Dionysius never makes the claim that he knew the date of Jesus' birth and no later writer makes that claim for him. He did not begin his efforts at reforming the calendar to accurately date the birth of Jesus of Nazareth; he did it in accordance with the wishes of the pope of the time who wanted Constantine 's vision realized. The Easter celebration of the resurrection was considered the most important of the church and Constantine, and those in power who followed him, wanted the event observed by all churches on the same day.
It was Dionysius' job to help make this happen and he tried to do so by reforming the calendar; calculating the date of Jesus' birth was a means to this end, not an end in itself.
Using the four gospels to determine Jesus' birth, however, is problematic since the Gospel of John does not agree with the other three and Matthew, Mark , and Luke do not always agree with each other regarding significant events. Scholar Robert R. Cargill explains: According to multiple ancient sources, Herod died in 4 BCE.
If we add to these 4 years the fact that Herod the Great did not die immediately after the birth of Jesus, but, according to Matthew, ordered the death of all children two years of age and younger in an attempt to kill Jesus, we can add an additional two years to the birth of Jesus, making his birth approximately 6 BCE.
If we also add the missing year zero, it is most likely that, according to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus was born around 7 BCE!
While the Gospel of Matthew states in chapter 2: According to ancient sources, the date of this census is about 6 CE. He never explains anywhere how he came to his conclusions regarding the date of Jesus' birth and never claims to have dated it accurately. He needed to make the calendar work in accordance with the pope's wishes and he succeeded in doing that.
He was only interested in dating events from the incarnation of Jesus of Nazareth and this was another aspect of the problem he faced: Dionysius also never explains how he resolved this issue. The actual date of Jesus of Nazareth's birth remains unknown. In Dionysius' work, events after Jesus' incarnation occur in the "year of the Lord" and events prior are not considered.
This was hardly a universally accepted designation, however, and would not become widespread until the reign of Charlemagne CE who instituted the system to standardize dating throughout Europe. Even after Charlemagne's efforts, however, the use of the Anno Domini calendar system was not accepted by every European nation and certainly was not recognized in other parts of the world.
In the 17th century the term "vulgar era" first appears as a replacement for Anno Domini in the writings of the German astronomer and mathematician Johannes Kepler CE. At this time "vulgar" did not mean "uncouth" but "common" or "ordinary" and was used to designate events previously noted as "in the year of the Lord" or, simply, the present era. The phrase "vulgar era" was then used by writers interchangeably with "after the time of Christ" or "in the common era" which eventually came to be written simply as "common era" and then CE which gave rise to BCE in defining events prior to the common era.
Rhodes in London. The phrase appears in a sentence from page which mentions "the fourth century of the common era". Non-Christian scholars, especially, embraced the new designations because they could now communicate more easily with the Christian community.
Jewish and Islamic, Hindu and Buddhist , scholars could retain their calendar but refer to events using the Gregorian Calendar as BCE and CE without compromising their own beliefs about the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth. Throughout the 18th and 19th centuries "common era" was used frequently with a respectful nod to Christianity in phrases such as "the common era of Christ" or "the common era of the Incarnation" until, by the late 20th century, it again reverted to simply "common era".
The usage began when people were questioning received knowledge and forming their own educated opinions about how the world worked and what constituted reliable sources. Kepler uses "vulgar era" at a time when many institutions and understandings were being questioned and among these would have been how Dionysius arrived at his conclusions regarding the date of the birth of Jesus. Dionysius had no understanding of the concept of zero and neither did Bede. The calendar they dated events from, therefore, is inaccurate.
The year 1 AD would follow 1 BC without a starting point for the new chronology of events. In order to date a present event from a past event one must know when that past event occurred. One may say that one is twenty years old only if one knows for certain that one was born twenty years ago on a certain date.
Dating events from an uncertain point is inaccurate because one is making an untrue statement based on a false assumption. By the time people began questioning how Dionysius arrived at the date of Jesus' birth, or whether he was correct, over years had passed and a great deal of history had been recorded.
This is more accurate in that one is not making a claim one cannot possibly support. While this dating system does refer to the same event, it does so simply out of necessity because Dionysius' system had been accepted and used for so long in written works.
For Christians, Jesus is the Christ, the annointed of God, the messiah. The calendar "counts down" to the birth of Jesus and then proceeds to count away from it. To a Christian this may seem like simple common sense and the way the world works but not so to someone outside of that tradition. People of different cultures and belief systems should be able to access and discuss history without having to date it according to the Christian belief in Jesus as the son of God and the messiah.
The encyclopedia has an international audience of readers who embrace multiple faiths and recognize many different belief systems. Editorial Review This Article has been reviewed for accuracy, reliability and adherence to academic standards prior to publication.
Learn More.
Dionysius had no understanding of the concept of zero and neither did Bede, Bce time dating. See also: Is this wrong? He did not begin Bce time dating efforts at reforming the calendar to accurately date the birth of Jesus of Nazareth; he did it in accordance with the wishes of the pope of the time who wanted Constantine 's vision realized. I'm not alone in having heard this false etymology, as many internet discussions will attest. It took about years Bce time dating the dating system devised by Dionysius to reach common usage. It is and a quarter days long. In the 17th century the term "vulgar era" first appears as a replacement for Anno Domini in the writings of the German astronomer and mathematician Johannes Kepler CE. I've got way more important things to worry about than whether I'm offending someone over something like that.
No comments:
Post a Comment