes they would have their livestock very close to their homes/tents.

Tradition is a cultural reflection of a certain era.
Manger wasn't even defined until The 14 century.

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
The Greek word translated "manger" also means "stall", for example:

• Luke 13:15 . . Does not each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or his donkey from
the stall, and lead him away to water?

A stall would've provided Jesus' mom a measure of privacy during delivery; and
instead of having Joseph pick Jesus up and put him in a feed box, Mary could've just laid
him down right beside her on some straw.

I wish I had thought of that scenario before composing the OP. It was a good idea, but not
quite as good as this one.
_

 

[pinacled]

.
The Greek word translated "manger" also means "stall", for example:

• Luke 13:15 . . Does not each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or his donkey from
the stall, and lead him away to water?

A stall would've provided Jesus' mom a measure of privacy during delivery; and
instead of having Joseph pick Jesus up and put him in a feed box, Mary could've just laid
him down right beside her on some straw.

I wish I had thought of that scenario before composing the OP. It was a good idea, but not
quite as good as this one.
_

Stall: definition
stop or cause to stop making progress.

Ox and donkey (animals mostly used for laboring purpose) that are confined in this particular sense or use of stall refers to a fence or confined area. Similar to corralled.
The context of untie release to graze or water at a source is plainly mentioned by The Lord in this lesson.
Malachi 4
In no means does the word stall in context refer to a shelter or barn.
It is a release from laborious duty.
If no men are working on shabbat in obedience to torah. Then neither are the ox or donkey. Instead they both are resting and renourishing.
" binding and loosing...."

Blessings Always

 

[pinacled]

The Bible says nothing about animals or a stable.....

However, it does mention a manger (used to feed animals), and some hold this IMPLIES animals. However, we cannot know for sure since mangers were portable and may simply have been used by the Holy Family.

Ancient TRADITION says that Jesus was born in a cave in which animals were kept. And this certainly is textually POSSIBLE and personally I'd give that tradition considerable weight, but we can't be sure and the Bible does not say that.

The text IS reliable... but sometimes it's important to note what the Bible SAYS and does NOT say.


A blessed Christmas season to all....


Josiah



.

I agree that a cave is very plausible considering the topography of the area traveled. Along with the fact that a large caravan(camel/donkey/and families) would have been very lacking in privacy.
Ie crowded and busy with all the individual burdens of traveling.

Where as a barn or stable are not part of the hebrew culture nor agriculture during our Lords time.


Blessings Always