The Importance of Dating Tiberius Rightly (Updated May 2023)

Abstract: The overall impact of the 15th year of Tiberius directly relates to the dates for Messiah’s birth and ministry, and death and resurrection. By it the Scripture affords us the chronological tool to discern false teachers and true, and the ability to expose many attempted explanations of prophecy, and above all to confirm the consistent truth of Scripture for ourselves in detail, so that we may not err concerning the times and seasons of Messiah Yeshua, and the Scriptural celebrations of His redemptive activity in history. The 15th year of Tiberius dates from 17-18 September, AD 28 to 17 September AD 29. It serves as a Key anchor point for Yeshua’s birth in the fall of 2 BC, on Tishri 1, his four year ministry, and his death and resurrection in AD 34, happening on the fourth and seventh days of the week.

Revising the 15th year of Tiberius (or rather denying it) is an essential claim underlying a principle date for a Friday crucifixion in AD 30. The false church's institutional aim in advocating for AD 30 is to make an argument for a Friday crucifixion and Sunday resurrection. The purpose is to hide the Torah elements observed by Yeshua and his followers, namely the first of the Sabbaths, upon which the resurrection occurred (Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; John 20:1; GNM), the proper counting to the feast of Shavuot, the sign of the Sabbath, and the sign of Jonah. It must be kept in mind that not only is the chronology of the false' church's system in error, but also their explanations of atonement and the meaning of Messiah's death are also generally in error, especially in western Christianity. There is a definite connection between the systematic errors of historical chronology and the theological errors concerning the Torah, faithfulness, works and forgiveness. While I am just defeating a part of the false system here, it must be fully realized that the whole system is rotten and designed to project an idolatrous view of the Most High so that they may be drawn away from his true image.

To set the context in terms of the old woman who swallowed the fly, it was first that the false Church rejected the sign of the Sabbath. As a result they sought to replace the Sabbath in the resurrection passages with their own mistranslation "first day of the week," elevating Sunday and demoting the seventh day. They then concluded that the crucifixion was on the previous Friday. This lie is swallowed in support of the previous lie. They therefore presumed that in the year of the crucifixion the 14th or 15th day of the moon fell upon a Friday, swallowing an additional lie to support the Friday date. After astronomical calculations improved they settled upon the years AD 30 or 33 as the only years with a Friday on this date, and they became dogmatic about these years, adding a lie to support a lie. At this point the various lies needed to support each choice diverge. One set of additional lies need to be swallowed for AD 30, and a different set of lies for AD 33. Here we are concerned with those assumed for AD 30. To support AD 30, it is necessary to claim that the years of Tiberius were numbered from either AD 11 or 12. And so the purpose of this missive is to expose this lie and to state when Tiberius's years are actually counted.

To then put things back together, Tiberius 15th year (Luke 3:1) was from Sept AD 28 to Sept AD 29. John came immersing (baptizing) in the spring of AD 29 in this year. Messiah was immersed in the late summer of this year nearing his 30th brithday on Tishri 1. Then the spring of AD 30 was the first Passover of his ministry, which spanned five Passovers and four years, bringing us up to AD 34, when the 14th day of Nisan fell on a Wednesday, and the following seventh day Sabbath, the resurrection occurred near dawn, being called "the first of the Sabbaths" in the counting of Sabbaths to Pentecost.

This is not just a matter of times and dates, but where times and dates are corrupted, which is the simplest of truths and the most easily provable, other error creeps in. I refer here to the usual theological meaning put upon the sacrifice of Messiah, the legal payment for sin theory. On the contrary, Messiah terms his own death a RANSOM. A ransom is a cost imposed by an enemy or by lawlessness. It is the cost imposed on Messiah by sin and Satan in the course of his mission to identify with man and show divine love for mankind in a fleshly state. A ransom is not legally imposed, but is only paid or suffered out of love for the party being delivered. The blood of Messiah is his divine cleansing life, and the blood of covenant sealing of the new made covenant of old, which is his assurance that he means to rescue us to the utmost. A blood covenant. Men, of course, did these evil things to Messiah, but the Most High makes use of them to show his love for us.

In the process of discovery, it is of course the case that the faithful in Messiah Yeshua are going to hold inconsistent views at times, which can only be corrected one at a time. I have always regarded it as unfair to criticize the view that an individual holds on one view by the process of citing an incorrect belief on another view. This would be to impute the incorrect belief on one thing to another. However, I have come to realize two things. The first is that one's argument is helped greatly by showing people as correct a system of truth as possible. A consistent system or overview is not easily dismissed. Secondly, after much thought, it is valid to cross criticize an institutional body that incorporates systematic error. And this is what I'm doing here. I am not using imputational reasoning against the individual. I am using imputational reasoning against that body masquerading as the Christian Church. And here is the reason that it is valid, and also a key to the way the deep mystery of false religion works to maintain its tradition. Whenever anyone would discover that the institution has lied about a particular truth, and then would seek to correct the institution on that truth, the institition acts to defend its systematic nature and acts to cancel that person. That is, where an individual in error would not make an unfair attack on an individual pointing up a particular truth, an institution would do so, and it would rely on its related errors to try to destroy the particular truth it is being challenged about. As the Messianic Faithful have all experienced this sort of thing, or will soon experience it, it is necessary to show how and why the instition seems to be acting unfairly.

So let me outline the instititional reasoning. The rejection of the Sabbath leads to various jusfifications, a chief one being that following what is called Jewish law is salvation by works. The institition defines works as laws it disagrees with, laws which are disregarded because to observe them is to be made to endure suffering to a degree and to mortify the flesh. The chain of reasoning in this knee jerk emotional and fleshly reaction is what motivates the institutional Church to unfair persecution by those who see themselves as its keepers. And even if they don't see it this way, or express it this way, this in fact is the corporate or institutional motivation. Therefore, we need to see the individuals who defend the institition as victims also, but the instition itself is the emodiment or corporate manisfestation of these base motives seeded into it by those few who were truly wicked and who are responsible for the corruption of the body politic. Instititions become corrupt because Satan works to corrupt them, and he is the enemy at war with mankind. Therefore, the the corrupt institution must be cross criticized. The atonement error IS logically connected to the chronological error in the institutional Church. But I will here focus on the chronological error.

Introduction

The chronological notation in Luke 3:1, and 3:23 is the pivotal datum in dating, the birth of Messiah, the beginning of his ministry, and his death and resurrection. From it we can count years back to his birth, and years of his ministry forward to his death and resurrection. This matters because the teaching of many, and the teaching followed by many contradicts the chronological facts. The teachers then are deceivers, and the followers are the deceived. The original texts of Scripture include sufficient chronological facts to attest to the truth along with well established external facts. Ignoring these facts leads one into the observance of false traditions and holidays made up by teachers on the basis of false chronology. A single misplaced benchmark in chronology leads to a host of misleading conclusions. It is all the more amazing that Luke 3:1 and 3:23 is misplaced as a chronological benchmark, when there is no reason for making a mistake. Yet the mistake is made, and a host of supporting evils and falsehoods are brought into defend it.

The 15th year of Tiberius was never misplaced by anyone honest with history as handed down in primary sources. It was misplaced by deceivers who disagreed with the original sources and the deceived, who do not know that the result is a set of God dishonoring traditions. And they need to be exposed lest more be deceived. The loss of apologetic value in knowing the exact historical truth is enormous when the facts are ignored. Atheists, agnostics, humanists, and godless men seek to tear the Scripture into little bits and toss it in the fireplace, along with religious zealots who think they honor the Almighty with their alternative celebrations. Book burning and burning at the stake used to be the way this crowd dealt with things it disagreed with. But it is not the way they operate these days. They have found obfuscation more effective. The result of writing liberal commentaries on the bible full of godless assumptions and speculation is essentially the same when the libraries of the world are filled with them. The truth can only be found with spiritual discernment and the scissors of logic willing to cut out 99% of the so called truth produced by liberal humanist “bible scholars.” The very first thing that people seeking the real truth fail to do when they dig into a library of biblical resources is to fail to find out the belief of the authors, and consider what those beliefs might motivate them to say or not to say. One will find a surprising number of them to be atheists, agnostics, or humanists who know the language of religion, but their hearts are evil.

