It is generally supposed that Joseph, like Mary, came from Nazareth.  At the time of the census, he travelled, with his wife-to-be, to Bethlehem, his ancestral home.  After Jesus’ birth he took his little family to Egypt, in order to escape the threat of Herod.  And then, after that threat subsided, they returned to their hometown of Nazareth.

Stephen Carlson argues that Bethlehem was Joseph’s actual family home, and not just his ancestral home.  Two reasons: (a) the is no record of a census requiring a man to return to his ancestral home; (b) Lk 2:39 (‘…to a town of their own’) implies that Joseph and Mary made Nazareth their home after the birth.  It would have been usual for a woman to travel to the man’s home town to complete the betrothal ceremonies.

Carlson cites G.H. Box (writing in 1916):

‘If Joseph’s home was in Bethlehem, by taking Mary, his betrothed, with him when he left Nazareth for his home-town, he was performing the central and public act which proclaimed the marriage’.

Then they made their home in Mary’s own town.

So, to investigate further:

It is clear enough that Mary herself hailed from Nazareth:

‘The angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, a descendant of David, and the virgin’s name was Mary.’ (Lk 1:26f)

But what about Joseph?  At the time of the census:

‘Everyone went to his own town to be registered.  So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family line of David.  He went to be registered with Mary, who was promised in marriage to him, and who was expecting a child.’ (Lk 2:3-5)

The usual way of interpreting this is to say that Joseph too lived in Nazareth, and that he had to return to his ancestral home of Bethlehem for the purpose of the census.  The problem with this is that there is no evidence that people were required to travel to their ancestral homes in order to be registered.

Look again at Lk 2:3 – ‘Everyone went to his own town to be registered.’  This rather strongly implies that Bethlehem was Joseph’s ‘own town’; i.e., his home town.

The clause translated, ‘because he was of the house and family line of David’ is not necessarily explanatory.  It could just mean, ‘being of the house and family line of David.’  In other words, that phrase does not indicate a special reason why Joseph had to make the journey, but simply states a fact that is significant for other reasons (underlining the royal lineage of both Joseph and Jesus).

What, then, was Joseph doing in Nazareth, if he didn’t live there?  He was there to care for his wife-to-be, with a view to taking her to his own home town in order for them to live together there as man and wife.  Note that betrothal was a closer and more binding tie then than it is now, and that the custom was for a married couple to make their home in the husband’s locality, not the wife’s.

All of this sheds some light on the famous words of Lk 2:6f

‘While they were there, the time came for her to deliver her child.  And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in strips of cloth and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.’

I have explained elsewhere that the probable meaning is that Mary ‘laid him in a manger, because there was no room in the place where they were staying.’  In other words, they were staying in the guest room of the house of Joseph’s family, but due to the cramped conditions the new-born baby had to be laid in a feeding-trough (which may well have been situated between the guest room and the place where the animals were kept overnight).  The significance of the manger is not to suggest (contrary to tradition) that Jesus was born in a stable, but rather to prepare the way for the ‘sign’ that the angels would shortly give to the shepherds:

Lk 2:12 “This will be a sign for you: You will find a baby wrapped in strips of cloth and lying in a manger.”

What, then, of Lk 2:39? –

‘When Joseph and Mary had performed everything according to the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth.’ (Italics added)

Now, this is the usual way of translating the italicised words.  But the earlier and manuscripts lack the article, and so the meaning is not, ‘They went to the town of their own, Nazareth, but rather,

‘They went to Galilee, to a town of their own, Nazareth’, or, in more idiomatic English, ‘They went to Galilee, and made their home in Nazareth.’

We have some corroboration from Matthew:

‘When [Joseph] heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. After being warned in a dream, he went to the regions of Galilee.  He came to a town called Nazareth and lived there.’ (Mt 2:22f)

As previously stated, the usual procedure would be for a new family to live in the locality of the father.  Joseph’s intention to take Mary and Jesus to Judea (presumably, to Bethlehem in Judea) would make best sense if he himself came from Bethlehem.

Carlson quotes Brown as noting the suggestion that Joseph was returning to his own home town after having visited Nazareth to claim Mary has his bride.  Brown objects that ‘These suggestions run against the reference to Nazareth as ‘their own city’ in Lk 2:29 and against the indication in that Joseph had no place to stay in Bethlehem in Lk 2:7.  But, as Carlson points out, these objections are not conclusive, for Lk 2:29 can be understood as the couple making a home of their own in Nazareth (with no implication that it was the home of town of both of them), and Lk 2:7 does not say that the family had no place to stay, but rather that there was no place to accommodate their newborn baby.

Carlson concludes:

‘Joseph took his betrothed Mary from Nazareth to Bethlehem (Lk 2:5). Bethlehem was his home town (v. 3) and, in accordance with the patrilocal marital customs of the day, it must also have been the place where they finalized their matrimonial arrangements by bringing her into his home. As a newly married man, he no longer would have to sleep in the main room of the village house with his other relatives, but he and his bride could stay in a marital chamber attached to the house until they could get a place of their own. They stayed there for some time until she came to full term (v. 6), and she gave birth to Jesus in the main room of the house rather than in her marital apartment because it was too small, and she laid the newborn in one of those mangers (v. 7) common to the main room of an ancient farmhouse. After staying at least another forty days in Bethlehem (v. 22; cf. Lev 12:2-8), Joseph and Mary eventually moved to Nazareth to make their home together in her family’s town (v. 39; cf. Lk 1.26-27).’

