Such an interesting and informative science for every person as history cannot be taught without knowing why to study history. By what criteria is the chronology of the life of mankind carried out? After all, history describes not only the events that took place, for example, 100 years ago, but also those that took place thousands and tens of thousands of years ago.

Historical chronology

BC, our era

All time in history is divided into two eras: the time that was before our era, and our era, which lasts to the present day. The year of the birth of Jesus Christ is considered the end of the old and the beginning of a new era in history.

Years in the period before the beginning of our era are reversed chronological order. This is due to the fact that there is no exact historical data on when exactly life appeared on the planet. Only thanks to historical artifacts, scientists can draw conclusions about how many years ago this or that event took place.

Prehistoric and historical era

History includes prehistoric and historical era. The prehistoric era begins with the advent of human life and ends with the advent of writing. The prehistoric era is divided into a number of time periods, the classification of which is based on archaeological fossils.

The materials from which Ancient people made tools and how long they used them is the basis for recreating the time frames and names of periods of the prehistoric era.

The historical epoch consists of the period of Antiquity, the Middle Ages, Modern times and Modern times. AT different states these periods were different time, so we are not able to determine the exact time frame.

First calendars

During evolutionary development a person has a need to systematize time. Ancient farmers needed to know the best time to sow seeds, nomadic livestock breeders needed to know when it was best to move to another territory in order to provide food for their livestock.

So the first calendars began to appear, based on observations of nature and celestial bodies. At different peoples There were different calendars. For example, the Romans kept counting from the founding of Rome in 753 BC, the Egyptians - from the beginning of the reign of each new dynasty pharaohs. Many religions have created their own calendars: in Islam, the chronology begins with the year of the birth of the Prophet Muhammad.

In 45 BC. Gaius Julius Caesar introduced the new Egyptian calendar, in which the year began on the first of January and had a duration of twelve months. The calendar is called Julian. This calendar set the length of the year as accurately as possible - 365 days, and 366 days in leap year. Since 1492, Julian calendar was introduced to Russia.

The modern calendar was introduced by the Pope Gregory XIII in 1582. He was able to eliminate some of the inaccuracies that had accumulated since I Ecumenical Council and amounted to 10 days at that time.

The difference between the Julian and Gregorian calendar increases by about a day per century, and today is 13 days.

”, abbreviated record -“ from R. H.", and correspondingly, " Before Christmas», « BC". Such an entry is chronologically equivalent (no conversion or year zero required). In addition, earlier (including in the first edition of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia) the designations were used Christian era, chr. e. and before the Christian era, before Christ. e.

Countdown start

According to most scientists, when calculating the year of the Nativity of Christ by the Roman hegumen Dionysius the Small in the 6th century, a small mistake was made (several years).

Record distribution

The use of AD in chronology became widespread after the use of Bede the Venerable, starting from 731. Gradually, all Western European countries switched to this calendar. Last in the West, August 22, 1422, on new calendar crossed over by Portugal (from the Spanish era).

Conflict between secular and religious records

There are a number of arguments for and against the use of secular notation (“BC” and “CE”) instead of religious (“BC” and “AD”).

Arguments in support of the secular record

The arguments in favor of the secular record mostly boil down to its religious neutrality and convenience for cross-cultural use.

The ease of transition is also pointed out: no shift of years is required and, for example, 33 B.C. becomes 33 BC. e.

It is also noted that the religious record is misleading regarding the year of Christ's birth - the historical facts are too vague to accurately establish this date.

Arguments in support of the religious record

Supporters of the religious notation believe that the replacement with a secular notation is historically incorrect, because even if a person does not share Christian beliefs, the calendar notation itself has Christian roots. In addition, many works already published use the notation "from R. H.".

Also, supporters of such a record point to other calendar concepts borrowed from other religions (January - Janus, March - Mars, etc.).

