This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Anno Mundi article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ok,
now current US politics aside, what I do think would be very interesting to know, are the actual days of the week for those dates.
Considering the various different cultures and historical changes, that's some information that's really missing.
Anyone up for the math?
The date given here (5194 BCE) appears to be incorrect. The two entries around 0 BCE give:
This would make 0 AM = 5200 BCE according to the annals, I reckon; but certainly not 5194 BCE. See also Talk:Annals of the Four Masters#Calendar and deluge, which gives yet another date -- Bazzargh ( talk) 17:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I see a previous ref for the Martyrology date was deleted for wp:rs reasons and theres a bit of an edit war going on the page right now, so I don't just want to add this just now. That said, how about this for a reference:
in the Martyrology for Christmas Day, the creation of Adam is put down in the year 5199 B. C.
-- Bazzargh ( talk) 19:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Can you guys have a discussion please, before you edit the page again? Continually reverting each other isn't helping the article quality. -- Bazzargh ( talk) 23:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you have established that my MOS argument is invalid. Please restate why you think so. It was argued that if the article was stable in one style it should not be reverted back to the original style, but this article has not been stable in one style. It was using B.C. very recently. As such, it should use the original style. You have not refuted that this is the case. Mamalujo ( talk) 22:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, does anyone else find it mildly ridiculous that the Christians are arguing against "CE" and the non-Christians are arguing for it? Surely, it's the height of absurdity for an article on Judaism to assert that the "common era" of mankind began with the birth of Jesus. - Agur bar Jacé ( talk) 20:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Having read this article and deciding I would like to edit this subject, I find it astonishing that folks are arguing over this matter. Now to use "BCE/CE" is simply anachronistic and makes the claims in this article patently false. I am quite sure that the personalities who it is claimed used CE in fact would have used AD and this can easily be determined by looking at the sources. If the editors in fact did not have sources then this is not an encyclopaedic article, but opinion. This needs to be resolved but I would be very interested if someone could present an authentic mediaeval manuscript using the BCE abbreviation. - Anonymous -- 60.234.109.96 ( talk) 08:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I have just changed a BCE to BC, but only because it was the only one used in the article, I didn't realise this discussion was going on. Manfi ( talk) 16:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
From what I have observed over the past 5 or so years, BCE/CE has almost always been preferred for articles which are not Christianity-specific. There are sections of this article which are not Christianity specific; forcing AD/BC is inappropriate. On the other hand, having the Christianity-specific sections go one way, and the rest of the article the other, may look strange. -- Avi ( talk) 04:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I came across a reference to "year of the world" in the inscription on the Agas map of London c1560 where it says "this ancient and famous city of london was first founded ... in the year of the world [2832], and before the nativity of our saviour christ [1130]." This makes the creation date 3962 BC, which is one hundred years adrift of Bede. It makes me wonder whether that was a one-off bit of dodgy arithmetic by a sixteenth century map maker, or a more systematic difference that was prevalent at that time. ( http://mapoflondon.uvic.ca/section.php?id=D2) 87.115.3.0 ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm new here, but what I'm trying to point out is that Judiasm now uses CE to refer to years Anno Mundi. And that to Judiasm, C.E. is not the same as A.D. Stilkind ( talk) 23:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I read, "Western Christianity never adopted an Anno Mundi epoch system, relying instead on the Anno Domini (AD) epoch system." This is clearly incorrect (depending on one's definition of 'adopted', I suppose), since that dating was of direct relevance to the calculation of the Last Judgment: Bede, for instance, in De Temporum Ratione, recalculates the birth of Jesus at 3952 AM [1], "thus postponing the date of the apocalypse over 1200 years to 2048 AD." [2]
As recent edits have had frequent changes regarding era style, a discussion on which era style is most appropriate for this article seems appropriate. Choices:
