I have been looking at an assortment of historical articles for quite some time now. And, there never seems to be a standard system that people use. It appears that half of them use CE whille the other use AD.

I'll just get to the point, which is the 'acceptable' one to use when writing papers? Does it just depend on your own personal biasis or should it be the one that the auidence most commonly relates to?

Which do you use?

Put bluntly, BCE and CE are PC crap. I use BC and AD.

I use BC and AD too...

it aint my lord;so I use CE/BCE- since AUC isnt much recognized anymore.

AD and BC are the common usages in the western world. CE and BCE are mainly used by people living in non-Christian countries.

Considering it doesn't make sense to use the whole scale in non-Christian countries, I think CE/BCE is pretty nonsense. No problem with BC/AD, except for the built-in inconsistency: It should either be BC/AC (it is that way in German, btw); or, someone needs to explain why the years before are supposed to be no "years of the Lord" - after all, he created the world and everything on it during these days ;).

I use CE and BCE.

I'm not bothered either way. While I'm an active pagan, I still use BC/AD as a tribute to the genius of The Venerable Bede.

I believe I'm right in saying that, while Bede popularised the AD system, BC was actually invented nearly a millennium later by Dionysius Petavius. Striking, given that AD was invented by Dionysius Exiguus.

I understand the rationale behind BCE/CE, but it doesn't make much sense to me given that they still date from Christ. By the way, it is perfectly common to use BCE/CE in Britain, at least, in an academic context; they are probably more common than the traditional ones in historical academia.

What does annoy me is when people write things like "100 AD". They mean, of course, AD 100. "AD" always precedes the date, and the same is true of AH, used sometimes in Islamic calendars. BC, BCE, and CE alike all come after the date.

I normally use AD and BC in English.

In Swedish it's simply "before Christ's (birth)" and "after Christ's (birth)". There was a movement to change it to "before/after our epoch", but this seems to've died away. One popsci magazine jettisoned it on the grounds that before/after Christ's was more religiously neutral - everybody can agree about the traditional date of Jesus's birth, but Muslims, Hindus, etc, might disagree that it's "our" epoch.

i'm a BC/AD man personally....

I didn't know CE existed until today.

What does it stand for?

"Common Era" (and "Before Common Era") - basically a way of keeping the old BC and AD without having to mention Jesus.

BCE and CE for the most part. I've tried to learn the Muslim calendar and the Buddhist calendar just so I can impress people, but I keep forgetting how to calculate a lunar year.

Bah i just say "BC and CE" Before cameron and Cameron Era. The year is currently 21 CE

CE and BCE, though I'd rather find a baseline other than that used by the Christian system. Too bad systems like AUC are completely unused today.

CE and BCE for me as well.

BC/AD

I could care less what they mean...just what I'm used to.

BC/AD. "AD" is more fun to explain than "CE", anyway.

I use BC/AD as well. First off, I am a Christian, and second off, using CE/BCE makes no sense to me, because the only difference is that they don't mention anything religious... while still using a theologically-based calendar. If they wanted to date time from some new great event, let them. But the calendar that I go by, and always will, is the calendar dating from Christ's birth.

And if I get graded down for using AD/BC in papers instead of CE/BCE, so be it. Though I doubt any teacher that I have would do so... and I hope I won't.

BC/AD.

If u want to use something else, why debate it?

AUC? what does this mean

CE/BCE. I refuse to use anything related to Western Christianity. :p

However since creating a whole new dating system would require me to rememorize all the year dates, this is the furthest I'll go...

Really, I'd say that BCE/CE is actually *more* biased towards Christianity than BC/AD. Why? Because BC, at least, is religiously neutral: those years are, unambiguously, before Christ (if we (a) lay aside the fact that Jesus probably wasn't born quite then anyway, and (b) accept that it's neutral to call Jesus "Christ", which is a religious title rather than a name). This is true whatever religion you are.