Arguments in support of both types of recording

The date of the beginning of our era is shifted from the date of the Nativity of Christ by constant value true shift, unknown modern science. The approximate value of the true shift according to various calculations is from 1 to 12 years. So the dates A.D. 33 and 33 years from the beginning of AD. e.- it's two different dates, the true shift between which is constant but unknown. Due to the lack of a reliable value of the true shift and the rigid binding of dates recent events to modern calendar from the beginning n. e. It is more convenient to count the dates of many events from the beginning of AD. e., but the dates of some events, especially the beginning of Christian times, are more convenient to count from the Nativity of Christ.

external links footnotes .

see also

• Up to the present - a system for recording dates relating to the past
• New age (new religious movement) - English translation possible. new age as " new era»; chronological concept of "new era" in English - eng. common era.

Write a review on the article "Our era"

Notes

Literature

• Anoprienko A.Ya.. - Donetsk: UNITECH, 2007. - S. 197-202.

Links

There are or external references in this article or section, but the sources of individual statements remain unclear due to the lack of footnotes. Statements not , may be questioned and removed. You can improve the article by adding more precise references to the sources.

An excerpt characterizing our era

In April, Rostov was on duty. At 8 o'clock in the morning, after returning home, after a sleepless night, he ordered to bring heat, changed his rain-soaked linen, prayed to God, drank tea, got warm, put things in order in his corner and on the table, and with a weathered, burning face, in one shirt, lay on his back, his hands under his head. He pleasantly thought about the fact that the next rank for the last reconnaissance should come to him the other day, and he was waiting for Denisov to come out somewhere. Rostov wanted to talk to him.
Behind the hut, Denisov's rolling cry was heard, obviously getting excited. Rostov moved to the window to see who he was dealing with, and saw Sergeant Topcheenko.
“I told you not to let them burn this claw, some kind of Mashkin!” shouted Denisov.
“I ordered, your honor, they don’t listen,” the sergeant-major answered.
Rostov again lay down on his bed and thought with pleasure: “Let him now fuss, bustle, I finished my job and I’m lying - excellent!” From behind the wall he heard that, besides the sergeant-major, Lavrushka, Denisov's perky, roguish lackey, was also speaking. Lavrushka was talking about some kind of carts, crackers and bulls, which he saw when he went for provisions.
Behind the booth, Denisov's retreating cry was heard again and the words: “Saddle! Second squad!
"Where are they going?" thought Rostov.
Five minutes later Denisov entered the booth, climbed onto the bed with dirty feet, angrily smoked his pipe, scattered all his belongings, put on his whip and saber, and began to leave the dugout. To the question of Rostov, where? he answered angrily and vaguely that there was a case.
- Judge me there God and great sovereign! - said Denisov, leaving; and Rostov heard the feet of several horses splashing through the mud behind the booth. Rostov did not even bother to find out where Denisov had gone. Having warmed himself in his corner, he fell asleep, and before evening he had just left the booth. Denisov has not yet returned. Evening cleared up; near a neighboring dugout, two officers with a cadet were playing pile, laughingly planting radishes in a loose dirty ground. Rostov joined them. In the middle of the game, the officers saw wagons approaching them: 15 hussars on thin horses followed them. The wagons escorted by the hussars drove up to the hitching posts, and a crowd of hussars surrounded them.
“Well, Denisov was grieve all the time,” said Rostov, “so the provisions have arrived.”
- And that! the officers said. - That's a happy soldier! - Denisov rode a little behind the hussars, accompanied by two infantry officers, with whom he was talking about something. Rostov went to meet him.
“I warn you, captain,” said one of the officers, thin, small in stature and apparently angry.
“After all, he said that I wouldn’t give it back,” Denisov answered.
- You will answer, captain, this is a riot - to beat off transports from your own! We didn't eat for two days.
“But they didn’t eat mine for two weeks,” Denisov answered.
- This is robbery, answer, your Majesty! – raising his voice, repeated the infantry officer.
- What are you doing to me? BUT? - shouted Denisov, suddenly heated up, - I will answer, not you, but you don’t buzz around here while you are safe. March! he shouted at the officers.
- It's good! - not shy and not driving away, the little officer shouted, - to rob, so I will ...
- To chog "that march with a quick step, while intact." And Denisov turned his horse to the officer.
“Good, good,” said the officer threateningly, and turning his horse, rode away at a trot, shaking in the saddle.
“A dog for godliness, a living dog for godliness,” Denisov said after him - the highest mockery of a cavalryman over a mounted infantryman, and, approaching Rostov, burst out laughing.
- Recaptured from the infantry, recaptured the transport by force! - he said. “Well, why don’t people die of hunger?”
The wagons that drove up to the hussars were assigned to an infantry regiment, but, having been informed through Lavrushka that this transport was coming alone, Denisov with the hussars recaptured it by force. The soldiers were handed out crackers at will, even shared with other squadrons.
The next day, the regimental commander called Denisov to him and told him, closing his eyes with open fingers: “I look at it like this, I don’t know anything and I won’t start business; but I advise you to go to the headquarters and there, in the food department, settle this matter, and, if possible, sign that you received so much food; otherwise, the demand is written to the infantry regiment: things will rise and may end badly.
Denisov directly from regimental commander went to the headquarters, with a sincere desire to fulfill his advice. In the evening he returned to his dugout in a position in which Rostov had never seen his friend before. Denisov could not speak and was suffocating. When Rostov asked him what was the matter with him, he only hoarse and weak voice uttered incomprehensible curses and threats ...
Frightened by the position of Denisov, Rostov offered him to undress, drink water and sent for a doctor.
- To judge me for g "azboy - oh! Give me more water - let them judge, but I will, I will always beat the scoundrels, and I will tell the sovereign." Give me some ice, he said.

