New

Before the use of Anno Domini dating (BCE/CE), how were years numbered?

Before the use of Anno Domini dating (BCE/CE), how were years numbered?


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Currently we use Anno Domini (A.D.) year numbering, sometimes secularized as "BCE" (Before Common Era) or "CE" (Common Era). What was the prevailing method of dating years in Western culture before this system came into use?


Prior to the adoption of the Anno Domini system, the main system of naming years was to refer to them as a given regnal year of the local ruler, or of a dominant nearby ruler (eg. the Roman Emperor). Specifically in Roman-dominated areas, the year was named after the two Consuls who took office that year. In a sense, Anno Domini is simply an extension of this, counting years of the "reign" of Jesus Christ.

If the Anno Domini system hadn't been adopted, the United States might refer to the current date as "December 13 of the sixth year of the Obama Presidency", while the British would describe it as "December 13 of the 62nd year of the reign of Elizabeth II".


(This answer-comment was originally posted as a comment when the post was locked and no open for questions.)

The use of Anno Domini ("in the year of our Lord") was first used in narrative history by Bede (although it had been used very slightly in some annals before that). It was invented, more or less, by Dionysus Exiguus (circa 470 - 544). Before Bede's use of it, there was no use of a year number in everyday use in western Europe. In other words, Anno Domini dating was original. The normal mode of specifying the year before that time (8th century) was by regnal years, or consular years (Rome), or Judges/Archons/Olympiads (Greece). Note that ancient historians sometimes used the Era of Nabonassar to do synchronisms.

When Rome collapsed and the consular dates no longer could be used, the Eastern (Byzantine) Empire adopted at first the era Anno Mundi beginning on 25 March 5493 BC, developed by scholars in Alexandria around 200 A.D., and now known as the "Alexandrian Era." Anno Mundi ("year of the world") posits a "date of creation" going forward from Adam and Eve. Later, in the 7th century, the Byzantines adopted a different Anno Mundi system based on the year 5509 B.C. and beginning on September 1.


Ab urbe condita, from the foundation of Rome, which is 753 BC.


Anno Domini

Anno Domini (Latin: "In the year of the Lord"), or more completely Anno Domini Nostri Iesu Christi ("in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ"), commonly abbreviated AD or A.D., is the designation used to number years in the dominant Christian Era in the world today. This is the conventional designation now used with the Julian and Gregorian calendars. It defines an epoch based on the traditionally reckoned year of the birth of Jesus. Years before the epoch were denoted a.C.n. (for Ante Christum Natum, Latin for "before the birth of Christ"), although BC (Before Christ) is now usually used in English. The Christian Era is the only system in everyday use in the Western World, and the main system for commercial and scientific use in the rest of the world. In academic historical and archaeological circles, particularly in the United States, the same epoch is sometimes referred to as the Common Era (CE) and the BC period as Before the Common Era (BCE).

While it is increasingly common to place AD after a date, by analogy to the use of BC, formal English usage adheres to the traditional practice of placing the abbreviation before the year, as in Latin (e.g., 100 BC, but AD 100).


1. Meaning

  • BC stands for “Before Christ” and represents the years before Christ was born
  • AD stands for “Anno Domini,” which is Latin for “the year of our Lord,” and represents the years after Christ was born
  • BCE stands for “Before Common Era,” “Before Christian Era,” or “Before Current Era” and represents the time before the last 2015 years (at the time this was written)
  • CE stands for “Common Era,” “Christian Era,” or “Current Era” and represents years 1–2015 (at the time this was written)

BC and BCE represent the same time frame, but with BCE, the religious aspect is removed. The same goes for AD and CE (the religious aspect is removed with CE).


BBC drops Anno Domini and Before Christ to avoid offending non-Christians

The BBC has been accused of bowing to political correctness after it emerged that it was discouraging the use of the terms BC and AD for fear of offending non-Christians.

The Corporation's religion website states that it opts for the "religiously neutral" Common Era and Before Common Era, rather than Anno Domini (the year of Our Lord) and Before Christ.

It goes on: "As the BBC is committed to impartiality it is appropriate that we use terms that do not offend or alienate non-Christians."

But critics said the changes were meaningless because, just like AD and BC, the alternative terms still denote years in relation to the life of Christ.

Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, the former Bishop of Rochester, said: "These changes are unnecessary and they don't achieve what the BBC wants them to achieve.

"Whether you use Common Era or Anno Domini, the date is actually still the same and the reference point is still the birth of Christ."

As well as the BBC's Religion and Ethics website, its Learning and GCSE Bitesize websites also use the alternative terms, which have also been used in some news bulletins and on some programmes.

The BBC said last night: "The BBC has not issued guidance on the dates system. Both AD and BC, and BE and BCE are widely accepted dates systems and the decision on which term to use lies with individual production and editorial teams."


THE TRUTH BEHIND ARMAGEDDON

T he Truth Behind Armageddon is the heart of eschatology and the DNA that defines the future of all humanity.

If you’ve seen the numerous Hollywood movies and television shows about the Apocalypse and Armageddon then you probably have an idea that it means the end of the world and all human life as we know it.

Armageddon is not an event it’s a place. The word Armageddon stems from the Hebrew Meggido or har Megiddo, where “har” means a mount or hill and “Megiddo” a place to invade. [1]

Historical reference in Nevi’im Rishonim lists Yehoshua ben Nun (1355-1245 BC) as a mighty warrior who defeats thirty one kings, one being the King of Megiddo. [ 2 ] The location is just South East of Mount Carmel, or Haifa in Israel, the Northern port city situated on the Mediterranean Sea. Currently Megiddo is an archaelogical dig site called the Megiddo Expedition. [ 3 ]

Below are goals of the Tel Aviv excavations according to their website:

  • Recheck stratigraphy and chronology and strengthen the role of Megiddo as the key site for deciphering the history and culture of the Bronze and Iron Ages in the Levant and beyond.
  • Re-investigate monuments exposed in the past: their date and cultural affiliation.
  • Make Megiddo a laboratory for advancing new methods and techniques, especially those related to the exact and life sciences, such as physics-related dating methods, ancient DNA and geo-archaeology.

We know a great deal more about the Levant ( Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, Palestine ) than we did twenty years ago thanks to dig sites like the Megiddo Excavation. Historically there have been many battles around the Megiddo location where millions of lives have ended through sword and war.

Armageddon is not the end of the world, but an end of society as we know it. Found in the book of Revelation, the location is notorious for where the worlds armies gather together for the final cataclysmic battle. This event, called by many “the tribulation period,” includes many theories of when and how this occurs and the characters involved in the fate of such.

As I write this I am combing through a Time magazine article from 2002 called, “The Bible and the Apocalypse,” where the discussion centers around the widely popular End Times book series by Evangelist pastor Tim LaHaye and author Jerry Jenkins. Some fifty million copies of the books were sold sparking new interest in Bible prophecy and eschatology (end times) discussion. [5]

Although a fictional portrayal, many of the beliefs today in the Christian mindset emanate from the theory of the books twenty years ago.

As in any portrayal of events, people will literally believe what they read, or see, without knowing or researching the history or facts surrounding the topic. As a child I believed that light sabers from Star Wars were real. My mind knew that space battles and Chewbacca were fake, but my enormous enjoyment of the story overpowered my sense of reality.

I remember late one night… I must have been nine years old at the time, a beam of light peering through the shade of my room and reflecting on the wall, appearing as if it were – a light saber. While standing on my bed in my super hero jammies, I physically tried to grab the light saber off the wall several times. You can imagine my disappointment as I grabbed at the empty hologram of light. I wanted it to be real. I wanted that light saber to fight Darth Vader!

Similarly, much is true for American society. We believe the history of America we learn in grade school and we believe the commercial propaganda that is fed to us daily by corporations intent on maximizing profits for NYSE stability. Companies advertise to sell products whether the information is legitimate or not.

All that matters is that you believe in the advertising, the story, or whatever is being sold to you. The end result is the same concerning Armageddon and tribulation, a belief based on fictional stories and theories that sell books and accentuate the imagination.

The book of Revelation vividly depicts the horrors of judgment upon mankind during the Armageddon days with direct intervention by HaMashiach Eashoa (Jesus the Messiah) to stop the total annihilation of all cultures. The events leading up to this devastating battle are overwhelming, and what you read may very well change the way you view your future. This chain of events could very well happen in your lifetime.

Therefore, let’s investigate Armageddon from written prophecy, not fictional theory. All the information herein is laid out as accepted historical fact with new insights based on thorough research previously unknown. Any personal theory on the authors behalf will be stated as such. In other words, if I have a personal opinion, I’ll make note that it’s my speculation, rather than fact.

Now let us take hold of the mystery of the Revelation of John. The calamity that will take place is called Yom YHWH in Hebrew and translated as the Day of the Lord. This is the fear and joy of all humanity. Take to heart what is said for ¾ of the prophecy is history, what remains will come to pass.

Calendars & Analytic Dating

BEFORE we jump into the historical aspects of places and events we first need to define the dating system that expose the era. There are three dating systems employed for historical use:

  • Anno Domini (Julian & Gregorian Calendar): BC / AD [ 6 ]
  • Common or Current Era: BCE / CE
  • Jewish Calendar based on Hebrew Lunar Year

Now there are differences in dating terminology and belief of such. If you are secular, anti-religious, or simply do not believe in God you stick to the CE (Common Era) phrase of dating, which is fine, but historically inaccurate. This is a 20 th century practice by anti-religious academia.

Reading any prominent university reference to the term CE and the date in which the term CE came about, generally say, “before the 18 th century,” which is absolute rubbish. The only historical reference of CE before the 19 th century relates to the following: [ 7 ]

  • Anno Salutis (the year of salvation)
  • Anno Salutis Humanae (in the year of the salvation of men)
  • Anno Reparatae Salutis (in the year of accomplished salvation)
  • Era Vulgaris (common people, by which we compute the years from Christs incarnation)

All CE terms above reference a time frame when a savior was born. The term Common Era is found in use within the 20 th century by academia who oppose the belief in a deity or Jesus as the Son of God. The term is taken from vulgar people referencing common people from the birth of Christ.

Either way you have it, all dates from Gregorian or Julian Calendars reference the birth of Christ as the historical measure of all events in time since the 6 th century and indisputable as such. The Gregorian Calendar merely updates the Julian Calendar and leap years by the 16 th century. [ 8 ]

Now there are two sides of the fence when it comes to the Gregorian calendar. Of course with anything defining Jesus at the center of all things there will be controversy. Secular and anti-Christian academia is currently at war with history, as the Gregorian dates all events in time based on the birth of the Messiah – they don’t like that.

On one side of the fence you have the secular world who do not believe in a creator God and are offended that all dates pertain to that which they do not believe. You also have anti-Christian Judaism who prefer the secular BCE/CE based on rejecting Jesus as the Messiah. I being of Jewish lineage, understand the fact that Orthodox Judaism rejects the historically accurate B.C. / A.D., due to saying, “Year of our Lord.”

Common sense tells you that Jewish scholars reject writing “Year of our Lord” based on prejudice to the fact this points to the birth of Christ, of which they reject. It’s much easier to say, “BCE/CE is more accurate,” rather than say, “as Orthodox Jews, we reject Jesus, and reject any calendar dating all events of time from His birth.”

