« A couple full days in Bayonne. | Main | Basque ratatouille, or, never wonder what to do with too many zucchini again. »

05 December 2018

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

mandamum

I read or heard something once that suggested that "manger" might not have meant, as we think of it, a small box. It might have been a bigger area filled with hay, and the whole family might have been sleeping in that hay, so to lay him there might just have meant "as opposed to a bed in the inn" and have been *with* his mother rather than *away from* her. One alternative understanding.

Melanie

I love this reflection.

In regards to mandamum's comment, I saw something similar come across my screen this week. I don't know how solid the scholarship is, but it's interesting that there's a debate.

https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/once-more-jesus-was-not-born-in-a-stable/?fbclid=IwAR2SOx0abs-qaY3MbVVFlIiLxmgh1pttyw7gUwQWdvXF9ccaU2WOUqyf29o

bearing

Melanie, that’s really interesting (and a lot of it rings true).

I know most of the “it wasn’t a stable” protests I have seen tend to insist on it being a cave, and then draw some parallel between that and the new tomb.

Whether the “inn” was an inn or not, I maintain that the “no room in the(somewhere intended for hospitality” is a meaningful passage—there just aren’t any wasted words.

I would like to see a crèche/nativity scene built after the plan put forth in the article! Wouldn’t that be a great diorama-type project for an interested kid?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Screen Shot 2015-07-19 at 6.07.09 PM
My Photo

I think I read something somewhere about this

  • Google

    WWW
    bearing blog

Become a Fan