What event began the countdown "BC" and "our era"?

1. Era (from lat. aera separate number, original figure),
   in chronology initial moment chronology system, marked by some real or legendary event, as well as the chronology system itself. Christian, or new, E. (our era) count of years from the generally accepted date in Christian religion associated with Christmas. AT ancient chronology different peoples used different E., timed to coincide with some event (real or mythical) or the beginning of a dynasty of rulers. For example, the era of Nabonassar in Babylon 747 BC. e.; in Ancient Rome E. existed from the founding of Rome (ab urbe condita), the beginning of which is taken to be 753 BC. e., in Muslim E. (Hijri), the years are counted from the year in which, according to legend, Muhammad (Mahomet) fled from Mecca to Medina, 622 AD. e. Some E. were confined to some point in time, artificially chosen on the basis of astronomical considerations, often combined with religious ones; such, for example, are world E. from the accepted moment of the creation of the world: among the Jews 3761 BC. e., in Orthodox Church 5508 BC e. Kaliyuga belongs to the same E., or iron age, Indians 3102 BC. e. At the end of the 16th century the so-called Julian era was introduced (see Julian period), which is convenient for astronomical and chronological calculations. The beginning of this E. 4713 BC. e.
2. Our era - the countdown is on the rise. Who and when began the countdown in descending BC. There are many religions. And who and when - no one can answer.
3. From event: Christmas
4. More interested in the "sunset" of the vulgar era. When the end came, after all the exact date I. Kh. no one knows and interprets each in his own way !!!
5. Maybe! Unfortunately, there are not only stupid students, but also "teachers" ...
6. usually counted according to the Julian calendar
7. And yet. From Christmas. The teacher might have known.
   Yes, not the whole world is Christian. Therefore, China has its own calendar, the Buddhists have their own.
   But the Gregorian calendar is accepted everywhere Western world and he counts his countdown precisely from the Nativity of Christ. This is the so-called. new era. And what happened before is a countdown from the same moment and is called BC.
   Tell it to your teacher. poor kids.
8. Blah, I know that the end of our era began after the birth of Christ (just don’t confuse it with the fact that the chubrik was born and geniuses-inventors immediately fell from the sky) like after the collapse of the Roman Empire
   like
9. Countdown start

   The zero year is not used in either secular or religious notations, so it was introduced by Beda the Venerable at the beginning of the 8th century (zero was not common in culture at that time). However, year zero is used in Astronomical year numbering and in ISO 8601.

