Reuben Clark Jr. In , Elder Bruce R. McConkie, also an apostle, favored December 5 B. Steven C. Harper, a BYU assistant professor of church history and a volume editor of the Joseph Smith Papers, said in a phone interview that some people, including Elder Talmage, have read this verse as if it is the Lord speaking and revealing precisely that Christ was born 1, years before that day and that the revelation was given on April 6, The manuscript, published as part of the Joseph Smith Papers, also shows that the revelation was given on April 10 — not April 6.
So although it references the organization of the church a few days earlier, the revelation — which topically has nothing to do with the birth date of Christ — and its introductory verses "shouldn't be read as if it is a revelation of the birth date of Jesus Christ," Harper said.
And this wasn't the only time that John Whitmer would identify a date with similar language. Another time he wrote, "It is now June the twelfth, one thousand eight hundred and thirty one years, since the coming of our Lord and Savior in the flesh. Chadwick's article goes into great detail on the various clues the Bible and the Book of Mormon give for the date of Jesus' birth. The biggest clue, by far, appears to be the death of King Herod the Great. The Bible has Jesus born before Herod's death.
Chadwick wrote that the historical record places Herod's death at the end of March or beginning of April in 4 B. In other words, the ancient biblical months were lunar counts, even though the Jewish agricultural and festival year was based on the seasons of the solar count. This is why the Jewish year is referred to as lunar-solar.
The lunar count was intercalated to coincide with the solar count. A twelve-month lunar year is only days long, on average, which is eleven days shorter than the day year. Without adjustment, the first month of the lunar year would occur eleven days earlier each solar year. Within just a few years it would fall back to winter rather than spring, and within a few more to autumn instead of winter, and so on.
So the ancient Israelites devised a system of intercalation that added an extra month to their year every three years or so in order to ensure that their first month according to the lunar count always stayed in early spring according to the solar count. The exact method of intercalation in biblical times and also among the Nephites is not known. Even as late as New Testament times, there was not yet a fixed calculation that automatically inserted an extra month when needed—this was done by consensus of the Jewish sages observing the signs of the seasons.
Neither the day Mayan Haab year 43 nor the day tun began in the spring season. All of the combined evidence suggests that Jesus was thirty-three full solar years of age at his death, 45 reckoned according the biblical lunar-solar calendar count. This is a matter of simple addition. Here is why. They were too late to accommodate the life span reported in the Book of Mormon. There are a considerable number of scholarly approaches to this issue. However, among the commentaries that accept the reliability of the Gospel of John, two ministry models are prominent: the two-year model and the three-year model.
In this study, I advocate for the two-year model. But an understanding of both models is important in this discussion. This idea is also known as the four-Passover theory. In this model, the holiday of John is added to the three specifically named Passovers of John , , and to arrive at a total of four Passovers. There are two weaknesses in this model, however. In most LDS commentaries, it is generally supposed that Jesus had turned thirty years old just before the Passover of John 2 and turned thirty-three years old at his final Passover in John Had he turned thirty yet, or was he a little younger than thirty?
Or, perhaps more likely, was he a little older than thirty, maybe thirty-one? A three-year ministry model, lasting from age thirty to thirty-three, cannot be demonstrated based on the imprecise statement of Luke The second weakness in the four-Passover theory is that the feast of John is not called a Passover by John.
In all other cases, where John meant a Passover he specifically called the festival a Passover. That he did not do so in John seems a clear indicator that it was not a Passover. Scholars such as Bruce, taking into account the context of Jewish culture in understanding the New Testament, point to Rosh Hashanah as the festival of John , which can be reliably placed midway between the Passover of John 2 and the Passover of John 6.
The crucifixion of Christ took place, it is generally agreed, about AD The fourth Gospel mentions three Passovers after this time; the third Passover from that date would be the Passover of AD 30, at which it is probable on other grounds that the crucifixion took place.
