Co-regency of Augustus and Tiberius caused 2 years error in redating Herod's death from 1 BC to 4 BC

In my previous blogs titled “Total solar eclipse before Augustus' death proves Herod the Great's death wasn't on 4 BC”, and "Midrash Rosh Hashana proves Herod the Great's death wasn't on 4 BC", I explained in great detail why I don’t support the revised date of 4 BC for Herod’s death. In this blog, I will be explaining now why I support the traditional date of 1 BC instead, and how the many fierce arguments against this unpopular opinion can all be answered with finality.  

Also In my previous blog titled, “Faulty Olympiad calendar caused 1 year error in redating Herod's death from 1 BC to 4 BC” I already showed that 4 BC, supposedly the year Herod’s successors ascended their thrones, was at least 1 year too early. And this is because the traditional year when the 1st Olympiad started, was wrongly set on 776 BC instead of 775 BC. In this blog I will now show you why even after correcting this 1 year error, 4 BC is 2 years too early still.

If we take to account Josephus’ narrative of Augustus’s death, and without correcting the 1 year error caused by the faulty Olympiad Calendar, then we will come to a conclusion that Augustus must have died 2 years later than the traditional date of August 19, 14 AD. Let me show you why:

Antiquities of the Jews - Book XVIII Chapter 2: 2 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.

According to historians, Augustus died on August 19, 14 AD. For Augustus to reign 57 years, 6 months, and 2 days upon his death, his reign should have started sometime February, 44 BC, at the latest. Now the traditional date of Julius Caesar’s death, Augustus’ predecessor, is March 15, 44 BC, which is about 1 month later. And that is a big problem. Since Augustus did not have a coregency with Julius Caesar, and even had to fight several wars after Julius Caesar’s assassination before being given legitimate power by the Roman Senate, it is obvious that Josephus did not think Augustus’ death was on 14 AD.

Now Josephus mentioned a corulership that lasted 14 years between Augustus and  Antonius, also known as Mark Anthony. This corulership was the Second Triumvirate, or the official political alliance of Caesar Augustus, Marcus Antonius, and Marcus Aemilius Lepidus, that was supposedly formed on November 27, 43 BC with the enactment of the Lex Titia.

If we now use this traditional start date of the Second Triumvirate as the beginning of Augustus’ reign, then Augustus’ death after ruling 57 years, 6 months, and 2 days, should be no earlier than May, 16 AD, or about 2 years later than the traditional date of Augustus’ death on August 19, 14 AD.

So what could have caused Augustus’ reign to be shortened by 2 years, and also cause the reign of his successor Tiberius, to start 2 years earlier than it should?

Unknown to many, 2 years before Augustus died, the Roman consuls passed a law that allows Tiberius to govern the provinces jointly with Augustus and hold the census with him. Wikipedia, quoting Suetonius’ work, “The Lives of Twelve Caesars, Life of Tiberius”, paragraphs 20-21, has this to say:

Wikipedia, Tiberius, Heir to Augustus: However, according to Suetonius, after a two-year stint in Germania, which lasted from 10−12 AD, "Tiberius returned and celebrated the triumph which he had postponed, accompanied also by his generals, for whom he had obtained the triumphal regalia. And before turning to enter the Capitol, he dismounted from his chariot and fell at the knees of his father, who was presiding over the ceremonies.”

"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."

Thus, according to Suetonius, these ceremonies and the declaration of his "co-princeps" [or corulership with Augustus] took place in the year 12 AD, after Tiberius' return from Germania... Augustus died in AD 14, a month before his 76th birthday.

In my opinion, it is quite easy to see why Augustus’ reign was cut short by two years, and why Tiberius’ solo reign was dated 2 years earlier. Historians must have mistaken  the start of Tiberius’ coregency with Augustus which happened 2 years before Augustus’ died, as the start of Tiberius’ solo reign, as well as the year Augustus died.

So who assigned the term of office of consuls Sextus Apuleius and Sextus Pompeius on the wrong year 14 AD, whose term according to Dio, was when Augustus died and a total solar eclipse occurred?

14 AD, if you still recall was a year when there was no total solar eclipse visible in the Roman empire, and was therefore, verifiably 3 years too early. As the total solar eclipse mentioned by Dio happened 3 years later on 17 AD instead.

According to wikipedia, the names and dates of the consuls for the years 14–36 AD are taken from Alison E. Cooley, “The Cambridge Manual of Latin Epigraphy” (Cambridge: University Press, 2012), pp.458-460. So there you have it, you now know who to blame.

