01.01.07.1822
You’d like to say it’s 2007, so would the rest of the world… and so we’ve come to accept that by making a couple adjustments to what was Anno Domini (AD) to Common Era (CE), but what if the dating system never got changed by Dionysius Exiguus in 525 (CE)?? What if the glorious pasttime that was once the Roman Empire never died out (for the various reasons that it did)? What if, then, the Roman Empire continued to spread, conquering all of the known world as much as Christianity did (through force)? Would the world be still under the Roman dating system Ab Urbe Condita (AUC)? That would be interesting… the year would not be 2007 CE but 2759 AUC!
From the founding of Rome… that great city which has shaped practically every facet of our modern world. Rome has done more to influence the culture of the Western world than Christianity itself. Yet we are still attaching ourselves to the latter dating system. A system whose roots are found in shaky evidence.
The so-called “Year of Our Lord” is shadowed by some pretty deep contradictions in the bible. Christians want to believe that Jesus was born on the eve of 0 AD, or just 1 AD, depending on your reasoning. Okay… so the evidence for this?
The Book of Matthew states Jesus was born under Herod’s rule and he ordered the Massacre of Innoncents in response to his birth. Scholars have fixed Herod’s death shortly before Passover in 4 BC (that’s not good). What more, the so-called “Star of Bethlehem” which led the three wisemen to their “new lord” has been suggested as the planetary conjunction on 15 September of 7 BC or the sighting of Halley’s Comet in 12 BC (that’s really not looking good).
The Book of Luke, to make things worse, states that Jesus was born under the Syrian Governorship of Quirinius. Okay, but scholars have found that Quirinius took office in 6 AD.
Meanwhile, the Book of John places Jesus’ birth sometime in 18 BC, according to some scholars.
Chucks… no one can seem to pinpoint Jesus being born on the eve of 0 AD or just 1 AD (whatever you want to use; the Gregorian and Julian calendars don’t use 0)… or rather, to be very much more accurate, 754 AUC.
Unfortunately, Exiguus has left no explanation as to how he came about with his calculations of equating the year 532 with the regnal year 248 of Emperor Diocletian. However, before Exiguus, there was another monk named Annianus who, around the year 400 AD, placed the “Annunciation” on March 25th, 9 AD; a stretch away from what Exiguus later calculated.
So… we have factual evidence, and dating of when, the founding of the city of Rome took place. We have the markings of Rome clearly prevelant throughout our modern world. It is clearly a better choice of honoring something that has substance. The question is, as the Roman dating system is clearly more accurate to itself than that of the Christian dating system, would it really be so bad to say that it’s not 2007 but really 2759?? The future is here!