In 3 Nephi 1:1, Nephi mentions that "it was six hundred years from the time that Lehi left Jerusalem" (3 Nephi 1:1). This statement makes reference to a prophecy of Lehi recorded by Nephi 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."
According to Randall Spackman, evidently Lehi was not simply approximating the time of the Lord's birth, because the Book of Mormon records that the heavenly signs marking that event appeared after the passage of an even 600 years--that is, in the 601st year, matching the prophesied time frame with precision (see 3 Nephi 1:1,4,21,26). [Randall P. Spackman, "The Jewish/Nephite Lunar Calendar," in Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol. 7/1, November 1, 1998, p. 50]
“It Was Six Hundred Years from the Time That Lehi Left Jerusalem”
In the very beginning of of Book of Mormon story, Nephi recorded the prophecy of his father Lehi that "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 10:4; see also 2 Nephi 25:19). So the reader should take note here in 3 Nephi 1:1 when Mormon notes that "the ninety first year had passed away and it was six hundred years from the time that Lehi left Jerusalem."
According to Ammon O'Brien, one of the first and oldest of manuscripts from Spanish missionaries which document the ancient history and myth ridden traditions of the Mexicans was called Historia de los Mexicanos por sus Pinturas (Codex Fuenleal) and was written by Andreas de Olmos. For 40 years Olmos lived and worked among the Indians of Mexico and Guatemala as a teacher and friend. He was requested by his superiors to investigate the antiquities of the Mexican people, which resulted in a manuscript completed sometime before 1547, when Ramirez de Fuenleal carried it with him to Spain.
According to chapter one, Olmos writes that "in their paintings they have the inscription of the (first) 600 years, counting them in units of 20 by the sign that they have that means 20." In chapter two, associated with the consummation or close of this 600 year period, is the appearance of "a medium sun" which did not shine as fully as the normal sun. Furthermore, we learn from chapters 3 and 4 of the codex that this Medium Sun appeared in the sky at night. Chapter 4 carries the following details:
The figures of counting commence since the first sun (first age) carrying on forward, which designate the other (the first) 600 years in which principally the gods were born. . . . the time that Tezcatlipoca was sun . . . And this appeared in the sky . . . and this is high in the memory of him (Quetzalcoatl-Tezcatlipoca).
Referring back to chapter 2, it says that at the time of the manifestation of the Medium Sun, "all were committed to Quetzalcoatl." . . . The name Quetzalcoatl is a composite of two Nahuatl words, Quetzal and coatl. Quetzal, which happens to be a specie of bird indigenous to Guatemala in this case refers exclusively to the "feathers" of the quetzal bird which are esteemed to be precious and beautiful. Coatl means serpent in Nahuatl. Thus, Quetzal-coatl transcribes as Plumed or feathered Serpent, which meaning and name came to be applied to Jesus Christ. [Ammon O'Brien, Seeing beyond Today with Ancient America, pp. 287-290]
“It Was Six Hundred Years from the Time That Lehi Left Jerusalem”
The reader will note that Nephi mentions that "it was six hundred years from the time that Lehi left Jerusalem" (3 Nephi 1:1). This statement makes reference to a prophecy of Lehi recorded by Nephi 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."
In order to reconcile the 600 year period alluded to in this prophecy with other scriptural and secular historical references, various theories have been proposed. Because of the various and complicated interpretations involved in those theories, it is strongly recommended that the Book of Mormon student read and study each article before making any conclusions related to the date that Christ was born. The following is a brief review of the main theories that have been proposed:
Theory #1: This theory is presented in the following books:
Book of Mormon (1920-present)
Basic Points of Reference:
Adherence to the Dionysian calendar
Lehi left Jerusalem in the year 600 B.C.
600 B.C. = 1st year of the reign of Zedekiah (1 Nephi 1:4)
Destruction of Jerusalem = 11th year of the Reign of Zedekiah (2 Ki. 25:1,8; Jer. 52:12) (589 B.C.)
Calendar Year = 365+ days throughout
Birth of Christ = April, A.D. 1 (If we assume that the calendar year change in 3 Nephi 2:8 was such
that the year started on the day that Christ was born, or the sign given, then the reference
in 3 Nephi 8:5 regarding his death ("in the thirty and fourth year, in the first month, on the
fourth day of the month") correlates with passover and a 365+ day calendar year.
Beginning of the Reign of Judges = April (Passover), 91 B.C. (Alma 1:1; 8:3; 14:23)
Death of Christ = April (Passover), A.D. 34 (3 Nephi 8:5)
According to Joseph Hepworth, the issue of placing the correct year of our Lord's advent undoubtedly seems perplexing to many people; after all, are we not living in the "Christian Era" of our Lord" (Anno Domini or A.D.) and those years prior to his birth recorded as "Before Christ" (B.C.)? This apparently was the intent of Dionysius Exiguus when he introduced our current mode of reckoning year in about the year 525. According to Dionysius's calculations, the year of our Lord's birth (A.D. 1) was the year 753 A.U.C. (ab urbe condita, "from the founding of our city," reckoned from the reputed year in which Rome was founded). The year of Christ's birth becomes an issue, however, because Dionysius's calculations seem to have been wrong. . . . Most scholars agree that Dionysius was wrong in his calculations, placing Christ's birth too late. [Joseph T. Hepworth, "Dating the Birth of Jesus Christ," Sunstone, Jan.-Feb., p. 10]
Theory #2: This theory is presented in the following books or articles:
Joseph L.Allen, Exploring the Lands of the Book of Mormon
John C. Lefgren, April Sixth
John Pratt, "Another Eclipse For Herod," reprinted by F.A.R.M.S.
