"BC or BCE?" Topic

I don't make a big thing about it, but I've reached the point where, on principle, I make no concessions to the Language Police. The efforts to redefine "racism" and "discrimination" were the last straws.

BC/AD or BCE/CE — the numbers are identical. Changing the letters doesn't rewrite history, so it really doesn't matter.

Unless you *really* want your blood pressure to rise.

+1

For me it was the ridiculous "Latinx". Married to a Latina who couldn't hide her disdain for some intellectuals trying to rewrite her language.

Classics and Religious scholar here, BCE/CE has been the academic standard for some time.

First came into use in 1708. By 1800s started becoming popular among Jews and other non-Christians (like me). By late 1900s was becoming academic standard. Is much better for interfaith and intercultural dialogue.

Common calendar dating isn't going away, but Christian imperialism in the language isn't required.

BCE usage very slightly annoys me.
On a scale of 10, the annoyance comes in at a 1. Something close to no $.84 USD blueberry pies available at Walmart.
My day isn't ruined, but I'm very slightly peeved.

BCE/CE is just inane. There's no logical, analytical or chronological reason to switch from the BC/AD terminology. Who cares what it's all based on? If we still counted from the founding of Rome, what would be the difference (aside from 753 years)? And that origin point would be entirely mythical and therefore arbitrary in all respects. Same for any other calendar structure from any other culture. That somebody might "feel bad" having to use BC/AD is completely irrelevant. Just because one changes the term doesn't mean the numbers or their cultural source change. Other cultural calendars do exist and are embraced within those cultures, and nobody has a problem with that (I certainly don't). That Western Christian culture's chronology system has become dominant is a matter of convenience for global communication, diplomacy and trade (there needs to be *some* mutually agreed upon system of time measurement in order for treaties and contracts to make any sense).
Some uppity academic getting his knickers in a twist because *he* doesn't believe any given religion or cultural touchpoint is an absurd basis on which to make such a change. I can understand the desire to count from a better defined, rigidly established time point, but as it is the whole thing is wonky because the Earth's orbit and the Earth's revolution don't precisely sync up anyway, and at some point we had to make adjustments and throw in the "leap year" concept to make the months all play nicely with the seasons. In Western culture we found a touchpoint that worked, however inaccurately determined, and we've risen to global prominence and general global acceptance of that very dating system. That it has a mix of English and Latin abbreviation in the coding system that revolves around the accepted touchpoint is irrelevant, culturally, historically, or academically.

It's BC/AD. Deal with it.

Or switch to "Stardate." (Good luck with figuring out that one.)

I have a feeling that an Assistant Professor would be denied tenure if he published a paper on bronze alloys used in swords in the Late Early Assyrian Empire and used BC.
The fear is there. 😄

+1 John the OFM

Agree with OFM. As a History grad student--MA, doctoral coursework and exams--well, very late 20th Century, maybe. Eccentric in the 1970's. And no "interfaith dialogue" going on that I've noticed. Shouting and lecturing is not dialogue.

@ MiniMo: what an interesting and informative post.

If BCE/CE has such a long lineage & is clearly becoming more widely accepted & used, I would guess it will win out in time.
Schools here now use it exclusively, so if the TMP poll voters didn't have an average age of 72, the voting would probably mirror a wider acceptance of the "new" terms.

BTW Dionysius Exiguus, the monk who created it, introduced the system in 525CE while preparing tables to calculate the date of Easter. I'm sure those who used the old Roman system for dating railed & howled at the moon over this aberration, too.

Common calendar dating isn't going away, but Christian imperialism in the language isn't required.

Especially if you can supplant it with Western European colonial imperialsm that spread the calendar and hide the 15% of the world's population forcing it on 60% of the rest by calling it "common".

What is the name of that political family of traditions where they justify their imperialsm as "common", "natural", and "obvious"..?

I use BC/AD, but don't bat an eyelid if someone uses BCE/CE.

Funnily enough, the Swedish equivalent of the latter seems to have died out, I've barely seen it this millennium.

I did once run across a guy who preferred BCE/CE on the grounds it rubbed the fact that the West has won in other cultures' faces.

I can also mention I've got a book that uses BC/CE, presumably in an attempt to keep everyone unhappy.

(The stated rationale is that AD is culturally insensitive but BCE isn't widely enough understood. I don't think this makes an awful lot of sense – and I don't imagine there can be too many people who are familiar with CE but not BCE anyway?)

I did once run across a guy who preferred BCE/CE on the grounds it rubbed the fact that the West has won in other cultures' faces.

While I don't adovcate that attitude, it is consistent with the historically grounded evolution of the "common calendar".

The spread of that calendar was barely, tangentially related to the church (the Vatican didn't use it before the 12th Century and it took ~300 years before it became "normal use" in the Vatican, which still doesn't exclusively use it).

The calendar was developed by the Romans in ~45BC. Exxigus established the anchor point in the 6th century. It was not a "calendar system" then, it was an intermediate product in standardizing calculation of the date of Easter. BC wasn't added until the 8th Century, by Bede, and English historian/cleric. (Hey why is one term Latin and the other English?) The calendar wasn't widespread in Europe until Charlemagne used it administratively for his empire. He was Emperor long before he was Holy Roman Emperor (which was a political move by the Vatican picking the winning side). Under Pope Gregory, the accountants tweaked the leap-year system, numbers, and a couple other minor things. The calendar was spread widely across the world by European Colonialsm. Money. And it got a >50% world share when China adopted it in the early 20th Century for trade and diplomacy purposes.

I use BCE because it is what is used in my workspace

I have to say that most actual people at least here use BC/AD

It is a huge mental gymnastics flip to actually believe that CE and BCE does not have anything to do with Christ. Keeping with the "gymnastics" narrative, it doesn't nail the landing and looks petty and silly in return.