THE HISTORICITY OF JESUS.

Auckland Star, Volume LIV, Issue 147, 22 June 1923, Page 10

THE HISTORICITY OF JESUS.

(To the Editor.) Sir,—Your correspondent F.E". in your iseue of 16th inst. desires to know vrhy this year is called "The year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty-three." May I endeavour to answer hie query. When through the exertions of the evangelists the Christian faith 'began to take shape and expand to the extent of 'becoming the State religion in some countries, the date of Wrth of its 'founder was, even if not known exactly to them, a most outetanding one, and therefore a most convenient epoch from which to date events. The chronological determination of this date was not, however, undertaken until the year 527 A.D., when the calculation' was made by Dionysius Exijruus. Thb result of this obscure person' 3 calculations was afterwards found to be quite unreliable, nor is there sufficient evidence in existence 'by which this date can be definitely fixed. The universality of the chronological use of the Christian Era in so-called Christian countries argues nothing in favour of the truth of the date aesumed nor of the historicity of its central figure. I should like your correspondent's authority for his statement that the Lord's Day, or Pabbath, baptism and the Lord's" Supper commemoration were established at the time of the alleged resurrection. Modern historical and mythology research point* to varying origins for these observances and to the certainty that they have a vastly greater antiquity than our era — I am, etc., A.E.C. [Thie correspondence is closed. Ed.]