BC/AD vs BCE/CE

[calvinist]

I'm curious what everyone thinks about this topic. I've noticed that it can be a very heated subject on wikipedia articles. My personal view is that the BC/AD system is better on practical grounds: 1) the uniformity of two characters in each 2) easier to distinguish at sight 3) easier to say in speech.

As I christian I don't really care which system is used, but the motive (as I understand it) behind the BCE/CE system bothers me. I don't see it as an "attack" against Christianity, but just petty and even deceptive. I think it's petty because the BC/AD system in no way "forces" religion or religious beliefs on anyone. Such arguments are silly I think. It seems to me that such a line of thinking (if followed logically) would lead to changing the names of cities such as St. Louis, San Diego, Los Angeles, and especially Santa Fe (we all know which "fe" is meant in that name). I think it's deceptive because unless we change the reference point we are still dividing human history by the estimated/supposed year of Jesus' birth. I have a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" sort of attitude toward these things.

[Archer]

I think it's deceptive because unless we change the reference point we are still dividing human history by the estimated/supposed year of Jesus' birth.

Yea. It always struck me as funny for that reason.

In the end it probably doesn't matter too much as different cultures/areas of the world have their own calendars and ways of reckoning history. The Islamic calendar, for example, marks the first year as 622 (AD), when Muhammad made his hejira.

But I prefer BC/AD like you do, for the same reasons you do: it was working fine…just let it alone.

I'm still trying to get over Peking becoming Beijing, Australia only being a continent (now called Oceania) when combined with other islands, and Pluto no longer being a planet.

Too much to retain…

[ABlaine]

I'm another vote for AD/BC. Not only is it more honest about where the division comes from, AD and BC are more distinguishable than CE and BCE.

[daivid]

I'm curious what everyone thinks about this topic. I've noticed that it can be a very heated subject on wikipedia articles. My personal view is that the BC/AD system is better on practical grounds: 1) the uniformity of two characters in each 2) easier to distinguish at sight 3) easier to say in speech.

It is heated on Wikipedia because whatever you write someone can come along and change it. Here where what you write stays put unless you change it it is really just a matter of personal choice. If I had to give a reason for my choice it is that if reflects that in fact the year one is really just an arbitrary year to date things from. After all, Mathew's accout would suggest a year of 4 BCE and that of Luke a year of 7CE for the birth of Jesus.
But I would never tell anyone that they should change. Indeed, telling people they should change is a good way of pushing people to adopt the opposite convention.

Now if inserting the year zero and adjusting all BCE/BC dates to conform were a serious option I might well consider that worth advocating....

[Qimmik]

My background isn't Christian. I've used BCE and CE off and on since about 1956, so it feels comfortable to me. Use whatever you feel like using, but I see no advantages in BC/AD. You can interpret BCE and CE as "before Christian era" and "Christian era" if you like, and the precise date of Jesus' birth is a matter of controversy anyway.

[Damoetas]

Since I am currently procrastinating from something else I should be writing, I will offer some thoughts on the subject.

The argument against BC/AD is not exactly that it "'forces' religion or religious beliefs" on anyone, in the sense of forcing them to convert or whatever. The argument is that it does something more subtle: it's a form of cultural or religious hegemony. Something as basic as numbering the years should be neutral, not specific to any single culture or religion. By saying, "We as Christians get to decide how everyone should number the years, based on what is important to us," seems a little unfair. So, I think BCE/CE is a helpful compromise. It doesn't force anyone to actually renumber all the years - that would be completely impractical! And how would you choose a new starting point? But anyway, by calling it "Common Era," it's a more neutral way of saying, "This is the starting point that we all agree upon," without giving it a specifically Christian designation. Because you have to admit, using an abbreviation for "In the year of the Lord" is something that some people might legitimately object to.

As for renaming cities, well.... I don't think it's exactly the same thing, but there are similarities. Some might argue that those names are a monument to genocide and imperialism. I wouldn't go that far personally: I say, keep them for their historical value, as a record to everything that happened in the history of colonialism. But if a movement arose toward changing them, I wouldn't say it's outrageous.

I do agree with you that BCE/CE is a little more cumbersome! But I choose to use it in order to be inclusive of all beliefs or lack of belief.