Sidney B. Sperry, Book of Mormon Chronology
Bruce Warren, Ancient America Foundation Newsletter, No. 3, December 1994
Note* This theory has been slightly modified in recent years. See the following articles:
Pratt, John P. "Lehi's 600-year Prophecy of the Birth of Christ," [www.meridianmagazine.com/] articles/000331sixhundred.html
Allen, Joseph L. "Zedekiah I," in The Book of Mormon Archaeological Digest, Vol. III, Issue III (September 2001), pp. 10-11. [See the commentary on Vol. 1, 1 Nephi 1:4]
Basic Points of Reference:
601 B.C. = 1st year of Babylonian rule with a treaty that guaranteed peace. Thus: 601 B.C. = 1st
year of the reign of "Zedekiah" because the title "Zedekiah" had reference to the beginning
of Babylonian rule (as opposed to Egyptian rule).
Lehi's Departure = April, 601 B.C. (Passover)
597 B.C. = 1st year of Mattaniah ("Zedekiah")
587 B.C. = Destruction of Jerusalem
Calendar Length = 365+ (Solar) Days throughout
April 6, 1 B.C. = Birth of Christ
April 6, 1 B.C. = Birth of Quetzalcoatl
April 6, A.D. 33 = Resurrection of Christ
Theory #3: This theory is presented in the following books and articles:
Jay Huber, "Lehi's 600 Year Prophesy and the Birth of Christ"
John W. Welch, "Longevity of Book of Mormon People and the "Age of Man"
Robert F. Smith, "Book of Mormon Event Structure"
Basic Points of Reference:
597 B.C. = 1st Official Year of "Zedekiah"
597 B.C. = Lehi's Departure (November)
586 B.C. = Destruction of Jerusalem
Lehi's Calendar = 360-Day "TUN" year, 360-day Egyptian year, or 360-day prophesy year of Daniel,
John, and Exodus.
Birth of Christ = 5 B.C. (April)
365+ day Year initiated after Christ's birth (Calendar adjusted A.D. 6)
Christ's death = April, A.D. 29
Theory #4: This theory is presented in the following books and articles:
Randall Spackman, "Lehi's Prophecy of the Messiah's Birth"
Randall Spackman, "Introduction to Book of Mormon Chronology: The Principal Prophecies,
Calendars, and Dates," F.A.R.M.S., 1993.
Randall Spackman, A review article in FARMS Review of Books, Vol. 10/1 1998, pp. 1-11.
Randall Spackman, "The Jewish/Nephite Lunar Calendar" in Journal of Book of Mormon Studies,
Vol. 7/1, 1998, pp. 49-59.
Basic Points of Reference:
597 B.C. = 1st Official Year of "Zedekiah"
The Babylonians imposed a siege on Jerusalem in 588 B.C.
The Babylonians withdrew the siege Jan 7, 587 B.C.
Lehi departed Jan 25, 587 B.C.
Nephi returned for plates (March 1--April 1)
Nephi returned for Ishmael (May 1--June 10)
Babylonians reimposed the siege June 21, 587 B.C.
Destruction of Jerusalem 587 B.C. (2 Nephi 25:9-10 says that there was a "destruction (of Jerusalem)
immediately after Lehi left."
Lehi's calendar = 354.367 Day Lunar Calendar--Non intercalated
Birth of Christ = 5 B.C. (March)
Calendar after sign of Christ = 365 day solar
Calendar change occurred 9 years after the sign
Death of Christ = March, A.D. 29
Theory #5 This theory is presented in the following books and articles:
John A. Tvedtnes, "Book Review of Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Covering Up the Black Hole in the Book of Mormon," in Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, FARMS, Vol. 3, 1991, p. 199.
According to John Tvedtnes, it is very doubtful that we can take the "600 years" of Nephi's prophecy as literal, since Lehi left Jerusalem no earlier than the first year of Zedekiah (1 Nephi 1:4), which would have been 598 B.C.--already too late for the prophecy to have been fulfilled precisely 600 years later. Thus, Alma (see Alma 3:14-17) could have been aware of Nephi's statement and taken it as an approximation only, rather than as a precise date. It is Mormon's rewriting of the history which has the birth of Christ occurring in the six hundredth year (3 Nephi 1:1). And it was this same Mormon who acknowledged that there could have been errors in the chronology (3 Nephi 8:1-2).
[See the commentary on 3 Nephi 1:13] [See Vol. 1, Appendix A--Chronology]