BC and AD

[JackRT]

What should be remembered, is that actually AD should precede the date, but is often written afterwards. So AD is sometimes not even written correctly.

I am just anal enough that this annoys me.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Checked the numbers. You are correct. 66% are not Christian.

It's not even used by all Christians. The Coptic Church uses the Coptic Calendar which has its year 1 start with the ascension of Diocletian to the imperial throne in 284 AD, marking the beginning of the Diocletian persecution; and they designate their years Anno Martyrum, Year of the Martyrs. The current year on the Coptic Calendar is 1734 which began (on the Gregorian Calendar) on September 11, 2017; which is Thout 1, 1734 on the Coptic Calendar.

There's no reason why non-Christians should be expected to use a Christian calendar. As such designating BC/AD as BCE/CE in a secular context is hardly offensive or problematic.

I often use BC/AD when talking with fellow Christians, and using BCE/CE when talking with non-Christians.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[gideon123]

As i understand it, from reading Wikipedia, there is no change in years. Therefore, I can refer to the current year as 2018 AD, or 2018 CE.

No change. And so the change itself is pointless. If scientists were to specifically define the 'start of CE' as some sort of exact event, then maybe there might be some logic. But what could possibly have happened at the time of 0.AD that could be so earth shattering as to deserve a whole new time system? Nothing - scientifically speaking, except the birth of Christ. The system BC/AD is tied to the birth of Christ ... which we admit is not known exactly.

Science has Julian dates if people want something more precise.

This particular change by the scientific world does them no credit at all, IMO.

 

[JackRT]

But what could possibly have happened at the time of 0.AD that could be so earth shattering as to deserve a whole new time system?

Please be aware that there is no 0.AD. The whole concept of 'zero' did not emerge until about six centuries later.

 

[GingerBeer]

I am sure this has been around a while but,
I have just recently noticed in a lot of dictionaries online they replace BC and AD with BCE(before current events) and CE (current events)....I didn't realize it had escalated that quickly to remove Christ from the mind of this world....scary. Lord have mercy.

BCE and CE (the E is for era) has been in use in academic circles for many decades. Jehovh's witnesses use it in their publications and have for many decades. In short it is not new.

 

[Radagast]

nm

 

[Radagast]

I believe that the initials stand for Before Common Era and Common Era, but I am with you on this being just another bit of Politically Correct thinking run amok and evidence of a hostility to religion.

In addition, it doesnt entirely makes sense, since these initials replace BC and AD but keep the counting system that is based upon the birth date of Jesus Christ!

Yes, it's kind of odd.

 

[Radagast]

My opinion is that any history book worth its salt, would reference the people's own systems - such as Abs Urbs Condita, or Anno Mundi, or Diocletianic years, or so forth, in addition.

Part of good history is translating those years to the standard BC/AD, although that can be tricky.

 

[Radagast]

There is also BP; that is years before present.

Actually, BP means "before 1 January 1950."

It's kind of arbitrary.

 

[Resha Caner]

My opinion is that any history book worth its salt, would reference the people's own systems - such as Abs Urbs Condita, or Anno Mundi, or Diocletianic years, or so forth, in addition. Directly related systems such as BC/AD vs BCE/CE, are merely preference as all would know which date is meant thereby.

I don't know about that. Taken to the logical conclusion, wouldn't that mean we should teach Chinese history in Chinese? Mentioning that other cultures see time differently - sure. But using those systems exclusively when speaking of that culture ... I'm not sure I see the point of that. The text for my Chinese history class was from Jonathan Spence, considered the western expert on Chinese history. In his books he insists on using the modern Chinese transliteration of names and terms (so Peking becomes Beijing, etc.). I understand that to some extent - people should be allowed to define themselves as they see themselves. But the new transliteration is a somewhat silly political maneuver whereby the Chinese attempted to throw off British influences on their culture. That silliness is exemplified by the transliteration of Qing. The old British system rendered it Ching, which is pronounced "ching". In contrast, the new transliteration is pronunced "ching" ... uh. So the Chinese replaced the "ch" with "q", and then changed the pronunciation of the English letter q. Hmm.

