What’s in a Name?
This isn’t about current events….more like ancient events, really. I just stumbled across something interesting when I was reading; it made me think, so I thought I’d share it.
I’ve been reading “Cross Bones,” by Kathy Reichs; the protagonist is a forensic anthropologist. She was studying some very old bones, and a reference was made to a date labeled, not with B. C., but with B. C. E.
B. C. E.? Followed closely by C. E… C. E.? What’s up with that? So I did some searching. If this is familiar to you I apologize, but it’s new to me. Here’s the lowdown…
The usage of these abbreviations is becoming more common, and not just in academia. Wikipedia continues: “In the United States, the usage of the BCE/CE notation in textbooks is growing. The 2007 World Almanac was the first edition to switch over to the BCE/CE usage, ending a 138-year usage of the traditional BC/AD dating system. It is used by the College Board in its history tests, as well as by some National Geographic Society publications. The Norton Anthology of English Literature, and the United States Naval Observatory. The US-based History Channel uses BCE/CE notation in articles on non-Christian religious topics such as Jerusalem and Judaism and uses BC (but neither CE nor AD) in other cases. In June of 2006, the Kentucky State School Board reversed its decision that would have included the designations BCE (Before the Common Era) and CE (Common Era) in referring to dates.”
So what? Well, it appears that this has become a subject of controversy (then again, what isn’t?). Obviously, it’s designed as a non-religious alternative to the Christian-centered designations A. D. and B. C. Proponents point out that the western calendar has been adopted by most of the world; it’s even standard on computers. Thus non-Christians across the world are compelled to use a dating system based on the beliefs of others.
Yet the use of B. C. E. and C. E. “does not alter the pivotal year;” the dates still revolve around the birth of Jesus. Some critics, therefore, consider it to be a euphemistic attempt at being politically correct. Also, problems with the calendar (such as the lack of the year 0) have not been remedied, so the change is incomplete.
Those seem to be the major points; if you’re interested in reading more about pros and cons, click here. So, whether it’s new to you or not, what’s your opinion on the change? Necessary or not? Why? I tend to lean toward the change; if it’s being used by professionals in the fields who are actually identifying dates, we should understand what’s being said. But it does seem a little half-hearted to me, since the dates still revolved around Jesus’ birth…I think it’s an attempt to put a rather sloppy band-aid on and hoping that no one will notice.
Be brave. Be human.
Susan
May 11th, 2007 10:08
I’ve seen the BCE/CE terminology come into more common use over time. I actually prefer the old BC/AD terms. I don’t think it really has any religious connotations any more than using “Thursday” gives validity to Thor.
May 11th, 2007 18:48
I’d agree with Brian on this one. I like his example of how other religions are woven into our everyday references. I’m not sure what is to be gained from switching from BC/AD to BCE/CE, other than a half-hearted effort at placating the P.C. police. It ends up making things that much more complicated, with little gain, and who needs that?
May 15th, 2007 17:43
I don’t see how anyone can claim a religious opposition to B.C./A.D., since Jesus was a historical figure, documented by many historians of his day and beyond, and no one can deny the alteration of history that occurred during his lifetime. It has absolutely nothing to do with religion unless you choose to make the connection yourself. Are they really that offended by the historical reference?
May 16th, 2007 23:48
Well, at least the suggestion of BCE / CE makes us aware that there are non-Christian perspectives that have validity.
Two-thirds of the world’s population are not Christian and do not see Christ as THE key figure in world history.
I would prefer to have a calendar that did not divide history into ‘before’ and ‘after’. It would be great if the calendar of human history started about 50,000 years ago and simply counted forward.
This is where the BCE/CE is half-hearted - it didn’t change the pivot point, or remove it altogether. It just renamed it.
May 17th, 2007 12:35
In an effort to respect all people the more common usage is + for CE and - for BCE. So one can say in the year +620 etc or in the year -800 this occurred. This is becoming much more accepted and seen to be more compassionate and empathetic of others regardless of religion.
May 17th, 2007 18:36
Hi Zane-
I haven’t seen the + and - before; thanks for pointing that out. (I assume that it still revolves around Jesus’ birth.)
Susan
May 21st, 2007 15:19
Could this become a little ridiculous? Yes, I think so.
I am opposed to Julius Ceasar’s religious practices. As a result, the month after June will now be called “Dan”.
Of course, if I didn’t like Julius, I’m not much for Augustus, either. So, after the month of “Dan” will come the month “FRACAT”.
And, after looking deeper into it, all of the months of the year from January through the month before the one now known as “Dan” were named after Roman gods.
Can’t have that. I’ll work on names for all of them, soon.
Of course, any reasonable person would say that I’m being ridiculous. However, there are even fewer people participating in Roman God worship than Christianity, but we still have those oppressive, uncompassionate, and unempithetic month names.
