conuly | An article on BC/BCE and AD/CE from rogueclassicism

I tend to use B.C. and A.D. because I love Latin and I am a very old creature of habit. However, my students are clearly told that they're free to use either set of terms -- I point out where some of their texts use either and, also, exactly what the terms mean. Most don't know what A.D. signifies, let along B.C., C.E. or B.C.E.

That's fair. Though BC isn't, last I checked, a Latin term. Hm. What *do* they use in other countries for BC?

I *believe* it's "AC" in Spanish, for "Antes de Cristo" (literally "before Christ"). I haven't used this in quite awhile, however, so it would be great if someone could verify...::elbows any hispanohablantes who might be reading this::

Possibly the side stating that just because something's been done one way for two thousand years, that doesn't automatically make it right?

Dingdingding!

Ah yes. I was first introduced to BCE and CE in Hebrew School many years ago. I am in favor od the change, although don't feel it is vital. Mainly, I am in favor of it because BC stands for Before Christ, rather than Before Jesus.

Before Jesus is a fairly neutral, secular, historical claim. Debatable, as much history is, but fairly okay. However, to refer to Jesus as the Christ is to call him the Messiah, and that is a religious claim that many people do not accept.

We do date our calendar roughly based on when Jesus appeared (although not quite right, which is another argument for the change), and I don't mind saying so. But I don't want to be forced to refer to Jesus as Christ.

I understand why you and many others (including me) disagree, but the trouble is, even if we switch to BCE/CE we're still basing our system on the birth of Jesus. Switching to BCE/CE is nothing more than a superficial change in an attempt to be more politically correct. Nothing in essence is changing but the name. The year 2005 will still refer to the two thousand fifth year after the birth of Jesus, whether it's called AD 2005 or CE 2005.

Funny thing, we've known for ages now that the date was arbitrarily chosen, and that Jesus (if he existed) was probably born 4-10 years prior to the start of the Common Era. Better to just accept that and move on, right?

That's correct, although saying it was chosen "arbitrarily" is stretching it a bit far. I doubt they got it within 10 years by being "arbitrary." In any case, it is the commonly accepted "marker" of Jesus' birth, regardless of the exact date which, it must be said, really isn't that important. The point is that, either way, the entire system revolves around the birth of Jesus, be it exact or no.

See my comment above. To me it's the difference between saying, yes our dating system is based on the existence of Jesus and having to refer to it as Before or after Christ. Not everyone accepts Jesus as Christ, but most people accept Jesus as a historical figure.

Before Christ and Anno Domini, in the year of our Lord (Jesus Christ).

Uh yes, that is my objection, which is absent with BCE/CE... I'm not clear on what point you were making though.

You said After Christ - I was correcting, because it's a pet peeve, ever since I heard somebody honestly try to pass off AD as "after Death" (because his minstry was only a few days long, apparently....)

Ah yes, good point. I was lax in my comment. I meant that it's a historical marker, but it isn't even really one of after Jesus, more after the birth of Jesus... except not quite that, as it is after the best guess at the time of the birth of Jesus. I didn't mean to imply that the words meant that, and even the actual meaning of the calendar doesn't quite mean what I said.

Sorry.

Are you going to call me?

No. You sound mad.

Not mad. Just confused. You asked if I was home last night, I said yes, and then no reply or phone call was forthcoming. ??

Call then if you want to chat; Abdul is getting back on the computer.

I lean towards E.V. (era vulgaris)