What year was Jesus born? December 25th, 4 B.C.? October 22, A.D. 0? Or August 13th, 6 B.C.?

Suppose I tell you that none of those are correct, and that the Bible gives you the exact day, month,
and year. Yes, the Bible does speak for itself.

Let us start with Luke chapter 2. Verses 7 & 8: “….” That alone is a clue right there. The question
here is, why would shepherds be out in the field “watching their flock” and at nights? There is only
one time of the year that shepherds would be out at night with their flock, and that is during the
springtime. Why springtime? Because it is only in springtime sheep give birth to lamb. Shepherds
are only out at night, during the “lambing” season. They are watching for the lamb’s birth.

Sheep are not like people, they only give birth one time during the year, and that is during the
Hebrew month of Nissan (March – April) in our calendar. Let’s face it, spring would be the most
appropriate time for Jesus to be born, considering that He is the “Lamb of God”. So, He would have
to be born during the “lambing” season.

Sheep giving birth at only one season during the year, unlike other animals, is a definite plan of God
– It’s a prefiguring of Jesus’ birth. Jesus’ birth can only be aa a specific time, that is, during the
“lambing” season, during spring.

It is no coincidence either, why Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea. Bethlehem was the place
where all the lamb for the temple sacrifice was kept. Look at it. Bethlehem, Arabic Bayt – Lahm.
“House of bread”, the metaphysical meaning. Jesus Himself being the “Bread of Life”. What better
perfect time and place for the Messiah to be born… at the place where the sacrificial lamb are kept,
and at the time when lamb are born.

Exodus 12: 3-12 “….” The Hebrews were instructed to take a lamb, one year old male, for the
Passover. Note, that at the Passover, the male lamb must be one year old, so the lamb must also be
born in the Passover over season, during the springtime. So, the Messiah, Jesus Christ, the
spotless, unblemished, Lamb of God, was born during the Passover season, during the month of
Nissan, which corresponds to March – April in our calendar. To determine the exact date during the
month of Nissan, we first need to understand Biblical Holy Days.

The central events of the Messiah’s life and His time on Earth, all take place on Hebrews’ Holy Days
For example, Palm Sunday; He went through His Passion. By the way, “Palm Sunday” is the first
holiday that was given to the Hebrews. In Exodus 12:3, the Hebrews were instructed to take a lamb
on the 10th day of the month, keep if for 4 days (like, take it to your house), until the 14 th day of the
month sacrifice it (On the day of the Passover – 14th day of the first month) 14th of Nissan. So, Jesus
was crucified on the 14th of Nissan; but we’ll get back to that.

Now, the day on which the lamb is taken (10th Nissan) is the “Day of the Lamb”. The day that God is
taking the “Lamb of God” to the “house”, our body, the spiritual temple of God, is on the 10 th Nissan.
The first command that was given to the Hebrews was to “take” the “lamb”. The word translated
“take” really means “to accept”. So, on the 10th Nissan, the Hebrews were to accept the lamb, accept
God’s gift of Redemption to mankind.

You might think that Jesus was born in the Year Zero–between 1 B.C. and A.D. 1. You often hear
that Jesus was born around 6-7 B.C. The evidence from the Bible and the Church Fathers, however,
support a different year.
Here’s what the evidence says . . . careful analysis of the records of Matthew, Luke, and the Church
Fathers shows that Jesus was born on August 13 in the year 3 or 2 B.C.

Not in Year Zero

Why Jesus wasn’t born in Year Zero: there wasn’t one. The sequence of years before Christ ends at
1 B.C. and then A.D. series picks up the very next year with A.D. 1. This might be a bit surprising to
you, since you’re used to working with number lines that have a zero on them, but zero wasn’t a
concept on the intellectual scene when our way of reckoning years was developed.
If it helps, you can think about it this way: suppose you have a child and you want to date events
relative to that child’s birth. The first year before the child was born would be 1 B.C. (Before the
Child), and the first year after his birth (that is, the year ending with his first birthday) would be the
first year of the child. If the child happens to be the Lord, that would be the first year of the Lord,
which in Latin is Anno Domini, from which we get A.D. Thus, there is no Year Zero between 1 B.C.
and A.D. 1.
(By the way, please note that the “A.D.” goes before the number. “A.D. 2013″ = “The Year of the
Lord 2013,” which is an intelligible phrase. If you write “2013 A.D.” that would be “2013 the Year of
the Lord,” which is gibberish.)

People often say that Jesus was born in 4 B.C., 6 B.C., 7 B.C., or a time earlier still? The
calculations that lead to these dates are all based on a proposal that was made just over a hundred
years ago.

Here's the story. . . .

