[LEAPSECS] alternative to smearing

[Preben Nørager]

Zefram wrote:


"The birthdate of Jesus is a historical question, and (as I noted)
historians are pretty sure that AD 0 isn't the answer. ISO 8601 takes no
position on that question. .. If you get any more specific than he
[Dionysius Exiguus] did, for example if you state that Jesus was born
specifically in AD 0, then you're taking a position of your own on this
question, a refinement of Dionysius's position."


I don't think it matters what "historians" say is the answer to the
question of the historical birthdate of Jesus. We know neither the
historical date of the conception, nor of the birth. I simply state that
year zero is "the year of the incarnation", and that statement I think is
less controversial than any other statement about the birthdate of Jesus.
It is well known that AD begin with the incarnation, and in the proleptic
gregorian calendar year 0 is the beginning of counting the years.


"The season implied by the 25th of December is inconsistent with that
implied by the Biblical narrative of Jesus's birth."


I agree. The Biblical narrative of Jesus's birth was *not* the reason why
that date was chosen. The 25th of December was chosen for another reason.


"The date almost certainly arose from pre-existing nature festivals
associated with the winter solstice, perhaps specifically Sol Invictus,
into which Christians merged their Nativity celebrations."


It is also probable that December 25 was chosen because then New Year,
January 1, is the octave of Christmas. In the Old Testament tradition a
great feast is celebrated both on the first, and on the eight day, and the
early roman church probably wanted to continue that tradition with
Christmas and New Year day. And please note, that I am not promoting
Christmas as a remembrance of just the nativity. I am promoting Christmas
as a remembrance of the incarnation *as the period from conception to
ascension*. The nativity was of course an important part of the
incarnation, but Christmas is also an opportunity to remember other signs
and miracles Jesus is worth remembering for.


"I don't see your GD system having any impact on religious calendar
usage:the churches are interested in years but not so much day counts. In
any case, your religious objectives here are irrelevant to astronomy and to
the definitions of technical time scales."


I quoted this from Newcomb: "To avoid the inconvenience thus arising
astronomers measure the years from a zero epoch one year earlier than the
birth of Christ ; that is, they place a year before the year 1, and measure
from its beginning." Is it irrelevant that Newcomb wanted astronomers to
"measure from its [year 0s] beginning"?


-Preben

2017-01-11 17:25 GMT+01:00 Zefram <zefram at fysh.org>:

> Preben Norager wrote:
> >I see the proleptic gregorian calendar, represented by ISO 8601, and the
> >GDs I propose, as a scientific way to settle the time of the incarnation.
>
> It doesn't do that.  The birthdate of Jesus is a historical question,
> and (as I noted) historians are pretty sure that AD 0 isn't the answer.
> ISO 8601 takes no position on that question.
>
> By promoting the use of AD year numbering *for the reasons that you
> (Preben) do*, you are effectively endorsing *Dionysius Exiguus's*
> position on this question.  If you get any more specific than he did,
> for example if you state that Jesus was born specifically in AD 0, then
> you're taking a position of your own on this question, a refinement of
> Dionysius's position.
>
> (For clarity: people who promote the use of AD year numbering for other
> reasons are usually not taking a position on Jesus.  Especially so when
> promoting it just because of the network effect.)
>
> >Christmas shall be a yearly remembrance of the incarnation.
>
> Going off on a bit of a tangent here: the season implied by the 25th of
> December is inconsistent with that implied by the Biblical narrative of
> Jesus's birth.  The date almost certainly arose from pre-existing nature
> festivals associated with the winter solstice, perhaps specifically Sol
> Invictus, into which Christians merged their Nativity celebrations.
> So it's certainly not an anniversary date, and as a date for annual
> commemoration it lacks distinctiveness to the Christian usage.
>
> >                                                          Somehow I
> believe
> >the proleptic gregorian calendar, and the GDs I propose, is the best way
> to
> >settle the time of the incarnation, and unite east and west around the
> same
> >calendar.
>
> I don't see your GD system having any impact on religious calendar usage:
> the churches are interested in years but not so much day counts.  In any
> case, your religious objectives here are irrelevant to astronomy and to
> the definitions of technical time scales.
>
> Commemorating events in human history is pretty low down the list of
> priorities for people defining time scales.  It does occasionally happen;
> a recent example is the definition of Julian Sol (a Martian day count)
> and matching epoch of the Darian calendar for Mars, which have their zero
> slightly preceding the first telescopic observations of Mars.  (It's a
> combination of commemoration with arranging for relevant historical
> records to all have non-negative dates.)  But we really only do this
> when we're otherwise completely devoid of a way to decide on an epoch.
> We more often define time scales to maintain some kind of continuity
> with existing time scales.  In any case, the need for reference points
> to be precisely defined and accessible takes precedence over almost all
> other considerations.
>
> >                            But if you really care about the fundamental
> >timescale of science and society,
>
> Even for civil use, continuity and the network effect are very strong
> considerations, which often take precedence over a desire to commemorate
> some event.  This is a large part of why French Revolutionary year
> numbering didn't catch on, for example.  Caring about civil timekeeping
> therefore doesn't come with much opportunity to change where the year
> zero lies.
>
> >                                  then I don't see how you can ignore the
> >time of the incarnation.
>
> If we were to arbitrarily select a new epoch for civil timekeeping, in
> a tabula rasa manner, then any epoch commemorating a religious figure
> or event would actually be a pretty bad choice.  Any such epoch would
> be terribly divisive.  (Look what happened with the religiously-derived
> symbol of the Red Cross.)  It would be far better to pick an epoch of
> more culturally-neutral significance, or at least one whose significance
> inflames less passion.  The signing of the Metre Convention, as used as
> a reference point by ISO 8601, would be a much better epoch, though some
> would complain of it being slanted towards metrologists.
>
> -zefram
> _______________________________________________
> LEAPSECS mailing list
> LEAPSECS at leapsecond.com
> https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist6.pair.net/pipermail/leapsecs/attachments/20170111/c8443335/attachment.html>