In the same passage that we have “in the ending of the thirty and fourth year,” we have “soon after the ascension.” Those two statements appear to contradict each other. Tvedtnes reconciles them by reading the first as the less determinate time. The problem, however, really lies in the second notation of time. We understand the timing of the ascension from the New Testament. That is, obviously, an Old World document, and it records an event from the Old World. There is no textual information in the Book of Mormon that tells us that the Nephites had any dating for the ascension. It did not occur on their continent, and the only way they could have had the timing of it was for the Savior to have noted that timing to them, something that seems of rather lesser importance than the message that was recorded.
Certainly Mormon knew that Christ must have ascended, but there is little historical way that he could have known the timing of that event. Therefore, we have a statement from Mormon about the timing relative to the ending of the year which he could easily have known, and we have a “soon after” an event whose timing he could not have known. Given the difference between these two factors, the strength of the dating should weigh in with the dating that Mormon clearly could receive from his annals.
Both Tvetdnes and Brown discuss circumstantial evidences that might suggest a longer or shorter time, with Brown holding for the longer, and Tvetdnes discounting the circumstantial evidence presented by Brown. In the end, both miss the constructed nature of Nephi’s text. Nephi is writing after the fact, and collapsing events that are widespread in time and space. Using this constructed text to determine precise timing without attempting to discern what is constructed and what is reported leads to arguments that might be supported on either side, but supported by evidence that is essentially weak because it rests upon this constructed text.
Mormon’s cutting of Nephi’s text obscures the time boundaries that Nephi might have had. In the absence of the original, we have only Mormon’s statement, and that should be sufficient for us. He knew where in the time record these events were placed, and Mormon places them at the end of the year. Since the only reason to push the timing of the appearance of the Savior earlier is because we think is should have been earlier does not constitute a very powerful argument.
Textual: This is the end of a chapter in the 1830 edition. This is one of the most logical of all chapter breaks in that Mormon will begin a new physical chapter with the appearance of the Savior in the new world, an event that literally opens a new chapter in Nephite history as the Nephites who have been destroyed as a people will be renewed as a people through this Messiah who comes.
“He Did Truly Manifest Himself Unto Them—showing His Body Unto Them”
Mormon gives us this indication of what he will show to us. To this point the Messiah’s word had come, and Mormon has linked this voice and the accompanying cataclysms to the prophecies of the coming of the Messiah. He has also directly linked the prophecies of the coming of the Messiah to the Nephites. Now he tells us that he will actually come, rather than just speak.
Nephi’s text as we have it does not indicate the passage of time between the voice they heard and the physical coming of the Messiah. Mormon notes that there is a passage of time. The destruction has occurred in the “first month, fourth day” of the thirty-fourth year (3 Nephi 8:5). Now Mormon tells us that the next event will come “to pass… in the ending of the thirty and fourth year.” This method of inserting a time marker is typical of the editorial technique we have seen from Mormon in the past. This particular time marker has caused controversy among LDS scholars of the text.
Sidney Sperry describes the basic conflict in interpretation of the timing of the visit of the resurrected Messiah to the Nephites in the New World:
“In verse 18 of Chapter 10, Mormon anticipated the appearance of the resurrected Christ to his people, by pointing to the fact that he came apparently at the “ending of the thirty-fourth year.” A comparison of this verse with 8:5 would seem to show that nearly a year passed by after the great three days of darkness and destruction before our Lord appeared to the Nephites. This conclusion would also seem to be borne out by a careful study of other facts in the record as written by Mormon. However, a consensus of Book of Mormon students would probably show that they feel it difficult to believe that the Savior would put off his appearance to the Nephites for a whole year after his resurrection.” (Sidney B. Sperry, Book of Mormon Compendium [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1968], 401 - 402.)
The problem of timing is rather precisely as Dr. Sperry describes it. There is a textual statement that it comes later, but there is a desire to have it earlier. On the basis of the statement on timing alone we would see it as later. To understand an earlier appearance, we must somehow deal with that statement and make it less accurate.
The most interesting discussion of this issue is found in an article by John Tvetdnes:
“Horowitz has noted two ways in which people have read this passage [3 Nephi 10:18]; there are those who believe that Christ appeared in the New World “in the ending of the thirty and fourth year,” while others see this timing as indicative of when the historical entry was made. Horowitz supports the first of these views. In response to the second, he wrote, “This part of the Book of Mormon is not the record written at the time or nearly a year later but is an abridgment written by Mormon centuries later.”
But that is precisely the point. It is apparent from a study of Mormon’s methodology that he took his material from dated Nephite annals. …
There is no logical reason for Mormon to have listed year-numbers without recording events for them unless he was keeping a running tally of the annals he consulted. Third Nephi 10:18=-19 may be just such an entry, one in w3hich Mormon tells his readers that he will be recording the events through the end of the thirty-fourth year.” (John A. Tvetdnes. The Most Correct Book. Cornerstone, Salt Lake City and Phoenix, 1999, pp. 256-7).
Tvedtnes cites this data on the “ending of the thirty and fourth year” as a means of establishing his case that it might be read as “before the end” or “by the end,” and therefore not as indicative of a later time, only a timeframe (John A. Tvetdnes. The Most Correct Book. Cornerstone, Salt Lake City and Phoenix, 1999, pp. 258). The problem the cited Horowitz and Tvedtnes both miss is that 3 Nephi 10:11-19 is all an addition by Mormon, and the earlier text was cited from Nephi. As noted, Nephi is not writing contemporaneous with these events, and what we have is a constructed text that in and of itself dictates time.
The second issue is the one raised by Tvedtnes about Mormon’s use of the dated annals. He is correct that Mormon is using those dated annals, and that he uses time from those annals to provide some structure in his historical text. In this regard, we must also understand the caution that S. Kent Brown has noted about Mormon’s chronologies:
“In reviewing Mormon’s huge effort represented in the Book of Mormon, we have to be impressed with his consistent attention to detail as he rewrote large segments of the material that came into his hands, particularly the large plates of Nephi. These sections have always exhibited a steady consistency. If we were to urge that Mormon erred in his chronological note in 3 Nephi 10:18, we would have to accept the consequent vciew that he committed a totally unexpected blunder while introducing the risen Jesus’ ministry, the major event narrated in his literary work.” (S. Kent Brown. From Jerusalem to Zarahemla. Brigham Young University, Provo, 1998, p. 148-9).
Of course Tvedtnes’ argument is more subtle than calling Mormon’s chronology into error. Tvedtnes is simply altering the time-meaning of “the ending.” However, his effort to do so violates the very structural argument he uses contra Horowitz. Mormon does mark the years, but he uses the year markers as ending notes. The most frequent usage of the year markers in the text is to note whole years. We do have a special case here where Mormon is indicating a relative timing within the year, but to assume that he means “before the end” contradicts the rather detailed information that he gives for the date at the beginning of the year. We are safest when we take Mormon at his word that it was near the end of the thirty fourth year.
Is there any other statement that might want to see the date pushed earlier? Scholars have noted that there is another text that complicates the issues. We have this very verse 18: