According to Vicki Alder, the number four appears to have special meaning with regards to outwardness and manifestation. Thus, for all the manifestations of Christ’s crucifixion to occur in the Americas on the “fourth day of the month” (3 Nephi 8:5) is in accordance with scriptural symbolism. However, there is another number represented here that could also be of interest; that is the number six.
The number six seems to have to do with work and accomplishment. The prophet Abinadi said: “for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth and the sea, and all that in them is” (Mosiah 13:19; see Genesis 1, 2:1-2; D&C 77:12). God gave the commandment to men: “Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work” (Exodus 20:9, see Mosiah 13:17). A Hebrew slave was to work six years before being set free on the seventh. (See Exodus 21:2; Deuteronomy 15:12, 18; Jeremiah 34:14) So what does the number six have to do with the “fourth day of the first month”?
In D&C 20:1 we find that the birth date of the Savior was the sixth day of April. Certainly the Savior performed the greatest work that was ever accomplished on the earth. The Nephites started their year from the month of the birth of the Savior. (3 Nephi 2:8) In the first month (being the same month He had been born or April), on the fourth day of the month, Jesus was crucified. (3 Nephi 8:5) This means that He would have been resurrected on the sixth day of the month of April.
The work on the building of the Salt Lake Temple commenced on April 6, 1853, and was completed on April 6, 1893. That temple has become a symbol of the restored Church to the world. The sixth day of April must be very special to God for His Son, Jesus, to have been born and resurrected on that day, and because it was also chosen as the date that the Church of Jesus Christ was to be restored. [Vicki Alder, Mysteries in the Scriptures: Enlightenment through Ancient Beliefs, pp. 132-134]
“On the Fourth Day of the Month”
In the Book of Mormon, the day upon which the destruction occurred was day number “four” of the new year:
And it came to pass … in the first month on the fourth day of the month, there arose a great storm, such an one as never had been known in all the land… . all these great and terrible things were done in about the space of three hours … (3 Nephi 8:5, 19)
According to Ammon O’Brien, looking at the Nahuatl text from the Anales de Cuauhtitlan as printed in Anales del Museo Nacional de Mexico (shown on page 345 of Seeing beyond Today with Ancient America) as well as the English translation extracted from the texts of Sr. Galicia Chimalpopoca, Mendoza-Sanchez, Brasseur de Bourbourg, and Paso y Troncoso, the term “Nahui” consistently appears as the name of the day on which the catastrophe took place. Nahui-Atl, Nahui-Ocelotl, Nahui-Quiyahuitl, Nahui-Ecatl, Nahui-Ollin, and also Nahui-Xochitl--a selection of titles--all signify different aspects of the same dreadful day. Thus it is very interesting that NAHUI--which as previously noted--signifies the number “four” in the Nahuatl language.
Among the several descriptive forms of the day Nahui which appear in Mexican historical sources, one of particular interest is Nahui-Ollin “Four-Movement.” The term “movement” in this context refers to seismic movements, hence the Nahuatl term Nahui Ollin has usually been translated as “Four-Earthquake.” The point of significance to be noted here is that according to certain Mexican traditions, we are told that Quetzalcoatl departed this world on the day Nahui-Ollin. On this subject, Kingsborough comments thus:
The sign of Nahui-Ollin which signifies “Four-Earthquake” was dedicated to Quetzalcoatl and according to Mexican mythology alluded to the day of destruction and the end of the world. The sign was frequently carved on rocks and stones. The sign Nahui-Ollin occupies the center of the large Mexican calendar stone. It is significant that the Mexicans should have believed that Quetzalcoatl departed on the day four-earthquake, and that the end of the world would occur on the same sign.
