My Messages to the World
A Summary of the Latest Discoveries in My Biblical Chronology
After further examination of historical records, Roman coins, biblical prophecies, and astronomical calculations, I have made significant revisions to the chronology presented in my book HITGALUT (Revelation). These findings have led me to conclude that 2027 AD, rather than 2026 AD, is the most likely year 6,000 from creation.
What makes these findings particularly significant is that several independent historical and astronomical dates appear to align with the biblical chronology I have been reconstructing.
The most important discoveries concern the birth of Yeshua, the death of King Herod, the reign of Emperor Tiberius, the baptism and anointing of Yeshua in 27 AD, and the astronomical lunar calculations surrounding his proposed crucifixion in 31 AD.
1. The Death of Herod in 4 BC and the Birth of Yeshua in 5 BC
Historical research places the death of King Herod the Great in the spring of 4 BC, a date accepted by many historians.
The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus records that Herod died after a lunar eclipse and shortly before Pesach. Astronomical calculations identify a lunar eclipse on March 13, 4 BC, consistent with the historical account.
Because Matthew 2:1 establishes that Yeshua was born while Herod was still alive, Yeshua must have been born before Herod’s death.
Consequently, 5 BC is a historically plausible year for the birth of Yeshua, potentially during the autumn or winter.
This position is also supported by historical research published by scholars such as Jeffrey R. Chadwick and Paul L. Maier, who have examined the relationship between Herod’s death and the birth of Yeshua. Cambridge.org
2. The Fifteenth Year of Tiberius and the Anointing of Yeshua in 27 AD
Luke 3:1 explicitly places the beginning of the ministry of Yohanan the Immerser in the fifteenth year of Emperor Tiberius.
Luke 3:23 also states that Yeshua was approximately 30 years old when he began his ministry.
The traditional calculation places the fifteenth year of Tiberius around 28–29 AD, counting from the death of Augustus in 14 AD.
However, historical records establish that Tiberius received expanded imperial authority while Augustus was still alive.
Particularly significant are the Roman coins catalogued as RIC Augustus 225 and 226, dated to 13–14 AD.
These coins feature Augustus and Tiberius together and bear inscriptions identifying Tiberius’s fifteenth year of tribunician power (TR POT XV).
The coins provide physical evidence of Tiberius’s authority during the lifetime of Augustus and support the historical basis for an earlier beginning to his joint rule.
Under the proposed chronology, counting Tiberius’s imperial authority from 13 AD places his fifteenth regnal year in 27 AD, using inclusive reckoning.
This allows Yeshua’s baptism and anointing with the Ruach HaQodesh to be placed on Yom Kippur in the autumn of 27 AD.
If Yeshua was born in the autumn or winter of 5 BC, he would have been approximately 30 years old at his baptism, consistent with Luke 3:23.
The anointing would therefore have occurred in year 4,000 from creation, at the beginning of Yovel 80.
Furthermore, Luke 4:18–21 records that Yeshua subsequently proclaimed the “favorable year of the Master,” referring to Isaiah 61:1–2 and the proclamation of liberty associated with Yovel in Leviticus 25:9–10.
This provides an additional biblical connection between his anointing and the beginning of a Yovel year.
The Roman coins establish Tiberius’s authority in 13–14 AD, although interpreting 27 AD as his fifteenth regnal year remains a proposed alternative to the conventional chronology. Associates For Biblical Research
3. The Seventy Weeks of Daniel and the Decree of Artaxerxes
Daniel 9:25 establishes that 69 prophetic weeks, corresponding to 483 years, would pass from the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the appearance of Mashiach the Prince.
In this reconstruction, the decree of Artaxerxes is placed in 457 BC.
Accounting for the absence of a year zero between BC and AD:
457 BC + 483 years = 27 AD
Therefore, the conclusion of the 69 prophetic weeks corresponds to the autumn of 27 AD, when Yeshua received his anointing.
Daniel 9:26–27 also describes the cutting off of the Mashiach and the confirmation of a covenant with many during the final prophetic week.
The middle of this seventieth week occurs three and a half years after the anointing.
Autumn 27 AD + 3½ years = Spring 31 AD
This establishes the spring of 31 AD as the proposed time of Yeshua’s death, in the middle of Daniel’s final prophetic week.
4. NASA’s Lunar Calculations and the Crucifixion in 31 AD
One of the most significant findings concerns the astronomical conditions surrounding the proposed crucifixion of Yeshua in the spring of 31 AD.
NASA’s historical lunar calculations provide the following precise dates, using the Julian calendar:
| Astronomical event | Date in 31 AD | Time (UT) |
|---|---|---|
| March lunar conjunction | March 11 | 22:19 |
| March full moon | March 27 | 10:55 |
| April lunar conjunction | April 10 | 11:32 |
| April full moon | April 25 | 19:59 |
| Partial lunar eclipse | April 25 | Associated with the full moon |
These astronomical events are independently calculated and documented by NASA. NASA Eclipse
According to my proposed reconstruction of the Torah calendar, the first Rosh Chodesh after the spring equilux in Jerusalem establishes the beginning of the biblical year.
