Use of BC(E) and AD/CE

[Commodore Nate]

Years are marked as so many years before or after the death of Christ. More recently (or at least in my classes), the use of the notation BCE, before common era, and CE, common era, has come into use. However, this notation is similar to BC/AD.

On that note, I have two questions
-When did the current system of measuring/quantifying years relative to Christ's death (or the agreed upon date) come about, both as a system of relativity as well as into the common usage?
-Is it possible that we will develop a new point of reference for our calendar? If so, at what point?

 

[TheLastOne36]

Years are marked as so many years before or after the death of Christ. More recently (or at least in my classes), the use of the notation BCE, before common era, and CE, common era, has come into use. However, this notation is similar to BC/AD.

On that note, I have two questions
-When did the current system of measuring/quantifying years relative to Christ's death (or the agreed upon date) come about, both as a system of relativity as well as into the common usage?
-Is it possible that we will develop a new point of reference for our calendar? If so, at what point?

Possibly the first alien contact? Just a guess but it will change our way of life forever.

 

[innonimatu]

On that note, I have two questions
-When did the current system of measuring/quantifying years relative to Christ's death (or the agreed upon date) come about, both as a system of relativity as well as into the common usage?

It depended on location. Where I live (Iberian Peninsula) by the 15th century, but it was already in use in Italy and France centuries before. I'm sure someone will post a mode detailed reply.

-Is it possible that we will develop a new point of reference for our calendar? If so, at what point?

I'm not changing my personal use from the old BC/AD terms to the "CE" politically correct crap. Things should be called by their proper names, and the point (arbitrarily chosen, as any must be) used for year 1 of this calendar was, according to its promoters, the birth of Christ, regardless of the truth of it.

Calling it "common era" is also stupid, as the chinese and the arabs (and many others) use different eras. There is no common era. People will just use some historically significant (for them!) event.

 

[SG-17]

I've also refused to use CE and BCE, even when I lose points on a paper for it, I still use Before Christ and Anno Domini.

The only way I think we will change our reference point is if Apophis impacts us in 2036. Then we will use BA(Before Apophis) and AP(After Apophis).

 

[bob bobato]

Calling it "common era" is also stupid, as the chinese and the arabs (and many others) use different eras. There is no common era. People will just use some historically significant (for them!) event.

I agree with you. I understand creating a secular calendar, and would support one if it were developed, but secularizing 'BC/AD' makes no sense, since it's only significant as a Christian date. And the obvious fact that there really is no common era, and any one who dates things 'from the beginning of the common era' is a lier.

 

[TheDS]

I detest it on the following grounds:

1. Those who propound it are obviously stupid.

2. It's "political correctness". I hate that. Referring to all blacks the world over as "African-Americans", regardless of where they call home, is pretty stupid too, but if you insist on using that label, then I insist on being labeled an "American-American".

3. It's only purpose is spitefulness. Hello? You're neither changing nor improving ANYTHING, you're just trying to piss off Christians. And change for its own sake isn't worth anything either.

4. There is nothing inherently wrong with being Christian, or in using Christian culture. Let's also attack Muslim women who want to wear veils in public, Indians having dots on their foreheads, and anyone else who is different, because we don't believe ANYONE has a right to express their religious or cultural beliefs in this country.

5. I'm sick of being discriminated against, just because I'm male, American-American (Caucasian), Christian, and nominally intelligent. God help me for being all four of those horrible things!

Do we not have enough stupid things to divide us?

SG-17:
I feel your pain. Ask your idiot instructor to explain why CE is correct. Insist he write a paper, and show his sources. Insist he PROVE that CE is in any way correct or better than AD, and not some completely hypocritical jab at a single religious group. I'd like to see such a document, because unlike him, I am capable of believing in the possibility that there might actually be something worth learning in it, and will not simply mark it as a failure without giving it a fair shake.

 

[flyingchicken]

2. It's "political correctness". I hate that. Referring to all blacks the world over as "African-Americans", regardless of where they call home, is pretty stupid too, but if you insist on using that label, then I insist on being labeled an "American-American".