Thoughts? SchreiberBike ( talk) 22:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I'm not seeing a consensus either way. Perhaps we should open this up to a wider audience (ala an RfP)? -- Avi ( talk) 23:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't actually understand all the arguments about BC/BCE. BCE is religiously neutral and is used by writers of other faiths besides Judaism. It is neutral even though the reference point is Christian, namely the birth (I think) of Jesus. Perhaps we should remember that the majority of the world's population is not Christian. In the article there were some BCEs and more BCs, and I changed the latter to BCEs. I have left the "AD"s in for now, even though AD is obviously Christian (and "CE" is neutral). Dori1951 ( talk) 17:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Anno Mundi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Under the heading "Jewish tradition", it is written that "By his [Rabbi Jose ben Halafta's] calculation, based on the Masoretic Text, Adam and Eve were created on 1st of Tishrei (Rosh Hashanah Day 1) in 3761 BCE, later confirmed by the Muslim chronologist al-Biruni as 3448 years before the Seleucid era. [references omitted by me in this citation]". However, the year is wrong; instead of "3761 BCE" it should read "3760 BCE". It is true that the traditional rabbinical "Anno Mundi" epoch is equal to the 1st of Tishrei in "3761 BCE", but this is NOT the traditional rabbinical date of Creation. Instead, most of the traditional rabbinical year A.M. 1 passed BEFORE Creation, which is traditionally dated to the 25th of Elul A.M. 1, with Adam and Eve created on the sixth day of the Creation Week, the 1st of Tishrei A.M. 2, which is (nominally, i.e. at noon) equal to "the 26th of September 3760 BCE" (proleptic Julian calendar). This is also confirmed by al-Biruni, whose interval between the Seleucid era (the Macedonian version, with its epoch in the autumn of "312 BCE") and the Jewish is given as "3448 years"; and 3448 years before the autumn of "312 BCE" gives the autumn of "3760 BCE" (and not "3761 BCE"). For a good, scholarly reference on the Internet, see e.g. http://www.tondering.dk/claus/cal/hebrew.php, where the following information is given: "Years are counted since the creation of the world, which is assumed to have taken place in the autumn of 3760 BCE. In that year, after less than a week belonging to AM 1, AM 2 started (AM = Anno Mundi = year of the world). In other words, AM 2 started less than a week after the 'creation of the world'.". /Erik Ljungstrand (Sweden) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.241.158.201 ( talk) 10:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
As no one has opposed (in fact, no one seems to have reacted at all), I have now corrected "3761 BCE" into "3760 BCE" as the traditional rabbinical date of the creation of Adam and Eve. /Erik Ljungstrand (Sweden)
As this seection is about Jewish tradition, I have taken the liberty of amending "BC" to "BCE" in this paragraph. I hope that is ok. Dori1951 ( talk) 17:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
What's with the backwards writing in the lede? It's hard to read, and no reasons is given (that I could see in the article) for using it. It's been that way for years, too. Noel (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
So what? English isn't. And since it's not a letter-by-letter translation, but word-by-word, writing the resultant English words backwards is completely arbitrary. Writing "two" as "owt" is just, silly - or worse, since the resultant text can't easily be read. Noel (talk) 01:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
The usage of calendar era in the article is currently mixed, so we need to choose one and go with it. Editor2020 ( talk) 01:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, can some-one explain the following:
The Christian era dating had not yet been invented in Theophilus's time, so how could he make an error with it? Bever ( talk) 04:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
On mobile view, the lead is jumbled around. I’d fix this myself, but I’m not sure what’s going on with it. Can anyone confirm that this isn’t just a problem with my phone? And if so, what’s the fix? Student298 ( talk) 15:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
The Jewish text refers to that Christian holidays starts at midnight, but that is not the case in Lutheran churches like in Sweden, starts 18.00 Saturday and finish 18.00 on Sunday.
Holiday prayers or holiday ringing are held in certain parts of Christianity, where the churches have bells, including the Church of Sweden, as an introduction to the weekend.
The church bells usually ring at 18.00 on Saturdays and rings out on Sunday at 18.00. The reason why the weekend is called in the evening before the holiday is that the day of the Bible actually begins with the evening in accordance with the first chapter of Genesis: "And there was evening and there was morning the first day". In connection with the ringing, a devotional called "weekend prayer" is sometimes held.
This is the reason X-mas eve is the great moment in families and is celebrated the evening of the 24th of December, X-mas is started, Santa (Tomten) is coming. In the morning of the 25th there is the Church celebration, when everybody vist the church. Same procedure is taking place every weekend but in lesser scale, Saturday nights are always the private party time. Previously Saturdays were half work day. -- Zzalpha ( talk) 20:38, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
I reverted a good faith contribution by an IP editor concerning the use of AM by Scottish Rite freemasonry. This article is about AM, not about uses of it. I have added a line to the See Also section as it is marginally relevant.