The attitudes of modern Christians border on agnosticism or atheism. They have lost the childlike skills necessary to discover the truth, the ability to take primary sources seriously, and to discount secondary sources contradicting the primary, and the ability to believe Scripture over tradition. There are many who say it is so confusing that no one can figure it out. Therefore, when someone figures it out, they believe they know it cannot be figured out, and so they become the skeptic. There are those who simply do not care, and and just wish to follow tradition because it feels good. But the Scripture says that true worshipers will worship in spirit and in truth. There are those who believe they have been told the truth by their teacher or the leader they have emotionally invested themselves with. Therefore, nothing else can be true, and their teacher cannot be dead wrong on anything.

These days there are so many competing “truths.” Don’t be fooled by this. It is only evidence of the total war being waged on a spiritual level by evil against the remaining good. The competition has to be weeded out by discerning which sources are older, more primary, and less motivated to be compromised. The average person, sadly, treats all truth claims as on an equal footing. They are not. The sources and chains of reasoning behind most claims are as stable as an upside down pyramid build up on one false assumption. The deceived find themselves looking at massive bottom of that upside down pyramid, and never think to look for the actual foundation! In many areas, the devastation is great. Finding and reconstructing the truth is like picking through a bombed out city to find little bits of evidence and then putting the pieces together. The religious mind is just as bombed out as certain cities in Ukraine, and trying to determine who is justified in what or wrong in what is more difficult than figuring out which side was right.

First, lets look at Luke 3:1-2 and give a summary of the dating.

The lead chronological fact here is the 15th year of Tiberius, and that this is when John the Baptist came preaching. Tiberius’ predecessor, Caesar Augustus, died on 19 August, AD 14, at the age of 75. Legal Power was not immediately conferred on Tiberius, and believe me, at this time the Romans were always concerned to keep everything in public as legal as possible. The Senate met on 17-18 September, AD 14 to officially confer on Tiberius the titles of the chief executive of the Empire, after he half heartedly tried to refuse the honors.

In the chart I have provided from the Scroll Book (see just above), we have AD years on the left, and on the far right Tiberius’ reign. Connect the line capping the top of the first year of Tiberius to a point about 3/4 of the way through AD 14. This represents 17 September. In the smaller shot at the right, I have charted out the result to AD 28/29. The 15th year of Tiberius begins in the fall of AD 28 and ends in the fall of AD 29. We can draw an immediate conclusion here. The year of the crucifixion could not have been AD 30. This is because we must allow more than one or two years for the ministry of John and Yeshua.

So now, let us review the parties having fallen under the incorrect explanation of Luke 3:1, and who argue that the crucifixion in an incorrect year contradicting Luke 3:1.

Proposed Date of Crucifixion        Supporters                                                 

Friday April 22, AD 29*             Ancient (but ignorant) theory                              

Friday April 7, AD 30               Catholics and large number of Protestants                  

Wednesday April 5, AD 30‡           Teaching of Many Rogue Ministries                          

Friday April 27, AD 31*†            Seventh Day Adventist “official date”                      

Wednesday, April 25†                Date held by other Seventh Day Adventists and Third Parties

Friday April 18, AD 32*             Sir Robert Anderson                                        

Friday April 3, AD 33               Evangelicals and Fundamentalists                           

Wednesday April 1 AD 33‡            Myself 24 years ago before I knew better                   

Wednesday March 24, AD 34           The correct day -- The only date compliant with Daniel 9   

*Dates proved impossible by astronomical calculation.                                          

†Dates proved impossible by incorrect calculation of Adar II.                                  

‡Dates proved wrong by incorrect calculation of new moon.                                      

We see that getting the Luke 3:1 date correct clears the field of AD 29, 30, 31. Messiah cannot have a zero length for his ministry. This outs AD 29. Nor can it be one year, since this contradicts John who puts at least three Passovers into Yeshua’s ministry. This outs AD 30, even by smashing in destroying other details to smash John’s three passovers into as tiny a space as possible. One Messianic ministry even went so far as to say John had a textual mistake in it (it wasn’t so) in order to rid themselves of too many pesky Passovers. Luke 13:6-9 is a parable, but it corresponds to the years of ministry. The fig tree is Israel, and three seasons are mentioned, and then leaving it alone for a 4th season. Smashing this down into as short a space as possible (and wrecking a good deal in the process) outs AD 31, even when counting part years, and smashing endpoints, and sweeping everything else under the rug. It cannot be done without contradiction. But do not be deceived! Most of the time it IS done WITH contradictions. That is because most of those doing the teaching are teaching error, and learned the error from more ancient teachers that did not care about the truth. They only cared about making it seem like they followed the truth, but the real truth they threw away.

So a lot depends on Luke really meaning the 15th year of Tiberius. In order to escape from their contradictions, those holding AD 29, 30, 31 views have moved the 15th year of Tiberius backwards by claiming there was a 2 year coregency between Augustus and Tiberius. A coregency is when an old king is still alive and reigning, but he appoints his son to reign with him. Sometimes the son’s years are counted as overlapping with the reign of the old king. In the image from the scroll book at the left, I show a coregency between the outgoing old king Jehoshaphat (years 21-25 in purple) and the young king Jehoram of Judah (years 1-4 in yellow). Then I show another coregency between Jehoram and Ahaziah. Ahaziah reigns for 1 year in the 7th and 8th years of Jehoram. These coregencies are well documented by other chronological statements such as this, Now in the fifth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel, Jehoshaphat being then the king of Judah, Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah became king. (KJV, 2Kings 8:16) The key phrase indicating a coregency is emphasized. [Update 2023; the image to the left is from an older edition. In the latest edition the 1st year of Jehoshaphat is couted inclusively with the 41st year of Asa, and so the 4th year Jehoram is not part of the overlap.]

By making the claim of a coregency, a timeline that is otherwise too long for someone’s theory can be compacted down into a shorter version. Making claims of a coregency without proof that one existed creates havoc and mayhem in the timeline. Edwin Thiele became the coregency king when he tore down the chronology of Israel by over 50 years (The Mysterious Numbers of The Hebrew Kings) to agree with what secular humanist archaeologists claimed was the history of Assyria. The only mysterious thing about his book is that he did not tell the reader he had no other evidence than the secular humanist say so, and that to believe them, he had to contradict at least three Scriptures, and invent coregencies with no biblical proof they existed. And this evil has spread far and wide. His 931 BC date for the division of the kingdom of Judah and Israel is now the standard in bible commentaries and study bibles. Yep, the chief choir conductor committed adultery with the atheists. The sad thing is that the man had to be a Seventh Day Adventist. He should have known better. Sabbath observance is supposed to encourage one to take the Scripture more literally. It is supposed to discourage misreading it. Apparently that is not always the case.