To which the only other method is to reference the Roman Julian Calendar as decreed by Julius Caesar the very culture that massacred the Jews and destroyed the Beit HaMikdash or Holy Temple in Jerusalem. You see the quandary here.

On the other side of the fence you have those who believe in Jesus as HaMashiach (the anointed Messiah) and the dominant dating system of mankind (accepted since AD 1582), the Gregorian Calendar, which revolves around this fact and belief.

The majority of the world lives and dies under the Gregorian Calendar. The state of Israel today recognizes and uses both the Jewish Calendar alongside the Gregorian Calendar as YHWH has made it that way – indisputable.

For the human timeline that maps history there is only one significant historical event and is why the worlds dating system revolves around this time – it was the birth of the savior of mankind, Eashoa, or the English translation, Jesus the Mashiach of YHWH.

Anno Domini designates all dates preceding the birth of Christ as BC, (before Christ) and from birth as AD within this documentation. All events in time, Julian/Gregorian are based from the birth of Jesus, the anointed Son of YHWH.

Furthermore, in the English world, everyone must use Jesus’ timeline for all events in history regardless if you say CE or AD, unless you are referencing an ancient calendar previous to two thousand years ago. At any rate, no one would know what you were referencing even if you did.

If you wish to discuss any topic in time, you lack the luxury of dating from Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan, King Tut, or Moses. In the modern world the only date acceptable on paper is from the birth of Jesus the Messiah, whether you agree to it or not.

No other person in history claimed to be the savior of all mankind, perform miracles, raise the dead, come back to life, and start a worldwide religion that includes over two billion followers today – I would say it was a significant date in time and why the universal calendar agrees. [ 9 ]

Moreover, I find it quite childish that modern academia argue reality through updating historical books to fit the Before Common Era narrative. Those in the business of historical novel are constantly manipulating educational text book through changing the dating terminology to suit their personal view.

Many attempts have been utilized to eradicate the BC/AD terminology, such as changing the timeline to reference Roman dominion, rather than Jesus of Nazareth – to no avail. Sure, college institution and academia generally do not use BC or AD, but this in no way negates the fact that each era anyone authors or describes is based on time going forward, or backward, from the birth of Christ.

It doesn’t matter if you use CE or AD – either way, you are referencing the time from the birth and resurrection of the Messiah. No amount of arguing, manipulating or changing date abbreviations, will eradicate this truth and reality. That’s the way YHWH made it – unbreakable.

In this documentation, I am merely using the historically accurate designations (used for over a thousand years regardless of what academia tells you) and may reference the newer anti-religious secular CE designations.

The Jewish calendar is used alongside the Gregorian Calendar and lunisolar. The calendar revolves around Jewish holidays, festivals, and events based within Tanakh or Old Testament to the Christian community.

“The Jewish calendar is based on three astronomical phenomena: the rotation of the Earth about its axis (a day) the revolution of the moon about the Earth (a month) and the revolution of the Earth about the sun (a year).” [ 10 ]

Unlike Anno Domini, the historical reference of the year in the Jewish calendar is based on adding up the ages of people within Tanakh and arriving at a creation point. The date of creation of the world has changed multiple times in Jewish history, of which will be discussed in later chapter.

Today in the Gregorian calendar it is June 18, 2019. In the Jewish calendar it is Sivan 15, 5779. According to Jewish philosophy, creation began 5,779 years ago. Some believe this literally, others have a more theory of relativity approach to it. Regardless of belief, archaeologically the earth is about 4.5 billion years old according to measuring radioactive element decay. [ 11 ]

Radiocarbon dating was discovered in the 20 th century. Laboratory analysis is performed through methods such as Accelerator Mass Spectrometer (AMS) and Liquid Scintillation Counter (LSC) and known as Carbon 14 dating. [ 12 ]

Carbon 14 is an unstable, radioactive isotope of the element Carbon which forms into Carbon Dioxide and assimilated by plant life. The decay of the plant after it dies can be measured through the law of radioactive decay as disintegrations per second as seen in Table 1. [ 13 ]

(Number of nuclei) N = N.e -λt (Activity) A = A.e -λt (Mass) m = m.e -λt

Isotope Half Life Decay Constant (s -1 )
Uranium 238 4.5吆 9 years 5吆 -18
Plutonium 239 2.4吆 4 years 9.2吆 -13
Carbon 14 5570 years 3.9吆 -12
Radium 226 1622 years 1.35吆 -11
Free neutron 239 15 minutes 1.1吆 -3
Radon 220 52 seconds 1.33吆 -2
Lithium 8 .84 seconds .825
Bismuth 214 1.6吆 -4 seconds 4.33吆 3
Lithium 8 6吆 -20 seconds 1.2吆 19

Bottomline, the time frame it takes for an element to break down can be measured through the Bateman equations, formulated by Henry Bateman in 1910. Bateman defined his equations as nuclide serial decay, of which is measured computationally through ORIGEN computer code. [ 1 5 ]

In 1960, Willard Libby was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry as a result of his detection of radiocarbon in organic samples and his establishment of 5,568 years (half life) as a rate of decay. [ 1 6 ] Unlike religion, there is not much room here for debate. God gave us gravity and the ability to date rocks and bones, of which all can be measured.

The three dating systems will be referenced for all topics discussed based on the event of occurrence, archaeological significance, and calculating past/future prophecy. Carbon 14 dating will be addressed for any related physical discovery, such as bladed weapons or existing ancient manuscript.


The Heart and Soul of Aztlan

Anno Domini
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"AD" redirects here. For other uses, see AD (disambiguation).
Dionysius Exiguus invented Anno Domini years to date Easter.
Dionysius Exiguus invented Anno Domini years to date Easter.

Anno Domini [1] (Medieval Latin: In the year of the/(Our) Lord),[2][3] abbreviated as AD or A.D., is a designation used to number years in the Christian Era, conventionally used with the Julian and Gregorian calendars.[4][not in citation given] More fully, years may be also specified as Anno Domini Nostri Iesu (Jesu) Christi ("In the Year of Our Lord Jesus Christ").

The calendar era which it numbers is based on the traditionally reckoned year of the conception or birth of Jesus. Before Christ, abbreviated as BC or B.C., is used in the English language to denote years before the start of this epoch.

Though the Anno Domini dating system was devised in 525, it was not until the 8th century that the system began to be adopted in Western Europe. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, even popes continued to date documents according to regnal years, and usage of AD only gradually became more common in Europe from the 11th to the 14th centuries.[5] In 1422, Portugal became the last Western European country to adopt the Anno Domini system.[5]

Year numbering using the Anno Domini system (or its related Common Era (CE) designation) is the most widespread numbering system in the world today. For decades, it has been the unofficial global standard, recognized by international institutions such as the United Nations and the Universal Postal Union. Its preeminence is due to the European colonisation of the Americas and the subsequent global spread of Western civilisation with the introduction of European standards in the fields of science and administration. Its association with the Gregorian calendar was another factor which promoted the spread of the numbering system.

Traditionally, English copied Latin usage by placing the abbreviation before the year number for AD, but after the year number for BC for example: 64 BC, but AD 2008. However, placing the AD after the year number (as in 2008 AD) is now also common. The abbreviation is also widely used after the number of a century or millennium, as in 4th century AD or 2nd millennium AD, despite the inappropriate literal combination in this case ("in the 4th century in the year of Our Lord").

Because B.C. is an abbreviation for Before Christ, some people incorrectly conclude that A.D. must mean After Death, i.e., after the death of Jesus.[6]
Contents
[hide]

* 1 History
o 1.1 Accuracy
o 1.2 Popularization
* 2 Synonyms
o 2.1 Common Era
o 2.2 Anno Salutis
* 3 Numbering of years
* 4 Notes and references
* 5 External links

Further information: Calendar era

During the first six centuries of what would come to be known as the Christian era, European countries used various systems to count years. Systems in use included consular dating, imperial regnal year dating, and Creation dating.

Although the last non-imperial consul, Basilius, was appointed in 541 by Justinian I, later emperors through Constans II (641�) were appointed consuls on the first January 1 after their accession. All of these emperors, except Justinian, used imperial postconsular years for all of the years of their reign alongside their regnal years.[7] Long unused, this practice was not formally abolished until Novell xciv of the law code of Leo VI did so in 888.

The Anno Domini system was devised by a monk named Dionysius Exiguus (born in Scythia Minor) in Rome in 525. In his Easter table Dionysius equates the year AD 532 with the regnal year 284 of Emperor Diocletian. In Argumentum I attached to this table he equates the year AD 525 with the consulate of Probus Junior.[8] He thus implies that Jesus' Incarnation occurred 525 years earlier, without stating the specific year during which his birth or conception occurred.

"However, nowhere in his exposition of his table does Dionysius relate his epoch to any other dating system, whether consulate, Olympiad, year of the world, or regnal year of Augustus much less does he explain or justify the underlying date."[9]

Blackburn & Holford-Strevens briefly present arguments for 2 BC, 1 BC, or AD 1 as the year Dionysius intended for the Nativity or Incarnation.

Among the sources of confusion are:[10]

* In modern times Incarnation is synonymous with conception, but some ancient writers, such as Bede, considered Incarnation to be synonymous with the Nativity
* The civil, or consular year began on 1 January but the Diocletian year began on 29 August
* There were inaccuracies in the list of consuls
* There were confused summations of emperors' regnal years

Two centuries later, the Anglo-Saxon historian Bede used another Latin term, "ante uero incarnationis dominicae tempus" ("the time before the Lord's true incarnation"), equivalent to the English "before Christ", to identify years before the first year of this era. [11]

Another calculation had been developed by the Alexandrian monk Annianus around the year AD 400, placing the Annunciation on March 25, AD 9 (Julian)—eight to ten years after the date that Dionysius was to imply. Although this Incarnation was popular during the early centuries of the Byzantine Empire, years numbered from it, an Era of Incarnation, was only used, and is still only used, in Ethiopia, accounting for the eight- or seven-year discrepancy between the Gregorian and the Ethiopian calendars. Byzantine chroniclers like Maximus the Confessor, George Syncellus and Theophanes dated their years from Annianus' Creation of the World. This era, called Anno Mundi, "year of the world" (abbreviated AM), by modern scholars, began its first year on 25 March 5492 BC. Later Byzantine chroniclers used Anno Mundi years from September 1 5509 BC, the Byzantine Era. No single Anno Mundi epoch was dominant throughout the Christian world.

