I apologize in advance for another long post. However, it is necessary to put these things in context. This is taken from:
The Dark Decade in History
It is evident that the chronological indications in the Bible clearly point to 3 B.C.E. for the nativity of Jesus. While this is the case for the Bible, what about the secular records which have come down to us from ancient times? Do they also support this time as the proper period for Jesus’ birth? The answer is, YES. However, one thing must be kept in mind about the secular records that describe this period. Historians are well aware that they are very obscure. In fact, the decade in which Jesus was born is one of the least documented that we have for the entire period of the Roman Empire.
It is well known among classical historians who specialize in the early period of the Roman Empire, that the decade from 6 B.C.E. to C.E. 4 is one of the most nebulous in the history of Rome. It is a common lament among Roman historians that this ten-year period (one of the most important in the history of western civilization) bristles with many historical and chronological difficulties because of the garbled or imperfect records that have come down to us.
Professor Timothy Barnes rightly states that “the years of Tiberius’ retirement from public life are one of the most obscure decades in the history of the Roman Empire”
(emphasis mine). 1
Sir Ronald Syme echoed the same sentiment when he spoke about “the hazards inherent in the obscure decade 6 B.C.E.–C.E. 4” (emphasis mine). 2
If there was ever a “dark decade” in the history of Rome, it is this one. And sadly, this lack of information occurs at the very time the historian who specializes in the time of Augustus Caesar and the birth of Jesus needs it most. A great deal of confusion emerges within and among the historical records, and this is no exaggeration.
It would be appropriate to note the sad difficulties that classical historians encounter regarding this ten-year period. One problem involves the records of Velleius Paterculus who covers this period of time. The fact is, Velleius was deficient in giving information from 6 B.C.E. to C.E. 4. Note the remarks of Sir Ronald Syme.
“The name Velleius brings up the multiple inadequacies of the ancient sources for the decade during which Tiberius was absent from political life at Rome. By what he says and by what he suppresses, by lavish laudation and dishonest distraction, this writer puts Tiberius on exhibit as the unique general, the indispensable ‘custos vinderque imperii,’ the predestined successor to Caesar Augustus.” 3
The Difficulties with Secular Records
The inadequacies of Velleius are not the only illustration of the sad state of affairs in understanding the history and chronology of this decade. Other ancient authors are also lacking. Syme continues,
“Chance conspires with design to the same sad effect. There are gaps in the text of Cassius Dio between 6 B.C.E. and C.E. 4. In three places two folia are missing from the manuscript. Hence notable transactions are truncated, garbled, or lost to knowledge. It is hardly possible to work out a satisfactory narrative. Mere paraphrase or amalgamation is not enough. Investigation of this obscure decade calls for various resources, and rational conjecture cannot be dispensed with.”
What are some of the problems with Cassius Dio? The manuscripts that contain his writings give historical information for the years 70 B.C.E. to C.E. 71 (a 140 year period), but he leaves out the years 4 and 3 B.C.E. and we only have part of what happened in 2 B.C.E. In actual fact, from 10 B.C.E. onward his work is probably an abridgement of an 11th
century scholar because we have quotes from Cassius Dio in other works that do not occur in the abridgement from 10 B.C.E. onward. 5
Worse yet, the abridgement itself is clearly defective because it has Cassius mentioning that Gaius assumed the toga of manhood in 5 B.C.E. and then makes the chronological absurdity that Lucius, his brother, received the same thing “after the lapse of a year”
― in 4 B.C.E. We know from the writings of Augustus himself that Lucius received the toga virilis
in 2 B.C.E. 6
The imperfect state of the historical records regarding the decade in which Jesus was born ought to evoke caution among some theologians in their interpretation of chronological and historical matters at this time. It is certainly no time to express dogmatism on chronological questions, but strangely (and sadly) this is the very time that dogmatism is expressed. Caution is normally thrown to the wind in most encyclopaedias and historical works regarding the time of Jesus’ nativity. It is usually assumed without the slightest question or tinge of doubt that Jesus was born before
4 B.C.E. This appraisal (looked on as an “infallible” judgment by most modern theologians) is in full contradiction to the writings of the early Christian scholars who say that Jesus was born after 4 B.C.E. 7
But why do modern theologians insist on a year before 4 B.C.E. (as early as 5, 6, 7 and now as early as 12 B.C.E. is even suggested) for the birth of Jesus? The common belief centers on remarks made by Josephus regarding the death of King Herod. He mentions that there was an eclipse of the Moon not long before the death of Herod. There was such an eclipse in March 13, 4 B.C.E. This is the Lunar Eclipse that most scholars select as the one associated with the death of Herod. Still, there were other lunar eclipses near that same time, and these must be considered too. The remarks of Josephus about a lunar eclipse are important, but they must be interpreted within the framework of a proper understanding of the history of the time. The records of Josephus are even vital, but they must be examined and applied prudently, or else confusion will continue to reign concerning the time of Jesus’ birth.