[jeidsath]

So I take it that BC/AD -> BCE/CE is doubleplus good and goodthinkful?

[calvinist]

The argument is that it does something more subtle: it's a form of cultural or religious hegemony. Something as basic as numbering the years should be neutral, not specific to any single culture or religion. By saying, "We as Christians get to decide how everyone should number the years, based on what is important to us," seems a little unfair.

I don't believe that avoiding "cultural or religious hegemony" is possible. Every system will show a very strong influence from the culture it comes from, and if it becomes a universally accepted system the argument can be made that the culture is subtly imposing itself on other cultures.

I've heard people say that the IPA is euro-centric, and a symbol of Western imperialism because it's based upon the Latin alphabet, which subtly suggests Western dominance. The system of 12 months and even their names are taken straight from the Romans... Western dominance. I've even heard the argument that correcting non-standard English usage in college papers is a form of white oppression against conquered minorities: http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/26/prof- ... of-racism/ It seems there is no end to this line of thinking, and these arguments are not as fringe as one might think; they get support from those within academia.

That's my point: That there is no such thing as a "culture-neutral culture". The BCE/CE system imposes a culture just the same. I'm not really against BCE/CE, I just think the motive for it is naive for lack of a better word. I always say that the only person that is objective is a dead person, because they no longer think.

[Damoetas]

If you're asking me, no, I don't think it's Orwellian (for the reasons I mentioned above). Doublespeak is something quite different.

So I take it that BC/AD -> BCE/CE is doubleplus good and goodthinkful?

[mwh]

On practical grounds (like calvinist in his original post) I deplore the switch from the simple and familiar BC/AD to the weird and confusable BCE/CE. Children and ESL-ers now have to be taught that BC = BCE (how ridiculous is that?) and that AD = not ADE but CE. We now have two sets of labels referring to exactly the same dating system. Crazy. And people get all het up over which to use? Beyond crazy. They’re just letters, after all.

I take Damoetas’ point about cultural-religious hegemony, but with BCE/CE we’re still using Christ as the dividing line, we’re just disguising the fact. (And historically it’s nonsensical to assign e.g. 10 CE or even 200 CE to a new era; and what is a “common era” in any case?) And how many would even know what AD stood for, or understand it if they did, if wasn’t rammed down their throats? (How many do know, even now?) And there’s not even agreement what BCE stands for. Are the millions of publications and documents with BC/AD going to be withdrawn and altered, in a kind of damnatio memoriae?

— But it doesn’t matter in the slightest what any of us think of the switch, because we are now stuck with BCE/CE, however absurd that is in English. (In other languages it’s not so bad.) No going back.

[Qimmik]

I was taught BCE/BC when I was about ten and was already familiar with BC/AD, nearly six decades ago, and somehow it didn't confuse me then, and it has never bothered me since. Really, it would have been more confusing teaching Jewish history to Jewish kids using BC/AD, and even more confusing using the Jewish chronology. I'm not a believer, but I have a certain affection for BCE/BC, which brings back a part of my childhood. I like to use BCE/BC among non-Jews and BC/AD among Jews to remind both groups (especially my relatives on either side) that I'm the proud offspring of a mixed marriage and don't belong completely to either.

[calvinist]

@mwh
You hit the nail on the head as to how I feel about it. Basically, changing the "name" doesn't undo the fact that the system is utterly "eurocentric" and not only that but based upon the Christian religion. If we renamed the Bible the "Book of Common History" would it suddenly become "culture-neutral"? I really feel the BCE/CE name is deceptive more than anything, and has an "Orwellian" feel to it or damnatio memoriae to it. I can hear a little girl in a public school asking her teacher "So, teacher, who decided the 'Common Era' started this year and why?" And the teacher, after stuttering and hesitating, replies with "Don't worry about that, it's not important, it won't be on the test. In fact, we don't want to remember." If they actually changed the system it would be different, but all they did was stick a new badge on the old product and tell us it's completely different. In the auto industry this is called "badge engineering" or "rebadging": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebadging Perhaps, if I put a Batman suit on, I can really be Batman.

[Qimmik]

I can hear a little girl in a public school asking her teacher "So, teacher, who decided the 'Common Era' started this year and why?"

