Author: Keith Ian Price
Date: 13:21:52 12/26/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 26, 1999 at 02:15:13, KarinsDad wrote: >On December 24, 1999 at 21:21:29, Keith Ian Price wrote: > >>Well, A.D. stands for Anno Domino (Year of the Lord), and the year did start >>when he was born and it was the first year (1) not the zeroth year. If you add >>2000 to 1 you get 2001. Perhaps the millenium could start on January 1, 2000 >>P.D. (Post Domino), where the first year after the Lord's birth would be 1 P.D., >>but then B.C. would become A.D., and people would really get confused! >> >>>Well, the argument about the calendar starting at zero or one due to the Romans >>>seems a bit strange, particularly as I seriously doubt the Romans decided to >>>create a new calendar based on the man they had just finished crucifying. >> >>It wasn't the Romans. It was a monk several centuries later. And his >>calculations were most likely inaccurate, so that Christ was actually born in 4 >>B.C., which would mean that we all missed the big party in 1997. But since the >>big party is really about a new millenium and not a particular time after >>Christ's birth, we should stick to the calendar we have and keep it 2001. >>Besides, the party won't be as expensive, or crowded, and you will be less >>likely to get blown up. > >Well thought out, but slightly inaccurate. Well, it may be inaccurate, but it is based on reasonable data. >The Lord was born on or about March 1st 7 BC based on most work done by biblical >scholars. This was done by cross referencing the Greek New Testament with other >works at or shortly after the time such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, the books of >Josephus, Roman Archives, etc. (for example, Herod died in 4 BC, so Jesus had to >have been born before 4 BC according to the Bible). It is no longer believed that Herod died in 4 B.C. Herod took Jerusalem late in 36 BC. Josephus says Herod's siege of Jerusalem was during a sabbatical year, and 36 was a sabbatical year. Otherwise would need to be 7 years before or after 36. Also, all sabbatical years ended on Yom Kippur. Josephus said Herod's capture of Jerusalem coincided with Yom Kippur. He and the Jews would remember it well, for it was an outrage to press a siege on Yom Kippur. Josephus said it was 27 years to the day that Pompey committed his abominations, which he did in 63 BC. This gives again 36 BC for Herod's capture of Jerusalem. If we use the common accession method of counting years of rule, the date to start his 34th years on first of Nisan in 35 BC. So Herod's 34th year of rule would start with the 1st of Nisan in 2 BC. and end with first of Nisan in 1 BC. Now 34 years after 35 BC would give 1 BC for the death and end of the reign of Herod, his death, soon after the eclipse of Jan. 10, 1 BC. Josephus said Herod's 34 years started with the death of Antigonus, which came after his capture of Jerusalem. Again, Herod's death would be 1 BC. There is greater evidence that Dionysius Exiguus was correct in his calculation of the birth of Christ in 1 B.C., than in the date 7 B.C. Since he had access to mss. no longer available to us, he may well have been right. Since Herod lived at least two years after the birth of Christ, I have favored the 4 B.C. date over the 1 B.C. date. As for the March 1 date, as Thorsten would say... Pah!!! ;-) September or October is more likely correct due to Elizabeth's husband, the priest Zaccarius, performing his duties during the course of Abijah 6.5 months before the conception of Jesus. The course of Abijah took place in June in that year, and is one of 24 courses outlined in the Old Testament. See Luke 1:5 and following for the timelines of John and Jesus' conceptions. So Christ may actually have been conceived on the 25th of December. >The anti-Herodian party at Qumran three years after Herod's death are the actual >people who decided to begin the millennium again. They declared the Herodian >generation of 41 BC to 1 BC to be a zero generation. The year 1 BC (3940) became >0 and AD 1 became 1 (and yes, they decided to have a zero year, but it >effectively encompassed 41 years and was NOT part of the new calendar and >millennium as they wanted to forget everything about Herod). This party choose a >heir of David as opposed to a heir of Herod as king. Why three years after his death? More likely it was the year of his death. Dionysius Exiguus, a Roman monk in the sixth century created the A.D. system based on his calculations of Christ's birth, in a quest to establish the correct date for Easter. A Jewish party would have had no influence on creating a calendar for the Romans, and their declaration of a new millennium would not be effective for us today. >So, if you base it on the birth of Jesus, then it should have been about 5 years >and 10 months ago. Of course, there have been a few "adjustments" in the >calendar since then, so the actual "new millennium" should have started already, >but it would take some research to find out the exact date. > >But, if you base it off the calendar, the next millennium will start on January >1, 2001 (regardless of popular opinion, what sounds better, or the Y2K problem). >A millennium is a thousand years, not 999 and not 1040. Hence, if January 1, 1 >is the first day of the first "new" millennium (which the Davidians thought it >should be), than January 1, 2001 will be the first day of the third "new" >millennium. I agree with you on this point. >At any rate, I just got back from my holidays and wanted to wish everyone a >Happy New Year, regardless of which one it is. And also to you. >KarinsDad :) > >PS. It's spelled millennium. ;) You are also correct in this. kp
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.