"Jim Gunkel" <
jimg@nevrona.com> wrote:
> At 01:06 AM 1/10/2001, you wrote:
> >Heh. Seeing as how the whole event was calculated with an error of at
least
> >5 or 6 years by most estimates, it's probably not worth arguing about TOO
>
> I'd be interested in any sources you have to back that up?
Well, there are plenty to be found with a quick search, but
http://www.rog.nmm.ac.uk/leaflets/new_mill.html has a rather humorous (IMO)
overview, including:
--- cut here --- cut here ---
Therefore, Dionysius' calendar places the birth of Jesus Christ at the end
of the year 1 BC. The 2,000th anniversary of Christ's birth would then be 25
December 2000. However, modern research indicates that Christ was probably
born in 6BC and certainly by 4BC, when Herod died.
--- cut here --- cut here ---
as well as...
--- cut here --- cut here ---
It is interesting to note that this is not the first time that this
controversy has arisen. The Times must have received many letters towards
the end of 1799, since its editors felt moved to make the following comments
about the beginning of the 19th Century:
"We have uniformly rejected all letters and declined all discussion upon the
question of when the present century ends, as it is one of the most absurd
that can engage the public attention, and we are astonished to find it has
been the subject of so much dispute, since it appears plain. The present
century will not terminate till January 1, 1801, unless it can be made out
that 99 are 100... It is a silly, childish discussion, and only exposes the
want of brains of those who maintain a contrary opinion to that we have
stated"
The Times, 26 December 1799
--- cut here --- cut here ---
Hey, I hope nobody's taking this too seriously! I think the arguments are
rather amusing myself.
- Bob
(text/plain)