But BCE/CE suggests that *everyone*, irrespective of their religion, regards Christ's birth as dividing history into a "common era" and a "before common era". It makes the implicit claim that this is a standard and universally accepted way of dating, even though Muslims, Chinese, Japanese etc do not use it. In other words, BCE/CE makes a bigger claim than BC/AD does for the universal applicability of Jesus' life for dating all events; it is, if you like, far more christocentric. Therefore I'd say that if you want to avoid christocentrism and general cultural imperialism, you're better off using BC/AD.

Of course, that still leaves the problem that AD means thinking of Jesus as "Dominus". Not sure what you can do about that.

@Plotinus: I'm with you there.

Of course, the continental Germanic way of "before/after Christ" is the sensiblest. :p

As for "Christ", well, I've yet to run into a Christian objecting to refering to Siddharta Gautama as "Buddha".

@Plotinus-

thierfore, i auggest we, as a world go back tot he AUC system, and make all of our dates based on the (ledgendary) foundation of Rome ;)

AD. Basically what Mongoloid Cow said. I'm way too lazy to use an AUC system, and there's no way you could get everyone to use it, you would have a mixture of BC/AD and AUC, which would be weird.

Plotinus had an interesting thought.

I use use BC and AD in everyday life, but i think if you are writing a history paper BCE and CE are more appropriate. also, on a side note, in my Latin class at school they don't want us using BC/AD. they say that you're not supposed to talk about jesus in school. (even in a dating sense apparently).

AUC? what does this meanXen can kill me if I'm wrong, but it's Ab Urbe Condita... *ducks*

Xen can kill me if I'm wrong, but it's Ab Urbe Condita... *ducks*

indeed, i had to read the first book of Ad Urbe in Latin at school :crazyeye:

yep; it good old Urb; I've seen it described as "Ad" before, but I suppose "Ab" isnt impossible; not knowing Latin myself, i cant really say ;)

yep; it good old Urb; I've seen it described as "Ad" before, but I suppose "Ab" isnt impossible; not knowing Latin myself, i cant really say ;)

"ab urbe condita" translates as "from the founding of the city".... "ab" means "from" or "by"

Besides, "ad" takes an accusative, and "ab" takes an ablative. If it was "ad", it would be "Ad Urbem Condita".

Btw, the über-PC way in German is 'im Jahre xx (vor) unserer Zeitrechnung' = 'in the year xx (of/before) our time calculation'.
Can't say anything against it; mostly the lack of a commonly known abbreviation makes it hard to use...

I think BCE/CE is the right way to go generally ; while it's true that to claim "common era" is from JC's birth to everybody can be seen as "wrong", it is also true that the dates system based on the birth of Christ has become the "world stardard" one.

IE, to random Chinese person, AD is a bit of an irrelevant (if not offensive term, what with the 'Dominus' et al). But 2005 is one of the two date they WILL care for (if they are involved in anything international, at least). There is whatever the current chinesse year is, and there is 2005 ; the official international year that will be used in contracts and the like, so the system starting from Jesus' alleged birth (really a randomly fixed point in time, since Jesus was probably born earlier) HAS in fact become the "common era" irrelevant of religion.

Using common era rather than "Anno Dominus" (or however you write it exactly) is just a bit of religious sensibilities. The Christians can keep using the BC/AD system, but even if it happens to use the same years numbering, the international system should not use religious terms.

I use use BC and AD in everyday life, but i think if you are writing a history paper BCE and CE are more appropriate. also, on a side note, in my Latin class at school they don't want us using BC/AD. they say that you're not supposed to talk about jesus in school. (even in a dating sense apparently).
Doesn't that violate freedom of religion?

Doesn't that violate freedom of religion?

i don't think so. they just don't want us to say something that some people might take offense to. and since BCE/CE are still in the same year as AD/BC, it basically is just saying the same thing, but not talking directly about jesus.