When Herod Died

The Gospel of Matthew records that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great. Luke
doesn't say it explicitly, but he does indicate that the birth of John the Baptist was foretold during
Herod's reign. If Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great, then he must have been born
before Herod died.

Here's where the problematic proposal comes in: In the late 1800s, a German scholar named Emil
Schurer proposed that Herod died earlier than previously thought. Specifically, he claimed that
Herod died in 4 B.C. This view caught on among scholars, and so now it's common for people to
date the birth of Jesus no later than 4 B.C.
If a scholar takes seriously the account of the slaughter of the holy innocents, then, since Herod
killed all the baby boys two years old and under, that will push Jesus' birth up to two years earlier,
landing us in 6 B.C. And it could have happened even before that. So, that's why people often date
Jesus' birth in this way, even though it is not when the Church Fathers indicated Jesus was born.

Why 4 B.C.?
Why do advocates of the Schurer view hold that Herod died in 4 B.C.? Here are four reasons:
1. Based on statements in the Jewish historian Josephus, Herod was first appointed
king in 40 B.C. and then reigned for 36 years (so, he died in 4 B.C.).
2. Again, based on Josephus, after Herod was appointed king, he conquered
Jerusalem in 37 B.C. and reigned for 33 years (again, dying in 4 B.C.).
3. Again, based on Josephus, Herod died between a lunar eclipse and a Passover. In
4 B.C., there was a partial lunar eclipse 29 days before the Passover of that year.
4. There are various lines of evidence suggesting that Herod's sons took office in
4 B.C.

Sounds like a solid case, right? Not exactly. It's shot through with problems. Let's take a brief look at
each of the four arguments . . .

1. When Herod Was Appointed King

Since the B.C./A.D. system of dates hadn't been invented yet, Josephus used ancient methods of
dating that we no longer use. One method was dating events in terms of which Olympiad they took
place in. An Olympiad was a four-year period based on when the Olympic Games took place. (Yes,
the ancients were huge sports fans.) Each Olympiad began in midyear and ran for four years.
Josephus says that Herod was appointed king during the 184th Olympiad, which ran from July 1, 44
B.C. to June 30, 40 B.C. He also says that he was appointed during the consulship of Calvinus and
Pollio. Consuls were Roman officials who reigned during specific years, and it was common to date
events by the consuls who were in office at the time. Calvinus and Pollio began their consulship after
October 2, 40 B.C. That's in the 185th Olympiad.
See the problem?

The 184th Olympiad ended before Calvinus and Pollio were consuls. Josephus has given us an
impossible date. He must be wrong on this one.
 2. When Herod Conquered Jerusalem
Josephus says that Herod conquered Jerusalem in the 185th Olympiad during the consulship of
Marcus Agrippa and Caninius Gallus. That does point to 37 B.C. But Josephus also says that Herod
conquered Jerusalem exactly 27 years--to the day--after it fell to the Roman general Pompey. But
Pompey conquered Jersualem in 63 B.C., and 27 years later would be 36 B.C., not 37 B.C.
Furthermore, he says that the government of the Hasmoneans (who ruled Jerusalem prior to Herod
conquering the city) reigned for 126 years. According to 1 Maccabees and Josephus himself, they
began ruling in 162 B.C., which would put the date of Herod's conquest in 36 B.C. (162 -126 =36).
So, Josephus, again, gives contradictory information about when Herod conquered Jerusalem,
indicating in some places that it was in 37 and in others that it was 36.

3. When the Lunar Eclipse Was

There was, indeed, a partial lunar eclipse in 4 B.C., which took place 29 days before Passover.
However, this was not the only lunar eclipse in the period. There was another lunar eclipse in 1 B.C.,
which was 89 days before Passover.
Now here's the thing:
1) Since there is more than one eclipse in this period, you can't cite the 4 B.C. eclipse as
evidence supporting a 4 B.C. date in particular. You must consider other eclipses in the right time
frame and see which best fits the evidence.
2) The lunar eclipse in 4 B.C. was only partial, but the lunar eclipse in 1 B.C. was
full. Josephus doesn't say it was a partial lunar eclipse. He says it was a lunar eclipse, and a full
eclipse fits that description better.
3) The 4 B.C. span of 29 days between the eclipse and Passover is too short. Josephus doesn't
just say that Herod died between the eclipse and the Passover. He also names a bunch of things
Herod did during that period, including trips that required travel time.
A contemporary biblical chronologer of Josephus, Andrew E. Steinmann points out:

"[All] of the events that happened between these two [the lunar eclipse and Passover] would have
taken a minimum of 41 days had each one of them taken place as quickly as possible. A more
reasonable estimate is between 60 and 90 days" (From Abraham to Paul, 231)

Thus, again, the 1 B.C. lunar eclipse--89 days before Passover--better fits what Josephus describes.