[Ammon O’Brien, Seeing beyond Today with Ancient America, p. 350]
3 Nephi 8:5 On the fourth day of the month: (1) [Mexican Calendar Stone]. Facsimile drawn by Carl Nebel c. 1836 (2) The Sign Nahui-Ollin which incorporates four branches, each signifying the catastrophic end of a former epoch. [Ammon O’Brien, Seeing beyond Today with Ancient America, p. 350]
“In the Thirty and Fourth Year in the First Month on the Fourth Day of the Month”
According to John Pratt, “although the Bible is vague about the date of the Savior’s birth, it is so precise about his death that the day Friday, 1 April A.D. 33, is indicated.” … In his book, The Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ, Harold Hoehner concludes persuasively that “the A.D. 33 date for the death of Christ best explains the evidence of both sacred and secular history.” Pratt notes that the fact that the law of Moses specifically required the lamb to be sacrificed on 14 Nisan argues against a 15 Nisan crucifixion (or any other Hebrew calendar date). Of the possible proposed crucifixion years from A.D. 28 to A.D. 34, the only year in which 14 Nisan fell on the required day of Friday was A.D. 33. (See illustration) [See also John Pratt’s commentary (3 Nephi 6:20) on the type and shadow of the Law of Moses in relation to the Passover.]
3 Nephi 8:5 In the thirty and fourth year, in the first month, on the fourth day of the month (Illustration): Christ’s 14 of Nisan Death Date Possibilities. [Bruce W. Warren, Blaine M. Yorgason and Harold Brown, New Evidences of Christ in Mesoamerica, Unpublished Manuscript]
The Book of Mormon account is so precise as to suggest the exact number of years and days that the Savior lived. It describes the appearance of a sign that heralded the Savior’s birth on the following day (3 Nephi 1:19) and states that time was later reckoned from that sign (3 Nephi 2:8). It also describes a great destruction at the Savior’s death on the fourth day of the thirty-fourth year (3 Nephi 8:5). Thus, if Jesus was born on the first day of the first year, he lived thirty-three Nephite years and three days.
Orson Pratt first suggested that the Savior’s birth date could be calculated by starting on the better-established crucifixion date and counting back the number of years and days from the Book of Mormon. He proposed that the Nephite year probably had exactly 365 days as did the Mesoamerican calendar and the ancient Egyptian calendar. [See the commentary (3 Nephi 8:5) on the Mesoamerican calendar system.]
If we identify the fourth day of the thirty-fourth Nephite year as 1 April A.D. 33 (see illustration “Christ’s 14 of Nisan Death Date Possibilities” above), and if one counts back three days more than 33 Nephite years, one arrives at 6 April, 1 B.C. for Christ’s birth date.
Although various birthdates have been proposed for Christ, ranging anywhere from 9 B.C. to A.D. 1, it might be wise to review some of the evidence that might support an April 6, 1 B.C. birthdate.
1. John the Baptist--Fifteenth Year of the Reign of Tiberius Caesar:
“Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene, Annas and Caiaphas being the high priest, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.” (Luke 3:1-2)
According to John Lefgren, the Gospel of Luke tells us that John was baptizing in the waters of Jordan “in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar” (Luke 3:1), and that during John’s ministry “Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age.” (Luke 3:23). These two references make it possible to approximate the year of Christ’s birth. Historians recognize Tiberius as an important figure in the history of Rome and are able to define within a tolerance of at least two years the timing of the fifteenth year of his reign… . Most historians identify August 17, A.D. 14 (Julian calendar), as the beginning of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, the second emperor of Rome. Luke tells us that John the Baptist began his ministry in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius. This suggest that sometime between A.D. 27 and A.D. 29 John came “into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.” Luke 3:3)
Bruce Warren gives the following quote in support the of year A.D. 29 as the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar:
“Everyone has once read, for it comes up many times in literature, of that pilot in the reign of Tiberius, who, as he was sailing along in the Aegean on a quiet evening, heard a loud voice announcing that Great Pan was dead… . [T]he myth has been understood as telling of the death of Christ in the 19th year of Tiberius.”
The nineteenth year of Tiberius would be A.D. 33. Thus if the year of Christ’s death was A.D. 33, then the year of his birth would have been in 1 B.C.
To this evidence, John Pratt adds the following: “Tertullian states, ’Augustus survived, after Christ is born, fifteen years.’ Thus the death of Augustus in August A.D. 14 was in the fifteenth year after April, 1 B.C.”
2. Caesar Augustus--Emperor of Rome (Tax):
“And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.” (Luke 2:1)
According to John Lefgren, Caesar Augustus ruled as emperor of Rome from 27 B.C. to A.D. 14. These years place his reign well within any probable date for Christ’s birth.
