The correct timing of the reign’s of Zedekiah and Herod The Great  that testify also of the birth year of Jesus Christ 

As one reads the Book of Mormon and observes what is said even during those first few chapters concerning the timing of certain events, if the reader has even a little historical and theological knowledge of that time, it should soon become evident that there is a very real conflict with that timing mentioned in the Book of Mormon and with what many scholars have determined from their archeological, historical and theological studies.

This can be a problem for the Book of Mormon, or it could be additional evidence that the book is true, depending upon which source is correct in the actual time period. If it can be shown that the archeological, historical and theological time period is correct, then that should bring into question the accuracy and validity of the Book of Mormon.

On the other hand, finding that the correct time period matches the Book of Mormon should provided evidence to the accuracy and validity of the Book of Mormon. Gaining a testimony of the Book of Mormon can and usually is gained through the spirit as one reads and prays about the book. There is a promise in the Book that if one will read it with real intent and a sincere heart, the spirit of the Holy Ghost will testify to them that it is true. Yet it can also be reassuring to see other outside evidence that it is true. Discovering that the time period within the Book of Mormon is more accurate than what our present scholars have determined could be very reassuring that the book is true.

The first chapter of the Book of Mormon introduces the time period in which that story begins, with the 4th verse clearly beginning the story as it introduces the first main character, Lehi, in a very specific place and very specific time with a very specific chain of events as it states “it came to pass in the commencement of the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah, (my father, Lehi, having dwelt at Jerusalem in all his days); and in that same year there came many prophets, prophesying unto the people that they must repent, or the great city of Jerusalem must be destroyed.”

It should be easily seen from that verse that Lehi was living in Jerusalem in the very first year of the reign of King Zedekiah, the king of Judah. And it was also during that year, or rather, during Zedekiah’s first year of reign that many prophets were sent to the area of Jerusalem calling for them to repent or be destroyed. As the story continues it indicates Lehi is touched by what the prophets are saying and as he was once praying in behalf of his people, had a wonderful vision, which so inspired him that he also began to go forth among the people, declaring what he had seen in that vision. But his people, the Jews, first mocked him and then became angry with him to the point they plotted to kill him. At that point the Lord commanded Lehi in a dream to take his family and depart into the wilderness.

We then soon read in 1 Nephi 10:4: “Yea, even six hundred years from the time that my father left Jerusalem, a prophet would the Lord God raise up among the Jews—even a Messiah, or, in other words, a Savior of the world.”  1 Nephi 19:8 adds: “And behold he cometh, according to the words of the angel, in six hundred years from the time my father left Jerusalem.”  2 Nephi 25:19 also adds: “For according to the words of the prophets, the Messiah cometh in six hundred years from the time that my father left Jerusalem; and according to the words of the prophets, and also the word of the angel of God, his name shall be Jesus Christ, the son of God.”

It should be very evident with what is written, with that same message repeated three times, that the Book of Mormon is trying to be very clear in its message that there was a full 600 years from the time Lehi left Jerusalem to the time the savior was born, possibly even to the very day.

The Book of Mormon dating is given from the Nephite records as they recorded their history. That record claims to have been translated under the direction of the Lord through inspiration and the use of an ancient instrument called the Urim and Thummim, which, if true, would suggest that the years from 600 BC to 1 AD, 1 AD being the year as seen earlier from this study to be the year that the Messiah was born, is the 600 years being referred to here, and again that it was a full 600 years, making it a fact if that record is true as it claims to be, that Zedekiah became king sometime prior to the spring of 600 BC.

All seems logical and correct from this interpretation until one tries to coordinate these seemingly absolute correct dates to other supposed absolute correct dates as given to us by our Historians and Theologians. As we continue to analyze the dating in the Book of Mormon and compare it to what is accepted by today’s scholars and archeologists, we soon find the two sources to be very much in conflict with each other. The Book of Mormon dating for Lehi’s departure into the wilderness, that being in the spring of 600 BC, puts Zedekiah’s first year of reign into 601 BC. Yet our modern scholar’s interpretation of archeological evidence that has been found would place Zedekiah on the throne at the very earliest in late February of 598 BC with his regnal reign beginning in September on the 1st of Tishrei,  instead of 601 BC, a three year difference. Lehi then would have left in the spring of 597 BC.

This same evidence and interpretation would also have the Babylonian armies still camped outside of the walls of Jerusalem at the time Lehi would have been preaching and then finally leaving Jerusalem with his family. If that was the setting, that being a large hostile army camped outside the walls of Jerusalem, the city having just surrendered as well as the Jews legitimate king captured and removed from the throne, with a new king put on the throne that had to do the Babylonians biding or he and the city would suffer the consequence, it should bring into question other statements found in the Book of Mormon as well, such as those made by Lehi’s sons Laman and Lemuel as found in 1 Nephi 2:13, that “Neither did they believe that Jerusalem, that great city, could be destroyed according to the words of the prophets.” 

The scholar dating seems to be even further confirmed as one looks in the commonly used King James Version of the Bible. As one looks under Chronology in its Bible Dictionary, it will be found on page 639 that the date given there for the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah will again be the year 598 BC.

It should become very evident at this point that there is a major conflict between the dating of the year 601 BC for when Zedekiah first became king of Judah as suggested by the Book of Mormon, and the dating of the year 598 BC as determined by scholars as presently interpreted and translated from their historical and archeological evidence, as well as the Bible Dictionary accepting the scholars date, again a three year difference between the two sources; those two sources being the Book of Mormon and archeological evidence as presently interpreted by Scholars. 

We have just seen that Nephi, on three separate occasions, recorded that it would be six hundred years from the time Lehi left Jerusalem that the Savior would be born, possibly even to the day. There still would be no conflict in the dating with the Book of Mormon if the Savior was born sometime between the spring and winter of the year 4 AD, as that would fit with the 598 BC time of Zedekiah taking the throne. The 4 BC is historically accepted as from the writings of Josephus it was found that an eclipse of the moon took place after a one day fast with Herod the Great dying not long after. That Eclipse was determined to be just after the Fast of Esther in the spring of 4 BC. Because the birth of Jesus had to be prior to the death of Herod, Jesus then would have to be born no later than early 4 BC.  

Thus, from current archeological, theological and historical interpretations as currently applied to the Bible, we find Zedekiah becoming king in 598 BC with his regnal reign beginning in September of 598 BC with Lehi leaving the following spring of 597 BC and the Savior being born in 4 BC, or a total of 593 years, a seven year deficit in time as mentioned above when compared to the stated Book of Mormon time of 600 years from the time Lehi left Jerusalem in the first year of Zedekiah’s reign, until the birth of the Messiah. This becomes a major hurdle for the book of Mormon to overcome and a definite direct challenge to its accuracy and authenticity.

Both time periods cannot be correct. Either the historians and archeologists have it right and the Book of Mormon is wrong, or the Book of Mormon has it right and the historians and archeologists have it wrong. Both cannot be correct. Thus the dilemma we face is with both the actual time Zedekiah became king as well as the time of the death of Herod The Great, as Herod’s death must fit with the time of the birth of Christ. Again, the correct answer to this dilemma will also give either additional independent proof to the falseness or the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.  

If it can be shown that the archeologists and historians are correct in their interpretation and computation, then it should put in question the Book of Mormon’s claim that there was 600 years between those two events and even put in question the validly and accuracy of the Book of Mormon. Yet, if is found that the historians and archeologists have made a mistake in their interpretation of those historical records they have found and interpreted, and in fact the Book of Mormon dating is correct, then those facts along with the archeological evidence in use today would be more physical independent evidence of the validity and accuracy of the Book of Mormon. To help us determine which dates are correct, let us begin by examining how scholars have arrived at the dates they are presently using. Let us begin by how the Theologians and Historians have determined the beginning of the reign of King Zedekiah.

Let us begin by going to the “Babylonian Chronicle ABC 5”. As mentioned previously, scholars have concluded the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah was the year 598 BC, the year that is considered to be in the 7th year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, that date being determined by scholars from their interpretation from the writing found on the “Babylonian Chronicle ABC 5”. This clay tablet was first translated in 1956 and is now in the British Museum. Part of the cuneiform text on this clay tablet translated:  “…At that time Nebuchadnezzar conquered the whole of the Hatti-land. For 21 years Nabopolassar (Nebuchadnezzar’s father) had ruled Babylonia. On the eighth of Ab he died; in the month of Elul (our August/September) Nebuchadnezzar returned to Babylon and on the first day of Elul (6 September 605 BC that year) he sat on the royal throne in Babylon.”