I am sure this was not the first nor the last time errors in royal chronologies were made due to corulerships. Now what is the implication of this 2 years error in the timeline of Roman History?

All events in Roman history that occurred after 14 AD at the very latest, are now dated 2 years earlier than it should have been. But wait, there is more. If you still recall, I mentioned earlier that all events in Roman history that were dated using the faulty Olympiad calendar as reference, are all one year earlier than it should have been.

Having this in mind, let us now recalculate Josephus’ account of Augustus’ reign and death after applying a one year correction on traditional historical dates. Josephus mentioned a co-rulership between Augustus Caesar and Antonius.

This co-rulership as I mentioned earlier, is known in history as the Second Triumvirate, or the official political alliance of Augustus Caesar, Marcus Antonius, and Marcus Aemilius Lepidus, that was supposedly formed on November 27, 43 BC with the enactment of the Lex Titia.

If we now apply a 1 year correction due to error caused by a faulty Olympiad Calendar that was 1 year too early, we now get November 27, 42 BC instead as the correct year when Augustus started his reign, as far as Josephus’ point of view is concerned. The moon age on November 27, 42 BC was 8 days.

And moving forward fifty seven years, six months, and two days, which is the period of time between the start of Augustus’ reign and his death, we end up on approximately May 25, 17 AD, with moon age 10 days, as the end of Augustus’ reign.

This calculated date is the earliest possible time Augustus would have died. And this date is about 3 years later than the traditional date of Augustus’ death which is August 19, 14 AD. Also, counting from February 15, 17 AD, the day a total solar eclipse was seen throughout the then Roman empire, until the approximate date of Augustus’ death on May 25, 17 AD, we get exactly a total of 100 days in between and including the start date and end date.

And if you still recall, according to Cassius Dio, in addition to a total solar eclipse, a thunderbolt also fell upon Augustus’ statue that stood upon the Capitol and blotted out the first letter of the name "Caesar." This led the seers to declare that on the hundredth day after that ominous sign, Augustus should attain to some divine state, implying his death.

Now this 3 years difference between the traditional date of Augustus’ death and the calculated date I just made, can be accounted for from the sum of the 1 year error caused by the faulty Olympiad Calendar that was 1 year too early, and the 2 years error that was introduced when Tiberius’ solo reign and Augustus’ death were dated 2 years earlier at the time of their co-regency.

And because Tiberius’ solo reign was moved 2 years earlier, all other office terms by the Roman consuls who served either before, during, or after 14 AD were being moved 2 years earlier as well. These 2 years error on the years of office of the Roman consuls will end, only when a 2 years correction is made to cancel out this error both before and after 14 AD.

I believe the first correction happened on the historical date 5 AD during the term of consuls Lucius Valerius Messalla Volesus and Gnaeus Cornelius Cinna Magnus, when according to Dio, a partial eclipse of the Sun was seen.

Cassius Dio “Roman History”, Book 55, Chapter 22: 3 At this time, in the consulship of Cornelius and Valerius Messalla, violent earthquakes occurred and the Tiber carried away the bridge and made the city navigable for seven days; there was also a partial eclipse of the sun, and famine set in.

If we try to apply a 3 year correction on 5 AD to compensate for the 1 year error from the faulty Olympiad Calendar and the 2 years error due to confusion on Tiberius’ coregency with Augustus, we get 8 AD as the result. However, upon inspection, and using NASA’s Five Millennium Catalog of Solar Eclipses, we can see that there was no partial solar eclipse visible in Rome on 8 AD.

But if we apply instead just a 1 year correction on 5 AD to compensate for the 1 year error from the faulty Olympiad Calendar, we get 6 AD as the result. And indeed there was a partial solar eclipse visible in Rome on September 11, 6 AD.

In addition to a partial solar eclipse happening on the consulship of Cornelius Cinna Magnus and Valerius Messalla on the corrected date 6 AD, Dio also mentioned the onset of a famine happening that year. I believe Augustus may have served as sole dictator for the next two years after 6 AD when the famine worsened, thereby suspending the office of the consuls on the years 7 AD up to 8 AD.

The lack of 2 pairs of successive Roman Consuls during these 2 years of famine may have caused historians to omit these years entirely in the official list of Roman consuls recognized by them.

Thus, unknown to these historians, there was a 2 years leap between the consulship of Cornelius Cinna Magnus and Valerius Messalla which they dated on 5 AD, and that of the consulship of  Marcus Aemilius Lepidus and Lucius Arruntius the Younger which they dated on 6 AD.

Interestingly, wikipedia, commenting on the list of Roman consuls, has this to say about this subject:

ignotus = unknown. All consuls who can be assigned to a particular date, at least tentatively, are included in this table. If neither consul for a given period is known, they are entirely omitted; if one is known, and the other is not, the unknown colleague is referred to as ignotus.

So who prepared the list of Roman consuls that included the years 5 AD to 6 AD? According to wikipedia, the consuls from 1 AD through 12 AD are taken from Ronald Syme, “The Augustan Aristocracy”, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), pp. 455–458.

Note that according to Cassius Dio's Roman History, Book 54, Chapter 1: 1-3, 26 years before the onset of the famine on 6 AD, in which Marcus Marcellus and Lucius Arruntius were consuls, a similar famine occurred in Rome during which time Augustus was asked by the people and the Roman Senate to act as solo dictator in order to handle the crisis effectively. And Augustus accepted the office of commissioner of the grain-supply instead, and thus, freed the entire people, at his own expense, from the fear and danger in which they were.

Now to conclude, the years of office of Roman consuls starting from 5 AD and earlier, are just one year too early because of the faulty Olympiad Calendar. While the years of office of Roman consuls starting from 6 AD onward are all 3 years too early because of the combined errors due to the faulty Olympiad Calendar and the confusion over Tiberius’ co-rulership with Augustus.

Now to be clear, by 6 AD onward I meant, only until a 2 years correction was made either by having 2 years without consuls, or having 2 years with fictional consuls, anytime after 6 AD. And this is to fill the gap created by dating the terms of the Roman consuls 2 years too early. Now let me offer my opinion on when exactly this other correction starting from 6 AD onwards was made.

One specific year in the list of Roman consuls where fictional consuls were used, was obviously on 40 AD, where it says Caesar Augustus Germanicus, or Caligula, ruled as sine collega, or solo consul, from January 1 until only January 13. It also says that he was replaced later on by a pair of consuls named Laecanius Bassus and Terentius Culleo, whose identities are virtually unknown and unverifiable for lack of information about them. If my speculation is correct, this means that starting from 40 AD onwards, a 1 year correction was already implemented.

Wikipedia tells us that the names and dates for the years 37–40 AD are taken from Paul Gallivan, "The Fasti for the Reign of Gaius", Antichthon, 13 (1979), p. 66–69. Interestingly, Cassius Dio’s “Roman History”, Book LIX, mentioned only Caligula’s short-lived consulship on the year 40 AD. No mention was made of the consuls who supposedly replaced him that year.

A second specific year in the list of Roman consuls where fictional consuls were used, was obviously on 49 AD, where it says Quintus Veranius ruled from January until February only and that his colleague consul was a certain Pompeius Longus Gallus. It also says that both of them were replaced later on by another pair of consuls named Mammius Pollio and Allius Maximus.

The only problem is, the identities of Pompeius Longus Gallus, Mammius Pollio, and Allius Maximus are virtually unknown and unverifiable for lack of information about them. And this makes me speculate that these 3 so-called consuls were all fictional. If my speculation is correct, this means that starting from 49 AD onwards, a second 1 year correction was also implemented.  

Wikipedia tells us that the names and dates for the years 41-54 AD are taken from Gallivan, "The Fasti for the Reign of Claudius", Classical Quarterly, 28 (1978), pp. 407–426.

With this in mind, let us now start our reexamination of  Emil Schürer's erroneous calculations of the ascension years of Herod’s successors:

Archelaus, ruler of Judea and Samaria, was banished either at the end of Archelaus’ 9th year, or at the start of Archelaus’ 10th year. I said this because Josephus’ “Of the War of the Jews”, Book II, Chapter 7: 3 says it was “in the ninth year of his government” while Josephus’ “Antiquities of the Jews”, Book 17, Chapter 13: 2 says “but in the tenth year of Archelaus’ government”.

Josephus probably couldn’t decide if an intercalary month was declared the year Archelaus was banished, so he wasn’t sure if it was at the end of Archelaus’ 9th year, or at the start of Archelaus’ 10th year. In either case, I believe Archelaus was banished near Tishri 1 when a new Jewish Calendar year starts. Also, at the end of Archelaus’ 9th calendar year and at the start of his 10th calendar year both gives us 9 years after he started to rule. So it really doesn’t matter anyway.