John Pratt notes that until recently, no empire-wide enrollment (Luke 2:1) was known that would have been required of Joseph and Mary. The commonly cited taxation of 8 B.C. applied only to Roman citizens. However, Ernest Martin has now identified it as a combined census and oath of allegiance to Augustus in 3-2 B.C., perhaps related to the bestowal of the title “Pater Patriae” (father of thy country) by the senate on Feb. 5, 2 B.C. Josephus records that over 6,000 Pharisees refused to pledge their good will to Caesar (about a year or so before Herod died), probably referring to that oath because the census would have recorded how many refused. Orosius (a fifth century historian) clearly links an oath to the registration at the birth of Christ: “[Augustus] ordered that a census be taken of each province everywhere and that all men be enrolled. So at that time, Christ was born and was entered on the Roman census list as soon as he was born. This is the earliest and most famous public acknowledgment which marked Caesar as the first of all men and the Romans as lords of the world … that first and greatest census was taken, since in this one name of Caesar all the peoples of the great nations took oath, and at the same time, through the participation in the census, were made part of one society.” He identified the time of the census using two Roman systems that both agree to indicate 2 B.C. If this census represents the “decree of Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed,” then this would support a 1 B.C. birthdate for Christ.
3. Cyrenius--Governor of Syria:
“And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.” (Luke 2:2)
According to John Lefgren, there seems to be agreement among the experts that P. Sulpicus Quirinius was governor of Syria in A.D. 6-7. However, there is no hard historical evidence to support the notion that he was legate or governor of Syria any time before A.D. 6… . Nevertheless, there continues to be uncertainty among historians as to the identity of the governor of Syria in 4-1 B.C. This uncertainty is removed for the periods of 9-6 B.C and 6-4 B.C., when C. Sentius Saturninus and P. Quinctilius Varus were, respectively, governors of Syria. Thus, although not confirmed, a birthdate for Christ between 4-1 B.C. might still be a possibility.
4. Shepherds in the Field:
“There were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.” (Luke 2:8)
According to John Lefgren, the lambing season occurs in the spring. In the Middle East sheep drop their lambs within a period of about two weeks from late March to early April. During this season the flocks require the constant attention of their keepers. During lambing, for the safety of their flocks and preservation of the newborn, shepherds keep careful watch over their sheep. At no other time in the year are shepherds more closely tied to their flocks… . Judean shepherds can be found in the fields keeping watch over their sheep any time from mid-March to early November, but the one time of the year during which their round-the-clock attention is required is the lambing season. Thus, an April 6th birthdate for Christ has support.
5. A New Star Appears:
“Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.” (Matthew 2:2)
“… and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.” (Matthew 2:9)
According to John Lefgren, for centuries astronomers have attempted to identify the star that heralded the birth of Christ… . Herod’s surprise at being told of the star by the magi suggests that the Star of Bethlehem may not have been particularly large or spectacular. At this time it seems best to conclude that astronomy neither confirms nor refutes the appearance of a new star on the night of Christ’s birth.
6. The Reign of Herod the Great of Judea:
"Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king … (Matthew 2:1)
“ … for they are dead which sought the young child’s life” (Matthew 2:20).
According to John Lefgren, Matthew clearly states that Herod the Great was alive at the time of Christ’s birth. The king was an old man who was tormented by a life of evil works and by “an intolerable itching over all the surface of his body.” By the time of Christ’s birth Herod the Great had murdered, among others, his wife, three of this sons, his wife’s brother, and his wife’s grandfather. With that kind of record, is it any wonder that Herod sought to destroy the baby Jesus, or that the Holy Family fled to Egypt to await the death of the evil king?