Another section of the chronicle gives us some additional details concerning a change of the kings of Judah, and reads as follows: “In the seventh year (of Nebuchadnezzar) in the month Chislev (Nov/Dec) the king of Babylon assembled his army, and after he had invaded the land of Hatti (Syria/Palestine) he laid siege to the city of Judah. On the second day of the month Adara (Feb/Mar) he conquered the city and took the king (Jehoiachin) prisoner. He installed in his place a king (Zedekiah) of his own choice, and after he had received rich tribute, he sent (them) forth to Babylon.”  (From “Confirming The Exile Prophecies of 606 BC and 587 BC” by Guy Cramer)

It can be seen from this that the king of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar, came to Jerusalem, the city of Judah, and on the 2nd day of Adara in his 7th year, replaced the king of Judah. If Nebuchadnezzar became king upon his father’s death in the summer of 605 BC as scholars have interpreted from this tablet, then according to what scholars have presently determined from this, Nebuchadnezzar’s first year could have been interpreted to be from the first day of Elul of 605 BC when it states “he sat on the royal throne of Babylon”, to the last day of Ab of 604 BC, Ab being the month prior to Elul and usually falls mostly in our month of August.

From the above it has been interpreted in the past by those scholars studying this Chronicle that Nabopolassar, father of Nebuchadnezzar, after a 21 year reign died on the 8th of Ab. The following month on the 1st of Elul, Nebuchadnezzar took his place on the throne as king thus beginning his reign, that date being on our calendar on the 6th of September of 605 BC. In the next section of the chronicle we see King Jehoiachin being removed and Zedekiah installed on the throne in the 7th year of Nebuchadnezzar‘s reign, near the beginning of the month, on Adara 2, that month being the last month of their year and always ended on or after the spring Equinox, as the Babylonian year began with the month of Nisannu (our calendar time of March/April) which they always started with the first new moon after the spring Equinox.

Again, as this is the main point and source of the conflict, the interpretation here by historians and archeologists is that upon the death of Nebuchadnezzar’s father in late summer of 605 BC, Nebuchadnezzar became king, and thus began his first year of reign at that time. Now we are in Nebuchadnezzar’s 7th year of reign. With his first year as been shown to begin sometime in 605 BC and with Adaru 2 near the end of their year but in the spring of 604 BC, yet still being in the first year of his reign, we are thus brought into the year 598 BC, his 7th year, when we now see the change of the kings of Judah taking place according to the Babylonian chronicle ABC 5.

Again, that is how the year 598 BC has come to be established for the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah and accepted by the world in general without question as being the correct year for this event. From the above analyses this date does certainly appear to be correct, as Adara 2 (sometimes written as Adaru or Addaru, also as the Jewish month Adar) of 598 BC would be in the 7th year as we have seen from the above. This even becomes a year later when using the Babylonian rule of the Ascension Year, as Nebuchadnezzar’s 1st year of regnal reign would then be from Nisannu 1 of 604 to Addaru 29 of 603 BC, also then making the 2nd of Addaru in his 7th year in the spring of the year 597 BC.

That is the hurtle one must overcome to establish a different date for Zedekiah becoming king, for as we have just seen, the Book of Mormon is clearly in conflict with that date, and that it was some time prior to the spring of 600 BC, not 598 or 597 BC, that the change of the kings of Judah took place and when Zedekiah became king, thus making it necessary that Nebuchadnezzar’s reign begin at an earlier time period as well.

 This, then, is the established conflict. To find the truth, determining the correct year for the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign is clearly where the challenge is, as many other dates such as the reign if Zedekiah, the destruction of Jerusalem, the fall of Nineveh, the death of king Josiah, the reigns of several kings prior to Josiah even back to the date of the carrying away of the 10 tribes and the 70 years of desolation, as well as other dates, are piggybacked onto this date.

Let us now seek the facts necessary to determine the correct date of the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, as it is the key to the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah as found and established from Babylonian Chronicle ABC 5. To find Nebuchadnezzar’s beginning, let us look at all the evidence concerning both the beginning of his and his father’s reign, as the correct dates of both of those times from historical and archeological records should tie back into the scriptural records such as that found in Ezekiel 1:1-2 as will be mentioned below, as well as those provided by Daniel and Jeremiah. Again, all truth will stand on its own when the real facts are brought forward.

Upon the death of Assurbanipal in late 628 BC or early 627 BC, Nabopolassar found opportunity to lead a revolt against the Assyrian rule of Babylon. The Babylonian Chronicle ABC 2 indicates the dates of several battles over a period of many months prior to the time Nabopolassar was able to take full control of Babylon on the 23 of November, 626 BC, thus beginning the Chaldean Empire, better known as the Babylonian Empire.

We read from the Babylonian Chronicle ABC 2 on lines 14 thru 17: “For one year there was no king in the land. On the twenty-sixth day of the month Arahsamna Nabopolassar ascended the throne in Babylon. The ascension year of Nabopolassar in the month of Addaru Nabopolassar returned to Susa the gods of Susa whom the Assyrians had carried off and settled in Uruk….” Then on the next lines, 18 and 19, it states “The first year of Nabopolassar: On the seventeenth of the month Nisannu panic overcame the city. Samas and the Gods of Sapazzu went to Babylon.”

Although November 23rd is the Julian calendar date, November 16th is our Gregorian calendar date for the beginning of the Babylonian Empire, with the Babylonian’s calendar date for that same event being called the 26th of Arahsamna. The Julian Day Number Calendar would number that day 1,493,103, and we can also determine from that number that this day is on a Thursday week day. The Jews at the time of Jesus and today call that day Cheshvan 26th and the ancient Israelites under Moses, when God first changed their calendar in 1491 BC when they left Egypt, would have first called it the 26th day of the 8th month and then shortly thereafter, the 26th of Bul. Prior to that, the day would have been known as the 26th day of the 2nd month, yet all of those calendar dates are the same day. No matter what we call the day, it is still the same actual sun and moon calendar day. This is also true with any other day.

The Babylonian’s year began on the 1st day of the Babylonian month of Nisannu which is on our calendar in the year of 626 BC the 29th of March. Thus, the 1st year of the Babylonian Empire was from Nisannu 1 (*March 29th) of 626 BC to Addaru 29th (*April 16th) of 625 BC. This actually fits with what historians, archeologists and others have presently determined. (*Our Gregorian calendar time. Gregorian time will be used below unless otherwise indicated. The Babylonian month of Nisannu is the Jewish month of Nisan, and the Babylonian month of Addaru is the Jewish month of Adar, those being their 1st and last months of the year respectively.)

That same year would also be Nabopolassar’s ascension year as was mentioned on that same Chronicle during which the month Addaru, the last month of the year, he returned the Gods of Susa to Susa. Nabopolassar ascended the throne on the 26th of Arahsamna in 626 BC, thus beginning the Babylonian Empire on that date, making as stated the first year of the Babylonian Empire then from Nisannu 1 of 626 BC to Addaru 29th of 625 BC as mentioned above. That same year, the 26th of Arahsamna in 626 BC to the end of Addaru in 625 BC, would not be known as the first year of the reign of Nabopolassar, but as indicated would be his ascension year.

The first year of Nabopolassar’s regnal reign, then, would have started in the spring of 625 BC on Nisannu 1 (April 17th of 625 BC) and would have ended on Addaru 29th of 624 BC (April 5th of 624 BC), as the Babylonian’s counted their regnal years to begin from the 1st of the year following their ascension year, again the Babylonian year beginning in the spring with the first new moon that followed the Spring Equinox on Nisannu 1. That is also the time period accepted for the first year of Nabopolassar’s regnal reign by today’s historians and archeologists, and those dates as found and interpreted from the Babylonian Chronicles by historians do tie to the year 625-624 BC as his 1st year.

This time frame is further verified from information found on Babylonian Chronicle ABC 3 as it describes events from Nabopolassar’s first year on down to his 16th year as he continued his conquest of Assyria and Egypt. An example of the description from that chronicle of each year reads for his 14th year, our year 612 BC, as follows: 

 “The king of Akkad mustered his army and marched to Assyria. The king of the Medes marched towards the king of Akkad and they met one another at […]u. The king of Akkad and his army crossed the Tigris; Cyaxares had to cross the Radanu, and they marched along the bank of the Tigris. In the month Simanu, the Nth day, they encamped against Nineveh.”  

“From the month Simanu until the month Abu-for three months-they subjected the city to a heavy siege. On the Nth day of the month Abu they inflicted a major defeat on a great people. At that time Sin-sar-iskun, king of Assyria, died. They carried off the vast booty of the city and the temple and turned the city into a ruin heap. The [lacuna] of Assyria escaped from the enemy and, to save his life, seized the feet of the king of Akkad.”