   According to the majority of scholars, when the Roman hegumen Dionysius the Small calculated the year of the Nativity of Christ in the 6th century, a small mistake was made (several years) 12.
   Record distribution

   The use of AD in chronology became widespread after the use of Bede the Venerable, starting from 731. Gradually, all Western European countries switched to this calendar. The last in the West, on August 22, 1422, Portugal (from the Spanish era) switched to the new calendar.

   In Russia, the last day of the Constantinople era was December 31, 7208 from the creation of the world; by decree of Peter I, the next day was already officially considered according to the new chronology from the Nativity of Christ on January 1, 1700.
   Conflict between secular and religious records

   There are a number of arguments for and against the use of secular notation (BC and CE) instead of religious notation (BC and AD).
   Arguments in support of the secular record

   The arguments in favor of the secular notation mostly boil down to its religious neutrality and convenience for cross-cultural use.

   The simplicity of the transition is also pointed out: no shift of years is required and, for example, 33 BC becomes 33 BC. e.

   It is also noted that the religious record is misleading regarding the year of Christ's birth. historical facts too vague to accurately establish this date.
   Arguments in support of the religious record

   Supporters of the religious notation believe that the replacement with a secular notation is historically incorrect, because even if a person does not share Christian beliefs, the calendar notation itself has Christian roots. In addition, many works already published use the entry from R. H..

   Also, supporters of such a record point to other calendar concepts borrowed from other religions (January Janus, March Mars, etc.).
   Arguments in support of both types of recording

   The date of the beginning of our era is shifted from the date of the Nativity of Christ by a constant value of the true shift, unknown to modern science. The approximate value of the true shift according to various calculations is from 1 to 12 years. Thus, the dates are 33 A.D. and 33 A.D. e. these are two different dates, the true shift between which is constant but unknown. Due to the lack of a reliable value of the true shift and the rigid binding of the dates of recent events to the modern calendar from the beginning of AD. e. It is more convenient to count the dates of many events from the beginning of AD. e., but the dates of some events, especially the beginning of Christian times, are more convenient to count from the Nativity of Christ.

   Text document with red question mark.svg
   This article or section has a list of sources or external references, but the sources of individual statements remain unclear due to the lack of footnotes.
   Statements not supported by sources may be questioned and removed.
   You can improve the article by adding more precise references to the sources.

   see also

   From the founding of the city
   Up to the present, a system for recording dates relating to the past
   Constantinople era
   Juche calendar
   Chronology
   New Age (New Religious Movement) English translation possible. New Age as a new era; chronological concept of a new era in English English. common era.

   Notes

   Doggett, L.E., (1992), Calendars in Seidelmann, P.K., The Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac, Sausalito CA: University Science Books, p. 579.
   Bromiley Geoffrey W. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1

10. the world may not be all Christians, but it is established that from the birth of Christ. After all, Christians came up with this countdown
11. so what notable event happened on 01/01/01???

