On ghalen SutaI’ muchwI’ problem with the millenium:
The problem concerns when you start. Consider an earlier time:
1BC|1AD|2AD|…|1999AD|2000AD|2001AD|…
Note that there is no year 0|. At midnight of the year 1AD, one hear has elapsed. At the end of year 2AD, two years have elapsed. And so on. At the END of year 1000AD, one thousand years (the first millenium) will end.
Continue this reasoning to see that the second millenium (taken to mean the end of the two thousandth year) will occur at midnight between 31 Dec 2000 and 1 Jan 2000
As for “how we counted the year 1 A.D. after 1 B.C.”, remember that the reckoning of “Anno Domini” was developed in what we call the year 525 by Dionysis Exiguus. He figured that Jesus was born 753 years after the founding of Rome (at the time, in the West years were usually reckoned using the start of Diocletian’s reign as year 1 (what we call A.D. 284)). Of course it’s generally agreed that Dionysus Exiguus miscalculated by 3 or 4 years… The system was adopted very slowly anyhow (popularized by Bede in the 700’s), and “B.C.” only came into use in the 17th century.
(See D. Boorstin for a good explanation of the vagaries of reckoned time)
Look, this is SO simple. For the Christian calender to make any sense at all, it has to be linked up with… what else? JESUS’S AGE, right? As in “Year of our Lord etc.” Right?
Now, Jesus wasn’t born in AD OOO1 (since He wasn’t a race horse or Chinese), so He must have been born in the year AD OOOO. He celebrated His first birthday on December 25th (let’s say), AD 0001, and will presumably celebrate His 2000th birthday on Christmas, AD 2000.
So, we’d better make sure the cake gets baked THAT year…
Stuart, reading the f***ing article before you post. If you had done so, instead of persisting in your wild head theories, you would have discovered a very important fact: There was no year 0000.
It goes, … 2 BC; 1 BC; 1 AD; 2 AD … There is no O year.
Since it’s all arbitrary anyway, why ISN’T there a year AD 0000? I’ll grant you that the people who were paying attention at the time didn’t describe themselves as living in 000 AD, but I’ll bet they didn’t call it 1BC either.
I’m sticking with my original idea, wild-headed or not…
Oh, also - if (let’s say), January 1st, 1 AD, occurred six days after the Nativity, then Jesus was BORN in the preceeding year. That would have to be either 1 BC (causing Him to be born before He was born, sort of), or 0 AD, right?
I know none of this necessarily happened, but this is a theoretical discussion, isn’t it?
Best wishes,
Actually, he probably was born in 4 B.C., or at least that is the best current guess based on available data linking up the discussed world events in the Bible and other relevant sources.
As for why there is no ‘0’ A.D., it is because ‘0’ doesn’t exist. When you count, you count starting at one, as in “one, two, three, etc.” The year chosen as A.D. 1 is the first year of the age of Christ. Or to put it another way, the year number doesn’t tell you how many whole years have gone by, it tells you which year is passing you by as you speak.
For a similar confusion, btw, note that in soccer, they count up on the clock, and when the clock reads 22:35, for instance, it is the 23rd minute of the game.
This is the 1999th year since the beginning of the Christian Era. At its conclusion, 1999 years will have passed. Got it?
I get it, I just don’t AGREE with it. All I seem to be getting here are appeals to authority.
Since when is there no such number as “0”? When I reset my stop watch, it comes up “0000”, not “1”.
My point being, that since we’re retroactively imposing the Anno Domini system onto a series of years that weren’t AD when they were occurring, who says that we shouldn’t have started the series one year earlier than we’ve been accustomed to doing?
This isn’t really a number line argument anyway, and the whole number line thing has been discussed to death, I know. All I’m asking is, if “Year of our Lord 2000” (or whatever) is going to mean anything at all, it ought to be tied to SOMETHING, and why not tie it to the (conventional, okay) age of the Lord in question?
By the way, did Exiguus ever happen to say, flat out and unequivocally, anything like “This here calender starts with Jesus’s birth, right smack dab at the beginning of the year 1AD. Period!” If he did, I’m willing concede the issue. But I’ll want to see it in writing…
Let’s face it–although it’s correct that the new millenium, century, and decade will start in 2001. (Incidentally, that’s why Arthur Clark’s famous novel is set that year…), most people consider the flip of the “2” more important.
I think someone in Steven Jay Gould’s book summed it up best. As far as most people are concerned–the first decade had 9 years, the first century 99 years, and the first millenium 999 years. Once you accept those facts, you’re ready to enjoy New Year’s Eve…
Heck, let’s just declare the entire twelve months of the year 2000 as ‘World Party Year’.
Wars, interest and payment on debts, and obnoxiously cute television programming can all be suspended; humanity can let down its hair and relax, and we can all pay attention to more important things like how beautifully blue the sky is now that the factories have shut down due to the Y2K bug.
We can pick things up again in January 2001. Everyone will agree that the new millennium has finally come, and we can get on with making The Future happen.
Okay, I know this is reeeeeelly nitpicky
of me , but it bugs me, okay? So far I’ve
only seen one poster using “AD” properly.
“AD” goes BEFORE the date, “BC” comes AFTER.
Since “AD” is short for “Anno Domini,” which
means “The year of our Lord” (dropping the
Christocentrism objections for a moment),
one says “AD 1999” = “The year of our Lord
1999 (or whatever)”, NOT “1999 the year of
our Lord”. Similarly, one says “4004 BC” =
“4004 (years) before Christ”. These
abbreviations mean something, people.
“CE” and “BCE,” meaning “Common Era” and
“Before the Common Era,” respectively, do
both go after the date.
Like I said, this is really nitpicky and I
know it, but Cecil’s trying to eradicate
ignorance…least we could do is not make
his job any harder than it has to be.
You can parlez vous all you want about when the millennium begins. Pick all the ‘BC,’ ‘AD,’ ‘CE’ ‘EIEIO’ nits you want . . . I’m hear to tell you that when this Y2K thing hits, none of it will matter a good goddamn.
I’d like to debate – but what’s the point? Besides . . . there’s still a stack of ammo, jerky and hardtack to get loaded into the Range Rover before me and the missus and the kids hightail it for Idaho.
As it was confusing somebody that Jesus was born a week before the end of a year, he wasn’t. He was born in the Spring. There, now everything’s clear. And if the first decade had only nine years, I insist that all decades had only nine years. Therefore we’re well past the second millennium and can get on with our lives, made so much more enjoyable by Cecil.
This debate is still going on? There are ten years in every decade. The first decade after J.C. comprises the years 1 to 10. That’s a sum of ten years. The second decade comprises the years 11 to 20, again ten years. By the same logic the twentieth century includes the years 1901 to 2000. That’s 100 years. The new century begins the first day of the year 2001.
Not sure, but I believe that the monk who designed this system was living in a society unfamiliar with the concept of zero (medieval Europe). Don’t quote me on it, though.
Kat, I am so glad that I am not the only person who noticed that. It drives me crazy when people ignore things like that.
Question, wasn’t there a time in early America when the calender jumped two years overnight? (ie, The sun went down on 1812 and came up on 1814) I remember reading a quote by Ben Franklin regarding this (it would have been during his lifetime), but I can’t quite recall it.