According to Cassius Dio’s “Roman History”, Book 55, Chapter 25:1 and 27: 6, Archelaus’ banishment happened during the consulship of Aemilius Lepidus and Lucius Arruntius which was traditionally dated by historians on 6 AD. However, if we now apply a 3 year correction for this date, we now get the correct year of his banishment happening on 9 AD instead. And this means Archelaus’ ascension year was reckoned on 1 BC and not 4 BC.

Antipas, another one of Herod the Great’s successor, was banished together with his wife Herodias by Caius Cesar, otherwise known as Caligula:

Antiquities of the Jews - Book XVIII Chapter 7:2 Hereupon Caius was angry at her, and sent her with Herod into banishment: and gave her estate to Agrippa. And thus did God punish Herodias for her envy at her brother; and Herod also for giving ear to the vain discourses of a woman. Now Caius managed public affairs with very great magnanimity, during the first and second year of his reign: and behaved himself with such moderation, that he gained the good will both of the Romans themselves, and of his other subjects.

Now before Josephus reported this banishment of Herod Antipas and Herodias, Josephus earlier reported that Agrippa, Herodias’ brother, was already released from prison by Caligula on the second year of Caligula’s term:

Antiquities of the Jews - Book XVIII Chapter 6: 11 Now in the second year of the reign of Caius Cesar, Agrippa desired leave to be given him to sail home, and settle the affairs of his government: and he promised to return again, when he had put the rest in order, as it ought to be put.

The traditional date of Caligula’s ascension is March 16, 37 AD. This means Caligula’s 2nd year should be between March 16, 38 AD and March 16, 39 AD.

Applying the 3 years correction on these erroneous historical dates, Caligula’s 2nd year now converts to sometime between  March 16, 41 AD and March 16, 42 AD instead. And this means, the end of Antipas’ reign, after his banishment, should have been within this period of time. Now there were coins found bearing Antipas’ name and dated the forty-third year of his reign.

Knowing all this, can we show that Antipas’ ascension year was on 1 BC? Since I believe Antipas ascended to his throne sometime on 1 BC and before Tishri 1 of the same year, this means Antipas’ first Jewish Calendar year as king started on Tishri 1, 2 BC, the Jewish New Year’s day. Thus, Antipas’ 43rd Jewish Calendar year as king must have been between Tishri 1, 41 AD until Tishri 1, 42 AD.

Combining all these information together, we see that Antipas’ banishment must have occurred sometime between Tishri 1, 41 AD, the start of Antipas’ 43rd Jewish Calendar year as king, and March 16, 42 AD, the end of Caligula’s 2nd year. And since March 16, 42 AD was a date that happened before Antipas’ 43rd year ends on Tishri 1, 42 AD, this proves that Antipas’ banishment which took place on his 43rd Jewish Calendar year as king, also took place on Caligula’s 2nd year. And this shows that Antipas’ ascension year was reckoned on the same year as that of Archelaus’, namely 1 BC.

Philip, tetrarch of Iturea, and also one of Herod the Great’s successors, died in the 20th year of Tiberius, after a reign of thirty-seven years:

Antiquities of the Jews - Book XVIII Chapter 4:6 About this time it was that Philip, Herod’s brother, departed this life, in the twentieth year of the reign of Tiberius: after he had been tetrarch of Trachonitis, and Gaulanitis, and of the nation of the Bataneans also, thirty seven years.

The traditional date for the start of Tiberius’ reign is on September 18, 14 AD. Applying the 3 year correction on this date gives us September 18, 17 AD instead. This means Tiberius’ 20th year was between September 18, 36 AD and September 18, 37 AD. Thus, Philip the Tetrach’s ascension year must have been reckoned on 1 BC, for him to have ruled 37 years until his death sometime 37 AD during Tiberius’ 20th year.

To conclude, by simply applying a 3 year correction on all the dates in Roman history starting from 6 AD onwards and which were 3 years too early, the ascension years of all 3 successors  of Herod can now be harmonized using 1 BC as the correct year for Herod’s death.

And this proves that Emil Schürer’s so-called “correction” of the traditional date 1 BC was actually one of the greatest  falsifications of truth the world has ever seen and accepted.

Now in my next video, I will be answering one of the most damning objections to 1 BC as the year Herod died and the year Christ was born. This objection has to do with the census that supposedly took place during Christ’s birth and that according to apostle Luke, happened while Quirinius was governor of Syria.