“On the 20th day of the month Ululu [14 September (7th Gregorian) 612 BC] Cyaxares and his army went home. After he had gone, the king of Akkad dispatched his army and they marched to Nasibina. Plunder and exiles [lacuna] and they brought the people of Rusapu to the king of Akkad at Nineveh. On the [lacuna] of the month [lacuna] Assur-uballit [II] ascended to the throne in Harran to rule Assyria. ….”

From the above we first see the fall of Nineveh and the death of the Assyrian king, Sin-sar-iskun occurred in the summer of Nabopolassar’s 14th year (the summer of 612 BC), according to the interpretation by modern scholars of the archeological records recorded on the Babylonian Chronicle ABC 3. Continuing on in that same chronicle we also see the capture of Harran in his 16th year (610 BC), and finally destroying the remnants of Assyria in 609 BC, with a major battle against Egypt in 605 BC at Carchemish under the direction of his son Nebuchadnezzar, shortly before Nabopolassar’s death on August 15, 605 BC. Nebuchadnezzar quickly returned to Babylon to ascend the throne upon his father’s death.

We have several thoughts going from the above Babylonian Chronicles that should be pointed out here. The first thought is that “there was a year that there was no king in the land”. Following the death of Kandalanu sometime in late 628 to early 627 BC, there were four claimants for the throne to when Nabopolassar became king. Of those four, Sin-sarra-iskun (Sin-shur-ishkum) eventually declared himself to be king and did become the king of the Assyrian Empire in Nineveh, and Nabopolassar eventually the king over Babylon.

At the beginning of chronicle ABC 2 it mentions that the garrison of Sin-sarra-iskun was defeated by the troops of Nabopolassar and they fled to Assyria. If not earlier, that event and time may have begun the year in the land without a declared king. The chronicle mentions the event but the date was not discernible. It does appear to be near the beginning of the year of 626 BC, as the Assyrian troops later returned in the month Ululu, the Babylonian 6th month of the year of 626 BC, and set fire to the temple and plundered it. As is noticeable here from the above and as found on the chronicle, there was a period of time of at least a year that there was no reigning king in the land.

The second thought is that there was an ascension year, as it mentions an ascension year in the chronicle. The question then is, when does that ascension year begin and when did the first year of what is called his regnal reign begin. Although it has been described in detail above, because this is such a critical part of establishing the correct time periods for the beginning of the Babylonian Empire and the beginning of the reign of Nabopolassar, to yet further clarify what an ascension year is, let us look at the following.

The Jewish kings and the Israelite kings did not count those ascension and regnal years in the same way for themselves, as the Jewish king’s ascension year was the few months prior to Tishrei 1st (September/October) when their regnal reign actually began. Thus the ascension year for the Jewish kings was counted from the remainder of the prior king’s reign To Tishrei 1. In contrast, the Israelite kings counted the ascension year and the first regnal year as the same year, thus counting the last year of the prior king for both the prior king and the new king.    

The Babylonian kings and the Israelite kings also both counted their reigns from the 1st of Nisan, while the Israelites may have also recognized the anniversary dates of the reigns of most foreign kings, including the Jewish kings, to begin on Tishrei 1st. The beginning of the civil calendar, Tishrei 1st, was considered the New Year for the measuring of many of the reigns of foreign kings by the Israelites. This was necessary because legal documents were dated by the current year of the monarch’s reign. Rather than measuring a king’s reign from the date he took office, Tishrei 1st served as a standard anniversary marking the end of a full year of rule.

Thus, although the date of the beginning of the Babylonian empire was in November, 626 BC on our calendar, the end of the 1st year of Nabopolassar’s reign may have been from some other point such as Tishrei 1st of 625 BC if counted from the beginning of the year following his ascension year. Nabopolassar’s reign most likely would have been similar to the same rules the Babylonians were later using to determine their reigns. When using the known later Babylonian method, although it was determined that Nabopolassar first became king in November of 626 BC, the beginning of his first year of rule using the ascension method would begin his regnal reign to count from the following 1st of Nisan, the first of their year.

 Thus when using the ascension method as later used by the Babylonian kings, as Nabopolassar ascended the throne in November of 626 BC, the 1st of Nisan of 625 BC (the Babylonian month of Nisannu is called Nisan today by the Jews) would be the beginning of Nabopolassar‘s regnal reign, the first year ending on Addaru 29 of 624 BC, with the time prior to Nisan 1st of 625 BC being his ascension year. Because Nabopolassar ascended the throne in November of 626 BC, the first year of the Babylonian Empire would be Nabopolassar’s ascension year. Thus the first year of the Babylonian Empire would count from Nisannu 1st of 626 BC to Addaru 29 of 625 BC.

It mentions also in the above Babylonian Chronicle ABC 2 that during his ascension year in the month Addaru he returned to Susa and brought with him the Gods that the Assyrians had stolen previously the year before. It states on line 4 of that chronicle : “On the 12th of Ululu (abt. Aug.) the army of Assyria went down to Akkad, entered Sasanaku, set fire to the temple and plundered it…… And in the month Tasritu (abt. Sept.) the gods of Kis went to Babylon.”

We see from the above that after some battles where the Babylonians took back the gods of Susa from the Assyrians in the month Tasritu, after being taken to Babylonia for some time, the gods of Susa are now being returned to Susa in the month Addaru as we read earlier. The month of Addaru is the last month of the year and is near our spring. Returning the Gods to Susa was not only a significant event but it then would also have been at Susa that Nabopolassar would have begun his actual regnal years of reign on the 1st of that New Year, on Nisan 1 of 625 BC.

Establishing this time frame is significant and very important as we can then relate that date to other dates given or found in history and in the Bible. The correct year that the Babylonian Empire began and the first regnal year of Nabopolassar’s reign are two of the most important time markers that are needed to verify other dates. By establishing the correct times for those two events, then other dates in that period when aligned with those two dates should give us a visible pattern that will then verify the correctness of all of the dating for that period.

Having established the first year of the regnal reign of Nabopolassar being from Nisannu 1 of 625 to Addaru 29 of 624 BC, and the first year of the Babylonian Empire being from Nisannu 1 of 626 to Addaru 29 of 625 BC, we can also find an interesting verification of those being the correct years through a historical and astronomical event called the Solar Eclipse of Thales that took place in the year 585 BC. This eclipse was predicted by Thales while Alyattes II, king of Lydia (619-560) is battling Cyaxares, king of Media (625-585). This led to a truce. (Memo: According to NASA, there was a solar eclipse that occurred in May of 585 BC. NASA also indicates that it could have been seen in the area of the battle mentioned above, and it would have taken place about 7 p.m. their time.) According to historians, this is one of the cardinal dates from which other dates can be calculated. It was in the 8th year of the reign of Apries of Egypt (592 BC-573 BC) and in the 28th year after the fall of Nineveh, which would thus place the fall of Nineveh in the summer of 612 BC from this event.

Here we see the same time period being indicated for the fall of Nineveh, from two separate sources, to be in the summer of the year 612 BC. First we see that the eclipse in May of the year 585 BC took place in the 28th year from the fall of Nineveh, which does take us to the summer of 612 BC. We then see from the second source that the fall of Nineveh taking place in the 14th year of the reign of Nabopolassar is also in the summer of 612 BC. Both sources give us the summer of the year 612 BC for the fall of Nineveh, but the second source is only correct if in fact Nabopolassar’s first year of regnal reign did begin in the spring of the year 625 BC as we have seen from the above that it does.

Both the ending and the beginning of Nabopolassar’s reign are critical time and event markers to be verified, as the ending was also the time that Pharaoh Necho killed King Josiah of Judah from, which many other dates are dependent on, including the beginning of the Prophet Jeremiah prophesying and tying that prophets 13th year into the first year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, as well as the beginning of Nabopolassar’s reign. That time period also ties back into the beginning of the Babylonian Empire which in turn references the beginning of the prophecy of Ezekiel that also references the ending of the reign of Jehoiachin and the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah.

Here we have at least two historical markers, then, which dates the death of King Josiah to the summer of the year 612 BC, as Josiah’s death, according to 2 Kings 23:29-30, took place when Pharaoh-Necho was headed to Nineveh to join in the battle and was stopped by Josiah’s army, with Josiah being killed in the battle at that time. As just mentioned, it is by finding the correct time for Josiah’s death that it is then possible from that point to establish or verify the correct time for many other dates.

