text:
Chronology of Jesus

A chronology of Jesus aims to establish a timeline for the events of the life of Jesus. Scholars have correlated Jewish and Greco-Roman documents and astronomical calendars with the New Testament accounts to estimate dates for the major events in Jesus's life.

Two main approaches have been used to estimate the year of the birth of Jesus: one based on the accounts in the Gospels of his birth with reference to King Herod's reign, and the other by subtracting his stated age of "about 30 years" when he began preaching. Most scholars, on this basis, assume a date of birth between 6 and 4 BC.

Three details have been used to estimate the year when Jesus began preaching: a mention of his age of "about 30 years" during "the fifteenth year" of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, another relating to the date of the building of the Temple in Jerusalem, and yet another concerning the death of John the Baptist. Hence, scholars estimate that Jesus began preaching and gathering followers around AD 28–29. According to the three synoptic gospels Jesus continued preaching for at least one year, and according to John the Evangelist for three years.

Five methods have been used to estimate the date of the crucifixion of Jesus. One uses non-Christian sources such as Josephus and Tacitus. Another works backwards from the historically well-established trial of the Apostle Paul by the Roman proconsul Gallio in Corinth in AD 51/52 to estimate the date of Paul's conversion. Both methods result in AD 36 as an upper bound to the crucifixion. Thus, scholars generally agree that Jesus was crucified between AD 30 and AD 36. Isaac Newton's astronomical method calculates those ancient Passovers (always defined by a full moon) which are preceded by a Friday, as specified by all four Gospels; this leaves two potential crucifixion dates, 7 April AD 30 and 3 April AD 33. However, Isaac Newton made two common assumptions that are highly questionable. First, the day immediately following the Passover is always a special Sabbath (High Sabbath) not related to the weekly "Saturday" Sabbaths (See Leviticus 23). This means that the Passover could have occurred on a Wednesday, Thursday or Friday. Second, the Hebrew calendar requires that the Barley crop is ready for harvest, called Aviv Barley, as well as the sighting of the first sliver of the new moon to declare the first Biblical month (Nisan). This is because the firstfruits crop is used in the Spring Feasts of the Lord occurring in the month of Nisan. Since we can't go back in time to determine if the Barley crop was ready on Nisan 1, we can approximate this using the Hillel II calendar. This calendar calculation recognizes that there are 7 times in the 19 year cycle that an extra month must be added. This means that Newton could have been looking in the wrong month as well as any calculation using the unbiblical methods to determine when "Easter" occurs. In the lunar eclipse method, the Apostle Peter's statement that the moon turned to blood at the crucifixion (Acts of the Apostles 2:14–21) is taken to refer to the lunar eclipse of 3 April AD 33; although astronomers are discussing whether the eclipse was visible as far west as Jerusalem. Recent astronomical research uses the supposed contrast between the synoptic date of Jesus' last Passover on the one hand with John's date of the subsequent "Jewish Passover" on the other hand, to propose Jesus' Last Supper to have been on Wednesday, 1 April AD 33 and the crucifixion on Friday 3 April AD 33 and the Resurrection on the third day.

Context and overview
The Christian gospels do not claim to provide an exhaustive list of the events in the life of Jesus. They were written as theological documents in the context of early Christianity rather than historical chronicles, and their authors showed little interest in an absolute chronology of Jesus or in synchronizing the episodes of his life with the secular history of the age. One indication that the gospels are theological documents rather than historical chronicles is that they devote about one-third of their text to just seven days, namely the last week of the life of Jesus in Jerusalem, also known as the Passion of Christ.

Nevertheless, the gospels provide some details regarding events which can be clearly dated, so one can establish date ranges regarding major events in Jesus' life by comparison with independent sources. A number of historical non-Christian documents, such as Jewish and Greco-Roman sources, have been used in historical analyses of the chronology of Jesus. Virtually all modern historians agree that Jesus existed, and regard his baptism and his crucifixion as historical events, and assume that approximate ranges for these events can be estimated.

Using these methods, most scholars assume a date of birth between 6 and 4 BC, and that Jesus' preaching began around AD 27–29 and lasted one to three years. They calculate the death of Jesus as having taken place between AD 30 and 36.

Year of Jesus' birth
The date of birth of Jesus of Nazareth is not stated in the gospels or in any secular text, but most scholars assume a date of birth between 6 BC and 4 BC. Two main methods have been used to estimate the year of the birth of Jesus: one based on the accounts of his birth in the gospels with reference to King Herod's reign, and another based on subtracting his stated age of "about 30 years" from the time when he began preaching (Luke 3:23) in "the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar" (Luke 3:1-2): the two methods indicate a date of birth before Herod's death in 4 BC, and a date of birth around 2 BC, respectively.

Biblical references to King Herod's reign
The two nativity accounts of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of Luke differ substantially from each other, and are considered to have been written independently. However, some consistent elements are evidently derived from a common early tradition:
 * Jesus was born under the Judean king Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1f; Luke 1:5 vs Luke 2:1f)
 * in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:5f; Luke 2:4.15)
 * prior to his parents moving to Nazareth (Matthew 2:22f), or before their return to Nazareth (Luke 2,39).
 * Jesus' parents Mary and Joseph were betrothed (Matthew 1:18–20; Luke 1:27; 2:5).
 * His birth was a virgin birth conceived by the Holy Spirit.
 * Angels announced Jesus' birth, his name, his role as the Messiah (being a descendant of King David and the son of God), and his mission to save his people from sin (Matthew 1:21; Luke 1:77; 2:11,30).

Thus both Luke and Matthew independently associate Jesus' birth with the reign of Herod the Great. Matthew furthermore implies that Jesus was up to two years old when Herod reportedly ordered the Massacre of the Innocents, that is, the murder of all boys in Bethlehem up to the age of two (Matthew 2:16).

Most scholarship concerning the date of Herod's death follows Emil Schürer's calculations published in 1896, which revised a traditional death date of 1 BC to 4 BC. Two of Herod's sons, Archelaus and Philip the Tetrarch, dated their rule from 4 BC, though Archelaus apparently held royal authority during Herod's lifetime. Philip's reign would last for 37 years, until his death in the traditionally accepted 20th year of Tiberius (AD 34), which implies his accession as 4 BC. The oldest manuscripts of Josephus’s Antiquities has the death of Philip in the 22nd year not the 20th, of Tiberius. In the British Library there is not a single manuscript prior to AD 1544 that has the traditionally accepted 20th year of Tiberius for the death of Philip. This evidence removes the main obstacle for a later date of 1BC for the death of Herod. A list of the oldest manuscripts is found in “Josephus Re-examined”, D. Beyer. Some scholars support the traditional date of 1 BC for Herod's death. Filmer and Steinmann, for example, propose that Herod died in 1 BC, and that his heirs backdated their reigns to 4 or 3 BC to assert an overlapping with Herod's rule, and bolster their own legitimacy. In Josephus' account, Herod's death was preceded by a lunar eclipse and followed by Passover. An eclipse took place in 4 BC on 13 March, about 29 days before Passover, and this eclipse has been suggested as the one referred to by Josephus. There were however other eclipses during this period, and there are proponents of 5 BC and the two eclipses of 1 BC occurring 10 January and 29 December. Nevertheless, most scholars favour a birth year for Jesus between 6 and 4 BC.

Subtracting Jesus' age of "about 30 years" when preaching
Another approach to estimating Jesus' year of birth is based on the statement in Luke 3:23 that he was "about 30 years of age" when starting his ministry. Jesus began to preach after being baptised by John the Baptist, and based on Luke’s gospel John only began baptising people in "the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar" (Luke 3:1–2), which scholars estimate to have been in AD 28–29. Subtracting 30 years, it appears that Jesus was born in 1-2 BC. However, if the phrase "about 30" is interpreted to mean 32 years old, this could fit a date of birth just within the reign of Herod, who died in 4 BC.

The benchmark date of AD 28–29 is independently confirmed by John's statement (John 2:20) that the Temple reportedly was in its 46th year of construction during Passover when Jesus began his ministry, which likewise corresponds to 28–29 AD according to scholarly estimates.

Other approaches
The Gospel of John 8:57 mentions in passing an upper limit of 50 for Jesus' age when preaching: "The Jews therefore said unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?" Fifty years is a round number which emphasises the discrepancy to Jesus's claim he had existed before Abraham, that is, for more than a thousand years.

Some commentators have attempted to establish the date of birth by identifying the Star of Bethlehem with some known astronomical or astrological phenomenon. For example, astronomer Michael Molnar proposed 17 April 6 BC as the likely date of the Nativity, since that date corresponded to the heliacal rising and lunar occultation of Jupiter, while it was momentarily stationary in the constellation of Aries. According to Molnar, to knowledgeable astrologers of this time, this highly unusual combination of events would have indicated that a regal personage would be (or had been) born in Judea. Other research points to a 1991 report from the Royal Astronomical Society, which mentions that Chinese astronomers noted a "comet" that lasted 70 days in the Capricorn region of the sky, in March of 5 BC. Authors Dugard and O'Reilly consider this event as the likely Star of Bethlehem. However, there are many possible phenomena and none seems to match the Gospel account exactly.

Reign of Tiberius and the Gospel of Luke
One method for the estimation of the date of the beginning of the ministry of Jesus is based on the Gospel of Luke's specific statement in Luke 3:1–2 about the ministry of John the Baptist which preceded that of Jesus:

Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene, in the highpriesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.

The reign of Tiberius began on the death of his predecessor Augustus in September AD 14, implying that the ministry of John the Baptist began in late AD 28 or early AD 29. Riesner's alternative suggestion is that John the Baptist began his ministry in AD 26 or 27, because Tiberius ruled together with Augustus for two years before becoming the sole ruler. If so, the fifteenth year of Tiberius' reign would be counted from AD 12. Riesner's suggestion is however considered less likely, as all the major Roman historians who calculate the years of Tiberius' rule – namely Tacitus, Suetonius and Cassius Dio – count from AD 14 – the year of Augustus' death. In addition, coin evidence shows that Tiberius started to reign in AD 14.

