Could not agree with you more, Ben. It’s a pet peeve of mine also- so much so that I have posted a correction on other blog spots, something I rarely do.

I understand that old boy goofed up pretty bad. However, I would just like to propose something. 2010 years ago is quite a while back and clearly the entire world (at least western) would like to say we just ended the decade. Now, I don’t know how far back this miscalculation went, but let’s just say it was only since 1999, when they messed up the millennium. That means there is a precedent for now saying the decade ends at the 9 year, not the following 0 year. It really seems like a small thing to trifle with in light of salvation, sovereignty of God, etc…to me at least.

Seems there is always an article such as this that comes out every “new year”. Interesting from the point of history I suppose, but not something to really get upset about. At least from my vantage point. Trying to turn the tide of humanity’s thinking on this subject will be a futile endeavor, and quickly forgotten by the end of this decade. Oh. wait. Has that already happened? I’m confused.

a computer scientist would count 0-99
also the calender can’t be wrong. it’s simply a discrete way of marking something continuous. I can call 1981 t=0 then ’82 would be year t=1 and 1980 would be t=-1.
All we can say is that according to this calender, such and such happened this particular year. It’s not the wrong year. it’s simply a symbol. 1999 isn’t a particular year anymore than “5″ has five-ness or “ape” means I just posted a large primate. These are symbolic representations which are used to communicate.

And almost all these comments are dead wrong. It’s a matter of math and of history, and both of these things matter. But then these are the kind of responses I would expect in a post modern world where history is assumed to have nothing to do with truth these days, and math can be made up as we go.
BW3

Since I believe that Jesus was born around the time of the Feast of Tabernacles 7 BC, that made me happy enough to regard 2000 as the start of the century/millennium in spite of me knowing there was no zero in Dionysius Exiguus’ BC/AD scheme, as the BC/AD scheme is wrong. I’m neither a 2000er nor a 2001er, but a 1993er.

Ben I didn’t say it didn’t matter.
It has been 10 years since the turn of the millennium. wich means it had been 1000 years since the previous turn of the millennium. Since the start date is arbitrary, We can only say it is the turn of the decade according to this or that particular calender.
In my previous post I defined time as years since 1981, since I was born that year. Next year I will turn 30 and the year will be 30 according to my calender. and I will say it is the beginning of my 30th year, or 3rd decade. You would have to agree that according to JohnCW’s calender it is the turn of the decade even though you are older than 3 decades. It doesn’t much matter when we assign the arbitrary start date. It has been 2010 years since 2010 years ago. Let’s call 1 BCE the zero year and now the problem is solved. Since the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, it’s a bit strange to talk as though we haven’t reached 2010 yet b/c our calender is off by one year?
My point is NOT that the order of events or the actually passage of time are relative. My point is that a calender designation which starts at an arbitrary point in time, is relative to the person who made it up and the people who use it. Therefore, unless we adopt a new calender, This is the beginning of the next decade.

It’s never relative when you start counting time from an absolute— when the savior of the world was born. But I get your point John.
BW3

Gotcha. If I make the concession that The Birth of Jesus is not an arbitrary start time, then I would agree.
It was a mistake to not start with the year zero.
Happy New Year.
looking fwd to reading your blog this year

As for getting the year of Jesus’s birth correct, I certainly join in wishing that brother Dionysus had done so.
I don’t think Dionysus or anyone of his era would ever have thought to start with year 0. It’s a forward-looking number, the “first year of our Lord,” which corresponds exactly to “the first year of [the reign of] Augustus.” It’s as if we gave people’s ages by the number of years they had started (so that a newborn was considered 1 year old) as opposed to what we actually do, which is attribute age based on years completed.
As for the “decade” question, it’s not really a matter of “math”, it’s a matter of linguistic convention. What do the words “decade” and “century” mean? They can be used for any arbitrary period of (respectively) ten and one hundred years. For example, it is perfectly correct to refer to the period 1975-1995 as “two decades”. Even “year 1″ sticklers would agree that “the 80s” is a decade.
It’s the odometer effect. Most humans like to see the numbers flip. It troubles me not at all for people to call Jan 1, 2010, the beginning of the new decade, because I interpret that as meaning, “the decade of the 2010s is beginning.”

Put me down as a Dionysius Exiguus fan. I think he probably got the year of Jesus’ birth right – or was at least closest to the correct chronology. I hold a minority position on this, but to me Matthew’s Herod story is unconvincing (structurally, with the various prophecies fulfilled and Moses-like adventures) and there is Luke’s mentioning of a census which was years later – so the birth narratives aren’t reliable sources.
As to the ending in 0 or 9, I’m okay either way. Although BW3 may see his preference prevail way since with computers nowadays, we are more and more inclined to think of things starting with ‘index’ of 0 (e.g. picture_array[0]) making number that end in 0 more acceptable as a start-position and not the terminus.

Was the zero even available to Dionysus? I seem to recall that Western Europe borrowed the concept of zero from the Arab world during the High Middle Ages?

Hi Quiddity. Actually Luke probably does not get the census. The Greek can be read to say that the census mentioned is the one before the famous one when Quirinius was governor in Syria. And there is no basis at all for suggesting Jesus was born in 1 A.D. Not a single scholar I know of takes that view.
Blessings,
BW3

I’m with Jeff on this one. The Arabs did indeed invent the concept of “0″, but it is not a real number, it is an imaginary number, so it probably wouldn’t be properly used in a calender format anyway.
Another question though would be when 1BC was finished would the next year be 0BC or 0AD, or would it be 0BC followed by 1AD? Way too confusing! I think in his confusion Denny actually got it right!

Did Dionysius Exiguus really set Christ’s birth at 1 A.D.? I’ve read articles and even seen a documentary that said he placed Christ’s birth at 1 B.C. and meant for 1 A.D. to be Christ’s first full year on Earth. This has been confusing to me for some time now, as some scholars say Dionysius set 1 B.C. as the date of his birth and others say he used 1 A.D. I would love for someone to explain to me why scholars say two different things on this subject.

Hi Michael:
You are right to be confused. It does look like the answer is 1 A.D.
Ben W.

It was not a mistake not to start with year zero. I have never understood people making this objection. One year after my birth I was exactly one year old. And I was at the end of the first year of my life, not the “zeroth” year. Numbering the first year as Year 1 is only logical. Likewise for the centuries and millennia. If I live long enough, exactly 100 years after my birth I will be one hundred years old and will be at the end of one hundredth year. There’s no mistake there. No funny business with year zero. It just is what it is.
And I agree with Ben about calling out newscasters, sportscasters, etc. This is not a difficult concept.