Although our analysis to this point clearly suggest that the summer of 612 BC was the time of the fall of Nineveh, yet most historians have the fall of Nineveh in 610 BC or even later because of their miscalculation of the beginning of the reign of King Nebuchadnezzar. The main battle that took place in the year 610 according to the Babylonian chronicles concerned the battle fought at Harran. We read on ABC 3: “The sixteenth year [610-609]: In the month Ajaru the king of Akkad mustered his army and marched to Assyria. From the month Simanu until the month Arahsamna he marched about victoriously in Assyria. In the month Arahsamna the Medes, who had come to the help of the king of Akkad, put their armies together and marched to Harran against Assur-uballit, who had ascended the throne in Assyria. Fear of the enemy overcame Assur-uballit and the army of Egypt that had come to help him, and they abandoned the city, and crossed the Euphrates. The king of Akkad reached Harran, fought a battle, and captured the city. He carried off the vast booty of the city and the temple. In the month Addaru the king of Akkad left his troops and their camp, and went home. The Medes, who had come to help the king of Akkad, withdrew.”

From the above we see the movement of the Babylonian army during the entire 16th year, covering our time from about March of 610 to March of 609. We learn that Harran fell during the winter of the year 610 BC, not Nineveh as it had fallen two years prior in 612 BC, and about March of 609 the “vast booty” was carried off. We also see that Egypt and Pharaoh Necho was supporting the Assyrian’s, not the Babylonian’s, and retreated back across the river Euphrates at that time. According to 2 kings 23:29 it sounds like Necho is against the Assyrian’s as it reads “In his days Pharaoh-Necho king of Egypt went up against the king of Assyria to the river Euphrates: and king Josiah went against him; and he slew him at Megiddo when he had seen him.”

The Egyptians had been headed to the Euphrates to help the Assyrian’s when, according to the Bible, Josiah of Judah tried to stop them and was himself killed in the process. Reading the above, though, it sounds as though the Egyptians were against the Assyrians as it reads they “went up against the king of Assyria”. That verse most likely though was referring to Nabopolassar, the Babylonian king who had just taken Assyria, for as we clearly saw from the above Chronicle ABC 3 who the Egyptians were supporting. The Egyptian’s then, according to the Babylonian Chronicle ABC 3, continued on but arrived too late to stop the fall of Nineveh. Now we find the Egyptian Army, two years later, leaving the city of Harran where they had been in a supporting role helping Assur-uballit, the king of the remnant of Assyria, after he had withdrawn from Nineveh in 612 BC following its fall. 

Also from the above we have learned that the heavy siege of Nineveh took place “From the month Simanu until the month Abu-for three months” which would be on our calendar from shortly after May 22nd to shortly after August 18th if from near the 1st of Simanu to the end of Abu, that being a full three lunar months as the statement alludes to. It was because of this siege at Nineveh that Pharaoh-Necho was headed to Nineveh when he was confronted by king Josiah of Judah, about mid June, and in the pursuing battle Josiah was killed.

Concerning that, continuing on from what we read above in 2 kings 23:29-36; 24-12 where “Pharaoh-nechoh king of Egypt went up against the king of Assyria to the river Euphrates: and king Josiah went against him; and he slew him at Megiddo, when he had seen him….And the people of the land took Jehoahaz the son of Josiah, and anointed him, and made him king in his father’s stead. Jehoahaz was twenty and three years old when he began to reign; and he reigned three months in Jerusalem”

“….And Pharaoh-nechoh put him in bands at Riblah in the land of Hamath, that he might not reign in Jerusalem; and put the land to a tribute of an hundred talents of silver, and a talent of gold. And Pharaoh-nechoh made Eliakim the son of Josiah king in the room of Josiah his father, and turned his name to Jehoiakim, and took Jehoahaz away: and he came to Egypt, and died there”

“….Jehoiakim was twenty and five years old when he began to reign; and he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem….So Jehoiakim slept with his fathers: and Jehoiachin his son reigned in his stead. And the king of Egypt came not again any more out of his land;: for the king of Babylon had taken from the river of Egypt unto the river Euphrates all that pertained to the king of Egypt. Jehoiachin was 18 years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem 3 months”

“….And Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up against the city, and his servants did besiege it.  And Jehoiachin the king of Judah went out to the king of Babylon, he, and his mother, and his servants, and his princes, and his officers: and the king of Babylon took him in the eighth year of his reign (Nebuchadnezzar’s reign). And he carried out thence all the treasures of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the king’s house, and cut in pieces all the vessels of gold which Solomon king of Israel had made in the temple of the Lord, as the Lord had said”

“….And he carried Jehoiachin to Babylon….And the king of Babylon made Mattaniah his father’s brother king in his stead, and changed his name to Zedekiah. Zedekiah was 21 years old when he began to reign, and he reigned 11 years in Jerusalem.”

This event thus places the beginning of the reign of king Jehoiakim of Judah who then reigned 11 years, from the 1st of Tishrei and our day of September 17th of 612 BC. It also helps us see from the above the 3 months of the reign of Jehoahaz, that being from sometime beginning between May 22 and June 20th, that also being the window of time in which King Josiah was killed, to ending sometime between August 18th and September 16th of 612 BC. That time period works perfectly for those two kings, Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim, as well as then tying into the dates for the several other kings of Judah that are before and after.

Now reading in Ezekiel 1:1-2, we find Ezekiel telling us of his calling as a prophet in these words, “Now it came to pass in the thirtieth year, in the fourth month, in the fifth day of the month, as I was among the captives by the river Chebar, that the heavens opened, and I saw visions of God. In the fifth day of the month, which was the fifth year of king Jehoiachin’s captivity, the word of the Lord came expressly unto Ezekiel the priest, the son of Buzi in the land of the Chaldeans by the river Chebar; and the hand of the Lord was there upon him.”

King Jehoiachin’s captivity began at the same time that Zedekiah became king of Judah, as he replaced Jehoiachin as king. For this scripture in Ezekiel to fit the dating of the Book of Mormon, the 5th year of captivity would have to be 597 BC for, according to the Book of Mormon, the 1st year would be 601 BC. The 1st year of the Babylonian Empire which in this scripture we are now in the 30th year of, would then have to have begun in the year 626 BC which we determined it did.

The key to this scripture was the determination of what is and when was the beginning of the thirtieth year that is talked about in this scripture, as it is the key reference to place all the events correctly on our calendar. We know “the fifth day of the month, which was the fifth year” is referencing the time period when Jehoiachin was dethroned and Zedekiah was installed as King, and the amount of time that had passed since they had been carried away to Babylon. When understanding the custom of their dating during that period of history and with a little more information, the 30th year mentioned here is seen as referencing the beginning of the Babylon Empire.  

Accordingly, as we go to the thirtieth year as mentioned, and keeping in mind their lunar months and that the 1st year of the Babylonian Empire is from the spring of 626 BC on Nisan 1 to Adar 29th of 625 BC as we have previously determined, we will then find that the thirtieth year plus the fourth month (Tammuz) and fifth day as mentioned in Ezekiel to be in the middle of July (July 10th) of 597 BC.

 Now, when counting back from that time from the 5th year as mentioned in Ezekiel, to the 1st year, we will find ourselves taken back to the beginning of the year of 601 BC on Nisan 1st. Here we have found, through the use of the combination of the Babylonian Chronicle writings and Biblical writing including Ezekiel 1:1-2, a witness of the possibility that Zedekiah’s reign actually did begin in the year 601 BC rather than the universally accepted year of 598 BC. That would make the ascension year for Zedekiah then from Adar 2nd (Feb.25) to Tishrei 1st (Sept.17) of 601 BC with his 1st year of reign running from Tishrei 1 and September 17th of 601, to Tishrei 1 and September 7th of 600 BC. Let us now go on to see if there is any other evidence that this is so.

As we now look again at the invasion of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar from another narrative perspective, we first read in Daniel 1:1 “In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and besieged it.”

Here from Daniel we see the invasion of Judah by Nebuchadnezzar began in the third year of Jehoiakim which would be just before the 1st of Tishrei (September) of 609 BC, and below from Jeremiah 25 we will see it ending in the 4th year of Jehoiakim with the conquest of Jerusalem, that also being the 1st year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, which we should see from the following, began on Nisannu 1 of 608 BC.

In 2 Kings 22:1 we learn that “Josiah was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned 31 years in Jerusalem.” We also find in Jeremiah 1:2-3; 11-12 that to Jeremiah “the word of the Lord came in the days of Josiah the son of Amon king of Judah, in the 13th year of his reign. It came also in the days of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah, unto the end of the eleventh year of Zedekiah the son of Josiah king of Judah, unto the carrying away of Jerusalem captive in the 5th month.” As determined previously, Jehoiakim’s regnal reign began not long after the death of his father King Josiah, on the 1st of Tishrei of 612 BC and in September on our calendar, making the third year between September of 610 and September of 609 BC.