You will see that the Bible clearly says that the above statement is not true. First of all: The Adventist Church, like many others, teaches that the order to rebuild Jerusalem was received by Ezra in the 7th year of the government of Artaxerxes I in 457 BC. From this year, ignoring the principle of biblical time (see page 2), the church begins to count 69 weeks as 483 years (we will discuss these 69 weeks later) and get the 27th year that they believe Jesus was baptized (457 BC - 483 years +1=27 years). However, this view has no solid foundation. Luke made it quite clear (3:1) that John the Baptist began his baptismal mission in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar. Tiberius became Caesar in the year 14, so his 15th year was the 29th year. This means that Jesus could not have been baptized before the year 29. The Bible says that John the Baptist began his mission in the year 29, it does not say that Jesus was baptized in the same year - the 29th year. In fact, when Jesus came to be baptized, John was well known to “Jerusalem and all Judea and all the Jordan region” (Matt. 3:5; Mark 1:5), so it is likely that he preached for more than a few months (no one knows which day Luke considered the beginning of the year. At that time, according to several calendars, the year began with the birth of Augustus (September 23) link). And if it was so, the year 29 would have just begun). Adventists teach that the 27th year was the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius, since he replaced the emperor Augustus for two recent years before his death. Thus, they teach, his 15th year of reign was actually the 27th year. However, a careful study of the reign of Augustus clearly shows that a short time(less than two years), when Tiberius was openly recognized by Augustus as his successor and was admitted to the meetings of the Senate, it was not actually the time of his co-rule: he did not issue laws, did not take responsibility for the empire. Tiberius was not a leader, he did not know how to speak either with the people or with the Senate. Augustus brought him closer to him, because Tiberius was not his competitor, Augustus was not afraid that Tiberius would attract the respect and honor of his subordinates. Until his death, Augustus remained in a sound mind and sound memory, in the year of his death he wrote down all his victories, which he accomplished in his life ("Acts Divine August"). Augustus did not need assistants. Being a selfish and proud ruler, well aware of his merits in strengthening the empire, he liked it when people saw the contrast between him, albeit an old but wise leader, a bright personality, and a future ruler, wild, aloof , a suspicious man like Tiberius was. At that time, no one perceived Tiberius as the ruler of the empire. Even after the death of Augustus, Tiberius was not ready to take responsibility for the empire. According to the Annals of Tacitus, very hesitantly, he asked the Senate if he could take control only some part of the state. The Senate answered him that the empire could not be divided and should be governed by one mind. Caesar's successor, not by blood, but by own choice Caesar, Augustus perfectly satisfied the expectations of the Romans. As the first Roman emperor, Augustus organized the local government and army, restored Rome, and patronized culture and the arts. From his reign, endless wars stopped, and 200 years of peace began, which went down in history under the name Pax Augustus ( or Pax Romana). What he did for the empire was so great and seemed impossible for a man that many considered him a god and worshiped him even after his death. At the time when Augustus was alive, Tiberius was only a shadow of the leader. The Senate, and especially the masses, never accepted him as the ruler of the empire while Augustus was alive. Luke could not attribute the last two years of Augustus to the reign of Tiberius in any way. That is why in the 29th year, and not in the 27th year, John began to preach, and Jesus could come to him in the 29th year or later. 