The method in Syria, retained from the days of the Seleucid kings, was to reckon the start of a new regnal year in September—October. As Tiberius became emperor in August, AD 14, his second regnal year would thus be regarded as beginning in September—October of the same year. The Passover of Jn. In The Jewish War 1. But in his later work, Antiquities of the Jews If the Passover of spring 19 BC is reckoned as being in year 1, then the Passover of spring AD 27 would have to be reckoned as being in year 46, and the Passover of spring AD 28 would be in year Augustus Caesar died on August 19 of AD Such a calculation also skips the few weeks from August 19 to the actual beginning of the year, which took place not in August, but in mid to late September Brown errs in suggesting that the year began as early as August.
This more precise method is the one employed by Bruce above. Two significant issues are addressed by the remarks of Bruce, quoted earlier, and the rest of the discussion above. The first is that the implied point of reference for the beginning of the year, in both Luke 3 and John 5, was the autumn month of Tishri, the same which served as the first month of the year in the Syrian calendar which, as noted earlier, was widely utilized in the eastern part of the Roman Empire.
That Jesus died at Passover of AD 30 may now also be corroborated by the astronomical study of Humphreys and Waddington. In , two professors at the University of Oxford, Colin J.
Humphreys and W. Their calculations took into consideration that the 14th of Nisan may occur only after the vernal equinox 60 after March 20 , since Passover was biblically mandated to be a spring event. The study of Humphreys and Waddington has been widely cited, and subsequent publications by the two scholars in and confirmed and expanded their data. The method of Humphreys and Waddington was to determine the Julian calendar dates, weekdays, and times of the new moons as they would have appeared in Jerusalem in March and early April during the above-mentioned years, which in each case marked the beginning of the month of Nisan Aviv.
The Jewish day was reckoned with its beginning at sunset. The new monthly count began with the Jewish day following the Jewish day on which the new moon was observed noting, obviously, that if the new moon occurred during daylight hours, its observation would not occur until the ensuing night. Counting ahead fourteen days in each case, Humphreys and Waddington determined the normal daytime day of the week and Julian calendar date on which the 14th of Nisan, the eve of Passover, fell in each year.
Figure 2, opposite, is a table of their charted results, with their own caveat notes. While poor atmospheric conditions could, on occasion, obscure the sighting of new moons, this would not affect the calculation of the 14th day of Nisan, since that day was not counted from the sighting of the new moon alone, but from a sighting of the moon that allowed for an accurate determination of when the new moon had actually occurred.
This is evident from the Mishnah Rosh Hashanah , see fig. They seem to doubt that the new moon could be observed at the calculated early evening hour of its occurrence in those years and thus add an extra day in their count. But the sky in Jerusalem is sufficiently dark at around April 1, even in the west, for the new moon to be easily observable at its actual occurrence.
In my study, I prepared a table fig. In this table, two dates appear for some years, as reflected in the chart of Humphreys and Waddington, since the point of the study was only to demonstrate in what year Jesus must have died, in support of calculating a year of his birth. However, in that table, only the first day in those years was the absolute date for the 14th of Nisan—the second day may be disregarded, for the reasons mentioned above. These are the only years during the administration of Pontius Pilate when the eve of Passover, and Passover itself, fell within a three-day window of time prior to Sunday.
Only Thursday and Friday fall within a three-day window of time prior to Sunday, and even this depends on how the three days are counted as will be discussed below. This narrows down the choices to only AD 30 and AD 33 for the death of Jesus, which, as noted above, is where Brown left the question.
The year AD 33, however, can be ruled out as the year of the crucifixion, based on several other issues. When all available scriptural and historical data are taken into consideration, only AD 30 emerges as the year in which Jesus must have died, as depicted in figure 4. Figure 4. But others have attempted to discredit it. These include Blumell and Wayment, who cite Roger T. By contrast, Blumell and Wayment focus on one specific issue in their dismissal of Humphreys and Waddington. Doggett and Bradley E.