We then read in Jeremiah 25:1-3 “The word of the Lord that came to Jeremiah concerning all the people of Judah in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah, that was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon; The which Jeremiah the prophet spake unto all the people of Judah, and to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, From the thirteenth year of Josiah the son of Amon king of Judah, even unto this day, that is the three and twentieth year, the word of the Lord hath come unto me and I have spoken unto you, rising early and speaking; but ye have not hearkened.”….”And this whole land shall be a desolation, and an astonishment; and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years.,…”.

Since Jehoiakim’s 4th year would be from Sept. 609 BC to Sept. 608 BC, and with Nebuchadnezzar 1st year falling in the 4th year of Jehoiakim as stated in these verses, that would begin Nebuchadnezzar’s reign on the 1st of Nisan of 608 BC, as that is when the 1st of Nisan would fall in Jehoiakim’s 4th year.  

To further verify this we now need to recognize that the 1st year of Josiah, son of Amon, would have begun in September of 643 BC if that reign thus ended as determined above during the time period between Sept 613 and Sept 612 BC for his 31st year, as his reign was a 31 year reign. The 13th year of the reign of Josiah, the 1st year in which Jeremiah began receiving the word from the Lord as he so stated, would then be from Sept. 631 to Sept. 630 BC. 

When Jeremiah goes on to state “even unto this day, that is the three and twentieth year, the word of the Lord hath come unto me,…”, he is indicating that Nebuchadnezzar’s 1st year as stated above was in the 4th year of king Jehoiakim, and was also in Jeremiah’s 23rd year of being a prophet. Thus Jeremiah’s 23rd year as a prophet covered Nisan 1st of 608 BC, as here Jeremiah is indicating that Jeremiah’s 23rd year was in the 1st year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar.

As we previously learned, the Babylonian kings counted their regnal reign time from Nisannu or Nisan 1, which began with the 1st new moon that followed the March equinox time period. Thus we should here again see that in the 23rd year of Jeremiah’s receiving the word from the Lord that Nebuchadnezzar’s reign would have begun on the new moon in early April of 608 BC.

We should clearly see this when understanding that 23rd year of Jeremiah would include Nisan 1 of 608 BC, as Jeremiah’s 1st year began in the time frame from Sept. 631 to Sept 630 BC, thus making his 23rd year begin in the time frame from Sept 609 to Sept 608 BC, with Nebuchadnezzar’s reign beginning sometime during that period.

The point where Jeremiah’s 1st year overlaps the date of the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar’s 1st year is the day of Nisannu 1. Thus, Nisannu 1 of the year 630 BC would be in the 1st year of Jeremiah, making Nisannu 1st of 608 BC, the beginning date of Nebuchadnezzar’s 1st year, in the 23rd year of Jeremiah. (630 BC being the 1st year, then 22 years from 630 would be the year 608 BC.) Thus from the above we have found another verification that Nisannu 1 of 608 BC is the correct time for the beginning of the regnal reign of Nebuchadnezzar. 

Again as mentioned above, we see that the 1st year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar was in the fourth year of Jehoiakim. That fourth year being from September (Tishrei 1) of 609 to September (Tishrei 1) of 608 would also have made Nebuchadnezzar’s reign begin on Nisan 1 of 608 BC. The several month period from the beginning of the invasion of Jerusalem to Nisan 1 of 608 BC would be considered Nebuchadnezzar’s ascension year.

Although Nebuchadnezzar counted the beginning of his reign from 608 BC, as previously pointed out, he would be having a joint rule with his father until his father’s death in 605 BC. His first year of reign, then, would be from April 9th or 10th and Nisan 1 of 608 to March 30th or 31st and Adar 28th of 607 BC. The 7th year then, as mentioned on the “Babylonian Chronicle ABC 5” above, would actually be the time period from April 3rd and Nisan 1 of 602 BC to March 23rd and Adar 29th  of 601 BC. Thus, the 2nd day of Adara when the city of Judah was taken by Nebuchadnezzar would be our calendar date of February 23rd, 601 BC.

Another example found in the scriptures showing a joint reign among the Babylonian Kings is found in Daniel 5:29, “Then commanded Belshazzar and they clothed Daniel with scarlet, and put a chain of gold about his neck, and made a proclamation concerning him, that he should be the third ruler in the kingdom.” Here we see the Babylonian King Belshazzar placing Daniel in a high level of leadership and responsibility, being made the third ruler in the kingdom; third because Belshazzar was second and his father Nabonidus was first, as Belshazzar was and had been reigning jointly with his father for the past 14 years. This an obscure but great example of the practice of joint reigns among the Babylonian kings.

We should now be able to see from all of this that the alignment of the years of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar from his invasion of Jerusalem fits with the length of the time of the Babylonian Empire found in history, archeology, astronomy, the Book of Mormon and the Bible, including and all tying into Ezekiel 1:1, as well as the later invasion of Babylon by Cyrus the Great in October, 539 BC, which eventually ended the 70 years of captivity as referred to in Daniel and by other Prophets.

The first calendar year of the 70 years of captivity would have been from 1 Nisan of 608 BC to the end of Adar of 607 BC, thus making the 70th year from Nisan 1 of 539 BC to the end of Adar of 538 BC and our March 16th of 538 BC when using the Israelite calendar rules, or our April 15th when using the Babylonian calendar rules. We should now also clearly see from the above that the beginning of the 1st year of the reign of Cyrus over Babylon which began in October of 539 BC, was as discussed above, literally in the 70th year of the captivity of the Jews with their 70th year ending a few months later in the following spring and at the actual time the Jews returned to Jerusalem with Cyrus’s permission. All the dates and years do fit perfectly when correctly counted as seen above.

As mentioned earlier, it is also interesting that the date in 1 Nephi: 1-5 at the bottom of the page is given as about 600 BC, and comes before the asterisk * date in chapter 2 which is shown at the bottom of the page as the year 600 BC. Those dates completely fit with the other observations and calculations that have been mentioned including what is found in Daniel, Ezra, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and 1 & 2 Kings and Chronicles. 

To further corroborate these dates we find on the Babylonian chronicle ABC 7, the “Chronicle of Nabonidus,” the following: “On the 16th day (Tishrei) Ugbaru, governor of Gutium, and the army of Cyrus, without battle they entered Babylon. Afterwards, after Nabonidus retreated, he was captured in Babylon…..On the 3rd day of the month Arahsamna, Cyrus entered Babylon. The haru-vessels were filled before him. There was peace in the city while Cyrus, his greeting to Babylon in its entirety spoke.” From this we find Cyrus entering the city on the 3rd day of the month Arahsamna, that date on our calendar being October 22nd of 539 BC.

Now let us read from “The Works of Flavius Josephus” translated by William Whiston: “How Cyrus, King Of The Persians, Delivered The Jews Out Of Babylon And Suffered Them To Return To Their Own Country And To Build Their Temple, For Which Work He Gave Them Money.”

“1. In the first year of the reign of Cyrus (1) which was the seventieth from the day that our people were removed out of their own land into Babylon, God commiserated the captivity and calamity of these poor people, according as he had foretold to them by Jeremiah the prophet, before the destruction of the city, that after they had served Nebuchadnezzar and his posterity, and after they had undergone that servitude seventy years, he would restore them again to the land of their fathers, and they should build their temple, and enjoy their ancient prosperity. And these things God did afford them; for he stirred up the mind of Cyrus, and made him write this throughout all Asia: ‘Thus saith Cyrus the king: Since God Almighty hath appointed me to be king of the habitable earth, I believe that he is that God which the nation of Israelites worship; for indeed he foretold my name by the prophets, and that I should build him a house at Jerusalem, in the country of Judea.” (Memo: the spring of 608 BC, the time period being suggested that Nebuchadnezzar first became king and then ruled jointly with his father for three year before his father’s death, to the spring of 538 BC is 70 years, thus making October of 539 BC in the 70th year as indicated here that it was.) 

