Talk:annis Domini

Archived feedback: March–April 2015
Is it really necessary to write "assumed" before "birth of Jesus Christ"? I refer to the word of the day entry for "annis Domini". It would be great if Wiktionary could be consistent. I do not see you or Wikipedia writing things like "the assumed birth of Winston Churchill", "the assumed birth of Jefferson Davis", etc. Pretend the politically crowd are not watching you and strive to be academically consistent. Thank you!
 * Winston Churchill and Jefferson Davis have documentation of the times and places of their births in official records, and innumerable contemporary accounts describing them and their actions. We have absolutely nothing mentioning Jesus when he was alive, let alone giving the year of his birth. Of course, that's also true for all but a handful of his contemporaries, and absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence- but any statement about his birth is based on assumptions. The definition could probably be worded better, but it's not really as anti-religious as you seem to be implying. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I suppose we could say "calculated" or "estimated". It was Dionysius Exiguus who made the assumptions in his calculations, but we don't know exactly on what he based his assumptions.   D b f  i  r  s   13:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "approximate" or "approximated" are also possibilities Leasnam (talk) 02:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Since the calendrical system has been changed in the meantime, the meaning of "year" over such a long span is pretty arbitrary anyway. Equinox ◑ 02:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Well it's only the start of the year, and the adjustment of ten or more days, that have changed in the calendar. The actual count of years has been accurate (as far as we know) since Dennis the Dwarf devised the system.    D b f  i  r  s   21:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I don’t think calculated, estimated, or approximate would be reasonable choices. First, it is generally agreed that Jesus was not born in the year 1 BC, he was born in 4 BC. The date of December 25 was not selected until the 4th century AD. Due to the changes in calender (especially from Julian to Gregorian), that date would correspond today to January 6, I believe (the theophany). There are a number of reasons why Jesus could not have been born in January (or December), or in the winter at all. Without going into all the reasons, it is now estimated that Jesus must have been born in early fall, probably the end of September (Gregorian calendar), in the year 4 B.C. —Stephen (Talk) 20:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * But AD is based on the calculations of Dionysius Exiguus, estimations which are now known to be only approximate. I suppose that lots of people assume that his calculations were accurate.    D b f  i  r  s   23:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I changed "assumed birth" to "assumed birth date", which avoids the contentious and non-lexicographical issue of the historicity of Jesus. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think assumed is the right word here. It is an assumption that Jesus was born when westerns calendars say he was. And it doesn't contradict the Bible to say this either, as the Bible does not give a date of birth for Jesus. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)