Dating Events In History

[M. Porcius Cato]

I'm not even sure I know what this year is in auc. On whose calendar is dated the traditional founding of the city?

Technically since our calendar, the Gregorian, is an evolution of Caesar's Julian, which is an evolution of the earlier Republican system, its really all the same thing. Though there was some 'correction' that took place in conversion from lunar to solar and with the addition of intermittent leap years. Still using our current calendar, wouldn't 2005 simply be 753 BC + 2005 AD or 2758 a.u.c.? (of course assuming 753 BC as the traditional founding)

 

It's the correction part I can never get straight. Is the correction built into our calendar or not? If it is, why is Jesus said to be born in 4 BCE?

 

CE=Common Era; BCE=Before Common Era.

You are wrong. I beleive (and will bet on) that it stands for Christ's Era and Before Christ's Era and so I refuse to use it.

 

Actually, I'm not wrong. You're refusing to use a secular alternative when you should be embracing it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Actually, I'm not wrong. You're refusing to use a secular alternative when you should be embracing it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era

 

Uh, I think he was kidding Cato. Was he?

[M. Porcius Cato]

Uh, I think he was kidding Cato. Was he?

 

Maybe. But I didn't see a or a or even a

[CyricVT]

I also think CE and BCE are rather dumb and prefer AD and BC. Having said that however, we really should have a calendar based either on the mythical founding of Rome (753 and using AUB if anything at all) or using either the rise of Western civilization with Greece or civilization in general as a starting point. Until then I'm content to use AD and BC since they have been the standard for centuries and not use new abbreviations that mean the same thing but try to do it without offending non-Christians.

[Primus Pilus]

It's the correction part I can never get straight. Is the correction built into our calendar or not? If it is, why is Jesus said to be born in 4 BCE?

 

Yes that's the brutal part. The correction is built in to our current calendar but some of the old dates have not been adjusted. I believe the difference between the Julian (45 BC) and the Gregorian calendar (16th century) over the course of 16 centuries was only a matter of 10 days. The difference between the Julian and the previous calendar however was pretty significant since the lunar based pre-Julian was set at 355 days. Obviously over the course of many centuries this 10 day difference per year added up and totally blasted the season vs. date alignments. Its why you may see modern writers describe ancient events as happening in the seasonal summer of XYZ year rather than saying April of that year.

 

As for the original question, Jesus year of birth is confusing at best. This site gives a pretty good explanation of the Jesus date birth thing about half way down even if some other premises are fairly presumptuous...

Calendar facts

[Tobias]

CE=Common Era; BCE=Before Common Era. They mean exactly the same thing as BC and AD, even down to the error that Jesus was 3 years old in 1 BC.

 

Thank you Cato, they say one learns something every day!

 

I've been viewing this thread, and i've officially decided to stick with AD and BC: BCE and CE reek of political correctness