It's not preventing freedom of religion, since it's not stopping them from being Christians or anything else, but it is odd. Even in the US you're allowed to talk about Jesus in school as long as there's no official endorsement of evangelising.

bc/ad
whats the point of useing another system when it means the same thing
its not like it changes the dates or anything, a form of ultimate time wasting if you ask me

BC/AD in common speech

BCE/CE in formal writings, simply because it is more accepted - and I don't have to remember AD1700 instead of 1700AD, so it looks neater in writing.

Well, technically, BCE and CE are random spots in time. BC and AD are defunct because Jesus was born in 4 BC (BCE).

But there not random spots in time......they have just changed the letters
its the same system, and like i said before, ultra stupid to do so.....
bc/ad......im not religious but its the system of popular choice
i see no problem with accepting it and would also go to saying that
people who are offended by it should really look inside themselves to find whats wrong with them

People are weird..
Can't help it.. LoL

I've got no qualms to being called a ch|nk (Edited: stupid filters) or using Christian terms or whatever.. Hell, I'm cool with anything.

But the world is full of weirdos who get offended at the slightest *perceived* insult.
That's PC-ness for you.

But like I said, technically, AD 0 is a random point in time, since it doesn't mean anything now that you think about it.
As a matter of fact, AD 0 should be AD 4. Better to change the letters than shift the whole damn thing across..

agreed.......
PC is one of the horrors of modern existence

Actually, there isn't a year AD 0. It begins with AD 1.

Actually, there isn't a year AD 0. It begins with AD 1.So 2000BC(E) is actually 4004 years ago?

Maybe more, maybe less. It still isn't clear.

So 2000BC(E) is actually 4004 years ago?
Yes.

Astronomers use a special calendar, partly to avoid the calculational difficulties that causes.

I use BC/AD.

The reason there is no year 0 is that AD does not count *from* Jesus' birth. Rather, it is "the first year...", "the second year..." etc. In fact, technically speaking, it counts not from his birth but from his circumcision; if Jesus had really been born on 25 December, he would, conveniently, have been circumcised on 1 January. This is what was generally believed in the sixth century, when Dionysius Exiguus worked it all out.

Thus, the year AD 1, "the first year of our Lord", begins with his circumcision. At the end of AD 1, Jesus is one year old (and a few days). This is why each century begins with the year ending 01, not the year ending 00; it is only when the year ending 00 is *finished* that the century ends, not when that year begins. This is why the third millennium began on 1 January 2001, not 1 January 2000. It was not until 2000 ended that there had been 2000 years since Jesus' circumcision, because he was circumcised at the start of AD 1.

Of course, this is all putting aside the fact that (a) Jesus was probably born a couple of years earlier anyway: no-one knows when, though 4 BC is a commonly cited date, and (b) he probably wasn't born on 25 December either.

The funny thing is that if Jesus were born on the traditional date, he was born in 1BC!

Put bluntly, BCE and CE are PC crap. I use BC and AD.
What are these? I use AD and BC only.....

However in my native tongue we use "before our era" and "in our era". Is that it?

BC/AD, and I use them after or before the date depending on how I feel (Latin does not assign much importance to word order ;) ). CE/BCE is garbage, and I wouldn't dream of using it.

What about the weekdays? If we can't use BC/AD we clearly can't use those pagan names for the weekdays either :viking:

The reason there is no year 0 is that AD does not count *from* Jesus' birth. Rather, it is "the first year...", "the second year..." etc. In fact, technically speaking, it counts not from his birth but from his circumcision; if Jesus had really been born on 25 December, he would, conveniently, have been circumcised on 1 January. This is what was generally believed in the sixth century, when Dionysius Exiguus worked it all out.The reason there is no 0 AD is that the Romans didn't have a symbol to represent the concept of zero. The calculations for the birth of Christ could therefore only start from 1. The Arabs were the first to use the idea of zero from around ~900. Europeans didn't start using the zero term until after 13th century.

