197 



497th ordinary GENERAL MEETING. 

 MONDAY, MAY 3rd, 1909. 



Professor E. Hull, LL.D., F.R.S. (Vice-President), 

 IN THE Chair. 



The Minutes of the previous Meeciiig were read and confirmed, and 

 the following candidates were elected Associates : — 



Rev. H. J. R. Marston, Belgrave Chapel, London. 

 Rev. J. H. Skrine, Oxford. 



The following paper was then read by the author : — 



THE DATE OF THE NATIVITY WAS 8 B.C. 

 By Lieut.-Colonel G. Mackinlay, late R.A. 



IT is well to consider the practical usefulness of our subject, 

 because the ready objection starts up, Dates are dry 

 things, what possible difference can it make whether we know 

 the exact date of the Nativity or not ? 



At the beginning of the sixth century it was the custom 

 among the peoples of the old Roman Empire to date events from 

 the time of the persecuting tyrant Diocletian, but in a.d. 532 a 

 Christian Abbot named Dionysius Exiguus* suggested that it 

 would be far better that the Nativity of Christ (as nearly as 

 ■could then be found) should be taken as the epoch from which 

 to count. His suguestion was agreed to and adopted by all the 

 Christian nations of the world from that time to the present. 

 It surely must be a matter of interest to all who date letters to 

 know whether this starting point of modern time is correct or 

 not. 



But there are far more important reasons which appeal to the 

 lover of Scripture, for if this date is found to be the true one, 

 the speculations of the visionaries who assert that the Gospel 

 narratives are mere myths must be overthrown, and the 



A New Anahjsis of Chronology^ 1830, vol. i, p. 83, Rev. W. Hales, D.D. 