The traditional approach in narrowing the limits of time for the birth of Christ is to first determine the likely time of the death of Herod the Great. Josephus, a Jewish historian who lived in the first century, gives by far the most information on the reign of Herod the Great, but much of his chronology (especially the length of the kings reign) is disputed by scholars. Josephus mentions among other things that Herod the Great died after an eclipse of the moon and before a Passover. In their search for the year of the death of Herod the Great and the pivotal point of Christ’s birth, most scholars have identified the eclipse of the moon on the night of March 12-13, 4 B.C. (Julian calendar), as the eclipse referred to by Josephus. This, of course, implies that Christ was born no later than March [in] 4 B.C. However, according to Pratt and Lefgren, and contrary to what some have assumed, the lunar eclipse of 4 B.C. is not conclusive evidence because of the following:
A. Many Events between the Eclipse and Passover:
According to John Pratt so many events are recorded by Josephus as occurring after the eclipse and before the following Passover, that it appears impossible (or extremely unlikely) that they all occurred in only 30 days, as required by the 4 B.C. scenario.
B. Varus Was Governor of Syria at Herod’s Death:
According to John Pratt, Josephus says that Varus was governor of Syria at Herod’s death and Varus is indeed indicated as such in 4 B.C. by coins. However, Ernest Martin points out that coins also show Varus was governor in 6 and 5 B.C., whereas Josephus recorded that Saturninus was governor for the two years preceding Herod’s death. In view of this conflict one must ask, What part of Josephus’s record is faulty?
Martin‘s solution is that an inscription found near Varus’ villa, which describes a man who was twice governor of Syria, probably refers to Varus. If so, his second term could well have been about 1 B.C., when there is no record of anyone else as governor.
C. Josephus’s Unique Mention of the Eclipse of Herod:
According to John Pratt, Herod’s eclipse was the only eclipse mentioned by Josephus in his lengthy histories. One must ask, Why? One answer is that the eclipse of Herod was widely observed then associated with the executions. If so, then the eclipse probably occurred in the early evening. Using this criterion, the eclipse of March 13, 4 B.C. is extremely unlikely because it began the umbral phase more than six hours after sunset and hence would have only been seen by at most a few people. The eclipse of Sept. 15, 5 B.C. began three hours after sunset, but that is also late. On the other hand, the eclipse of December 19, 1 B.C. fits this criterion very well. The full moon was nearly half eclipsed when it could first be seen rising in the east above the distant mountains about twenty minutes after sunset (See Fig. 1)… . The characteristic reddening of the eclipsed portion would have become noticeable. A partial eclipse is more easily seen at moonrise than a total eclipse because totality delays first visibility (the entire moon is in the “invisible” portion) and the shape of the missing portion would have made it obvious that it was an eclipse, especially to the Judeans who used the moon to indicate the day of the month and who expected a full moon. Thus, of the candidates to be Herod’s eclipse, the December 29, 1 B.C. eclipse was the most likely to have been widely observed, and thus Herod probably died in early A.D. 1.
3 Nephi 8:5 In the thirty and fourth year, in the first month, on the fourth day of the month (Illustration): Figure 1. The proposed eclipse. the lunar eclipse of Dec. 29, 1 B.C. as it would have been seen from Jericho rising in the east at an altitude of 3 degrees about 20 minutes after sunset. [John P. Pratt, “Yet Another Eclipse for Herod,” The Planetarian, Vol. 19, No. 4, December 1990, pp. 8-13]
D. Herod’s Successors:
Herod’s successors dated their reigns from 4-3 B.C. One might wonder how to reconcile this fact with a proposed 1 A.D. death for Herod. According to John Pratt, the best answer seems to be that of Ernest Martin. Herod had four sons: Antipater, Archelaus, Antipas and Philip. Although Herod was the only king until the day he died, he let Antipater rule with him and handle many of the public affairs. Antipater did not continue in that regency but went to Rome, and he died before Herod, but had he survived, he may well have counted his regnal years from the beginning of his regency under Herod. After Herod’s death the kingdom was divided up among his three sons. Not to be outdone by any of the other kingships, all three successors might have reasoned that they were really continuing the reign of their brother Antipater.