The New Testament presents John the Baptist as the precursor to Jesus and the Baptism of Jesus as marking the beginning of Jesus' ministry. In his sermon in Acts 10:37–38, delivered in the house of Cornelius the centurion, Apostle Peter refers to what had happened "throughout all Judaea, beginning from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached" and that Jesus had then gone about "doing good". Jesus' baptism account is followed directly by his 40 day fast and ordeal.

The Temple in Jerusalem and the Gospel of John

Another method for estimating the start of the ministry of Jesus without reliance on the Synoptic gospels is to relate the account in the Gospel of John about the visit of Jesus to Herod's Temple in Jerusalem with historical data about the construction of the Temple.

John 2:13 says that Jesus went to the Temple in Jerusalem around the start of his ministry and in John 2:20 Jesus is told: "This temple has been under construction for forty-six years, and will you raise it up in three days?".

Herod's Temple in Jerusalem was an extensive and long term construction on the Temple Mount, which was never fully completed even by the time it was destroyed by the Romans in AD 70. Having built entire cities such as Caesarea Maritima, Herod saw the construction of the Temple as a key, colossal monument. The dedication of the initial temple (sometimes called the inner Temple) followed a 17 or 18 month construction period, just after the visit of Augustus to Syria.

Josephus (Ant 15.11.1) states that the temple's reconstruction was started by Herod in the 18th year of his reign. But there is some uncertainty about how Josephus referred to and computed dates, which event marked the start of Herod's reign, and whether the initial date should refer to the inner Temple, or the subsequent construction. Hence various scholars arrive at slightly different dates for the exact date of the start of the Temple construction, varying by a few years in their final estimation of the date of the Temple visit. Given that it took 46 years of construction, the best scholarly estimate for when Jesus preached is around the year AD 29.

Josephus' reference to John the Baptist
Both the gospels and first-century historian Flavius Josephus, in his work Antiquities of the Jews, refer to Herod Antipas killing John the Baptist, and to the marriage of Herod and Herodias, establishing two key connections between Josephus and the biblical episodes. Josephus refers to the imprisonment and execution of John the Baptist by Herod Antipas and that Herodias left her husband to marry Herod Antipas, in defiance of Jewish law.

Josephus and the gospels differ, however, on the details and motives, e.g. whether the execution was a consequence of the marriage of Herod Antipas and Herodias (as indicated in Matthew 14:4, Mark 6:18), or a pre-emptive measure by Herod which possibly took place before the marriage to quell a possible uprising based on the remarks of John, as Josephus suggests in Ant 18.5.2.

The exact year of the marriage of Herod Antipas and Herodias is subject to debate among scholars. While some scholars place the year of the marriage in the range AD 27–31, others have approximated a date as late as AD 35, although such a late date has much less support. In his analysis of Herod's life, Harold Hoehner estimates that John the Baptist's imprisonment probably occurred around AD 30–31. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia estimates the death of the Baptist to have occurred about AD 31–32.

Josephus stated (Ant 18.5.2) that the AD 36 defeat of Herod Antipas in the conflicts with Aretas IV of Nabatea was widely considered by the Jews of the time as misfortune brought about by Herod's unjust execution of John the Baptist. Given that John the Baptist was executed before the defeat of Herod by Aretas, and based on the scholarly estimates for the approximate date of the marriage of Herod Antipas and Herodias, the last part of the ministry of John the Baptist and hence parts of the ministry of Jesus fall within the historical time span of AD 28–35, with the later year 35 having the least support among scholars.

Prefecture of Pontius Pilate
All four canonical gospels state that Jesus was crucified during the prefecture of Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of Roman Judaea.

In the Antiquities of the Jews (written about AD 93), Josephus states (Ant 18.3) that Jesus was crucified on the orders of Pilate. Most scholars agree that while this reference includes some later Christian interpolations, it originally included a reference to the execution of Jesus under Pilate.

In the second century the Roman historian Tacitus in The Annals (c. AD 116), described the persecution of Christians by Nero and stated (Annals 15.44) that Jesus had been executed on the orders of Pilate during the reign of Tiberius (Emperor from 18 September AD 14–16 March AD 37).

According to Flavius Josephus, Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea from AD 26 until he was replaced by Marcellus, either in AD 36 or AD 37, establishing the date of the death of Jesus between AD 26 and AD 37.

Reign of Herod Antipas
In the Gospel of Luke, while Jesus is in Pilate's court, Pilate realizes that Jesus is a Galilean and thus is under the jurisdiction of Herod Antipas. Given that Herod was in Jerusalem at that time, Pilate decided to send Jesus to Herod to be tried.

This episode is described only in the Gospel of Luke (23:7–15). While some scholars have questioned the authenticity of this episode, given that it is unique to the Gospel of Luke, the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia states that it fits well with the theme of the gospel.

Herod Antipas, a son of Herod the Great, was born before 20 BC and was exiled to Gaul in the summer of AD 39 following a lengthy intrigue involving Caligula and Agrippa I, the grandson of his father. This episode indicates that Jesus' death took place before AD 39.

Conversion of Paul
Another approach to estimating an upper bound for the year of death of Jesus is the estimation of the date of conversion of Paul the Apostle which the New Testament accounts place some time after the death of Jesus. Paul's conversion is discussed in both the Letters of Paul and in the Acts of the Apostles.

In the First Epistle to the Corinthians (15:3–8), Paul refers to his conversion. The Acts of the Apostles includes three separate references to his conversion experience, in Acts 9, Acts 22 and Acts 26.

Estimating the year of Paul's conversion relies on working backwards from his trial before Junius Gallio in Achaea, Greece (Acts 18:12–17) around AD 51–52, a date derived from the discovery and publication, in 1905, of four stone fragments as part of the Delphi Inscriptions, at Delphi across the Gulf from Corinth. The inscription preserves a letter from Claudius concerning Gallio dated during the 26th acclamation of Claudius, sometime between January 51 and August 52.

On this basis, most historians estimate that Gallio (brother of Seneca the Younger) became proconsul between the spring of AD 51 and the summer of AD 52, and that his position ended no later than AD 53. The trial of Paul is generally assumed to be in the earlier part of Gallio's tenure, based on the reference (Acts 18:2) to his meeting in Corinth with Priscilla and Aquila, who had been recently expelled from Rome based on Emperor Claudius' expulsion of Jews from Rome, which is dated to AD 49–50.

According to the New Testament, Paul spent eighteen months in Corinth, approximately seventeen years after his conversion. Galatians 2:1–10 states that Paul went back to Jerusalem fourteen years after his conversion, and various missions (at times with Barnabas) such as those in Acts 11:25–26 and 2 Corinthians 11:23–33 appear in the Book of Acts. The generally accepted scholarly estimate for the date of conversion of Paul is AD 33–36, placing the death of Jesus before this date range.

Newton's method
All four Gospels agree to within about a day that the crucifixion was at the time of Passover, and all four Gospels agree that Jesus died a few hours before the commencement of the Jewish Sabbath, i.e. he died before nightfall on a Friday. In the official festival calendar of Judaea, as used by the priests of the temple, Passover time was specified precisely. The slaughtering of the lambs for Passover occurred between 3pm and 5pm on the 14th day of the Jewish month Nisan (corresponding to March/April). The Passover meal commenced at moonrise (necessarily a full moon) that evening, i.e., at the start of 15 Nisan (the Jewish day running from evening to evening). There is an apparent discrepancy of one day in the Gospel accounts of the crucifixion which has been the subject of considerable debate. In John's Gospel, it is stated that the day of Jesus' trial and execution was the day before Passover ( and ), Hence John places the crucifixion on 14 Nisan. Likewise the Apostle Paul, in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, implies Jesus died on a 14 Nisan ("sacrificed as a Passover lamb", ), and was resurrected on the Jewish festival of the first fruits, i.e. on a 16 Nisan. The correct interpretation of the Synoptics is less clear. Thus some scholars believe that all 4 Gospels place the crucifixion on Friday, 14 Nisan, others believe that according to the Synoptics it occurred on Friday, 15 Nisan. The problem that then has to be solved is that of determining in which of the years of the reign of Pontius Pilate (AD 26–36) the 14th and 15th Nisan fell on a Friday.

In a paper published posthumously in 1733, Isaac Newton considered only the range AD 31–36 and calculated that the Friday requirement is met only on Friday 3 April AD 33, and 23 April AD 34. The latter date can only have fallen on a Friday if an exceptional leap month had been introduced that year, but this was favoured by Newton. In the twentieth century, the standard view became that of J. K. Fotheringham, who in 1910 suggested 3 April AD 33 on the basis of its coincidence with a lunar eclipse. In 1933, António Cabreira, following a similar method, arrived at the same date, as did, in the 1990s, Bradley E. Schaefer and J. P. Pratt. Also according to Humphreys and Waddington, the lunar Jewish calendar leaves only two plausible dates within the reign of Pontius Pilate for Jesus' death, and both of these would have been a 14 Nisan as specified in the Gospel of John: Friday 7 April AD 30, and Friday 3 April AD 33.

A more refined calculation takes into account that the Jewish calendar was based not on astronomical calculation but on observation, following criticism that it is possible to establish the phase of the moon on a particular day two thousand years ago but not whether it was obscured by clouds or haze. Including the possibility of a cloudy sky obscuring the moon, and assuming that the Jewish authorities would be aware that lunar months can only be either 29 or 30 days long (the time from one new moon to the next is 29.53 days), then the refined calculation states that the Friday requirement might also have been met, during Pontius Pilate's term of office, on 11 April AD 27. Another potential date arises if the Jewish authorities happened to add an irregular lunar leap month to compensate for a meteorologically delayed harvest season: this would yield one additional possibility during Pilate's time, which is Newton's favoured date of 23 April AD 34. Colin Humphreys calculates but rejects these AD 27 and AD 34 dates on the basis that the former is much too early to be compatible with, and spring AD 34 is probably too late to be compatible with Paul's timeline, confirming Friday 7 April AD 30, and Friday 3 April AD 33 as the two feasible crucifixion dates.

