Stop using B.C.E. and C.E. you cretins!

[Antilogic]

Antilogic. I don't think we 'consider Jesus to have been born in 6 BCE', we don't know when he was born and one of the putative landmarks has him born before 4 BCE. The other landmarks (which I guess should be equally weighted?) disagree, and give different dates. You have to ignore other accounts of his birth to have him born before 4 BCE.

It's one of several possible years. 4 BC is the one that's quoted most often, but there's really not a lot that would serve to nail it down, and what there is is contradictory.

Sorry, EM, didn't see your post until Dachs' reference to it later on.

So I got the digit wrong, but I think the point I'm making stands--Christ is now born Before Christ. That goofy idiosyncrasy, the religious overtones, and the annoying official before/after rule (even if people regularly ignore or violate it) has convinced me to use a system that eliminates at least two of these problems. I prefer BCE/CE, but sometimes I use BC/AD based on the source material and who I'm talking to.

Well (apart from, prosaically, that's how people have defined it) how do you know? I wouldn't have thought historical records at this distance can be that accurate, can they?

There might well have slipped in a year zero (or two) between 1 BC and AD 1.

I think you could have a year zero. Should you want one. What's the difference one way or another?

I remember people celebrating the new millenium in 2000. Yet they shouldn't have done this, logically, till 2001, if there was no year zero.

I'm confused, are you suggesting there are additional years between 1 BCE and 1 CE )) that we do not know about nor have ever seen a written record for, or that it is possible to redefine existing years to fit this numbering scheme?

 

[Borachio]

My point, and I don't really have one, is that the Gregorian calendar, dating from 1582 CE, doesn't give a clue as to what the dates actually were around the, imaginary, year zero. So what kind of error bar do you think might be appropriate? +/-5 years?

Contemporary Roman accounts are presumably not lacking an odd year here or there, though I don't really know, but I can't see that is a help.

 

[El_Machinae]

I was only being pedantic: I wasn't criticising the digit. We don't know if Jesus was born in BC or AD; 4 BCE is only one of the multiple timepoints for which there is (independently contradictory) evidence.

 

[Dachs]

Well (apart from, prosaically, that's how people have defined it) how do you know? I wouldn't have thought historical records at this distance can be that accurate, can they?

There might well have slipped in a year zero (or two) between 1 BC and AD 1.

You're starting from an erroneous premise. There was no year between 1 BC and AD 1 because the calendar was defined that way. They were not using the numbering system at the time.

I was only being pedantic: I wasn't criticising the digit. We don't know if Jesus was born in BC or AD; 4 BCE is only one of the multiple timepoints for which there is (independently contradictory) evidence.

Yes.

 

[GoodGame]

@DACHS, Thanks for the correction.

 

[Berzerker]

the jews had their own calendar and wouldn't have tossed in a 0 between 3796 and 3797 (or whatever), so why would later scholars trying to adapt to it with Jesus' "birth" being the starting point?

on the other hand, jesus wouldn't be 1 year old at birth, so they either included a 0 or had him born in 1 bc

 

[Arwon]

I can legitimately call you a Republican now, but alas I cannot find the Bloom County cartoon that backs my claim.

Are you suggesting monarchists don't like christmas?

 

[warpus]

on the other hand, jesus wouldn't be 1 year old at birth, so they either included a 0 or had him born in 1 bc

Who knows? He could walk on water and bring people back from the dead. He is the son of God so anything's possible. Maybe when he was born he was already 4.

 

[bhsup]

Are you suggesting monarchists don't like christmas?

Actually, since Jesus is the King of Kings, I suppose you would at that.

 

[Perfection]

I like to use "anno vulgaris". It's "common era" in Latin, delicious.

 

[Leoreth]

I think you could have a year zero. Should you want one. What's the difference one way or another?

Sure you could. But we decided not to, and that's all that matters.

It does make sense however from a "counting years" perspective. If you call the first year of your life "year 1", then the year before that would be the first year before your birth. 1 Anno Borachionis and 1 Before Borachio, if you want to Where does a "year zero" fit in there? You simply don't start counting things with zero, why should years be an exception?

I remember people celebrating the new millenium in 2000. Yet they shouldn't have done this, logically, till 2001, if there was no year zero.

Yeah, that's because people are stupid and the media needed something to be excited about.

My point, and I don't really have one, is that the Gregorian calendar, dating from 1582 CE, doesn't give a clue as to what the dates actually were around the, imaginary, year zero. So what kind of error bar do you think might be appropriate? +/-5 years?

Contemporary Roman accounts are presumably not lacking an odd year here or there, though I don't really know, but I can't see that is a help.

What is this imaginary year zero, and what do Roman accounts have to do with it? Years exist without us giving them numbers, and we decided to call a particular year the first year, and the year before that particular year the first year before that particular year (this sounded more comprehensible in my head). It's not as if a year with the number 0 on it ran by and historians missed it.

 

[GoodGame]

I like to use "anno vulgaris". It's "common era" in Latin, delicious.

The problem is who even learns Latin anymore?


Would the ancient Hindus have a year zero if they'd been in charge?

 

[Borachio]

Classics students, especially.

Though it is probably a bit esoteric, and I can't find global numbers, the subject is continuing to survive.

At Harvard, there are in the region of 10 classics students each year. Is this a help?

 

[Leoreth]

The problem is who even learns Latin anymore?

People with an actual education

(And in the case of Germany, everyone who dislikes French.)

Would the ancient Hindus have a year zero if they'd been in charge?

Since the zero has been "invented" after Jesus' life, I suppose not And even Indians start counting things with one anyways.

 

[Lot In Space]

I vote for BP (Before Present).

 

[Luckymoose]

People with an actual education

(And in the case of Germany, everyone who dislikes French.)

Sad, they'd get more real world usage out of French. Latin is not the sign of an actual education.

 

[say1988]

I vote for BP (Before Present).

Unfortunately, for things done accurately, such a system would require everything to be updated each January 1.

 

[bhsup]

I vote for BP (Before Present).

How about BP, but using the date of the creation of British Petroleum instead

 

[Leoreth]

Sad, they'd get more real world usage out of French. Latin is not the sign of an actual education.

Latin has proven more useful to me than French could have ever been.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Latin has proven more useful to me than French could have ever been.

Are you a doctor or scientist?