When Was Jesus Born?

[Rivers]

D&C 20:1

The ^arise of the ^bChurch of Christ in these last days, being one thousand eight hundred and thirty years since the ^ccoming of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in the flesh

To me, this doesn't sound like the Lord is giving the exact date of Christ's birth. It sounds like a fancy way saying 1830 A.D. Especially since scholars are fairly certain that Christ was actually born between 6 and 4 B.C.

[The Nehor]

I concur. Is there anything else backing up the April 6th date? From when I was first pointed at this scripture as evidence the support seemed very shallow.

[David T]

D&C 20:1

To me, this doesn't sound like the Lord is giving the exact date of Christ's birth. It sounds like a fancy way saying 1830 A.D. Especially since scholars are fairly certain that Christ was actually born between 6 and 4 B.C.

Yeah, D&C 20 has nothing to do with any revealed date of Christ's birth. It's unfortunate that Elder Nelson's reprinted talk in this month's' Ensign brings that up again as some sort of prooftext.

The actual answer is pretty much impossible to determine, compounded by the fact that both birth narratives ( Matthew and Luke) are significantly contradictory (popularized and culturally ingrained harmonization attempts aside).

Edited December 5, 2011 by nackhadlow

[thesometimesaint]

6BCE-4CE is the range. He was probably born in the early spring of lambing season.

Edited December 5, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[Sky]

April 6^th is a notable date in Mormon lore. But whether Christ was born on April 6th A.D. 1 or not, I don’t really know. About all I know for sure is that April 6, 1830 was the precise date that the Lord told Joseph to establish the Church. I think everybody realizes that Christ wasn’t born on December 25^th.

[Sky]

Elder Scott flat out said in this General Conference address that Christ was born on April 6th, referencing D&C 20.

Edited December 5, 2011 by Sky

[Cobalt-70]

To me, this doesn't sound like the Lord is giving the exact date of Christ's birth. It sounds like a fancy way saying 1830 A.D. Especially since scholars are fairly certain that Christ was actually born between 6 and 4 B.C.

I agree. Moreover, it is clear that D&C 20, or at least verses 1-36, were not intended as a word-for-word revelation from God. For example, verse 1 references "laws of our country," and clearly this does not mean God's country. This document was the church's Constitution, based on an earlier document written by Oliver Cowdery. So it was in the form of a declaration or proclamation, and I think the date is just a fancy way of saying "the year of our Lord 1830."

If Jesus were actually born in 1 BC, then the Bible was wrong when it said that Jesus was born before King Herod's death.

Edited December 6, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[Freedom]

The following is from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism

Author: Hall, John Franklin

April 6, 1830, is the date on which The church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized. The Prophet Joseph Smith was divinely authorized to reestablish the Church of Christ on this day (seeRestoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ) and it may be the anniversary of the Lord's birth on earth (D&C 20:1). The Church commemorates the importance of April 6 by scheduling its annual General Conference on or near this day.

Concerning the date of Christ's birth, one of the earliest known references to December 25 was in the third century A.D. (Hippolytus, Commentarii in Danielem, 4.23.3). Scholarly consensus recognizes that early Christians probably appropriated December 25 from pagan festivals such as the Dies Natalis Invicti, established by the Emperor Aurelian (cf. Hoehner, pp. 11-27). Controversy, ancient and modern, regarding that date has had little influence in the LDS community (see Christmas). Presidents of the Church, including Harold B. Lee (p. 2) and Spencer W. Kimball (p. 54), have reaffirmed that April 6 is the true anniversary of Christ's birth, but have encouraged Church members to join with other Christians in observing Christmas as a special day for remembering Jesus' birth and teachings.

Some discussion has centered on the actual year of Jesus' nativity. Some argue that the phrase "one thousand eight hundred and thirty years since the coming of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in the flesh" (D&C 20:1) should be interpreted to mean that Christ was born exactly 1,830 years before April 6, 1830 (Lefgren). This view has been both challenged (Brown et al., pp. 375-83) and supported (Pratt, pp. 252-54). Others assert that the phrase was not intended to fix the year of Christ's birth but was simply an oratorical mode of expressing the current year.

Attempts to determine the exact date of Christ's birth or death are complicated by a dearth of pertinent historical information and multiple dating systems. The present dating system derives from the determination that Christ was born in 753 a.u.c. (ab urbe condita -from the founding of the city [of Rome]), made by the Scythian monk Dionysius, commissioned by Pope John 1 in A.D. 525 (1278 a.u.c.). The accuracy of Dionysius' system stands at the center of all discussion concerning the date of Christ's birth (Hoehner, p. 11).

John the Baptist's ministry began in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar (Luke 3:1), the only precise date in the New Testament. The fifteenth year would have begun in September A.D. 28 and ended in September A.D. 29. On this basis alone the dates of Christ's life can be reckoned from the New Testament.

The LDS Church has not taken an official position on the issue of the year of Christ's birth. Bruce R. McConkie, an apostle, offers what for the present appears to be the most definitive word on the question: "We do not believe it is possible with the present state of our knowledge-including that which is known both in and out of the Church-to state with finality when the natal day of the Lord Jesus actually occurred" (Vol. 1, p. 349, n. 2).