Those wanting a coregency between Augustus and Tiberius, like Thiele did, are speculating on one, with no evidence at all. The Roman Historians never compute a coregency, nor do they ever count years from when the supposed coregency is supposed to have begun, around AD 12. At the right, I provide an example where there really was a coregency between Jehoash and his father, but it is evident from the evidence that his years of coregency were not counted. Hence the chart leaves the years unnumbered. Jehoash’s name is put in sideways next to years 16 and 17 of his father. But his years are not counted until his father dies. Thus year 1 follows the 17th year of his father. So even if there was a coregency between Augustus and Tiberius (and there wasn’t), it is clear that no years were ever counted from AD 12 or thereabouts.

How does the Roman Historian Suetonius count? He states Tiberius died, in the seventy-eighth year of his age and the twenty-third of his reign, on the seventeenth day before the Kalends of April, in the consulship of Gnaeus Acerronius Proculus and Gaius Pontius Nigrinus. (12 Caesars / Tiberius#5) The consular calendar date corresponds with March 16th, AD 37. The Romans dated years using the Consul lists. And these consuls go with AD 37. They kept up these lists for almost 1000 years, and they are well connected to the AD system introduced later. Suetonius states that Tiberius died in the 23rd year of his reign. Accordingly we can count backward to when? To AD 14. And NOT AD 12. The Roman historians do not debate the accuracy of the consuls for the times we are concerned with. AD 37 - 23 = AD 14.

The reason that Luke is willing to give us a date in terms of Tiberius reign, is because he knows it is accurate, and that his contemporary readers are not going to debate about when it is. The reason that God permits Luke to use the Roman dating, is because He knows the date is accurate, and that all the contemporary Roman Historians will know when the date is, and will confirm it when anyone reads them. The reason that God has not sent a prophet to correct Luke’s dating is that, 1. the evidence of when it was is still there, 2. those who contradict the evidence are liars, 3. He expects us to see through the liars, and rely on the primary sources. Now, I kid you not. I read one person trying to prove that Tiberius died in 23 AD. (The real date is AD 37). He quoted many Roman historians, and went through many calculations, and astronomical calculations too. And his way of handling everything is all a lying heap of rubbish. And the person claimed to be religious. And the person even seemed to be “Messianic.” Yet just one look at his page, and I could see quotes out of context, and intellectual dishonesty all over it. One thing this person did not do, is organize the proof, which I will now do. Suetonius named the consuls of AD 37: Gnaeus Acerronius Proculus and Gaius Pontius Nigrinus. Here is part of the list covering Tiberius reign:

The consuls named by the Roman Historian Suetonius are highlighted in bold font above. They correspond to the year Jan. 1, AD 37 to Dec. 31. Suetonius has dated the year of Tiberius’ death using the standard Roman method. The lists begin in 509 BC and end in AD 541 when the practice of choosing a consul for each year was abolished. See consular lists. That is over 1000 years of record keeping by the Romans.

The Jewish Historian Josephus counts the years of Tiberius at 22 years, 5 months, 3 days, or in another place at 22 years, 6 months, and 3 days. The longer calculation brings us within a few days of 17 Sept, AD 14, since it is known when Tiberius died (March 16, AD 37).

I here quote from Thomas Lewin, who ably demonstrates that the evidence from the Roman historians does not support the coregency theory. I have corrected in brackets dates where Lewin is incorrect, since he himself was still laboring under the notion that Messiah’s ministry began in AD 29 and ended in AD 33. The correct years are AD 30-34. But Thomas Lewin was an honest and able scholar, unlike the person I mentioned above. His mistakes amount to only 1 year! And it is not truly his fault, but the fault of his teachers and traditions that he did not suspect.

Lewin then demolishes the coregency theory by quoting from the reckonings of the Roman and Jewish historians, to show that its promoters lack credibility and should not be believed.

The attack on the 15th year of Tiberius also comes from claims of coin evidence that are supposed to confirm a coregency. Lewin cites these claims, and shows the claims faulty, or possibly fraudulent. Then he explains the coin evidence that actually does nail down the dates.

The Actian era was established from when Caesar defeated Mark Antony at Actium, on Sept. 2, 31 BC. Coins were struck counting years from the victory date. But they only started minting them about 10 years after the victory. Before that they were counting another Era called the Caesarian Era! Lewin continues:

Year 45 of the Actian Era synchronizes with year 1 of Tiberius, i.e. AD 14-15. Match 45 in the grey column with 1 in the purple column with 14/15 in the first column. Lewin continues:

Thomas Lewin has disproved the notion that the 15th year of Tiberius can be pushed back to January AD 28. He has also disproved the coregency theory. There are no coins dated according to those theories, and there are coins dated from AD 14, when Tiberius began to reign. There are no Roman historians citing dates, years, or consuls agreeing with the ad hoc coregency theory. Lewin did not metion that even the alleged coin evidence of a title of Augustus for Tiberius does not date counting his reign at all. The dates are Actian Era dates.

The actual dates are 100% in favor of starting with the fall of AD 14. The only contrary evidence is the claims of chronologists who lived centuries after, and who have preconceived beliefs on what history is supposed to prove based on traditions they have accepted.

I will now add some important points on this update (May 2023). The first is that even in genuine cases of a coregency there is only one way that the years of the coregent's predecessor and the coregent himself are counted. This is the norm. And in fact, I do not know of any historic chronology where two methods of counting the reign of a coregent are used. Second, it is the norm in biblical chronology for the numbered years of a coregent to be those years of sole reign only. The years of actual overlap are not numbered at all. There is only one exception to this in biblical chronology, and like all other exceptions, IT IS CLEARLY STATED TO BE AN EXCEPTION. This is in the transition of Jehoshaphat to Jehoram of Judah, where it is said that he reigned while his father was still king. And even here there are not two ways of numbering Jehoram's reign, but only one way. So now, let us apply this to the the case of Tiberius. If we suppose that there is a genuine co-reign for an overlap of years, then by the normal canons of year counting, the overlapping years are not counted. The parsimonious conclusion is that Tiberius began counting years when Augustus died, even if he held joint power before. Furthermore, there are not two ways of counting the reign of any coregent. And the reasons are obvious. Two ways would create vast confusion. Imagine a mint putting out a coin with one date, and then a few years later with the same date! Or imagine a legal document granting a concession until a given year based on one counting, and they a crafty lawyer taking it away based on the alternate counting. And indeed, most do not realize that in ancient times, the official regnal year was not just important for a king's prestigue. It was even more important for legal contracts and commerce. Luke was from the distant city of Antioch. He would have used the system that was economically or commercially accepted. Furthermore, it is just the system that is economically accepted that is the system that is always used. No competing system could be agreed upon by the merchants that came into contact with people across the empire. And now, as it has been established that Tiberius' regnal years were counted in the way stated here by both the Roman historians in agreement with the known coin evidence, it is then clear which slot in time is taken by Tiberius' regnal years. And since logically there can be no competing system, it is clear there wasn't one.

Whenever those who would propose revising Tiberius' regnal years down toward AD 11 or 12 make their argument, they argue that Tiberius shared power with Augustus over the provinces, and or that he had titles similar to Augustus. But they never actually prove, assuming there was a coregency, that the years were numbered any different than either the Roman historians or the coins do.

Conclusion: The true dates of Tiberius reign are Aug/Sept AD 14 to Aug/Sept AD 37. And the 15th year of it was fall AD 28 to fall AD 29.

Appendix I

This is a list of the coregencies in Scripture with attention to the fact that they are only counted one way, and that the usual way is not to count the years of overlap with the previous king, but to count only the years of sole regency of the coregent king after his father dies. (1) Usually the overlap between two kings is not counted, and the time of sole regency is counted. Accordingly, the years of coregency are left blank, and the years of the old king are used for legal business. Except in unusual circumstances it is not known how long a coregency was. (2) Sometimes the years are counted from when the overlap begins. If this is the case, then the years counted are those of the overlap and the years of sole regency, which are counted in one continuous sequence. The key point is that either method (1) or (2) is used, but in no case are both methods ever used as this would cause commerical and legal confusion. Every merchant and scribe writing contracts recognized the value of using just one standard for dating their contracts.

