Re: Pater Noster (purely linguistically)

On Sat, Dec 04, 2004 at 10:28:33PM +0200, Steg Belsky wrote:
> It may well have been pronounced something like [a'men] back around the
> non-year 0, though :) .
Non-year?  Year 0 of the Christian Era was a perfectly good year.   The
fact that it happens to be more commonly known as the year 1 BC(E)
should not detract from its fundamental identity.  It was a leap year
(as you'd expect from the 0 designation, not so much from the BC one),
and it was, according to Denis the Little's calcultions, the very year
in which Jesus was born.  (And again, the fact that we now know that
those calculations couldn't be correct should not detract from our
recognition of the year).

-Marcos

Reply