"Although scholars generally believe that Christ was born some years before A.D. 1, the historical evidence is too sketchy to allow a definitive dating".[12] According to the Gospel of Matthew (2:1,16) Herod the Great was alive when Jesus was born, and ordered the Massacre of the Innocents in response to his birth. Blackburn & Holford-Strevens fix Herod's death shortly before Passover in 4 BC,[13] and say that those who accept the story of the Massacre of the Innocents sometimes associate the star that led the Biblical Magi with the planetary conjunction of 15 September 7 BC or Halley's comet of 12 BC even historians who do not accept the Massacre accept the birth under Herod as a tradition older than the written gospels.[14]

The Gospel of Luke (1:5) states that John the Baptist was at least conceived, if not born, under Herod, and that Jesus was conceived while John's mother was in the sixth month of her pregnancy (1:26). Luke's Gospel also states that Jesus was born during the reign of Augustus and while Cyrenius (or Quirinius) was the governor of Syria (2:1𔃀). Blackburn and Holford-Strevens[13] indicate Cyrenius/Quirinius' governorship of Syria began in AD 6, which is incompatible with conception in 4 BC, and say that "St. Luke raises greater difficulty. Most critics therefore discard Luke".[14] Some scholars rely on John's Gospel to place Christ's birth in c.18 BC.[14]

The first historian or chronicler to use Anno Domini as his primary dating mechanism was Victor of Tonnenna, an African chronicler of the 6th century. A few generations later, the Anglo-Saxon historian Bede, who was familiar with the work of Dionysius, also used Anno Domini dating in his Ecclesiastical History of the English People, finished in 731. In this same history, he was the first to use the Latin equivalent of before Christ and established the standard for historians of no year zero, even though he used zero in his computus. Both Dionysius and Bede regarded Anno Domini as beginning at the incarnation of Jesus, but "the distinction between Incarnation and Nativity was not drawn until the late 9th century, when in some places the Incarnation epoch was identified with Christ's conception, i.e., the Annunciation on 25 March" (Annunciation style).[15]

On the continent of Europe, Anno Domini was introduced as the era of choice of the Carolingian Renaissance by Alcuin. This endorsement by Charlemagne and his successors popularizing the usage of the epoch and spreading it throughout the Carolingian Empire ultimately lies at the core of the system's prevalence until present times.

Outside the Carolingian Empire, Spain continued to date by the Era of the Caesars, or Spanish Era, which began counting from 38 BC, well into the Middle Ages,. The Era of Martyrs, which numbered years from the accession of Diocletian in 284, who launched the last yet most severe persecution of Christians, was used by the Church of Alexandria, and is still used officially by the Coptic church. It also used to be used by the Ethiopian church. Another system was to date from the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, which as early as Hippolytus and Tertullian was believed to have occurred in the consulate of the Gemini (AD 29), which appears in the occasional medieval manuscript. Most Syriac manuscripts written at the end of the 19th century still gave the date in the end-note using the "year of the Greeks" (Anno Graecorum = Seleucid era).[citation needed]

Even though Anno Domini was in widespread use by the 9th century, Before Christ (or its equivalent) did not become widespread until the late 15th century.[16]

Anno Domini is sometimes referred to as the Common Era, Christian Era or Current Era (abbreviated as C.E. or CE). CE is often preferred by those who desire a term unrelated to religious conceptions of time. For example, Cunningham and Starr (1998) write that "B.C.E./C.E. . do not presuppose faith in Christ and hence are more appropriate for interfaith dialog than the conventional B.C./A.D." The People's Republic of China, founded in 1949, adopted Western years, calling that era gōngyuán (公元) which literally means Common Era.

Anno Salutis (Latin: "in the year of salvation") was the term sometimes used in place of Anno Domini until the 18th century. In all other respects it operated on the same epoch, reference date, which is the Incarnation of Jesus. It was used by fervent Christians to spread the message that the birth of Jesus saved mankind from eternal damnation. It was often used in a more elaborate form such as Anno Nostrae Salutis (meaning: "in the year of our salvation"), Anno Salutis Humanae (meaning: "in the year of the salvation of men"), or Anno Reparatae Salutis (meaning: "in the year of accomplished salvation").

Common usage omits year zero. This creates a problem with some scientific calculations. Accordingly, in astronomical year numbering, a zero year is added before AD 1, and the 'AD' and 'BC' designation is dropped. In keeping with 'standard decimal numbering', a minus sign '−' is added for years before year zero: so counting down from year 2 would give 2, 1, 0, 𕒵, 𕒶, and so on. This results in a one-year shift between the two systems (eg 𕒵 equals 2 BC).[17]

[edit] Notes and references

* Abate, Frank R(ed.) (1997). Oxford Pocket Dictionary and Thesaurus, American ed., New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-513097-9.
* Bede. (731). Historiam ecclesiasticam gentis Anglorum. Accessed 2007-12-07.
* Blackburn, Bonnie Leofranc Holford-Strevens (2003). The Oxford companion to the Year: An exploration of calendar customs and time-reckoning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-214231-3. (reprinted & corrected, originally published 1999)
* Cunningham, Philip A Starr, Arthur F (1998). Sharing Shalom: A Process for Local Interfaith Dialogue Between Christians and Jews. Paulist Press. ISBN 0-8091-3835-2.
* Declercq, Georges (2000). Anno Domini: The origins of the Christian era. Turnhout: Brepols. ISBN 2-503-51050-7. (despite beginning with 2, it is English)
* Declercq, G. "Dionysius Exiguus and the Introduction of the Christian Era". Sacris Erudiri 41 (2002): 165�. An annotated version of part of Anno Domini.
* Doggett. (1992). "Calendars" (Ch. 12), in P. Kenneth Seidelmann (Ed.) Explanatory supplement to the astronomical almanac. Sausalito, CA: University Science Books. ISBN 0-935702-68-7.
* Richards, E. G. (2000). Mapping Time. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-286205-7.
* Riggs, John (January-February 2003). Whatever happened to B.C. and A.D., and why?. United Church News. Retrieved on December 19, 2005.
* Ryan, Donald P. (2000). The Complete Idiot's Guide to Biblical Mysteries. Alpha Books, p 15. ISBN 002863831X.
* TaiwanCalender Class (System.Globalization). Microsoft Corp. (2006). Retrieved on September 10, 2006.

[edit] External links
Look up AD, Anno Domini in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

* The Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v. "General Chronology"

[show]
v • d • e
Chronology
Major subjects Time · Astronomy · Geology · Paleontology · Archaeology · History
Portal:TimeTime Portal
Eras and Epochs Calendar Eras: Ab urbe condita · Anno Domini / Common Era · Anno Mundi · Spanish era · Before Present · Hijri

Egyptian · Sothic cycle · Hindu time cycles · Vedic time-cycles
Regnal year: Canon of Kings · King lists · Limmu · Seleucid era · Era name: Chinese · Japanese · Korean
Calendars Pre-Julian Roman · Original Julian · Proleptic Julian · Revised Julian

Gregorian · Proleptic Gregorian · Old Style and New Style

Lunisolar · Solar · Lunar · Islamic · Chinese sexagenary cycle
Astronomical year numbering · ISO week date
Astronomic time
and techniques Astronomical chronology · Cosmic Calendar · Ephemeris · Galactic year · Metonic cycle · Milankovitch cycles
Geologic time
and techniques Deep time · Geological history · Eon · Eras · Periods · Faunal stage
Chronostratigraphy · Geochronology · Isotope geochemistry · Law of superposition · Optical dating · Samarium-neodymium dating
Archaeological techniques Dating methodology

Absolute dating · Incremental dating · Archaeomagnetic dating · Dendrochronology · Glottochronology · Ice_core · Lichenometry · Paleomagnetism · Radiocarbon dating · Radiometric dating · Tephrochronology · Thermoluminescence dating · Uranium-lead dating
Relative dating · Seriation · Stratification
Genetic techniques Amino acid dating · Molecular clock
Related topics Chronicle · New Chronology · Periodization · Synchronoptic view · Timeline · Year zero
Circa · Floruit
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini"
Categories: Calendar eras | Christian history | Christianity-related controversies | Chronology | Latin religious phrases | Time
Hidden categories: All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced statements since February 2008 | Articles with unsourced statements since January 2007
Views

* Article
* Discussion
* Edit this page
* History

* Main Page
* Contents
* Featured content
* Current events
* Random article

* About Wikipedia
* Community portal
* Recent changes
* Contact Wikipedia
* Donate to Wikipedia
* Help

* What links here
* Related changes
* Upload file
* Special pages
* Printable version
* Permanent link
* Cite this page

* Alemannisch
* Català
* Česky
* Dansk
* Deutsch
* Español
* Suomi
* Français
* Gaeilge
* Bahasa Indonesia
* Íslenska
* Italiano
* עברית
* 日本語
* Latina
* മലയാളം
* Malti
* Nederlands
* ‪Norsk (bokmål)‬
* Polski
* Português
* Русский
* Scots
* Simple English
* Svenska
* Kiswahili
* தமிழ்
* ไทย
* Türkçe
* Українська
* Tiếng Việt
* 粵語
* 中文


Jude and Enochs Prophesy

In Jude v14 we read Enoch's prophesy - this is taken from the apocryphal book of Enoch. Do you think that the book of Enoch is divinely inspired? Similarly, Bunyan was converted when an unknown text came to him which it turned out was from the apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus.

I don't believe that the apocrypha is inspired but at the same time I'm not sure how to account for references to these books in scripture. So I thought I would pass to those of you more learned in these matters than me!

Rich Koster

Puritan Board Post-Graduate

LBC 1689 (updated language)

1.3 The books commonly called the Apocrypha were not given by divine inspiration, and are not part of the canon or rule of Scripture. Therefore they have no authority in the church of God, nor are they to be accepted or made use of in any way different from other human writings.1

1.4 Holy Scripture demands belief, yet its authority does not depend on the testimony of any person or church,1 but entirely on God its author, who is truth itself. Therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God.2

(1) Luk 16:27-31 Gal 1:8-9 Eph 2:20
(2) 2Ti 3:15 Rom 1:2 3:2 Act 2:16 4:25 Mat 13:35 Rom 9:17 Gal 3:8 Rom 15:4 1Co 10:11 Mat 22:32 Luk 16:17 Mat 22:41ff Joh 10:35 Gal 3:16 Act 1:16 2:24ff 13:34-35 Joh 19:34-36 19:24 Luk 22:37 Mat 26:54 Joh 13:18 2Ti 3:16 2Pe 1:19-21 Mat 5:17-18 4:1-11

He beholds

Puritan Board Doctor

Could Enoch have been written after Jude? And the author tried to capitalize on the mention? Sorry, I have no clue!

Also, I am sure that truth could reside in the apocryphal books, just as it could reside [almost] anywhere. So perhaps that part of the book of Enoch was true, though the book wasn't an inspired book?

Saintandsinner77

Puritan Board Freshman

In John Gill's Commentary, he says:

"that Enoch wrote a prophecy, and left it behind him in writing, does not appear from hence, or elsewhere the Jews, in some of their writings, do cite and make mention of the book of Enoch and there is a fragment now which bears his name, but is a spurious piece, and has nothing like this prophecy in it wherefore Jude took this not from a book called the "Apocalypse of Enoch", but from tradition this prophecy being handed down from age to age and was in full credit with the Jews, and therefore the apostle very appropriately produces it or rather he had it by divine inspiration, and is as follows. "

Grimmson

Puritan Board Sophomore

There were several different books of Enoch that was floating around in the Jewish Pseudepigraphical writings. Even though I do not have my notes on hand, regarding the particulars of the Ethiopic, Slavonic, and Hebrew editions, there are a few things I can say regarding the history of the texts at hand. The Slavonic edition is probably translated from a Greek text dating near first century B.C.E. to about the first century C.E. The Hebrew edition is a much later text, because it was written about the fifth or sixth century C.E. Now the Ethiopic edition is the interesting edition and the one that the Jude quote is referring to and a text that Tertullian thought was scripture:

“I am aware that the Scripture of Enoch, which has assigned this order (of action) to angels, is not received by some, because it is not admitted into the Jewish canon either. I suppose they did not think that, having been published before the deluge, it could have safely survived that world-wide calamity, the abolisher of all things. If that is the reason (for rejecting it), let them recall to their memory that Noah, the survivor of the deluge, was the great-grandson of Enoch himself and he, of course, had heard and remembered, from domestic renown and hereditary tradition, concerning his own great-grandfather’s ‘grace in the sight of God,’ and concerning all his preachings since Enoch had given no other charge to Methuselah than that he should hand on the knowledge of them to his posterity…

If (Noah) had not had this (conservative power) by so short a route, there would (still) be this (consideration) to warrant our assertion of (the genuineness of) this Scripture: he could equally have renewed it, under the Spirit’s inspiration, after it had been destroyed by the violence of the deluge, as, after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonian storming of it, every document of the Jewish literature is generally agreed to have been restored through Ezra.
But since Enoch in the same Scripture has preached likewise concerning the Lord, nothing at all must be rejected by us which pertains to us and we read that ‘every Scripture suitable for edification is divinely inspired.’ By the Jews it may now seem to have been rejected for that (very) reason, just like all the other (portions) nearly which tell of Christ. Nor, of course, is this fact wonderful, that they did not receive some Scriptures which spake of Him whom even in person, speaking in their presence, they were not to receive. To these considerations is added the fact that Enoch possesses a testimony in the Apostle Jude.” -From De cultu Feminarum 1.3, pages 15-16 of the second edition of ANF, vol. 4.

