Thorns of Glory, page 31
To embark upon an exploration of what Latter-day Saints have contributed to this topic, it becomes necessary to check some of our natural tendencies as members of the Restored Church (i.e., to canonize any and all statements made by General Authority, especially a Church President). General Authorities have expressed varying opinions on the topic of the Savior’s birthday and birth year, just as they have on many other topics. Some members of our faith seem disturbed by any disparities of opinion or the existence of contrary opinions from General Authorities, despite Joseph Smith’s maxim that “a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such” (Joseph Smith, in History of the Church, 5:265). Elder D. Todd Christofferson recently emphasized this point: “It should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church” (D. Todd Christofferson, “The Doctrine of Christ,” Ensign or Liahona, May 2012, 88–89).
Despite these instructions, some members of the Latter-day Saint faith are stubbornly inclined to canonize every statement a Church President or General Authority may have made, using such quotations to shut down opposing points of view. Though such statements certainly lend weight to a doctrinal viewpoint, we ought to be cautious, vigilant, and non-judgmental. Such opinions—even when well-considered—may, in fact, be wrong. Joseph Smith, Jr., Elder Christofferson, J. Reuben Clark, and others emphasized this fallibility, urging Church members to accept a General Authority’s humanity, reminding us that only one perfect human being ever walked the earth.
Perhaps it ought to be considered remarkable that little divergence of opinion exists among General Authorities on most topics. However, points of divergence persist on the birth and death of Jesus Christ.
It was Elder James E. Talmage who popularized the idea of April 6, 1 b.c., as the day and year of the Savior’s birth in his seminal volume Jesus the Christ. The same opinion was expressed a few years earlier by Elder B. H. Roberts. However, prior to this, no reference has been identified wherein a General Authority directly tied the opening verse of D&C 20 as being a revelatory confirmation of the date and day of Christ’s birth. Attorney and blogger Kevin Barney noted that,
So far as I can determine not a soul in the first two generations of the Church read [D&C 20:1] that way, including Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and John Taylor. It took 63 years for someone to see that this wording supposedly had relevance to determining the birth date of Jesus. In 1870 Orson Pratt, on completely different grounds, made an argument for Jesus being born on April 11. Pratt was the leading scripturist of his day, and if he didn’t know anything about this supposed reading of D&C 20:1, then it simply didn’t exist at that time. (Kevin Barney, “When Was Jesus Born?”, By Common Consent, https://bycommonconsent.com/2010/12/19/when-was-jesus-born/)
General Authorities who have expressed disagreement with Elder Talmage’s interpretation of D&C 20:1 have included President J. Reuben Clark, Elder Bruce R. McConkie, and Elder Parley P. Pratt. However, statements in support of April 6 as the calendar day of Christ’s birth have been expressed by President Gordon B. Hinckley, President Spencer W. Kimball, and President Harold B. Lee. In the April General Conference of 2014, the significance of this date seemed to be reasserted by Elder David A. Bednar. In 1919 Elder Hyrum W. Smith wrote favorably of April 6 but dismissed the year 1 b.c., preferring 4–7 b.c., which point of view is in line with other scholarly proposals.
The diversity of opinion among Latter-day Saint scholars and researchers is equally diverse. Until recently most writers have been faithful to the positions of Elder Talmage and Presidents Lee, Kimball, and Hinckley and to the “revelatory date” implied in D&C 20:1. Articles by them in support of this position have been published in Latter-day Saint periodicals such as the Ensign and BYU Studies.
The Latter-day Saint author who has spilled more ink on the subject of Christ’s birth and death date than any other scholar may be Dr. John P. Pratt. Since the mid-1980s, Dr. Pratt has doggedly defended the orthodox concept of the Savior’s birth on April 6, 1 b.c., frequently referencing D&C 20:1 as well as statements by Presidents Lee, Kimball, and Hinckley. Dr. Pratt is an astronomer by profession, naturally inclining him to lend ample weight to this technique of dating historical events, tying astrological phenomena reasonably confirmed by science with ancient signs and wonders in the heavens recorded in scriptural and secular sources. Relying upon his understanding of Old and New World calendrical systems, his theories are fascinating and informative, but his limited formal training in other disciplines is sometimes apparent.