“2. This was known to Cyrus by his reading the book which Isaiah left behind him of his prophecies; for this prophet said that God had spoken thus to him in secret vision: ‘My will is, that Cyrus, whom I have appointed to be king over many and great nations, send back my people to their own lands, and build my temple.’ This was foretold by Isaiah one hundred and forty years before the temple was demolished. Accordingly, when Cyrus read this, and admired the Divine power, and earnest desire and ambition seized upon him to fulfill what was so written; so he called for the most eminent Jews that were in Babylon, and said to them, that he gave them leave to go back to their own country, and to rebuild their city Jerusalem, (21) and the temple of God, for that he would be their assistant……”

From the above we see Cyrus releasing the Jews to go back to Jerusalem to rebuild the temple. We should also see that this is in his 1st year over Babylon and that it is during the 70th year of the Jews captivity. This 70 years of Desolation that the land could enjoy her Sabbaths is mentioned in several places, one of which is in 2 Chronicles 36:21-23: “To fulfill the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed her Sabbaths: for as long as she lay desolate she kept Sabbath, to fulfill threescore and ten years. Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the Lord spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing saying, Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, All the kingdoms of the earth hath the Lord God of heaven given me; and he hath charged me to build him an house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Who is there among you of all his people? The Lord his God be with him, and let him go up.”

This is also confirmed in Ezra 1:11. Now in order for the land to fulfill her Sabbaths as spoken of in the scriptures, the land would have to be desolate for a full 70 years, 10 weeks of 7 days, thus 10 Sabbaths. When using the year of 605 BC as the first year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar as historians and archeologists presently use, recognizing that it was in the spring of 538 BC that Cyrus sent the Jews to Jerusalem, we do not get 70 years of desolation as spoken of by Jeremiah the Prophet, but get only 67 years.

 Yet if we will recognize that the 1st year of the Jews captivity had to have begun in the spring of 608 BC on the 1st of Nisan in order to get the 70 years of desolation, we should also recognize this would be the beginning of the first year of the reign of King Nebuchadnezzar over Jerusalem and the year the first captive Jews were brought to Babylon. We should now also see with the actual physical return of the first released Jews in the spring of 538 BC, that there is a difference of exactly 70 years, the actual time the prophecy stated it would be. Here again we find an indication that Nebuchadnezzar’s reign began three years prior to what others have interpreted from the above “Babylonian Chronicle ABC 5”.

Another observation of this date of 600 BC being correct for Lehi to leave Jerusalem, according to the Book of Mormon, is found as one looks at the bottom of the page from the reference given in 1 Nephi 10:4. The date given there is 600 BC, again an affirmation the Book of Mormon is literal in its meaning that Lehi left Jerusalem in the year 600 BC and that it was 600 years later the Messiah was to be born, that being in the year 1 AD.

From the above it should be now well established that Zedekiah did indeed become king in the fall of 601BC. Zedekiah’s placement on the throne does fit as it should for Prophets to arise in Jerusalem and for Lehi and his family to leave Jerusalem shortly thereafter in the spring of 600 BC in the first year of King Zedekiah’s regnal reign as stated in the Book of Mormon, which we find is also 600 years before the birth of the Savior in 1 AD as testified to three times in the Book of Mormon. Interestingly, if Lehi left Jerusalem on the Savior’s future birthday on March 24th of 600 BC, it would be 600 years to the very day on both the moon and sun calendars. Let us now look at the second part of the problem, that being the birth year of the Messiah a full 600 years from the time Lehi left Jerusalem as mentioned by the Book of Mormon.

Let us now examine the dates given for the time of the birth of the Savior, Jesus Christ by historians and others. The strongest argument from a historical viewpoint for the birth of Christ to be in 4 BC, the most commonly accepted date today, as mentioned above comes from the writings of Josephus as interpreted by Alfred Edersheim in regards to the time Herod reigned as King and when Herod’s death actually took place. Alfred Edersheim, (b. March 7, 1825/d. March 16, 1889), was a Jewish convert to Christianity and a Biblical scholar known especially for his book “The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah” written in 1885. He also became the head of the Church of England in his day. It is his interpretation of the writings of Josephus concerning the timing of Herod’s death as found in his book that the Christian world has today focused on for the determination of the birth year of Christ.

Bruce R McConkie, in his Book One of “The Mortal Messiah” on page 350, pointed out very well how past scholars have currently determined the day of Christ’s Nativity as he quoted 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., which corresponds to about the 12th of April of the year 4 before Christ, according to our common reckoning. More particularly, shortly before the death of Herod there was a lunar eclipse which, it is astronomically ascertained, occurred on the night from the 12th to the 13th of March 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 BC., and most likely several weeks earlier.” (Edersheim 2:704.)  

This eclipse was picked by Edersheim and others because it appeared by their calculations from Josephus’s writing that the eclipse happened near the end of Herod’s 37 year reign beginning from the time the Romans made Herod king. For that 37 year reign to have ended in 4 BC, Edersheim assumed Herod’s reign began in 41 BC. Edersheim’s writing concerning that calculation is why so many theologians have thus placed the birth of Jesus before the spring of 4 BC and most likely on December 25th of 5 BC, the date most commonly accepted for His birth then and now.

Mention of the eclipse is found in the “Works of Flavius Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews XVII, 6:4”. There Josephus mentions that King Herod died not long after an eclipse of the moon. This eclipse followed the inappropriate actions of the high priest Matthias at the beginning of a one day fast, and was seen on the evening of the burning alive of another Matthias and others who had raised sedition among the Jews by cutting down the golden eagle from above the gates of the temple that the Roman’s had placed there previously. This eclipse was prefaced by: 

“Now it happened, that during the time of the high priesthood of this Matthias, there was another person made high priest for a single day, that very day which the Jews observed as a fast. The occasion was this: This Matthias the high priest, on the night before that day when the fast was to be celebrated, seemed, in a dream, to have conversation with his wife; and because he could not officiate himself on that account, Joseph, the son of Ellemus, his kinsman, assisted him in that sacred office. But Herod deprived this Matthias of the high priesthood, and burnt the other Matthias, who had raised the sedition, with his companions, alive. And that very night there was an eclipse of the moon.”

Edersheim determined that the eclipse of March 13th of 4 BC which followed the fast of Esther fit the criteria and the time period of the 37 year reign, thus making Herod’s death in the late spring of 4 BC. That became the accepted date by the Christian world, the eclipse being a critical time marker, and one it appears that almost no one has openly dared question. That eclipse in 4 BC supposedly seemed to make all the time elements fit for that year for Herod’s death.

Edersheim is correct that the lunar eclipse spoken of by Josephus followed a Jewish one day fast, with Herod’s death following within a few months later. The question is: Does the time line of Herod’s life, as shown from the writing of Josephus where Edersheim took his information, truly show the March 13th of 4 BC eclipse to be the correct lunar eclipse and thus the correct time period for Herod’s death as has been assumed by Edersheim and consequently later by others from Edersheim’s writings?

There is no question that Herod lived and was alive at least several months after the birth of Christ. The question arises as to when those few months were. There also seems to be a consensus on certain events that took place prior to his death, such as (1) the fact Herod died after a 37 year reign, that (2) he was over 70 years of age when he died, that (3) there was an eclipse that followed a one day fast at least a few months prior to his death that was noticeable enough by the populace for it to be recorded in the writings of Josephus and tied to the burning of certain rebels, and (4) the mind set of Herod during his reign and especially at the time of his death was such that killing the babies in Bethlehem to protect his position as king fit his nature.

All this has been described in detail in the writings of Josephus. Knowing Herod’s mindset also helps us to understand that he was very capable of killing the babies in Bethlehem as described in the Bible as a way to kill a competitor for his throne, just as he had killed many of his own family members and associates, including wives, sons and other relatives for the same reason, even killing the very son who was to be his successor to the throne just five days before Herod’s own death.

The question here that is not clear and causes the rift in the time line with many scholars is “When did Herod’s 37 year reign begin. In “War of the Jews,” Book 1, 19:3, we find: “In a little time after this calamity, Herod came to bring them succors; but he came too late.… But as he was avenging himself on his enemies, there fell upon him another providential calamity; for in the seventh year of his reign, when the war about Actium was at the height, at the beginning of spring, the earth was shaken, and destroyed an immense number of cattle, with thirty thousand men; but the army received no harm, because it lay in the open air.” 

In Book 1, 33:8, we read that at the time of the death of Herod that Herod had  “….reigned 34 years since he had caused Antigonus to be slain, and obtained his kingdom; but 37 years since he had been made king by the Romans.”

From the above two quotes found in the writings of Josephus it can be seen that the total reign of Herod was at least 37 years, and during his seventh year at the beginning of the spring the war about Actium was at its height. The war of Actium was between Octavian (Caesar Augustus) and Mark Antony (the two Roman Consuls in 31 BC) and commenced with the famous battle on the sea of September 9, 31 BC (Julian date), where Antony, upon seeing his supporter and lover, Cleopatra, sail away from the battle, followed after her with a few ships.