Eclipse method
A lunar eclipse is potentially alluded to in Acts of the Apostles 2:14–21 ("The sun shall be turned into darkness, And the moon into blood, Before the day of the Lord come"), as pointed out by physicist Colin Humphreys and astronomer Graeme Waddington. There was in fact a lunar eclipse on 3 April AD 33, a date which coincides with one of Newton's astronomically possible crucifixion dates (see above). Humphreys and Waddington have calculated that in ancient Jerusalem this eclipse would have been visible at moonrise at 6.20pm as a 20% partial eclipse (a full moon with a potentially red "bite" missing at the top left of the moon's disc). They propose that a large proportion of the Jewish population would have witnessed this eclipse as they would have been waiting for sunset in the west and immediately afterwards the rise of the anticipated full moon in the east as the prescribed signal to start their household Passover meals. Humphreys and Waddington therefore suggest a scenario where Jesus was crucified and died at 3pm on 3 April AD 33, followed by a red partial lunar eclipse at moonrise at 6.20pm observed by the Jewish population, and that Peter recalls this event when preaching the resurrection to the Jews (Acts of the Apostles 2:14–21). Astronomer Bradley Schaefer agrees with the eclipse date but disputes that the eclipsed moon would have been visible by the time the moon had risen in Jerusalem.

A potentially related issue involves the reference in the Synoptic Gospels to a three-hour period of darkness over the whole land on the day of the crucifixion (according to Luke 23:45 τοῦ ἡλίου ἐκλιπόντος – the sun was darkened). Although some scholars view this as a literary device common among ancient writers rather than a description of an actual event, other writers have attempted to identify a meteorological event or a datable astronomical phenomenon which this could have referred to. It could not have been a solar eclipse, since this could not take place during the full moon at Passover, and in any case solar eclipses take minutes, not hours. In 1983, astronomers Humphreys and Waddington noted that the reference to a solar eclipse is missing in some versions of Luke and argued that the solar eclipse was a later faulty scribal amendment of what was actually the lunar eclipse of AD 33. This is a claim which historian David Henige describes as "undefended" and "indefensible". Humphreys and a number of scholars have alternatively argued for the sun's darkening to have been caused by a khamsin, i.e. a sand storm, which can occur between mid-March and May in the Middle East and which does typically last for several hours.

In a review of Humphreys' book, theologian William R Telford points out that the non-astronomical parts of his lunar eclipse argument are based on the assumption that the chronologies described in the New Testament are historical and based on eyewitness testimony, accepting uncritically statements such as the "three different Passovers in John" and Matthew's statement that Jesus died at the ninth hour. He also alleges that Humphreys uses two very dubious sources, namely Pilate's alleged letter to Tiberius and the writings of the fifth-century Bishop Cyril of Alexandria, which Humphreys however classifies as forgery or contemporary interpretation indicative of a tradition at the time.

Double Passover method
In the crucifixion narrative, the synoptic gospels stress that Jesus celebrated a Passover meal (Mark 14:12ff, Luke 22:15) before his crucifixion, which contrasts sharply with the independent gospel of John who is explicit that the official "Jewish" Passover (John 11:55) started at nightfall after Jesus' death. In his 2011 book, Colin Humphreys proposes a resolution to this apparent discrepancy by positing that Jesus' "synoptic" Passover meal in fact took place two days before John's "Jewish" Passover because the former is calculated by the putative original Jewish lunar calendar (itself based on the Egyptian liturgical lunar calendar putatively introduced to the Israelites by Moses in the 13th century BC, and still used today by the Samaritans). The official "Jewish" Passover in contrast was determined by a Jewish calendar reckoning which had been modified during the Babylonian exile in the 6th century BC. This modified Jewish calendar is in use among most Jews today. One basic difference lies in the determination of the first day of the new month: while the Samaritans use the calculated (because by definition invisible) new moon, mainstream Jews use the first observation of the thin crescent of the waxing moon which is on average 30 hours later. The other basic difference lies in the fact that the Samaritan calendar uses a sunrise-to-sunrise day, while the official Jewish calendar uses a sunset-to-sunset day. Due to these differences, the Samaritan Passover is normally one day earlier than the Jewish Passover (and in some years two or more days earlier). The crucifixion year of Jesus can then be calculated by asking the question in which of the two astronomically possible years of AD 30 and AD 33 is there a time gap between the last supper and the crucifixion which is compatible with the gospel timeline of Jesus' last 6 days. The astronomical calculations show that a hypothetical AD 30 date would require an incompatible Monday Last Supper, while AD 33 offers a compatible Last Supper on Wednesday, 1 April AD 33, followed by a compatible crucifixion on Friday, 3 April AD 33.

Given these assumptions he argues that the calculated date of Wednesday 1 April AD 33 for the Last Supper allows all four gospel accounts to be astronomically correct, with Jesus celebrating Passover two days before his death according to the original Mosaic calendar, and the Jewish authorities celebrating Passover just after the crucifixion, using the modified Babylonian calendar. In contrast, the Christian church tradition of celebrating the Last Supper on Maundy Thursday would be an anachronism. The calculated chronology incidentally supports John's and Paul's narratives that Jesus died at the same hour (Friday 3pm) on 3 April AD 33 that the Passover lambs were slaughtered.

In a review of Humphreys' book, theologian William R Telford counters that the separate day schema of the Gospel's Holy Week "is an artificial as well as an inconsistent construction". As Telford had pointed out in his own book in 1980, "the initial three-day structure found in [Mark 11] is occasioned by the purely redactional linkage of the extraneous fig-tree story with the triumphal entry and cleansing of the temple traditions, and is not a chronology upon which one can base any historical reconstructions."

Scholarly debate on the hour, day, and year of death
The estimation of the hour of the death of Jesus based on the New Testament accounts has been the subject of debate among scholars for centuries. Some scholars have argued that it is unlikely that the many events of the Passion could have taken place in the span from midnight to about 9 o'clock in the morning.

The consensus of modern scholarship agrees with the four Gospels that the New Testament accounts represent a crucifixion occurring on a Friday, although a Wednesday crucifixion has also been proposed.

The debate on the date can be summarised as follows. In the Synoptic account, the Last Supper takes place on the first night of Passover, defined in the Torah as occurring after daylight on 14 of Nisan, and the crucifixion is on 15 Nisan. However, in the Gospel of John the trial of Jesus takes place before the Passover meal and the sentencing takes place on the day of Preparation, before Passover. John's account places the crucifixion on 14 Nisan, since the law mandated the lamb had to be sacrificed between 3:00 pm and 5:00 pm and eaten before midnight on that day. It is problematic to reconcile the chronology presented by John with the Synoptic tradition that the Last Supper was a Passover meal. Some scholars have presented arguments to reconcile the accounts, although Raymond E. Brown, reviewing these, concluded that they can not be easily reconciled. One involves the suggestion that for Jesus and his disciples, the Passover could have begun at dawn Thursday, while for traditional Jews it would not have begun until dusk that same day. Another is that John followed the Roman practice of calculating the new day beginning at midnight, rather than the Jewish reckoning. However, this Roman practice was used only for dating contracts and leases. D. A. Carson argues that 'preparation of the Passover' could mean any day of the Passover week. Some have argued that the modern precision of marking the time of day should not be read back into the gospel accounts, written at a time when no standardization of timepieces, or exact recording of hours and minutes was available. Andreas Köstenberger argues that in the first century time was often estimated to the closest three-hour mark, and that the intention of the author of the Mark Gospel was to provide the setting for the three hours of darkness while the Gospel of John seeks to stress the length of the proceedings, starting in the 'early morning'" William Barclay has argued that the portrayal of the death of Jesus in the John Gospel is a literary construct, presenting the crucifixion as taking place at the time on the day of Passover when the sacrificial lamb would be killed, and thus portraying Jesus as the Lamb of God. This understanding fits with Old Testament typology, in which Jesus entered Jerusalem to identify himself as the Paschal lamb on Nisan 10 was crucified and died at 3:00 in the afternoon of Nisan 14, at the same time the High Priest would have sacrificed the Paschal lamb, and rose before dawn the morning of Nisan 16, as a type of offering of the First Fruits.

Colin Humphreys' widely publicised "double passover" astronomical analysis, published in 2011 and outlined above, places the time of death of Jesus at 3pm on 3 April AD 33 and claims to reconcile the Gospel accounts for the "six days" leading up to the crucifixion. His solution is that the synoptic gospels and John's gospel use two distinct calendars (the official Jewish lunar calendar, and what is today the Samaritan lunar calendar, the latter used in Jesus' day also by the Essenes of Qumran and the Zealots). Humphrey's proposal was preceded in 1957 by the work of Annie Jaubert who suggested that Jesus held his Last Supper at Passover time according to the Qumran solar calendar. Humphreys rejects Jaubert's conclusion by demonstrating that the Qumran solar reckoning would always place Jesus' Last Supper after the Jewish Passover, in contradiction to all four gospels. Instead, Humphreys points out that the Essene community at Qumran additionally used a lunar calendar, itself evidently based on the Egyptian liturgical lunar calendar. Humphreys suggests that the reason why his two-calendar solution had not been discovered earlier is (a) widespread scholarly ignorance of the existence of the Egyptian liturgical lunar calendar (used alongside the well-known Egyptian administrative solar calendar, and presumably the basis for the 13th-century BC Jewish lunar calendar), and (b) the fact that the modern surviving small community of Samaritans did not reveal the calculations underlying their lunar calendar (preserving the Egyptian reckoning) to outsiders until the 1960s.