4. When Herod's Sons Began to

Reign
It is true that we have multiple lines of evidence indicating that Herod's sons began to reign in 4 B.C.
That's doesn't mean Herod died then. It was very common for aging rulers to take their successors
as co-rulers during the latter part of their reign. This both took some of the pressure off the aging
ruler and helped ensure a smooth succession when he died by lessening the chance of a power
struggle after his death (people were already used to the new ruler, who was already in office).
That means that when you have asked whether a particular ruler's assumption of office was as co-
ruler or as sole ruler. It could have been either one, so this argument does not prove that Herod died
in 4 B.C.
Furthermore, we have evidence that Herod did start giving his sons governing authority before his
death. I'm trying to keep this post as short as possible though, so . . .

The Case for 4 B.C. Is Exceptionally

Weak
All four of the main arguments proposed are problematic:
1. The first argument names an impossible date (one that did not exist) for the
beginning of Herod's reign.
2. Josephus contradicts himself about when Herod conquered Jerusalem.
3. There is another lunar eclipse that fits what Josephus says even better.
4. We have evidence that Herod began giving his sons rulership roles before he died.
And there is much more that could be said (as there always is with biblical chronology). My favorite
resources on this question are Jack Finegan's outstanding Handbook of Biblical Chronology (2nd
ed.) and Andrew Steinmann's informative From Abraham to Paul.

This still leaves us with the big questions: When did Herod the Great actually die? And when was
Jesus Christ born?

So what year was Jesus born?

1 B.C.?
The guy who developed the way we reckon years was a 6th-century monk named Dionysius
Exiguus (“Dennis the Short”). He apparently thought Christ was born in 1 B.C. (actually, it’s a bit
more complex than that, but we’ll keep this simple).
Today most think this date is a little too late and that the evidence supports a date a few years
earlier.

6-7 B.C.?
For a little more than a century, the idea has been popular that Jesus was born in 6-7 B.C. The
reasoning goes like this: Jesus was born late in the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 B.C.
Furthermore, the wise men saw the star rise in the east two years before they came to visit
Jerusalem, where they met Herod. Back up two years from 4 B.C. and you get 6 B.C. Back up
another year in case Herod didn’t die immediately after they visited, and you get 7 B.C.
So: 6 or 7 B.C.
The problem, with that, however, is that the arguments that Herod died in 4 B.C. are exceptionally
weak, as I have pointed out above. Now, let’s move to the next suggested years

3-4 B.C.?
Let’s take the same logic as above and plug in the more likely date of Herod’s death.
As explained above, the evidence points to him dying in 1 B.C. So . . . back up two years from that
and you get 3 B.C. Back up another year for cushion and you get 4 B.C.
Thus: 3-4 B.C.
That’s not an unreasonable estimate, but there are two issues with it:
1. It’s got a couple of problematic assumptions.
2. Other evidence, including other evidence from the Bible, suggests it’s a little too
early.
The problematic assumptions are that the star was first visible in the east at the moment of Jesus’
birth and that it was visible for a full two years prior to the magi’s arrival.
The first of these assumptions is problematic (among other reasons) because its appearance could
be connected with another point in Jesus’ life, such as his conception. If that were the case, you’d
need to shave nine months off to find the point of his birth. It’s also problematic because Matthew
doesn’t say that the star appeared two years earlier. What he says is that Herod killed all the baby
boys in Bethlehem that were two years old and under, in accord with the time he learned from the
magi. That means that there is some approximating going on here. Herod would certainly want to
make sure the child was dead, and he would err on the side of . . . well, the side of caution from his
perspective. That is, he would to some degree over-estimate how old the child might be in order to
be sure of wiping him out. Thus, all the boys two and under were killed. That means Jesus was at
most two years old, but he was likely younger than that.
What may well have happened if Herod may have been told that the star appeared a year ago and
he decided to kill all the boys a year on either side of this to make sure of getting the right one.
And then there’s the fact that the ancients often counted parts of a year as a full year in their
reckoning, so “two years” might mean “one year plus part of a second year.”
All this suggests that two years was the maximum amount of time earlier that Jesus was born, and
likely it was less than that.
Thus . . .

2-3 B.C.?
This date would be indicated if we start with Herod’s death in 1 B.C. and then, taking into account
the factors named above, backed up only one year, suggesting 2 B.C. Then, if we back up another
year to allow for the fact Herod didn’t die immediately, that would suggest 3 B.C. So, sometime
between 2-3 B.C. would be reasonable, based on what we read in Matthew. The question is then,
Do we have other evidence suggesting this date? The answer is yes, we do, both inside and outside
the Bible.
The Gospel of Luke
Although Luke offers some helpful clues about the timing of Jesus’ birth, we don’t know enough to
make full use of them. The date of the enrollment ordered by Augustus is notoriously controversial,
for example, and too complex to go into here. However, later indications he gives in his gospel are
quite interesting.