This left Antony’s main force without leadership and at the mercy of Octavian who destroyed Antony’s fleet, giving Octavian the rule of the sea. The land forces of Octavian and Antony continued the war about Actium over the next several months until towards the end of July in 30 BC when much of Antony’s force deserted him. On July 31, 30 BC Antony’s army completely deserted him, leaving him without an army to fight Octavian. Antony then committed suicide and Cleopatra attempted to negotiate a truce with Octavian, but upon failure to do so she also committed suicide on August 12, 30 BC by snake bite.

From the above battle time periods along with the quotations from Josephus, it can be determined that, with Herod’s reign beginning from the fall of Jerusalem on the fast day of Sivan 23 in 37 BC (that being on our calendar in June of 37 BC) as mentioned in the writings of Josephus, the spring of Herod’s seventh year of rule would thus be the spring of 30 BC as described above by Josephus concerning the war between Octavian and Mark Antony. This would make Herod’s death after a 37 year rule at least a few months after June 3rd in 1 AD as that is the 23rd of Sivan, the moon calendar month and day of the year his reign began and would have been the end of Herod’s 37 year reign.

Thus, according to Josephus and as tied to the battle time period of Actium at its height as described above and which date historians have determined was in the spring of 30 BC, when using the time period of the fall of Jerusalem in the summer of 37 BC as the beginning of Herod’s reign, that date also verified by the battle time as it was in the 7th year of the reign of Herod, does put the death of Herod in at least some past the middle of 1 AD if not still a little time thereafter.

One of the main facts that we have to help us verify this, and to further answer the question of the timing of the death of Herod, is that eclipse mentioned by Josephus that follows shortly after a one day fast. That fast and eclipse historically did happen. The window of time that eclipse would have fallen within appears to be somewhere between at least three months prior to Herod’s death, with Herod's death being after a 37 year reign and some months prior to the start of his 38th year of reign. Thus, the end of the proper 37 year reign and Herod's death must have an eclipse preceding it that meets those conditions as well as being noticeable by the populace in Jerusalem.

It is obvious that Herod did have a 37 year reign, dying also after the age of seventy. (The writings of Josephus as presently interpreted and accepted by most historians do indicate that Herod was born sometime in 72 BC, probably in the spring.) Again, the event that is the most critical to test the reliability of the time of Herod’s death and when the 37 year reign began, is that eclipse of the moon following the one day fast prior to his death.

As mentioned, the lunar eclipse of March 13th of 4 BC historically has been the one that scholars have focused on due to the writing of Alfred Edersheim. Yet between the end of 6 BC and the end of 1 BC there were several lunar eclipses that took place throughout the world during this period, four of which it appears could have been seen in Israel. Those four additional eclipses also all fall but a few days after a Jewish fast and thus may also qualify as the possible eclipse seen following a one day fast and being but a few months prior to the time of Herod’s death. 

These include the March 23rd of 5 BC eclipse, falling 3 days after the same celebrated fast day as the one on March 13th of 4 BC, and the March 2nd of 3 BC eclipse which also followed the evening of the end of that same fast day, which fasts were all the Fasts of Esther called Purim, that fast being held each year on the 13th of Adar. The 1st eclipse mentioned was not long enough from the beginning of Herod’s reign to be the correct eclipse, as 37 years needed to expire to the end of Herod’s reign. Another factor also to consider is that none of the above four mentioned eclipses were placed in the time frame where Herod would be over 70 years of age as he was supposed to be prior to the eclipse. The writings of Josephus indicate he most likely turned 70 sometime in 2 BC. 

Another eclipse to consider is the eclipse on the evening of January 10th of 1 BC. This eclipse does follow a one day fast that was three days prior. Thus from that factor it does qualify to possibly be the right eclipse. The fast prior to this eclipse is a one day fast held on the 10th of Tevet which ended at evening on the 7th of January on the Julian calendar in 1 BC.

The 10th of Tevet fast day recognized the day the Lord told both Jeremiah and Ezekiel to write it down, it being the day the siege began at Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, that day being the 10th day of the 10th month, or Tevet 10, and to celebrate it as a fast from that time forward. That date on our calendar in 593 BC when the siege began was the 26th of December. It was after 30 months of that siege when the walls were breached on the 9th day of the 4th month, June 26th or 27th on our calendar. Jerusalem and the 1st temple were destroyed over the following days. I find it intriguing that the last days of the siege when the walls were breached and the city taken, aligns with Joseph Smiths future death day and the day the mob stormed the jail where he was killed. In 1844, the lunar date of the 10th day of the 4th month does align with June 27th, the death date of the Prophet Joseph Smith.

That fast date, Tevet 10, is also currently recognized and celebrated as another day of atonement, the other two being first, the 10th day of the 7th month, the Jew’s most holy day, as it was the day the Israelites were accepted by the Lord at the time of Moses and was the day after he returned from the mountain with the Law, and second, the 10th day of the 1st month when the lamb is selected for the Passover. To complete the pattern made by those days of atonement, the 4th date that completes the pattern, would be the 10th day of the 4th month, and in 1844 AD that date falls on the 27th of June, and again the future sun calendar date of the death date of the Prophet Joseph smith. 

Yet this January 10th of 1 BC eclipse would also not qualify as the right eclipse as there seems to be too much time between it and Herod’s death, if Herod’s reign ended after a 37 year reign from 37 BC and if his death took place according to Jewish tradition in January, making it near two years from the eclipse to Herod’s death with Herod still 70 years of age at the time of the eclipse instead of being over 70 which he was supposed to be at that time. Yet all the other factors do fit this eclipse.

The final and most important qualifying eclipse was on the Julian date of December 29th of 1 BC, it being also but two days after the same 10th of Tevet fast mentioned above, that fast ending on the evening of December 27th in 1 BC. This eclipse does allow for all the time constraints needed to cover the comments and events mentioned by Josephus concerning Herod before and after the eclipse, with Herod’s death following not long after and as previously pointed out probably but a few months after June of 1 AD.

This December 29th of 1 BC eclipse now manifests to us another credible possibility for Christ’s birth to fit a time line for all the facts and events found in the historical writings of Josephus that will also fit all the time lines of the facts and events as found in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, the main event being that of Herod being alive to sometime after June of 1 AD according to the 37 year reign as tied to the eclipse, as well as Herod being over 70 years of age at the time of the eclipse.

From the above we should now see there is only one eclipse that totally qualifies in every way to be the correct eclipse that preceded the death of Herod, as it appears there were only two eclipses that followed a one day fast that were near the time frame of a 37 year reign by Herod, the two 1 BC eclipses. As we take a final look at these last two eclipses as well as the March of 4 BC eclipse to determine which one is really the correct eclipse, let us remember that the correct eclipse must not only follow close to a one day fast, but Herod should be over 70 at that time, and the right eclipse should not only precede Herod’s death but also the end of the 37 year reign should follow not long after the eclipse.

Since 40 BC was the year when the Romans made Herod king and 37 BC was the year Herod actually became king, with that reign ending 37 years later, that would also make 3 BC and 1 AD the only two candidates for the potential end of a 37 year reign. As we again look at the March 13th of 4 BC and the January of 1 BC eclipses, it becomes obvious that both of these eclipses were a year too early for Herod’s 37 year reign from even the earliest of those established time periods.

Also Herod, being 25 in 47 BC as determined by the writings of Josephus, would only make him near 68 in 4 BC and not the 70 plus that he needed to be at the time of the eclipse. This age problem alone sheds doubt on the March of 4 BC eclipse as being the correct eclipse at the time of Herod’s death.

Close analyses from the data from the NASA printout of the March 13th of 4 BC eclipse shows that eclipse peaking at 5:59 a.m., a time few would be awake to observe the eclipse, thus making it less known in the population as a whole. Most likely that time also made that eclipse not very observable in the Jerusalem area, as the moon, if the eclipse was on the morning of the 14th of Adar as it appears to have been, that being March 13th Julian time in 4 BC, would have set in Jerusalem about 5:40 a.m., 19 minutes before the eclipse peak. The NASA information thus shows that this eclipse by normal observation was most likely not even visible in Jerusalem according to the time the eclipse was supposed to happen, and if by chance it was visible it would hardly have been noticeable by many of the populace at that time in the morning.

A final and most important point concerning this eclipse needs to be brought out, and that is that the Bible does not mention that the Jews were to celebrate this 13th of Adar fast of Esther. The Bible, in the Book of Esther 9:21-28, commands the Jews to celebrate the 14th and 15th of Adar, “yearly, as the days wherein the Jews rested from their enemies, and the month which was turned unto them from sorrow to joy, and from mourning into a good day: that they should make them days of feasting and joy, and of sending portions one to another, and gifts to the poor….that they would keep these two days according to their writing, and according to their appointed time every year; and that these days should be remembered and kept throughout every generation, every family, every province, and every city; and that these days of Purim should not fail from among the Jews, nor the memorial of them perish from their seed.” 