In a review of Humphreys' book, theologian William R Telford points out that the non-astronomical parts of his argument are based on the assumption that the chronologies described in the New Testament are historical and based on eyewitness testimony. In doing so, Telford says, Humphreys has built an argument upon unsound premises which "does violence to the nature of the biblical texts, whose mixture of fact and fiction, tradition and redaction, history and myth all make the rigid application of the scientific tool of astronomy to their putative data a misconstrued enterprise."

Resurrection "on the third day"
After the crucifixion, the Gospels report the discovery of Jesus' empty tomb, and subsequently the Gospels and Paul provide accounts of Jesus' resurrection. A potential chronological contradiction arises in the fact that the resurrection is referred to as happening "on the third day" (e.g. Matt 16:21) whereas elsewhere Matthew (Matt 12:40) states that Jesus would be buried "three days and three nights". The modern concept of zero as a number was introduced by Indian scholars only in the fifth century AD, so that for example the Gregorian calendar never had a year "AD 0" and instead begins with the year AD 1 which is immediately preceded by 1 BC. Applied to the reckoning of days, in the absence of a day "zero", that is, using inclusive counting, many modern languages (e.g. Greek, Italian, Spanish, French, Portuguese, Welsh) continue referring to two weeks as "fifteen days", whereas in English, which does observe zero and thus uses exclusive counting, this space of time is referred to as a fortnight. Following general practice at the time, the Gospels employ inclusive counting, highlighted in Mt 27.62–64: "the chief priests and the Pharisees went to Pilate. ‘Sir,’ they said, ‘we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, “After three days [Gr. meta treis hemeras] I will rise again.” So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day [Gr. tes trites hemeras]’”" where Matthew uses "after three days" and "until the third day" interchangeably.

Ancient estimates
Other estimates of the chronology of Jesus have been proposed over the centuries:

 * Tertullian writes that Jesus was born in the 41st year of Augustus, who reigned 56 years (from 43 BC), and died at the age of 30 on March 25. The figure of "41st" is repeated by Irenaeus and Origen.
 * Clement of Alexandria writes that Jesus was born in the 28th year of Augustus, who reigned 43 years (from 30 BC). Both Clement and Tertullian date Jesus' birth to 3 BC or (more likely) 2 BC, which may just be the result of subtracting 30 years to AD 29, when Jesus began his preaching, as he was said to be "around 30 years" of age.
 * Hippolytus, states that Jesus was born on Wednesday, December 25, in the 42nd year of Augustus, 5500 years after Adam; and he died in his 33rd year of life on Friday, March 25, in the 18th year of Tiberius, on the consulship of Rufus and Rubellius [AD 29]. The 42nd year of Augustus refers to either 3 BC or 2 BC. However, this does not match the "33rd year" figure, which would place Jesus' birth in 4 BC. The year AD 29 was Tiberius' 16th year, not his 18th, although it is sometimes argued that some authors dated his reign from AD 12, when he was made co-regent by Augustus. There is much confusion regarding the reckoning of Tiberius' reign. December 25 was a Wednesday on 3 BC, and March 25 was a Friday in AD 29.
 * The Liber Generationis, a work found alongside Hippolytus work, states that Jesus lived 30 years and gives an interval of 206 between the Passion and the "present day", which was the year 5738 after Adam, the 13th of Severus Alexander [AD 234]. This implies a birth date of 3 BC.

Eusebius, in his Historia Ecclesiae first published in AD 313, places the birth of Jesus in the 42nd year of Augustus (who ruled 57 years in total), which is also the 28th year after the death of Antony and Cleopatra; this gives 2 BC. The 3rd/4th century Roman historian Lactantius states that Jesus was crucified on 23 March AD 29, while the 5th century writer Cassiodorus states that Jesus was born in 3 BC and died in AD 31.

Anno Domini
In AD 525 Dionysius Exiguus devised an Easter table to calculate the dates of Easter at a time when Julian calendar years were still being identified by naming the consuls who held office that year — Dionysius himself stated that the "present year" was "the consulship of Probus Junior", which was 525 years "since the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ". Thus Dionysius implied that Jesus' incarnation occurred 525 years earlier. Bonnie J. Blackburn and Leofranc Holford-Strevens briefly present arguments for 2 BC, 1 BC, or AD 1 as the year Dionysius intended for the Nativity or incarnation. Among the sources of confusion are:
 * In modern times, incarnation is synonymous with the conception, but some ancient writers, such as Bede, considered incarnation to be synonymous with the Nativity.
 * The civil or consular year began on 1 January but the Diocletian year began on 29 August (30 August in the year before a Julian leap year).
 * There were inaccuracies in the lists of consuls.
 * There were confused summations of emperors' regnal years.

It is not known how Dionysius established the year of Jesus's birth. Two major theories are that Dionysius based his calculation on the Gospel of Luke, which states that Jesus was "about thirty years old" shortly after "the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar", and hence subtracted thirty years from that date, or that Dionysius counted back 532 years from the first year of his new table.

The Anglo-Saxon historian the Venerable Bede, who was familiar with the work of Dionysius, used Anno Domini dating in his Ecclesiastical History of the English People, completed in AD 731. Both Dionysius and Bede regarded Anno Domini as beginning at the incarnation of Jesus, but "the distinction between Incarnation and Nativity was not drawn until the late 9th century, when in some places the Incarnation was identified with Christ's conception, i.e., the Annunciation on March 25". On the continent of Europe, Anno Domini was introduced as the calendrical system of choice of the Carolingian Renaissance by the English cleric and scholar Alcuin in the late eighth century. Its endorsement by Emperor Charlemagne and his successors popularizing this calendar throughout the Carolingian Empire ultimately lies at the core of the calendar's global prevalence today.

title: Chronology of Jesus


text:
Peter of Bruys

Peter of Bruys (also known as Pierre De Bruys or Peter de Bruis; fl. 1117 – c.1131) was a medieval French religious teacher. He was called a heresiarch (leader of a heretical movement) by the Roman Catholic Church because he opposed infant baptism, the erecting of churches and the veneration of crosses, the doctrine of transubstantiation and prayers for the dead. An angry Roman Catholic mob murdered him in or around 1131.

Information on Peter of Bruys is derived from two extant sources, the treatise of Peter the Venerable against his followers and a passage written by Peter Abelard.

Life and teachings
Sources suggest that Peter was born at Bruis, in southeastern France. The history of his early life is unknown, but he was a Roman Catholic priest who had been deprived of his office by the Church hierarchy for teaching unorthodox doctrine. He began his preaching in Dauphiné and Provence, probably between 1117 and 1120. The local bishops, who oversaw the dioceses of Embrun, Die, and Gap, suppressed his teachings within their jurisdictions.

In spite of the official repression, Peter's teachings gained adherents at Narbonne, Toulouse and in Gascony.

Peter admitted the doctrinal authority of the Gospels in their literal interpretation but considered the other New Testament writings to be valueless, as he doubted their apostolic origin. He questioned the Old Testament and rejected the authority of the Church Fathers and that of the Roman Catholic Church itself.

Petrobrusians also opposed clerical celibacy, infant baptism, prayers for the dead and organ music.

Treatise of Peter the Venerable
In the preface to his treatise that attacked Peter of Bruys, Peter the Venerable summed up the five teachings that he saw as the errors of the Petrobrusians. Also known as Peter of Montboissier, he was an abbot and an important religious writer who became a popular figure in the church, an internationally-known scholar and an associate of many national and religious leaders of his day.

The first "error" was their denial "that children, before the age of understanding, can be saved by the baptism... According to the Petrobrusians, not another's, but one's own faith, together with baptism, saves, as the Lord says, 'He who will believe and be baptized will be saved, but he who will not believe will be condemned.'" That idea ran counter to the medieval Church's teaching, particularly in the Latin West, following the theology of Augustine, in which the baptism of infants and children played an essential role in their salvation from the ancestral guilt of original sin.

The second error charged (with some exaggeration) was that the Petrobrusians said, "Edifices for temples and churches should not be erected... The Petrobrusians are quoted as saying, 'It is unnecessary to build temples, since the church of God does not consist in a multitude of stones joined together, but in the unity of the believers assembled.'" On the other hand, the medieval Church taught that cathedrals and churches were created to glorify God and believed it to be appropriate that those buildings should be as grand and beautiful as wealth and skill could make them.

The third error enumerated by Peter the Venerable was that the Petrobrusians "command the sacred crosses to be broken in pieces and burned, because that form or instrument by which Christ was so dreadfully tortured, so cruelly slain, is not worthy of any adoration, or veneration or supplication, but for the avenging of his torments and death it should be treated with unseemly dishonor, cut in pieces with swords, burnt in fire." That was seen as an iconoclastic heresy and as acts of sacrilege by the medieval Church and still is by Catholics today.

The fourth error, according to Peter the Venerable, was that the Petrobrusians denied sacramental grace, rejecting the rite of Communion entirely, let alone the doctrine of the Real Presence or the nascent Scholastic account of transubstantiation: "They deny, not only the truth of the body and blood of the Lord, daily and constantly offered in the church through the sacrament, but declare that it is nothing at all, and ought not to be offered to God. They say, 'Oh, people, do not believe the bishops, priests, or clergy who seduce you; who, as in many things, so in the office of the altar, deceive you when they falsely profess to make the body of Christ and give it to you for the salvation of your souls.'" The term, transubstantiation, used to describe the transformation of the consecrated bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, was first used by Hildebert de Lavardin in about 1079. The theory had long been widely accepted as orthodox doctrine at the time of the attacks by Peter of Bruys. Less than two centuries later, in 1215, the Fourth Lateran Council officially declared transubstantiation the necessary, orthodox Catholic explanation of the Eucharist.