For example, he cites Luke’s declaration that there was “no room for [Joseph and Mary] in the inn” (Luke 2:7) as evidence that it was indeed the busy Passover season. This exposes his lack of understanding of ancient languages and Judean culture. Modern scholars are reasonably unified that “inn” in this context is better translated as “guest room,” inferring that Joseph and Mary were seeking shelter in the home of a relative or friend but that this “guest room,” for whatever reason, was not available. It was not at all uncommon for travelers to sleep in tents or simply under the stars, no matter what time of year, but especially at Passover, when the city was clogged with pilgrims and formal lodging would have been difficult to obtain for all but the wealthy. So while Dr. Pratt’s point is not disproven, his logic seems misplaced.
That Joseph and Mary found accommodations for their newborn in a manger might have been a stroke of luck. An intriguing detail of this event is that Joseph and Mary would have sought a “guest room” at all, suggesting that Mary was already in labor. It’s possible, if it was not Passover week (or another formal Jewish holiday), that the couple was turned away from the guest room because of unseemly rumors about Mary’s unborn child. Luke’s Gospel does not say Joseph and Mary requested lodging, simply that the room was not available. If, as I have inferred, the comforts of the “guest room” were denied, the rationale for that denial could have been prejudicial. If true, Joseph and Mary wouldn’t be the first couple who suffered from harsh judgments and indignities, even at the hands of relatives.
Dr. Pratt also repeats the old argument about “shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night” (Luke 2:8) as a supportive reference to the springtime lambing season. Though this may be true in Utah and other regions of the world with a colder climate, in ancient Palestine this argument might not apply. Shepherds would have kept a vigil over their flocks in an open field during most nights of the year, lacking any covered enclosure, or sheepcote, to resort to for shelter in inclement weather. Again, this does not disprove Pratt’s support of Talmage and three Church Presidents, but nor does it shore it up.
Pratt’s most interesting arguments relate to his training as an astronomer. He goes to great lengths to connect significant astrological events with Christ’s conception, the journey of the Wise Men, Christ’s birth, His baptism, His death, His Resurrection, and other significant historical events, including the publication of the Book of Mormon and the dedication of the Kirtland Temple. He liberally uses these astrological events to reinforce his orthodox interpretation of D&C 20:1.
A natural question that arises after reading his lengthy analysis of lunar eclipses and the cycles of Venus and Mercury is why—if so few figures in ancient or modern times have been aware, or are even concerned with, this subject—should scripturists in our generation be concerned now? Dr. Pratt may defend this logic by proclaiming that, at least anciently, astrological correlations were considered topics of interest and that the Lord often tied significant astrological events with significant historical events. Pratt references such verses as Moses 6:63:
And behold, all things have their likeness, and all things are created and made to bear record of me, both things which are temporal, and things which are spiritual; things which are in the heavens above, and things which are on the earth, and things which are in the earth, and things which are under the earth, both above and beneath: all things bear record of me.
Moreover, he bears witness to the incomparable beauty and symmetry of such phenomena as well as their potential in expanding the breadth of a person’s testimony. If this is true, perhaps it is regrettable that few Christians throughout history have recognized it or deemed it a necessary component of their faith.
