BCE and CE vs BC and AD

Great Debates
21

It’s just a matter of practical convenience to preserve the (admittedly arbitrary) numbers as they are, but it also makes sense for objective scholars to remove the inherent chauvanism from the system for their own purposes. There is also the issue (as has been pointed out already) that the BC/AD system is simply inaccurate as to its central point. If Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great then he could not have been born any later that 4 BCE (that’s when Herod died). So why should historians, especially non-Christian historians, be forced to use appelations which not only don’t reflect their own religtious beliefs but which don’t even accurately represent history? The numbers themselves are so entrenched and so universal in western culture that it would make no sense to contrive a new system completely but most scholars these days simply feel more comfortable using the phrase “common era” which accurately reflects the way the west counts years but does not necessarily genuflect to the significance of the central date itself.

Please note that there is no movement by scholars or historians to force anyone else to stop using BC/AD, many of them just don’t want to use it themselves. There are no petitions, no pending legislation, no attempts whatever to codify the phrase “common era” as official or binding on anyone else. You can say whatever you want. Both “Anno Domini” and “Common Era” are merely conventions of speech in any case. You say what you want, I’ll say what I want. The numbers are the same. Like Buck said, there is simply no reason to get offended by the choice that some historian makes.

22

I was just about to bring this up myself. Even in college I had arguments with people who were sure that “A.D.” referred to the number of years that had passed since the Crucifixion. This isn’t even all that stupid of a misunderstanding – if “B.C.” is an abbreviation for an English phrase beginning with “before”, it’s not unreasonable to assume that “A.D.” is also an abbreviation for an English phrase beginning with “after”. It does surprise me that people don’t notice that no one ever mentions the 30-odd year era (maybe “C.L.” for “Christ’s Life”?) that would have to fall between “Before Christ” and “After Death”, but if they think of this at all they may figure nothing much of historic import was going on in the rest of the world during those few decades.

So although BCE/CE is just sticking a new label on the old numbering system, it may at least be a new label that prevents people from making a pretty big blunder in their understanding of how the system works.

23

Didn’t scholars use to use (or infer) a Zero Year up to about the mid/late 19th century? Seems I remember some shifts having to be done, much like the difference between Julian and Gregorian, but with years instead of days.

Of course, I could also be remembering something that never happened, it’s hard for me to tell sometimes. :wink:

BTW, I’m a Christian who actually prefers the C.E / B.C.E nomenclature, but am not offended by any other use of different names or systems. (Yeah, I know, adds nothing, I just wanted to say it. The first paragraph is the meat of this post. Any takers?)

24

Tempest in a teapot, IMO.

For much of the world, taking the concept of what business correspondence gets dated as and all the related dating paraphenalia, this is the year 2004. From what? From the date that Dionysius Exiguus micalculated as the year Jesus of Nazareth was born.

Therefore, it’s convenient to have an atheist in Mombasa and a Neopagan in Stockholm, attempting to process their companies’ exchange of widgets for Euros, date their contract and correspondence on the basis of that commonly used dating system.

But the fact that it is focused on the central figure of a major religion, albeit incorrectly figured, does mean that there is a problem in expressing what that date is in relation to. Zev Steinhart would probably have a major disagreement with using A.D. (I don’t know; I didn’t ask) as, even allowing for the miscalculation, it’s not the 2004th year of His Lord. And while B.C. doesn’t have quite that snitty a connotation, it still makes reference to Him.

Hence, keeping the arbitrary 754th year since the founding of Rome as the central point of our dating system enables people to keep on using the same year dates. The Norman Conquest still happened in 1066, the Declaration of Independence was adopted in 1776, Franz Ferdinand was shot in 1914, and so on.

But acknowledging it as the Common Era, and dates preceding it as Before the Common Era, removes the specifically-Christian aspect of using that dating system, for the courtesy and convenience of non-Christians using it.

Many Christians, however, dislike C.E. and B.C.E. because it seems to them to be disavowing Christ. Well, yeah, it is in a way – as a Christian, you’re failing to press your key tenet of faith – “Jesus is Lord” – on others. To me, that’s nothing but courtesy. They’ll come to know Him as and when they become open to His welcoming embrace – and forcing Him down their throats is no way to make them open to Him.

25

There are good arguments to preserve the dating scheme though removing the reference to Christ is a legitimate politically correct move. But, to insist on using Christ as a reference because Western culture is the most influential reeks of cultural imperialism. Christ !=West, and is definitely not the most influential figure in the world. And, why should historians go by someone’s influence anyway? An ecumenical neutral scheme is the way to go.

26

The mnemonic is the fact that the life of Jesus was involved in making the calculation in the first place. Using “BCE/CE” eliminates that piece of information. But people are still going to ask “Whence BCE/CE?” at which point someone will have to explain the history of the matter. Using the “BC/AD” eliminates the need for this explanation.

And that’s why it’s better. In addition, BCE/CE has never really taken off. Kind of like DAT.

27

Granted, but at some point you’ve got to start numbering things otherwise we’ll never be organized. I can’t really think of a decent place for year 1 that wouldn’t be just as arbitrary.

I don’t see how it’s outlived its usefulness. At any rate it’s a lot more useful to keep the numbering system we have now then to switch to something else entirely.

