Re: Defect in XSH asctime()

["H. Peter Anvin" <yyy@xxxxxxxxx>]

Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
> 
> The year that Christ is deemed to have been born - *not* the year that
> follows it - is the year A.D.1. The year immediately preceding it is 1 B.C.
> "Anno Domini" is an "era" type system that starts with the year of the
> defining event.
> 
>>But then, you  should renumber all following years,  we're not in 2003
>>but in 2010 after the birth of Christ.
> 
> There are reasons to believe that the actual year was either 1 B.C. or
> A.D.1. It depends on which eclipse you take as being the significant one.
> 

The problem is that there was no Roman census in those years.  The only
one which fits both astronomical events and Roman censuses in the rein
of Augustus Octavianus is the year 8 B.C. on our calendar (the other two
were 28 B.C. and 8 A.D.)

Also, king Herod is known to have died in 4 B.C. on our calendar.

This is part of why some calendarians use the terms BCE/CE (before
common era/common era) instead of BC/AD.

Either way... 1 AD is by definition the first year of the era, and is
the year that the calendarians of the time believed Christ had been born
in.  The year before that is labelled 1 B.C. by most people and 0 by
some astronomers -- who also fond of using dates like 0 Jan 2000, for
good reason.

        -hpa