OK, put the shoe on the other foot--imagine a Jewish kid asking about BC/AD. I'm ok with using BC/AD if that suits you, but I can assure you that for a kid raised in the Jewish religion BC/AD was more than confusing, it was disturbing, especially when applied to Jewish history, raising questions about your identity and place in society.

Personally, I went to an Episcopalian school as a kid. I sat through morning chapel services and sang the hymns. We celebrated Christmas at home, as well as Jewish holidays. And I also went to Jewish services on Saturday mornings and Hebrew School on Sundays. So I probably had to negotiate these troubling issues more than most kids--and, believe me, they were troubling at 9 and 10 and 11.

But BCE/BC seemed like a very satisfying and logical way of resolving the tricky chronology issue, and I still favor it. It didn't and doesn't feel deceptive or "Orwellian" to me at all--in fact, if I were more sensitive, I might take offense at that suggestion. And maybe BCE/CE is helpful for Muslim and Hindu and Buddhist kids and adults, too.

Use whatever you prefer, though. I use both systems myself. Just keep in mind that BCE/CE has some value for many of us.

[Damoetas]

Interesting points all around.... I think this discussion highlights the two ways of looking at it: You can say, "If we change one thing in X direction, we should logically do every other more extreme thing in that direction, ad absurdum. Therefore, it would be stupid to change anything." Or you can say, "We can't undo the past, but we can change some of its lingering effects to make the system more fair for everyone. There's no perfect solution, but we can compromise."

[jeidsath]

It didn't and doesn't feel deceptive or "Orwellian" to me at all--in fact, if I were more sensitive, I might take offense at that suggestion. And maybe BCE/CE is helpful for Muslim and Hindu and Buddhist kids and adults, too.

Not to pick on Qimmik here, but I think that the above sums everything up perfectly. With his above quote in mind, take a look at Haidt's "The Coddling of the American Mind" -- I don't need to point out the title's reference to Allan Bloom -- at the Atlantic.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... nd/399356/

Something strange is happening at America’s colleges and universities. A movement is arising, undirected and driven largely by students, to scrub campuses clean of words, ideas, and subjects that might cause discomfort or give offense...A number of popular comedians, including Chris Rock, have stopped performing on college campuses (see Caitlin Flanagan’s article in this month’s issue). Jerry Seinfeld and Bill Maher have publicly condemned the oversensitivity of college students, saying too many of them can’t take a joke.

Haidt makes a fine case that all of the mental coddling is encouraging neurosis.

[Damoetas]

You know, I entered this discussion not caring about it very strongly either way. But after hearing the type of arguments made by @calvinist, @mwh, and @jedsaith.... I'm sure you all are very nice people, and we can talk about Greek and Latin amicably on other threads. But you strengthen my resolve more than ever to keep religion out of the public sphere.

[Qimmik]

Damoetas, thank you. You took the edge off my anger, and I won't post further on this topic.

[jeidsath]

I haven't been upset at anything in this conversation, but I am saddened to see people who have been verbose in pursuing their own arguments, throw up the conversation when they encounter vigorous, but entirely polite arguments from "calvinist and mwh." As for myself, I can't be the judge of my own rhetoric, and if I have said anything uncivil, I apologize.

...to keep religion out of the public sphere.

Impossible. Had you said that to a Greek or Roman, he would have given you a look of incomprehension. The public sphere is full up on religion, even in places that have no churches.

I was very surprised to move from New Mexico -- not a Bible Belt state -- to the California Bay Area a few years ago. The things that you can't stay in polite conversation out here! And the constant talk about dietary restrictions (gluten-free, vegan, paleo, etc., etc.). All of the taboo subjects! The sense of self-righteousness, the fiercely destructive persecution of cultural opponents (attacking jobs and livelihoods of everyday people for being on the wrong side). Sure, "God" comes into it nowhere, but this place is full up on something that looks very much like religion.

There is no "none of the above" option in public life. If there were, I for one would choose it, even if I had to use BCE/CE every day of my life. In my part of the world, it would just put me in the camp of the majority -- the ones doing the persecuting out here. For those of you that live in places where the situation is reversed, I salute you for choosing to stand up against authority and oppression in your particular polis. Say BCE/CE loud.