The contributor may wish to add the information to the Scottish Rite article. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 09:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Anno Mundi article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ok,
now current US politics aside, what I do think would be very interesting to know, are the actual days of the week for those dates.
Considering the various different cultures and historical changes, that's some information that's really missing.
Anyone up for the math?
The date given here (5194 BCE) appears to be incorrect. The two entries around 0 BCE give:
This would make 0 AM = 5200 BCE according to the annals, I reckon; but certainly not 5194 BCE. See also Talk:Annals of the Four Masters#Calendar and deluge, which gives yet another date -- Bazzargh ( talk) 17:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I see a previous ref for the Martyrology date was deleted for wp:rs reasons and theres a bit of an edit war going on the page right now, so I don't just want to add this just now. That said, how about this for a reference:
in the Martyrology for Christmas Day, the creation of Adam is put down in the year 5199 B. C.
-- Bazzargh ( talk) 19:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Can you guys have a discussion please, before you edit the page again? Continually reverting each other isn't helping the article quality. -- Bazzargh ( talk) 23:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you have established that my MOS argument is invalid. Please restate why you think so. It was argued that if the article was stable in one style it should not be reverted back to the original style, but this article has not been stable in one style. It was using B.C. very recently. As such, it should use the original style. You have not refuted that this is the case. Mamalujo ( talk) 22:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, does anyone else find it mildly ridiculous that the Christians are arguing against "CE" and the non-Christians are arguing for it? Surely, it's the height of absurdity for an article on Judaism to assert that the "common era" of mankind began with the birth of Jesus. - Agur bar Jacé ( talk) 20:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Having read this article and deciding I would like to edit this subject, I find it astonishing that folks are arguing over this matter. Now to use "BCE/CE" is simply anachronistic and makes the claims in this article patently false. I am quite sure that the personalities who it is claimed used CE in fact would have used AD and this can easily be determined by looking at the sources. If the editors in fact did not have sources then this is not an encyclopaedic article, but opinion. This needs to be resolved but I would be very interested if someone could present an authentic mediaeval manuscript using the BCE abbreviation. - Anonymous -- 60.234.109.96 ( talk) 08:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I have just changed a BCE to BC, but only because it was the only one used in the article, I didn't realise this discussion was going on. Manfi ( talk) 16:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
From what I have observed over the past 5 or so years, BCE/CE has almost always been preferred for articles which are not Christianity-specific. There are sections of this article which are not Christianity specific; forcing AD/BC is inappropriate. On the other hand, having the Christianity-specific sections go one way, and the rest of the article the other, may look strange. -- Avi ( talk) 04:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I came across a reference to "year of the world" in the inscription on the Agas map of London c1560 where it says "this ancient and famous city of london was first founded ... in the year of the world [2832], and before the nativity of our saviour christ [1130]." This makes the creation date 3962 BC, which is one hundred years adrift of Bede. It makes me wonder whether that was a one-off bit of dodgy arithmetic by a sixteenth century map maker, or a more systematic difference that was prevalent at that time. ( http://mapoflondon.uvic.ca/section.php?id=D2) 87.115.3.0 ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm new here, but what I'm trying to point out is that Judiasm now uses CE to refer to years Anno Mundi. And that to Judiasm, C.E. is not the same as A.D. Stilkind ( talk) 23:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I read, "Western Christianity never adopted an Anno Mundi epoch system, relying instead on the Anno Domini (AD) epoch system." This is clearly incorrect (depending on one's definition of 'adopted', I suppose), since that dating was of direct relevance to the calculation of the Last Judgment: Bede, for instance, in De Temporum Ratione, recalculates the birth of Jesus at 3952 AM [1], "thus postponing the date of the apocalypse over 1200 years to 2048 AD." [2]
As recent edits have had frequent changes regarding era style, a discussion on which era style is most appropriate for this article seems appropriate. Choices:
