The calendar: BC/AD v BCE/Ce

[Gas Giant (Andrew)]

This is an issue that had been on my mind for a while and I thought this forum would be a good place to raise it and hopefully find out what others think.

As a casual teacher in NSW public schools, one day I was given the dream casual teacher’s job of supervising year 7 students sitting their state-wide standardised tests.

Reading through the test booklet, I was intrigued by a question that involved the historic time-line. What caught my attention was that the time-line had been divided into BCE and CE, which was explained as standing for Before the Common Era and the Common Era.

A little searching on the Internet revealed that this wasn’t something invented by politically correct public school examiners, but that there is a movement afoot to change the historic division of BC and AD to BCE and CE so that all cultures don’t have to base their world around Christianity.

I can see the point of that; but in my opinion not much thought has gone into the change. The Common Era? It sounds so lame! When students ask why the division was made, how will it be explained without reverting to the birth of Jesus?

The system we use now use that is centred on the birth of Jesus was first proposed by the monk Dionysius Exiguus in the 6th century. Whether you believe is was divine intervention or just an historical accident, it caught on and has become more or less universal despite other religions having their own versions of the calendar.

In an effort to hopefully increase tolerance in the modern world, there’s little point in just changing the designation of the focal point. Devout Christians will just refer to the Before Christian Era and the Christian Era; and, despite the fact that the initial calculation was in error and it turns out Jesus was actually born in 4BC, historically the origin of the current calendar we use would still have the advent of Christianity as its genesis (no pun intended).

If the universal calendar across nations and cultures is to be relevant to everyone, why not just change it completely? Astronomy has a simple means of doing so.

Astronomers often use the Julian Date. This is the number of days since 1st January 4713 BC (BCE). This year was chosen as it was far enough back in time that no astronomical records existed. If you have ever submitted observations of variable stars, for example, the time of the observation is generally recorded as the Julian Date.

My suggestion would be, call 4713 BC (BCE) year 1 of Recorded History (RH). Before that year would be Pre-history (PE). All the other calendars, Jewish, Islamic, Christian etc could still be used within the relevant settings, while the dealings in the wider community could be based on a purely secular calendar.

This isn’t something I intend pushing with any zealotry, but just raise as something for discussion. With over 2,000 members, there is bound to be a significant proportion in the IIS community with a strong Christian Faith who may be very perturbed by any change to the Before Christ and Anno Domini (Latin for in the year of our lord) system.

I’d like people’s opinions on these points, though:

1)Even though it does show bias toward one (admittedly very large) group, it’s better to stick with BC and AD, which at least have some historical clout, rather than the, in my opinion, meaningless BCE and CE.
2)If there was a move to change the calendar, base it on the Julian Date, with what is now 4713BC as 1RH.


Submitted on June 7, 6720RH.
Cheers
Andrew the Gas Giant (if you’d ever been observing with me you wouldn’t have to ask!).

[Nightshift]

Interesting question and topic.
being a devout Atheist I couldn’t care less about using Christianity or any other mythological religious figures birthday as the focus point of our calendar, in my opinion the birth of Christ has no bearing on life and indeed has never been a proven fact anyway, it just stems from a darker time when the church reigned over the known world. luckily we are all a bit cleverer today but these antique legacies still plague us, thank goodness we at least adopted the metric system, if only the yanks would catch up.

However, the calendar system we currently have works, and atheist or not I don’t believe in fixing things that aren’t broken, the Julian date is very logical and works much like metric, it is easy to calculate between two dates (most computer programmers use this method for software) but it just isn’t needed enough in day to day life to make such a huge change to our society.

One last thing, If you were going to create a dating system (like the Julian one) and the known earliest Astronomical records dated back to 4713Bc then how anal retentive would you have to be to choose that particular date, why not just round off to 4500bc and make it easier to remember and to calculate? Man there are some weird scientists fixated on specifics. BTW, what astronomical event occurred in 4713Bc, who recorded it and how was it recorded?

Cheers, Dennis.

[Outbackmanyep]

Im an atheist, but i prefer to stick to BC and AD.....
BCE and CE will still refer to christianity anyway....
I just think in a pathetically politically correct world its come about, why don't we start calling hamburgers beefburgers?? And Walkmans walkpersons...?? And a car isn't a car, its a Personal Motorised Carriage!
Where will it all end??
And thats my two cents....lol

[KG8]

I can't see any point in changing a centurys old system that works just fine. As for Atheists. I thought I knew one once, but then his wife got cancer and I caught him mumbling a prayer for her. LOL, Never hurts to keep an open mind.

