W W W W  World Wide Web Witness Inc.  Home Page   Contents Page for Volume  What is New

The Advertiser, April 1999

The April correspondence of The Advertiser included a reply to one, John Phillipson, who had brought forth material on the nature of AD - BC dates, at the interface, pointing out there was no O B.C., and allied matters.

The reply to this held certain points which were open to question or even fundamentally astray. The topic is worth thought because of the underlying assumptions and what they indicate. It is not really a matter of the correspondents in this case, so much as the points in view.

Actually, the statement that the famed 'millenium bug' exhibited the trouble with this no O A.D. phenomenon, was open to no little question. Basically, at least, the trouble rather appears to come from a simple failure on the part of manufacturers to allow for that (then 'distant') time when 2000 A.D. would roll up, and take its place in the common round of duties. FOUR DIGITS were NOT included in the year dating procedure for the early computer systems in general, so that, as a result, the date would return to ZERO at 2000 A.D., for lack of the first of the four of the digits, to take the one in point. It would be like having a bank balance of $9000 in a case where the bank had only - here - 4 digits available. When you hit 10,000 it would simply appear as 0000, with potentially disturning results.

This was a failure with the four phenomenon more than anything else, it would seem. What it showed was that you should have more foresight in the earlier part of the 20th century, one would have thought, rather than this: that 2000 odd years ago they had a different mathematical system in Rome, in some respects.

That is interesting, but what follows is vital. The writer went on to announce that it did not really matter what new ideas might come as to the authentic date of Christ's ACTUAL (as distinct from traditionally accounted) birth date, since we just start with this idea of inventing and investing a 0 A.D., and low and behold, the first actual decade of a real ten years finishes neatly as soon as 10 A.D. rolls up, instead of at a somewhat disconcerting 11A.D., since with no zero, there has to be the 10 included to make the ten in sum. So too gone would be the equally bizarre-seeming need to wait till 101A.D. before the 1st century was accounted for; to 1001A.D. before the 1st millenium, and to 2001A.D. before the 2nd one was done. No more would the abstruse seeming cry be, NO! it is NOT significant in terms of millenia, when 2000 A.D. comes up. You have to wait until 2001A.D. for that!

On this new system, adapted to decimal notatin, lo and behold, at 20000 A.D., there you are. It genuinely IS the new millenium. Rejoice oh ye zeros, and resume your ... regal place!

However, this is basically in error. Christianity does NOT on any such basis, become indifferent to the ACTUAL birth-date of Jesus Christ. It is a religion in which truth is paramount, NOTHING can displace it, so that Christ is, by His own statement, the WAY the LIFE and the TRUTH (John 14:6), asking why they set about to murder One who told them the truth (John 8:37-40, Matthew 24:35), and who in fact told them in very considerable detail many things which would come to be politically, physically, biologically and spiritually, with the very same mouth which announced His return in power and majesty of the most glorious character WHEN these preliminaries were duly and truly fulfilled (Matthew 24:30).

This faith stands in the heights, truth. God in the Old Testament repeatedly challenges in the most ardent way, anyone anywhere to produce predictions that at all for accuracy and fulfilment, can match His (Isaiah 41,43,48). Hence NO tradition, far less mathematical system, can dictate to facts what matters for the Christian faith. For it, the facts are indispensable, and what is for CHRISTIANS to represent them must actually DO SO! Very well: the magical seeming facility of inventing 0 A.D. for the current system, or if you prefer, re-investing it backwards to 0 A.D. with mathematical seizure, and placing in the 'missing' year, does NOTHING at all for what is basic in the matter, whether it be the arithmetical, the historical, the symbolic or any other matter, re Christ's birthdate. IF this in view, it MUST be what it was, and NO system or mere thought can take any precedence for any convenience in any respect. IF it were around BC 1, Dec. 25, then this would be a neat expression of it. But NOTHING can make the ACTUAL date NOT TO MATTER, in ANY sphere for the Christian faith.

This of course considerably reduces the prima facie putative delightfulness of adding the 0 A.D., which from a Christian point of view is really not terribly significant at all. In fact (see SMR pp. 886ff.), it is rather generally agreed in the light of the historical evidence, and the data we do have, in the record and in the historical events, that the birth date of Jesus Christ was 4 B.C.. The Bible does not state the date, but it does state certain relevant facts which, in terms of the data we have on the ancient secular history of the period, does seem to indicate 4 B.C. more than anything else.

All this means, date-wise, is that the powers-that-were at the time could have been more adept in their selection of the birth-date of the One whom the world was rather more keen to remove than to reverence, to whom it wanted more to give a death-date than a place of entry assignment! It has little to do with anything that really matters in the Christian perspective, unless perhaps the irony of the formalising of the Christian religion in this way, that it was not done so well. But then, Christ did not pray for the world (John 17:9-16), but for those who should believe in Him OUT OF IT. The world goes on its increasingly not-so-merry way. It is not at all Christian, though perhaps some millions of Christians give scent and savour within it.

THEIR basic environment (to use the 'basic' word provided) is CHRIST (Philippians 1:20-21).

Finally, it is perhaps worth noting also this: that even if a 0 A.D. were pushed back into the date-line up of ancient history, it would - while not really beneficial to the Christian faith, provide a little trouble to historians, just as it would not do too much for the 2000 A.D. rejoicing. All history dates would have to be advanced to allow for the new line up, and we would of course still have to wait till 2000 A.D. for the new millenium, even if it were newly made to be 2000 CE or some such term. A couple of thousand years of mismatched dates would not be unduly delightful to adapt to, and it is doubtless easier to make one more little rule for life: that onewaits till the zero is past before claiming the new whatever: in this case, millenium.