[Paul Derouda]

I have no real opinion the question one way or the other, not least because English is not my native language.

I must enjoin Damoetas for his resolution to keep religion out of the public sphere. In France (to my knowledge) this principle is respected more strictly than anywhere else. For example, it's absolutely taboo in France for a public school teacher to discuss the religious affiliations of a pupil in class, which are strictly a private matter. (Compare that to Finland, where the majority of pupils have compulsory religion teaching at school.) But it's surprising that people there are quite happy with "av. J.-C." and "apr. J.C." (Though it's true that I haven't followed the French media so closely in the last few years and they have "avant/après l'ère commune", probably calqued on the English model, that may be gaining ground.) But of course "after Jesus Christ" is more neutral than "year of our Lord" (=AD). Not to say that there are no other problems in France. And it's ironical that the laws and principles that originally came about to counter the hegemony of the Catholic church are now being used by Catholic extreme rightists to boost their own Islamophobia.

[mwh]

Interesting points all around.... I think this discussion highlights the two ways of looking at it: You can say, "If we change one thing in X direction, we should logically do every other more extreme thing in that direction, ad absurdum. Therefore, it would be stupid to change anything." Or you can say, "We can't undo the past, but we can change some of its lingering effects to make the system more fair for everyone. There's no perfect solution, but we can compromise."

Well I wasn’t looking at it in either of these ways, but if these were in fact the two ways of looking at it, count me in on the latter.

Qimmik’s point about Jews and other non-Christian cultures has undeniable force. It has to be admitted that for many people the BC/AD designation can’t be completely voided of its original Christian content. No matter that Momigliano didn't mind using BC/AD, and nor do I as an atheist. It was Jews who started the German equivalent of BCE/CE way back when, and that made sense—and still does—as a way of neutralizing the Christian basis of the Christian calendar. It didn't change anything but the name, but nomen est omen (as I inadequately acknowledged in my other post, taking more a a-rose-by-any-other-name approach). Asserting a Jew/Christian dichotomy of humankind is less meaningful today (except in certain circles), but in the Western world at large, or at any rate in the US, it's now been reconfigured as secular vs. Christian, or politically correct vs. reactionary. If only the English BCE/CE weren’t such a silly contrastive pair of letter combos, and “common era” weren’t such a silly notion! Both reference systems equally assert Western hegemony and take Jesus of Nazareth as drawing a line across human history.

But the Christian calendar is here to stay, and a non-Christian system of reference to it is now here to stay too. Which in my view is a good thing.

Pax?

[Qimmik]

I said I wouldn't post further on this topic, but Pax.

[daivid]

Reading through this thread I can't find anywhere where people got heated yet clearly several people perceive that it did. It is well to remember that when we write we know what emotions we write with. Once it is simply text, however, those emotions are lost and the reader will resupply emotions and those are quite likely to differ from those intended.

I am sure I have said this before but it is worth repeating that it is a good rule to assume that anything that you read was written with much more friendly intentions than you perceive.

[calvinist]

Reading through this thread I can't find anywhere where people got heated yet clearly several people perceive that it did. It is well to remember that when we write we know what emotions we write with. Once it is simply text, however, those emotions are lost and the reader will resupply emotions and those are quite likely to differ from those intended.

I am sure I have said this before but it is worth repeating that it is a good rule to assume that anything that you read was written with much more friendly intentions than you perceive.

daivid, excellent points. I have enjoyed this discussion and hearing from the those who hold different views from my own.

I think it may be helpful to acknowledge what we all agree on and where the differences emerge in our thinking. I think that all of us agree on these three things: 1) freedom of religion is a fundamental right for a healthy society 2) the current system of counting years is European and Christian in origin 3) the BCE/CE tag does not change the European/Christian origin of the system.

Now, where we disagree is on the actual harm that the BC/AD tag creates, and the extent to which the BCE/CE tag alleviates that harm. I'll summarize my reasons for why I think the underlying ideas behind the BCE/CE tag are wrong:

-If the BC/AD tag is bad because it has religious ties, then discussing the origin of the system is also bad because it entails religion. Therefore, if a student in a public school asks about the reasoning behind the system, the question cannot be answered. If the question is answered, that seems to imply that the harm of exposing the system's religious roots (the reason for dropping BC/AD) was exaggerated; and if the question isn't answered, that seems like damnatio memoriae.