But modern lunar observations alone cannot demonstrate that anciently there was any tendency for mistaken sightings. Nor did Doggett and Schaefer use ancient Jewish models in their study; in fact, they acknowledge that they are not even aware of Jewish methods. There is no aspect of the study of Doggett and Schaefer that can be reliably applied to the subject of how Jews in Judea of the first century AD sighted new moons and pronounced their new months.
Reports of alleged Jewish calendar errors in the fourth century AD, three centuries after the time of Christ, are cited by Blumell and Wayment as evidence that Passover was celebrated a day or two off from the proper date, but these are garnered from Byzantine sources hostile to Jewish practice, a bias that makes their reliability questionable.
In any case, they are inapplicable in assessing the findings of Humphreys and Waddington. One citation is quoted from Constantine at the Council of Nicea, alleging that Jews erred in their Passover dating and also celebrated Passover on two different days. As Stern points out, the real issue discussed at Nicea was the charge that some fourth-century Jews were prone to celebrate Passover before the vernal equinox, while others celebrated it after the equinox. Thus, any use of this complaint about fourth-century diaspora Jews celebrating Passover a month too early as evidence that first-century Judean Jews somehow improperly identified their 14th of Nisan by one or two days is too problematic to be accepted.
The Mishnah is also cited by Blumell and Wayment to suggest that the new moon could be observed in error. They quote the first line of Rosh Hashanah , which reports that a chart of the phases of the moon was used by a first-century rabbi to aid in declaring the new moon. The rest of the passage relates that on one occasion the witnesses of the new moon accepted by the rabbinical court were wrong.
Blumell and Wayment derive, from this single event, that false sightings must have been regularly accepted by the Jewish court. However, the Mishnah describes only this single event, and there is no report of any similar error in the entire Talmud.
The narrative is sufficiently important that we should examine it here. The account involves a ruling by Gamaliel II, also known as Rabban Gamaliel, who served as the nasi president of the Jewish rabbinical court and community in Judea in the generation after the destruction of Jerusalem c.
The Mishnah passage from tractate Rosh Hashanah see fig. At least a dozen things about this passage are evident to a trained student of the Talmud: 1 Great care was taken to insure that a new month was properly proclaimed from the actual occurrence of the new moon. Even though the declaration of the new moon was made by observation, and not by counting of the twenty-nine or thirty days since the previous new moon, it is clear that the Jews of the first century were counting those days, and knew when to expect the new moon—they knew that the new moon could not possibly occur any earlier than twenty-nine days since the previous new moon.
Thus, a suggestion that the new moon could be erroneously declared two days early twenty-eight days after the previous new moon , making their calendar that month off by two days, is hardly possible. Elazar b. Even when that happened, however, the new moon not being observed did not result in the new month being declared early or late. The court would use their knowledge of the lunar phases implied from the chart Rabban Gamaliel is said to have possessed to correctly ascertain when the new moon had actually occurred, and from that date the new month would be sanctified and counted, and any festival that month would fall on its correct designated day.
The Yom Tov festivals were commanded to begin on certain days of the month. Passover, for example, was to be on the 15th day of the month of Nisan, actually commencing at sunset after the 14th day of the month, when the full moon would be present.
Failure to keep the Passover on the correct day, at the time of the full moon, was not theoretically excused by not having observed the new moon when it appeared two weeks earlier. From the entire discussion above, it should be evident that great care was taken by Jews of the first century in declaring their new months from accurate observations and reckonings of the new moon.
This demonstrates two things: First, that the chart in the article by Blumell and Wayment, portraying a broad span of four possible weekdays for the 14th of Nisan in any year from AD 27 to AD 34 is untenable.
Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover? John Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.
Mark And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover? And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! Luke — Somewhere around AD 28 to AD 35, but exact records are hard to find, as with the exact year of his birth. So, he was 52 years old.
The current year, , is AD. It has been 2, years since the estimated year of Jesus Christ's birth. AD comes after the year provided it is after Jesus Christ's birth.
