BC vs BCE

[RedCelt69]

Something slightly odd happened in a lecture earlier this week. With an emphasis on the "slightly".

I'm not sure if it is a quirk of the lecturer (we all love our lecturers to have slight eccentricities, yeah?) or if he was trying to make a point (whether consciously or not). I'll anonymise the person in question... but it was during a Classical Studies lecture on a particular writer of antiquity.

As you might imagine, lots of dates were involved in the introductory talk. All of them BC. Except, rather than say "Bee See" he said "Before Christ"... every single time. And not spoken quickly... but almost to emphasise it with deliberate enunciation of each sylable and a noticeable pause between the two words.

What made it more jarring was the fact that on the Powerpoint display behind him, every single date was given as BCE. ie Before Common Era. Which, obviously, would take longer to say than "Before Christ"... but both versions take considerably longer than enunciating the letters.

The whole thing just seemed slightly surreal. In a lecture about the particular histiographer's work... the author got mentioned less often than Jesus. On commenting upon it with a fellow student as I was leaving the lecture hall, I was told to Google the name of another lecturer we had in common. This person has links with a Creationist group... yet they lecture on Ancient History. Which is a tad... inconsistent. I'm not sure how this knowledge will affect future lectures with the person in question (if at all). If they actually are a Creationist they don't let it affect their work, so I can't see me having a problem with it... although I can't help wondering as I'm hearing about such-and-such an event whether the lecturer in question truly believes that it happened within a couple of thousand years of the "creation" of the planet.

[exnihilo]

Sounds like he was using someone else's slides and takes exception to BCE. I know a fair few academics who have a personal/religious issue with what seems now to be a general drift away from BC to BCE. Personally, I prefer BCE, I understand the attachment some people have to BC but I think it reasonable in this day and age where the "Western" system of dating has become the global standard to say BCE; it saves redating everything, it saves coming up with a new start date, and it avoids giving needless offence.

[RedCelt69]

Sounds like he was using someone else's slides and takes exception to BCE.

That is a natural conclusion to reach... however, he made a couple of apologies during the lecture for the content. On one slide, he'd misspelled a name... and on another, he'd given completely the wrong name. In both instances, it was made clear that the text (and the errors) were his own.

[elyettoner]

This person has links with a Creationist group... yet they lecture on Ancient History. Which is a tad... inconsistent.

How so?

Personally, I think B.C.E. is another example of politically correct nonsense. The so-called 'Common Era' coincides with the dates of the old B.C. which was based on the time of Christ's birth (more or less), so B.C. may as well remain. In European history Christianity has played such a big role, and one that has subsequently affected other parts of the globe, that it makes sense to to use these terms whether you believe in Christ or not. But what does it matter? As long as we all know what's meant than the exact term is unimportant.

[RedCelt69]

This person has links with a Creationist group... yet they lecture on Ancient History. Which is a tad... inconsistent.

How so?

Seriously? Or are you equivocating my use of the term "Creationist"? Would it help if I went further by saying "Young Earth Creationist," as opposed to those who prefer things like Gap Theory?

Personally, I think B.C.E. is another example of politically correct nonsense. The so-called 'Common Era' coincides with the dates of the old B.C. which was based on the time of Christ's birth (more or less), so B.C. may as well remain.

I don't disagree. Mainly because the terms have been in use for so long now, that any attempts to retroactively alter the documented dates from the last 1600 years would be an utter nightmare. Which is a shame, as the BC counting-backwards thing is a pain in the arse. It'd be much more preferable for the Zero-Year to be set to the earliest confidently-known date in history. An example being the seige of Troy... except not the seige of Troy as it is (at best) semi-mythical... and if it happened as described, the date doesn't meet the criteria of being known with confidence. But an event along those lines... probably sometime shortly after Troy. That way, everything prior to year 0 could confidently be known as pre-history and there would be far fewer headaches with the counting method as all dates would be rough approximations.

But that aside, we're stuck with the system we have and, as an atheist, I can't find myself caring too much whether it is referred to as BC or BCE. As you say, they both refer to the same measuring system. Having said that, the dating system is recognised globally (although some countries also maintain their own calendars).. and Christianity is a regionally-dominant religion, not a globally-dominant religion. So it makes sense for the BCE terminology to be adopted. Especially in the world of academia, which is meant to know no political boundaries.