-I understand that those from other religions may feel like "outsiders" with the BC/AD tag, but at the same time I can imagine a young Jewish boy who learns the BCE/CE system and grows up to find out that it's really a "Christocentric" system (quite literally) might become angered and feel that he has been lied to about the extent to which Christianity does indeed pervade Western society.

-Lastly, if the BC/AD tag is bad because it has a religious association, and the BCE/CE tag is a "solution", then one cannot logically say that it's fine for someone to use either one. The idea implies that the BCE/CE tag is morally superior to BC/AD, doesn't it? If I say that using the BC/AD tag offends people and creates a religious hegemony and a neutral solution has been found in the BCE/CE tag, but at the end of the day it doesn't matter if you still use the BC/AD tag, does that make sense?

Pax in disputatione. Politi sumus.

[Paul Derouda]

-If the BC/AD tag is bad because it has religious ties, then discussing the origin of the system is also bad because it entails religion. Therefore, if a student in a public school asks about the reasoning behind the system, the question cannot be answered. If the question is answered, that seems to imply that the harm of exposing the system's religious roots (the reason for dropping BC/AD) was exaggerated; and if the question isn't answered, that seems like damnatio memoriae.

I think this misses the point. There's no reason why religions should not be discussed in a public school, as a phenomenon of human history, human values, and human behavior. In the French system, which I think should set the example in this regard, different religions are discussed in history class and to some degree in French class (also called "Philosophie" at least in high school, I'm not sure if that's the case for younger students). It becomes problematic when one religion is given priority or taken as default. Students and teachers are not allowed to sport manifest religious symbols in France (big crosses, veils -- though I'm not sure this is always strictly respected), but even more importantly, every student has the right not to become marked as a member of a particular religion. The last point is very different from the situation in Finland (the country where I live), where kids in public schools have compulsory religion teaching and are separated in groups during religion lessons, so that everyone knows whose family is "normal" (Lutheran) and who is a weirdo (Eastern Orthodox, Islamic, witness of Jehovah, atheist, etc.).

Every French school must display this poster conspicuously:
http://cache.media.education.gouv.fr/fi ... 393435.pdf

AD="year of our Lord" is problematic, because it makes Christianity default, much more than "Common Era" or even "after Christ", which just make an arbitrary year the starting point of our time reckoning. (And in passing I'd note that not only is the birth year of Jesus unknown, but a good case could be made that he never lived all; I don't necessarily believe so -- I'm agnostic on that point -- but the evidence for him even existing is sparse and contradictory.)

[Markos]

...not only is the birth year of Jesus unknown, but a good case could be made that he never lived all;

χαῖρε φίλε Παῦλε.

Mk. 8:27b: Τίνα με λέγουσιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι εἶναι;

λέγουσί σε μὴ εἶναι.

[bedwere]

...not only is the birth year of Jesus unknown, but a good case could be made that he never lived all;

χαῖρε φίλε Παῦλε.

Mk. 8:27b: Τίνα με λέγουσιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι εἶναι;

λέγουσί σε μὴ εἶναι.

This is a Catholic joke, told to me by a priest friend of mine and translated into English (sorry Mark, no Greek!)

There are a Dominican, a Franciscan, and a Jesuit who receive the news of the discovery of a tomb with the body of Jesus inside.

The Dominican: This gives a big theological headache, but we can revise it here and square it up again.
The Franciscan: Great! We'll build a sanctuary around the place, organize tours, and get a lot of donations!
The Jesuit: Wow! There really was a Jesus after all!

[Bart]

.... but a good case could be made that he never lived all; I don't necessarily believe so -- I'm agnostic on that point -- but the evidence for him even existing is sparse and contradictory.)

As far as I know there is a very firm scholarly consensus about the historicity of Jesus, i.e. that Jesus existed as a historical figure. The opposite view (that he didn't exist) seems to be a fringe position.
See for example https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

For what it's worth, I'm in the AD/BC camp for all the reasons already given in this thread. I'm glad we don't (yet) have this kind of self inflicted wound/ dilemma in Dutch.

