In What Year Was Jesus Christ Born?

Bruce R. McConkie, Mortal Messiah 1:349-350.

"What is the date of our Lord's birth? This is one of those fascinating problems about which the wise and the learned delight to debate. There are scholars, of repute and renown, who place his natal day in every year from 1 B.C. to 7 B.C., with 4 B.C. being the prevailing view.

"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. Elder James E. Talmage takes the view that he was born on April 6, 1 B.C., basing his conclusions on D&C 20:1, which speaks of the day on which the Church was organized, saying it was 'one thousand eight hundred and thirty years since the coming of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in the flesh.' April 6 is then named as the specific day for the formal organization. Elder Talmage notes the Book of Mormon chronology, which says that the Lord would be born 600 years after Lehi left Jerusalem. (Talmage, Jesus the Christ, pg 102-104.)

"Elder Hyrum M. Smith of the Council of the Twelve wrote in the Doctrine and Covenants Commentary: 'The organization of the Church in the year 1830 is hardly to be regarded as giving divine authority to the commonly accepted calendar. There are reasons for believing that those who, a long time after our Savior's birth, tried to ascertain the correct time erred in their calculations, and that the Nativity occurred four years before our era, or in the year of Rome 750. All that this Revelation [D&C 20] means to say is that the Church was organized in the year commonly accepted as 1830, A.D.-- Rome 750 is equivalent, as indicated, to 4 B.C.

"President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., in Our Lord of the Gospels, a scholarly and thoughtful work, says in his preface that many scholars 'fix the date of the Savior's birth at the end of 5 b.c., or the beginning or early part of 4 B.C.' He then quotes the explanation of D&C 20:1 as found in the Commentary [see above], notes that it has been omitted in a later edition and says: 'I am not proposing any date as the true date. But in order to be as helpful to students as I could, I have taken as the date of the Savior's birth the date now accepted by many scholars,--late 5 B.C. or early 4 B.C., because I believe that so to do will facilitate and make easier the work of those studying the life and works of the Savior from sources using this accepted chronology.' This is the course being followed in this present work [Mortal Messiah], which means, for instance, that Gabriel came to Zacharias in October of 6 b.c.; that he came to Mary in March or April of 5 b.c.; that John was born in June of 5 b.c.; and that Jesus was born in December 5 b.c., or from January to April in 4 b.c.

"To illustrate how the scholars go about determining the day of Christ's Nativity, we quote the following from Edersheim: 'The first and most certain date is that of the death of Herod the Great. Our Lord was born before the death of Herod, and, as we judge from the Gospel-history, very shortly before that event. Now the year of Herod's death has been ascertained with, we may say, absolute certainty, as shortly before the Passover of the year 750 a.u.c. [anno urbin conditae--in the year of the founding of Rome, 753 b.c.], which corresponds to about the 12th of April of the year 4 before Christ. Thus the death of Herod must have taken place between the 12th of March and the 12th of April--or, say, about the end of March. Again, the Gospel-history necessitates an interval of, at the least, seven or eight weeks before that date for the birth of Christ (we have to insert the purification of the Virgin--at the earliest, six weeks after the Birth--the Visit of the Magi, and the murder of the children at Bethlehem, and, at any rate, some days more before the death of Herod). Thus the birth of Christ could not have possibly occurred after the beginning of February 4 b.c., and most likely several weeks earlier.' (Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah 2:704.)

"We should add that if the slaughter of the Innocents by Herod occurred not weeks but a year or so after our Lord's birth, as some have concluded from the recitation in Matthew 2, then this whole reasoning of Edersheim would be extended an appreciable period, so that Christ could have been born on April 6 of 5 b.c. We repeat, as President Clark repeated, that this is not a settled issue. Perhaps also it does not matter too much as long as we have a accepted framework of time within which to relate the actual events of his life, and one that gives us a reasonably accurate view of when those events took place.

"For an explanation of the word katalyma, which was translated inn in the KJV but was rendered as inns in the JST, see chapter 95. In the only other place where this word is found in the New Testament, it was translated as guestchamber. There is no real English equivalent." (Bruce R. McConkie, Mortal Messiah 1:349-350.)

WHEN DID JESUS CHRIST VISIT THE AMERICAS FIRST?

Bruce R. McConkie, The Mortal Messiah, 4:260, 306-307 [Italics added.]

