Concerning the alleged earlier reign of Tiberius, I have written the following in the book I'm working on:
Now, one commonly expressed idea concerns an alleged earlier reckoning of Tiberius’ reign. Per the histories of Tacitus, Suetonius, and Velleius Paterculus, we know that Tiberius received, by vote of the Senate, an equal authority with Augustus over the provinces, essentially conferring on him a co-regency, or a “co-reign” as some are wont to suggest.
[1] Chronologically speaking, scholars have long-since associated the granting of this co-regency with Tiberius’ triumphal celebration following his return from Germany in late 11 CE. Although none of the mentioned historians explicitly state that the Senate granted the co-regency at that time, there is, arguably, a chronological link between the events in Suetonius’ narrative.
[2] Thus, relative to the date of Tiberius’ triumph, the co-regency has been generally deduced to 12 CE.
[3] For those advocating an earlier starting point for Tiberius’ reign, this alternate reckoning effectively shifts Tiberius’ fifteenth year to 26 CE, which is in more ready alignment with Jesus’ thirtieth year according to the more popular 5 BCE nativity hypothesis. The matter-of-factness of this position, and the impetus behind it, is, for example, both casually and plainly stated by Edersheim.
[4]
"It was, according to St. Luke’s exact statement, in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar—reckoning, as provincials would do, from his co-regency with Augustus (which commenced two years before his sole reign), in the year 26 A.D. According to our former computation, Jesus would then be in His thirtieth year."
[5]
However, as Harold Hoehner commented, “this method is to be rejected because there is no evidence, either from historical documents or coins, for its employment, whereas there is abundant evidence that Tiberius reckoned his first year after the death of Augustus. Any theory that has to distort the normal sense of the text is already suspect.”
[6]
I have long since agreed with this point of view. The notion of an earlier reckoning for the reign of Tiberius is based upon the conspicuous need to bring Tiberius’ fifteenth year of reign into harmony with a thirty-year-old Jesus in 26 CE. Apart from this synchronistic necessity, there would be no valid reason to even
consider shifting Tiberius’ reign as described, much less applying or dogmatizing the shift. We have no evidence whatsoever of anyone counting the reign of Tiberius from his co-regency with Augustus, and no precedent to believe that Luke was using such an alternative dating paradigm. Tiberius’ reign was counted from the death of Augustus, and differs in the particulars only as it concerns the geographical regions and cultures, and the various methods of regnal counting. Someone in Alexandria might count his reign from September of 14 CE. A Roman might count it from January of 15 CE. Jews would count it from Nisan (March to April) of 14 CE. However, we have no evidence of any region, at any time, counting his reign from 12 CE as an offshoot of the standard reckoning.
To the contrary, all the evidence we have implies that the points of accession for the emperors, including that of Tiberius, were common knowledge throughout the empire and reckoned from the same points universally. As it concerns Tiberius, although this evidence has already been given, let me restate that we have numismatic evidence that shows Tiberius’ first year of reign coincident to the 45th year of the Actian Era, and his third to the 47th year.
[7] Tacitus puts his ninth year in the year of the consuls Gaius Asinius and Gaius Antistius, or 23 CE, while Suetonius reckons his twenty-third year to 37 CE, in the consulship of Gnaeus Acerronius Proculus and Gaius Pontius Nigrinus.
[8]
It should also be noted that Josephus records that Tiberius reigned twenty-two years, whereas Philo remarks that Tiberius was emperor during three and twenty years.
[9] In the former case, Josephus is referring to his regnal years, from 14 CE through 36 CE, with his final year left incomplete in the manner of Jewish regnal counting. In the latter instance, Philo is commenting on inclusive Jewish calendar years from 14/15 CE through 36/37 CE. Thus, he reigned twenty-two regnal years over the span of twenty-three Jewish calendar years, the relevance here being that his reign in both testimonies ends with his death in 37 CE, demonstrating retrogressively a starting point of 14 CE, not 12 CE.
In all instances, whether it be Suetonius and Tacitus speaking as Romans, or Josephus and Philo speaking as Jews, the testimony is the same. Tiberius’ reign began with the death of Augustus in 14 CE, and differs from one region to the next only insomuch as to say that the calendar and regnal systems each function in their own unique way.
Given the universal understanding of Tiberius’ reign throughout the empire, there is simply no precedent to believe that Luke, and Luke alone, is dating Tiberius’ reign according to some enigmatic dating system that begins two or more years earlier than any other dating system in the Roman empire. There’s no proof that he’s doing it, no precedent to believe he
would do it, and no documentation of anyone else doing it. The idea is, in every way, a flight of fancy, and has no foundation in fact.
Furthermore, the argument itself hinges on the idea that the Senate voted Tiberius the co-regency with Augustus in 12 CE.
[10] The chronology of the event is figured according to Suetonius, who,
seemingly in context of Tiberius’ return from Germany, says that the consuls caused the law for his co-regency to be passed “soon after.” As the argument goes, if the consuls passed this law “soon after” he returned from Germany in 11 CE, then it is not unreasonable to suggest that it occurred in the vicinity of 11 CE or 12 CE.