1. Link. 2. Link. 3. Link. 4. Link. 5. Link. 6. Link. 7. Link. Second: there is no logic in the traditional explanation of prophecy in order specified events. See for yourself: first the temple was built, then the city, then - city ​​wall. From the above books, we know that the Jews were surrounded by enemies who all the time tried to prevent the restoration of the temple. The neighboring tribes were aggressive and dangerous to the Jews. The Jews could not build a temple and a city without first rebuilding the city walls. The wall of the city had far from aesthetic purposes, but protective ones. She should have been restored first. Let's start studying these books step by step. We know from history that in 539 B.C. Cyrus II (559-521 BC) defeated Babylon and ordered the rebuilding of the temple (Ezra 1:1-3). In the government of Cyrus, in 539-8. BC, the first Jews left the Babylonian captivity to Jerusalem and other Jewish cities with Sheshbazzar (Ezra 1:8,11), the governor (Ezra 5:14), who was the first to lay the foundations of the temple (Ezra 5:16) . It was Sheshbazzar, not Zerubbabel, who received silver and gold from Cyrus (Ezra 1:8). The name of Sheshbazzar was not mentioned in the list of people who went out with Zerubbabel, because Sheshbazzar led another group, the very first one. The second exodus took place later, with Zerubbabel (Ezra 2:2), the governor (Haggai 1:14). When they came and began to build the city of Jerusalem, the neighboring nations wrote a letter to King Artaxerxes I complaining about the Jews, in the letter they said: “Let it be known to the king that the Jews who went out from you They have come to us, to Jerusalem, they are building this rebellious and useless city, and they are making walls, and they have already erected their foundations” (Ezra 4:12). So when did the exodus with Zoroabel take place? In the government of Artaxerxes I (465-424 BC). What did Zerubbabel's people do as soon as they arrived? They began repairing the walls and laying foundations. The Bible says that in the second year after their return (Ezra 3:8) the foundations of the temple were laid (Ezra 3:10). As we know, Sheshbazzar had already laid the foundations of the temple (Ezra 5:16). It only means that too many years have passed since Sheshbazzar laid the foundations, and they were already partially destroyed, and probably were not even finished: “Then Sheshbazzar came and laid the foundations of the house of God in Jerusalem; and from that time until now it has been built, and is not yet finished” (Ezra 5:16) due to the strong opposition experienced by the Jews from their neighbors. Nehemiah (or Tirshafa 1:1; 10:1) was very wealthy and respected person(Nehemiah 7:70). He first arrived in Jerusalem with a group of Zerubbabel (Neh. 7:7; Ezra 2:2) and together with the priest Ezra he participated in the Feast of Tabernacles (Neh. Nun” (Nehemiah 8:1,17). The feast was held in the seventh month (Ezra 3:4,6), the first year after the return of Zerubbabel's group to Jerusalem (Ezra 3:6,8). After this, Nehemiah returned to Babylon to continue his work as butler in the court of Artaxerxes I. About 10 years later (we will discuss this period of time later) while he was in Shushan place all these years), he heard that the people who had gone to Jerusalem were “in great distress and humiliation; and the wall of Jerusalem is broken down, and its gates are burned with fire” (Nehemiah 1:3). Nehemiah was very annoyed (1:3) because he was with Zerubbabel's people when they repaired the walls. Probably the neighboring tribes, who were against the restoration of Jerusalem, burned the gates. In the 20th year of the reign of King Artaxerxes I (reigned from 465 to 424 BC), Nehemiah asked the king for permission to go to the city of his ancestors and build it. The king sent Nehemiah to rebuild the city (Neh. 2:1,5,6) and gave him wood to build city ​​wall and gate Jerusalem (2:8). Nehemiah did not say that this was a decree to rebuild the city, most likely it was simply the king's answer to his request. “In the day your walls are built, on that day the decree will go away,” said the prophet (Micah 7:11). The wall was built against all odds (Nehemiah 4:16,17), despite threats to kill Nehemiah (6:10) in 52 days (6:15). Only after the wall was completed was it possible to build anything inside Jerusalem without the threat of death from the surrounding tribes. Nehemiah said, “You see the distress we are in; Jerusalem is empty and its gates are burned with fire; let's go to, let us build the wall of Jerusalem, and we will no longer be in such humiliation» (2:17). Therefore, Jerusalem was empty until the wall was built. The construction of the city walls was a priority. In the time of Nehemiah, Jerusalem “was spacious and great: and the people in it were few, and houses were not built” (Nehemiah 7:4). The decree for the rebuilding of Jerusalem was given by Nehemiah, as governor (Nehemiah 5:14), after the construction of the walls of the city was completed. Thus, the decree to rebuild the city of Jerusalem was given by Nehemiah in the same 20th year of the reign of King Artaxerxes I, in 446 BC. If it were Ezra, who received the order to rebuild Jerusalem 14 years ahead of time Nehemiah (as is commonly believed), then some buildings would already have