We also find from “The Jewish Book Of WHY” by Alfred J Kolatch on page 289:

“The thirteenth day of Adar (the Fast of Esther) was fixed as a fast day in the eighth century. It is not designated as a fast day in the Book of Esther, written centuries later. The Bible (Esther 9:18) speaks of the thirteenth day of Adar only as a day of assembly for battle. The Rabbis interpreted the word ‘assembly’ to mean ‘assembly for prayer and fasting,’ and the day became known as ‘Taanit Esther’ (the Fast of Esther).”

Thus the final nail in the coffin for this eclipse is the fact that at the time of Herod this fast of Esther was not even celebrated by the Jewish population at the time of Christ, nor was it even celebrated until several hundred years after the writings of Josephus. Thus, this 13th day of March eclipse did not follow a one day fast after all. With all those facts against it, it becomes obvious that this 4 BC eclipse must be disqualified from being the correct eclipse.

We are now left with only the eclipse of December 29th of 1 BC (Julian), it being three days after the beginning of that same 10th of Tevet fast event mentioned previously, that fast ending in 1 BC on the evening of December 27th. It stands alone as the only one of all these eclipses that fully meets all the mentioned and known criteria, including Herod being over seventy at the time of the eclipse.

This particular one day fast was also established by God in the Bible over five hundred years before Herod, rather than by man several hundred years after Herod. This eclipse also occurs in a time frame for Herod’s death to follow as described. Thus it seems we have found the correct eclipse that follows the fast Josephus mentioned, that fast being the annual 10th of Tevet one day fast that again was established by God rather than man.

 As one studies the time and the area of visibility of this particular eclipse, it should be noted that the printout by NASA indicates that it was physically observable in Jerusalem with the central time point of the eclipse around 17:28 Universal time, and about 7:49 p.m. Jerusalem time (the Jerusalem time difference is 2 hr. 21 min from Universal time, which is Greenwich, England time), on December 29th of 1 BC. The sun sets at about 5 p.m. at that time of the year. Also the moon would rise near 4 pm at that phase of the moon on that moon day, that being the 13th day of the moon month, and although it is only about a 98% full moon, would appear to us from our visual view to be a full moon on that night.

At near 8:00 p.m. the moon with the eclipse would be very noticeable by many people, the moon being positioned almost directly overhead but still somewhat to the east. Seeing that moon that evening, the general population could easily make a connection with the burning deaths of those rebel leaders earlier that day to this very bright and visible moon with its eclipse, thus becoming a part of their known history. This time and observation by so many would have made it possible for Josephus to later know about the connection of the eclipse and the deaths, and thus worthy of his noting those events in his history.

Herod’s reign would have begun then on our calendar date of about June 21st of 37 BC which was the Hebrew date of Sivan 23rd that year, the historically known Hebrew day on which Jerusalem fell twice. The end of that 37 year reign would be near June 2/3rd and Sivan 23rd in 1 AD. With Jesus being born in the spring of 1 AD on March 24th and Nisan 11th we find that Herod was indeed alive on May 3rd, 41 days after the birth of Jesus about when His parents would have taken Jesus to the Temple, and still alive long enough to shortly after send the soldiers to kill all the babies under two years of age in Bethlehem following the Wise Men or Magi’s visit.

The 11th day of Nisan being determined from the Passover pattern found from Exodus 12, John 12, 19 and Matthew 12:40, combined with astronomical readings and the Book of Mormon scriptures of 3 Nephi 2:8; 8:5, verse 5 indicating Christ died on the Nephite 4th day which was the Israelite Preparation day, the 14th day, making the Nephite 1st day of their year on Christ’s birthday as that was on the day the sign of Christ’s birth was given. That day was also on the Israelite 11th day and thus the Israelite moon day of Christ’s birth.

That day on our calendar in 1 AD is March 24th as can be determined from the above along with the Astronomical information from the USNOAA Department, which indicates that the only year in which the Preparation day of the Passover was on a Thursday, in the several possible years the Savior could have died in, was in the year 34 AD. Thursday was His death day of the week as also determined from the above scriptures. Thus, 33 years earlier brings us to the year 1 AD, and the 11th day of the moon month that year was on the 24th of March. Therefore, March 24th is Christ’s sun calendar birthday, with his moon calendar birthday being the 11th day of the 1st month, the present Jewish month of Nisan. On April 6th in 1830, the year The Church of Jesus Christ of LDS was organized, the moon calendar day that year was the 11th day of Nisan and the Savior’s moon calendar birthday that year.

It might be noted here that the age selected to kill all the babies, that being two, was because Herod understood that Jesus was still a babe at the breast, and their culture had the babies at the breast until the age of two. (This age of 2 is further verified in the Koran 2:233).

Now let us consider the traditional date for Herod’s death and see how it fits with other known historical events and information. Shebat 2 is the traditional Jewish date for the death of Herod, the 2nd day of the 11th month of the Jewish Lunar calendar. That date on our calendar lands on January 4th in 2 AD which is also the perihelion date and the first Shebat 2nd following Herod’s 37 year reign in 1 AD.

Herod being over 70 prior to the eclipse as described by Josephus, as well as his writings placing Herod’s birth sometime in 72 BC, would make Herod 72 sometime in 1 AD, thus making here an interesting play with the number 72, with 72 years of age being the age of man as described in 3 Nephi 28:3. Herod would still be 72 in January of 2 AD when his death took place according to Jewish tradition and verified from the description given by Josephus of events that followed Herod’s death.

Thus we see that the eclipse on December 29th of 1 BC does meet all the necessary requirements concerning it, and it is also the only eclipse that does so. This eclipse does show that Christ’s birth would be in the first half of 1 AD with Herod’s death shortly after. This 1 BC December 29th eclipse fits perfectly in the time line when counting the 37 year reign from the reign at the time of the fall of Jerusalem and with Herod being over 70 years of age. Thus we have established from the above that the timing of birth of the Savior in 1 AD and the death of Herod in January of 2 AD, thus literally and factually ties all known astronomical, historical and scriptural facts together correctly without any conflict. We have also seen that the reign of Zedekiah began in 601 BC rather than 598 BC. Thus we find that the facts do support the Book of Mormon time line with no conflict between astronomy, history and the scriptures. This is not just the case here but in all things when using correct information from all sources. It is dangerous to take only one fact and then make a case around it without considering all the pertinent facts regarding the subject. All truth will stand on its own when the real facts are brought forward.

Looking now in 3 Nephi 1:1 where it mentions that it was now 600 years from the time Lehi left Jerusalem, at the bottom of that page will be found the date of 1 AD, indicating the year it was and the year of the Savior’s birth according to the Nephite records. Thus we have seen and it should be obvious that the historical date of 5 or 4 BC as presently accepted by scholars is incorrect, that year instead now being established correctly as 1 AD.

Another clue that Lehi left Jerusalem on the very day 600 years before the birth of the  Savior  is that it mentions in 1 Nephi 2:6 that after they had traveled three days in the wilderness they pitched their tent in a valley by the side of a river of water. As they were Jews that lived the Law of Moses which included the Passover, if they left on the Savior’s birthday, the 11th of Nisan, and traveled three days, then stopping on the 4th day to build an alter and make a sacrifice, that sacrifice would be on the 14th day and the Preparation day of the Passover when they were supposed to kill the lamb and that evening eat the Passover meal. That would give them reason to stop to make a sacrifice when they were so desperately fleeing Jerusalem as so commanded by the Lord.

One last thing also pointing to the exact time is from Samuels’s prophecy that the Savior was to be born five years from his prophecy. Five years later as the new year started, the non-believers challenged the idea that the Savior was coming and picked a day to kill all the believers if the sign of the Savior’s birth hadn’t been given by then. How did they pick a date that the believers couldn’t protest against? They did it by going back into the records and finding the date that Lehi left Jerusalem and then using that date to kill the believers on. The believers couldn’t protest that date because it was in there records for the date of the Savior’s birth and something they believed in. And what happened? The Sign of the Savior’s birth was that night as it was supposed to be, just prior to when the non-believers were set to kill the believers. God truly is in charge and will guide us in all things when we ask.

Although the Book of Mormon is adamant that Lehi left Jerusalem in the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, which was determined to be 600 BC and the end of the 600 year period is at the birth of Christ which we determined to be in 1 AD, it was correct to do so as we find the Book of Mormon dating to be correct.