The Anomalies of Josephus
One must be very careful in evaluating the records of Josephus. He is not an easy author to understand in matters dealing with chronology. At times he seems consistent in what he relates and at other times he is absurdly inconsistent. As a matter of fact, for certain periods he avoids giving chronological details at the very time the historian needs them most. For example, the main years of Archelaus, the successor of King Herod, are glossed over with one or two general statements and the period from C.E. 6 to the time of Pilate (C.E. 26) is practically blank. For some strange reason, the twenty-year period just prior to the ministry of Jesus is glossed over as not being of necessary worth to report and this applies to both major works of Josephus. The lacunae were a deliberate glossing over by Josephus, probably for political reasons.
There are also anomalies in Josephus’ treatment of Herod’s reign. In the first years of Herod’s kingship, he buttressed his history with known and reliable chronological eras of time. He equated Herod’s seventh year with the year following the Battle of Actium. Josephus also gave reference to the Olympiads (a reasonably known international chronological benchmark). Josephus continued giving such exact dates until Herod’s twenty-eighth year (a few years before the birth of Jesus). 8
But from then on, for some unexplained reason, Josephus stopped giving chronological indications which would link the latter years of Herod’s reign with known historical eras. He did not resume his normal international cross-references until the tenth year of Archelaus (son of Herod) in C.E. 6. From then until the Jewish War of C.E. 66 to 73 his chronological references are sensible.
Why did Josephus abandon internationally recognized chronological references from 9 B.C.E. to C.E. 6? No one knows. But this very period of time is when Roman historians are sadly saddled with deficient chronological evidence for what was happening in the Roman Empire. Some of the most important events in Palestinian and Roman history occurred during that period of sixteen years. But for all those years, not one historical event mentioned by Josephus is cross-referenced to the Olympiads, the Battle of Actium, the years of the Roman consuls, or to the year of Caesar’s reign.
These and other factors have caused historians to suspect the motives of Josephus in his writings of history. The German scholar Stauffer has summed up some of the problems in accepting Josephus without a critical eye.
“The past fifty years of research on the work of Josephus have taught us to be severely critical of his method and presentation. Josephus had an ax to grind. His historical journalism was intended as a self-defense and self-aggrandizement. He wrote to glorify his people and to eulogize the Roman Emperor. He was an ardent sympathizer with the pro-Roman collaborationists among the Jews and an opponent of all the anti-Roman and anti-Herodian partisans of the Palestinian resistance movement. Crucial parts of Josephus’ historical works, moreover, were casually patched together from older sources of uneven value: consequently they were replete with gaps and contradictions, are muddled and misleading. This is particularly true of his remarks on Augustus, Herod, Quirinius, and the census. Of course, Josephus remains an invaluable source: but he is not to be read uncritically.” 9
Long ago, Edersheim in his valuable analysis of Josephus in The Dictionary of Christian Biography
(C.E. 1882), recorded a panoply of contradictions from one part of Josephus to another. “Discrepancies are not wanting between statements in Antiquities and others in the Jewish War, and even mistakes in regard to plain biblical facts.”
This is especially true in chronological matters. 10
There Are Chronological Errors in Josephus
There can be no doubt of Josephus’ chronological errors. As one example out of many, note his appraisal of the first year of Cyrus the Great. In the War 11
he said the year was what is recognized today as 570 B.C.E. But in one part of his Antiquities 12
he said it was 578 B.C.E. and in another 13
he said it was 586 B.C.E. In reality, most historians today feel the year was actually 538 B.C.E.
