Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

BCE and CE notations
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
King John View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 01-Dec-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1366 		  Quote King John Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: BCE and CE notations
    Posted: 26-Dec-2006 at 16:56
Given my interests in Medieval History I prefer the A.D. dating. Although this is inherantly eurocentric I find that since the documents of the time date themselves using the phrase "in the year of our lord" it is easier to use the the latin abbreviation of this phrase "A.D." I also prefer it because in Medieval Europe this dating is how the people that I study conceived their world to be dated. To place a 20th or 21st Century view on medieval dating is simply not right no matter what the intentions. The truth is BCE and CE datings are anachronistic esp. in when talking of the Medieval world.
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900 		  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Dec-2006 at 17:10
Given my interests in Medieval History I prefer the A.D. dating. Although this is inherantly eurocentric I find that since the documents of the time date themselves using the phrase "in the year of our lord" it is easier to use the the latin abbreviation of this phrase "A.D." I also prefer it because in Medieval Europe this dating is how the people that I study conceived their world to be dated. To place a 20th or 21st Century view on medieval dating is simply not right no matter what the intentions. The truth is BCE and CE datings are anachronistic esp. in when talking of the Medieval world.
That is for the Christian Latin Western Europe, otherwise the Ottoman documents are in Hegira years (starting from 622 AD), while the Orthodox (Russian, Serbian, Byzantine, Wallachian etc.) are in the years since the creation of the world (according to Bible chronology, 1 AD = 5509 since the creation of the world)

Edited by Chilbudios - 26-Dec-2006 at 17:12
Back to Top
King John View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 01-Dec-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1366 		  Quote King John Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Dec-2006 at 17:24
I am aware of this however my interests are in Western Europe specifically England I appologize for failing to mention this. but you are right and it is also true that the Jewish calender is documented in the same way.
Back to Top
K. V. Ramakrishna Rao View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 06-Apr-2006
Location: India
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 287 		  Quote K. V. Ramakrishna Rao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jan-2007 at 08:50
It has been mentioned above that, "the creation of the world (according to Bible chronology, 1 AD = 5509 since the creation of the world)"
But, it was James Usher, who declared that the world was created by Jehova on October 23rd morning 9.30 AM in 4004 BCE.
How then, the 1AD = 5509 comes?
What is its significance?
History is not what was written or is written, but it is actually what had happened in the past.
Back to Top
Decebal View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Digital Prometheus

Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1791 		  Quote Decebal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jan-2007 at 09:11
The Jews and the Christians use a different date for the creation of the world. Indeed, the Christians use the date that Usher calculated, but the jews use the date of 5509 BC. Actually, I think that there's a few other chronologies besides these two, based on the Bible.
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi

Back to Top
K. V. Ramakrishna Rao View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 06-Apr-2006
Location: India
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 287 		  Quote K. V. Ramakrishna Rao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jan-2007 at 21:45
Mr. Decebal, give references specifically.
 
What you have mentioned appears to be not tallying with any of the dates:
 
Alexandrian era     - 29-08-5502 BCE
Constantinoplr era - 01-09-5508 BCE
Era of Antioch         - 01-09-5492 BCE
Julian era                - 01-04-4714 BCE
Jewish era              - 07-10-376 BCE
 
All are astronomicall derived with variance and adjusted without mentioning the sources. However, claiming all as "historical eras and dates".
 
So, it was Ussher who had chosen an assumed date of 4004 BCE and Joseph Scaliger wortked out backwards to get the so called "Historical chronology" of "world history".
 
So where that 1 AD = 5509 comes? Note you have added BC now with 5509!


Edited by K. V. Ramakrishna Rao - 12-Jan-2007 at 21:47
History is not what was written or is written, but it is actually what had happened in the past.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035 		  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Jan-2007 at 08:00
1 Tishri 1 - the very first Jewish New Year's Day - was on October 5 3761 BC by the Gregorian calendar. That would be some 5768 Gregorian Years ago.
 
Today in the Jewish calendar (assuming my data are correct - they usually work OK) is 25 Tevet 5767
 
So in your Jewish date you left out the '1' at the end, and it looks to me like you're two days out in the day. (Though it may have something to do with the Jewish day starting at sunset, not midnight, and with location in the world.) The date I give is for sunset in Jerusalem at the beginning of 1 Tishri 1. Also the actual new moon was in the night of 5-6 October.
 
(There was a new moon on September 7 that year, but presumably it didn't happen in Jewish history.)
 
I don't know where the 5509 comes from but it's remarkably close to the Greek. 


Edited by gcle2003 - 14-Jan-2007 at 08:04
Back to Top
K. V. Ramakrishna Rao View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 06-Apr-2006
Location: India
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 287 		  Quote K. V. Ramakrishna Rao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Jan-2007 at 08:23
Thank you for your clarification.
 
Let Decebal explain from where he got that 5509.
 
Coming to the Jewish era / chronology, was it calculated astronomicall or otherwise?
 
Incidentally, India / Hindu year for 2007 is 5189 with the Kali era starting from 3102 BCE.
 
Anyway, discussion has been initiated for the usage of BCE and CE notation instead of BC and AD.
 
History is not what was written or is written, but it is actually what had happened in the past.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035 		  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Jan-2007 at 05:09
I'm not sure what you mean by 'calculated astronomically'. The Jewish calendar is a lunisolar one that tries to take account of both the lunar months and the solar year and it does so by observing the moon and sun.
 
So a new month starts with each new moon, but since an average year has 12.4 'moons' a month has to be added occasionally to bring dates back into harmony with the seasons. The fundamental Jewish position is that Passover has to take place in the spring, and 'in the spring' originally was not calculated astronomically, but by observing the state of vegetation at the time. If it wasn't particularly 'spring-like' another month was added by the Sanhedrin  to put the situation back in balance.
 
Since Hellenistic times though the rule for inserting an extra month is based on astronomical calculations, following a 19-year cycle.
 
So when you back-project the current calendar to the beginning, like I did, you can't really claim it as accurate, since you can't really know, prior to the Hellenistic period, which years had an extra month inserted.
 
PS: the current Indian civil year is 1928 though, isn't it? I've forgotten what the start of that system is reckoned from.


Edited by gcle2003 - 15-Jan-2007 at 05:50
Back to Top
K. V. Ramakrishna Rao View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 06-Apr-2006
Location: India
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 287 		  Quote K. V. Ramakrishna Rao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Jan-2007 at 20:46

Eras were started long back by Kings and personalities or astronomers either based on astronomical observation of planetary conjunction coinciding with a certain event or working backwards to that past event. The conjunctions of planets occur periodically and a group of astronomers of a culture or country recorded it and had tables for a long period, they could correct and update as we do today. Thus, the astronomical event of 3102 BCE has been an astronomically observed one coinciding with several events and it is considered as the start of Kali-era/yuga. But other eras are invented or introduced and then worked backwards to coincide or match with past events as history.

 

Coming to 1928, it is Saka-era calculation reported to have started in 78 CE and thus, 1928 + 78 = 2006 is equivalent year in CE, just like 2006 + 3102 = 5108 KE.
History is not what was written or is written, but it is actually what had happened in the past.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.060 seconds.