PRO:The date of Christ's Nativity  by Grant R. Jeffrey

   The Date of Christ's Nativity

   Our current system of numbering years (e.g. A.D. 1988) was developed
in the sixth century by a monk named Dionysius Exiguus. He calculated
the birth of Christ as having occured in the Roman year 754. He
computed the New Year, beginning January 1 of the year following
Christ's birth as recorded by Luke, as the year A.D. 1 of his calendar
(Anno Domini--"Year of God-Christ"). He based this calculation on the
historical records available to him in Rome, plus the clear
chronological statements fo the historian Luke (3:1-2). The Christian
historian, Eusebius, in A.D. 315, appealed to existing Roman government
records (the census of Cyrenius and Caesar Agustus) to prove that
Christ was born in Bethlehem when Joseph and Mary went there to be
enrolled in the census, as mentioned in Luke 2:1-6. Justin Martyr also
stated that census records were still available to prove the truth of
Christ's prophesied birth in Bethlehem (Apology, Chapter 1, verse 34).
It is therefore probable that the monk, Dionysius, had access to
accurate records to determine that the birth of Christ occurred in the
year before A.D. 1, which would be the fall of the year 1 B.C. since
there is only one year between 1 B.C. and A.D. 1.

   Scholars discovered evidence several hundred years ago that caused
them to adjust the date of Christ's nativity back to 4 B.C., or even 6
B.C. One reason was that they believed that the governor of Syria,
Cyrenius (who administered the taxing in Luke 2:1-3), ruled in that
position from 7 B.C. to 4 B.C. However, more recent archeological
evidence has proved that Cyrenius was twice governor of Syria, and that
his first period of rule was from 4 B.C. to 1 B.C.

   In his book, "The Coming Prince", pg. 92, Sir Robert Anderson said:

   In his Roman history, Mr. Merivale...says (vol. IV, pg. 457), 'A
remarkable light has been thrown upon the point by the demonstration,
as it seems to be, of Agustus Zumpt in his second volume of
"Commentationes Epigraphicae", that Quirinus (the Cyrenius of St. Luke
II) was first governor of Syria from the close of A.U. 750 (B.C. 4), to
A.U. 753 (B.C.1).'

   Therefore, there is no contradiction with the time of Cyrenius's
first Syrian governorship (4 B.C. to 1 B.C.) and the census of Luke
2:1-3 occurring during 1 B.C., as stated by the early Christian writers.

   Another factor which caused the date of Christ's birth to be
adjusted back several years to 4 B.C. was that some scholars believed
that King Herod's death (which followed Christ's birth) must have
occurred in 4 B.C. The reason for assigning 4 B.C. for the death of
Herod was that the Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, recorded that
Herod died just before Passover in the same year that there was an
eclipse of the moon. Astronimers know of a partial lunar eclipse in
Jerusalem on March 13, 4 B.C.; therefore, scholars were certain this
proved that Herod had died and Christ was born in 4 B.C.

   However, additional astronomical evidence has revealed that the date
of Herod's death could be as late as 1 B.C. or A.D.1, allowing Christ's
birth to have occurred in 1 B.C. We now know that a full (not a
partial) lunar eclipse took place on January 9, 1 B.C., which could
well be the one referred to by Josephus in "Antiquities of the
Jews"(Book XVII, chapter 6). Astronimical records reveal that eclipses
of the moon were visible in Jerusalem during several years from 5 B.C.
to A.D. 4, for example: March 23, 5 B.C., September 15, 5 B.C., March
12, 4 B.C. and January 9, 1 B.C. ("Bible Encyclopedia and Scriptural
Dictionary," Pg. 423, by Rev. Samuel Fallows).

   In the light of these facts, Christ's nativity could have occurred
as early as 4 B.C. or as late as 1 B.C. This author believes (Grant R.
Jeffery) the weight of evidence leans toward the Fall of 1 B.C., which
agrees with the understanding and tradition of the early Church.

   The traditional date set for Christmas, December 25th, is almost
certainly an error. Around A.D. 320, the church adopted the date of
December 25 to officially celebrate the nativity, under the direction
of the first Christian Roman emperor, Constantine. Apparently, the
reason for picking this particular day was to replace the already
existing pagan festival to the sun, known as Saturnalia. The
information given in Luke 2:8, about the "shepherds abiding in the
field, keeping watch over the flock by night," indicates that it could
not have been in late December because the cold weather would force the
flocks and the shepherds to take shelter during that season.

   The Scriptures give a hint that the actual date of Christ's birth
could have been the fifteenth day of Tishri, the Feast of Tabernacles,
which occurs in our September-October. The Gospel of John (1:14)
states, "And the Word was made flesh, and tabernacled [dwelt] among
us." John would certainly be in a position to know Jesus' birthday and
it is probable that he is hinting at the Feast of Tabernacles as the
actual date by using the unusual word "tabernacled" to describe
Christ's birth. The fact that some forty other key events in the
spiritual history of Israel have occurred on biblical anniversaries of
feast days would indicate a high probablility that the birth of the
Jewish Messiah would also occur on a feast date (in this case the Feast
of Tabernacles, 1 B.C.)

   The Feast of Tabernacles was one of the annual Feasts on which all
Jewish males were required to go to the Temple in Jerusalem to worship.
This would cause a huge pilgrimage and thus a temporary increase in the
population close to Jerusalem, and would help to account for the fact
that "there was no room in the inn" in Bethlehem on the night of
Christ's birth. This census also would contribute to the overcrowding.