It is now the first Easter day. In the Americas the darkness has dispersed from off the face of the land, the rocks have ceased to rend, and the earth is cleaving together again. The mourning and lamentations of the people have ended, and they are now united in songs of praise and hymns of thanksgiving ... [The righteous were] spared from all the natural desolations that swept from one end of the land to the other. They, in their isolated land, are coming to know that he who is their Messiah also has worked out the infinite and eternal atonement. Later in the year he will minister personally among them, and their joy will be full. Then they will see him and feel the nail marks in his hands and in his feet; then they will thrust their hands into the great gaping wound in his side; and then will they become personal witnesses of his resurrection....

The Nephites adjusted their calendar so as to begin a new dating era with the birth of Jesus; and according to their chronology, the storms and the darkness and the crucifixion came to pass on the fourth day of the first month of the thirty-fourth year. (3 Ne 8.) Then "in the ending"of that year (3 Ne 10:18-19), several months after the Ascension on Olivet, Jesus ministered personally among the Nephites for many hours on many days.

WHY IS THE BOOK OF MORMON DIFFERENT FROM THE JOSEPH SMITH TRANSLATION?

Robert L. Millet and Robert J. Matthews, eds. Plain and Precious Truths Restored, pg. 181ff.

[Question] 14. Why are some passages in the Book of Mormon, which are "faithful" to the King James text, "corrected" in the JST?

Response: This is a question that Joseph Smith could answer better than anyone else. As a starter we would of necessity believe that the Prophet must have known that he was creating this situation, yet he saw fit to do so. The answer may lie in the concept of an "adequate" translation [the Book of Mormon] compared to a "plainer" translation [the JST], as suggested in Doctrine and Covenants 128:18. This subject is dealt with in greater detail in the Ensign, September 1981, pg. 16-17....

[Question] 16. If the Prophet Joseph Smith had reworked the Book of Mormon after his work on the JST, do you think that the Savior's sermon recorded in 3 Npehi 12-14 would read a little more like the JST and a little less like the King James Version?

Response: The whole process of translation as done by a prophet is difficult to define, but I suppose what is suggested in your question is true. Such a thought does not lessen the inspiration of the Book of Mormon translation but it does indicate that there may be levels of depth and completeness in any translation made by a prophet. As noted in the response to a previous question, the Prophet Joseph Smith surely must have realized what he was doing in such instances, yet he apparently felt that the change needed to be made to clarify the biblical text. The citiation from Elder Bruce R. McConkie [see below] in the previous question applies to this question also.

Bruce R. McConkie, "The Bible--A Sealed Book," Doctrines of the Restoration: Sermons and Writings of Bruce R. McConkie, ed. by Mark L. McConkie, pg. 290-291.

When these targums [translations or paraphrases--of the Old Testament] were made by Jesus and the Apostles, all of whom taught regularly and consistently in the synagogues, they were inspired, and hence they throw great floods of light upon whatever scripture is involved. Many Old Testament passages take on new meanings because of the way they are quoted in the New Testament.

For all practical purposes Nephi often did much the same thing when quoting Isaiah or Zenos. He gave, not a literal, but an inspired and interpreting translation. And in many instances his words give either a new or greatly expanded meaning to the original prophetic word.

As a matter of fact Moroni did the same thing in his 1823 appearances to Joseph Smith. For instance, he so improved upon the promise of Elijah's return [Malachi 4:5-6; D&C 128:17-18; 3 Nephi 25:5-6] that it is like stepping from a pleasant twilight into the brilliance of the noonday sun. And yet, years later, with a full knowledge of the more perfect translation [D&C 2; JS-H 1:38-39], Joseph Smith retained the King James language in the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants and his inspired rendition in the Bible [JST].

Surely there is a message here. For one thing it means that the same passage of scripture can be translated correctly in more ways than one and that the translation used depends upon the spiritual maturity of the people.

Similarly, the Sermon on the Mount in the Book of Mormon preserves, with a few improvements, the language of the King James Version. But, later, the Joseph Smith Translation renders much of this sermon in a way that excels even the Book of Mormon.

Dallin H. Oaks, "Scripture Reading, Revelation, and the JST," Plain and Precious Truths Restored: The Doctrinal and Historical Significance of the Joseph Smith Translation (SLC: Bookcraft, 1995), pp. 10-14.

The Current Standing of the Joseph Smith Translation. How one feels about the Joseph Smith Translation depends on what one expects of it. If we expect the kind of completeness that would make it a candidate to be published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a replacement for our officially recognized King James translation, then the Joseph Smith Translation surely falls short. But if the issue is whether the Joseph Smith Translation contains inspired revisions to Bible passages that further our knowledge of the scriptures in the same way as the revisions in some portions of the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price, then the Joseph Smith Translation surely fulfills our expectations. It contains important truths ­ heaven-sent revelations of the mind and will of God ­ not based on scholarly analysis and not available from any other publication.