That should be reserved for "Native Americans" and South Americans (not to discount the possibility that you are one). Everyone else should be "European-Americans," "Australian-Americans," "Antarctic-Americans," and "Asian-Americans."

Political correctness forgets the concept of desensitization, imho.

 

[Tee Kay]

I'm not changing my personal use from the old BC/AD terms to the "CE" politically correct crap. Things should be called by their proper names, and the point (arbitrarily chosen, as any must be) used for year 1 of this calendar was, according to its promoters, the birth of Christ, regardless of the truth of it.

Calling it "common era" is also stupid, as the chinese and the arabs (and many others) use different eras. There is no common era. People will just use some historically significant (for them!) event.

I agree with you. I understand creating a secular calendar, and would support one if it were developed, but secularizing 'BC/AD' makes no sense, since it's only significant as a Christian date. And the obvious fact that there really is no common era, and any one who dates things 'from the beginning of the common era' is a lier.

Quoted for truth.

By the way, I am Buddhist.

-When did the current system of measuring/quantifying years relative to Christ's death (or the agreed upon date) come about, both as a system of relativity as well as into the common usage?

I think people start using AD around the time of the early Middle Ages (so called "Dark Ages). According to Wiki, the AD system was devised in 525, although it was in the 8th century that it was adopted in Western Europe (by Charlemagne), but did not become common usage until around the 11th century AD.

Last European country to adopt it was Portugal in 1422. It spreads with European imperialism and Christianity. Japan adopted it in 1873 (alongside two other systems). China adopted it in 1949. Although just about every country uses the Gregorian Calendar nowadays in some way in many places the years are numbered differently from in the West (ie not using AD/CE). The RoC numbers year from the founding of the Chinese Republic, North Korea uses Juche (years since birth of Kim Il Sung), India uses the Saka Era, Thailand uses the Buddhist Era, Iran uses the Persian Era,and so on.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Muslims use a lunar calendar that begins at the time of the Hijra, in 622 AD.

Jews use a calendar that begins one year before the creation of Earth, a time marked as being roughly 3761 BC, though I have also heard an argument that this date refers to the foundation of the Kingdom of Israel. When I pointed out that we know when many of the events in The Old Testament happened, the response was simply that history "was wrong." "

 

[Commodore Nate]

Thank you all for your answers, they've been enlightening

As for all this hubbub over CE vs. AD, I agree with what seems to be the majority of you, not only because I'm used to Anno Domini, but also because I like how it sounds. It still helps to know what it means, though, as inferior as it is.

And thanks to Cheezy for answering the question I was just about to ask! (What other systems are there to relatively date years?) But does anyone know of any other systems, in use or defunct?

 

[Evie]

"Common Era" refers to the fact that when people from various cultural group who have different calendars have to agree on a date, they usually use the Christian/Common era calendar as the baseline. Hence why "common era".

As for the politically correct name, it's sort of necessitated by the meaning of the english terms. I'd find "Ere commune" just out of place in French, where "Avant Jésus-Christ" and "Après Jésus-Christ". (Before Christ, After Christ) are used. I mean, Christ's (once-upon-a-time alleged) birth *is* the reference point. No one disputes that, or has any trouble with that.

Not so in english. In english, it's Before Christ and Anno Domini - "Year of the Lord".

It seems to me there is a very, very large gap between asking people to acknowledge their calendar is based on the date of birth of Jesus Christ, and asking these people to use AD/Anno Domini/Year of the Lord - in essence, to acknowledge Jesus as "The Lord". Which a lot of people, who probably wouldn't mind acknowledging that the year they are refering to is based on the date of birth of Christ (the person commonly referred to as...) probably have issues with.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

The Julian Calendar was used in Russia until 1918, which was the Christian calendar without leap years, and otherwise unadjusted for time. The October Revolution in fact happened in November 1917, but it was still October in the Julian Calendar, hence the name.

 

[Sharwood]

I have no problem with Before Christ and After Christ. In the Year of Our Lord offends me as an agnostic. I have no Lord. Common Era and Before Common Era are just plain stupid.