The fifth error was that "they deride sacrifices, prayers, alms, and other good works by the faithful living for the faithful dead, and say that these things cannot aid any of the dead even in the least... The good deeds of the living cannot profit the dead, because transferred from this life their merits cannot be increased or diminished, because beyond this life, there is no longer place for merits, only for retribution. Nor can a dead man hope to gain from anybody that which he did not obtain while alive in the world. Therefore those things are pointless that are done by the living for the dead, because they are mortal and have passed by death beyond the way for all flesh, into the state of the future world, and took with them all their merit, to which nothing can be added."

Death and legacy
As Peter the Venerable recorded, crosses were singled out for special iconoclasm. Peter of Bruys felt that crosses should not deserve veneration. Crosses became for the Petrobrusians objects of desecration and were destroyed in bonfires. In or around the year 1131, Peter was publicly burning crosses in St Gilles, near Nîmes. The local populace, angered by Peter's destruction of the crosses, cast him into the flames of his own bonfire.

Henry of Lausanne, a former Cluniac monk, adopted the Petrobrusians' teachings about 1135 and spread them in a modified form after Peter's death.

His teachings continued to be frequently condemned by the Roman Catholic Church, meriting mention at the Second Lateran Council in 1139.

Henry of Lausanne's followers became known as Henricians. Both the Henrician and the Petrobrusian sects began to die out in 1145, the year St Bernard of Clairvaux began preaching for a return to Roman orthodoxy in southern France. In a letter to the people of Toulouse, written at the end of 1146, Bernard calls upon them to extirpate the last remnants of the heresy.

As late as 1151, however, some Henricians still remained active in Languedoc. In that year, the Benedictine monk and English chronicler Matthew Paris related that a young girl who claimed to be miraculously inspired by the Virgin Mary was reputed to have converted a great number of the disciples of Henry of Lausanne. The sects both disappear from the historical record after that reference.

There is no evidence that Peter Waldo or any other later religious figures were directly influenced by Peter of Bruys. His low view of the Old Testament and the New Testament epistles was not shared by later Protestant figures such as Martin Luther or John Smyth. However, Peter is considered a forerunner of the Protestant Reformation by some evangelical Protestants and Anabaptists.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Peter of Bruys


text:
Central India Agency

The Central India Agency was created in 1854, by amalgamating the Western Malwa Agency with other smaller political offices which formerly reported to the Governor-General of India. The agency was overseen by a political agent who maintained relations of the Government of India with the princely states and influence over them on behalf of the Governor-General. The headquarters of the agent were at Indore.

Bundelkhand Agency

The Bundelkhand Agency was bounded by Bagelkhand to the east, the United Provinces to the north, Lalitpur District to the west, and the Central Provinces to the south. Bagelkhand Agency was separated from Bundelkhand in 1871. In 1900 it included 9 states, the most important of which were Orchha, Panna, Samthar, Charkhari, Chhatarpur, Datia, Bijawar and Ajaigarh. The agency also included 13 estates and the pargana of Alampur, the latter belonging to Indore State.

In 1931, all of the states under the Baghelkhand Agency apart from Rewa were transferred back to Bundelkhand.

Salute states, by precedence: Non-salute states, alphabetically:
 * Datia, title Maharaja, Hereditary salute of 15-guns
 * Orchha, title Maharaja or Raja (from 1882, Saramad-i-Rajha-i-Bundelkhand Maharaja), Hereditary salute of 15-guns
 * Ajaigarh, title Maharaja, Hereditary salute of 11-guns
 * Baoni, title Nawab, Hereditary salute of 11-guns
 * Bijawar, title Maharaja, Hereditary salute of 11-guns
 * Charkhari, title Maharaja, Hereditary salute of 11-guns
 * Panna, title Maharaja, Hereditary salute of 11-guns
 * Samthar, title Raja, Hereditary salute of 11-guns
 * Alipura, title Rao
 * Beri (Beri-Bundelkhand), title Rao/Raja (originally Dewan)
 * Bihat
 * Chhatarpur, title Maharaja or Raja
 * Garrauli
 * Gaurihar, title Sardar Sawai; from 1859, Rao
 * Jigni, title Rao
 * Lugasi
 * Naigawan Rebai
 * Sarila, title Raja

Jagirs :
 * Banka-Pahari
 * Bijna
 * Bilheri jagir, ?under Chhatarpur, guaranteed by the British
 * Dhurwai
 * Tori Fatehpur (one of the Hasht-Bhaiya jagirs)

Former princely States that were annexed or seized by the British :
 * Banpur, seized in 1857, had been claimed by Gwalior State
 * Bijeraghogarh, seized
 * Chirgaon (one of the Hasht Bhaiya jagirs), seized
 * Jalaun, annexed in 1840
 * Jaitpur, annexed in 1849
 * Jhansi, annexed in 1853
 * Khaddi, annexed
 * Purwa (one of the Chaube Jagirs), seized
 * Tiroha, seized
 * Shahgarh, seized in 1857

Bagelkhand Agency

Bagelkhand Agency, the easternmost charge, was established in March 1871, when it was separated from Bundelkhand agency. In 1900, it covered the area of twelve states, including :

Salute states, by precedence :
 * Rewa, the largest state in Bagelkhand, title Maharaja, Hereditary salute of 17-guns
 * Baraundha, title Raja, Hereditary salute of 9-guns
 * Maihar, title Raja, Hereditary salute of 9-guns

Non-salute states (alphabetically) :
 * Bhaisaunda
 * Jaso
 * Kamta-Rajaula
 * Kothi
 * Nagode
 * Pahra
 * Paldeo
 * Sohawal
 * Taraon

Zamindari Estates (alphabetically) :

In 1931, all of the states but Rewa were transferred back to Bundelkhand, and in 1933 Rewa was transferred to the Indore Residency.
 * Sohagpur
 * Shahpur
 * Jaitpur
 * Singrauli, also Nifs Singrauli (a mu'amaladari of 700 villages in Rewah) to distinguish it from a smaller zamindari in Singrauli Mirzapur District, North-Western Provinces in what is now eastern UP.)
 * Amarkantak
 * Nigwani
 * Anupur
 * Baikunthpur
 * Chandiya
 * Dhangawan
 * Singbana

Gwalior Residency
Gwalior Residency was placed under the Central India Agency in 1854, and separated from Central India Agency in 1911. It included the following, among other smaller states, plus Chhabra pargana (district) of Tonk State : Include Jagirs Chhadawad, Bagli, Dattigaon, Balipur/chikli, Nimkheda, Pathari, Tonk Khurd, etc.

Salute states :
 * Gwalior, title Maharaja Scindia; Hereditary salute of 21-guns.
 * Rampur, title Nawab; Hereditary salute of 15-guns
 * Benares (Ramnagar), title Maharaja; Hereditary salute of 13-guns (15-guns local)

Non-salute states :
 * Bhadaura
 * Garha
 * Khaniadhana
 * Raghogarh
 * Paron
 * Umri

Furthermore, lesser estates (under Thakurs or diwans)
 * Agra Barkhera
 * Kathaun
 * Khiaoda
 * Sangul Wardha
 * Sirsi

Bhopal Agency
Bhopal Agency, 11653 sqmi, which included the following :

Salute states, by precedence :
 * Bhopal, title Nawab, Hereditary salute of 19-guns (21-guns local)
 * Dewas Junior and Dewas Senior, title Maharaja, Hereditary salutes of 15-guns (transferred to Malwa Agency in 1907, and to Bhopal Agency in 1933)
 * Narsinghgarh, title Raja, Hereditary salute of 11-guns
 * Rajgarh, title Raja, Hereditary salute of 11-guns
 * Khilchipur, title Raja, Hereditary salute of 9-guns

Non-salute states, alphabetically :
 * Basoda
 * Kurwai (Korwai)
 * Makrai (transferred to Bhopal Agency in 1933 from the Central Provinces and Berar)
 * Maksudangarh
 * Muhammadgarh
 * Pathari

Indore Residency
Indore Residency included most of Indore (Holkar) and after 1933 also Rewa State, the largest state from the Baghelkhand Agency.

Malwa Agency
Malwa Agency, 8919 sqmi, which included parts of Gwalior, Indore and Tonk states and the states of:

Salute states, by precedence :
 * Ratlam State, title Maharaja Bahadur, Hereditary salute of 13-guns (15-guns local)
 * Jaora State, title Nawab, Hereditary salute of 13-guns
 * Sailana State, title Raja Bahadur, Hereditary salute of 11-guns
 * Jhabua State, title Raja, Hereditary salute of 11-guns
 * Sitamau State, title Raja, Hereditary salute of 11-guns

Non-salute states :
 * Piploda State

Estates :
 * Panth-Piploda.

In 1925, the Malwa Agency was amalgamated with Bhopawar Agency.

Bhopawar Agency
Bhopawar Agency included the princely states of Malwa region: It also included territories of Gwalior and Indore States. In 1927 the agency was renamed the Southern States Agency, later the Southern States and Malwa Agency, and after 1934 Malwa Agency.

