Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GakuseiDon · 11-28-2006, 03:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I voted for the BCE/CE convention. That's more or less become the academic default. I also think that a major argument for its preference over BC/AD in serious historical discussions is that the traditional convention is historically inaccurate. It uses the wrong year for its central division. If Jesus existed at all, he was either born before 4 BCE (by Matthew's account) or after 6 CE (by Luke's account.

I voted BCE/CE for those reasons also.

RED DAVE · 11-28-2006, 05:00 AM

For reasons of historic accuracy, as pointed out by Diogenes the Cynic, and because as a Jew BC/AD has always pissed my off, I go for BCE/CE.

Maybe you could adopt the French Revolutionary Calendar?

Or maybe we could have a "Kelvin" Calendar that starts with the Big Bang.

RED DAVE

Roger Pearse · 11-28-2006, 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Oxford Journals provides "information for authors" which seems to accept both, at the will of the author.

I would have assumed that everyone by now knew about the BCE/BC/AD/CE classifications, but perhaps that is a mistake.

No-one in the UK would contemplate using CE/BCE, unless they belonged to the politically correct classes. Not even our TV does so.

Oxford University Press has a rule that all its academic authors must use CE, apparently, but this is pushing a view, not reflecting one.

I always understood CE/BCE to be Jewish in origin.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

RED DAVE · 11-28-2006, 06:10 AM

From Roger Pearse:

Quote:

I always understood CE/BCE to be Jewish in origin.

THAT'S RIGHT, BLAME THE JEWS!!

Seriously, when I was a kid in Hebrew School, over half a century ago, when dinosaurs walked the Earth (but not alongside men; we made them walk in the gutter), we used the BCE/CE terminology. But whether Jews invented it, don't know. It would seem likely.

RED DAVE

JoeWallack · 11-28-2006, 08:33 AM

JW:
BCE/CE is favored by the scholarly community. "AD" is also Misleading as it implies that the date of supposed death of that man is generally accepted as -0- (albeit the Irony of the value thereby assigned to said supposed death).

Another interesting feature Peter would be the Time Markers of the ancients such as which Olympiad and year of reign of the Emperor.

Joseph

"The difference in chronology at the crucifixion could be explained by some guards setting back their watches for the inaugral daylight savings time." - JP Holding

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Roger Pearse · 11-28-2006, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RED DAVE

From Roger Pearse:
THAT'S RIGHT, BLAME THE JEWS!!

Seriously, when I was a kid in Hebrew School, over half a century ago, when dinosaurs walked the Earth (but not alongside men; we made them walk in the gutter), we used the BCE/CE terminology. But whether Jews invented it, don't know. It would seem likely.

Interesting -- where and when did you use this? Hard info is always worth having.

I always presumed that it got into use after the state of Israel was founded. They would really badly NOT want to use AD/BC, and would find it constantly irritating, but would definitely want to use the same books as the rest of the world. Changing the name is the obvious solution; it would then naturally spread to the USA via close Jewish-US links, and be congenial to the PC lobby who have pushed it since.

Isn't it interesting, by the way, that we are NOT told where it comes from?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Diogenes the Cynic · 11-28-2006, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

JW:
BCE/CE is favored by the scholarly community. "AD" is also Misleading as it implies that the date of supposed death of that man is generally accepted as -0- (albeit the Irony of the value thereby assigned to said supposed death).

Sorry for being a nitpicker but AD does not stand for "After Death" (as many people mistakenly believe), it stands for Anno Domini ("the year of the Lord"). It measures ostensibly from Jesus' birth, not his death.

Toto · 11-28-2006, 12:02 PM

religioustolerance.org cites

Quote:

Linguist Peter Daniels suggests that:

"CE and BCE came into use in the last few decades, perhaps originally in Ancient Near Eastern studies, where (a) there are many Jewish scholars and (b) dating according to a Christian era is irrelevant. It is indeed a question of sensitivity." 6

But the source of that quote, answers.com - common-era also says:

Quote:

On (rare) occasions, one may find the abbreviation "e.v." or "EV" instead of "CE";[2] this stands for "Era Vulgaris", the Latin translation of "Common Era".

. . .

However, the term "common era" has earlier antecedents. A 1716 book by English Bishop John Prideaux says, "The vulgar era, by which we now compute the years from his incarnation." In 1835, in his book Living Oracles, Alexander Campbell, wrote "The vulgar Era, or Anno Domini; the fourth year of Jesus Christ, the first of which was but eight days." In its article on General Chronology, the 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia uses the sentence: "Foremost among these (dating eras) is that which is now adopted by all civilized peoples and known as the Christian, Vulgar or Common Era, in the twentieth century of which we are now living."[3]

"Vulgar" comes from the Latin word vulgāris (from vulgus, the common people), meant "of or belonging to the common people, everyday," and acknowledges that the date was commonly used, even by people who did not believe that Jesus was divine. By the late 1800s, however, vulgar had come to mean "crudely indecent" and the Latin word was replaced by its English equivalent, "common".

So the origins of "Common Era" are probably Christian rather than Jewish, although it is used now by multi-culturalists who want to be inclusive of Jews and others.

And we should note the Kentucky Board of Education, which dropped BCE and CE under intense lobbying by Christianist conservatives as anti-Christian. {story}

Roger Pearse · 11-28-2006, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

So the origins of "Common Era" are probably Christian rather than Jewish,

Actually I think that this passage in Wikipedia is probably misleading. There is no time that we have referred to the 'vulgar era', is there? I don't believe that the CE is suggesting that CE originated at that time; it's merely making a general point.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

RED DAVE · 11-28-2006, 01:31 PM

From RED DAVE:

Quote:

THAT'S RIGHT, BLAME THE JEWS!!

Seriously, when I was a kid in Hebrew School, over half a century ago, when dinosaurs walked the Earth (but not alongside men; we made them walk in the gutter), we used the BCE/CE terminology. But whether Jews invented it, don't know. It would seem likely.

From Roger Pearse:

Quote:

Interesting -- where and when did you use this? Hard info is always worth having.

I always presumed that it got into use after the state of Israel was founded. They would really badly NOT want to use AD/BC, and would find it constantly irritating, but would definitely want to use the same books as the rest of the world. Changing the name is the obvious solution; it would then naturally spread to the USA via close Jewish-US links, and be congenial to the PC lobby who have pushed it since.

Isn't it interesting, by the way, that we are NOT told where it comes from?

This was shortly after the establishment of Israel: around 1954-1955.

RED DAVE

View Poll Results: What should the editor choose, optimizing for clarity and neutrality?
BC/AD	13	20.63%
BCE/CE	50	79.37%
Voters: 63. You may not vote on this poll

11-28-2006, 08:33 AM	#15
JoeWallack Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Nazareth Posts: 2,357	Day "Light" Savings Time JW: BCE/CE is favored by the scholarly community. "AD" is also Misleading as it implies that the date of supposed death of that man is generally accepted as -0- (albeit the Irony of the value thereby assigned to said supposed death). Another interesting feature Peter would be the Time Markers of the ancients such as which Olympiad and year of reign of the Emperor. Joseph "The difference in chronology at the crucifixion could be explained by some guards setting back their watches for the inaugral daylight savings time." - JP Holding http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-28-2006, 05:00 AM	#12
RED DAVE Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: NYC Posts: 10,532	For reasons of historic accuracy, as pointed out by Diogenes the Cynic, and because as a Jew BC/AD has always pissed my off, I go for BCE/CE. Maybe you could adopt the French Revolutionary Calendar? Or maybe we could have a "Kelvin" Calendar that starts with the Big Bang. RED DAVE

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.