been built in the city. The incorrect conclusion that Nehemiah's time was after the time of Ezra and the city and temple had already been rebuilt before Nehemiah arrived was probably because the Bible reports that in Nehemiah's time there was a temple of God in Jerusalem (Neh. 6:10) . However, at that time, even the place where the temple was before was called the house of God. Thus, the altar was built in the first year after the arrival of the Zerubbabel group (Ezra 3:1,2,6,8), in the seventh month. In the same seventh month (Nehemiah 9:1) they “cast lots for the delivery of firewood, ... to bring them to the house of our God” (10:34). So, there was only an altar, but the place was already called the house of God. Ezra said, “In the second year after his coming to the house of God in Jerusalem, in the second month, Zerubbabel ... and Jesus ... and their other brothers, the priests and the Levites ... foundation of the temple of the Lord ” (3:8,11). Thus the place was called the house of God even when the house had no foundation. At the time of Nehemiah, there was no temple in Jerusalem. The Bible says that Artaxerxes I stopped all work on the temple and work did not continue until the second year of Darius' reign (Ezra 4:24). If the temple had already been built when Nehemiah arrived, how would Artaxers stop work on the temple? In addition to ordering Artaxerxes to stop work on the temple, Ezra also mentions the help of Artaxerxes I in the construction of the temple (Ezra 6:14). This leads to a misunderstanding: did he stop the work or help with the work? The king stopped work on the temple, but allowed Nehemiah to complete the construction of the fortress at the house of God (Nehemiah 2:8; 13:7). It was a fortress, where there was an altar, on the site of the temple, and it was called the house of God. The temple has not yet been built. The temple was rebuilt when all the people of Jerusalem already had their own houses (Haggai 1:4,9), and in Nehemiah's time there were no houses yet (Nehemiah 7:4). Thus, contrary to traditional claims, the temple could not have been built before Nehemiah. In chapter 4, Ezra described the difficulties of rebuilding the temple that the Jews went through from the beginning of the Exodus from Babylon to the time of Ezra. Read this chapter carefully. The neighboring nations were hostile against the Jews (Ezra 4:5): “in all the days of Cyrus (Cyrus II, from the exodus from Babylon in 538 BC to 521 BC) ... and until the reign of Darius ( Darius I 521-486 BC)”. During the reign of Darius I's son Ahasuerus (486-465 BC), an accusation was made against the Jews (Ezra 4:6), which occurred at the same time that the king issued a decree to exterminate all the Jews in his kingdom (Esther 3:7, 13. In Russian translations of the book of Esther, sometimes the name Artaxerxes is used instead of the name Ahasuerus. After that, Artaxerxes (Artaxerxes I ruled 465-424 BC) stopped all work in the temple and “this stop continued until the second year of the reign of Darius” (Ezra 4:7,21,24). This was Darius II, he ruled from 424 to 404 BC. Thus, in the second year of the reign of Darius II (Ezra 5:5), in 423 BC. “The Lord aroused the spirit of Zerubbabel…and the spirit of Jesus…and they came and began to do work in the house of the Lord…. in the second year of King Darius” (Haggai 1:14-15). Zechariah (4:9) said: “The hands of Zerubbabel laid the foundation of this House, his hands will finish it” (the Jews actually believed that Zerubbabel, and not Sheshbazzar, laid the foundation of the temple, because almost nothing remained of the first foundation and it was not even finished: “and from then until the village it is being built, and is not yet finished” (Ezra 5:16). As we can see, if Zerubbabel had come to Jerusalem in 538 BC, as is commonly believed, then in the time of Darius II, i.e. 116 years later, he would have long since died. When it was reported to King Darius II that the Jews began to build the temple at the behest of King Cyrus, he first ordered that the order be found in the book depository (Ezra 5:17,6:1). And only after making sure that such an order of Cyrus really existed, he issued a decree to continue the construction of the temple. Cyrus II the Great was legendary king Persia, and all his decrees were authoritative for each subsequent king. Therefore, the Jews boldly referred to the decree of Cyrus even at a time when other kings were in power. So the people of Zerubbabel told their neighbors about the order of Cyrus during the reign of Artaxerxes I (Ezra 4:3). In the 6th year of the reign of Darius II (Ezra 6:15) the temple of God was completed. So, the temple was rebuilt in 419 BC.