Before his birth, BC comes before the year. However a mistake that was later discovered that Jesus was actually Born in the year 4. AD started years ago. It is now , if Jesus were alive he would be years old.
The Passover is held every year. If you mean the year when Jesus died, that is regarded by many to be 33 AD and the Passover that year was on Thursday April 2nd. Log in. Jesus Christ. Study now. See Answer. Best Answer. Study guides. Jesus Christ 24 cards. Who is Jesus Christ.
Who is Jesus Christ and what was his mission to the world. A Thursday crucifixion, however, allows for three nights to have passed prior to the Resurrection on Sunday morning, as well as something closer to three real days. See also above, notes 39 and Colin J. See my discussion of this issue in Jeffrey R. Caution may be in order when considering at least some of the year counts listed in the Book of Mormon.
It would seem that there were occasions when Mormon himself was not absolutely sure of the year count or the exact year in which an event he was reporting actually happened. I am indebted to my colleague John W. Welch for pointing out to me the passage in Mosiah and its significance. There is a potential ambiguity in the wording of 3 Nephi —8, and it is thus possible to read the passage alone in such a way as to conclude that Jesus was only thirty-two years old at the time of his death.
In my opinion, however, when the passage is read in connection with 3 Nephi , it becomes clearer that Jesus must have been thirty-three years old at the time of his death which has been the usual consensus among LDS readers. I am indebted to my colleague Roger Terry, who suggested that this issue be addressed. In my opinion, it is a mistake to read verse 5 as referring to the same year referred to in verses 6—8. And that interpretation would lead to the conclusion that Jesus turned thirty-two years old during the thirty-third year since the sign was given, and would have been only thirty-two years and a few months old rather than thirty-three years and a few months old at the time of his death, which occurred just days after year 33 ended see 3 Ne.
This interpretation, however, is incorrect if one understands that the ninth year spoken of in 3 Nephi is not the same year as the one hundredth year spoken of in 3 Nephi It seems clear that 3 Nephi is referring to the year following the one hundredth year of the judges, namely the st year of the judges.
Thus, Jesus would have turned nine years old not eight during the ninth year, and thirty-three years old not thirty-two during the thirty-third year, and would have died at age thirty-three and a few months just days after the end of year 33, as alluded to in 3 Nephi —5. And since Jesus was born in year 92 or , it means he turned eight in year or , and that year or , the ninth year since the sign of his birth, would have been the year of his ninth birthday.
But a thirty-four year count is not correct. A thirty-fourth year could not be counted unless the year had passed away, but the text of 3 Nephi specifies that the thirty-fourth year had just barely begun and also specifies that thirty-three years had passed away 3 Ne. But all indications in the Book of Mormon, and particularly in 3 Nephi, are that a solar calendar was in place and utilized by the Nephites. The scholarly consensus that Nephite society was a part of greater preclassic Mayan culture suggests that it was almost certainly the Mayan solar year, known as Haab, which was counted by the Nephites.
The Mayan calendar, and how it relates to other modern calendar systems, is quite well understood. See John L. See Michael D. Coe, The Maya, 7th ed.
New York: Thames and Hudson, , 60—65, — The designation of Tishri as the first month of the Jewish calendar, placing the Jewish New Year Rosh HaShannah at the beginning of autumn, was a development of the late Second Temple Period but was influenced by trends coming out of the Babylonian captivity.
During the First Temple Period, the era of the Israelite and Judean monarchies, the first month of the Israelite year was indeed during the spring month of Aviv Nisan. In other words, the first of Tishri was known as Rosh HaShannah by the time Jesus was born, which means that Tishri was regarded as the first month and Adar as the sixth even before the nativity of Jesus. The priestly course of Abijah, to which Zacharias belonged, would have been serving at the temple of Herod by mandate during the fall holidays, as would all other of the Aaronic courses.