The AYM (Accession Year Method) is in a way of yielding the counting of a shared year between a father and a son to counting by the father's reign.

Reign Transition           Cogregency?  Counting Method                      Epoch       Uncounted Overlap
1 Saul to 2 Ish-bosheth        No       Accession Year                       Tishri 1    
1 Saul to 3 David              No       Accession Year                       Tishri 1
3 David to 4 Solomon           Yes      Accession Year/Sole Years Only       Tishri 1     Unknown
4 Solomon to 5 Rehoboam        No       Accession Year                       Tishri 1
4 Solomon to 6 Jeroboam        No       Revolt-Epoch change                  Nisan 1
5 Rehoboam to 7 Abijah         No       Accession Year                       Tishri 1  
7 Abijah to 8 Asa              No       Accession Year                       Tishri 1
6 Jeroboam to 9 Nadab          Yes      Inclusive Count of Last Year         Nisan 1      Unknown
9 Nadab to 10 Baasha           No       Revolt-Inclusive Count               Nisan 1
10 Baasha to 11 Elah           Yes      Inclusive count of Last Year         Nisan 1      Unknown
11 Elah to 12 Zimri            No       Revolt-7 days                        Nisan 1
12 Zimri to 13 Tibni           No       Revolt-Inclusive Count of Last Year  Nisan 1  
12 Zimri to 14 Omri            No       Revolt-Inclusive Count of Last Year  Nisan 1
14 Omri to 15 Ahab             Yes      Inclusive count of Last Year         Nisan 1      Unknown
8 Asa to 16 Jehoshaphat        Yes      Inclusive count of Last Year         Tishri 1     Unknown
15 Ahab to 17 Ahaziah          Yes      Inclusive count of last year         Nisan 1      1-2 years
17 Ahaziah to 18 Jehoram       Yes      Inclusive count of last year         Nisan 1      1 year
Jehoram of Judah               Yes      Counted Overlap 2 years then demoted Tishri 1
16 Jehoshaphat to 19 Jehoram   Yes      3 Yrs counted overlap 5 Yrs sole     Tishri 1
19 Jehoram to 20 Ahaziah       Yes      Inclusive count of Last Year         Tishri/Nisan 2 or 1
18 Jehoram to 21 Jehu          No       Revolt-Inclusive count               Nisan 1
20 Ahaziah to 22 Athaliah      No       No reign years counted               Nisan 1
22 Athaliah to 23 Joash        No       Revolt-Inclusive count               Tishri 1
21 Jehu to 24 Jehoahaz         No       Accession Year                       Nisan 1
24 Jehoahaz to 25 Jehoash      Yes      Inclusive count of Last Year         Nisan 1      2-3 years
23 Joash to 26 Amaziah         No       Accession Year                       Tishri 1
25 Jehoash to 27 Jeroboam II   No       Accession Year                       Nisan 1
26 Amaziah to 28 Uzziah        No       12 Year Regency                      Tishri 1
27 Jeroboam II to 29 Zachariah No       24 Year Interregnum                  Nisan 1
29 Zachariah to 30 Shallum     No       Revolt 30 days                       Nisan 1
30 Shallum to 31 Menahem       No       Revolt 1 yr Inclusive at Tirzah      Nisan 1
31 Menahem to 31 Menahem       No       Accession, 10 years at Samaria       Nisan 1
31 Menahem to 32 Pekahiah      No       Accession Year                       Nisan 1
32 Pekahiah to 33 Pekah        No       Revolt-Inclusive count               Nisan 1
28 Uzziah to 34 Jotham         Yes      Inclusive count of last year         Tishri 1     Unknown 14?
34 Jotham to 35 Ahaz           Yes/No   1 Accession year, 4 yr counted OL    Tishri 1     1
33 Pekah to 36 Hoshea          No       Revolt, no official reign            Nisan 1
36 Hoshea to 36 Hoshea         No       Officially recognized by Assyria     Nisan 1
35 Ahaz to 37 Hezekiah         Yes      Inclusive count of Last Year         Tishri 1     1 Year
37 Hezekiah to 38 Manasseh     Yes      Inclusive count of Last Year         Tishri 1     1 Year
38 Manasseh to 39 Amon         No       Accession Year                       Tishri 1
39 Amon to 40 Josiah           No       Accession Year                       Tishri 1
40 Josiah to 41 Jehoahaz       No       3 months                             Tishri 1
41 Jehoahaz to 42 Jehoiakim    No       Accession Year                       Tishri 1   
42 42 Jehoiakim to 43 Jehoiachin   No   3 months                             Tishri 1
43 Jehoiachin to 44 Zedekiah   No       Overthrow/vassal appointed           Nisan 1  
   

From the chart, one can read that only Jehoram of Judah counted his years of regency while his father Jehoshaphat was still reigning as king. First he was given a two year appointment when Ahab invited Jehoshaphat to join him in a campaign against Aram, in which Ahab was subsequently killed by a random arrow. After this Jehoram was evidently removed from what proved to be a temporary appointment. Later, while his father was still king, he was again appointed as coregent, and he begins to count the years of his reign from that point for a total of 8 years. Three of the years are while Jehoshaphat was still alive, and the remaining five are after he died, all part of one continuous count. There is no separate count of Jehoram's sole reign to compete with his official reign starting with the date of coregency. And so the point is maintained. A regency is counted only one way. Luke, having carefully checked out all the facts, does not number the years of joint power over the provinces between Augustus and Tiberius. He numbers the sole regency of Tiberius only, which is confirmed to be the case by the coins, Josephus, and the Roman historians Suetonius and Tacitus. By precent and economic logic there can be only one way to number. And the witnesses tell us which way Tiberius' reign was numbered.

Whenever scholars try to dispute this, a sleight of hand occurs. They prove that power was shared, although it is evident that it was power over the provinces and that Augustus was really in charge. And prove that Tiberius also enjoyed title and position that would devolve on an emperor or the heir apparent of an emperor. But what they can never prove, and never do, is that the years of these promotions were counted as regnal years. They want their audience to merely assume that joint power equivocates to regnal years, which are presumed to exist.

A second sleight of hand amounts to corrupting the timeline between cultures. Scholars presume (or assume) that cultures equated the regnal epoch of a foreign king with their own regnal epoch. There is no dispute that this sometimes happens in sources outside the review of Scripture. A Tishri year may be transferred to a Nisan year, or a Nisan year to a Thoth year, or a January year to a Tishri year. I did not see through the error of imposing this on Scripture until I had examined every case and applied this question to it. It is quite clear that even though this happens outside the review of Scripture, that Scripture sets a higher standard of fidelity to the facts. Scripture never engages in what we can call year creep between different epochs. It is always the case that even though the Jews and Persians may use a different epoch that when a synchronism is stated for a given regnal year, it it true at the moment stated for both epochs, and or the epoch of the foreign king is adopted for the purpose of the statement. But it is never the case that Scripture states the reign year of a king in an epoch foreign to that king which would identify time outside the foreign king's epoch as belonging to the stated reign year.

It is evident from the coins and Roman historians that the epoch used by the Romans in computing Tiberius reign is an anniversary epoch dating from the time of his appointment to the position of Emperor by the Roman Senate.

