Re: Birthday/baptism and chronology

From: Timothy Bratton (bratton@acc.jc.edu)
Date: Sun Jan 07 1996 - 19:31:19 EST


On Sat, 23 Dec 1995, Will Wagers wrote:

> Dr. Timothy L. Bratton writes:
>
> > Astronomers and historians prefer using B.C.E. ("before the
> >common era"). Thus a non-Christian can use B.C. dating without
> >formally recognizing Christ's claims by pretending that the
> >practice is merely a cultural artifact. It smacks of "political
> >correctness" to me, although one can rationalize that it _really_
> >stands for "before the Christian era." Another possible reason
> >for the new terminology is that Dionysius Exiguus, writing about
> >A.D. 530, calculated that Jesus was born in _ab urbe condita_
> >("from the foundation of the city," i.e. Rome) 754, which became
> >A.D. 1. Actually, Jesus probably was born between 7 and 2 B.C.,
> >but Dionysius' mistake is now so fixed in historical chronology
> >that we're stuck with it. B.C.E. thus becomes little more than
> >an arbitrary, but useful, yardstick based on Dionysius' labors.
>
> Astronomers prefer BCE because the system has a year 0. This makes
> calculations simpler. This system is preferred by some historians and
> mathematicians for its orthogonality.
>
> The historical convention omits the year 0, so the transition from BC
> to AD skips from December 31, -1 to January 1, 1.
>
> So, there is a difference of 1 year between BC and BCE dates.
> CE and AD dates are the same.
>
> I hope this eases your mind and softens your heart towards all
> those "heathen" astronomers and historians who are slyly
> ignoring Christ's claims.
>
> Will

Dr. Timothy L. Bratton bratton@acc.jc.edu
Department of History/Pol. Science work: 1-701-252-3467, ext. 2022
6006 Jamestown College home: 1-701-252-8895
Jamestown, ND 58405 home phone/fax: 1-701-252-7507

        "All ignorance is dangerous, and most errors must be dearly
paid. And good luck must he have that carries unchastised an error in
his head unto his death." -- Arthur Schopenhauer.

Dear Will,
        I repent in sackcloth and ashes. This will teach me not to dash
off a reply from the top of my head without an adequate reference library
at hand! Your explanation is the correct one; given all the mental
compensations I do with astronomical software for traditional B.C. dates,
the facts should have been staring me in the face. However, I _have_ seen
some articles where P.C. types complained about the "cultural imperialism"
of the B.C. dating system, although whether I can find them again in the
"black hole" that passes for my office remains to be seen. By the way,
what is the status of the archeoastronomy E-mail section that you were
planning to start some months ago?



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:35 EDT