[Paul Derouda]

Mk. 8:27b: Τίνα με λέγουσιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι εἶναι;

λέγουσί σε μὴ εἶναι.

That's not exactly what I said. A good case could be made that he did exist after all. What I don't understand is how you can build a scholarly consensus on something where there is simply not enough evidence to build upon. As far as I know, the historical events and persons that appear in the NT don't match very well with non-Biblical sources, but that doesn't necessarily mean that none of it happened. In the end, it depends on whether you decide to believe or not. I just wanted to emphasize how arbitrary this year-reckoning is from a non-Christian viewpoint. (And maybe provoke you just a bit...)

[demetri]

Was it this BCE in 19th century Russia?

Is OUTRAGE!

[daivid]

That's not exactly what I said. A good case could be made that he did exist after all. What I don't understand is how you can build a scholarly consensus on something where there is simply not enough evidence to build upon. As far as I know, the historical events and persons that appear in the NT don't match very well with non-Biblical sources, but that doesn't necessarily mean that none of it happened. In the end, it depends on whether you decide to believe or not. I just wanted to emphasize how arbitrary this year-reckoning is from a non-Christian viewpoint. (And maybe provoke you just a bit...)

The reason why the year of Jesus' birth is so moot is that we have two contradictory accounts of Jesus' birth. The one thing they have in common is that they both answer the question: "Given that Jesus came from Nazareth, how come Micah predicted the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem." Mathew starts Mary in Bethlehem so Jesus is born then and then ensures the family are driven out by Herod. Luke starts Mary in Nazareth and has to move Mary to Bethlehem in time for the birth.

If Jesus was an imaginary person he would have been imagined from the start as a Bethlehemite. It is only because he was real person with a real history that he came with inconvenient facts that needed to be explained away.

[Paul Derouda]

If Jesus was an imaginary person he would have been imagined from the start as a Bethlehemite. It is only because he was real person with a real history that he came with inconvenient facts that needed to be explained away.

That's a very good point. John the Baptist for one seems to be something of an embarrassment and his relationship to Jesus required an explanation. On balance existence seems more likely than non-existence, but surely the evidence isn't conclusive. And of course, probably for over 99% of the people alive at that time there's no surviving evidence they ever existed. My statement was sort of a provocation anyway.

[calvinist]

If Jesus was an imaginary person he would have been imagined from the start as a Bethlehemite. It is only because he was real person with a real history that he came with inconvenient facts that needed to be explained away.

That's a very good point. John the Baptist for one seems to be something of an embarrassment and his relationship to Jesus required an explanation. On balance existence seems more likely than non-existence, but surely the evidence isn't conclusive. And of course, probably for over 99% of the people alive at that time there's no surviving evidence they ever existed. My statement was sort of a provocation anyway.

The general consensus of NT scholarship (which includes agnostics and atheists) is that his existence is a solid historical fact. There are a number of reasons for this: 1) the earliest NT writings are dated to around the mid 50s which puts them very close to his life and at a time when his contemporaries would still be living 2) the gospels have some "embarrassing" stories that imply a real tradition of events rather than a cleverly crafted story of a god-man 3) there are a few references to him by non-christian writers, i.e. Suetonius, Tacitus, and Josephus. The Josephus passage is widely recognized to have interpolations, but the basic reference to Jesus is considered authentic and original 4) the early opponents of Christianity never doubted Jesus' existence. There's only one qualified scholar I know of that doubts his existence, most of the chatter about Jesus never existing on the internet comes from people unqualified to judge (that's not a shot at you, Paul, I'm talking about the various websites one can find). Now, whether you accept the miraculous events told in the gospels is another thing, but the existence of a 1st century rabbi named Jesus that was crucified by the Romans because of some sort of dispute with the Jewish religious authorities is pretty solid.

On the topic of BCE/CE, I thought of an analogy yesterday that I think could be used for this situation: the BCE/CE tag on a dating system that is Christian in origin can be likened to taking an old church and turning it into a public school and redecorating it and changing the name. It has been "re-purposed" for secular use. I would accept that analogy and I think it can be thought of as a "re-purposing" rather than a "whitewashing of history".