I would say that the date of the text should fall around the third and was added to progressively in the second century BCE. Thus, dating it prior to Jude. Jude would have known of the text, as with those that hide the Dead Sea Scrolls ( I do not want to go into the Qumran debate right now), since it has been one of the finds (4Q201) as a fragment. If you want more details on this text then let me find my notes and ask away.

By the way, I am not saying that Enoch is scriptural. Nor would I suggest that it should be seen as scriptural, because I do not. I am just pointing out some of it’s history and the view of its acceptedness.

Saintandsinner77

Puritan Board Freshman

BCE and CE? I thought this was a Christian forum- unbelieving academics came up with those abbreviations to replace BC and AD- History revolves around the Lord!

LawrenceU

Puritan Board Doctor

Awretchsavedbygrace

Puritan Board Sophomore

Grimmson

Puritan Board Sophomore

BCE and CE? I thought this was a Christian forum- unbelieving academics came up with those abbreviations to replace BC and AD- History revolves around the Lord!

This thread is to deal with Enoch and Jude 14-15. It is not meant to deal with the issue of convention for numerical historical dating, which is why I do not think it should be an issue in this thread. If someone wants to discuss the use of B.C. E. (Before Common Era) vs. B.C.(Before Christ) by people, namely academics, then I suggest starting a new thread. Since non-Christians are on the web and may come to this thread and see this issue raised I will briefly deal with it once, and no more here.

Some of you here on this board know that I am engaged in working on a master’s degree in historical theology. Therefore I must engage with material on an academic level, including monographs and journals. If one takes a look at my personal notes you would see B.C.E., B.C., A.D., and C.E. commonly used. In my academic training I have found that I am more likely in recent years to use the current standard of dating, just like in my papers I am more likely going to use a Kate Turabian or Chicago style format of writing. It is just an issue of a common convention, it is not to communicate against the notion that history does not “revolve around” our “Lord.” This is not an attempt to be unbiased with my theological beliefs, but to communicate facts objectively within the current formatted accepted structure. Whether or not one uses B.C.E. or B.C., the dates still revolves upon the birth of our Lord, that has not changed. In fact the use of Common era or Vulgar era (sometimes as “Aerae” or combined as “aerae vulgaris”) is not a recent phenomenon in the history of reporting history. One example of this use of the vulgar era comes from the son of Westminster divine Edmond Prideaux, Humphrey Prideaux. Humphrey, named after his father’s brother and a highly educated man himself as a holding a doctor of divinity and holding the position as a dean of Norwich, wrote in The Old and New Testament connected in the History of the Jews and Neighbouring Nations (c. 1716) used the term vulgar era at least six times in his work. And of course vulgar does mean common. The following is in his own words and spelling:

When he goes into the history of “Anno Domini” I find it interesting that he does not call it Anno Domini or A.D. for short. But to be fair he does use “Anno Domini” once on page 513 of his text.

I have read that Johannes Kepler used the term vulgar era in his work on celestial motion (Ephemerides novae motuum coelestium, ab anno vulgaris aerae ), and thus predating Humphrey usage of it. I have also read that Johannes Clericus, the famous swiss theologian, used it as well such as in his 1701 work called the Harmony of the Gospels. This is not to say that the man was orthodox under reformed ideals of his time though, it is just the observation of his use of the vulgar era that I find interesting.

The use of vulgar would drop off the map by the nineteenth century due to its negative connotation then and even to this day. Common era, as a non-translated version of vulgar era, was also used in the 18th century as can be observed by the Jan. 1708 tenth volume of The History of the Works of the Learned, page 513, found here at The History of the works of the . - Google Books.

There are other examples that can be found in the 18th and 19th century. Therefore its usage is not a new activity from historians or theologians that wish to take a secularized position of historical dating. I think the main reason why Christians react so violently against the A.D. to C.E. is not due to a subjective lack of Christian influence, but because they not use to or comfortable with change such as the case with the demotion of Pluto as a planet. Also another issue to point out is the reason why common era or vulgar era was used. It was probably due to the wide spread influence of Christianity on society and culture as common and therefore expresses it under a temporal dating system. Of course such a common influence is not necessarily the case today by secular standards and thus has a different meaning. Christian influence still exists for if it did not then there would be the need for a complete change in all the dates in all the modern history books and I think people are a little to lazy to do that. Therefore we can still see a Christian influence in our dating system.
And on another note, Anno Domini is not scriptural as it relates to dating for the church. There is nowhere in the Bible that says we must use Anno Domini or A.D., or even B.C. for that matter. Therefore you cannot bind anyone’s conscience by the church to the use of A.D., Anno Domini, or even C.E. for that matter. It should be left up to individual conscience of the believer in the church and how they interact in topics of history with professional historians. The use of C.E., not as an abbreviation but as what the abbreviation stands for, is not denying the faith and has a precedent of use before anyone in this board was even born even though it may not have been as popular or common in days past.

My personal use of B.C.E. or C.E. was not purposeful to be academic or to go against any of my brothers or sisters here. I was just addressing Jessica’s question quickly, and it was the first system that popped in my mind to use out of general inconsistent habit. If A.D. popped in my mind first then that what I would probably use, but I didn’t. However, if I am going to be criticized on this issue (which I am not personnally critical of people using A.D.) and not on the doctrines that I believe, then I may need to use C.E. or B.C.E more often on here because this in not an issue of canonical scripture in my option. None of our books of the Bible were originally written in Latin, and during the time when our Lord walked upon this earth Anno Domini was never used in relation to himself. The push for Christians to use Anno Domini or A.D. may in fact backfire against use and prove to the world that we are more concerned over non-biblical traditions then we are about peace and charity, or even the gospel. We should pick our fights carefully as a church, and those fights must be grounded in scripture and the truth of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. I will remind you all now that if you want to discuss this further then start a new thread.
Now let us go back to discussing 1 Enoch and Jude.

I personally do not find 1 Enoch boring at all. In fact I recommend reading it if you are interested in patristic history and the history of exegesis/hermeneutics such as the interpretation of Genesis 6:1-7 (corresponding also Antiquity of the Jews by Josephus). Some people actually use to think that the work was authoritative. Therefore they would apply it to their own thinking. Also reads works like 1 and 2 Maccabees, which also had a deep impact on Christianity for a long time. I remember reading a sermon by Chrysostom over the Maccabees as martyrs. I think we live in am age where we are disconnected with the ancients and their way of thinking. Where we find new ideas outweigh older ideas of interpretation. We sometimes read these ancient texts, like Plato’s Timaeus on origins or the Gnostic Apocryphon of John and we get lost. And because we are getting lost, we then become bored with the text. I can see ideas of Timaeus within Origen, the Gnostics, Augustine, and even Ephrem( see his commentary on Genesis). I can slightly see how Gnostics interpreted Genesis 1-3 based on lexemes of various words in the LXX. This in turn educates me in how they were thinking about various texts. And the best part is if you search now, you can find some of these texts for free, whether it be online or in your local public library. You do not need to pay for it. Now with this said, I want to make it clear that collections of works like the Apocrypha are not scripture and should not be confused with scripture. Reading these works however helps us to interpert how some of the ancients interpreted scripture when we read their commentaries, which I recommend here for everyone to do, including pastors.

Scott’s question was indeed a good question, was Apocryphal literature in play? The people here have probably never heard of the text the Assumption of Moses, whereby we have a story of the devil confroting Michael over the body of Moses. We have no scriptural book that back’s that story up outside of Jude 9. I think Jude was influenced by the Apocryphal literature of his day. Even though it influenced Jude that does not mean we accept fully Enoch 1 or the Assumption of Moses as part of the canon of the church.
Hopefully this as been informative and a useful post to all who are interested.


Scienze Comunicazione

'''Anno Domini''' (Free ringtones Latin: "In the year of the Lord"), or more completely '''Anno Domini Nostri Jesu Christi''' ("in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ"), commonly abbreviated '''AD''' or '''A.D.''', is the designation used to number years in the dominant '''Christian Era''' in the world today. This is the conventional designation now used with the Majo Mills Julian calendar/Julian and Mosquito ringtone Gregorian calendars. It defines an Sabrina Martins epoch based on the traditionally reckoned year of the birth of Nextel ringtones Jesus. Years before the epoch were denoted ''a.C.n.'' (for ''Ante Christum Natum'', Latin for "before the birth of Christ"), although '''BC''' (Before Christ) is now usually used in Abbey Diaz English language/English. The Christian Era is the only system in everyday use in the Free ringtones Western World, and the main system for commercial and scientific use in the rest of the world. In academic historical and archaeological circles, particularly in Majo Mills USA/America, the same epoch is sometimes referred to as the Mosquito ringtone Common Era (''CE'') and the BC period as Sabrina Martins Before the Common Era (''BCE'').

While it is increasingly common to place ''AD'' after a date, by analogy to the use of ''BC'', formal English usage adheres to the traditional practice of placing the abbreviation before the year, as in Latin (e.g., Cingular Ringtones 100 BC, but armstrong main 100/AD 100).

is tryall image:scriptorium.jpg/frame/confidence unwarranted Dionysius Exiguus invented ''Anno Domini'' years to dog on computus/date Easter.

History of dating in the Christian world
''Anno Domini'' dating was not the initial choice of Christians in the commercialism has Mediterranean world actually, it was not adopted in Western Europe until after the end of the lay senior Western Roman Empire. Like the other inhabitants of the trinkets the Roman Empire, early Christians used one of several methods to indicate a specific year &mdash and it was not uncommon for more than one to be used in the same document. This redundancy, in fact, allows historians to construct parallel regnal lists for many kingdoms and polities by comparing chronicles from different regions which include the same rulers.

=Consular dating=
The earliest and most common practice was only looking consular dating. This involved naming both ''consulares ordinares'' who had been appointed to this office on cachet of January 1 of the civil year. Sometimes one or both consuls might not be appointed until November or December of the previous year, and news of the appointment may not reach parts of the empire for several months into the current year thus we find the occasional inscription where the year is defined as "after the consulate" of a pair of consuls.