Salute states, by precedence : The following were the jagirs (estates), ruled by the Bhilala tribes, that were under the Suzerainty of Dhar State.:
 * Dhar, title Maharaja, Hereditary salute of 15-guns
 * 1) Kali-Baori
 * 2) Nimkhera (alias Tirla)
 * 3) Rajgadh
 * 1) Rajgadh

 * Alirajpur, title Raja, Hereditary salute of 11-guns, including the extinct State of Phulmaal which was incorporated into it earlier as well as Fiefs (Jagirs) of.
 * Barwani, title Maharana, Hereditary salute of 11-guns
 * Jhabua, title Raja, Hereditary salute of 11-guns

Estates : Discontinued :
 * Jobat
 * Kathiwara
 * Mathwar
 * Ratanmal
 * Bakhatgarh
 * Dotria
 * Kachhi-Baroda
 * Multhan
 * Amjhera, title Rao
 * Chhadawad, title Rao

Jagirs (incomplete) :
 * Jamnia, title Raja
 * Kali-Baori
 * Nimkhera
 * Ondhwa
 * Rajgadh
 * Sondhwa

Post-independence
Upon the British withdrawal from India in 1947, the rulers of the princely states in this area all chose to accede to the new Union of India. The eastern portion of Central India Agency, including Bagelkhand and Bundelkhand agencies, became the new state Vindhya Pradesh. The western portion, including Bhopal, Malwa, and Bhopawar agencies and the Gwalior and Indore residencies, became the new state of Madhya Bharat. Bhopal became a separate state. Makrai was transferred to Madhya Pradesh, which had been created from the former Central Provinces and Berar in 1950. In 1956, the states of Vindhya Pradesh, Madhya Bharat, and Bhopal were merged into Madhya Pradesh. Later another state, Chhattisgarh, was formed from the area that was formerly Madhya Pradesh.

title: Central India Agency


text:
Talk:Armour/Archive 1

Spelling
What is the concensus for spelling on Wikipedia?

The article is Armour but its in the catagory Armor. Which is the best to use? (apparently brits took over and made a LOT of articles use armour instead of armor)

This site was created by americans so should the default spellings be american?

Inconsistency is one of my biggest pet peeves and will just confuse users in the future.

 * My opinion (as a Canadian) is that international English should be used. Thus armour, valour, flavour, centre, programme, organisation, etc. Let's all remember that the Americans are the odd ones out as far as spelling goes, because of Mr. Webster.
 * Urhixidur 13:40, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

 * An international English has never been agreed upon. Also, this is an American website.  But really, the only thing that should be considered is consistency.
 * Looking at the spellings on the category page itself I'd say there seems to be a stronger case for changing that to Category:Armour. adamsan 10:20, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Does anyone else else think it's strange that is says (US Armor) in parenthesis even though the majority of people reading this article live in the U.S.? Seems kind of silly to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.245.21 (talk • contribs)

 * How do you know where the majority of people live? Let's not forget that this is an international site, regardless of who started it. And that the rest of the world outnumbers the USA 8:1...

 * Although a greater NUMBER of countries use some form of "Commonwealth" English, a greater number of PEOPLE in the English speaking world use American English. The former possessions of the British Empire hardly outnumber the American English speaking people worldwide (thanks in large part to pervasive US culture and entertainment).  I think it's ridiculous that we default to the British spellings on this encyclopedia, the only reason to prefer one over the other is whichever is used by more people in the world, with some consideration to the nation of origin of the project.  American English wins on both counts. Ghost of starman (talk) 07:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree with Ghost of starman. American English is much more common on this site. In order to be consistent and less confusing we should use it. OptimistBen (talk) 08:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy on which policy to use for articles. It can be found here. This article should use a spelling that is not specific to any country, or if such a spelling does not exist, the article should remain as is and be consistent throughout. --Pdeq (talk) 00:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Personal armour
It would be great if someone would describe the different parts of armour. For instance, what are bracers? ··gracefool |☺ 03:48, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I think the correct historic term is vambraces and that word can be found in the wikipedia. Braces seems to be predominant in RPG's. The person to blame is probably Gary Gygax who introduced it in the ancestor of (almost) all RPG's, Dungeons & Dragons. There is another term that is missing and that is werebraces that, if I'm not mistaken, is the armour protecting the legs. The reason I mention this here instead of writing an article is because of the words "think", "seems" and "probably". I haven't researched the subject enough to state it as fact. --Soffkartoffeln 21:30, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Bracers were used in england in some sources as full arm defences, the entire arm assembly in other words. But for the most part you are correct.  Rebracer means upper arm defense. Sethwoodworth 10:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I've read the upper arm defense as 'rerebraces'. It must be mentioned that while 'bracers' seem to be an RPG thing, there is some evidence for something like them: Transitional armors include a series of metal splints covering the fore-arms. You can see it on an various crusaders effigies.

Non-Western Armor
It would be useful for this article to include images or descriptions of armor from non-Western societies, such as African warriors, East Asian and Southeast Asian.

 * Agreed completely. Sadly my knowledge of such information is lacking.  Anyone else?

A suggestion for spelling
A simple solution is to use armour for any type of historical (let's say pre 1700) as these variants are predominantly of european origin. Modern body armors have been, as far as i know, mainly developed in the US due to the higher availability and use of handguns there (no insult intended). By this reason the spelling should be armor for these.

It's difficult to achive full consensus on spelling as there will always be advocates for any variant that will defend their opinion with religious fervor. But this way, both sides get a share in the action.

I myself would of course like the articles to be in swedish as I seldom manage to keep track of all those, in my eyes, tiny differences between written british, american, irish and australian english. :-)

 * The basic rule about British vs. American spelling is that we only change it if the article is inconsistent. Regarding Swedish, there is a Swedish Wikipedia as well even though the article there is not as nice as the one here. Sjakkalle 07:38, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia policy is to maintain the spelling system used by the article creator unless the subject clearly demands a particular national spelling: e.g. U.S. spelling for Abraham Lincoln. Durova 04:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

 * ... or, arguably, UK/International spelling here, since armour was not much worn in North America. Johnbod 19:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

swimming
well, I would be interested in documentation of swimming knights. It all depends on what you mean by "plate armour", of course. I suppose you could swim wearing just a sallet, and maybe gauntlets, or greaves. But wearing a full suit of armour, especially including a chainmail shirt worn under the plates, is certainly impossible. So we would need to specify how exactly those swimming knights were armed. dab (ᛏ) 19:11, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

It may or may not be true that Frederick Barbarossa drowned becasue he attempeted to swim while wearing his armour.

 * "Swimming" as it is translated through the ages can be misleading, often referring to a number of men crossing a substantial but shallow body of water, such as a moat or fording. These too were often largely full of refuse, which made them a greater ordeal for the common person, but no more difficultly traversed by one in armor.

Knights too were often not fully armored, particularly when the need for more knights surpassed the resources available. In desperate times, knights could be little more than distinguished militiamen, fully capable of course of swimming.

Decline of Full Plate
"Gradually starting in the 1660s, one plate element after another was discarded to save weight" I always assumd that process started long before the 17th century... Should I say early 16th century would be more accurate?

Actually, many cavalry units, as late as the Battle of Vienna in 1683 wore 2/3 suits of armour, no arm protection, with hats and a "secret" skullcap under it. The lower legs were in leather boots,thats what made them 2/3 suits. Until the rifled musket, in the early 1700s, plate could save a heavy Cavalryman's life. Nativeborncal 04:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Modern Armour
Seems most focus of modern armour is on bulletproof vests, shouldn't there be a page for stabproof as well seeing they are important as well especially to police officers.

Definition of Armour
This may just be personal opinion, but the definition of armour here seems somewhat narrow. The Shorter OED defines armour primarily as 'Defensive covering for the body': Surely some mention should be made of the non-military uses of armour, ie in sports. --KharBevNor 22:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I suppose the protective gear worn in fencing belongs in this article. A goalie mask, shoulder pads, jock strap, knee pads, shin pads, etc., used in sports like American football or hockey are not the armour that this article is about.  They belong in their own articles, or perhaps someone should write "sports padding".  See also protective clothing.  —Michael Z. 2006-03-06 04:59 Z

3D Images
Am I the only one who gets a headache from these 3D images? I suggest moving them to a separate page, creating a gallery on Wikimedia Commons for the tiny percentage of people who have the glasses to view them properly. Durova 00:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No one objected so I created a new category at Wikimedia Commons and moved the images there. Durova 01:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hoplites
Shouldn't the start go back to the Greeks - moving from bronze to iron and steel was an important step, but also at Marathon and Thermopylae, as I heard it, the bronze armed and armoured hoplite had a huge advantage over the less armoured Persian. Midgley 02:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

 * This article and wikipedia in general hardly feigns proper depth, particularly with regard to antiquity. It's a shame, but I hardly have the research to put up.

 * Yes, the Greeks had a significant advantage over the Persians in every sense but numbers, armor quality among these. They were hardly though in the fifth century BC the first to wear bronze, they simply employed that technology en masse.

UNpowered?
Is it just me, or is this paragraph on UNpowered armour, well, confusing? It's not well written, but I have no idea what this paragraph is talking about, so I couldn't begin to edit it. A citation, or some sort of example of this armour, would be very helpful. I've read it twice and I have no idea what this person is talking about. -anon

Imagine a unpowered suit of armor weighing a ton, HA! Is this a reference to some RPG or sci-fi movie? -drgk In trying to cite sources of the Macenea armour that predates the greco armour it should be noted that it (the armour was on display at the Archaeological Museum of Nafplion as well it found in May 1960 by Nikos Verdelis in the graves in the cemetery at Dendra in the Argolid, the the Central Archaeological Council - Bulgaria(KAS) has decided. the following cites are of its authenticity. http://www.stonepages.com/news/archives/002133.html, http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/news/content.asp?aid=76144 http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=2146412692 All these are related to the fact that it is in the restoration process and is in fact from the 15th century b.c.e.

Non-Metalic old armour
I know little of this subject so I can't add much myself, but wouldn't it be a good idea to start with the earliest armours? Like leather armour, or even just thick padded cloth armour. -OOPSIE- 02:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

 * The trouble armor from pre-history is that organic armors decayed and left no remains, and the pictoral record of their existence is sketchy at best. It's hard to tell clothing from armor, for example. We could presume, from the various armors recorded by literate societies as they encountered more primitive culture. Africans, American Indians, Aboriginals, Filipinos, Celts, etc. Examples of which include a 'cord' armor based on corded textiles, the 'cotun' is a celtic garment made of layers of cloth, salt-soaked cloth of the Aztecs(?), a quilted jacket made of a layer of rock-salt between two layers of cloth... Or we can use the records from early Greek and Roman historians, from which we know about the Greek linothrax (made of layers of glued linen), and armor made from 'boiled leather'.