In European history Christianity has played such a big role

So has the Black Death.

and one that has subsequently affected other parts of the globe, that it makes sense to to use these terms whether you believe in Christ or not. But what does it matter? As long as we all know what's meant than the exact term is unimportant.

Indeed. Apart from the premise that, having affected other parts of the world, Christianity has the necessary credentials for the basis on which the globally-recognised calendar should be centered - based upon the guesstimated period of the life of that religion's prophet.

[exnihilo]

Not to mention that a) the birth of Christ is by no means a certain date and b) that different bits of Christianity have counted in different ways since then. Not all, for example, adopted the Gregorian calendar reforms. The use of "standard" dating is a very recent phenomenon and owes an awful lot more to international business than it ever will to Christianity. So this year is AD 2009 to Western Christians, 1725 to Copts, 5769 to Jews, Heisei 21 to the Japanese, 1430 in the Islamic calendar and so on and so forth. For practical purposes, however, all international trade, treaties etc are conducted in a common, non-religious, calendar in which it is 2009 and all historical events - wherever in the world they took place - are dated according to that same common era. As for it being "political correctness" what can you possibly mean by that? Or are you using "political correctness" in the sense of "something I don't approve of but for which I have no real grounds to complain"?

Incidentally, there was no year zero, there was 1 BCE and then there was 1 CE (but I know you meant figurative rather than literal zero year, RedCelt).

[Haunted]

In an ideal world we would be counting from the big bang onwards. But in an ideal world we'd also be using metric time.
BC, BCE, doesn't make a difference to me. What about ca?

[Delts]

I prefer AD/BC. BCE and CE are political nuttiness. And considering there are a lot of countries which use totally different calenders using BCE and CE seems odd. I remember wiki have a good page on it all.

[sejanus]

It'd be much more preferable for the Zero-Year to be set to the earliest confidently-known date in history. An example being the seige of Troy... except not the seige of Troy as it is (at best) semi-mythical... and if it happened as described, the date doesn't meet the criteria of being known with confidence. But an event along those lines... probably sometime shortly after Troy. That way, everything prior to year 0 could confidently be known as pre-history and there would be far fewer headaches with the counting method as all dates would be rough approximations.

Not that I'm partcicularly bothered about dating systems (not since the almighty stramash I had with some folks back home on the islands over whether or not there had actually been a year 0 or not), but surely if one were to pick a date like the fall of Troy (!) then you'd still be arbitrarily picking a date that privileges Western culture/history over any other - I mean, why not pick the earliest recorded moment in Chinese history? And what kind of history? Documentary? Written? History only begins when we start finding written stuff that we can make a pretty decent fist of dating? Written histories that claim to be eyewitness accounts but which are to a large degree made up (I'm looking at you, Herodotus)? What about archaeological evidence which can only be securely dated to within a certain range? Maybe we should just go back to using the foundation of Rome as our year 0 and we can date everything AUC? Point is, any date we choose is going to be just that - a choice; and it will be derived from some kind of cultural circumstance. But similarly, there are significant cultural and historical reasons for using (what used to be thought was) the year of Christ's birth, even if we do modify the terminology to BCE/CE. So as far as I'm concerned, sticking with the "trad" system is the way to go; at least we all know how it works.

Also, fixing all the books so that the dates were right would be an absolutely hideous, time consuming job. Although... I could use a job, so sign me up for the revolution...

[elyettoner]

This person has links with a Creationist group... yet they lecture on Ancient History. Which is a tad... inconsistent.

How so?

Seriously? Or are you equivocating my use of the term "Creationist"? Would it help if I went further by saying "Young Earth Creationist," as opposed to those who prefer things like Gap Theory?

Ah, well, you should have said that. Creationism doesn't necessarily imply a young earth. In fact, I'd tentatively suggest that there are more old earth creationist in Britain than young earth ones, it's just that the young earth ones tend to be more vocal.

So has the Black Death.

Obviously other events have been important, but I'd argue that none have had the same effect, in terms of political and socio-cultural factors as well as religious ones, that Christianity, or at least the Church, has had, whether that be for good or for bad. The Black Death has undoubtedly had and continues to have in those areas where it is still rife massive economic, social, cultural and political effects, but can you really say that the effect is the same as Christianity?

I'm also not sure I'd agree that Christianity is regionally-dominant. It is clearly more notable in the West, mainly due to its links with the state, but it's possible that there are proportionally more Christians in the East today than in the West. The Church in China is certainly growing at an incredible rate. Having said that, I don't think you can trust statistics on this sort of thing. My Gran says she's a Christian, and stated as much in the last census, despite thinking that the idea of a god is ridiculous! It depends what you mean by "dominant". I'd doubt, as your do, RedCelt69, that Christianity is globally dominant.