Not only was Josephus inconsistent in his own references, he was wrong in all of them. One might excuse Josephus for mistaking chronological matters some six centuries before his time, but it should be expected that he would fare better in periods much nearer his own lifetime. Yet at the very time of Herod (during whose reign Jesus was born), Corbishley, some fifty years ago, shows that the writings of Josephus contain much evidence of a deeper corruption than many seem to suspect. Everyone who has gone into the subject at all is aware that there are obvious blunders in the chronology of Josephus, but no successful attempt to remedy them appears to have been made. 14
A few examples can be given. Josephus made the statement that Herod’s government over Galilee began when he was “very young”
― when he was “fifteen years of age.” 15
Hardly anyone today accepts this statement of Josephus as accurate. Some even want to correct the text to read “twenty-five.” However, Professor Marcus, who helped translate the Loeb edition of Josephus, relates that “fifteen” is certainly the genuine reading. Josephus must have said “fifteen” otherwise, how could Herod be described as “very young”? There is not the slightest textual authority for changing the “fifteen” to “twenty-five.” Still, Josephus was wrong. Herod was certainly in his “twenties” when he became governor of Galilee or else he could hardly have been nearly seventy years old (as Josephus later attests) at his death.
This does not end Josephus’ chronological anomalies. He tells us that Herod’s appointment as king was in the 184th
Olympiad which was inaccurate by a few months with his next reference which said it took place when Calvinus and Pollio were consuls (40 B.C.E.). However, a close inspection of what Josephus stated, and comparing it with other Roman records, we find that Herod was actually made king in the spring of 38 B.C.E. (not in 40 B.C.E.). That is not all. Cassius Dio said Herod captured Jerusalem in 38 B.C.E., 16
while some scholars think Josephus identified its capitulation with the year of 37 B.C.E. in the first part of a sentence and in the latter part of the same sentence Josephus indicates it was in 36 B.C.E. 17
These contradictions have given modern historians considerable difficulty in arriving at chronological exactitudes from Josephus. 18
Even Standard Dating Systems Josephus Does Not Seem to Understand
Josephus appears not to have understood how to date events in Palestine with the Olympiad dating system because he was notoriously in error in several places when he attempted to utilize it. But there are other problems with Josephus’ chronological statements. Relative to Herod’s death, the modern historians Vermes and Millar feel “that Josephus reckons one year too many”
which would put his death in 3 B.C.E. But if the year 36 B.C.E. was the year that Herod captured Jerusalem as some historians believe (and the cycle of Sabbatical Years as shown in history certainly reveal this to be the year), Herod’s last year would have been from 2 to 1 B.C.E. And this is the truth.
Indeed, in Antiquities
, XIV.490 Josephus said the Hasmonean reign ended after a rule of 126 years, but it was actually a reign of 128 years if one reckons 164 B.C.E. as the start of Maccabean rule. In Antiquities
he stated that Hyrcanus was 81 years old at his death, but historians clearly realize that Hyrcanus was in his early 70’s when he was killed. In Antiquities
, XV.181 he related that the interval between Pompey’s restoration of Hyrcanus to power and the time of Antigonus’ usurpation was more than 40 years, but that span of time was actually only about 23 years. In Antiquities
, XV.231 he said that Mariamme was executed late in 29 B.C.E., but in his War
, I.442 he said it was in 34 B.C.E.
There is even more confusion in the works of Josephus at the very period where we need accurate chronological information. In two places Josephus wrote that Archelaus, Herod’s successor, reigned 10 years, 20
but in another place he said 9 years. 21
He also recorded that Archelaus married Galphyra, wife of King Juba of Mauritania, after Juba died, 22
but he was clearly in error. It is well known that Juba was alive about 20 years after Archelaus married Galphyra.
These chronological inconsistencies should cause modern historians to tread cautiously when they come to evaluate what Josephus recorded. But they go merrily on their way of dogmatism when it comes to Josephus’ statements concerning the number of years for Herod’s reign. The truth is, Josephus himself (when he was not an eyewitness to historical events and relying on the statements of earlier historians) did not always understand the actual chronological facts. He often gave two or even three different dates for certain events in his different works, and sometimes all his indications do not accord with the modern chronological tables.