Appendix II: Secular Kings Adopted by Scripture

Artaxerxes I: A theoretical Tishri reign is drawn in my charts for this king for illustrative purposes. There is no Scripture evidence it was ever used by Scripture. Also Egypt used a Thoth 1 epoch, but this is never used by Scripture. Scripture knows only the offical Nisan 1 epoch for all Babylonian and Persian Kings. It may be the case that sources not used by Scripture, that is purely secular used the year creep method described above, but wherever Scripture does use a secular source, we can be sure that it was vetted by the author of Scripture to comply with the official definitions of the kingdom involved.

Tiberius: This is the final king adopted by Scripture with reign years. Following the precedents set, we may conclude that there was only one way of computing this reign adopted by Scripture, and that is the official Roman method, just as the offical Nisan epoch was adopted for Persia and Babylon.

We observe that cogregencies are either counted or uncounted by Scripture, but whichever method is used, there is only one way to count the reign, and therefore since we know which way the Roman Historians and the coins counted Tiberius' reign, it is clear that it is this method taken by Scripture. And in fact, no other method is known from history for Tiberius at all. The sole reason that the Church wishes to revise history is to make their traditional chronology work. But when their lies about the Sunday resurrection and Daniel 9 are corrected, it becomes clear that there is no need to make anything work differently than the facts that history present.

Yohanan the Immerser Begins his Ministry

Abstract: It is shown how the beginning of John’s ministry relates to the 15th year of Tiberius. It is shown that John, as a priest, was ordained at the age of 30 in the spring. These dates support counting bacward to a 2 BC date for the birth of John in the spring, and a 2 BC date for the birth of Yeshua. They also support going forward from the Passover of AD 30 as the first Passover of Yeshua’s ministry to AD 34 when he died and was raised again.

It has been established independently based on Rev. 12:1-2 and other passages, and Priestly courses, that Yeshua was born in the fall on Tishri 1. This means that Yohanan had to have been born in the spring time. Luke 1:80 states, And the child grew and became strong in spirit, and he was in the wilderness until the day of his public instalment to Yisra’ēl. The word I have translated as instalment is ἀναδείξεως. Let’s go through all of the Lexicons and see what this word means: 1. LSJ: a proclamation of an election, an appointment, (from Pass) a manifestation, N.T. [biased], 2. Friberg; showing forth [biased], 3. Thayer: inaugurating [The other senses are biased.] 4. BDAG: commissioning, installation. 5. BDAG, 3rd. edition: commissioning, installation (t.t. in ref. to a public recognition of an appointed official...) and BDAG suggests the translation, until the day when he was commissioned before Israel as a forerunner of Messiah. The emphasised words here are an attempt by the Lexicon to give an ad hoc explanation what the commissioning means. The word is nearly a hapax word in the NT. It only occurs twice, yet in other literature it means an appointment. In Sirach 43:6, He made the moon also to serve in her season for a appointment (ἀνάδειξιν) of times, and a sign of the world.

The reason that some of the Lexicons water down the definition for the NT, is that the translators did not understand the word in Luke 1:80, because they did not care what it meant for Yohanan to be a priest, and the son of a priest. The flagging of the incorrect definition in LSJ, with the notation: NT. (where it occurs but once as a noun and once as a verb) for the manifestation definition and noting that it is nearly hapax in that place, should make us very suspicious of the unique meaning given to it there out of line with other Greek. A fuller search of LSJ reveals:

The word occurs in the verb form in Acts 1:24, Thou A̕dōnai, knowing every heart, commission whom you have chosen from one of these two. The age of ordination for priests in Israel was 30 years. It does not matter whether Yohanan failed his ordination exam or not, or whether he even applied to enter the priesthood. The phrase, until the day of his commissioning can only mean his 30th birthday, or the the time immediately following his 30th birthday when his division, the division of Abijah was due for service. Now we must take this piece of evidence together with Luke 3:23, where it says, And when He (Yĕshūa̒) began His ministry, Yĕshūa̒ Himself was about thirty years of age (ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα). Friberg gives the correct sense of the word ὡσεὶ: nearly, and also Thayer: about, nearly. Nearly explains which side of thirty the text is talking about. He was almost 30. There are many secular humanist scholars that suppose about 30 means within a decade of 30! Really, they are supposing that Luke was a fool after interviewing his mother to be so foolish as to write with that supposed meaning. Luke is clearly leaving us a carefully thought out framework of Chronology by which to figure when everything happened, while at the same time ensconcing the chronological data into a literary work on the ministry of Messiah.

Therefore, we can reason, since Yeshua was born on Tishri 1, then Yohanan must have turned 30 fairly close to Iyyar 1, since their births were spaced five months apart. Also to be noted is that Luke 1:80 implies that Yohanan went straight-away into his prophetic preaching ministry when he reached the age of 30. This conclusion is really hard to avoid when since he immersed Yeshua after he started his ministry, and Yeshua was nearly thirty. And Yohanan cannot have been more than five months older. The importance of the 15th year of Tiberius now comes back into the picture. This year was from the fall of AD 28 to the fall of AD 29. Since Yohanan only reaches the age of ordination in the spring, then it must be the spring of AD 29 when he began his ministry. If he had begun in Tishri AD 28, then this implies he would have to be at least 30.5 years old. In such a case Yeshua would already be 30, and not nearly 30. It is to be noted that Tishri 1 in AD 28 fell on Sept 8/9, before the inception of the 15th year of Tiberius on Sept. 18. In that case Messiah would certainly be more than 30 and not nearly 30. The conclusion, then, is that Yohanan began his ministry in AD 29, in the spring, at about the half way point of the 15th year of Tiberius, and that he immersed Yeshua near the end of the 15th year, some days or weeks before Tishri 1, AD 29.

Conclusion: John began his ministry in the spring of AD 29. Yeshua was immersed by Yohanan a bit before Tishri 1 AD 29 (which began the fall). The first Passover in John, therefore, is the Passover of AD 30. This will correctly lead us to the year of Messiah’s death and resurrection. Thomas Lewin, Sir Isaac Newton, Scaliger, and others have already worked out for us that His ministry lasted 4 years, and spanned five Passovers. Newton and others correctly picked AD 34 for the year. Lewin picked AD 33, but began back one year in AD 29, so he put the same ministry length. These careful researches were brought into ill repute by Catholics and Protestants pushing the Friday-Sunday theory of the Passion, when astronomical calculations began to become accurate enough to show that a Friday day would not show up in AD 34. Instead of correcting themselves in the direction of Matthew 12:40, and paying attention to the literal meaning of the Greek texts, they ran the other way, and erected a new chronological framework to shore up their traditions.

I mentioned above that John would be ordained at his 30th birthday, or perhaps at the time when his division went up for service. I have written elsewhere that the ideal date of John’s birth is 1 Iyyar. Let us review that calculation now (cf. The Inception of the Priestly Divisions). The division of Abijah served in 3 BC from July 6 to July 13. The first full day of service was July 7. The Julian date was 1720515. The formula for determining from the Julian date which division was on duty for a week is: [(JD + 1)/7 + 3] MOD 24 + 1. So [(1720515 + 1)/7 + 3] MOD 24 + 1 = 8. The 8th division was on duty on the first day of the week. The formula for the weekday is: (JD + 1) MOD 7 + 1. (1720515 + 1) MOD 7 + 1 = 1. The conception of John was on the following first day of the week, which was also the new moon day of month V. The Julian date for this is 1720522 (July 14, 3 BC). The average, or ideal time for gestation from conception to birth is 266 days (not 280 as many suppose, which is from the L.M.P.). Adding 266 to the Julian date: 1720788. Going forward to that date is April 6, 2 BC, which is the same as the new moon day of Iyyar (month II), exactly 5 months before the birth of Messiah. John turned 30 years old on the ideal date of Iyyar I. A premature birth is not possible according to Luke, since he stated that Elizabeth’s days were full. We may suppose that the ordination of a new priest would not take place before the 30th birthday, or not sooner than the priest would be 30 by the time the seven days of the ordination service were completed. We may also suppose that ordination would not take place until the division that the candidate belonged to would be on duty, or in the week before the canditate would be on duty at the earliest, so that the new priest could go immediately from his ordination to a duty cycle of service. A priest might be ordained such that he would be ready for service on the 30th birthday. Exactly, how this was done, I admit, is a matter of speculation, though Jewish resources may give us some historical hints at more exact timing. It suffices to say, that nothing I have said here appears unreasonable to me.