[Gas Giant (Andrew)]

If you were going to create a dating system (like the Julian one) and the known earliest Astronomical records dated back to 4713Bc then how anal retentive would you have to be to choose that particular date, why not just round off to 4500bc and make it easier to remember and to calculate? Man there are some weird scientists fixated on specifics. BTW, what astronomical event occurred in 4713Bc, who recorded it and how was it recorded?

Cheers, Dennis.[/quote]

The date was apparently picked as it was far enough back that no records existed before that. Why they chose 4713BC I don't know. Maybe someone else knows the reason this peculiar year was chosen.

[Gas Giant (Andrew)]

Could someone please tell me how you use the quote box when wanting to quote part a previous message in your reply.
Thanks Andrew

[ballaratdragons (Ken)]

I can see this thread could get ugly.

As for the date, just leave it as it is. Why complicate things more. If you are going to fiddle with everything you may as well go metric with time. 10 units a day with 10 sub-units per unit and 10 micro-units per sub-unit. It ain't gonna work either.

[JethroB76 (Jeff)]

Wasn't the year 4713 BC chosen by a fellow named Julius (not Caesar) who based his calender on some 7000+ something year cycle

[Rob_K]

Think you'll find most of the answers here:
http://webexhibits.org/calendars/cal...00000000000000

Cheers -

[Karls48 (Karl)]

Being agnostic I don’t care about if BC and AD refers to the birth of Christ or John Smith. It worked for centuries, leave it alone.

[Gas Giant (Andrew)]

That site given by Rob above certainly is comprehensive. It is also using the BCE/CE format. I wonder how widespread it is. If our children are learning it at school, it's likely to become more prevalent.
It's not the most important issue going around, but, as I said in the original post, dividing history into before and after the Common Era sounds a bit politically correct and lame to me.
Certainly from the replies so far, most think it is best left the way it is.
Regards
Andrew

[Astrolabe]

Originally Posted by Gas Giant

That site given by Rob above certainly is comprehensive. It is also using the BCE/CE format. I wonder how widespread it is. If our children are learning it at school, it's likely to become more prevalent.
It's not the most important issue going around, but, as I said in the original post, dividing history into before and after the Common Era sounds a bit politically correct and lame to me.
Certainly from the replies so far, most think it is best left the way it is.
Regards
Andrew

Hello Andrew

I like your question and request for comments, but I like best the line below your name. But be aware, certain authorities may resurrect the six thousand year old dynasaurs and send them to devour you for asking such questions.

George (astrolabe)

[Astrolabe]

Originally Posted by Nightshift

Interesting question and topic.
being a devout Atheist I couldn’t care less about using Christianity or any other mythological religious figures birthday as the focus point of our calendar, in my opinion the birth of Christ has no bearing on life and indeed has never been a proven fact anyway, it just stems from a darker time when the church reigned over the known world. luckily we are all a bit cleverer today but these antique legacies still plague us, thank goodness we at least adopted the metric system, if only the yanks would catch up.

However, the calendar system we currently have works, and atheist or not I don’t believe in fixing things that aren’t broken, the Julian date is very logical and works much like metric, it is easy to calculate between two dates (most computer programmers use this method for software) but it just isn’t needed enough in day to day life to make such a huge change to our society.

One last thing, If you were going to create a dating system (like the Julian one) and the known earliest Astronomical records dated back to 4713Bc then how anal retentive would you have to be to choose that particular date, why not just round off to 4500bc and make it easier to remember and to calculate? Man there are some weird scientists fixated on specifics. BTW, what astronomical event occurred in 4713Bc, who recorded it and how was it recorded?

Cheers, Dennis.

Hello Dennis

Thanks for the post. I just do not understand how an atheist can be devout. My understanding is that when one is an atheist there is nothing there to be devout about it. Please expain on line or by PM.

Thanks

George ( Astrolabe)

[casstony]

devout: pious; passionately religious; sincere. I guess one can be a sincere athiest.

[iceman (Mike)]

Guys this thread and consequence replies is very much pushing the boundaries of the TOS with respect to religious discussion.