Re: Yes, I'm back
|From:||H. S. Teoh <hsteoh@...>|
|Date:||Monday, January 20, 2003, 1:28|
On Sun, Jan 19, 2003 at 08:14:36PM -0500, James Landau wrote:
> > 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.
All men are mortal. Socrates is mortal. Therefore all men are Socrates.