Now then, the 30th birthday of John ideally fell on 1 Iyyar, AD 29. If the division of Abijah was due to serve before this date, then the ordination of John would be delayed until just before the next service of Abijah. So we must inquire into when the division of Abijah served in AD 29. The first day of Iyyar (month II) in AD 29 fell on May 4, a Wednesday. The Julian date is: 1731774. The formula for converting the Julian date (not on a Sunday) to the division number on duty for the week is: DIVISION = [INT[(JD + 1)/7] + 3] MOD 24 + 1. DIVISION = [INT[(1731774 + 1)/7] + 3] MOD 24 + 1 = 8. The 8th division was on duty. If the 30th birthday of John had fallen after the division service dates, then his ordination would have been delayed 24 weeks, or until JD = 1731939 (October 16, AD 29 | Tishri 19). And this date lies outside the 15th year of Tiberius. I think it very reasonable that John showed up for his ordination and public installment into the priesthood during the week of his 30th birthday, which the same week that his division served.

Accuracy of the Consular Lists

Abstract: There are those who doubt the accuracy of the Roman Consular Lists. Dio Cassius records that Emperor Claudius predicted and explained a partial eclipse in Rome before it occurred so that the people would not be upset and consider it a bad omen for the Emperor. Dio says the eclipse occured on the Emperor’s Birthday, August 1st, AD 45. The AD 45 date is determined by the two Consuls that Dio Cassius mentions in book 60.25.1. The August 1st date corresponds to that given by the Roman Historian Suetonius quoted below, i.e. the Calends of August (1 August 10 BC) for the birth of Claudius. According to calculation, the eclipse actually did happen upon 1 August, AD 45 in the year corresponding to the Consuls mentioned by Dio Cassius. This is a very precise and stunning confirmation of the accuracy of the Consular list.

And now Dio Cassius account:

The consuls in in Dio Cassius are those for AD 45. The eclipse was on August 1st, AD 45, and was seen as partial in Rome. Although reports of it would have come via the Roman Post from south Egypt.

A Cross Examination of Ernest Martin

Abstract: Ernest Martin was a champion of a 3 BC birth date on Sept. 11, and an AD 30 crucifixion on a Friday. In the world of chronology, I call him the good cop and the bad cop. He started out good with the birth book, succeeded (with an error of 1 year), and then went bad on his next book, Secrets of Golgotha, while of course putting a lot of interesting truths together with the bad stuff. His subsequent books after that only became worse and worse. In relation to the 15th year of Tiberius, and the age of Messiah at the start of his ministry, a 3 BC birth, and an AD 30 crucifixion year simply does not work. The two dates are incompatible. Nor does his explanation of priestly courses work. And that will be demonstrated in this critique.

Just to be sure where Martin’s loyalties lie, let us introduce him with a quote revealing his position:

It is not my task at this point to formally disprove everything Martin said here, but only those points relating to the 15th year of Tiberius. Therefore, I will make a few passing remarks. Firstly, the statement about the possibility of a Thursday date being astronomically possible in AD 30 is extremely unlikely. Secondly, The men on the road to Emmaus reckoned inclusively in any case, a fact that disproves the Friday-Sunday theory, Indeed, besides all this, a third day passed today, from when these things happened. (Luke 24:21) I explain this in this paper. On a Friday to Sunday theory, no one is going to complain that the third day is passed by! They are going to wait until three days has passed before complaining. The Friday theory is thereby refuted by the internal and external evidence bearing of Luke 24:21. Therefore, the scribes changed the text to “this third day passes today” and made complete internal nonsense out of the remark. If it is “this third day” then the third day is not passed, but is only going to pass. At which point Yeshua could have simply said, “Why are you leaving before the deadline, O ye of little faith!” Martin’s bravado of dogmatism, as we will see, goes down on this point, and on many other points in the expose below.

As I have pointed out, Luke does inform us by indicating the ordination date of Yohanan in Luke 1:80. Knowing that his birthday was in the spring means that we have to be at least half way through the 15th year of Tiberius (fall AD 28 to fall AD 29) before he can be ordained and begin his ministry.

The overall biblical chronology proves that reign years of kings are counted from Tishri 1. We can prove this in the case of Solomon, and in the case of Josiah, and it can also be shown in the case of Nehemiah that a Tishri 1 year was used to compute the 20th year of Artaxerxes. There are three proofs of this in the Scripture texts for the kingdom of Judea, and one of the proofs is after the end of the exile. The only place where this was not true was with non-Jews, namely the northern kingdom of Yisrael, the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Persians. It so happens that the inception point of the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar was nearly exactly the same the Jewish Tishri 1 new year. In AD 14, when Tiberius became Emperor, Tishri 1 was on Sept 15, and the Senate voted the powers of the chief executive to Tiberius on Sept 17-18. There was no question of an accession year in the Jewish mode of reckoning, because Augustus had died before Tishri 1. Or to put it another way, there was no question of when it would be. It would be before Tishri 1, AD 14, between Augustus’ death and Tishri 1, about 3 weeks. Accession years only occurred when an incoming king, usually the son of the old king, shared the last year of the old king. Thomas Lewin has disproved the notion of putting Tiberius first year back to Jan. 1 AD 14 from Roman sources. The Jews would not conceive of doing this since Tishri 1 was gone by when the Senate appointed Tiberius. Nor is there any reason for turning all of AD 14 to AD 15 into an accession year 11 lunar months and about 27 days long. The Jews were not devoid of common sense. Their Tishri years for Tiberius would run strictly parallel to the Roman anniversary years.

Martin’s theory that the Jews could have antedated the 1st year of Tiberius to the previous Tishri 1 is also without merit. First the Roman historians contradict this, and thus this would put the Jewish reckoning one year out of synchronization with the Roman. Such a move would certainly not make for good relations with the Romans, and it would be about as far from the truth as any choice of a regnal reckoning could be. Second, such a move would de-legitimize the Roman Senate in the governance of the Empire, because they only appointed Tiberius after Tishri 1. So if there was any antedating to be done, it would only be from Sept. 18 back to Sept. 14/15, a matter of only 4 days! It is also quite well known that Tiberius said he did not want the job of chief executive. For the Jews to go back a whole year to Tishri 1, AD 13 to date the 1st year would not only be unprecedented, it would 1. slight Augustus, 2. over recognize Tiberius, and 3. be about as far from the truth of when his first year was as can be. Finally, Martin needs the slop factor to to construct a less than parsimonious chronology. The gymnastics are quite unnecessary, and there is no reason that common sense cannot prevail. The Jewish Tishri year simply ran parallel to the Roman annual year fairly close.

