This brief entry to correct something.
"To begin a calculation of the “date” of an event that occurred in December of 1 B.C.E. as to the interval between that and April 2 C.E. is not one year but four months."
...is incorrect and resulted from this writer experimenting with different year-dates seeking to create an example that would clearly illustrate the matter of no "0" year between 1 B.C.E. and 1 C.E.
It was thought that perhaps a longer time span might better illustrate the matter so the year 2 C.E. was used during composition. Before posting the entry, however, 2 C.E. should have been changed back to 1 C.E.
so the year would have matched the time elapsed illustration. With the additional changes now added into the following correction, the illustration will hopefully be better as follows:
"Looking at a typical calculation of the interval of time between two dates such as typified by one beginning in late December of 1 B.C.E. and lasting until early April 1 C.E., the elapsed time is not one year as would commonly be described with a statement something like "...lasting from 1 B.C.E. to 1 C.E." The actual time elapsed would be four months (give or take unspecified elapsed days in both December and April). So the duration of the event was not a "year" lasting from 1 B.C.E. to 1 C.E. but only four months long."
Please insert this corrected entry in substitution of what appears in the post.
The focus on this issue is because when adding historic dates together as was done regarding Herod the Great's beginning of the work to rebuild the Temple with the elapsed time of forty-six years mentioned in the NT exchange between Jesus and the Jews (among them perhaps scribes and the merchants he drove out of the temple) to arrive at the year of that discussion, the result of one or the other returns (such as 28 C.E. or 29 C.E.) can appear to be "out-of-sync" with other known historical markers.
If one year (e.g.28 C.E) is used in a calculation in preference to another (29 C.E. or vice versa) to derive the year of Jesus' "Last Supper" and following death, the return will obviously be two different years - at least one of which will not match other required factors such as requiring the lunar record of Nisan 14 (accompanied by a full moon) to fall on a Friday in 32 C.E. to coincide with the NT description of the day-of-the-week upon which it actually fell.
This illustration highlights the difficulty that can be experienced when calculating spans of time between dates that cross over from B.C.E. to C.E. resulting from no "0" year in the calculation. More detail regarding why 29 C.E. rather than 28 C.E. is the better fit for basing the upcoming calculation of the year of Jesus' "Last Supper" and death in the next entry...when time permits.
Hopefully this explanation is more helpful than confusing as future entries continue to pursue the process of identifying the year of Jesus' death though the application and comparison of these historical markers.And...Grrr82CU