[David T]

I highly suggest A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, volume 1: The Roots of the Problem and the Person. Best treatment of chronology and the birth narratives I've seen. This whole series has been fantastic for me, adding new layers to my appreciation of Jesus of Nazareth as a real, living and breathing person living in a very specific time, place, and culture.

[Whiskeypete]

Knowing I am a heretic for suggesting it (and I have in previous years):

Almost all attempts at dating the birth of Christ hinge off of the death of Herod based on the Matthew account. I really struggle with the account of the Nativity in Matthew, mainly because there is absolutely no corroborating accounts of the "Massacre of Innocents" that Matthew recorded, thus requiring Herod the Great to be alive at the time of the Nativity.

Many of the other events of the New Testament (John the Baptist, Ministry of Jesus, reign of the various governors, travels of the apostles) seem to have outside evidence (records of Jewish or Roman historians). To have the king go in and kill all male children age 2 and under in a town or area, one would think that it would have been noticed by someone other than Matthew.

The question I have asked previously, is "if you were to leave out the account of Matthew, and just look at Mark, Luke, John and Acts", what would be the best guess estimates for the dates of the events of the New Testament?" Based on the quote from the EofM above about the ministry of John starting in AD 28 or 29, based on Luke, a 1 BC date for the birth of Christ becomes less problematic.

[cinepro]

Good conversation on this (based on a good article in the Deseret News, discussing a good article in BYU Studies) last year:

Date of Christ's Birth

Edited December 6, 2011 by cinepro

[Rivers]

Its funny to the think that Christ may have been born four years Before Christ. How did the the separation of B.C. and A,D come about anyway?

[blackstrap]

I am always amazed at what is and is not recorded.That NOBODY researched and recorded Christ's Birthday back when there were people around who KNEW,is amazing. That nobody recorded the date of the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood and yet found no problem with the date of the restoration of the Aaronic is amazing. Obviously, I am easily amazed!

[David T]

I am always amazed at what is and is not recorded.That NOBODY researched and recorded Christ's Birthday back when there were people around who KNEW,is amazing.

Birthdays weren't really a big deal to most common people back then. Jesus probably didn't even known his own birthday.

[blackstrap]

Tough not to think that at least Mary would have kept a note in her "treasures"

[thesometimesaint]

blackstrap:

She may have, but if she did it is long gone to the sands of time. This side of The Veil we're likely not to ever know.

[Freedom]

I am always amazed at what is and is not recorded.That NOBODY researched and recorded Christ's Birthday back when there were people around who KNEW,is amazing. That nobody recorded the date of the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood and yet found no problem with the date of the restoration of the Aaronic is amazing. Obviously, I am easily amazed!

You are assuming that we have all the records form that time period. The fact is, we don't even have the original documents of the bible. There is virtually no written record from the time of Jesus; the records either did not survive or have not been discovered. Besides, few people keep a family history and have no idea when significant events occurred even though they have photos and videos of the same.

[Lightbearer]

Elder Scott flat out said in this General Conference address that Christ was born on April 6th, referencing D&C 20.

Thanks for that reference, that is a direct statement in General Conference by an Apostle of Jesus Christ, one who is sustained as a prophet seer and revelator every conference, there is no spectulation there, so for me April 6th is the revealed day in spite of what the world and the wisdom thereof may tell us. Of course around here the words of an apostle spoken in Conference is meaningless. It does not matter if an apostle says it, if it disagrees with the wisdom of men then it obviously is "just his opinion" and General Conference is not to be accepted as "scripture" according to the learned and the wise so-called intellectuals, that is their personal opinions which one can accept or reject at one's own pleasure. Everyone knows that if it is not canonized scripture we are not bound to accept it, even if the Church published manuals declare it as such. Instead we are supposed to put our trust in scholars and the learned for our understanding of sacred history. But I stand with the apostles and prophets myself, that is why I do not frequent this board as much as I have in times past.

[Lightbearer]

Birthdays weren't really a big deal to most common people back then. Jesus probably didn't even known his own birthday.

oh no, birhdays are unimportant, that is why the Christian world has been celebrating this one for two millenia!

[volgadon]

oh no, birhdays are unimportant, that is why the Christian world has been celebrating this one for two millenia!

Nack was saying that for most commoners, their own birthdays as well as those of their family members, weren't particularly important.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

D&C 20:1

To me, this doesn't sound like the Lord is giving the exact date of Christ's birth. It sounds like a fancy way saying 1830 A.D. Especially since scholars are fairly certain that Christ was actually born between 6 and 4 B.C.

I once read something (I believe) in an institute manual that April 6^th was also the day Israel enter Egypt and the day they were delivered; during the Passover. Christ being the deliverer came one the same day and died on the same day.

Does anyone every remember reading this? I know from the Bible that they part about Israel entering Egypt and leaving on the same day.