So, what is the only logical conclusion to draw? It ain’t about “religion”, it’s about “Christianity”.
Dan
May 21st, 2007 21:08
Hi Daniel,
Yes, it is about Christianity, and about the assumption that Christianity should be central to the way all world cultures operate.
Over the next 50 years, we will see a dramatic shift in world power as Christian countries’ share of world GDP declines due to the growth of India and China. This will mean that Europe and the US will become gradually less dominant and other voices will become more prominent. I think that this trend has already started.
I expect that we will see Christian assumptions (along with a lot of other ‘Western’ assumptions) questioned again and again as part of this transition of power. And I expect that Western countries will resist strongly, but it’s probably a losing battle. Minorities can’t impose their views on majorities for long without resorting to force.
May 22nd, 2007 09:23
I agree on the trend, but I don’t understand the correlation.
As I mentioned, we’re all using months from Roman mythology. Rome hasn’t been dominant in quite awhile, last I checked. And yet, we’re not all “questioning Roman assumptions” and trying to change the names of the months.
Why, then, is there a movement to eliminate the names BC/AD? Most of the world couldn’t tell you what they stand for. And even of those that can, most of ‘em don’t speak Latin.
It seems like someone is going out of their way just to stick a thumb in the eye of Christians, since they’re actually changing nothing. The year remains the same. The (religious-inspired) calendar remains the same. The (religious inspired) days remain the same.
However, it’s good to hear that the “might is right” philosophy isn’t as contained to America as has been portrayed.
Dan
May 22nd, 2007 10:41
The CE/BCE notation was not created to “stick a thumb in the eye” of Christians. I’m sure some use it because they dislike Christianity, but most use it because it is becoming an accepted standard in academic circles.
The terminology actually originates in the 1800s, and was used by Jewish and some Christian scholars ever since. Even Catholic scholars were using the term “vulgar era” (vulgar as in common, not repulsive) by around 1900. There are also some who interpret CE as “Christian Era”, thus preserving the religious connotation.
So clearly it was not invented simply to spite Christians.
If you want to get picky, referring to the “Common Era” is more accurate, since most scholars now agree that AD 1 could not have been the year of Christ’s birth. For example, Herod is believed to have died in 4 BC, yet Matthew clearly indicates Herod was alive when Jesus was born. Other scholars are guided by the Gospel of John, and place Jesus’ birth as early as 18 BC. So, we are actually in “the year of our Lord” 2011 to 2025, depending on which scholars you trust.
As I mentioned in an earlier comment, I generally prefer BC/AD largely out of tradition. Assuming BCE/CE becomes the standard (and I think it will), I can see the C representing “common” and “Christian” according to preference.
May 22nd, 2007 16:28
Ah, yes, thank you for that clarification Brian. I didn’t realise that CE/BCE went back so far.
BTW isn’t there a Jewish calendar that starts counting about 5,000 years ago? OK, here’s a website all about the Jewish calendar along with handy tools for converting dates. Jewish holidays follow the Jewish calendar. I guess that not everyone has adopted the Gregorian calendar.
http://www.hebcal.com/
Dan, just today I’m a bit grumpy about a couple of US ‘might is right’ stances - one is Bush’s insistence that the next head of the World Bank should be an American, and the other is the news that “the United States is battling to stop next month’s Group of Eight summit in Germany from pushing for urgent talks on a new deal to fight global warming after the Kyoto Protocol lapses in 2012.”
Till the US stops heaving its weight around in a unilateral manner, it will continue to be singled out for using its power inappropriately.
May 23rd, 2007 10:11
My “might is right” point was in reference to your observation that because there are more non-Christians in the world, they are going to take power.
The interesting thing, and this is probably a post in itself, is that whenever America does something in its own self interest, it is seen as “heaving its weight around in a unilateral manner”.
However, when radical Muslims amass weapons and explosives to show their force by blowing up people, buildings, Embassies, and ships, we’re to seek to understand why they did what they did.
When (presumably non-radical) Muslims march en masse to show their power and demand erecting a minaret and allowing the “call to prayer” to blare across the city 5 times a day (or else they will tear about the city), we should be understanding and accommodate them. (This was Cleveland, OH, by the way).
When Pakistan sponsors terrorism and attacks anything Jewish to show their power, we should wake up and make Israel play nicely and give away their land.
All of these groups (including America and, for the record, just about every other sovereign nation) are “heaving their weight around” to get their own way.
Only one of them is being non-violent about it. And that is the one people are focusing their criticism on.
It is logically inconsistent to single out America from everything that is going in currently. Which points to a different motivation than being upset when any entity “throws around its weight”.
What that motivation is, I cannot know for sure as I cannot see inside people’s heads. However, I have a few logically consistent guesses…. Do you?
Dan