[Senethro]

A lot of your kids will use BCE/CE and when you try and help them with their history homework, they'll look at you the same way you looked at your mother for trying to answer your maths homework in pounds and pints!

[Gubbins]

How about we forget all this nonsense and start using Julian dates instead? It'd make my life a lot easier.

[zipporah]

So is this person actually a creationsist or do they just 'have links with a Creationist group'? That sounds far more sinister. I'm curious about who you're talking about now!

I use BCE/BC. I know that BC/AD just reflects our religious heritage and now makes no claims on a person's beliefs when they use it, but I don't like writing 'in the year of the lord'. I don't believe in the lord, so there .

I don't like that BCE and CE are more easily misheard or confused than BC and AD, but it bothers me more that BC stands for an English phrase and AD a Latin one. I like consistency.

[exnihilo]

Yes, that is annoying. There was a time when it was AC and AD though, Ante Christum and Anno Domini. One additional strength of BCE and CE, of course, is that if you want to, you can believe that the C is Christian rather than Common. Or Current if the mood takes you.

[RedCelt69]

So is this person actually a creationsist or do they just 'have links with a Creationist group'? That sounds far more sinister. I'm curious about who you're talking about now!

I deliberately anonymised the person (not even revealing gender) because I don't know for sure. They gave a couple of lectures for a Creationist group... which might just mean that they wanted to earn a few quid whilst talking about a subject that interests them. <shrug>
If you are that intrigued, and are willing to invest the time, you could always Google every member of the School of Classics... although that might throw up a whole host of hidden interests you might or (more worryingly) might not want to know about.

[RedCelt69]

Incidentally, there was no year zero, there was 1 BCE and then there was 1 CE (but I know you meant figurative rather than literal zero year, RedCelt).

Heh. Yes. I meant figuratively.

[RedCelt69]

but surely if one were to pick a date like the fall of Troy (!) then you'd still be arbitrarily picking a date that privileges Western culture/history over any other - I mean, why not pick the earliest recorded moment in Chinese history?

Well, yes. My knowledge is biased towards Western history, not my preferred choice for a (figurative) year zero. Any date, from any culture, before which we could (reasonably) consider history to have started being recorded with any kind of accuracy.

Not that that's likely to happen. But hey ho.

[Hennessy]

RedCelt I'm not sure how many lost causes you can support on this message board before the novelty wears off. I count myself as an athiest, and am inclined to express my views whenever I run up against superstitious nonsense, but B.C. and A.D. are ingrained not only in the modern consciousness but in pretty much all the historic sources from Constantine onwards. You simply cannot re-imagine history so it suits your preferences, if you wish to remain objective. On the other hand rationality has it's limits as well. The French re-invented the calendar during the Revolution, but it didn't stick because the majority of people preferred to adhere to the continuity of the past. Surely then all rational freedom-loving Frenchmen, even if they represented a minority, would today be waking up on Septidi, 7 Ventôse 217? No, they wouldn't because even those with the education to see inherent flaws in a system will acknowledge that where that system has not only worked but replaced the use of all other systems, it must remain the best system for use in the real world.

[RedCelt69]

RedCelt I'm not sure how many lost causes you can support on this message board before the novelty wears off.

Well. I've long since given up on you ever having a clue. Does that make you any happier?

You simply cannot re-imagine history so it suits your preferences...

Mm-hmm. Yeah. Yup. Mm-hmm. Yes. <nodding>

...it must remain the best system for use in the real world.

Very good. Now go back and read what I actually said, rather than what you wanted me to say. Pay particular attention to the bits which go:-
"I don't disagree...the terms have been in use for so long now...would be an utter nightmare...we're stuck with the system we have...I can't find myself caring too much...both refer to the same measuring system...not...likely to happen."

[exnihilo]

Also, nobody on this thread has advocated actually changing the dating, Hennessy, only really noted the actual increasing use of BCE and CE as abbreviations for those numbers. Those terms are definitely appearing a lot more frequently in historical works and I see no reason to liken them to creating an entirely new system, all they do is allow people to use less loaded terms should they so wish. It may also be worth realising that, for example, the Chinese term for the Western calendar is "common era" and I'm sure the same is true of other non-English speaking, non-Christian countries which have adopted it.