Under this interpretation, the March lunar month would have begun too early, making the April lunar month the first month of the biblical year.
If the first visible lunar crescent was observed after sunset on April 11, the resulting calendar would be:
- Nisan 1: Thursday, April 12, 31 AD (beginning the previous evening).
- Nisan 14: Wednesday, April 25, 31 AD.
- Resurrection: Near the conclusion of Shabbat, Saturday, April 28, 31 AD.
This proposed Wednesday crucifixion would allow three days and three nights before the resurrection, consistent with my interpretation of Matthew 12:40.
Interestingly, Dr. Kevin P. Woodbridge independently examined the possibility of a crucifixion in 31 AD in his 2022 study, When Was Jesus Crucified? Evidence Pointing to the Year 31 AD.
Woodbridge identified the same lunar eclipse of April 25, although his reconstruction places the crucifixion on Thursday, April 26, rather than Wednesday, April 25. Renewal Journal
NASA verifies the astronomical events, but the assignment of Nisan 1 and Nisan 14 depends on assumptions about ancient crescent visibility and the calendar’s intercalation. Thus, the precise crucifixion date remains a proposed reconstruction rather than an independently verified historical fact.
5. The Destruction of the First Temple in 599 BC and the Dome of the Rock in 692 AD
Another important part of this chronology concerns Daniel 12:11–12 and the prophetic periods of 1,290 and 1,335 days.
In my reconstruction, the destruction of the First Temple occurred in 599 BC, during the eleventh year of King Zedekiah, as described in 2 Kings 25:2–9.
This differs from the conventional historical chronology, which dates the destruction to approximately 587/586 BC.
The Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem contains an ancient Kufic inscription dated to the Islamic year 72 AH, corresponding to 691–692 AD.
This inscription provides a significant historical anchor. Although traditionally associated with the completion of the building, some modern scholarship interprets it as a foundation date instead. JSTOR
Using 692 AD as the chronological endpoint produces the following calculation:
599 BC → 692 AD = 1,290 years
The calculation accounts for the absence of a year zero.
This corresponds numerically to the 1,290 days mentioned in Daniel 12:11 when interpreted prophetically as years.
An additional period of 1,335 years from 692 AD produces:
692 AD + 1,335 years = 2027 AD
This establishes 2027 AD as the proposed prophetic endpoint in my interpretation.
It is important to distinguish this application from the literal wording of Daniel 12:11–12, which does not explicitly establish 692 AD as the beginning of a second, independent 1,335-year period.
6. The Convergence of the Chronology in 2027 AD
The following table summarizes the principal chronological anchors:
| Historical or prophetic event | Proposed date |
|---|---|
| Destruction of the First Temple | 599 BC |
| Decree of Artaxerxes | 457 BC |
| Birth of Yeshua | 5 BC |
| Death of King Herod | 4 BC |
| Beginning of Tiberius’s joint imperial authority | 13 AD |
| Fifteenth year of Tiberius under the proposed reckoning | 27 AD |
| Baptism and anointing of Yeshua | Autumn 27 AD |
| Yovel 80, year 4,000 from creation | Autumn 27 AD |
| Crucifixion of Yeshua | Spring 31 AD |
| Dome of the Rock inscription, 72 AH | 691–692 AD |
| Proposed year 5,999 from creation | 2026 AD |
| Proposed year 6,000 from creation | 2027 AD |
The relationship between Yeshua’s anointing and the year 6,000 is particularly significant.
If the autumn of 27 AD corresponds to year 4,000 from creation, then:
27 AD + 2,000 years = 2027 AD
Therefore, under this chronology, exactly 2,000 years separate Yeshua’s anointing in the autumn of 27 AD from the beginning of year 6,000 in the autumn of 2027 AD.
This also agrees numerically with the proposed interpretation of Daniel 12:
692 AD + 1,335 years = 2027 AD
Conclusion
These findings have strengthened my conviction that the chronology previously presented in HITGALUT should be revised by one year.
The death of Herod in 4 BC, the historically plausible birth of Yeshua in 5 BC, the Roman coinage documenting the authority of Tiberius in 13–14 AD, and NASA’s astronomical calculations for 31 AD provide important historical reference points.
When interpreted within the proposed biblical chronology, these dates lead to Yeshua’s anointing in 27 AD, his crucifixion in 31 AD, and year 6,000 from creation in 2027 AD.
The inscription dated 72 AH on the Dome of the Rock provides another independent historical date that can be compared with this reconstruction.
The resulting chronology points to the autumn of 2027 AD as the beginning of year 6,000 from creation.
I will incorporate these revisions and the supporting research into the second edition of HITGALUT.