Edited December 6, 2011 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[Calm]

Even in this day and age in the US with its extensive record system there are still individuals who don't know the exact date of their birth. I remember reading about a debate awhile back about whether an individual was the oldest American then alive, there was a problem because they were uncertain about the birth year.

[Freedom]

Thanks for that reference, that is a direct statement in General Conference by an Apostle of Jesus Christ, one who is sustained as a prophet seer and revelator every conference, there is no spectulation there, so for me April 6th is the revealed day in spite of what the world and the wisdom thereof may tell us. Of course around here the words of an apostle spoken in Conference is meaningless. It does not matter if an apostle says it, if it disagrees with the wisdom of men then it obviously is "just his opinion" and General Conference is not to be accepted as "scripture" according to the learned and the wise so-called intellectuals, that is their personal opinions which one can accept or reject at one's own pleasure. Everyone knows that if it is not canonized scripture we are not bound to accept it, even if the Church published manuals declare it as such. Instead we are supposed to put our trust in scholars and the learned for our understanding of sacred history. But I stand with the apostles and prophets myself, that is why I do not frequent this board as much as I have in times past.

The Church website makes it very clear that the only source of doctrine is the scriptures and the official proclamation. The opinions of individual church leaders is not to be considered doctrine. If you accept this as scripture, you will be in for a lot of doctrinal contradictions as you read through the general conference addresses of the apostles for the past 100 years. Not even the prophet can proclaim doctrine without it first being vetted and approved by the 1st presidency, the quorum of the 12 and then presented to the membership of the church for a sustaining vote.

[Robert F. Smith]

nackhadlow said:

Birthdays weren't really a big deal to most common people back then. Jesus probably didn't even known his own birthday.

Tough not to think that at least Mary would have kept a note in her "treasures"

It is unlikely that Mary and/or Jesus did not know when he was born. The Jewish year was punctuated with festivals and fasts, and the influence of local rulers would have been indelibly impressed on her mind at the very least. Thus, if Herod the Great did die by the spring of 4 B.C., she and her neighbors would have recalled the event the remainder of their lives and would have pinned other events in relation to that, as well as to events in Jerusalem (appearance of Gabriel to the high priest Zacharias, the birth of his son John to Mary's cousin six months before the birth of Jesus -- likewise announced to Mary by Gabriel -- and baby Jesus being taken to the Temple for the formal redemption of the firstborn by the priest Simeon, etc., in a chain of powerful events). She would likely have passed on this extraordinary series of events to young Jesus himself -- as mothers are wont to do.

SInce the years B.C. and A.D. were not yet invented, they would not have placed the date of his birth in that context.

Edited December 7, 2011 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

Thanks for that reference, that is a direct statement in General Conference by an Apostle of Jesus Christ, one who is sustained as a prophet seer and revelator every conference, there is no spectulation there, so for me April 6th is the revealed day in spite of what the world and the wisdom thereof may tell us. Of course around here the words of an apostle spoken in Conference is meaningless. It does not matter if an apostle says it, if it disagrees with the wisdom of men then it obviously is "just his opinion" and General Conference is not to be accepted as "scripture" according to the learned and the wise so-called intellectuals, that is their personal opinions which one can accept or reject at one's own pleasure. Everyone knows that if it is not canonized scripture we are not bound to accept it, even if the Church published manuals declare it as such. Instead we are supposed to put our trust in scholars and the learned for our understanding of sacred history. But I stand with the apostles and prophets myself, that is why I do not frequent this board as much as I have in times past.

I feel your pain . . .

However, the relevant fact about the widely varying views of the Brethren on this matter is that they do not declare their views on the date of Christ's birth as doctrine, and do not attribute to it any salvific value. They are as free to speculate as anyone else.

What is of interest in the speculative realm is the actual substantive content of the Book of Mormon on this matter: The Book of Mormon is part of the official canon of the LDS Church and should carry considerable weight in our discussion. Thus far it has been ignored in favor of quotations of opinions from secondary sources (as Brother Brigham said: "No man's opinion is worth a straw").

The Book of Mormon contains a set of annals in which dating is of supreme importance, from the systematic countdown to the birth of Christ, to the exact length of his life (to the very day of his death!), and to the very year in which the Nephites cease to exist as a people. We have nothing like that in the Bible, although we can combine the two documents to reach meaningful chronological conclusions.

Based on Neo-Babylonian annals, we can date the first year of the reign of King Zedekiah of Judah to 587 B.C. (no earlier), and can thus calculate the precise range of dates within which Christ must have been born 600 "years" later. Only one system of dating works, and that is the dominant Long Count Calendar of the Mesoamericans generally (although best known from the Maya): That was the 360-day year count, 600 of which bring us to the 6 - 5 B.C. range. We also know the exact length of Jesus' life (33 years and 3 days). Since we know for certain that Jesus was crucified at Passover, we can easily establish via the Long Count that he had to have been born in the Fall, most likely on 1 Tishri, the Jewish New Year. This is because in that length of time, the Long Count year loses 6 months in relation to the Solar year. The Book of Mormon chronology is right on target and does not contain the anachronisms evident in the NT.