Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Don't Ask Rambi -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (43406)	12/10/1999 6:43:00 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71178

I know it intellectually, but it doesn't seem too terribly important. Having the year turn over to 2000 has so much drama! Could we just call it the start of the celebration and keep the party going for 365 days?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (43406)	12/10/1999 7:50:00 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71178

I am sure that more people than 10,000 know that next year will not be the first year in the 21st century, and more than 59 care, as I've got two in my own household tthat care (Chris and Nick), and our own Lather cares. In light of the fact that Christ was probably born somewhere around 6 B.C., I don't really feel strongly about it one way or the other, but I like the number 2,000 as the beginning of the Millennium, it LOOKS like a Millennium, doesn't it? As for the argument against it ("no year zero"), it makes sense, but it's actually wrong, as Christ wasn't born in the year One. I mentioned on Feelies that I am reading Thomas Cahill's latest, a history of the historical Jesus and his times, "Desire of the Everlasting Hills." The monk who is credited with our calender, Dionysius Exiguus ("Dennis the Short") apparently screwed up in the math. So 2001 isn't 2000 years after the birth of Christ, just as 2,000 isn't 2,000 years after the birth of Christ, really. And 2000 is such a nice, round number. From a Catholic encyclopedia: newadvent.org >>>>>In chronology Dionysius has left his mark conspicuously, for it was he who introduced the use of the Christian Era (see CHRONOLOGY) according to which dates are reckoned from the Incarnation, which he assigned to 25 March, in the year 754 from the foundation of Rome (A. U. C.). By this method of computation he intended to supersede the "Era of Diocletian" previously employed, being unwilling, as he tells us, that the name of an impious persecutor should be thus kept in memory. The Era of the Incarnation, often called the Dionysian Era, was soon much used in Italy and, to some extent, a little later in Spain; during the eighth and ninth centuries it was adopted in England. Charlemagne is said to have been the first Christian ruler to employ it officially. It was not until the tenth century that it was employed in the papal chancery (Lersch, Chronologie, Freiburg, 1899, p. 233). Dionysius also gave attention to the calculation of Easter, which so greatly occupied the early Church. To this end he advocated the adoption of the Alexandrian Cycle of nineteen years, extending that of St. Cyril for a period of ninety-five years in advance. It was in this work that he adopted the Era of the Incarnation.<<<<< Historians think Christ was born earlier than the date that Dionysius Exiguus assigned, for reasons like the fact that Herod died in what is now 4 B.C. But even if you don't assign a different date, but use the one that was accepted in his time, he still got it wrong - or did he? Christ was born 754 years after the foundation of the Roman Empire, and Exiguus put it as 753. So, he assigned the birth of Christ to Year Zero.