Dr. Pratt concedes that a principal weakness of his argument is his inability to convince scholars of the fallibility of the ancient historian Josephus, whose secular history of the Jews dates the death of Herod the Great to 4 b.c., shortly before Passover, a date that can be cross-referenced with other secular sources. King Herod, of course, is recorded in both Matthew and Luke as being very much alive at the time of Jesus’s birth. Josephus had at his disposal the notes of Herod’s biographer, Nicolaus of Damascus. Josephus goes so far as to record a lunar eclipse just prior to Herod’s death, an event astronomers have long proposed occurred on March 13, 4 b.c. Lunar eclipses were also visible from Jerusalem on January 10, 1 b.c., and September 15, 5 b.c. Dr. Pratt further proposes a fourth lunar eclipse on December 29, 1 b.c. He names this lunar eclipse as his personal preference since it was visible in the early evening, when most of Jerusalem was still awake, unlike other events that were visible only in the wee hours of the morning, as on March 13, 4 b.c., when all but the city’s most chronic insomniacs would have noticed. This is another example where Pratt’s logic seems strained. Only one observer would be requisite to note an eclipse. Evidence suggests that, even anciently, experienced stargazers could predict such events. The general populace certainly knew King Herod was gasping his last breaths. Associating Herod’s death with a lunar eclipse mere weeks before Passover might have been more notable to a historian like Josephus or Nicolaus than one that had occurred three months earlier.
In the end, to buttress his theories, Dr. Pratt must insist that Josephus and other sources are guilty of memorializing a host of historical errors. Indeed, he makes a concerted effort to do just that. Even so, in the end, he seems to dismiss his own arguments as inconsequential. They are merely suggestions of how these irreconcilable variances with secular dates might be explained and that, anyway, further argument is made moot on the basis of D&C 20:1 and statements by Elder Talmage and Presidents Lee, Kimball, and Hinckley. Many members of the Church might be sympathetic with this point of view, despite statements by other General Authorities that suggest greater flexibility on the matter.
In 1979, fully aware of statements that had been made by Elder Talmage and Presidents Lee and Kimball, scripturist Elder Bruce R. McConkie wrote: “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 [or year] of the Lord Jesus actually occurred” (Bruce R. McConkie, The Mortal Messiah, vol. 1 [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1979–1981]), 349–50). In a footnote, McConkie further summarizes the viewpoints of Elder Talmage, Elder Hyrum W. Smith, and President Clark, expressing a personal preference for the perspectives of President Clark.
Latter-day Saint scholars did not further advance the subject of Christ’s birth date until the Joseph Smith Papers Project released its study in 2008 suggesting that the opening verse of D&C 20 was not part of the original section and was most likely added by John Whitmer. Shortly thereafter, in 2010, Latter-day Saint archaeologist Jeffrey R. Chadwick published a vigorous attempt to settle the matter with some degree of finality. In his article “Dating the Birth of Jesus Christ,” Dr. Chadwick proposed December 5, 5 b.c. He suggests he may be open to other dates in December for the Savior’s birth, even the traditional date of December 25 (see Jeffrey R. Chadwick, “Dating the Birth of Jesus Christ,” BYU Studies, vol. 49, no. 4 (December 2010): 5–38). A December birth date is also favored by President J. Reuben Clark and Elder Bruce R. McConkie. In offering his conclusions, Dr. Chadwick presents a systematic rejection of the years and dates of other scholars, beginning with a rejection of April 6, 1 b.c., his rationale partially based upon new research regarding the authorship of the opening verse of D&C 20 from the Joseph Smith Papers Project. It’s my considered opinion that a full rejection of the dates implied in D&C 20:1 may not be warranted based solely upon the conclusions of historians associated with the Joseph Smith Papers, but this matter will have to wait to be addressed in another chapter note.
Within four years, two additional articles by Latter-day Saint scholars questioned the veracity of Dr. Chadwick’s proposals (in Lincoln H. Blumell and Thomas A. Wayment, “When Was Jesus Born? A Response to a Recent Proposal,” BYU Studies, byustudies.byu.edu/content/when-was-jesus-born-response-recent-proposal, Feb. 2012; John A. Tvedtnes, “When Was Christ Born?”, Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship:1–33).
