The California Collection/TheCaliforniaCollection.cdr/his126/xmas.arj/XMAS.TXT

Text File | 1989-07-08 | 6KB | 117 lines

   Jeffrey, Grant R., "ARMAGEDDON Appointment with Destiny",
   Frontier Research Publications, Toronto, 1988

   Appendix B (page 225)

   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.