Re: Yes, I'm back

On Sun, Jan 19, 2003 at 08:14:36PM -0500, James Landau wrote:
[snip]
> > Minor nit-pick: Jesus was most likely born B.C. 4-7, but you may have
> > already known that.
>
>  I've usually seen it given as "4 B.C.". (If you can think of any other way
> to express the would-be year 0 that marked the transition from B.C. to A.D.,
> tell me). Of course there had to be some significance to "0" too, or else why
> would anyone have started there if they knew he wasn't born at that point? Or
> did the extra four years just come when they switched over from the Julian to
> the Gregorian, or come about because they started the calendar sometime after
> Jesus' birth and were unable to count?
[snip]

I believe it's the latter. The (Gregorian) calendar was not instituted
until a number of years after Jesus' death, and apparently they
miscalculated (or had inaccurate information about) the year he was born.


T

--
All men are mortal. Socrates is mortal. Therefore all men are Socrates.