As for will we ever use a different dating system: Absolutely. Hell, it's been tried several times, by the French Revolutionaries for example. If an event is major enough, such as the creation of a world empire, contact with alien life, a nuclear holocaust, or a new significant religious event, hell yeah we'll use something else.

 

[Eli]

Not so in english. In english, it's Before Christ and Anno Domini - "Year of the Lord".

It seems to me there is a very, very large gap between asking people to acknowledge their calendar is based on the date of birth of Jesus Christ, and asking these people to use AD/Anno Domini/Year of the Lord - in essence, to acknowledge Jesus as "The Lord". Which a lot of people, who probably wouldn't mind acknowledging that the year they are refering to is based on the date of birth of Christ (the person commonly referred to as...) probably have issues with.

Exactly. The problem is not with using the year of birth of a false messiah as a baseline, I can live with that. But using Anno Domini implies an acknowledgment and that's not something I'm willing to do.

 

[Jazzmail]

BCE/CE is better.

There is no definitive dating on the birth of Jesus, but almost every source places the birth of Jesus a few years Before Christ.

BC and AD are simply not the actual BC and the AD. The "common era" doesn't have this inaccuracy.

 

[Tee Kay]

And thanks to Cheezy for answering the question I was just about to ask! (What other systems are there to relatively date years?) But does anyone know of any other systems, in use or defunct?

Juche (North Korea), numbers years from the birth of the Great Leader Kim Il-sung (1912)
Minguo (Republic of China), years since the founding of the RoC (also happens to be 1912.)
Persian Era, years since the Hegira (AD2008 is AP1386/1387) although unlike the Islamic Calendar it's not lunar (current Islamic year is 1429 AH)
Buddhist Era (Thailand, also Sri Lanka IIRC), years since Buddha's death (AD 2008 is 2551 BE)
Saka Era (India/Hindu), years since Gautamiputra Satakarni's victory over the Sakas invaders (AD 2008 is 1879 SE)

No longer in common usage:
Imperial Year (Japan), years since the founding of Japan by Emperor Jimmu in 660 BC. (AD2008 would be Koki 2668)
Dangi (South Korea), years since the foundation of Korea by Dangun (2333 BC)
Ratanakosin Sok (Thailand), years since the founding of Bangkok in AD1782

 

[Plotinus]

The calendar was devised by Dionysius Exiguus in the early sixth century. It does not count from either the birth of Jesus or his death; it counts from his circumcision. On the assumption that Jesus was born on 25 December, he would have been circumcised on 1 January, making this a convenient date from which to count. In theory, then, Jesus was born on 25 December 1 BC and circumcised on 1 January AD 1. In fact, of course, no-one knows what year Jesus was born in, let alone what date, but most historians think that a date a couple of years earlier is most likely. Tradition tells us that he was born shortly before the death of Herod the Great, which certainly happened in 4 BC.

Incidentally, it is always wrong to write things like "500 AD". The correct form, if you are using AD, is "AD 500". The number comes after the letters. But it would be "500 BC", not "BC 500".

As for the claim that using BCE/CE rather than BC/AD is some kind of "political correctness" that seeks to eradicate Christianity (or some such nonsense), Oda Nobunaga explained it well. The objectionable element of the traditional form is not the fact that it measures the date from Jesus but that it involves the declaration that he is "lord". Christians are more than welcome to make that declaration themselves but there is no reason why everyone else should have to. This is why BCE/CE are now much more widely used in scholarly and academic writing than BC/AD. The intent is not to "piss off Christians" but to avoid pissing off non-Christians. Amazingly, it is actually possible to do the latter without the former.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Isn't in pretty wide consensus that Christ was born in the Spring, and we simply celebrate it on 25 December (though I think it was originally the Winter Solstice) as a sort of harmless syncretism?

 

[cubsfan6506]

Yeah but christians never really think of that when they celebrate it.

 

[Joe Harker]

Isn't in pretty wide consensus that Christ was born in the Spring, and we simply celebrate it on 25 December (though I think it was originally the Winter Solstice) as a sort of harmless syncretism?

There are several possible reason, one is that there was a roman god, who's story was remarkably similar to the christian story which was celebrated on the 25th, or it, like you said it was molded into pagan festivals.