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.