Theblindsage (talk) 09:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandale copy and pasted page to Armor
On the 20 July the unregistered user 166.127.1.201 copy and pasted the page over to Armor but hashed it up and did not move the talk page aswell. I initially used the WP:RM page but after looking at the page there seemed to be a large back log and as the move was to fix vandalism i moved the page back to Armour. I dunno if we can get an Admin to ban the user or even better to educate hime. TheEnlightened 00:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

 * You did good :-)
 * Just blocked the anon to get his (school IP) attention. Vsmith 01:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Exoskeleton
Would someone please comment on this article? The Hamilton Spectator - From Bears to Bullets It's about a guy that has invented a full body armor, like a non-powered exoskeleton, supposedly bulletproof. If someone know test results or has any other kind of knowledge of the suit, please write. MigB 15:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Arms Race?
The beginning of the History section describes the development of armour as an arms race. I find this assertion untenable when talking about personal armour. In all instances that I am aware of the type of armour worn is dictated by socio-economic factors and technological factors.

Plate armour is frequently described as a reaction to more powerful weapons such as the couched lance, crossbow, and/or longbow. But none of these weapons were developed just before plate armour. The crossbow and couched lance predate the first plate by centuries. The crossbow had been banned by the Pope nearly a hundred years before the first known piece of plate armour. The longbow existed this early as well but was not extensively used in warfare until Agincourt in the second half of the 14th century. By that time virtually all of the French knights were wearing full plate harness and the weapon still played a significant tactical role.

There is however a connection between the development of water-powered trip hammers and the infrastructure necessary for making and then affording to buy plate armour. This explains why in appeared in between the emergence of the above weapons and not in reaction to them.

Mercutio.Wilder 19:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right. This editor had extremely dodgy style before being copyedited & I'm dubious about it all. Why don't you write it up? Johnbod 19:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

 * The idea is just flat-out falsehood to be honest. Both plate and crossbows were known from antiquity to the early centuries A.D., and simply fell out of fashion due to social and economic constraints.  An arms race implies that these things were being invented and improved upon constantly, such as occurred with breach-loading muskets and nuclear weapons.  Improvements were made, but they were generations apart, and there was little pressure to hasten the process.

US-ification needed?
This article s written entirely in British English. Our goal is to be global. So, we should use the most common forms of the words. So, I agree with the words "civilisation" or "vandalise", for example, but in this form, the article sound too Britannica-ish. (Possibly we also need a copyvio check with Britannica? The entirely British spelling of the article might hide Britannica copyvios.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NetRolller 3D (talk • contribs) 10:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

It has already been said that the official Wikipedia police is to "mantain the spelling system used by the article creator, unless the subject demands a particular national spelling". This is not the case, so I think we should keep it as is.

Leather Armor
The article on Prehistoric Warfare claims that leather armor was the counter to the mace in ancient times. I'd like to know more precisely when it was invented, if anyone knows.

AThousandYoung 23:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Sounds like a guess to me. Leather armor is a very obvious development from leather clothing and must have been used from the earliest days of warfare. But, possibly the sword and certainly the spear and arrow were also used at the time so it can never have been designed solely against the mace. As it happens, in the oldest image I can think of depicting a man wielding a mace, no one is wearing any armor at all. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

 * It's foolery. Leather protection predates written history, and was worn in all circumstances.  The mace and the sling stone both damage by concussion, and leather is little better at absorbing those forces than metal.

Category:Medieval armour
Shouldn;'t this be Category:Mediaeval armour ?

I'm from the US but just wondering; it seems like US and UK are being used in the same name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Some good links.
I'm cruising the web looking into arms and armor, and I've come across a couple of good sites, by people who have done some good research. http://www.regia.org/warfare/spear.htm www.regia.org http://www.geocities.com/normlaw/ http://www.sengokudaimyo.com/katchu/ Theblindsage 09:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

mild inaccuracy
In the section Modern armour it states ' modern ballistic armour is much less impervious to stabbing weapons unless they are augmented with anti-knife/anti-stab armour (usually a form of Mail (armour))[citation needed].' As maille armour is anti-/slash/ not anti-stab (it is quite useless against stabs) this seems rather dubious.

 * Mail armour is not useless against stabs. Many forms of mail armour have rings with an inner diameter of less than 6mm.  Such rings would impede all but the skinniest of blades from puncturing. Mercutio.Wilder (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is full of inaccuracies
Sorry guys, but as it stands, this article is very inaccurate and entirely Euro-centric. As it stands, it should not be taken as even slightly authoritative. I might try and tackle it in a few weeks. 89.124.164.6 (talk) 20:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Most here would agree with you. The article suffers from a series of small contributions rather than an overall, consistent approach based on reputable sources.  But it's a big job, and I, for one, have been waiting for someone else keen enough to attempt it.  You mention the eurocentrism: note that Chinese armour, Korean armour and so forth have their own pages.  Might make sense to create (or move this to)  European armour or Armour of the European knight or something, cover it in detail there, and create a much more general overview here at Armour with linked summaries of the main armour traditions. Gwinva (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, those are all ideas I was thinking of. Although definitely European armor, as it should cover a far wider range than just what was used by knights, although that probably deserves its own page as well.  I'll be settled in for the summer starting in early June, might try to take it on then.  From an IP that isn't close to being blocked for the "contributions" of the other residents of my university housing block here in Galway.  -rolls eyes- 89.124.164.6 (talk) 07:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Great. Feel free to drop me a line if you ever need me to look over something, get a second opinion or look something up (I've a mountain of sources: see my user page).  I would recommend getting an account; see Why create an account? It prevents a block of others affecting you, makes it easier for you to keep track of your contribs, keep a watchlist, and it makes it easy for others to get in touch; there's also all sorts of gadgets you can enable to make editing easier. You also need to be signed in to do things like move (rename) pages. Another bonus is you can create your own subpage (sandbox/workpage), where you can mock up an article, play around with it before it goes "live".   Choose a random name if you want to keep your anonymity; in fact,you could make it a play on your IP, like "eight.nine.one.two".  Gwinva (talk) 09:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Fit of Plate Harness
In this thread on myAmoury we see a discussion of the fit of armour. In it Randall Moffett provides a large number of specific refences which indicate that the majority of armour was not custom fit to it's wearer. These records include the personal accounts of lords who kept a number of harnesses on hand to give out to retainers as needed. Also import documents showing hundreds of harnesses at a time shipped to England to be sold on the open market. The open and unanswered question is how much was fitted after-market and to what degree. Having personally fought in poorly fitted armour I can attest to both the value of well-fitted armour and the fact that you can fight well in poorly fit armour. Mercutio.Wilder (talk) 02:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we should assume that almost all tournament armour was made or altered to fit. But hardly any other armour was made to fit. However a very high percentage of surviving armour is of this top quality made to fit category. So survival has hugely distorted the common perception i.e. everyone thinks of Henry VIII's successive suits of armour that show him getting fatter and fatter.Sheredot (talk) 12:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Armour/Archive 1


text: Category:Elections in the Czech Republic


text:
Scheisse

Scheisse or Scheiße may refer to:

 * "Scheisse", 1981 song by Ebba Grön
 * "Scheiße" (song), by Lady Gaga

title: Scheisse


text:
Project Management Institute

The Project Management Institute (PMI, legally Project Management Institute, Inc.) is a U.S.-based not-for-profit professional organization for project management.

Overview
PMI serves more than five million professionals including over 680,000 members in 217 countries and territories around the world, with 304 chapters and 14,000 volunteers serving local members in over 180 countries.

Its services include the development of standards, research, education, publication, networking opportunities in local chapters, hosting conferences and training seminars, and providing accreditation in project management.

PMI has recruited volunteers to create industry standards, such as "A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge", which has been recognized by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). In 2012 ISO adapted the project management processes from the PMBOK Guide 4th edition.

History
In the 1960s project management as such began to be used in the US aerospace, construction, and defense industries. The Project Management Institute was founded by Ned Engman (McDonnell Douglas Automation), James Snyder, Susan Gallagher (SmithKline & French Laboratories), Eric Jenett (Brown & Root), and J Gordon Davis (Georgia Institute of Technology) at the Georgia Institute of Technology in 1969 as a nonprofit organization. It was incorporated in the state of Pennsylvania in the same year. PMI described its objectives in 1975 as to "foster recognition of the need for professionalism in project management; provide a forum for the free exchange of project management problems, solutions, and applications; coordinate industrial and academic research efforts; develop common terminology and techniques to improve communications; provide an interface between users and suppliers of hardware and software systems; and to provide guidelines for instruction and career development in the field of project management."

In the 1970s standardization efforts represented 10 to 15 percent of the institute's efforts. The functions were performed through the Professional Liaison Committee which called on and coordinated with the Technology, Research Policy, and Education Committees. The institute participated in national activities through the American National Standards Committee XK 36.3 and internationally, through liaison with an appointed observer to Europe's International Project Management Association, then called INTERNET. PMI did not deal with the US federal government directly; several members were federal employees in agencies involved with project management.

In the 1980s, efforts were made to standardize project management procedures and approaches. The PMI produced the first Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) in 1996.

In the late 1990s, Virgil R. Carter became president of the PMI. In 2002 Carter was succeeded by Gregory Balestrero, who directed the institute until his retirement in January 2011. He was succeeded as President and CEO by Mark A. Langley. From March 2019 through December 2021 the president and CEO was Sunil Prashara. Pierre Le Manh was appointed CEO on September 1, 2022.

Certifications
Launched in 1984, PMI's first credential was the PMP. It has since become a de facto standard certification in project management. In 2007 it earned the ANSI/ISO/IEC 17024 accreditation from the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). , over one million people held the PMP credential.

PMI later introduced other certifications. Credential holders do not have to be members of PMI.