The earliest coins known for any of the successors’ reigns is for “year 5,” which is consistent with the antedating theory that A.D. 1, their first de facto year, was their fourth or fifth year de jure
E. Josephus: A 37 Year Reign for Herod?:
According to John Pratt, Josephus only gives two Roman years during Herod’s entire reign: 40 B.C., when he was named king by Rome, and 37 B.C., when he took Jerusalem and had the reigning king killed… . At Herod’s death, Josephus says that Herod reigned 34 years from the death of the former king, but then adds that he had reigned 37 years counting from the 40 B.C. date. This information seems very logical and correlated except for the following scenario:
The reference to a reign of 37 years from the 40 B.C. date was the first time in thirty chapters in which Josephus reckoned the events of Herod’s reign by any other year except 37 B.C. Suppose Josephus’s source said Herod reigned 37 years. This might imply, if reckoned with a beginning date of 37 B.C., that Herod’s death was in A.D. 1. If other records implied that Herod’s successors reckoned their reigns from 4-3 B.C., Josephus might have seen an apparent conflict because the successors would have apparently begun their reigns at Herod’s death. Faced with this dilemma, he might well have decided that the best solution was that Herod’s 37 years must have been counted from 40 B.C. This explains both why he would have incorrectly assigned 34 years to Herod’s reign as well as whey he added the new reckoning from 40 B.C. in order to use the “37 years” from the original source.
Furthermore, Josephus might not have known that Herod’s sons antedated their reigns. That is entirely possible because Josephus knew very little about their reigns. He devoted only one verse in his Antiquities to ten years of Archelaus and only two more to the first thirty years of Antipas and Philip, whereas Herod’s reign required thirty chapters. Thus, a conclusion could be made that Herod died in A.D. 1.
F. Another Eclipse for Herod:
W. E. Filmer has identified two other lunar eclipses visible from Jerusalem that could satisfy Josephus’s account. One eclipse occurred on January 9, 1 B.C. (Julian calendar), and the other on December 29, 1 B.C. (Julian calendar). The second eclipse was visible when the moon rose over the eastern horizon of Jerusalem in the evening--a time when many people in Judea would have been awake to note the unusual phenomenon of a moon rising in eclipse. As early as the sixteenth century, Joseph Scaliger, the mastermind behind the Gregorian calendar reform and the Julian period used by astronomers, decisively maintained that the death of Herod the Great was connected with a 1 B.C. eclipse.
7. Additional Secular Sources:
Additional secular sources relate a number of circumstances that are associated with Christ’s birth that reflect on an April 6, 1 B.C. birthdate:
A. Anno Domini:
According to John Pratt, the sixth century scholar Dionysius Exiguus determined the Christian era (A.D.) based on his calculation of the year Christ was born (1 B.C.). If Christ was really born about 6 B.C., how can such a large error be explained, especially considering that Dionysius Exiguus had access not only to the writings of Josephus, but also to records not available to others? No satisfactory answer has been proposed to this long standing puzzle. Now is appears that he had the right year for Christ’s birth after all--1 B.C.
B. December 25:
According to John Pratt, when the date of December 25 was chosen for celebrating Christmas, in the fourth century, it coincided with the pagan winter solstice celebration. That is sometimes assumed to be the only reason for the choice, but according to St. Augustine, Christmas was “computed from the twenty-fifth of March--the day on which the Lord is believed to have been conceived, because he also suffered on that same date--to the twenty-fifth of December, the day on which He was born.” … Yet St. Augustine also said that Christ was crucified “on the same day in which His mother began to have milk.” Thus we find that, according to tradition, Christ apparently died on March 25, but he also could have been conceived or born at about that date. The Bible verifies that Christ died at Passover (John 19:14). It also implies that Christ lived an even number of years (Christ began his ministry near passover--John 2:23, was “nearly” 30 years old at the time--Luke 3:23; Numbers 4:3,23,30, and apparently preached three full years). If the Church fathers had used the passover Crucifixion date of April 3, A.D. 33, and had counted back in lunisolar years to the birth (instead of the conception) in 1 B.C., they would have arrived at April 8, 1 B.C (Julian) [or April 6, 1 B.C. (Gregorian)].
C. Christmas Celebration:
According to John Pratt, instead of having a celebration on December 25 like the Roman Catholic Church, the eastern church put the birth of Christ on January 6, which they said was based on a tradition that Christ was born not on the winter solstice, but twelve days afterward. Note that if these “twelve days of Christmas” had been counted from the spring equinox (March 25, 1 B.C.) instead, the result would have been April 6.