Josephus Leaves Out Important Persons
One thing for certain, Josephus was a very subjective writer. With his own words he admitted that the writing of his autobiography was to assure his Roman benefactors that he was thoroughly pro-Roman in every respect. 23
His loyalty to Rome went so far that he identified the prophesied Messiah of the Old Testament as being Vespasian, the Roman Emperor. 24
And another point. It has amazed Jewish scholars that Josephus said not one word about the most important rabbi from the close of the Old Testament period until modern times ― Hillel the First. This rabbi was most prominent in Jewish affairs and he lived at the exact time of Josephus’ silence on chronological matters. Josephus full well knew of Hillel’s prestige. Indeed, he mentioned that Simon (one of Hillel’s descendants) was of very distinguished stock. 25
And distinguished he was! The Hillel that Josephus refused to write about was no less than the originator of rabbinic Judaism which has become the mainstream of Judaic thought ever since. He was reputed to have been in charge of the Sanhedrin (the Jewish Supreme Court). He was so important that later Jews considered him to be equal to Ezra the reputed canonizer of the Old Testament itself. Hardly anyone was more important to Judaic theology from the time of King Herod until modern times, but if we had only the writings of Josephus to go on, no one would know that Hillel existed. Such avoidance has to be looked on as an attempt on the part of Josephus to avoid comment ― because of biased opinions. This may be the reason why he recorded so little about Jesus and his times.
The truth is, Josephus may have tried to give a reasonable appraisal of certain historical events, but it is what he left out
(or gave no chronological indications about) that gives us of modern times problems in understanding what actually happened at this crucial period of time. There were good reasons for Josephus to adopt his subjective approach. To be frank, he was interested in keeping the top part of his anatomy attached to its nether parts.
To stay alive, Josephus had to watch very carefully what he wrote. Had he been too plain, not only would he have been in jeopardy of losing his life, but his historical works would have gone up in smoke as well. He must have felt it prudent to judiciously avoid giving comment on certain crucial periods (and especially to the mention of some key individuals) because the political climate in Rome did not warrant plain speaking. One could hardly blame him.
Worse Yet, the Manuscripts of Josephus Have Been Edited
Though it is generally accepted that Josephus did write about Jesus of Nazareth in his Antiquities
XVIII.63–64, it is felt by many scholars that there has been some alterations in the text to give a favorable account of Jesus as being the Christ. The notes in the Loeb edition of Josephus give the pros and cons of the issue in a fair and concise manner. What this section does indicate is the fact that there have been editings in the text of Josephus by later individuals and one must be careful in accepting all of the statements of Josephus (especially those involving chronological matters where numerical indications are in the text). The fact is, there are manuscripts of Josephus which show variations in the number of years in which important rulers lived and reigned. One of the most important of these vagaries is in regard to the death of Philip, the son of Herod. Josephus said he ruled for 37 years. 26
But note this. The earliest copies of the manuscripts of Josephus show him dying in the twenty-second year of Tiberius. Since Tiberius’ twenty-second year was C.E. 36, this shows that Philip began his reign in 1 B.C.E. (at the very time I am showing in this book that his father Herod died). With modern manuscripts of Josephus copied since the year 1700 C.E., it is common to erroneously read the “twentieth year,” not the older and proper “twenty-second.”
In order to confirm what the various manuscripts of Josephus do in fact state on this matter, David W. Beyer of San Diego, California made a survey of all the major manuscripts of Josephus in the British Museum (plus referring to others in the libraries in Europe) and found that before 1700 C.E., 27 of the manuscripts in the British Museum have the “twenty-second” rather than the “twenty,” while only 3 manuscripts have the “twenty.” But note this. When one consults manuscripts produced before 1544 A.D. (some twenty-five manuscripts), all of them
have the number “twenty-two.” Beyer has come to the conclusion that the number “twenty-two” is the correct figure that Josephus wrote. Only in the year 1544 C.E. did the spurious “twenty” begin to come into vogue. 27
There is no doubt that the number “twenty-two” is what Josephus wrote. Indeed, Beyer methodically has reconstructed the manuscript history of these two different numbers regarding Philip’s death as shown in the manuscripts of Josephus (and to his credit, he has done it in a most reasonable way).