[11]
However, in its more direct and immediate context, Suetonius also said that Tiberius was given this joint authority so he would have equal authority over the provinces while conducting the census with Augustus. It was for that reason that the consuls caused the law to be passed, granting him joint governance over the provinces, and the passing of the law was in a chronological proximity to the lustral ceremonies and Tiberius setting out for Illyricum immediately afterwards.
[12]
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; 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.
Ergo, the consuls who passed the law were the consuls during the year of the lustrum. The lustrum, according to Augustus himself, occurred in 14 CE, which was, consequently, also the year he died.
[13] Therefore, any co-reign, co-princeps, etc., would actually be coincident to 14 CE rather than 12 CE, confirming the succession in 14 CE, even counted from the point of their joint administration.
And in the overall treatment of this topic, we shouldn’t let Pontius Pilate fall by the wayside. Luke states that it was the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, with Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea.
[14] Pilate governed Judea over the course of ten years. Having been dismissed within ninety days of Tiberius’ death, his final calendar year in Judea, as previously discussed, was 36/37, which puts his arrival in Judaea in 27 CE. That’s a year later than the fifteenth year of Tiberius by an ante-dated reign, as figured by the presumed co-reign in 12 CE.
Now, alternately, one could argue that the joint reign with Augustus centers around Tiberius being given the tribunician authority in 13 CE, when Lucius Munatius and Gaius Silius were consuls, but this was not the first time Tiberius had been given such authority. If such were the standard for counting his reign, we could go back as far as 6 BCE when he was first given the tribunician authority, or a little later in 4 CE, when he not only received said authority for an additional ten years, but was also adopted by Augustus.
[15]
Vardaman, in fact, makes an argument for this very year, based upon these same points of fact. He offers both the 4 CE solution, beginning with Tiberius’ adoption and proconsular
imperium, as well as a speculation on the possibility of an epigraphic misreading of eta iota for beta, B being mistaken for an EI, suggesting that Luke originally wrote, “year 2.”
[16]
Nevertheless, we still have no precedent to assume that Luke is counting from some point other than the rest of the Roman empire. Despite how clever one argument or another may be, there has to be a precedent. Luke’s intent is to give his reader an intelligible date. Given this logical fact, it’s unreasonable to conclude that he was counting from any point other than the rest of the civilized world at the time. Thus, the idea of an earlier reign of Tiberius, particularly based on a joint administration with Augustus, is entirely without merit.
Furthermore, any notions of antedating, as some would speculate to have taken place, are likewise robbed of any credibility relative to the evidence. Rulers were directly responsible for the antedating of their reigns, and often did it for political gain or advantage. The numismatic evidence contradicts any such practice where Tiberius is concerned.
Therefore, all things considered, the hypothesis for an earlier reign of Tiberius should be dismissed.
[1]. Suet.
Tib. 21; Tac.
Ann. 1.3; Vell. Pat. 2.121.1.
[2]. Suet.
Tib. 20-21.
[3]. Suet.
Tib. 20. The celebration of Tiberius’ triumph is properly in the context of 11 CE, not 12 CE (Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht, 2.2, 1101, n. 2, 1877 edn.). Tiberius celebrated his triumph on October 23rd, prior to Germanicus’ consulship in 12 CE (Fasti Praenestini, in
Inscr.
Ital. 13.2 17, 134-135; Dio Cass. 56.25.2, 56.26.1). Given the time of year, if the Senate voted him this authority in the vicinity of his triumph, it’s debatable whether it happened before the end of that current year, or whether it happened at the beginning of the new year, giving us the leeway of 11 CE or 12 CE for the granting of the co-regency under these suggested circumstances.
[4]. Edersheim,
Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 183, 193.
[5]. Edersheim,
Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 183.
[6]. Hoehner,
Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ, 31-2.
[7]. McAlee 214; RPC I 4270, 4330; BMC Galatia 33, 150; SNG Cop 402. The specimens are respectively dated A / EM and Γ / ZM.
[8]. Tac.
Ann. 4.1; Suet.
Tib. 73.
[9]. Joseph.
AJ 18.177; Philo
Leg. 298.
[10]. Finegan,
Handbook of Biblical Chronology, 330; Edersheim,
Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 183.
[11]. Suet.
Tib. 20-21; Fasti Praenestini, in
Inscr.
Ital. 13.2 17, 134-135; Dio Cass. 56.25.2, 56.26.1.
[12]. Suet.
Tib. 21.1.
[13].
Mon.
Anc. 8.
[14]. Lk. 3:1.
[15]. Dio Cass. 56.28.1, 55.9.1-4, 55.13.1a; Vell. Pat. 2.103; cf. Inscr. Ital. 13.2, Fasti Amiternini (= CIL 1², p. 320).
[16]. Vardaman,
Jesus’ Life: A New Chronology, in
CKC, 58-60.
www.britannica.com