I get it that the actual Chinese word is neither a pure "ch" nor "q" sound, but that's just odd. They're offended that the British appropriated their words and anglicized them, so they transliterate all their words in a way that appropriates the English alphabet and introduces new pronunciations that the Brits don't use, that doesn't reference the actual Chinese system, and thereby creates a useless set of characters that neither the Chinese nor the British understand. Oy vey.

History, by its very nature, is a process of translating the experiences of other people into terms that we can understand within the context of our own experiences. So, if we're going to translate Chinese history into English, I've no problem using terms that English cultures will understand - dates and all - with one caveat: that we are careful not to stuff Chinese history into an English framework.

With the exception of the one little oddity I mentioned, Spence successfully does that. My Chinese history class was the first I ever took wherein I had the odd feeling of separation from the subject matter due to unfamiliar cultural paradigms. I had to work really hard to overcome that. With great effort, by the end of the class, I felt I was finally beginning to see the world as the Chinese saw it - though admittedly my view was still "through a glass darkly" (to quote a famous passage you're probably familiar with).

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I don't know about that. Taken to the logical conclusion, wouldn't that mean we should teach Chinese history in Chinese? Mentioning that other cultures see time differently - sure. But using those systems exclusively when speaking of that culture ... I'm not sure I see the point of that. The text for my Chinese history class was from Jonathan Spence, considered the western expert on Chinese history. In his books he insists on using the modern Chinese transliteration of names and terms (so Peking becomes Beijing, etc.). I understand that to some extent - people should be allowed to define themselves as they see themselves. But the new transliteration is a somewhat silly political maneuver whereby the Chinese attempted to throw off British influences on their culture. That silliness is exemplified by the transliteration of Qing. The old British system rendered it Ching, which is pronounced "ching". In contrast, the new transliteration is pronunced "ching" ... uh. So the Chinese replaced the "ch" with "q", and then changed the pronunciation of the English letter q. Hmm.

I get it that the actual Chinese word is neither a pure "ch" nor "q" sound, but that's just odd. They're offended that the British appropriated their words and anglicized them, so they transliterate all their words in a way that appropriates the English alphabet and introduces new pronunciations that the Brits don't use, that doesn't reference the actual Chinese system, and thereby creating a useless set of characters that neither the Chinese nor the British understand. Oy vey.

History, by its very nature, is a process of translating the experiences of other people into terms that we can understand within the context of our own experiences. So, if we're going to translate Chinese history into English, I've no problem using terms that English cultures will understand - dates and all - with one caveat: that we are careful not to stuff Chinese history into an English framework.

With the exception of the one little oddity I mentioned, Spencer successfully does that. My Chinese history class was the first I ever took wherein I had the odd feeling of separation from the subject matter due to unfamiliar cultural paradigms. I had to work really hard to overcome that. With great effort, by the end of the class, I felt I was finally beginning to see the world as the Chinese saw it - though admittedly my view was still "through a glass darkly" (to quote a famous passage you're probably familiar with).

That is not what I said. I said in addition, not exclusively. We need to mention both our own system and theirs, so that if we follow up original sources, we understand the framework better.

Otherwise, I agree. We have to see things from our own perspective to understand them, as well as theirs. Essentially a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but a lot of knowledge usually isn't.

 

[Resha Caner]

That is not what I said. I said in addition, not exclusively. We need to mention both our own system and theirs, so that if we follow up original sources, we understand the framework better.

My apologies for misunderstanding. I agree that "in addition" is a good approach. Darn. It took a long time to write that post and now it just looks silly.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

My apologies for misunderstanding. I agree that "in addition" is a good approach. Darn. It took a long time to write that post and now it just looks silly.

No it wasn't useless, just a bit off topic. I myself hate Chinese transliteration problems. I have a Taiwanese friend that this renders talking history with almost impossible. We first need to figure out which people or events the other is refering to. Not to mention my complete inability to correctly pronounce anything Chinese.

If we take Wade-Giles and other transliteration systems into account, sometimes you can be reading of the same place or same person from different sources, and only much later realise it (if at all).

It reminds me of old maps, where islands get doubled or such, because of translation. Often Greenland was doubled, with a Groenland and next to it a Groclant or a Insula Veridis, or such. Or the Zeno map that has a Friesland, Island, Ysseland etc. that are probably all Iceland, but had separate existences for centuries.