Lafcadio

This one question I thought over a long time, and here's the only serious christian history forum.

The 'AD' notation is sprung from the research and tables of Dionysius Exiguus, a 5-6th century monk. It's a christian convention of dividing time and ages, like Romans started ab urbe condita and the Muslims from Hegira.

If today scholars still hold our era starting from the same symbolical date, what's the point to change only the name of the era? Common Era or Anno Domini - the years start from an assumed and bad calculated birth of Christ. Why hide behind a 'politically/religiously/culturally correct' name?

Toto

The point? Any starting date is arbitrary. Changing the starting date would be a major bookkeeping problem - every computer would need to be updated, every mathematical routine that calculated elapsed time or due dates or mortgages would need to be rewritten. It would be worse than Y2K.

And what would you change the starting date to? Another arbitrary date?

And consider that you would need to get international approval of the new calendar. Don't you think the UN has better things to worry about?

John A. Broussard

Words are important.

I admit I was skeptical and somewhat amused at the coining of "Ms." but it has caught on and it works. Similarly with other efforts to make our language more gender neutral.

Language alone won't rid us of the deletirious impact of Christianity on humankind, but stripping off references to a mythical religious figure when using dates is a step foward.

I'd prefer to start with Mozart's birth date, but--as Toto points out--that would be a humongous undertaking.

RGD

Yes, but starting from Mozart would simply put us back into the 'worship' business. Well, me, anyway.

Clivedurdle

Don't we date the common era from the introduction of the civil service exam in China in 6 CE?

Chris Weimer

27 BCE changes to 1 AA (anno augusti)

John A. Broussard

I must admit that I'm close to that when it comes to Mozart.

But that redating isn't a good idea anyway. "After Mozart" would be confusing to abbreviate. "Post Mozart" wouldn't help either.

Just generally though, language adjustments of this kind would probably be fruitful. The spin doctors do it all the time. Inheritance taxes become death taxes, civilian deaths become collateral damage.

I'm consciously using she/he/it to refer to the He of Christian tradition. Maybe I'll just reduce the pronoun to "it". Easier to type, anyway.

Chris Weimer

Mozart? Nah, he was to fanciful. Now Beethoven, there's a composer! Or Bach! Or Liszt! But Mozart?

RGD

Look if we're going to get musical about this, then I recommend the following (in no particular order, I just like them):

1. Bach ("Old J.S. who spoke to God in mathematics.")
2. Mozart ("God speaking through that 'dirty little man'")
3. Machaut ('nuff said)
4. Purcell
5. Sullivan

Clivedurdle

Beatles :notworthy