So important is Beyer’s work on this matter in giving the real manuscript evidence for the “twenty-second” year of Tiberius for Philip’s death, that Professor John Dominic Crossan asked that Beyer present his research (titled: “Josephus Re-examined: Unraveling the Twenty-Second Year of Tiberius”) at the Historical Jesus Section of the SBL meeting in Philadelphia in November, 1995. Beyer is to be congratulated for presenting a survey of the manuscripts of Josephus on this matter. The survey was long overdue, but Mr. Beyer has now accomplished the job for the scholarly world. What this early manuscript evidence of Josephus shows is the fact that Herod did die in 1 B.C.E. and that Philip his son commenced his reign at the death of Herod in 1 B.C.E. That coordinates precisely with what the historical records show that I present in this book. I am thankful to Mr. Beyer for his painstaking research into the manuscripts which show this fact.
The Editing of Later Scribes Gives Problems to Interpreting Josephus
These difficulties that I have been showing, reveal that one must be careful in accepting historical data (especially those items involving chronology) that we find in the present manuscripts of Josephus. Every statement of Josephus must be critically evaluated. This is because there is no doubt that the texts of Josephus have been tampered with by later scribes who have wanted to “improve” the statements of Josephus in matters that disagree with their own theories. This does not mean that the writings of Josephus should be abandoned, but it shows that one must weigh his historical and chronological statements that have come down to us in the manuscripts with a great deal of caution. They must be counter-checked with other sources. We must realize that Josephus has given us a great deal of valuable information, but his statements must be judiciously tested for their veracity. Josephus is especially good when he records what he saw as an eyewitness
. His account of the Jewish/Roman War of 66 to 70 C.E. is an excellent and forthright account of the events and most historians give him credit for being reasonably objective. But when it comes to historical events before
he was born, he then becomes much less reliable. Even what we find in the manuscripts may not be what Josephus actually wrote. This could account for his many inconsistencies.
Josephus Presents Several Difficulties at Particular Periods
The period we are discussing in this book is one of those difficult times in understanding chronological matters. One must exercise caution in the reading of Josephus ― especially in chronological affairs from about 9 B.C.E. to C.E. 6. We do not know why Josephus in that period neglected to give cross-references to internationally recognized eras of time, but he was negligent! And this is precisely where our problem lies. Not only are the records from Roman historians very deficient at this period of time (it was when that
dark decade was in effect), but in addition Josephus himself fails us when it comes to precise chronological indications. It is no wonder historians are confused regarding the time of Jesus’ birth.
Early Christian Historians
In the first and third chapters of this book, attention was drawn to the historical opinions of early Christian scholars who lived from the 2nd
to the 6th
centuries. I showed that the majority placed the birth of Jesus in a period that we now recognize as 3 to 2 B.C.E. ― and this is indeed the very period in which he was born.
This is important testimony and it should be seriously considered by modern historians. In spite of this, we do not want to give the impression that the early Christian scholars were always correct. This is because some say Jesus was born in 3 B.C.E., others in 2 B.C.E. and even 1 B.C.E. Even they are inconsistent in their precise datings as to the exact year. Yet, importantly, they are all consistent
in showing that Jesus was certainly born after
4 B.C.E., and not before
4 B.C.E. that scholars dogmatize about today. This is a significant point and it is of utmost importance in discovering the time of Jesus’ birth.
One, however, might ask why the early Christian scholars were not in unanimity regarding the year of Jesus’ birth (though all knew it occurred after
4 B.C.E.)? This is not difficult to explain. The records they had to consult were written at different times and in different places in the Roman Empire. Besides the application of internationally used chronological indicators such as Olympiads, the Battle of Actium, the consuls of Rome, etc., many ancient historians simply gave dates according to the years of certain kings. Some kings reckoned their years from the day they took office, others from the year they were crowned (and there were numerous ways of doing this). Other dating systems involved the eras of cities or states and these often differed among various peoples who lived at the same time over the Roman Empire.
In other words, chronological indications of early historians (and often when faithfully recorded) were scarcely understood by later scholars who lived in other areas of the world who did not use their time-reckoning systems. It is entirely conceivable why the early Christian historians might be as much as one, two or even three years off in reckoning the time of Jesus’ birth. Even Josephus was in error in the same way for the time of Herod when he used such Gentile dating systems.
The Chaotic Conclusions of Modern Scholars
What is the present state of affairs in sorting out the problems involving the understanding of the time of Jesus’ nativity? Things now have gone from bad to worse. Sheer bedlam presently reigns among modern scholars who specialize in these chronological matters. The wide differences of opinion of scholars are so askew from one another that the variety of their theories becomes almost laughable when their conclusions are compared with one another. Indeed, it would be laughable if the subject were not so serious. Look at the confusion that now exists in the scholarly world about the year of Jesus’ birth.