Luke records, for example, that John the Baptist began his ministry in “the fifteenth year of Tiberius
Caesar” (3:1).

Years of Tiberius

Tiberius' years are reckoned as factual (not regnal) beginning from his co-regency with is adopted Father
Augustus in A.D. 12. By that reckoning, Jesus was baptized in the 15th year of Tiberius and crucified in
A.D. 30 (consistent with the harmonized gospel accounts of the passion week) the 18th year of Tiberius
as reported by Eusebius (as preserved in Jerome).

The 1st year of Tiberius began as co-regent in October of A.D.12, and he was named head of state in
September od A.D. 14 which pushed his factual year earlier two months, reckoned thereafter from the fall
month of September through August of the following year.

Consequently, Tiberius' 15th year spanned the last 4 months of A.D. 26 (when Christ was baptized just
after His 30th birthday) to the first 8 months of A.D. 27, and Tiberius' 18th year spanned the last 4 months
of A.D. 29 into the first 8 months of A.D. 30 (when Christ was crucified on April 3rd).

It must be noted, there exist two double-dated coins which contradict the analysis below, and date
Tiberius' reign as beginning A.D. 14 with Augustus' death.

These coins are:

 Silanus Antioch RPC 4270 which double dates Tiberius' 1st year to the Actian 45th year
 Silanus Selucia RPC 4330 which double dates Tiberius' 3rd year to the Actian 47th year

Tiberius' factual years:

Tiberius' years are “reckoned as factual” meaning a full year or rule is reckoned from the actual accession
to the anniversary of the same accession. The 1st year begins on the day of accession and the 2nd year
begins exactly a year later. The basis for this assessment is:

1. Seutonius uses a regnal year reckoning only for Tiberius' years subsequent to his joint-
governorship with Augustus, but uses factual year reckoning for Augustus (giving Augustus credit
for years shared with Tiberius), as well as for Caligula and Claudius.
2. Tacitus uses factual year reckoning for Tiberius, but did not record history prior to Tiberius, and
his history covering Caligula and Claudius is lost.
3. Coins minted by Gratus and Pilate and circulated in Judea are dated consistent with a factual
year reckoning for Tiberius.
Seutonius records of Augustus;

8 1-3 At the age of four he lost his father. ... He did, however, return to the city and enter upon his
inheritance, in spite of the doubts of his mother and the strong opposition of his stepfather, the ex-consul
Marcius Philippus. 3 Then he levied armies and henceforth ruled the State, at first with Marcus Antonius
and Marcus Lepidus, then with Antony alone for nearly twelve years, and finally by himself for forty-four.

100 1 He died in the same room as his father Octavius, in the consulship of two Sextuses, Pompeius and
Appuleius, on the fourteenth day before
the Kalends of September [August 19th] at the ninth hour, just thirty-five days before his seventy-sixth
birthday. ...

C. Suetonius Tranquillus, "The Life of Augustus" 8.1, 100.1

The Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Loeb (1913)

Octavian was renamed Augustus in 27 B.C. and was officially the first Roman emperor, but from 27 B.C.
to A.D. 14 is 41 years, not "four and forty".

Subsequent to Julius Caesar's death in March of 44 B.C., a triumvirate of Octavian (Augustus), Lepidus
and Antonius existed until Lepidus was removed in 36 B.C. and Antonius was defeated at Actium in 31
B.C. Consequently, rule in Augustus' "own hands" may have begun by full-year regnal reckoning in 30
B.C. through to A.D. 11 (the last full regnal year prior to joint governance with Tiberius in A.D. 12), which
yields only 41 years of "government held in his own hands", not "four and forty".

By regnal accession year reckoning, and ignoring joint governance with Antonius and Lepidus, Augustus
acceded to sole rule in 31 B.C., his 1st regnal year would begin 30 B.C., and upon his death on August 19
A.D. 14 would be credited with all of A.D. 14 as a regnal year, hence would have reigned 44 years: 30
B.C. through A.D. 14, but not "in his own hands" because the government was shared with Tiberius for
the last 3 years of A.D. 12, 13, and 14.

Notably, if Seutonius reckons Augustus acceded to sole rule in 31 B.C., and his 1st regnal year would
begin 30 B.C. and gives Augustus regnal year credit for all of A.D. 12 (the last year in which Augustus
had some sole reign) and ignores the years of A.D. 13 and 14 during which Augustus shared governance
with Tiberius, then regnal year reckoning still yields 42 years: 30 B.C. regnal years + A.D. 12 regnal
years.

Seutonius' 44 year reckoning for Augustus is only possible in factual years (reckoned from the defeat of
both Lepidus and Antonius) and including joint governance with Tiberius (in spite of the qualifier "in his
own hands").

Seutonius records of Tiberius;

73 1 ... Detained, however, by bad weather and the increasing violence of his illness, he died a little later
in the villa of Lucullus,g in the seventy-eighth year of his age and the twenty-third of his reign, on the
seventeenth day before the Kalends of April [March 16th], in the consulship of Gnaeus Acerronius
Proculus and Gaius Pontius Nigrinus.

C. Suetonius Tranquillus, "The Life of Tiberius", 73.1,

The Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Loeb (1913)

The phrase "twenty-third of his reign" would generally imply full year regnal reckoning, and implicitly from
A.D. 15 was the 1st regnal year with A.D. 14 being the accession year and ignoring joint governance This
would be conclusive if it were the only evidence, and if Seutonius himself hadn't also recorded Tiberius'
earlier express joint governance, by law.

Seutonius records of Caligula;

59 1 He lived twenty-nine years and ruled three years, ten months and eight days. ...

C. Suetonius Tranquillus, "The Life of Caligula", 59.1,

The Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Loeb (1913)

By regnal accession year reckoning, Caligula acceded after Tiberius death in March of A.D. 37, 1st regnal
year would begin January A.D. 38, and upon his death on January 24 A.D. 41 would be credited with all
of A.D. 41 as a regnal year, hence would have reigned 4 years: 38, 39, 40 and 41, not "ruled three years,
ten months and eight days". Seutonius is reckoning Caligula's reign in factual years.

Seutonius records of Claudius;

45 1 ... He died on the third day before the Ides of October in the consulship of Asinius Marcellus and
Acilius Aviola, in the sixty-fourth year of his age and the fourteenth of his reign. He was buried with regal
pomp and enrolled among the gods, an honour neglected and finally annulled by Nero, but later restored
to him by Vespasian.

C. Suetonius Tranquillus, "The Life of Claudius", 45.1

The Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Loeb (1914)

By regnal accession year reckoning, Claudius acceded after Caligula's death on January 24 of A.D. 41
and Claudius 1st regnal year would begin January of A.D. 42, and upon his death on October 13, A.D. 54
would be credited with all of A.D. 54 as a regnal year, hence would have reigned 13 regnal years; 42, 43,
44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, and 54. Yet Seutonius credits Claudius with a 14th year of reign
which is only possible by reckoning from January (or February) of A.D. 41 through and including October
of A.D. 54, which is again a factual reckoning.

Tacitus records of Tiberius;

6.51 And so died Tiberius, in the seventy eighth year of his age. ... On his return from Rhodes he ruled
the emperor's now heirless house for twelve years, and the Roman world, with absolute sway, for about
twenty-three. ...

Publius Cornelius Tacitus, The Annals 6.51,

The complete works of Tacitus, tr. Alfred John Church, William Jackson Brodribb, The Modern Library
(1942)

Note Tacitus' precise qualification "with absolute sway for about". Tacitus doesn't simply say "Tiberius
ruled the Roman world for twenty three years", because it was neither twenty three years nor always
absolute. It was longer and had a co-regency period.

By regnal accession reckoning from Augustus' death in August of A.D. 14, Tiberius' 1st regnal year
wouldn't begin until January of A.D. 15 and his last regnal year would run until January of A.D. 38
following his death, and his reign would then be exactly 23 full regnal years. But Tacitus doesn't say 23
years, rather Tacitus qualifies with "absolute sway for about" twenty three years.
Tacitus was precise in his wording because he a) wasn't reckoning by regnal years (which are full and
exact) and b) Tiberius had earlier ruled the Roman world not with absolute sway but as co-regent for
more than two additional years since October of A.D. 12.

Seutonius records that Tiberius co-regency began in October of A.D. 12 and Tacitus records
Tiberius' entire reign not by 23 full regnal years, but about (i.e. not full, and not exactly) 23 more years
with absolute sway subsequent to 2+ earlier years with joint sway.

Tacitus was not uncertain. He had the same complete, exact to-the-month-and-day record of Tiberius as
did Seutonius, and Tacitus knew regnal years are full, exact years, and that there is nothing "about" to be
reckoned for regnal accession years. But that is not what Tacitus recorded. Rather, Tacitus summarized
with appropriate nuance that Tiberius' rule was "about" 23 years, having an earlier additional 2 years and
2 months that were not "absolute" but joint governance, since October A.D. 12.