In an important editorial in the Church News in December 1974, readers were told: "The Inspired Version does not supplant the Kings James Version as the official version of the Bible, but the explanations and changes made by the Prophet Joseph Smith provide enlightenment and useful commentary on many biblical passages. [Church News, week ending December 7, 1974, p. 16.]

The Church's most authoritative pronouncement on the standing of the Joseph Smith Translation is contained in actions, not words. After prolonged and prayerful deliberation, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve included over six hundred quotations from the Joseph Smith Translation in the Church's monumental new edition of the King James Bible published in 1979 and in every printing since that time. As you know, most of these quotations are in explanatory footnotes to the language of the King James Version, Old Testament and New Testament.

As the First Presidency noted in their 1992 letter, "The LDS edition of the Bible (1979) contains the King James Version supplemented and clarified by footnotes, study aids, and cross-references." The most substantive of these footnotes and study aids are the footnote quotations from the Joseph Smith Translation. In addition, we must not overlook the significance of the fact that scores of Joseph Smith Translation excerpts too lengthy for inclusion in footnotes are included in their entire text following the Bible Dictionary. These passages, from Genesis 9 through Revelation 12, comprise sixteen and one-half pages in the 1979 edition. That is approximately the same amount of text as the combined books of James, 1 Peter, and 2 Peter in the New Testament.

Elder Bruce R. McConkie described the significance of these Joseph Smith Translation inclusions when he said: "I think much of the prejudice of the past was based on a lack of understanding and has faded away since we have published our new Church edition of the King James Version with its repeated references to the Joseph Smith Translation." Elder McConkie referred to the Joseph Smith Translation as a "restoration" of the Bible "by revelation." His answer to the question "Why we should use the Joseph Smith Translation" was typically direct:

Of course the revealed changes made by Joseph Smith are true ­ as much so as anything in the Book of Mormon or the Doctrine and Covenants.

Of course we have adequate and authentic original sources showing the changes ­ as much so as are the sources for the Book of Mormon or the revelations.

Of course we should use the Joseph Smith Translation in our study and teaching. Since when do any of us have the right to place bounds on the Almighty and say we will believe these revelations but not those? ["The Doctrinal Restoration," in The Joseph Smith Translation, Monte S. Nyman & Robert L. Millet, eds. (Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1985), pp. 12, 14.]

In that same vein, Dean [Robert J.] Matthews described the fundamental principle that should govern our attitude towards the Joseph Smith Translation when he said: "There is no difference, in terms of their nature and source, between the revelations in the Joseph Smith Translation and those in the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price." [Robert J. Matthews, A Bible! A Bible! (SLC: Bookcraft, 1990), p. 147.]

Yet some remain reluctant to use the Joseph Smith Translation. As Dean Matthews observed: "We seem to be too timid, perhaps a little too reluctant, maybe even a little embarrassed when we confront the academic world with a Bible based on revelation from God through a prophet and not certified by a manuscript already accepted by the world." [Ibid., p. 154.]

An attitude that would reject a text based on revelation not verifiable from an available manuscript would, of course, reject the Book of Mormon and the seventh section of the Doctrine and Covenants. An attitude that would reject the revision of existing texts such as the Bible on the basis of revelation rather than scholarship would, of course, reject the book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price....

Those who will not rely on revelation and who insist on a manuscript so they can concentrate on the original meaning and intent of the words spoken by the author can be expected to ignore the Joseph Smith Translation. In contrast, those who understand that the importance of the scriptures is what the Lord would have us understand today are anxious for revelatory insight into the current significance of scriptural texts and concepts. They understand that some things we have already received as hard to understand without the Lord's help (1 Ne 15:1, 3, 8, 11), and that we can never receive enough of the word of God. Persons with this attitude are anxious to have every source of revelation to help us to know wht the Lord would have us understand from the scriptures today. Such persons will welcome the revelatory insights ­ even additions ­ by the prophets of this dispensation.

I believe that Professor Robert L. Millet had it right ten years ago when he said: "There is so much beauty and depth of doctrine and insight to be had within the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible that it is foolish to study and teach without it; to do so is tantamount to being choosy about what we will receive from the Lord and what we will not." ["Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible: A Historical Overview," in The Joseph Smith Translation, p. 46.]

In summary, there should be no doubt about the current status of the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. It is a member of the royal family of scripture. While the Joseph Smith Translation does not enjoy the sovereign status of canonized scripture (except those chapters included in the Pearl of Great Price), as a member of the royal family of scripture it should be noticed and honored on any occasion when it is present.

