03-15-2004, 07:45 PM
Avete Omnes!<br>
        Back in town now after much traveling and spreading the joys of the ancient world to students, teachers and parents all over the American mid-west. I had to comment on this one.<br>
        All dating systems are arbitrary human inventions and are convenient to those who use them; they are always being amended, refined, and updated for practical reasons. Conn's comment and Frank's humorous reply I thought deserved some background. Since archæological and historical scholarship of any Middle-Eastern region involves the current occupants of the territory (Christian, Islamic, and Hebrew: including all varients therein), the neutral BCE/CE designation helps avoid unnecessary and counterproductive insults, on purpose or not, in both the practical digging and subsequent publication of results.<br>
        The notion that "Anno Domini" is based on the birth of Jesus ran into problems only decades after it was conceived by Sixth Century monk Dionysius Exiguus (Dennis the Short), and frankly was days off by his own design. Dennis calculated that Jesus was born on December 25, 753 A.U.C. He restarted time on January 1st, 754 " ab urbe condita," the feast of the circumcision on the eighth day of Jesus' life and Roman New Years. When it was later calculated that Herod the Great died in 750 A.U.C. and in order for the Gospels to be true and Herod to order the Slaughter of all those Innocents, Jesus had to have been born in 4 B.C. or earlier. Ever since, Christian timelines have had to say, Christ was born "circa" 4 B.C. Further complicating such things as timelines is the problem that the Arabic concept of "zero" as a necessary midpoint on a numberline was unavailable to Dennis in the Sixth Century European concepts of numbers.<br>
        The inherent irony that Jesus was born some four years "Before Christ" and died in 28 A.D. at age 33 only magnifies the arbitrariness of human dating systems.<br>
<br>
Wade Heaton<br>
Lucius Cornelius Libo<br>
[email protected] <br>
www.togaman.com <p></p><i></i>
        Back in town now after much traveling and spreading the joys of the ancient world to students, teachers and parents all over the American mid-west. I had to comment on this one.<br>
        All dating systems are arbitrary human inventions and are convenient to those who use them; they are always being amended, refined, and updated for practical reasons. Conn's comment and Frank's humorous reply I thought deserved some background. Since archæological and historical scholarship of any Middle-Eastern region involves the current occupants of the territory (Christian, Islamic, and Hebrew: including all varients therein), the neutral BCE/CE designation helps avoid unnecessary and counterproductive insults, on purpose or not, in both the practical digging and subsequent publication of results.<br>
        The notion that "Anno Domini" is based on the birth of Jesus ran into problems only decades after it was conceived by Sixth Century monk Dionysius Exiguus (Dennis the Short), and frankly was days off by his own design. Dennis calculated that Jesus was born on December 25, 753 A.U.C. He restarted time on January 1st, 754 " ab urbe condita," the feast of the circumcision on the eighth day of Jesus' life and Roman New Years. When it was later calculated that Herod the Great died in 750 A.U.C. and in order for the Gospels to be true and Herod to order the Slaughter of all those Innocents, Jesus had to have been born in 4 B.C. or earlier. Ever since, Christian timelines have had to say, Christ was born "circa" 4 B.C. Further complicating such things as timelines is the problem that the Arabic concept of "zero" as a necessary midpoint on a numberline was unavailable to Dennis in the Sixth Century European concepts of numbers.<br>
        The inherent irony that Jesus was born some four years "Before Christ" and died in 28 A.D. at age 33 only magnifies the arbitrariness of human dating systems.<br>
<br>
Wade Heaton<br>
Lucius Cornelius Libo<br>
[email protected] <br>
www.togaman.com <p></p><i></i>