Coinage of the Roman Prefects of Judea:

Dates on coins minted by Gratus and Pilate reconcile with Years of Tiberius when reckoned factually from
his joint governance with Augustus in October of A.D. 12 through to Tiberius' death in March of A.D. 37,
and synchronize with the baptism of Jesus Christ in A.D. 26 ("the fifteenth year of Tiberius when Pontius
Pilate was governor of Judea" as recorded by Luke) and Julia Augusta's death in A.D. 29.

Tiberius' 1st year (as co-regent):

There can be no question of Tiberius' co-regency. It was a matter of law and record:

20 1 After two years [12 A.D.] he returned to the city from Germany and celebrated the triumph which he
had postponed, accompanied also by his generals, for whom he had obtained the triumphal regalia. ...

21 1 Since the consuls caused a law to be passed soon after this that he should govern the provinces
jointly with Augustus and hold the census with him, he set out for Illyricum on the conclusion of the lustral
ceremonies;30 but he was at once recalled, and finding Augustus in his last illness but still alive, he spent
an entire day with him in private.

n30 See Aug. xcvii.1.

97 1 His death, too, of which I shall speak next, and his deification after death, were known in advance by
unmistakable signs. As he was bringing the lustrum148 to an end in the Campus Martius before a great
throng of people,

n148 The lustrum was a sacrifice of purification, made every five years by one of the censors, after the
completion of the census, or enumeration of the Roman people. The sacrifice consisted of the
suovetaurilia, the offering of a pig, a sheep, and a bull. Lustrum was also applied to the five-year period.

C. Suetonius Tranquillus, "The Life of Tiberius", 20.1, 21.1,

The Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Loeb (1913)

Subsequent to the consuls having made Tiberius joint governor with Augustus (everyone seemingly
aware of Augustus' poor health and pending death, his grip on power waning, and that Tiberius was the
heir designate who had just achieved a military victory in Pannonia), Augustus then 7 months later made
out his will:

101 1 He had made a will in the consulship of Lucius Plancus and Gaius Silius on the third day before the
Nones of April [A.D. 13 April 3], a year and four months before he died, in two note-books, written in part
in his own hand and in part in that of his freedmen Polybius and Hilarion. These the Vestal virgins, with
whom they had been deposited, now produced, together with three rolls, which were sealed in the same
way. All these were opened and read in the senate. 2 He appointed as his chief heirs Tiberius, to receive
two-thirds of the estate, and Livia, one-third; these he also bade assume his name.157

157 Augustus and Augusta, but Tiberius did not assume the title until it was conferred on him by the
senate; Dio 57.2-3.

C. Suetonius Tranquillus, "The Life of Augustus", 101.1,

The Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Loeb (1913)

Augustus would then die 16 months after having made out that will:

73 1 ... Detained, however, by bad weather and the increasing violence of his illness, he died a little later
in the villa of Lucullus, 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 [A.D. 37 March 16th].

C. Suetonius Tranquillus, "The Life of Tiberius",

The Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Loeb (1913)

Tiberius' 2nd year (as co-regent):

Augustus dies on August 19th, A.D. 14 near the end of Tiberius 2nd year as co-regent (anniversary
month is October). Tiberius delays accepting the Senate's confirmation of head state until Sept 17th:

Seutonius;

20 1 Tiberius did not make the death of Augustus public until the young Agrippa had been disposed of.
The latter was slain by a tribune of the soldiers appointed to guard him, who received a letter in which he
was bidden to do the deed; but it is not known whether Augustus left this letter when he died, to remove a
future source of discord, or whether Livia wrote it herself in the name of her husband; and in the latter
case, whether it was with or without the connivance of Tiberius. ...

24 1 Though Tiberius did not hesitate at once to assume and to exercise the imperial authority,
surrounding himself with a guard of soldiers, that is, with the actual power and the outward sign of
sovereignty, yet he refused the title for a long time, with barefaced hypocrisy now upbraiding his
friends who urged him to accept it, saying that they did not realise what a monster the empire was, and
now by evasive answers and calculating hesitancy keeping the senators in suspense when they implored
him to yield, and fell at his feet. Finally, some lost patience, and one man cried out in the confusion: "Let
him take it or leave it." Another openly voiced the taunt that others were slow in doing what they
promised, but that he was slow to promise what he was already doing. 2 At last, as though on
compulsion, and complaining that a wretched and burdensome slavery was being forced upon him, he
accepted the empire, but in such fashion as to suggest the hope that he would one day lay it down. His
own words are: "Until I come to the time when it may seem right to you to grant an old man some repose."