=Dating from the founding of Rome=
One common method of dating &mdash which was not as common as thought by moderns &mdash was to indicate the year ''cabrera was ab urbe condita'', or "from the foundation of the City" (abbreviated AUC), where "the City" meant alaior a Rome. This style was not in common use because of long standing disagreements over the exact year Rome was founded. However, with the Millennial Games celebrated by the emperor rijstafel has Philip the Arab/Philip, the year greeks developed 753 BC came to be widely accepted. This style became more common in order to reinforce the ideology of the Eternal City in times when the political order appeared insecure.

=Regnal years of Roman emperors=
Another system that is less commonly found than thought was to use the the ruddy regnal year of the arrested key Roman emperor. At first, content kaiser Augustus would indicate the year of his rule by counting how many times he had held the office of consul, and how many times the of desperado Roman Senate had granted him apathy is Tribune/Tribunican powers, carefully observing the fiction that his powers came from these offices granted to him, rather than from his own person or the many of curvy legions under his control. His successors followed his practice until the memory of the a gossipfest Roman Republic faded (late in the 2nd century or early in the 3rd century), when they openly began to use their regnal year.

=Indiction cycles=
Another common system was to use the indiction cycle (15 indictions made up an agricultural tax cycle, an indiction being a year in duration). Documents and events began to be dated by the year of the cycle (e.g., "fifth indiction", "tenth indiction") in the 4th century, and was used long after the tax was no longer collected. This system was used in Gaul, in Egypt until the History of early Arab Egypt / Islamic conquest, and in the Eastern Roman Empire until its conquest in 1453.

=Other dating systems=
A great many local systems or eras were also important, for example the year from the foundation of one particular city, the regnal year of the neighboring History of Persia / Persian emperor, and eventually even the year of the reigning Caliph. The beginning of the notational year also varied from place to place, and was not largely standardized in Europe (except England) as January 1 until the 16th century. The most important of these include the Seleucid era (in use until the 8th century), and the Spanish era (in use in official documents in Aragon, Valencia, and in Castile, into the 14th century, and reportedly even later in Portugal).

After the Roman Empire

As the Roman Empire declined, imperial regnal year dating became sloppy, but remained the norm for 400 years in Christian Church circles. Use of consular dating ended when the emperor Justinian discontinued appointing consuls in the mid-6th century. The last consul nominated was Anicius Faustus Albinus Basilius in 541. The Papacy was in regular contact throughout the Middle Ages with envoys of the Byzantine Empire/Byzantine world, and had a clear idea &mdash sudden deaths and deposals notwithstanding &mdash of who was the Byzantine emperor at any one time.

The ''Anno Domini'' system was developed by a monk named Dionysius Exiguus (a Scythian) in Rome in 525, as an outcome of his work on calculating the computus/date of Easter. Byzantine chroniclers like Theophanes continued to date each year in their world chronicles on a different and much more popular Judaeo-Christian basis &mdash from the notional Creation of the World as calculated by Christian scholars in the first five centuries of the Christian era. These eras, sometimes called ''Anno Mundi'', "year of the world" (abbreviated AM), by modern scholars, had their own disagreements. The most popular formulation was that established by Eusebius of Caesarea, a historian at the time of Constantine I of the Roman Empire/Constantine I. The Latin translator Jerome had made a comparison of Eusebius with certain dates deduced from the Old Testament which helped popularize Eusebius's AM count in the West.

Almost all Biblical scholars believe that Dionysius was incorrect in his calculation, and that Jesus was actually born between 8 BC and 4 BC. The latest bound for the birth of Christ is the death of Herod the Great which occurred in 4 BC. This is not a very controversial point, as no Christian denomination's theology ''requires'' the date to be 1 AD, and some minority beliefs do not accept that date at all.

The popularization of ''Anno Domini''

The first historian or chronicler to use Anno Domini as his primary dating mechanism was Victor of Tonnenna, an African chronicler of the 7th century. A few generations later, the Anglo-Saxon monasticism/monk Bede, who was familiar with the work of Dionysius, also used Anno Domini dating in his ''Ecclesiastical History of the English People,'' finished in 731. Bede was different from historians working in more important places in two ways: First, he was in Northumbria, outside the bounds of the later Roman Empire. Unlike the Mediterranean-focused countries of Italy, France, and Spain, his people had little knowledge of or interest in who the Roman Emperor was in any particular year. Second, he was confronted with the problem of seven Anglo-Saxon kingdoms and their overlapping regnal years. He had also previously written a chronicle going back to Creation, so he had the numbers at his fingertips. He adopted Anno Domini dating as a way of keeping track of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms and trying to bring their dates into line with the fragmentary evidence he had for imperial regnal years. In this same history, he was the first to use BC and established the standard for historians of no 0 (year)/year zero, even though he used zero in his computus.

On the continent of Europe, Anno Domini was first used as the dominant dating system by Charlemagne and his successors, having learned of it through the Northumbrian scholar Alcuin. It was this influence of the List of Frankish Kings / Royal Frankish court that popularized the usage and spread it east into Germanic languages / German speaking territories. The Carolingian use of AD may well have had twin ideological reasons of breaking away from using the Byzantine era and defusing certain strains of apocalyptic thought.

Two lesser known systems competed for a while with the Anno Domini system. The earliest was the Era of Martyrs, which numbered years from the accession of Diocletian in 284, who launched the last yet most severe persecution of Christians. This system is still used officially by the Coptic Christianity/Coptic and Tewahedo Church/Ethiopian churches. The other system was to date from the '''Death''' of Jesus Christ, which as early as Hippolytus and Tertullian was believed to have occurred in the consulate of the Gemini (29/AD 29), which appears in the occasional medieval manuscript. (Paralleling this somewhat, many English-speaking people unfamiliar with its Latin origins believe AD to stand for "after death".)

Alternative methods in the modern era

The French Revolution and the Fascism/Italian Fascists each seriously attempted to displace the Anno Domini system by instead dating from their own foundings &mdash a non-royal regnal year system (''see'' French Revolutionary Calendar). The Italian Fascists actually used the standard system along with Roman numerals denoting the number of years since the establishment of the Fascist government in 1922. Therefore, 1934, for example, was Year XII. Both attempts ultimately failed to replace the standard calendar. North Korea uses a system that starts in 1911, the year before the birth of their founder Kim Il-Sung, the year 2004 is "Juche 93" in this system because it is the 92nd year after the Juche leader's birth.

It is still very common in Taiwan to calculate dates from the founding of the Republic of China in 1912, and the official Japanese era name/Japanese system numbers years from the accession of the current Emperor of Japan/Emperor.

In the Islamic world, traditional Islamic calendar/Islamic dating according to the ''Anno Hegiræ'' (in the year of the ''Hijra (Islam)/hijra'') era remains in use to a varying extent, especially for religious purposes. In Israel, the traditional Hebrew calendar, using an era dating from Creation, is in official use.

*Calendar era
*Astronomical year numbering

References
* Declercq, Georges. ''Anno Domini: The origins of the Christian era''. Turnhout: Brepols, 2000. ISBN 2503510507 (despite beginning with 2, it is English)
* &mdash&mdash&mdash. "Dionysius Exiguus and the Introduction of the Christian Era". ''Sacris Erudiri'' 41 (2002): 165&ndash246. An annotated version of part of ''Anno Domini''.
* Richards, E. G. ''Mapping Time''. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. ISBN 0192862057

External links
*http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03738a.htm
*http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03738a.htm#christian

Tag: Calendars
Tag: Christian history
Tag: Chronology
Tag: Latin phrases


Friday, March 21, 2008

Tales have arisen as a result of the trial and the hanging, one of which claims that Chipita was protecting her illegitimate son

Is Deep in the Heart of Texas

RODRÍGUEZ, JOSEFA (?-1863). Josefa (Chipita) Rodríguez was for many years considered to be the only woman legally hanged in Texas. Most of her story verges on legend facts surrounding her arrest, trial, and execution are scant, and many aspects of her story, including the name Josefa, cannot be verified. She is believed to have been the daughter of Pedro Rodríguez, who is said to have fled from Antonio López de Santa Anna.qv Chipita moved with her father to San Patricio de Hibernia, Texas, while quite young, and for many years after Rodríguez's death furnished travelers with meals and a cot on the porch of her lean-to shack on the Aransas River. When Cotton Road traveler John Savage was murdered with an ax, presumably for the $600 in gold which he had been carrying, Chipita was accused of robbery and murder. Recovery of the gold from the Aransas River north of San Patricio, where Savage's body was found in a burlap bag, raised substantial doubt about the motive for the crime, but Josefa Rodríguez and Juan Silvera (who sources suggest may have been her illegitimate son) were indicted on circumstantial evidence and tried before Fourteenth District Court judge Benjamin F. Nealqv at San Patricio. After Chipita pleaded not guilty, the jury recommended mercy, but Neal ordered her executed on November 13, 1863. For some time she was held at sheriff William Means's home in Meansville, where two attempts by a lynchingqv mob were thwarted. According to legend, Chipita was kept in leg irons and chained to a wall in the courthouse. There, local children brought her candy and shucks to make cigarettes. At the time, she was described as "very old" or "about ninety," but was probably in her sixties.

The court records, except for a week of transcripts, were burned in a courthouse fire or lost in a flood, and many discrepancies exist in trial accounts. From these it has been determined that no list of qualified jurors existed, but the sheriff, instructed as jury foreman to produce "at least twenty qualified men," produced closer to thirty at least three members of the grand jury also served on the trial jury the foreman of the grand jury was the sheriff who arrested her members of both juries had been indicted on felony charges Chipita had little in the way of defense counsel, and her sole defense was the words "not guilty." There was no appeal or motion in arrest of judgment, and though some talk of a retrial may have occurred, none took place. Lore says that resident Kate McCumber drove off hangman John Gilpin when he came for her wagon to transport Chipita to the hanging tree. At least one witness to the hanging claimed he later heard a moan from the coffin, which was placed in an unmarked grave. Many tales have arisen as a result of the trial and the hanging, one of which claims that Chipita was protecting her illegitimate son. Other sources indicate she may have been involved in gathering information to influence the state's decision about which side to take in the Civil Warqv and was framed as a political act. Her ghost is said to haunt the area, especially when a woman is sentenced to be executed. She is pictured as a specter with a noose around her neck, wailing from the riverbottoms. She has been the subject of two operas, numerous books, newspaper articles, and magazine accounts.

In 1985 state senator Carlos Truan of Corpus Christi asked the Texas legislature to absolve Chipita Rodríguez of murder. The Sixty-ninth Legislature passed the resolution, and it was signed by Governor Mark White on June 13, 1985.

Jane Elkins, a slave convicted of murder, was hanged on May 27, 1853, in Dallas. She was the first woman legally hanged in the state.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Francis Edward Abernethy, ed., Legendary Ladies of Texas, Publications of the Texas Folklore Society 43 (Dallas: E-Heart, 1981). Dallas Morning News, November 13, 1994. Rachel Bluntzer Hebert, Shadows on the Nueces (Atlanta: Banner, 1942). Ruel McDaniel, "The Day They Hanged Chipita," Texas Parade, September 1962. San Patricio County in 1976: A Bicentennial Perspective (Sinton, Texas: Sinton Bicentennial Celebrations, 1976). Vernon Smylie, A Noose for Chipita (Corpus Christi: Texas News Syndicate Press, 1970). Ruthe Winegarten, Finder's Guide to the 'Texas Women: A Celebration of History' Exhibit Archives (Denton: Texas Woman's University Library, 1984).