Whereas Dr. Chadwick’s conclusions are often declarative and presented with boldness, Drs. Blumell and Wayment counter by stressing caution. They declare that Dr. Chadwick expresses too much certitude on points where a consensus among scholars is far from settled. Dr. Tvedtnes claims he began his own article years prior to the release of the Joseph Smith Papers Project but admits that it was the release of this study, along with the articles from Chadwick and from Blumell and Wayment that prompted him to finish his article and publish it on Interpreter. His dissent with Dr. Chadwick’s conclusions is mostly in harmony with points expressed in the article by Blumell and Wayment, although Dr. Tvedtnes added key details to the discussion and laments that he, Blumell, and Wayment did not collaborate to create a single article.
In general, Blumell, Wayment, and Tvedtnes dismiss Dr. Chadwick’s reading of Luke 1:26 and the idea that the “sixth month” as stated in this verse is associated with a month of the Jewish calendar. The former three believe this scripture refers to the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy and not to a month of the year, a point further emphasized by Luke 1:36: “And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren” (emphasis added).
Even if Dr. Chadwick insists upon his interpretation of “sixth month” as referring to a Jewish calendar month, this month is not associated with the festival of Hanukkah in December but with events in the Hebrew month of Adar, which is in June. In virtually every instance where Dr. Chadwick strives to pin down a specific correlation of measurement, whether using statements by Church fathers, secular sources, priestly systems for establishing new moons and Passovers, and Book of Mormon verses that seem to employ Old World lunar or solar calendars or a combination of these sources, Blumell, Wayment, and Tvedtnes are quick to rein in Dr. Chadwick’s speculations, insisting that until we identify further source materials that shed light on the matter, we do not have enough information to make more than educated guesses about the birth date or birth year of our Lord and Savior. Each of Dr. Chadwick’s conclusions in his article, “Dating the Birth of Jesus Christ” (Chadwick, 2010)—whether he insists that Christ died on a Thursday or a Friday or whether the Savior was thirty-two, thirty-three, or thirty-four years old—is shown to have substantial advantages and disadvantages. Every season of the year, whether the Messiah was born in spring, summer, autumn, or winter, is laden with weaknesses and strengths. All would agree that every year wherein we can confirm the prefecture of Pontius Pilate over Syria must be analyzed for its potentials and pitfalls, but thus far, those who claim to have pieced together a flawless puzzle to explain every problem have fallen short.
Blumell and Wayment go out of their way to compliment Chadwick for his efforts. They write:
To Chadwick’s credit, he treats this verse, and the potential implications it has for Jesus’s birth date, carefully and discusses the various interpretations offered by LDS scholars with specific attention paid to how D&C 20:1 has played into the discussion. In his analysis, he makes the important observation that whenever April 6 is mentioned as being the birth date of the Lord, it is almost certainly based on D&C 20:1. However, based on new evidence published as part of the Joseph Smith Papers Project, Chadwick further observes that verse 1 ‘is not part of the revelation proper.’ From the surviving evidence, it appears that verse one was added at a later date.
Blumell and Wayment’s article closes:
While we appreciate Chadwick’s attempt to untangle this Gordian knot, we ultimately feel that the argument that Jesus was born in December of 5 b.c. is flawed and does not adequately take account of all the diverse evidence. In all likelihood, the evidence supporting Jesus’s birth probably cannot justify more than to say that Jesus was born before Herod “the Great” passed away in the spring of 4 BC and probably not any earlier than 6 b.c., and that he died under the prefecture of Pontius Pilate. An ambiguous solution is at times frustrating to many readers, but until further evidence comes forward, our current sources will permit only opinions beyond those boundaries. (Lincoln H. Blumell and Thomas A. Wayment, “When Was Jesus Born? A Response to a Recent Proposal,” BYU Studies, byustudies.byu.edu/content/when-was-jesus-born-response-recent-proposal, Feb. 2012.)
To a layman this might sound harsh, but for those who have digested a fair share of apologist works, particularly from scholars who stand in firm disagreement on particular subjects, Dr. Blumell and Dr. Wayment seem to be extending an olive leaf, perhaps even an apology akin to, “Dr. Chadwick did a noble thing to even attempt to tackle such a complex subject and indeed added new and worthwhile info to the discussion. Unfortunately, we are still left with going back to the drawing board.”