C. Suetonius Tranquillus, "The Life of Tiberius", 20.1, 24.1

The Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Loeb (1913)

Note that "Tiberius did not hesitate at once to assume and to exercise the imperial authority ... with the
actual power and the outward sign of sovereignty, yet he refused the title for a long time" and the taunt
"slow to promise what he [Tiberius] was already doing" imply that Tiberius was in fact acting as emperor
prior to accepting the title.
Tacitus;

VII. Meanwhile at Rome people plunged into slavery--consuls, senators, knights. The higher a man's
rank, the more eager his hypocrisy, and his looks the more carefully studied, so as neither to betray joy at
the decease of one emperor nor sorrow at the rise of another, while he mingled delight and lamentations
with his flattery. Sextus Pompeius and Sextus Apuleius, the consuls, were the first to swear allegiance to
Tiberius Cæsar, and in their presence the oath was taken by Seius Strabo and Caius Turranius,
respectively the commander of the prætorian cohorts and the superintendent of the corn supplies. Then
the Senate, the soldiers and the people did the same. For Tiberius would inaugurate everything with the
consuls, as though the ancient constitution remained, and he hesitated about being emperor. Even the
proclamation by which he summoned the senators to their chamber, he issued merely with the title of
Tribune, which he had received under Augustus. The wording of the proclamation was brief, and in a very
modest tone. "He would," it said, "provide for the honours due to his father, and not leave the lifeless
body, and this was the only public duty he now claimed."

As soon, however, as Augustus was dead, he had given the watchword to the prætorian cohorts, as
commander-in-chief. He had the guard under arms, with all the other adjuncts of a court; soldiers
attended him to the forum; soldiers went with him to the Senate House. He sent letters to the different
armies, as though supreme power was now his, and showed hesitation only when he spoke in the
Senate. His chief motive was fear that Germanicus, who had at his disposal so many legions, such vast
auxiliary forces of the allies, and such wonderful popularity, might prefer the possession to the
expectation of empire. He looked also at public opinion, wishing to have the credit of having been called
and elected by the State rather than of having crept into power through the intrigues of a wife and a
dotard's adoption. It was subsequently understood that he assumed a wavering attitude, to test likewise
the temper of the nobles. For he would twist a word or a look into a crime and treasure it up in his
memory.

Publius Cornelius Tacitus, The Annals 1.7,

The complete works of Tacitus, tr. Alfred John Church, William Jackson Brodribb, The Modern Library
(1942)

Dio;

2 It was due to this characteristic, that, as emperor, he immediately sent a dispatch from Nola to all the
legions and provinces, though he did not claim to be emperor; for he would not accept this name, which
was voted to him along with the others, and though taking the inheritance left him by Augustus, he would
not adopt the title "Augustus." 2 At a time when he was already surrounded by the bodyguards, he
actually asked the senate to lend him assistance so that he might not meet with any violence at the burial
of the emperor; for he pretended to be afraid that people might catch up the body and burn it in the
Forum, as they had done with that of Caesar. 3 When somebody thereupon facetiously proposed that he
be given a guard, as if he had none, he saw through the man's irony and answered: "The soldiers do not
belong to me, but to the State." Such was his action in this matter; and similarly he was administering in
reality all the business of the empire while declaring that he did not want it at all.

Cassius Dio, Roman History, Book 57.2

Vol. VII Loeb (1924)

The point of the foregoing is to provide background on why Tiberius delayed the formalities of being made
sole head of state. He already had, by law, governing authority, and with Augustus dead and Livia's plans
coming to fruition there was little to prevent his being made head of state. But Tiberius was concerned
only with appearances - he sought the appearance of being a humble man upon whose shoulders were
forced the weighty burdens of rule by his trusting subjects. Hence there was a delay in the formalities.
Since being made emperor by the Senate on September 17, A.D. 14, from a standpoint of reckoning
factual years, little changes aside from the factual year anniversary, formerly in October, is now
September (one month earlier). September now becomes the anniversery month for all of Tiberius' factual
years henceforth in Tiberius' Chronology (below).

Tiberius' 3rd year:

Upon Augustus' death and being made sole head of state, Tiberius immediately appointed Gratus as
Prefect of Judea to replace Rufus (who had been Augustus' appointee):

Ant. 18.2.2 [29] As Coponius, who we told you was sent along with Cyrenius, was exercising his office of
procurator, and governing Judea, the following accidents happened. ... After him came Annius Rufus,
under whom died Caesar, the second emperor of the Romans, the duration of whose reign was fifty-
seven years, besides six months and two days (of which time Antonius ruled together with him fourteen
years; but the duration of his life was seventy-seven years); upon whose death Tiberius Nero, his wife
Julia's son, succeeded. He was now the third emperor; and he sent Valerius Gratus to be procurator of
Judea, and to succeed Annius Rufus. This man deprived Ananus of the high priesthood, and appointed
Ismael, the son of Phabi, to be high priest. He also deprived him in a little time, and ordained Eleazar, the
son of Ananus, who had been high priest before, to be high priest; which office, when he had held for a
year, Gratus deprived him of it, and gave the high priesthood to Simon, the son of Camithus; and when he
had possessed that dignity no longer than a year, Joseph Caiaphas was made his successor. When
Gratus had done those things, he went back to Rome, after he had tarried in Judea eleven years, when
Pontius Pilate came as his successor.

Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews,

William Whiston ed., Ant. 18.2.2 (Beardsley, 1895)

Tiberius' 14th year:

Based on the factual year reckoning as established above, Tiberius, in his 3rd year had immediately upon
Augustus' death, replaced the Roman prefect of Judea (Rufus appointed under Augustus) with Gratus,
who as reported by Josephus held office for 11 years.

Ant. 18.2.2 [29]... and he sent Valerius Gratus to be procurator of Judea, and to succeed Annius
Rufus ... When Gratus had done those things, he went back to Rome, after he had tarried in Judea eleven
years, when Pontius Pilate came as his successor.

Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews,

William Whiston ed., Ant. 18.2.2 (Beardsley, 1895)

In late A.D. 25 or into 26, Tiberius in his 14th year, then replaced Gratus (in his 11th year) with by Pontius
Pilate, thus establishing Pilate as Prefect (governor) in Judea prior to and synchronous with Jesus'
baptism. Pilate would hold office for 10 years until ordered by Vitellius (in Tiberius' 24th year) to return to
Rome and answer to Tiberius for provoking Jewish unrest in Judea:

Tiberius' 15th year:

Early in Tiberius 15th year, between September and October of A.D. 26, Jesus Christ was baptized, when
Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea (all Bible cites are NASB):

Mat 3:13 Then Jesus arrived from Galilee at the Jordan coming to John, to be baptized by him.

Mar 1:9 In those days Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.
Luk 3:1-3 Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of
Judea, and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip was tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and
Trachonitis, and Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene, (2) in the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the
word of God came to John, the son of Zacharias, in the wilderness. (3) And he came into all the district
around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins;

Luk 3:21-23 Now when all the people were baptized, Jesus was also baptized, and while He was praying,
heaven was opened, (22) and the Holy Spirit descended upon Him in bodily form like a dove, and a voice
came out of heaven, "You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased." (23) When He began His
ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the
son of Eli,

New American Standard Bible, The Lockman Foundation (1995)

So, the records of the gospels complimented with the records of history, suggest that Jesus was baptized
between September and October of A.D. 26, and was crucified on April 3rd A.D. 30.

Only a supernatural being that exists outside of the natural dimension of time,
that is unconstrained by the natural present, can know for a fact what happens
in our future. Genuine, reliably accurate prophecy about the future is
impossible for natural beings existing in time and space, and consequently,
genuine biblical prophecy is a supernatural foretelling of events, often
hundreds of years in advance that are precisely fulfilled later in time.

Since the future is knowable only supernaturally, and since God has declared
to have revealed that future to Daniel, and since the prophecy and its
fulfillment was the coming of God's Messiah, the Christ, the Anointed One,
then consequently, the fact of the prophecy's advance foretelling and its
subsequent fulfillment is forensic evidence for the supernatural existence
of God and that Jesus is everything God foretold the Messiah would be.

Daniel's prophecy in Daniel 9 of the coming of God's Messiah Prince

(mâshîyach nâgîyd) is unique in all of biblical prophecy in that it is both:

 Messianic: it prophesied about the Messiah and what would

happen
 Timely: it also prophesied when Messiah would appear

We may know the Bible really is from God because His "seal", His "Signature
of Authenticity" is in the Bible's fulfilled prophecy, especially the prophecy of
Daniel 9 which foretold the coming of God's "Anointed Prince", His Messiah,
Jesus Christ. God personally "signed" the Bible with His revelation to Daniel of
when the Messiah would come. We recognize God's signature as
supernaturally authentic because it is a prophecy given several hundred years
in advance that was fulfilled exactly as given by Jesus Christ who
miraculously demonstrated that He was from God and is God. God's signature
of fulfilled prophecy can not be forged because no one can know the future as
God has demonstrated, and no one can fulfill the Messianic prophecies as
Jesus has demonstrated.

This detailed thesis uses archaeological, historical and calendrical evidence to

demonstrate, forensically, that Daniel 9:24-27 is authentic supernatural
prophecy and "God's Signature of Authenticity", which we can trust as the
"royal wax seal" that only God could place on the Bible.

In Daniel's prophecy of 70 Weeks (found in Daniel 9:24-27) God, who knows

the end from the beginning, revealed that:

 His only begotten Son, our Messiah and Lord, would come first as
suffering servant (foretold in Daniel's 69 Weeks), and then
 the anti-christ will be defeated after the last seven-year period (foretold
in Daniel's 70th Week).