One question that arises from Carlson’s discussion if this: if Mary was from Nazareth, and Joseph from Bethlehem (90 miles away), how did they meet?  A hint is found in Lk 1:39, when we learn that Mary had relatives ‘in the hill country of Judea’.  Alternatively, Joseph’s work as a carpenter/builder/stone mason may have taken him up to the Nazareth area, where nearby work was to be had.

A plausible scenario would be:

• Mary’s home was in Nazareth in Galilee (Lk 1:26f).
• Joseph’s actual (as well as his ancestral) home was Bethlehem in Judea (Lk 2:1).
• They may have met either during Mary’s trips down to visit her relatives in Judea (Lk 1:39) or while Joseph was in the Nazareth area.  Joseph, being a builder, carpenter or stone-mason, may have moved there temporarily to undertake work at Sepphoris, just 6 km away.
• The census (Lk 2:1) was before the better-known one that took place under Quirinius (Lk 2:1).  When people were summoned to their home towns, Joseph returned to Bethlehem.  He took Mary with him, partly to protect and care for her, and partly because they intended to make Bethlehem their home.
• When they reached Bethlehem they stayed in the house of Joseph and his family or relatives.  There was insufficient space in the guest room for Mary to give birth and care for her baby, (and to accommodate the midwife and others who would have been in attendance).  So Mary gave birth downstairs, near to the animals’ night quarters (Lk 2:7).  The baby was laid in the animal’s feeding trough, and this was the ‘sign’ to the shepherds confirming the angel’s message (Lk 2:12).
• The family made to short distance to Jerusalem for the purification rites (Lk 2:22), and then returned to Bethlehem.  There, as mentioned, they intended to make their home.
• After some months the magi arrived at ‘the house’ and saw ‘the child’, leaving their precious gifts (Mt 2:11).  But King Herod had learned from the Magi about the birth, and determined to kill the young ‘pretender’ to his throne (Mt 2:8).
• Joseph, having been warned in a dream, took his family to Egypt, where they would have been made welcome by the large Jewish community there, and where he would have been able to find work.  The gifts of the Magi would have helped to defray the costs of travel and so on.
• After a year or so, news came that Herod was dead.  Joseph would have intended to take his family back to Bethlehem, and settle there.  But Archelaus, who was now reigning in Judea, was just as dangerous as his father.  So they made their home in Nazareth (Lk 2:39).

Did Joseph have two homes?

The intriguing possibility that Joseph had two homes – one in Nazareth and the other in Bethlehem – is explored by Jimmy Akin.

Akin urges that this theory is not driven by a desire to harmonise Matthew and Luke.  It is, rather suggested by an attentive reading of Luke’s Gospel on its own.

We would infer from Lk 1:26f that Joseph probably resided in Nazareth.

But Lk 2:1-4 similarly implies that Joseph’s ‘own city’ was Bethlehem.  This was his ‘legal residence’ and he needed to appear there for taxation purposes.

It would seem, then, that

‘Joseph’s primary legal residence was in Bethlehem, and so he returned there. He had been away in Nazareth, where he was betrothed to Mary, but now he came back to comply with the enrollment requirement.’

According to Lk 2:39, Joseph and Mary returned to their ‘own city’ of Nazareth.  So,

‘Joseph thus had two residences, with stronger ties for legal/governmental purposes to Bethlehem, indicating it was his primary place of legal residence.’

Why, then, did Joseph have a home in Nazareth?  Possibly because there was work to be had in that area (see above).  Or because he had family living there, as well as in Bethlehem.  Note Lk 2:41-44, which says that Joseph and Mary sought the missing Jesus ‘among their kinsfolk’, who had, presumably travelled with them from Nazareth to Jerusalem and back again.

If Joseph had a legal residence in Bethlehem, why did they seek to stay in an ‘inn’ (Lk 2:7)?  The well-rehearsed answer is, of course, that that the kataluma is unlikely to have been an inn (for which the usual work would be pandocheion) but rather a guest room in the ‘family’ house.

No room in the kataluma means, then that the guest room was somewhat crowded and/or somewhere more private was needed for the birth of the new-born baby.  Moreover, childbirth produced fluids were considered ritually unclean (cf Lk 2:22) and the family would not have wished for a more normal living space – the kataluma – to be polluted in this way.

As for the economics of Joseph owning, or having a financial stake in, two properties, we should not allow modern arrangements to cloud the issue.  The Bethlehem would have been owned outright (either by Joseph himself of other members of his family), and there would have been no auxilliary costs such as electricity, water and so on.  There were just the taxes to pay – and it was for that reasons Joseph made the journey in the first place.

See also this by Ian Paul.