The reason there is no 0 AD is that the Romans didn't have a symbol to represent the concept of zero. The calculations for the birth of Christ could therefore only start from 1. The Arabs were the first to use the idea of zero from around ~900. Europeans didn't start using the zero term until after 13th century.

obviouslly, the two concepts arnt realtated, and they developed indipendentlly of one another, but meso-amercian culture may have been the first great pioneers of the concept of "zero" (personally, i dont see whats all that hard about the concept; a numerical symbol to represent *nothing*, as in the absence of having anything)

obviouslly, the two concepts arnt realtated, and they developed indipendentlly of one another, but meso-amercian culture may have been the first great pioneers of the concept of "zero" (personally, i dont see whats all that hard about the concept; a numerical symbol to represent *nothing*, as in the absence of having anything)
Dunno what's "obvious" about it? AFAIK the Romans didn't have a zero therefore no 0 AD.

thats -relitivlly- common knowledge (assumign that by "common" we only count people who have a fair amount of general histroical knowldge of global history) but that dosetn make it any less odd that the concept wasnt developed early on in the old world; the concept of the zero is a simple one; the mesoamerican cultures picked up on it early, obviouslly, and use it,. and th various mathmatical principles that can be derived from having said concept, to create an incredible calendary system, amoungst other matematical works related to astrology; in the old world however, we see people and culture that dwarfed anythign meseo-america woudl ever coem up with bumbeling around without the numerical concept of *nothing* until 900 AD.

I'm sure you can see why its such a curiosity why such highlly developed nations, civlizations and cultures that had existed long before the mes-americans came into being for mellenia had no such concept, despite ebing, one woudl think more apt due to the learning institutions estbalished, able to create it; particuraley when the concept it self is so appalinglly simple.

I'll repost something I posted elsewhere:

On the Difference Between AD and AM:

Anno Domini (AD) (in the year of the Lord) is fixed at a disputed date....i.e. the birth of Christ. The first Annus Mundi was first set by Dionysius Exiguus in the 6th century, starting from March 25th on the year of Christ's birth, which he reckoned at our 1AD. This year was equated with the year of the 195th Olympiad, with 754 AUC (Ann-us/o/i/is Urbis Conditae/Ab Urbe Condita) (the year after/from the foundation of the city [of Rome]) and, wrongly, with the consulship of Prince Gaius and Lucius Aemelius Paullus. However, there is no evidence that this was the actual date. According to Luke, Christ was born in the last year of Herod (4BC) and, according to Matthew, in the year of the first Roman census in Judaea (AD 6-7).

However, the system was adopted in the Latin West, replacing a wide variety of cumbersome systems, and later in the east, for historigraphic and chronological purposes.

The first annus mundi (AM) had dates: 3760 BC according to orthodox Jews, 5509BC according to the Byzantine church, 5500BC according to the Coptic church, and 4004BC according to the Anglican church. It is calculated by fixing knowable dates mentioned in the bible, and calculating back using biblical geneologies until the birth of Adam. The room for error here is obvious.

The Russians and the Greeks used the Anni Mundi for their own historigraphical and ecclesiatical purposes until quite recently.

i use AD and BC

BME and ME (Before me, me) :p

BCE CE

[Calgacus] I think you've got Matthew and Luke the wrong way round! Also it's worth noting that the "census" described in Luke bears no relation whatsoever to the census that occurred in AD 6: in particular, this census was carried out only in Judaea, so it would not have affected Jesus' family, as Galileans. Also, of course, no Roman census ever involved having people go to their ancestors' towns - apart from being pointless, this would have negated the point of the census, which was to see who owned what, and you therefore wanted to count people on their own land. Ed Sanders suggests that, since there were riots in AD 6 and in 4 BC, Luke (or his source) has conflated the two dates and mistakenly believed that there was a census in the year of Jesus' birth; he has then used this as a device for moving Jesus' parents to Bethlehem for his birth (an important but difficult thing to do from Luke's point of view, since he "wants" Jesus to come from Bethlehem, the supposed birthplace of the Messiah, but in reality Jesus came from Nazareth).