ANALYSIS OF THE "SERMON ON THE MOUNT"

Said to everyone:

3 Ne 12:1-12 Steps of personal progression in righteousness.

3 Ne 12:13-48 Principles of social righteousness and religious survival.

13-16 Be an example of Christ.

17-48 The Jewish-corrupted law of Moses vs. the Gospel

21-24 Anger; hatred; killing.

25-26 Don't make waves; agree to survive.

27-32 Fornication and divorce.

33-37 Don't lie under oath; "yes" or "no."

38-45 Justice; fairness; survival.

46-48 Renewal; results of obedience: perfection.

3 Ne 13:1-24 Religious behaviors.

1-4 Charitable acts: keep confidential.

5-15 Prayer

16-21 Fasting

22-24 Doctrine of the Two Ways (Light & darkness--God & mammon).

Said to leaders:

3 Ne 13:25-34 Full-time job for general authorities. You'll be taken care of.

Said to everyone:

3 Ne 14:1-5 Judging. (JST is much better.)

3 Ne 14:6-12 What to say; fairness; golden rule.

3 Ne 14:13-20 Standards; behaviors; false prophets; pretenders.

3 Ne 14:21-27 If you don't know the Lord, your works won't save you.

Symbolism in 3 Nephi 18

Joseph Fielding McConkie, Gospel Symbolism, pg. 8-9.

... When the Savior introduced the ordinance of the sacrament to the Nephites we are told that he took the bread and gave it to the disciples as the multitude watched and commanded them to eat, which they did until they "were filled." Only after they were "filled" did they give bread to the body of the Church, who also ate until they were "filled." The same ritual was followed with the wine. (3 Ne 18:4-9.) Scores of times I have asked Book of Mormon students why the Lord would require the nearly twenty-five hundred men, women, and children present in that meeting to wait while the Twelve not only partook of the bread and wine, but had a sacramental meal--that is, actually ate until they were filled. Their response is always the same. The text could not possibly mean that they actually ate until they were filled. Rather, it means that they were filled with the Spirit.

Surely, the experiences of the meeting to that point had been sufficient to fill them with the Spirit. They had already witnessed the descent of Christ from the heavens and heard the voice of the Father introduce him. They had heard as marvelous a gospel discourse as had ever been delivered; they had gone forth one by one to meet the Savior and handle the wounds in his hands, side, and feet; and they had either been healed of infirmities or witnessed loved ones that were. They had already experienced more than we could dare hope for in a lifetime of spiritual experiences. The context of the meeting suggests that they did not have to wait until that point to be filled with the Spirit.

Let us then dare to suppose that the passage means what it says, that they actually ate until they were filled. That is, in this meeting, as in the first sacrament meeting in the Old World, they partook of a sacramental meal. Then let us ask what purpose would be served by their so doing. Obviously, in a meeting of this length (consider the time necessary for all twenty-five hundred to come forth and handle the Lord alone) physical refreshment would be welcome. Yet beyond that, doesn't it seem rather appropriate that the Twelve, these newly called prophets, seers, and revelators, these men through whom the word of the Lord was to come to the people, would symbolically in the sacrament be the first to receive the "bread of life"? Is it not important that the body of the Church learn that there will be those occasions upon which they must patiently wait upon Twelve, for the Twelve cannot give that which they themselves have not yet received? And is it not the Twelve through whom the bread of life both ritually and literally must come to the membership of the Church? The ritual was a perfect teaching device demonstrating the role of the Twelve and their relationship to the body of the Church.

TRANSLATED BEINGS (3 NEPHI 28)

Bruce R. McConkie, The Millennial Messiah, pg. 644.

Some mortals have been translated. In this state they are not subject to sorrow or to disease or to death. No longer does blood (the life-giving element of our present mortality) flow in their veins. Procreation ceases. If they then had children, their offspring would be denied a mortal probation, which all worthy spirits must receive in due course. They have power to move and live in both a mortal and an unseen sphere. All translated beings undergo another change in their bodies when they gain full immortality. This change is the equivalent of a resurrection. All mortals, after death, are also resurrected. In the resurrected state they are immortal and eternal in nature, and those among them who are privileged to live in the family unit have spirit children. Millennial man will live in a state akin to translation. His body will be changed so that it is no longer subject to disease or death as we know it, although he will be changed in the twinkling of an eye to full immortality when he is a hundred years of age. He will, however, have children, and mortal life of a millennial kind will continue.