David Yeagley is the great-great-grandson of Comanche leader Bad Eagle. 
Crazy as it is, the Gregorian Calendar of the Western world is the only one of its kind. This January 1, 2009, is the only New Year in the world. The other cultures of the world see the new year in the Spring, when life returns. When there is new growth. The Catholic calendar puts the new year in the dead of Winter. Why is that? Isn’t that just a little curious?
The Gregorian Calendar also divides time into a backward/forward table, like BC (before Christ) and AD (Anno Domini, “in the year of our Lord”). This causes a great deal of confusion to young people just learning world history, and it remains problematic even to adults. I know from personal experience in teaching ancient history to college level students. And to make things more confusing, we have the term “century” which does not match the numerological labels of years. For instance, the year 1620 is in the early part of the 17th century. Like, the year 321 is in the early part of the 4th century, etc. Fourth century does not mean 400’s, and 17th century does not mean 1700’s.
But to make matters even more confusing, when we’re talking about Gregorian “BC” time, everything reverses. Time always flows forward (left to right) but, the numerical figures on Gregorian time begin in larger quantity, and decrease as they move forward! That is, until you’re on the right side of Christ. (Also I must remind everyone, Annos Domini does not begin at the crucifixion of Christ, but at His birth.)
4000—–3000—-2000—-1000—-0—-1000—-2009
Let’s say we want to go back three thousand years. That would put as at 991 BC. The BC numbers all get smaller as you move to the right. And 991 BC is what part of what century? It is the early part of the 10th century, BC. (The year 1000 BC is the beginning of the 11th century, BC. That century-to-numerical year relationship is the same as on the AD side of the time line. The “century” is one number larger than the numerical year date.) So, “early” in BC time means the larger number: 991 is early on the time line than 990, or 899, even though it is a larger number.
This problematic system also extends to the concept of millennia, or, thousand year periods. The year 1620 is in the second millennium AD. The year 991 BC is in the first millenium BC. The year 1776 is toward the latter part of the 18th century, and the latter part of the 2nd Millennium. The year 991 BC is in the early part of the 1st Millenium BC.
Of course, the cherry on the mud pie is the fact that there is no year “0.” The year 1 BC is followed by the year 1 AD. This fact has caused a problem or two when Bible prophecy enthusiasts (as well as scholars) calculate Biblical prophecies–most of which are from the “BC” period, though St. John’s Revelation came in the AD 90’s.
No other cultures have placed such awkward and unnecessary numerical abstractions on themselves. Even the Hebrew culture, on which the Christian religion is based, simply numbers the years from 1 to 5769 (today’s Gregorian 2009). Why would anyone want to go against the entire world? What was Pope Gregory trying to accomplish? Some gigantic acknowledgement of Christ in the world? Is it all an unnecessary, graphic, iconographic, “idolatrous” superimposition? What is the purpose and effect?
The Gregorian Calendar became fixed and functional February 24, 1582 AD (latter part of the 16th century), on the authority of Pope Gregory XIII. What was the Catholic Church doing before then? Was it otherwise the year 5342? And what of the months of the year? And the number of days in a given month and a given year?
The Gregorian Calendar was a reformation of the Julilan Calendar, of course, which was a Roman thing, on the authority of Julius Caesar (45 BC). (The Catholic Church is definitely a “Roman” thing.) But this doesn’t help us answer the question as to what year Gregory thought it was before his imposition of a new calendar. In fact, the only thing we can be sure of is that he was taking a Roman approach to time, and the Roman approach was itself rather novel, relative to the ancient Mesopotamian world.
In the end, the only thing we can be sure of is that civilization has always had twelve months, and that constituted some kind of year. And more certain than that, we know civilization has always had seven days in a week, and they have always been in the same order. This is of interest, because the Hebrew story of Bereshith (beginnings, or Genesis) actually begins with the week, marked by the holy Sabbath. Genesis 1:14 speaks of celestial lights which are “for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years.” The world may have various understandings and interpretations of the length of months and years, but, there are phenomenon in nature which seem constant: sunrise, sunset; the cycles of the moon; the changes of weather (seasons), etc. However, seasons are what they are, of themselves. Man’s calculations and labels have no bearing on the change of temperature or the advent of Spring. The only thing that has apparently never been affected by any of this is that mysterious weekly cycle–which has no natural account. There is no reason for it, or explanation for it, save that given in the Hebrew story of creation. And only the Hebrew story contains logic with the logistics. Other ancient myths fail to provide even the illusion of cause when it comes to the weekly cycle. The Hebrew Sabbath is il mistero di misteri, as our late friend Dr. Samueli Bacchiocchi might have said, “the mystery of mysteries.”
I say, Happy New Year, in all sincerity, but I really don’t know what year it is, or what day it is, numerically. The only thing I can really wish for is a Good Shabbas when it comes your way! Then we know we’re on target!
11 responses so far ↓
1 Hunter Pieper // Jan 1, 2009 at 9:38 pm
“No other cultures have placed such awkward and unnecessary numerical abstractions on themselves.”
This is the same culture which created the IRS, and the “tax code” it enforces, so there you go!
Happy New year to you and yours, and may you not get ulcers fretting over the next administration..
Ever think of going back to teaching?
2 Terry Morris // Jan 2, 2009 at 8:03 am
Interesting article; the first of its kind I recall ever reading.
You wrote:
This causes a great deal of confusion to young people just learning world history, and it remains problematic even to adults. I know from personal experience in teaching ancient history to college level students.