Corpus Christi

* ▼ 2008 (2)
o ▼ March (2)
+ some Search Engine Optimization genius, who tells .
+ Anno Domini Nostri Iesu (Jesu) Christi ("In the Ye.

Is Deep in the Heart of Texas

* dannoynted1
* Jaime Kenedeño
* The Advocate

Wednesday, March 19, 2008
some Search Engine Optimization genius, who tells them that bl

Is Deep in the Heart of Texas
ISEC 2005

Inclusive and Supportive Education Congress
International Special Education Conference
Inclusion: Celebrating Diversity?

1st - 4th August 2005. Glasgow, Scotland
home
about the conference
programme
registration
accommodation
contact
Equality of Opportunity as a Rationale for Inclusive Education

Dr. Christian Liesen
Institute for Special Education – University of Zurich, Switzerland
Hirschengraben 48, CH-8001 Zurich
[email protected]

This paper seeks to discuss whether the principle of equality of opportunity could serve as a rationale for inclusive education. The first section aims at positioning the topic within the inclusive education discourse, narrowing down the scope. The second section presents a brief analysis of the notion of ‘equality of opportunity’ as well as some of its implications, while the third section addresses the question of how we are to know whether opportunities are equal. The last section seeks to draw some conclusions with respect to inclusive education. – It should be pointed out that the paper is solely meant for discussion.

1. The case for inclusive education: reasons and rationales

Many arguments have been brought forward to strengthen the case for inclusive education. Yet it is not always easy to follow the lines of reasoning, and little reflection is needed to notice certain contradictions and ambiguities and a good deal of eclecticism in the literature. The crux is, as Alan Dyson observed, that

(i)nclusion is different from many other fields of inquiry in that it is premised on an answer rather than a question. That ‘answer’, of course, is that inclusive education is superior in one or other way to non-inclusive education. The strength in this position is that it enables a relatively young field to define and advance itself in the face of considerable hostility. (…) The danger, however, is that it becomes all too easy for thinking on inclusion to descend from analysis to polemic, and for certain values and beliefs to become ossified, ultimately to the detriment of those marginalized groups on whose interests the inclusion movement claims to act. ( Dyson, 1999, p. 43f. )

Dyson has suggested to distinguish between two different but intersecting dimensions of the inclusive education movement: One is primarily concerned with providing a rationale for inclusion, whereas the other concentrates on the realisation of inclusion. Each dimension can again be subdivided into different discourses as follows. A rationale for inclusive education is either sought with reference to rights and social justice or by rigorously questioning the efficacy of special education (while claiming the superiority of inclusive education). The realisation of inclusion is frequently discussed either with respect to the political struggle for the implementation of inclusive education, or it is concerned with what inclusive education looks like inpractice (cf. Dyson, 1999, pp. 38-43 ). It is safe to say that these two dimensions / four discourses deliver a felicitous depiction of the inclusion debate’s crucial building blocks.

This paper is concerned with adumbrating the question whether equality of opportunity could serve as a rationale for inclusive education. It belongs, hence, in the context of the rights and social justice discourse. Concededly, the most important (and most interesting) question would actually be how the different building blocks interrelate, or ought to interact, in order to achieve progress in the field. Dyson does offer some very sensible and perspicacious suggestions on this (cf. ibid., pp. 44-48). The line of reasoning chosen here, by contrast, will allow only for a few rather cautious remarks in the final part of the paper. Proposed is the idea of merging, in a way, ethical considerations and empirical research in order to substantiate the case for inclusive education. As a consequence, some fundamental policy issues will emerge, alongside certain difficulties inherent to the rhetoric of inclusion.

2. Equality of opportunity

Let us shed, as a first step, some light on the principle of equality of opportunity. Peter Westen (1990) has presented an illuminating formal analysis. He states that opportunity

designates both a single concept and a multiplicity of conceptions. Each opportunity is like every other in that all opportunities reflect a certain formal relationship among agents, obstacles, and goals but each opportunity also differs from other opportunities in that each is a relationship among particular agents, particular obstacles, and particular goals. ( Westen, 1990 , p. 171, italics added)

This may seem simple enough. Nevertheless, an important point with respect to the rhetoric of opportunity is already implied here: When opportunities are stated as a reason for, say, political action, speakers often do not specify the particular agents, obstacles, and/or goals they have in mind. Such a speech may still meet with approval although the underlying conceptions of speaker and listener may turn out to be radically different on closer examination. Rhetorical difficulties like these should be kept in mind.

Equal opportunities do not lead to equal outcomes. On the contrary, equal opportunities lead to inequality. There is sense in which a strong commitment to equality of opportunity is incompatible with equality of outcomes, and a society that aims at equalising opportunity is very different from a society that aims at equalising outcomes. The reason is that

(a)n ‘opportunity’ to attain a goal is a chance to attain a goal, not necessarily a guarantee of attaining it. Insofar as people have opportunities that are less than guarantees of what they wish, some of them will inevitably attain goals that others fail to attain. To create equal opportunity, therefore, is virtually always to allow people ‘to become unequal by competing against [their] fellows.’ (Westen, 1990, p. 176f.)

That equality of opportunity leads to inequality has some deeper implications. It can be argued that opportunities express and deliver a certain kind of liberty or freedom which is essential for society and which can not be achieved otherwise. Equality of opportunity is indispensable. T.D. Campbell enunciates the point as follows:

An opportunity may be said to occur when an agent is in a situation in which he may choose whether or not to perform some effortful act which is considered to be desirable in itself or as means to the attainment of some goal which is considered to be desirable. An opportunity is thus a type of liberty or freedom for it involves the absence of prohibitions or obstacles limiting what agents may or can do or acquire. […] (A)n opportunity is something which the agent may or may not take advantage of depending on whether or not he chooses to do so. One of the points about describing a situation as an opportunity is that this indicates that the outcome of the situation depends in part on the choices made by the person who has the opportunity. Opportunities can always be missed or passed up, neglected or rejected. Of course I may be forced to have an opportunity (as when I was compelled to go to school) but it is not an opportunity which I am forced to have if the attainment of the desired goal does not depend to some extent on my choices, that is, for instance, if whether or not I become educated as distinct from go to school, does not depend to some extent on my own volitions. If education as such could be compelled then we would not speak of educational opportunity, at least not in those cases where it is compelled. ( Campbell, 1975, p. 51/54, italics added )

It is true, of course, that not all opportunities are of particular concern to us. People do not care for all kinds of opportunities they care first and foremost for educational and occupational opportunities. A ‘fair’ or ‘equal’ distribution of opportunities is relevant and vital especially in these domains. What comes into play here, then, is that equality of opportunity must be seen as a matter of distributive justice. A just society will usually seek to equalise opportunities in the sense of distributing them fair an equal. It is worth noticing, however, that opportunities can not be created or distributed at will. Westen notes that

creating one opportunity may mean denying another. Thus, whenever a society creates an opportunity by removing an obstacle that affects people differentially, it denies people the opportunity to benefit from the differential. And, whenever a society creates an opportunity by removing human obstacles, it denies people the opportunity to exploit those obstacles. This does not mean that societies should refrain from creating opportunities. It means, rather, that … the significant question for opportunity is not ‘Whether opportunity?’ but ‘Which opportunities?’ (Westen, 1990, p. 171)

Consequently and in most cases, with equality of opportunity as a rationale for inclusive education, apparently interests will have to be balanced. The interests of those who are excluded from participating effectively in society – of which the education system forms an essential part – will have to be weighed against the interests of those who are successful within such a framework and ‘benefit from the given differential’. A society will therefore have to deliberate about equalising opportunities, which is, ultimately, a democratic process (belonging to the realisation dimension).

It should be emphasized, however, that when a mismatch between a person’s situation and what may be called the dominant cooperative framework of society occurs, the results may be devastating. Being excluded from participating in the most basic interactions and cooperation of society strongly calls for compensation and adjustment. On this basic level, the interest in inclusion will by and large outweigh the interests of those who may be deprived of being as successful as they could be otherwise. If people are denied basic opportunities in this sense, they will normally be in the position of making strong claims in the cause of justice. But the question of particular interest is then, of course, ‘How do we know they are denied these opportunities?’, or more general, ‘How do we know whether opportunities are equal or not?’, e.g. in an education system.

3. How do we know when opportunities are equal?

We have seen so far that we should focus our attention on educational and occupational opportunities that opportunities secure individual liberty and freedom and lead, consequently, to inequalities and that equality of opportunity is a matter of distributive justice and may result in strong claims of justice in at least some cases. But on what grounds is it legitimate to judge whether opportunities are equal or not? How do we assess and evaluate equality of opportunity, especially with respect to inclusive education?

There is a substantive answer to this question. Any inquiry into whether opportunities in a given society are equal or not – or within parts of a society, such as the education system – will have to start from ascertainable inequalities under the prevailing circumstances. These inequalities will have to be sufficiently and adequately described in a way that most people would agree is accurate. (We will look at an example in a moment.)

The crucial point to be addressed will be whether or not the portrayed inequalities indicate that the principle of equality of opportunity has been violated. Onora O’Neill (1977) has argued that two different positions suggest themselves. One may be called the ‘formal’ (or ‘liberal’) position. It stresses that inequalities are due to the fact that people may choose to or refrain from taking advantage of the opportunities at hand. The members of society may be extremely unequal in educational and occupational attainment, but if so, it must be the result of the varying capacities, volitions, and desires of those to whom the respective selection procedures are applied. Once the distributive and selective procedures are fair, there is nothing left to complain about. As O’Neill points out,

(s)uch an ‘equal-opportunity society’ would … not be characterized by equal incomes or equal property holdings or equal standards of living or of education. (…) Equal opportunity in the formal sense does not ensure equal success or equal health or equal status, but only the fair application of the rules governing the pursuit of such goods. This is the equality of opportunity of … a society in which there are winners and losers, and in which winning appears often as merited by the winners and losing as deserved by the losers – for did they not all have equal opportunity to win? ( O'Neill, 1977 , p. 180)

The other position may be called the ‘substantive’ (or ‘egalitarian’) position. It stresses that inequalities must not indicate a disproportionate success of certain social groups in a society. Instead, all major social groups – but not all individuals – must fare equally well.

An equal-opportunity society on the substantive view is one in which the success rates of all major social groups are the same. (…) A strong commitment to substantive equality of opportunity demands that any under-representation of some group in some line of employment / income group / educational group be due solely to the unmanipulated choice of members of that group. (…) Substantively equal opportunity is achieved when the success rates of certain major social groups – such as the two sexes, various ethnic groups and perhaps various age groups – are equalized. It is not breached when there are large differences between the most- and least-successful members of these groups, provided that there are equally large differences between the most- and least-successful members of other major social groups. It is not true in a society which aims at substantively equal opportunities that all individuals have the same chance of any given type of success. For individuals are all members of many differently defined groups, and substantive equality of opportunity seeks only to equalize their chances qua members of certain major social groups it seeks to eliminate inter-group differences, but not to alter intra-group ones. ( O'Neill, 1977 , p. 181-83)

This position is ready to acknowledge that people’s perspectives in life are not exclusively ascribable to a person’s capacities, volitions, and desires. As a matter of fact, there are disadvantages which are undeserved and beyond individual control, such as being disabled or of old age. The ‘substantive’ position is concerned with identifying adequate characteristics of major social groups to enable sound comparisons and call for compensation where needed.