why there is our era and BC

1. 1. Our era, n. e. (alternative decoding new era, eng. Common Era, eng. CE) time period from 1 year to Gregorian calendar, the current epoch. The period of time ending before the beginning of the first year of the Gregorian calendar BC, BC. e. ; alternate form Before Christmas.
      
      
      According to the majority of scholars, when calculating the year of the Nativity of Christ by the Roman hegumen Dionysius the Small in the 6th century, a small mistake was made (several years).

1. 1. "Our era" begins with the birth of Jesus Christ. Before that - BC. Date conditional - the exact date has not been found.

1. 1. In 284 from the beginning of the reign of the Roman emperor Diocletian, the monk Dionysius the Lesser calculated, as it seemed to him, the date of the birth of Jesus Christ and took it as the starting point of a new era. Dionysius established, according to the text of the New Testament, that Christ was born 525 years before he began his calculations. It is this event that marks the beginning of our era. Then in early middle ages, still used the Roman system, when the count was from the date of the accession of the emperor. Dionysius determined the date by calculating the dates of Easter. For Dionysius the Lesser, the emperor Diocletian was a pagan and a persecutor of Christians, therefore, as it seemed to him, it would not be very worthy to calculate these sacred dates from the time of the pagan emperor. Another monk, a chronicler, made his reference system popular in 731 Anglo-Saxon history Bede the Venerable in his work On the Six Ages of the World. It was Bede who introduced the countdown into reverse side BC. After that new system reference began to spread throughout all the then European countries. latest in Western Europe moved to new chronology Portugal in 1422. In Russia, a new era was introduced by Peter I in 1699.

      In view of what event is counted from, they also say: after the birth of Christ, before the birth of Christ. Modern researchers The New Testament says that Dionysius the Small was a little mistaken in the calculations for about four years. Despite this, the designation of AD and BC in modern world broke away from its religious roots and already exists regardless of the fact that, in fact, there is an inaccuracy in the calculations. Briefly referred to as n. e., BC e.

1. 1. This is how it happened historically.
      That is, initially there was no our or non-our era, time was kept in each country in its own way, often dividing time by periods of reign of kings. But with the advent of Christianity, Christian leaders decreed that a new era had now come, since "the Lord New Testament with people", and therefore it is necessary to tie the count of time to this event. Well, and only then, to refer to events that occurred before the birth of Christ, they began to use the wording "before our era." Our era, AD (alternative decoding new era , Eng. Common Era, eng. CE) a period of time starting from year 1 of the Gregorian calendar, the current epoch. A period of time ending before the beginning of the first year of the Gregorian calendar BC, BC ; an alternative form of Before the birth of Christ.
      The name is often used in the religious form of the Nativity of Christ, an abbreviation of R. H. . Such a notation is chronologically equivalent (no conversion or year zero required).
      The zero year is not used in either secular or religious notations, so it was introduced by Bede the Venerable at the beginning of the 8th century (zero was not common in culture at all then). However, year zero is used in Astronomical year numbering and in ISO 8601.
      According to the majority of scholars, when calculating the year of the Nativity of Christ by the Roman hegumen Dionysius the Small in the 6th century, a small mistake was made (several years).

      The era "from the birth of Christ" was introduced by Dionysius the Small in 525, already at the beginning of the 7th century it was approved by Pope Boniface IV. It is also found in the documents of Pope John XIII (965 - 972). But only since the time of Eugene IV, since 1431, this era has been regularly used in the documents of the office of the Vatican. Simultaneously in without fail the year from the creation of the world should have been indicated.
      Shortly after the introduction, the era was also used by some Western historians and writers, in particular, by a contemporary of the papal archivist Marcus Aurelius Cassiodorus, a century later by Julian of Toledo, then by Bede the Venerable.
      During the 8th - 9th centuries, the new era became widespread in many states of Western Europe.
      In Russia, the Christian chronology and the January New Year, as already mentioned, were introduced at the end of 1699 by decree of Peter I, according to which (better for the sake of agreement with the European peoples in contracts and treatises (the year starting after December 31, 7208 from the creation of the world, began to be considered 1700 from the Nativity of Christ.
      To date, the era "from the birth of Christ", created by Dionysius the Lesser more than a millennium and a half ago, "has become, as it were, an absolute scale for fixing historical events in time" (E. I. Kamentseva. Chronology. - M .: " graduate School", 1967. - S. 24).

   2. BC is like before the birth of Christ, our era in Russia is considered to be 1700 AD

1. Who can claim zero point countdown, on Earth??? What is she based on? The Muslims have their own, the Orthodox have their own, the peoples of Africa have Tomba-mba, their own. She, that is determined by the Jews, who first kill the Son of God, then celebrate his resurrection, attributing merit to themselves. Here is a complete GALIMATIA!