208 LIEUT. -COLONEL G. MACKINLAY^ THE DATE 



the expression " about thirty " must mean an age some few 

 years not months more than thirty. 



The historical data available for determinincf the date of the 

 Nativity are thus seen to be by no means scanty. There is 

 considerable direct historical evidence, both Biblical and secular ; 

 the rulers of the day, Csesar Augustus, Quirinius, Herod, and 

 Archelaus, are all referred to in the sacred narrative, as was 

 usual in ancient historical records. Various cycles or regularly 

 recurring periods lend their aid : they are (1) The cycle of 

 lunar eclipses, as one of them gives certitude ro the date of 

 Herod's death, which in its turn gives a limit to the possible 

 date of the Nativity. (2) The cycle of Koman Enrolments every 

 fourteen years. (3) The eight years' cycle of the shining of the 

 Morning Star, as will be mentioned later on. (4) The seven 

 years' cycle of the Sabbath year. (5) The annual cycle of the 

 seasons which indicated times suitable and unsuitable for the cen- 

 sus. (6) The annual cycle of the three great Feasts of the Lord, 

 chiefly that of Tabernacles. (7) The woman's calendar of 

 forty weeks. (8) The priests' courses of twenty-four weeks. 

 (9) The forty days of the Purification. (10) The monthly cycle 

 of the moon's phases is several times employed. (11) The 

 week of seven days indicates the duration of each course of the 

 priests ; and (12) The daily cycle of day and night is made use 

 of, for we are told that the Nativity occurred at night (Luke 

 ii, 8, 11). Also we are helped in our search by considering 

 (1) The difference of five months between the ages of the 

 Baptist and his Master ; (2) The customs of the people ; (3) The 

 policy of Herod ; (4) The condition of the Virgin Mary on 

 her journey to Bethlehem ; (5) The arrangement of sheep at 

 different seasons of the year ; and (6) The meaning of one or 

 two Greek grammatical expressions — all conspire to indicate 

 8 B.C. as the year of the Nativity. What other historical event 

 in ancient, or even in modern history, is dated by such a 

 quantity and variety of concordant evidence ? 



The foregoing arguments have not yet been controverted. No 

 one has, however, criticised this chronology in any detail, with 

 the exception of Sir W. M. Eanisay, who generously wrote in 

 1907 that the evidence in favour of the date 6 B.C. for the 

 Nativity, which until then had generally been accepted as 

 probable, "is distinctly slighter in character than that which 

 supports the date 8 B.C." In 1908 he wrote again,* " This date 

 8 B.C. may now be accepted provisionally (for the Nativity) as 



* The Expositor, Dec, 1908, and Luke the Physician, 1908, p. 246. 