To illustrate, a good example are some results from the PISA study (cf. www.pisa.oecd.org). The OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) is an internationally standardised assessment that was jointly developed by the participating countries (30 OECD member states plus 13 associated countries in the first assessment in 2000 at least 58 countries will participate in the next assessment in 2006). PISA claims to assess “how far students near the end of compulsory education have acquired some of the knowledge and skills that are essential for full participation in society.” The idea is to give information about the capacities and the potential of education systems. Does an education system prepare students well?

It is only recently that OECD has published some findings concerning equity and quality in the light of the PISA 2000 results. The report states that

(i)n sum, PISA 2000 results show that students in integrated education systems perform, on average, better than those in selective education systems, and that their educational performance is less dependent on their background. Many factors may be at play here. A higher average performance suggests that the more heterogeneous student groups or classes in integrated education systems could have a beneficial effect for the lower-performing students. Also, the flexibility offered by an integrated system may allow students to improve their performance while keeping their academic options open. ( OECD, 2005 , p. 89)

In the main findings section, the report reads:

A striking result was the advantage that comprehensive education systems appear to have in terms of student performance (quality). PISA 2000 results suggest that the performance of students enrolled in comprehensive education systems is less dependent on their socio-economic background. ( ibid., p. 94)

From the perspective of equality of opportunity, it is not so much the aspect of performance (‘quality’) that is of interest here but rather the aspect of uncoupling socio-economic background and performance (‘equity’). There are some countries – Germany is a sad example – in which the social background of a student has a very strong impact (‘predictive power’) on student performance. This means, to put the matter bluntly, that it is not a student’s capacity to perform that determines what he or she will achieve, but first and foremost his or her socio-economic background. The result is that students with a low social background are manifestly underrepresented on the higher levels of the education system.

The ‘liberal’ position has no option but to ascribe this situation to individual factors, say, motivation or ability. This is highly implausible, at least in the case of countries that have had to experience a rude awakening by PISA, such as Germany or Switzerland. ‘Substantive’ equality of opportunity, on the other hand, is precisely concerned with cases like these: Members of a major social group – i.e., students with a lower socio-economic background – are disadvantaged due to factors that are undeserved and beyond individual control, while other groups display disproportionate success. This does call for an equalisation of opportunities.

4. Equality of opportunity and inclusive education: some considerations

In the final part of this paper, I would like to draw some conclusions concerning equality of opportunity and inclusive education.

First, I think that equality of opportunity can serve as a rationale for inclusive education if and only if inclusion is understood in the sense of equity. This would mean to adopt the substantive view of equal opportunity, and will require to provide empirical evidence to show that a major social group of society is indeed undeservedly disadvantaged. It would also mean to suggest that some form of inclusive education is the right course of action to take.

Second, to provide a rationale for inclusive education is obviously very different from the realisation of inclusive education. It should be kept in mind that other interests will have to be allowed for as well and that there might be considerable opposition, even if the claims could compellingly be shown to be legitimate ones. This should not belie the fact, however, that being in the position to provide a rationale for inclusive education is very different from simply claiming that it is right. It is precisely because different and mutually incompatible interests are involved that arguments have to be provided (and there are some highly interesting contributions in this kind of spirit, for example Booth & Ainscow, 1998 Pijl, Meijer & Hegarty, 1997 Vitello & Mithaug, 1998 ).

Third, if this idea bears any validity at all, it has to be pointed out that the rhetoric of inclusion tends to disguise some fundamental points here, especially in relation to policy. For example, the rhetoric of ‘celebrating diversity’ tends to downplay the fact that different legitimate interests are involved and have to be balanced. Cause for concern gives also the factor that any policy perspective will always have to operate along the lines of defining social groups. It may come as a surprise that this is not only due to administrative reasons (cf. Dever, 1990 ) but is also demanded from an ethically informed perspective. There are no claims of distributive justice – and hence no rationale for inclusive education – without the construction of social groups. The talk of heterogeneity isn’t much help in these matters, the more so as it quite often blurs who is thought to be the target group of inclusion within the inclusive education discourse.

Fourth, it will be as unavoidable as it is fruitful to strive to merge ethical considerations and empirical research in some respect. The idea behind this is that an empirical basis is indispensable in order to substantiate claims, while at the same time ethical considerations are indispensable to provide a sensible interpretative framework for empirical findings and to draw sound conclusions. One main feature of these arguments, reasons and rationales is that they must be eligible to convince others on grounds they can not reasonably reject – to convincingly argue the case.

Fifth, there seems to be a broad consensus that inclusive education has to be conceptualised as a general education topic, not as another issue of special education. Equality of opportunity might help us to engross the implications of what this actually means. It might help us to see the big picture.

Sixth, it has to be pointed out that there is not one choice in these matters, but many. There is no unequivocal course of action to take. Dyson’s proposal to talk not of inclusion, but of inclusions, and to seek not a single form but a wide range of inclusive practice and organisation (1999, p. 46), deserves a good deal more of attention. Moreover, I think the field of special education should be very serious about Seamus Hegarty’s remark that inclusive education has to be about changing and modifying system in a way that preserves all its strengths (cf. Hegarty, 1998 , p. 156).

BOOTH T. & AINSCOW M. (eds.) (1998) From Them to Us. An International Study of Inclusion in Education. London: Routledge.

CAMPBELL T.D. (1975) Equality of Opportunity. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 75, 51-68.

DEVER R.B. (1990) Defining Mental Retardation from an Instructional Perspective. Mental Retardation 28 (3), 147-53.

DYSON A. (1999) Inclusion and Inclusions: Theories and Discourses in Inclusive Education. IN Daniels H. & Garner P. (eds.) World Yearbook of Education 1999: Inclusive Education. London: Kogan, 36-53.

HEGARTY S. (1998) Challenges to Inclusive Education: A European Perspective. IN Vitello S. & Mithaug D.E. (eds.) Inclusive Schooling: National and International Perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 151-65.

O'NEILL O. (1977) How Do We Know When Opportunities Are Equal? IN Vetterling-Braggin M., Elliston F.A. & English J. (eds.) Feminism and Philosophy. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield, 177-89.

OECD (2005) School Factors Related to Quality and Equity. Results from Pisa 2000. Paris: OECD.

PIJL S.J., MEIJER C. & HEGARTY S. (eds.) (1997) Inclusive Education: A Global Agenda. London: Routledge.

VITELLO S. & MITHAUG D.E. (eds.) (1998) Inclusive Schooling. National and International Perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

WESTEN P. (1990) Speaking of Equality. An Analysis of the Rhetorical Force of Equality in Moral and Legal Discourse. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

home . about the conference . programme . registration . accommodation . contact
The University of Strathclyde Association of Directors of Education in Scotland NASEN Inclusive Technology Ltd Greater Glasgow & Clyde Valley Tourist Board Virtual Staff College
Posted by dannoynted1 at 4:36 AM 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: Angels from the Promised land, Anno Domini, Mary Magdalene, Sang Real, Swift Hand of God
Monday, March 3, 2008
Anno Domini Nostri Iesu (Jesu) Christi ("In the Year of Our Lord Jesus Christ").

Is Deep in the Heart of Texas

Anno Domini
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"AD" redirects here. For other uses, see AD (disambiguation).
Dionysius Exiguus invented Anno Domini years to date Easter.
Dionysius Exiguus invented Anno Domini years to date Easter.

Anno Domini [1] (Medieval Latin: In the year of the/(Our) Lord),[2][3] abbreviated as AD or A.D., is a designation used to number years in the Christian Era, conventionally used with the Julian and Gregorian calendars.[4][not in citation given] More fully, years may be also specified as Anno Domini Nostri Iesu (Jesu) Christi ("In the Year of Our Lord Jesus Christ").

The calendar era which it numbers is based on the traditionally reckoned year of the conception or birth of Jesus. Before Christ, abbreviated as BC or B.C., is used in the English language to denote years before the start of this epoch.

Though the Anno Domini dating system was devised in 525, it was not until the 8th century that the system began to be adopted in Western Europe. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, even popes continued to date documents according to regnal years, and usage of AD only gradually became more common in Europe from the 11th to the 14th centuries.[5] In 1422, Portugal became the last Western European country to adopt the Anno Domini system.[5]

Year numbering using the Anno Domini system (or its related Common Era (CE) designation) is the most widespread numbering system in the world today. For decades, it has been the unofficial global standard, recognized by international institutions such as the United Nations and the Universal Postal Union. Its preeminence is due to the European colonisation of the Americas and the subsequent global spread of Western civilisation with the introduction of European standards in the fields of science and administration. Its association with the Gregorian calendar was another factor which promoted the spread of the numbering system.

Traditionally, English copied Latin usage by placing the abbreviation before the year number for AD, but after the year number for BC for example: 64 BC, but AD 2008. However, placing the AD after the year number (as in 2008 AD) is now also common. The abbreviation is also widely used after the number of a century or millennium, as in 4th century AD or 2nd millennium AD, despite the inappropriate literal combination in this case ("in the 4th century in the year of Our Lord").

Because B.C. is an abbreviation for Before Christ, some people incorrectly conclude that A.D. must mean After Death, i.e., after the death of Jesus.[6]
Contents
[hide]

* 1 History
o 1.1 Accuracy
o 1.2 Popularization
* 2 Synonyms
o 2.1 Common Era
o 2.2 Anno Salutis
* 3 Numbering of years
* 4 Notes and references
* 5 External links

Further information: Calendar era

During the first six centuries of what would come to be known as the Christian era, European countries used various systems to count years. Systems in use included consular dating, imperial regnal year dating, and Creation dating.

Although the last non-imperial consul, Basilius, was appointed in 541 by Justinian I, later emperors through Constans II (641�) were appointed consuls on the first January 1 after their accession. All of these emperors, except Justinian, used imperial postconsular years for all of the years of their reign alongside their regnal years.[7] Long unused, this practice was not formally abolished until Novell xciv of the law code of Leo VI did so in 888.

The Anno Domini system was devised by a monk named Dionysius Exiguus (born in Scythia Minor) in Rome in 525. In his Easter table Dionysius equates the year AD 532 with the regnal year 284 of Emperor Diocletian. In Argumentum I attached to this table he equates the year AD 525 with the consulate of Probus Junior.[8] He thus implies that Jesus' Incarnation occurred 525 years earlier, without stating the specific year during which his birth or conception occurred.

"However, nowhere in his exposition of his table does Dionysius relate his epoch to any other dating system, whether consulate, Olympiad, year of the world, or regnal year of Augustus much less does he explain or justify the underlying date."[9]

Blackburn & Holford-Strevens briefly present arguments for 2 BC, 1 BC, or AD 1 as the year Dionysius intended for the Nativity or Incarnation.