Martin has passed away, so he cannot respond to me. However, the remarks only serve to damage his credibility. Antedating the first year of Tiberius to a Tishri year before the Roman Senate actually appointed him Emperor is anything but ordinary or common among easterners. It is totally without precedent. Even in the case of Artaxerxes I succeeding Xerxes, Xerxes had died in month V , and therefore Tishri 1 of the following VIIth month marked the beginning of year 1 on the Jewish reckoning. The Persians delayed the 1st year till the following Nisan 1. But never does a year start before the previous ruler dies as an ordinary method, unless there is some compelling legal reason as in the case of Herod Antipas, which was exceptional. As Lewin proved, even the Romans did not antedate the year to Jan. 1 AD 14. Also problematic is that new Roman coins would be circulating around Judea stamped with a year number one lower than a Judean unofficial reckoning, and that these coins would also bear the year of the Actian Era. This is anything but ordinary or common sense. And never in any other section of biblical chronology is such a reckless example of antedating found. Martin’s position can be appreciated, however, in view of the fact that he needs to smash the chronology together to make his AD 30 target date for the crucifixion.

Martin has just placed the inception of the 15th year of Tiberius at AD 27, on Tishri 1. Now he claims that putting the 30th year of age of Messiah near this point evidence for 3 BC. Well it can only be near it if it is nearer to nothing else. And as Martin agrees that the birth date is on Tishri 1, he is implying that Tishri 1, AD 27 was his 30th birthday. But he seems to want to avoid saying this so directly. I think I know the reason why. He needs to fit the whole ministry between Tishri 27 and Nisan 30. Let us now reckon backwards. The age is for Tishri 1 each year.

AD:  27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 

AGE: 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18

                                            AD BC BC BC BC

AD:  14 13 12 11 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 01 01 02 03 04

AGE: 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 01 00

Confirm the calculation this way: 27-30: subtract 30: -3:0. /-3/ astronomical (or number line) stands for 4 BC. Martin’s statements imply that his birth was in 4 BC. If on the other hand, Martin reckoned his assumptions correctly, then he would have to assign Tishri 1, AD 28 to the 30th birth day, the end of his assumed 15th year. In that case, he would have trouble fitting Messiah’s ministry into the Passover of AD 29 and AD 30, and have the crucifixion in AD 30. John’s three passovers would kill his theory. He has space for only two. It is a foregone conclusion that Martin’s assumptions are self contradictory.

It is well known that the Roman Senate voted Caesar Augutus Pater Patriae “Father of the Country” on 5 February 2 BC. Let us see what Martin says about the Census of Quirinius.

The language, by 3 B.C.E. is misleading. Lewin simply quotes the inscriptions in Latin, and their sources in 3 BC with no remarks of his own. I located the inscriptions in Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae, edited by Hermann Dessau, with commentary that was lacking in Lewin’s citations, and an additional inscription. Catalogue number 96: imp. Caesari Augusto divi f. | pontufici max., trib. potest. XIIX¹, | cos. XI, patri patriae², d. d. Footnote #2 goes as follows, Patris patriae appellationem admisit Augustus a senatu populoque Romano ita appellatus in tertio decimo consulatu, id est a. 752 (mon. Anc. 6,24; Dio 55,10), d. 5 Febr. (fast. Praen., cf. C. I. p. 386), attamen etiam antea saepe eum ita vocatum esse ait Dio (l.c.) et confirmant tituli. Footnote #1 states that XIIX could mean 748/9 AUC corresponding to 5 or 6 BC. Footnote #2 translates, Father of the Country, appellation admitted Augustus by the Senate of the Roman people; so called in the thirteenth consulship, that is 752 AUC [2 BC], 5 February. However, even before this, so called, are often said to be, and confirmed titles. The note is best explained by the citation of Dio Cassius. So lets go to book 55,10 and see what he says, He also was given the strict right to the title of ‘Father’; for hitherto he had merely been addressed by that title without the formality of a decree. This then explains the inscriptions. Someone had inscribed the title before it was officially given to him.

#100 reads, “Pater patriae | Imp. Caesar divi f. | Augustus pontifex | maxumus, cos. XII, | cos. designatus XIII, | imp. XIIII, tribunic. | [p]otestat. XX[I]¹” The relevant part of the footnote says, “Pater patriae postea adiectum, cum Augustus hanc appellationem reciperet a. 752 (cf. ad N. 96). Father of the country later added, when Augustus received this appellation AUC 752 [2 BC].

#101, “imp. Caesari | Aug. | parenti patriae.” Note: “Patriae parens cum dicitur Augustus, non pater videtur titulus scriptus ante annum 752 quo patris patriae appellationem sollemnem recepit.” Country Father when said Augustus not the father; apparently title written before the year 752 [2 BC] wherein the father of the country appellation was solemnly received.

The statement by Dio Cassius explains the seemingly anachronistic use of the title. Also Martin’s admission of an incident where Caesar refused the title suggests strongly that nothing was imposed on the people by way of required formality until the decree of the Senate on 5 Feb. 2 BC. Martin’s conclusion that all the people gave him the title before the decree is overstated.

Firstly, oaths were being administered all the time somewhere in the Roman Empire. So any supporting evidence of this oath for the Luke decree depends entirely on the words, “all Roman citizens and non-citizens”. This is not exactly what the decree says. Martin says ‘all’. The word ‘all’ is not in the relevant sentence: In the time of emperor Caesar Augustus, son of a god, during the twelfth consulship, in the third year, on the day before the Nones of March, in Gangris in . . . oath that was completed by the inhabitants of Paphlagonia and the . . . R[omans] . . . engaged in business (pragmateuomenoi) alongside them. ἀπὸ Αὐτοκράτορος Καίσ[αρος] | θεοῦ υἱοῦ Σεβαστοῦ ὑπατεύ[σαντος τὸ] | δωδέκατον ἔτους τρίτου, π[ροτέραι] | νωνῶν Μαρτίων ἐν Γάνγροις ἐν [κ]ά[στροις(?), ὅρ]||κος ὁ τελεσθ[εὶς ὑ]πὸ τῶ[ν] κατοικ[ούντων Πα]|φλαγονία[ν καὶ τῶν πραγ]ματευομ[ένων πα]|ρ’ αὐτοῖς Ῥ[ωμαίων] (Neapolis (Galatia, Asia Minor). IGR III 137 = Franz Cumont, “Inscription grecque de Vézir-Keupru dans l’ancienne Paphlagonie (Asie Mineure),” Comptes-rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 44 (1900) 687–691 = OGIS 532 = PHI 265936 = ID# 13519; 3 BCE). Notice that it does not say all Romans. A good deal of the inscription is reconstructed from guesswork. Note the [ ] sections in the Greek text, which is not reflected in the provided English translation. I have tagged the word “Romans” to show that even that word is interpreted from just one intact letter. It is probably correct, but what is for sure is that the word ALL does not appear in this description. And it appears that the oath was limited to certain Romans, perhaps such as were citizens, but kin to the inhabitants of Paphlagonia. Oaths were often required to assure the security of an area, and the assistance of the oath takers in case of conflict. It is pure speculation to suppose this has anything to do with the enrollment of Quirinius. And, it in fact doesn’t because the chronology works out for 2 BC.

This the case of a source centuries dislocated from Luke. Movses Khorenatsi (ca. 410-490s AD) is way too far removed to be considered a primary source. Khorenatsi may have calculated his date and then associated the decree just as Martin did. Oriosius need not be believed either. He is way too far dislocated from the scene, and may have calculated the date as the Eastern Church Fathers who argue for Jan 6. 2 BC by miscalculating the priestly courses. Scholars are constantly making the wrong associations. The only evidence that counts is hard primary evidence.

