The Reigns of Roman Emperors 

with Vespasian's death in the usual chronology does not match Dio's description. That comet was observed in 

A.D.

 79 by the ancient Korean astronomers for only 20 days, and not for a long time, as Dio stated. 

Domitian (Sept. 

A.D.

 68 to Sept. 

A.D.

 83) 

    The emperor Domitian was a son of Vespasian and brother of Titus. The emperor Titus was regarded as 

wise and conscientious; yet his reign was short. The emperor Domitian was regarded as cruel, avaricious, and 

self indulgent; yet his reign was long. Suetonius tells us that Domitian died on Sept. 18,  in the fifteenth year 

of his reign. 

1023

 This phrase means that Domitian died during 15th full calendar year of his reign. In the 

Roman  system of numbering the years, the first partial year of an emperor's reign was not counted. Thus 

Domitian's first year would be 

A.D.

 69, even though he began his reign upon the death of Titus in Sept. of 

A.D.

 68. The 15th year of Domitian's reign would then be 

A.D.

 83. 

    Dio plainly states that Domitian reigned for  fifteen years and five days. 

1024

 Counting forward 15 years and 

5 days from Sept. 13 of 

A.D.

 68 brings us to Sept. 18 of 

A.D.

 83. Therefore, Dio and Suetonius agree about the 

length of Domitian's reign and the date of his death. 

    The usual chronology has Domitian's reign from 

A.D.

 81 to 

A.D.

 96, a reign of just over 15 years. This 

revised chronology places Domitian's reign from Sept. 

A.D.

 68 to Sept. 

A.D.

 83, also a reign of just over 15 

years. 

    Suetonius gives one additional clue as to the year of Domitian's death. He tells us that, just before his death, 

Domitian spoke about the moon entering Aquarius as if it was a bad omen for himself.  There will be blood 

on the Moon as she enters Aquarius, and a deed will be done for everyone to talk about throughout the entire 

world. 

1025

 The moon entered Aquarius, prior to Domitian's death, in both Sept. of 

A.D.

 83 and Sept. of 

A.D.

 96.

1026

19.  The Destruction of the Temple in 

A.D.

 56 

    In this revised chronology, the reigns of Nero and Vespasian are placed years earlier than in the generally 

accepted chronology. Thus the war between the Jews and the Romans, as well as the destruction of the 

Temple, must also be placed in an earlier time frame. Chapter 14 of this book presents an explanation of the 

timing of these events. Though the widely accepted date for the destruction of the Temple is 

A.D.

 70, the 

above conclusions, and the further evidence found in chapter 14, clearly support 

A.D.

 56 as the correct year for 

that event. 

20.  Errors of modern historians 

    How could so many historians and Biblical scholars be wrong about the dates for the reigns of these Roman 

emperors? The vast majority of historians and scholars accept the usual chronology for these events, such as 44 

B.C.

 as the year of Julius Caesar's death and 

A.D.

 14 as the year of Augustus' death, without examination. 

They have accepted what has been handed down to them as if it were proven fact; they have not arrived at 

these dates by means of their own study of the evidence. Some may examine the evidence in an attempt to 

support what they have already accepted. But I know of no modern historian or Biblical chronologist (other 

than myself) who has attempted to determine the year of Julius Caesar's death, or the year of Augustus' death, 

or similar dates, starting from scratch, with no predetermined conclusion in mind. Modern chronological 

arguments for this time period are typically based on the assumption that Julius Caesar died in 44 

B.C.

, 

Augustus died in 

A.D.

 14, etc. 

    I myself began this study accepting the usual dates for the reigns of the Roman emperors. Only when I 

noticed some discrepancies in the data on eclipses and comets was I drawn to determine these dates anew, 

without relying on the usual assumptions. I think that if historians and Biblical scholars were to examine the 

evidence (which I review in chapters 12, 13, and 14 of this book) with an open mind, they would at least 

conclude that the generally accepted dates are reasonably in dispute. Furthermore, I believe that the evidence 

presented above is sufficient to establish this revised chronology as the correct one. 

213