In a book titled Chronos, Kairos, Christos
published in 1989 by the prestigious firm of Eisenbrauns as a Festschrift
in honor of one of the finest chronologists of our day, Professor Jack Finegan, the two editors (Dr. Jerry Vardaman and Dr. Edwin M. Yamauchi) included articles of research from some of the top scholars today in the field of chronology regarding the time for Jesus’ nativity. Both Vardaman and Yamauchi must be congratulated for having the courage to publish the various articles (almost all of them contradictory to one another in many of their essential factors). The disunity of opinion among the scholars, as shown in this book, is so wide in their evaluation of the historical sources that the only reasonable word to describe this state of scholarly affairs is “chaos
.” Confusion presently reigns among the scholars. The laity need to know about this chaos
that presently prevails in the professional research now being conducted. The above book does the job of showing this chaos
(and one should be thankful for its candor).
Look at what we find. In this single book, one scholar argues that Jesus was born sometime between August to October of 12 B.C.E. and that he was crucified at the Passover in C.E. 21. Another using different research as his basis of evaluation also accepted the 12 B.C.E. birth for Jesus, but he felt the records show Jesus’ crucifixion was in C.E. 36. Another thinks Jesus was born in January of 7 B.C.E. and that the Magi visited him (while he was a young toddler and standing by his father and mother) on November 12, 7 B.C.E. Another suggests Jesus was born in late 5 B.C.E. and his crucifixion was in C.E. 33. My research is also contained in this book. I show my reasons for believing that Jesus was born in 3 B.C.E. and crucified in C.E. 30.
Now remember, all of the diverse conclusions from the top scholars from various universities occur in one book
! This ought to show the state of confusion that presently exists on the whole issue. The attempt that I presently make in this book is to bring a reasonable amount of pragmatism and common sense to the chaos that now reigns among scholars. I believe that this book you are now reading does that very thing. My contention is that the lunar eclipse that Josephus said was associated with Herod’s death was that of 10 January, 1 B.C.E. (and not the earlier eclipse of 13 March, 4 B.C.E.). There are other modern historians who feel the same way, notably W.E. Filmer, Ormund Edwards and especially the important work of the classical scholar Dr. Paul Keresztes in his two volume work written in 1989 titled Imperial Rome and the Christians.
This latter work provides some outstanding research throughout its pages. It shows the reasonableness of accepting the basic premises on the death of Herod in 1 B.C.E. that I am advocating in this book.
And we are not the only ones who have understood the historical records in this fashion. Scaliger, as early as the 16th
century, was very decisive in stating that Herod’s death was associated with the eclipse of 10 January, 1 B.C.E. He was supported by the German historian, Calvisius, who recorded nearly 300 eclipses as chronological benchmarks for reckoning historical events of the past. In the last century the English scholars William Galloway, H. Bosanquet and C.R. Conder also affirmed that the 10 January, 1 B.C.E. eclipse was the proper one. Professors Caspari and Reiss of Germany also maintained this belief in their chronological studies.
In the next chapter we will find that Josephus, in spite of his chronological errors, provides eyewitness information from Nicolas of Damascus which can prove the time of Herod’s death. And that time has to be in January, 1 B.C.E. This will place Jesus’ nativity in 3 or 2 B.C.E. Astronomy is the key to understand Josephus. When we apply the rules of astronomy with history, we will find that the dark decade
in Roman history which has caused so much confusion to scholars, becomes full of light and understanding.
T. Barnes, Journal of Roman Studies,
LXIV (1974), 22.
Sir Ronald Syme, The Crisis of 2 B.C.,
See notes to the Loeb edition of Dio Cassius.
6 Res Gestae,
Jack Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology,
Ethelbert Stauffer, Jesus and His Story
(New York: Knopf, 1960) 22.
10 The Dictionary of Christian Biography,
Corbishley, The Journal of Roman Studies,
Dio Cassius, XLIV.22.
The notes to the Loeb edition of Josephus explain many of these problems.
XVII.342; Life, 5.
D. Beyer, “Josephus Re-Examined: Unraveling the Twenty-Second Year of Tiberius,” 8–9.