It may well be that the Pater Patriae vote has little to do with the inventory of the provinces. It may even be the case that the inventory started before the Pater Patriae decree on 5 Feb. 2 BC. We simply do not know. The key point is when Quirinius was Governor of Syria. And one thing is clear. And Martin has to agree with this logically because he correctly has the death of Herod in 1 BC. Before the summer of 2 BC, the governor of Syria was Sentius Saturnius, and not Quirinius. Luke would not have upstaged Saturninus. And Josephus still has Saturninus on the job after Antipater was sent to Rome, which took place not in 3 BC, or in the winter of 2 BC, but in the spring of 2 BC. There is only a small window in the summer of 2 BC to put Quirinius between Saturninus and Varus. That Josephus did not mention Quirinius is Josephus’ mistake. But between those two is where Quirinius goes. The inscription of Aemilius Secundus and the Titulus Tiburtinus both indicate that Quirinius was a full governor of Syria, and not some kind of deputy. He cannot be a deputy, because it ended up on Secundus’ epitaph, and his own epitaph.

Martin states:

Martin’s system works, but it is an ad hoc system. Martin plots his priestly courses from Nisan, and also skips a week at the three pilgrim festivals. Such a method ensures that in some years only divisions 1-24, and then 1-23 will get to serve, leaving out the second service of division 24. And in other years, some divisions will serve three times, and then get to serve again only a few weeks later when the courses restart in Nisan. Starting the courses in Nisan is also complicated by the fact that Adar II may only be determined on the 13th new moon. So then who would serve the previous week? Skipping weeks when feasts fall in the middle of weeks is very disorderly, and voids a simple system of counting 1-24. Martin’s proposed system of divisions contradicts Deut. 18:6-8 which states that all priests are to have an equal share in the proceeds of the offerings. Only a system of continuous rotations can meet this Scriptural criteria. It also contradicts key passages in Chronicles showing that the divisions began in the second week of Tishri when the First Temple was dedicated. See my article, The Inception of the Priestly Divisions. Martin’s system contradicts the note in Seder Olam that the Second Temple was destroyed on 9 Av, on a Sunday, when the first division was scheduled to serve. Martin’s system also contradicts the Qumran text 4Q320 and other documents from the Dead Sea Scrolls. 4Q320 starts in Nisan with division #22, and not division 1. All of this evidence against Martin’s ad hoc system agrees with a continuous rotation of divisions, as explained in the above article.

According to the continuous rotation system, Martin’s 3 BC birth date is unworkable. That is why he needs the ad hoc Nisan theory. The 8th division served from Aug 4, 4 BC to Aug 11, 4BC. This can be checked using the formula for the Second Temple: [(JD+1)/7] + 3 MOD 24 + 1. The Julian date for August 5 is 1720179. So [(1720179+1)/7] + 3 MOD 24 + 1 = 8. Zechariah would have come off of his service that year on Aug 12 (19 Av, JD 1720186). The shortest time possible from the conception of John to the birth of Messiah is 5 months and 266 days (above article), or 413 days. 266 days is 9 months (266/29.5 = 9 months). So the shortest time from the conception of John to the birth of Messiah is 14 months.

Simply count off 14 months to see if Martin can hit the target date. It would be easier to add 413 days to the Julian date Zechariah came off his service. Result: 1720599 = Sept. 29, 3 BC. Martin’s date of Sept 11, 3 BC is 18 days premature. The Scripture, however, forbids a premature birth. Luke states the days of Miryam were fulfilled (Luke 2:6).

A Cross Examination of Kenneth Doig

This is based on chapter 12 of Doig’s NT chronology, THE FIFTEENTH YEAR OF TIBERIUS.

But this was only the de facto position. He only accepted de iure the Senate’s offer of the position of head of state on Sept. 17, AD 14, and so only legally became Emperor after his appointment. This is important point because Tishri 1, AD 14 occurred on September 15 or possibly even September 16. The new moon might not have been seen on the evening of Sept 14th, but it would have certainly been seen on Sept. 15th. So the new moon day may have been either 15 September or 16 September. Tiberius’ reign, therefore, almost exactly matches the Judean Tishri epoch, and would make counting his years in Judea easy. Since the legal appointment of Tiberius clearly comes after Tishri 1, and the death of Augustus was before it, there is no question of an uncounted accession year, and no possibility of back dating the beginning of the reign to Jan. 1, AD 14.

The deviation is not caused in the first place by a lack of knowledge, but by a rejection of the results obtained from the only information that exists. And this information contradicts the chronological paradigm evolved by the Roman Church to defend the Friday crucifixion and Sunday resurrection. Chronology done from that point of view is an exercise in deception, and a hiding of the reasons for the wide differences in teaching about when Tiberius’ reign began. The real reason is the rejection of the Law and the Prophets, and the ignorance that results from not listening to God. We see this at once in Doig’s next remark:

The Syro-Macedonian calendar was used by the Syrian Greeks. It counts the first month starting in the fall of the year. As a proselyte Jew, Luke could not write Scripture and teach this calendar, because Yahweh Almighty commanded that the first month be the month of Passover (Exodus 12:1-3), and this occurs in the spring. The Greek calendar was luni-solar, but it timed its first month after the fall equinox. It might be o.k. to use a pagan calendar for double dating so long as it is stated which calendar is being used, but only in that case. If it is not specified in Scripture, then it must be assumed that the ordinary Scriptural calendar is being used. Josephus uses Syrio-Macedonian month names, but he is careful to tell us that Xanthicus correlates with the first month of the Biblical Year. The Macedonian calendar was based on the sighted new moon, but their month numbering was off, and so also the beginning of its year.

The Jews, of course, counted years for kings from Tishri 1. Invariably, however, the first month of the Greeks was after Tishri 1. While it is true that the Syrian calendar was used widely, so also was the Roman calendar by the Romans, and the Scriptural calendar by the Jews. The Scriptural calendar was viewed by the Jews as the only truly correct calendar. And that is our view here. So it does not matter how popular a pagan calendar is in the surrounding culture. It is the point of view of the Biblical writer that counts, and not the competition.

Doig’s ad hoc error takes him in this direction,

By forcing the start of Tiberius’ reign before the Greek new year, Doig manages to eke out a very short first year lasting only about 1½ months. Even this is questionable. For it could have been computed according to accession year rules, whereby the old year is accounted to Augustus, and the Greek year beginning after Dios 1 is accounted as Tiberius’ first. This in fact would be more normal. By accession rules, the first year would be October 15, AD 14 to October 3, AD 15. I have correlated the Greek new year to month VIII of the Scripture. Finegan states, The beginning point was presumably at the new moon after the autumnal equinox, hence about the end of September. (§116) Some versions of the Greek calendar followed the month ordering of the Babylonians. There was even an Egyptian version of it. While this is all very interesting, the vagaries of the Greek calendar need not be sorted out.

By shifting Tiberius’ first year one year earlier, or out of phase with his actual rule, and then by compacting down John’s ministry, he manages to come up with AD 28 as the first Passover of John, and clearly his intent is to have only three Passovers and a two year ministry for Jesus and end up in AD 30 for the crucifixion, wherein lies his target Friday date for the crucifixion!

Since Doig’s chronology puts the birth of Jesus on 25 December, 5 BC, the date is 24 Tebeth. He states it as 25 Kislev implying he intercalated that year late. This makes the anniversary date, 25 Kislev, December 13 in AD 27. This means his Jan. 6, AD 28 date for the baptism is in the 31st year. He states, This date is supported by an understanding of Luke’s usage of Jesus being “about thirty years” old at that time, and the thirty years are exact by the Jewish or Syro-Macedonian calendars. No Mr. Doig, it is not exact. Even if Doig were to correct his intercalation mistake (by putting the birth on 24 Tebeth, he would be at the end of the 30th year, and Luke could not have stated he was “almost thirty.” He would have had to say “almost thirty-one.” I think the reason he likes the intercalation mistake is the equivalence of 25 December with 25 Kislev. However, even that match is not exact.