Thoughts? SchreiberBike ( talk) 22:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I'm not seeing a consensus either way. Perhaps we should open this up to a wider audience (ala an RfP)? -- Avi ( talk) 23:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't actually understand all the arguments about BC/BCE. BCE is religiously neutral and is used by writers of other faiths besides Judaism. It is neutral even though the reference point is Christian, namely the birth (I think) of Jesus. Perhaps we should remember that the majority of the world's population is not Christian. In the article there were some BCEs and more BCs, and I changed the latter to BCEs. I have left the "AD"s in for now, even though AD is obviously Christian (and "CE" is neutral). Dori1951 ( talk) 17:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Anno Mundi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Under the heading "Jewish tradition", it is written that "By his [Rabbi Jose ben Halafta's] calculation, based on the Masoretic Text, Adam and Eve were created on 1st of Tishrei (Rosh Hashanah Day 1) in 3761 BCE, later confirmed by the Muslim chronologist al-Biruni as 3448 years before the Seleucid era. [references omitted by me in this citation]". However, the year is wrong; instead of "3761 BCE" it should read "3760 BCE". It is true that the traditional rabbinical "Anno Mundi" epoch is equal to the 1st of Tishrei in "3761 BCE", but this is NOT the traditional rabbinical date of Creation. Instead, most of the traditional rabbinical year A.M. 1 passed BEFORE Creation, which is traditionally dated to the 25th of Elul A.M. 1, with Adam and Eve created on the sixth day of the Creation Week, the 1st of Tishrei A.M. 2, which is (nominally, i.e. at noon) equal to "the 26th of September 3760 BCE" (proleptic Julian calendar). This is also confirmed by al-Biruni, whose interval between the Seleucid era (the Macedonian version, with its epoch in the autumn of "312 BCE") and the Jewish is given as "3448 years"; and 3448 years before the autumn of "312 BCE" gives the autumn of "3760 BCE" (and not "3761 BCE"). For a good, scholarly reference on the Internet, see e.g. http://www.tondering.dk/claus/cal/hebrew.php, where the following information is given: "Years are counted since the creation of the world, which is assumed to have taken place in the autumn of 3760 BCE. In that year, after less than a week belonging to AM 1, AM 2 started (AM = Anno Mundi = year of the world). In other words, AM 2 started less than a week after the 'creation of the world'.". /Erik Ljungstrand (Sweden) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.241.158.201 ( talk) 10:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
As no one has opposed (in fact, no one seems to have reacted at all), I have now corrected "3761 BCE" into "3760 BCE" as the traditional rabbinical date of the creation of Adam and Eve. /Erik Ljungstrand (Sweden)
As this seection is about Jewish tradition, I have taken the liberty of amending "BC" to "BCE" in this paragraph. I hope that is ok. Dori1951 ( talk) 17:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
What's with the backwards writing in the lede? It's hard to read, and no reasons is given (that I could see in the article) for using it. It's been that way for years, too. Noel (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
So what? English isn't. And since it's not a letter-by-letter translation, but word-by-word, writing the resultant English words backwards is completely arbitrary. Writing "two" as "owt" is just, silly - or worse, since the resultant text can't easily be read. Noel (talk) 01:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
The usage of calendar era in the article is currently mixed, so we need to choose one and go with it. Editor2020 ( talk) 01:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, can some-one explain the following:
The Christian era dating had not yet been invented in Theophilus's time, so how could he make an error with it? Bever ( talk) 04:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
On mobile view, the lead is jumbled around. I’d fix this myself, but I’m not sure what’s going on with it. Can anyone confirm that this isn’t just a problem with my phone? And if so, what’s the fix? Student298 ( talk) 15:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
The Jewish text refers to that Christian holidays starts at midnight, but that is not the case in Lutheran churches like in Sweden, starts 18.00 Saturday and finish 18.00 on Sunday.
Holiday prayers or holiday ringing are held in certain parts of Christianity, where the churches have bells, including the Church of Sweden, as an introduction to the weekend.
The church bells usually ring at 18.00 on Saturdays and rings out on Sunday at 18.00. The reason why the weekend is called in the evening before the holiday is that the day of the Bible actually begins with the evening in accordance with the first chapter of Genesis: "And there was evening and there was morning the first day". In connection with the ringing, a devotional called "weekend prayer" is sometimes held.
This is the reason X-mas eve is the great moment in families and is celebrated the evening of the 24th of December, X-mas is started, Santa (Tomten) is coming. In the morning of the 25th there is the Church celebration, when everybody vist the church. Same procedure is taking place every weekend but in lesser scale, Saturday nights are always the private party time. Previously Saturdays were half work day. -- Zzalpha ( talk) 20:38, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
I reverted a good faith contribution by an IP editor concerning the use of AM by Scottish Rite freemasonry. This article is about AM, not about uses of it. I have added a line to the See Also section as it is marginally relevant.
The contributor may wish to add the information to the Scottish Rite article. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 09:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)