The quotation appears in roughly the same wording in several other Sherlock Holmes adventures. It is important to remember that Jesus was a Jew.
He was born into a Jewish family, in a Jewish town, in a Jewish province, and into a Jewish setting. The date of his birth would have been a Jewish date in the Jewish calendar, a day late in the Jewish month of Kislev. Again, it is entirely possible, indeed essentially probable, as noted previously, that Jesus was born during the eight-day Jewish festival of Hanukkah, which began on the twenty-fifth of Kislev.
But regardless of what day late in the month of Kislev he was born, the date would not have been thought of in terms of Roman calendar reckoning. And since the Jewish calendar employs lunar months, the run of the days in Kislev did not exactly match the run of days in the Roman month of December. From year to year, the run of days in Kislev would be different when compared to the Roman calendar.
That is to say that a Jewish calendar date such as the twenty-fifth of Kislev might fall on the date we know as December 18 one year, but on December 8 the next year. It is not likely that anyone personally associated with Jesus ever expressed his birthday in terms of the Roman calendar.
The early members of the Church of Jesus Christ in the first century AD were overwhelmingly of Jewish origins, and because of the report in Luke the many thousands of his Jewish disciples would have eventually become aware that Jesus had been conceived late in Adar and therefore born late in Kislev.
During the second century AD, however, the demography of the Church changed dramatically, and in time the vast majority of Christians were gentiles. Jewish and apostolic influences within the Church disappeared. Gentile Christians were largely unfamiliar with the Jewish calendar and how it related to the gospel of Luke. As time passed, they appear to have retained a memory that Jesus had been born early in winter. But no one knew the exact day, and even if they had known the exact Jewish calendar date, it would not have been possible to establish that date precisely in the Roman calendar.
The Sol Invictus festival celebrated the supposed rebirth of the sun, which some Romans, including those who worshiped Mithra, held as a deity. By the middle of the fourth century, Christianity had become the favored religion of the empire. Roman Christians, recalling the memory that Jesus had been born in early winter, desired to have an early winter date in their calendar on which to celebrate the birth of Jesus, and simply decided to utilize the Sol Invictus holiday on December 25 for this purpose.
It appears that Pope Liberius, the bishop of Rome from to , gave official Church approval to the December 25 observance, probably in the year There seem to have been at least three legitimate considerations involved in the decision.
This, incidentally, is the origin of the Catholic celebration of the Annunciation each March. Second, the general recollection of an early winter birth date for Jesus pointed toward late December, nine months following the Annunciation to Mary. By coincidence, the already established festival of Sol Invictus occurred in this very period.
Since they knew the birth had occurred early in winter, but did not know the exact date, December 25 was as good a day as any on which to celebrate. And it had the advantage of already being recognized as a holiday. The only difference would be that the day now honored the true and living Son of God rather than the notion of a pagan deity. The third consideration seems to have been Christian recollection of earlier Jewish traditions that identified the coming of Messiah with the symbol of the rising sun.
The early gentile Christian designation of the December 25 holiday as a celebration of the nativity of Jesus seems entirely appropriate when viewed in its historical and symbolic context. Though we cannot fix the birth of Jesus to that very day, it certainly occurred in the weeks of December that we now call the Christmas season.
Dating the Birth of Christ. By Jeffrey R. Article PDF. Talmage April 6, 1 BC J. Thirty-three Years and a Few Months The reference to thirty-three full years in 3 Nephi is most helpful in determining the general time of the birth of Jesus. The Annunciation to Mary and the Timing of Her Conception Another significant piece of evidence that points to a December date of birth for Jesus is actually the first event reported in the story of his birth. Conclusions Two conclusions emerge from this study.
BYU Studies Quarterly Purchase this Issue. About the author s Jeffrey R. Notes 1. Talmage, Jesus the Christ, Clark, Our Lord of the Gospels, See notes 9—11 above for examples of such remarks. Josephus, Antiquities, Josephus, Antiquities, —55, — Related Articles.
0コメント