To initially obtain a PMI credential, candidates must first document that they have met the required education and experience requirements. They must then pass an examination consisting of multiple-choice questions. To maintain most PMI credentials, holders must earn Professional Development Units (PDUs), which can be earned in a variety of ways such as taking classes, attending PMI global congresses, contributing to professional research, or writing and publishing papers on the subject. Most credentials must be renewed every three years. These are the certifications and credentials offered by PMI:

 * 1984: Project Management Professional (PMP)
 * 2003: Certified Associate in Project Management (CAPM)
 * 2007: Program Management Professional (PgMP)
 * 2008: PMI Scheduling Professional (PMI-SP)
 * 2008: PMI Risk Management Professional (PMI-RMP)
 * 2011: PMI Agile Certified Practitioner (PMI-ACP)
 * 2014: PMI Professional in Business Analysis (PMI-PBA)
 * 2014: Portfolio Management Professional (PfMP)
 * 2020: PMI Project Management Ready
 * 2020: Disciplined Agile Scrum Master (DASM)
 * 2021: Disciplined Agile Senior Scrum Master (DASSM)
 * 2021: Disciplined Agile Value Stream Consultant (DAVSC)
 * 2021: Disciplined Agile Coach (DAC)

PMI also provided a Certified OPM3 Professional credential which was officially discontinued on March 1, 2017. PMI no longer allows the use of the credential's designation by individuals who formerly obtained it. OPM3, even though no longer neither a credential nor a publication, remains a registered mark of PMI.

Micro-Credentials
List of PMI Micro-Credentials:
 * Agile Hybrid Project Pro
 * Agile Metrics Micro-Credential
 * Citizen Developer Practitioner
 * Construction Performance and Materials Management
 * Construction Project Communications
 * Construction Technology and Innovation
 * Organizational Transformation Foundation
 * Organizational Transformation Implementation
 * Organizational Transformation Orchestration
 * PMI Citizen Developer Business Architect
 * Value Stream Management Micro-Credential

Standards
The standards PMI develops and publishes fall into three main categories:
 * Foundational Standards. These standards provide a foundation for project management knowledge and represent the four areas of the profession: project, program, portfolio, and the organizational approach to project management. They are the foundation on which practice standards and industry-specific extensions are built. According to PMI, standards are developed by volunteers in an open, consensus-based process including a public exposure draft process that allows the standard draft to be viewed and changes suggested.
 * Practice Standards and Frameworks. Practice standards describe the use of a tool, technique, or process identified in the PMBOK® Guide or other foundational standards.
 * Practice Guides. Practice guides provide supporting information and instruction to help one apply PMI's standards. Practice guides may become potential standards and if so, would undergo the process for the development of full consensus standards.

Here is a list of the current standards or guides in each category:

Foundational Standards
 * A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide) – Seventh Edition (2021). Recognized by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) as American National Standard ANSI/PMI 99-001-2021.
 * The Standard for Program Management—Fourth Edition (2017). Recognized by ANSI as American National Standard ANSI/PMI 08-002-2017.
 * The Standard for Portfolio Management—Fourth Edition (2017). Recognized by ANSI as American National Standard ANSI/PMI 08-003-2017.
 * The Standard for Earned Value Management (2019). Recognized by ANSI as American National Standard ANSI/PMI 19-006-2019.
 * The Standard for Risk Management in Portfolios, Programs, and Projects (2019).
 * The Standard for Organizational Project Management (2018).
 * The PMI Guide to Business Analysis (2017), which includes The Standard for Business Analysis.

Practice Standards and Frameworks
 * Practice Standard for Project Estimating—Second Edition (2019).
 * Practice Standard for Scheduling—Third Edition (2019).
 * Practice Standard for Work Breakdown Structures—Third Edition (2019).
 * Practice Standard for Project Configuration Management (2007).
 * Project Manager Competency Development Framework—Third Edition (2017).

Practice Guides
 * Benefits Realization Management: A Practice Guide (2019).
 * Agile Practice Guide (2017).
 * Requirements Management: A Practice Guide (2016).
 * Governance of Portfolios, Programs, and Projects: A Practice Guide (2016).
 * Business Analysis for Practitioners: A Practice Guide (2015).
 * Navigating Complexity: A Practice Guide (2014).
 * Managing Change in Organizations: A Practice Guide (2013).

PMI Lexicon of Project Management Terms

While not a standard, framework, or practice guide, the PMI Lexicon of Project Management Terms offers clear and concise definitions for nearly 200 of the profession's frequently used terms. Definitions in the Lexicon were developed by volunteer experts, and PMI standards committees are chartered to use the Lexicon terms without modification. Version 3.2 contains numerous revised terms based on requests from the 2017 foundational standard committees.

Awards
PMI honors project management excellence in various categories, e.g.: project professionals, organizations, scholars, authors, and continuing professional education providers.

title: Project Management Institute


text:
Talk:Nmci

Putting this up for speedy deletion because it is not linked to by any other article. The actual page that should be matched is NMCI. (Note all caps.) Vesta 08:34, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Read the policy on redirect deletions, I guess this has a use after all. :) - Vesta 08:50, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Nmci


text:
List of heads of government of Norfolk Island

This article lists the heads of government of Norfolk Island.

(Dates in italics indicate de facto continuation of office, irrespective of continuation of status of that office)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scheisse

Scheisse was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was transwiki to Wiktionary. As of 17:20, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC), this article is still in the queue to be moved. Rossami (talk)

Foreign-language dicdef, I don't quite see how to make an article out of this. While it is in fact an extremely common interjection in German, I don't think we need articles on dirty words in every language imaginable -- Ferkelparade π 08:38, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Move to German wiktionary. - User:Utcursch, 16 Aug 2004
 * Move to English wiktionary. Hey, we need entries on foreign words, too, don't we? --Golbez 21:32, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete foreign language dicdef. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:45, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Maybe add some historical info like on Fuck. I'd like to mention two things.  Firstly, I wrote the text, and I'm fine with it getting deleted if that's the way to go.  Secondly, even though I am first in the history I am quite certain that before I edited it the page was blank.  It did not have the usual message of A Wikipedia article that doesn't exist.  I only wrote what I knew because there was something there to expand on, even though that something was in fact nothing. -- 66.32.123.183 03:37, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * The problem here is that the usage of "Fuck" in English is much more varied and the word itself has a much more interesting history than "Scheisse". The only thing that can be said about "Scheisse" is that it literally means "shit" in English and is commonly used as an interjection meaning "bad stuff". So my vote for deletion still stands since there's no real potential for an article here... -- Ferkelparade π 08:06, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary (English or German). I see no possibility of expansion to an encyclopedic article. Rossami 00:43, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: Fascinating. Is this really the meaning of Mr Jinks' favourite term? I had no idea it was so vulgar, and I'm sure my parents had no idea either when as a six-year-old fan of the Huckleberry Hound Show I used to use it all the time. Uncertain as to what to do with the article, there's an encyclopedic possibility here but I can't quite see what. No vote as yet. Andrewa 02:25, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Reply to comment: Probably not. The long e in pronunciation makes it far more likely that those are corruptions of "geez", itself a corruption of "Jesus" (see Euphemism). The dominant vowel sound in this word is a long i. Rossami

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
Place de l'Hôtel-de-Ville – Esplanade de la Libération

The public square in the 4th arrondissement of Paris that is now the Place de l'Hôtel de Ville ("City Hall Square") was, before 1802, called the Place de Grève. The French word grève refers to a flat area covered with gravel or sand situated on the shores or banks of a body of water.

Early history
The location presently occupied by the square was the point on the sandy right bank of the river Seine where the first riverine harbor of Paris was established.

Middle Ages
Later it was used as a public meeting-place and also as a location where unemployed people gathered to seek work. This circumstance accounts for the current French expressions, être en grève (to be on strike) and faire (la) grève (to go on strike). In 1244 Louis IX of France ordered 24 cartloads of Talmud manuscripts to be burned at the square.

Royal Execution Grounds
The principal reason why the Place de Grève is remembered is that it was the site of most of the public executions in early Paris. The gallows and the pillory stood there.

The highest-profile executions took place on the grève, including the gruesome deaths of the assassins François Ravaillac and Robert-François Damiens, as well as the bandit-rebel Guy Éder de La Fontenelle. In 1310 the Place de Grève was also the site of the execution of the Beguine heretic Marguerite Porete. On 22 February 1680, the famous French fortune teller, poisoner and alleged sorceress La Voisin was burned to death in the square.

The French Revolution
On September 14, 1788, anti-monarchy protests renewed, and in October 1788, protestors demanded money for fireworks; they also demanded that anyone in a carriage dismount and salute to Henri IV, and they burned effigies representing Breteuil, as well as Calonne and the Duchesse de Polignac. They then proposed burning Marie Antoinette in effigy, but the troops were deployed and they dispersed the crowds with great bloodshed in the Place de Grève.

Later on, the Place de Grève saw the first use of the guillotine, when robber Nicolas Jacques Pelletier was decapitated on 25 April 1792. Other notable executions included Charlotte Corday, Jean-Baptiste Carrier, and Antoine Quentin Fouquier-Tinville.

Location
The southern end of the Place de l'Hôtel de Ville, the end closer to the river, is on the right-bank side of the Pont d'Arcole, which crosses eighty metres of water to reach the island, Île de la Cité, in the middle of the Seine. At this point on the riverbank, the Place de l'Hôtel de Ville is formed by the convergence of three streets: two quays on the river, Quai de l'Hôtel de Ville, and Quai de Gesvres, and the rue de Renard. The rue de Renard, which passes in front of the Paris city hall, the Hôtel de Ville de Paris, forfeits its name for one city block, adopting instead "Place de l'Hôtel de Ville" addresses.

Metro station
The Place de l'Hôtel de Ville is served by the Hôtel de Ville station of the Paris Métro, on lines 1 and 11.