I remember as a youngster thinking that AD stood for “After Death”, as in Christ’s death. I can’t say for certain where I came on that false idea, but I was a young adult before I learned the difference.
But isn’t this more an indictment against our public education system in America than it is an idictment against the Gregorian calendar? I understand not wanting to make things unnecessarily difficult and confusing, but the Gregorian calendar ain’t that difficult to understand, and most useful knowledge is a bit confusing for the student initially.
Most fifth graders, I tend to think, can understand the Gregorian calendar if they’re taught it at that early age. …
3 David Yeagley // Jan 2, 2009 at 8:16 am
HP: Certainly, I have thought about teaching, but, it’s no use here in the general OKC area. I’d have to be offered a serious job, if I were ever to move. I did apply for Ward Churchill’s job…Ha!
4 David Yeagley // Jan 2, 2009 at 8:25 am
TM: If the truth were known, I’ll bet the Aloysius (Luigi) Lilius, the Calebrian astronomer and chronologist (as well as doctor and philosopher–you know, Italian Renaissance man), may have had some number line fetish from geometry studies or something. That’s really what his “Gregorian” calendar reflects. That’s what it is, a basic geometric (algebraic) number line, nothing more or other. Maybe there was a “surge” of number line applications in the society at that time. Who knows why it caught on.
Pope Gregory XIII I don’t see as particularly significant, historically, like say, Gregory the Great (Gregory I)–after whom is name the enterprise of Gregorian Chant. But, I suppose the calendar thing was in fact more significant! It’s a very Catholic world we live in here in the West, you know.
5 Terry Morris // Jan 2, 2009 at 8:27 am
But to make matters even more confusing, when we’re talking about Gregorian “BC” time, everything reverses. Time always flows forward (left to right) but, the numerical figures on Gregorian time begin in larger quantity, and decrease as they move forward! That is, until you’re on the right side of Christ. (Also I must remind everyone, Annos Domini does not begin at the crucifixion of Christ, but at His birth.)
4000—–3000—-2000—-1000—-0—-1000—-2009
But isn’t this method of establighing a timeline for dating history consistently applied in other fields of knowledge. For instance, geography. We divide the earth (artificially) into hemispheres, northern and southern, eastern and western. As to the former the dividing line is the Equator. Moving north of the equator the increments increase in value so that we have 90 degrees of north latitude. Moving south of the equator the same applies.
6 David Yeagley // Jan 2, 2009 at 8:45 am
I don’t see the advantage of dividing the time. The other divisions you talk of are uniform and constant. Geometric, as well, indeed, but applied to a sphere, not time.
It all does remind me of that strange vers in Daniel (7:25): And he shall…think to change times and laws…
Also, I wonder why the Latin Annos Domini was retained for the time AFTER Christ, but something like Ante Domini or at least Prior Domini wasn’t kept. In English it comes out to “Before Christ.” Simple.
7 WARCHICK // Jan 2, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Great read as always Injun Joe…up for a phpne call update from your favorite fiery red head? Email me for a time over the weekend when you’ll be available.
8 David Yeagley // Jan 2, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Hey, Rambo! What a treat to hear from you! This is going to be a good year!
We all love you here. You know that.
I think people that truly love the country end up having a special love for each other. Know what I mean?
9 Dr.D // Jan 2, 2009 at 9:42 pm
David, you say, “Also, I wonder why the Latin Annos Domini was retained for the time AFTER Christ, but something like Ante Domini or at least Prior Domini wasn’t kept.” I can offer a thought on that.
Anno Domini means “in the year of our Lord.” It has long been the practice of very important personages such as kings and popes to date documents in the form, “Jan 2, 2009, in the 13th year of our reign” or some such words. The phrase, “Anno Domini” marks all events as occuring within the reign of our Lord Jesus Christ after is Incarnation at Bethlehem in Judea these 2000 years ago.
If I am not mistaken, I think that the Orthodox (eastern Christians) still follow the Julian calendar which is the reason that they often wind up celebrating Easter at time different from those of us here in the West. They make the entire calculation differently.
I have to agree with Terry Morris when he says that the Gregorian Calendar is really not that big of a challenge for folks who are properly taught at an early age. I never found it to be any difficulty at all.
10 "Greetings, my son!" // Jan 3, 2009 at 2:34 am
Let another brilliant Calabrian straighten this whole thing out.
The Gregorian calendar was constructed to give a close approximation to the tropical year, which is the actual length of time it takes for the Earth to complete one orbit around the Sun — if the “yutz” and the “yutz educators” can’t deal with that, then to bad — there is still a need for lifters, tote-ers and stackers.
Moreover, the world truly never even began until Christ was born, and the count down to his birth is appropriate. The fact that one of the pope’s of Christ’s One and Only True Church established the very way we keep track of our days on on Earth is also appropriate.
11 Terry Morris // Jan 3, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Dr. Yeagley wrote:
I don’t see the advantage of dividing the time. The other divisions you talk of are uniform and constant. Geometric, as well, indeed, but applied to a sphere, not time.
Well, I don’t know about all that…
I can probably think of a thousand examples if I put my mind to it, but off the top of my head one example would be the launching of the space-shuttle. A countdown is initiated and proceeds to launch. When the engines ignite, then the process reverses. The launching of the space shuttle is central to the countdown and the count-up.
I agree with Greetings My Son who wrote of the appropriateness of counting up from Christ’s birth … particularly in Christian society. I don’t agree with him when he says that history really didn’t begin until Christ’s birth, but I think I get his meaning. All of human history, or, His-Story, points either forward or backward to the advent of Christ.
You must log in to post a comment.