I seriously doubt it’s that’s the biggest problem with people not knowing ancient history. For the vast majority of people specific dates in the ancient past are of little importance.

Marc

28

There’s another possibility- Anno Mundi, which starts at either 4000 or 4004 B.C. (I don’t recall which), supposedly the time of Adam (Ussher Chronology). Some old Masonic materials use it.

Btw. Ernest Martin showed (and the Griffith Observatory utilizes this for its Christmas “Star of Bethlehem” presentation) that it’s quite possible Herod the Great did die in 1 B.C./A.D. rather than 4 B.C. (that date had been favored due to some lunar eclipse data which had undergone some rethinking).

29

I was just “complaining” about this the other day to my mother, about how it doesn’t really hide anything. A stranger even butted in to the conversation to agree. :smiley: “AD” is about as Christian to me as “God damn it” as a curse, or “God bless you” when I sneeze. It does show a Christian bias, but that is pretty much the last place I’d care to remove it from. Now, “In God We Trust”, on the other hand… :stuck_out_tongue:

30

Is it not the case that Moslem culture flourished until the Middle Ages, and then there was a religious conclave or something which essentially stopped scientific development and the Islamosphere has been in decline ever since?

31

Never knew that this was a big issue. I often use the CE nomenclature when talking serious history, especially if it has to do with the non-Christian world, but that’s because I don’t like the implicit assumption that Christ is my Lord. He aint. And it is silly to say that when talking about the Islamic Caliphate or points of Jewish history or about China. Usually I see it in Jewish history books, and it is understandable. It would be really silly to use the Hebrew calender. Dating from the falsely presumed date of Christ’s birth is the standard set of dates so having a way to use them without having to say “My Lord” is nice. But I thought that it was mainly retricted to us Jews. Didn’t know that it had permeated academic circles so much.

32

There’s a Straight Dope column about it. You’re not wrong, but that doesn’t affect the validity of Paul Fitzroy’s statement.

33

BC/BCE has become all but universal in acadamia, which is all it was really intended for. While it has also become more current in popular usage it is in no danger of sweeping away BC/AD anytime soon, but bear in mind that there has been no attempt to popularize the newer terms outside of acadamia. It’s not like the metric system. There is no crusade for change. It’s just a personal preference for scholars.

34

Got it.

35

I can think of several that provide a better dividing line than somewhere smack dab in the middle of the Roman Empire.

How 'bout 10000 BC as the year zero, representing the approximate date that the glaciers from the most recent Ice Age last retreated?

How about 3000 BC, the approximate date of the beginnings of agriculture in Sumer and elsewhere?

How about ANYTHING that represents an actual demarcation of two differing phases of human history?

For academic purposes, I believe it has. The year 1 AD represents nearly nothing as a beginning of a particular era in human history.

It begs the question on the part of student of history as to why the division is placed there. The correct answer, which is: “It is the immortalization of an error in a formerly widely-accepted estimate of date of birth of an extremely influential Jewish prophet” is, shall we say, a less than satisfactory reason.

Students whose questions are not answered satisfactorily are tuned out students, in my experience.

Also, simply switching to BCE and CE leads one to wonder just what changes took place in 1 CE, at the beginning of this “Common Era” of mankind. Research yields little of significance. Jesus was not born this year, and his teachings were not widely known for several more decades.

The recording industry is lobbying against BCE/CE?!?!? :eek: :confused: :wink: :smiley:

36

Count me as the first on this thread that is offended by the term “A.D.” Since there is no god, I hate to use such a term. Although the actual choice of zero year (actually Year One) does not bother me, it is necessarily arbitrary.

I disagree that textbooks would have to be rewritten if we defined a new calendar. Like Paul in Saudi says, there are already multiple calendars in use in the world, 100’s of them if not 1000’s. Defining a new calendar would be like defining the metric system. We still have inches and yards, and we can convert among the systems.

Page with links about calendar systems

As for my preferred choice of calendar:

My problem with our current calendar is that it is based on extremely unreliable physical quantities. We cannot calculate how much time will pass between July 19, 2004, 1:00pm and September 23, 2056, 2pm! (After that period of time will have passed, we can calculate it, but even then it’ll be a pain in the head.) I would much prefer a calendar based on radio signals from distant quasars, not one based on wobbly rotational periods of nearly astronomical bodies.

37

Actually, that’s not what it’s based on anymore. The official measure of the second is based on the vibration of cesium atoms. From over here:

Howstuffworks.com explains

So that’s all nice and standardized. Wobbly planets and such will not be a problem.

38

That makes no sense in light of your username.

39

How do you refer to days of the week, what with all that Norse and Greco-Roman divinity the common words connote? Do you perhaps use the Portuguese names instead?

We’ll discuss the Months, the periodic elements, the planets and diverse others somewhat later.

40

Can you think of anything that wouldn’t require all of us to make radical changes in our calendar or require us to learn an all new set of dates?

I don’t see why that matters.

It’s a very satisfactory reason to a student of history. Because some monk in the 8th century set it up and it became widely accepted and still accepted to this day. (BCE and CE being just a sheep with different colored wool)
Marc