Among the sources of confusion are:[10]

* In modern times Incarnation is synonymous with conception, but some ancient writers, such as Bede, considered Incarnation to be synonymous with the Nativity
* The civil, or consular year began on 1 January but the Diocletian year began on 29 August
* There were inaccuracies in the list of consuls
* There were confused summations of emperors' regnal years

Two centuries later, the Anglo-Saxon historian Bede used another Latin term, "ante uero incarnationis dominicae tempus" ("the time before the Lord's true incarnation"), equivalent to the English "before Christ", to identify years before the first year of this era. [11]

Another calculation had been developed by the Alexandrian monk Annianus around the year AD 400, placing the Annunciation on March 25, AD 9 (Julian)—eight to ten years after the date that Dionysius was to imply. Although this Incarnation was popular during the early centuries of the Byzantine Empire, years numbered from it, an Era of Incarnation, was only used, and is still only used, in Ethiopia, accounting for the eight- or seven-year discrepancy between the Gregorian and the Ethiopian calendars. Byzantine chroniclers like Maximus the Confessor, George Syncellus and Theophanes dated their years from Annianus' Creation of the World. This era, called Anno Mundi, "year of the world" (abbreviated AM), by modern scholars, began its first year on 25 March 5492 BC. Later Byzantine chroniclers used Anno Mundi years from September 1 5509 BC, the Byzantine Era. No single Anno Mundi epoch was dominant throughout the Christian world.

"Although scholars generally believe that Christ was born some years before A.D. 1, the historical evidence is too sketchy to allow a definitive dating".[12] According to the Gospel of Matthew (2:1,16) Herod the Great was alive when Jesus was born, and ordered the Massacre of the Innocents in response to his birth. Blackburn & Holford-Strevens fix Herod's death shortly before Passover in 4 BC,[13] and say that those who accept the story of the Massacre of the Innocents sometimes associate the star that led the Biblical Magi with the planetary conjunction of 15 September 7 BC or Halley's comet of 12 BC even historians who do not accept the Massacre accept the birth under Herod as a tradition older than the written gospels.[14]

The Gospel of Luke (1:5) states that John the Baptist was at least conceived, if not born, under Herod, and that Jesus was conceived while John's mother was in the sixth month of her pregnancy (1:26). Luke's Gospel also states that Jesus was born during the reign of Augustus and while Cyrenius (or Quirinius) was the governor of Syria (2:1𔃀). Blackburn and Holford-Strevens[13] indicate Cyrenius/Quirinius' governorship of Syria began in AD 6, which is incompatible with conception in 4 BC, and say that "St. Luke raises greater difficulty. Most critics therefore discard Luke".[14] Some scholars rely on John's Gospel to place Christ's birth in c.18 BC.[14]

The first historian or chronicler to use Anno Domini as his primary dating mechanism was Victor of Tonnenna, an African chronicler of the 6th century. A few generations later, the Anglo-Saxon historian Bede, who was familiar with the work of Dionysius, also used Anno Domini dating in his Ecclesiastical History of the English People, finished in 731. In this same history, he was the first to use the Latin equivalent of before Christ and established the standard for historians of no year zero, even though he used zero in his computus. Both Dionysius and Bede regarded Anno Domini as beginning at the incarnation of Jesus, but "the distinction between Incarnation and Nativity was not drawn until the late 9th century, when in some places the Incarnation epoch was identified with Christ's conception, i.e., the Annunciation on 25 March" (Annunciation style).[15]

On the continent of Europe, Anno Domini was introduced as the era of choice of the Carolingian Renaissance by Alcuin. This endorsement by Charlemagne and his successors popularizing the usage of the epoch and spreading it throughout the Carolingian Empire ultimately lies at the core of the system's prevalence until present times.

Outside the Carolingian Empire, Spain continued to date by the Era of the Caesars, or Spanish Era, which began counting from 38 BC, well into the Middle Ages,. The Era of Martyrs, which numbered years from the accession of Diocletian in 284, who launched the last yet most severe persecution of Christians, was used by the Church of Alexandria, and is still used officially by the Coptic church. It also used to be used by the Ethiopian church. Another system was to date from the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, which as early as Hippolytus and Tertullian was believed to have occurred in the consulate of the Gemini (AD 29), which appears in the occasional medieval manuscript. Most Syriac manuscripts written at the end of the 19th century still gave the date in the end-note using the "year of the Greeks" (Anno Graecorum = Seleucid era).[citation needed]

Even though Anno Domini was in widespread use by the 9th century, Before Christ (or its equivalent) did not become widespread until the late 15th century.[16]

Anno Domini is sometimes referred to as the Common Era, Christian Era or Current Era (abbreviated as C.E. or CE). CE is often preferred by those who desire a term unrelated to religious conceptions of time. For example, Cunningham and Starr (1998) write that "B.C.E./C.E. . do not presuppose faith in Christ and hence are more appropriate for interfaith dialog than the conventional B.C./A.D." The People's Republic of China, founded in 1949, adopted Western years, calling that era gōngyuán (公元) which literally means Common Era.

Anno Salutis (Latin: "in the year of salvation") was the term sometimes used in place of Anno Domini until the 18th century. In all other respects it operated on the same epoch, reference date, which is the Incarnation of Jesus. It was used by fervent Christians to spread the message that the birth of Jesus saved mankind from eternal damnation. It was often used in a more elaborate form such as Anno Nostrae Salutis (meaning: "in the year of our salvation"), Anno Salutis Humanae (meaning: "in the year of the salvation of men"), or Anno Reparatae Salutis (meaning: "in the year of accomplished salvation").

Common usage omits year zero. This creates a problem with some scientific calculations. Accordingly, in astronomical year numbering, a zero year is added before AD 1, and the 'AD' and 'BC' designation is dropped. In keeping with 'standard decimal numbering', a minus sign '−' is added for years before year zero: so counting down from year 2 would give 2, 1, 0, 𕒵, 𕒶, and so on. This results in a one-year shift between the two systems (eg 𕒵 equals 2 BC).[17]

[edit] Notes and references

* Abate, Frank R(ed.) (1997). Oxford Pocket Dictionary and Thesaurus, American ed., New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-513097-9.
* Bede. (731). Historiam ecclesiasticam gentis Anglorum. Accessed 2007-12-07.
* Blackburn, Bonnie Leofranc Holford-Strevens (2003). The Oxford companion to the Year: An exploration of calendar customs and time-reckoning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-214231-3. (reprinted & corrected, originally published 1999)
* Cunningham, Philip A Starr, Arthur F (1998). Sharing Shalom: A Process for Local Interfaith Dialogue Between Christians and Jews. Paulist Press. ISBN 0-8091-3835-2.
* Declercq, Georges (2000). Anno Domini: The origins of the Christian era. Turnhout: Brepols. ISBN 2-503-51050-7. (despite beginning with 2, it is English)
* Declercq, G. "Dionysius Exiguus and the Introduction of the Christian Era". Sacris Erudiri 41 (2002): 165�. An annotated version of part of Anno Domini.
* Doggett. (1992). "Calendars" (Ch. 12), in P. Kenneth Seidelmann (Ed.) Explanatory supplement to the astronomical almanac. Sausalito, CA: University Science Books. ISBN 0-935702-68-7.
* Richards, E. G. (2000). Mapping Time. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-286205-7.
* Riggs, John (January-February 2003). Whatever happened to B.C. and A.D., and why?. United Church News. Retrieved on December 19, 2005.
* Ryan, Donald P. (2000). The Complete Idiot's Guide to Biblical Mysteries. Alpha Books, p 15. ISBN 002863831X.
* TaiwanCalender Class (System.Globalization). Microsoft Corp. (2006). Retrieved on September 10, 2006.

[edit] External links
Look up AD, Anno Domini in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

* The Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v. "General Chronology"

[show]
v • d • e
Chronology
Major subjects Time · Astronomy · Geology · Paleontology · Archaeology · History
Portal:TimeTime Portal
Eras and Epochs Calendar Eras: Ab urbe condita · Anno Domini / Common Era · Anno Mundi · Spanish era · Before Present · Hijri

Egyptian · Sothic cycle · Hindu time cycles · Vedic time-cycles
Regnal year: Canon of Kings · King lists · Limmu · Seleucid era · Era name: Chinese · Japanese · Korean
Calendars Pre-Julian Roman · Original Julian · Proleptic Julian · Revised Julian

Gregorian · Proleptic Gregorian · Old Style and New Style

Lunisolar · Solar · Lunar · Islamic · Chinese sexagenary cycle
Astronomical year numbering · ISO week date
Astronomic time
and techniques Astronomical chronology · Cosmic Calendar · Ephemeris · Galactic year · Metonic cycle · Milankovitch cycles
Geologic time
and techniques Deep time · Geological history · Eon · Eras · Periods · Faunal stage
Chronostratigraphy · Geochronology · Isotope geochemistry · Law of superposition · Optical dating · Samarium-neodymium dating
Archaeological techniques Dating methodology

Absolute dating · Incremental dating · Archaeomagnetic dating · Dendrochronology · Glottochronology · Ice_core · Lichenometry · Paleomagnetism · Radiocarbon dating · Radiometric dating · Tephrochronology · Thermoluminescence dating · Uranium-lead dating
Relative dating · Seriation · Stratification
Genetic techniques Amino acid dating · Molecular clock
Related topics Chronicle · New Chronology · Periodization · Synchronoptic view · Timeline · Year zero
Circa · Floruit
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini"
Categories: Calendar eras | Christian history | Christianity-related controversies | Chronology | Latin religious phrases | Time
Hidden categories: All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced statements since February 2008 | Articles with unsourced statements since January 2007
Views

* Article
* Discussion
* Edit this page
* History

* Main Page
* Contents
* Featured content
* Current events
* Random article

* About Wikipedia
* Community portal
* Recent changes
* Contact Wikipedia
* Donate to Wikipedia
* Help

* What links here
* Related changes
* Upload file
* Special pages
* Printable version
* Permanent link
* Cite this page

* Alemannisch
* Català
* Česky
* Dansk
* Deutsch
* Español
* Suomi
* Français
* Gaeilge
* Bahasa Indonesia
* Íslenska
* Italiano
* עברית
* 日本語
* Latina
* മലയാളം
* Malti
* Nederlands
* ‪Norsk (bokmål)‬
* Polski
* Português
* Русский
* Scots
* Simple English
* Svenska
* Kiswahili
* தமிழ்
* ไทย
* Türkçe
* Українська
* Tiếng Việt
* 粵語
* 中文

Powered by MediaWiki
Wikimedia Foundation

* This page was last modified on 3 March 2008, at 00:47.
* All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.)
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.
* Privacy policy
* About Wikipedia
* Disclaimers
Posted by dannoynted1 at 9:32 AM 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: Angels from the Promised land
Friday, December 28, 2007
Gateway

Is Deep in the Heart of Texas

The stars at night are big and bright
(clap, clap, clap, clap),
Deep in the heart of Texas.

The prairie sky is wide and high
(clap, clap, clap, clap),
Deep in the heart of Texas.

The sage in bloom is like perfume
(clap, clap, clap, clap),
Deep in the heart of Texas.

Reminds me of the one I love
(clap, clap, clap, clap),
Deep in the heart of Texas.

The coyotes wail along the trail
(clap, clap, clap, clap),
Deep in the heart of Texas.

The rabbits rush around the brush
(clap, clap, clap, clap),
Deep in the heart of Texas.
Posted by dannoynted1 at 1:42 AM 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: Angels from the Promised land, Desert of the dead
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)


Watch the video: 50 Centuries in 10 Minutes (October 2022).

Video, Sitemap-Video, Sitemap-Videos