On 6/1/18, R.E. Boss <[email protected]> wrote: > IMO there is definitely a year 0, ...
With all due respect, ask any historian (or others who deal with dates in the various divisions of knowledge). I'm sure they will indicate that the years at the switch between BC and AD are as follows (I can't do nonproportional spacing in Gmail, so please excuse the possible appearance): BC AD 3 2 1 1 2 3 Or, using a numerical approach (negative dates for BC): -3 -2 -1 1 2 3 Dec. 31, 1 BC was followed by Jan. 1, 1 AD (in our terminology). It's a world standard. It's just the way it is. Of course, nobody back then used those dates. The dates would would have been in terms of A.U.C. (ab urbe condita = "from the founding of the ciry [of Rome]"), which occurred in our 753 BC. So 753 AUC (1 BC) would have been followed by 754 AUC (1 AD). The current year numbering system (BC, AD) was developed by a monk named Dionysius Exiguus in 525. So blame *him*. ;-) > and whether Christ was born in that year, or not, I don't care? The exact year of the birth of Jesus Christ is unknown, so it really doesn't matter. But it certainly was not in a year 0 or even the year 1. He had to have been born before Herod the Great died, which is usually dated as 2 BC or 1 BC. Some astronomers favor Christ's birth as early as around 6 BC or 5 BC for astronomical/astrological reasons (but the wise men = astrologers may have started 2 years earlier than the birth). This leaves 4 BC to 2 BC as the most commonly stated possibilities. Why the discrepancy? Dionysius (above) made an error based on which Roman records he used for the dating. Harvey ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
