Why do we still use BC and AD for numismatics?

[ewomack]

After reading more of this discussion, I realized that somewhere along in the years, I stopped using "AD" and "CE" completely. I only use "BC" or "BCE" to designate the "before" or "negative" dates. None of my attributions (either my own or from dealers, so far) use "AD." If something dates 579, I just say "579." Likewise for 2022. I would never say "2022 AD" or "2022 CE," because there is simply no need to. So, one can eliminate the "AD" or "CE" from most contexts, if one wants to. As for the "BC" or "BCE," I guess that remains a personal preference. The more recent books of history that I've read, along with any recent scholarly work that I come across, tend to use "BCE" and "CE." I see them more and more, so perhaps they're becoming more of a convention. It would probably take some sort of social upheaval, a la Khymer Rouge, to alter the West's current "year 0" reference, but I don't doubt that it could happen someday, hopefully in a much more peaceful manner. In the meantime, eliminating "AD" and "CE" makes for a slightly more inclusive nomenclature. Yet the year numbering itself, even without those acronyms, remains inextricably tied to the counting from that specific event, so it will likely remain until larger forces intervene, if that ever happens. So even negative numbering can't escape the religiohistorical origins of the "zero year." "2022" itself, the very year that will soon end, is itself a product of that same system, with or without the attachments. Ultimately, I would choose a less inclusive system over a violent social upheaval. This remains one of those endlessly fascinating subjects that doesn't occur to me unless I think about it explicitly. It seems to rarely come up in everyday life.

Edited December 4, 2022 by ewomack

[John Conduitt]

8 minutes ago, ewomack said:

After reading more of this discussion, I realized that somewhere along in the years, I stopped using "AD" and "CE" completely. I only use "BC" or "BCE" to designate the "before" or "negative" dates. None of my attributions (either my own or from dealers, so far) use "AD." If something dates 579, I just say "579." Likewise for 2022. I would never say "2022 AD" or "2022 CE," because there is simply no need to. So, one can eliminate the "AD" or "CE" from most contexts, if one wants to. As for the "BC" or "BCE," I guess that remains a personal preference. The more recent books of history that I've read, along with any recent scholarly work that I come across, tend to use "BCE" and "CE." I see them more and more, so perhaps they're becoming more of a convention. It would probably take some sort of social upheaval, a la Khymer Rouge, to alter the West's current "year 0" reference, but I don't doubt that it could happen someday, hopefully in a much more peaceful manner. In the meantime, eliminating "AD" and "CE" makes for a slightly more inclusive nomenclature. Yet the year numbering itself, even without those acronyms, remains inextricably tied to the counting from that specific event, so it will likely remain until larger forces intervene, if that ever happens. Ultimately, I would choose a less inclusive system over a violent social upheaval. It remains one of those subjects that doesn't occur to me unless I think about it explicitly. It's fascinating, in any case.

I was just thinking this. AD and CE don't even seem necessary. As far as I can tell, they're used only when someone wants to be clear a low number is a date, or when converting from AH. I don't think I've used AD for the former for a long time as it isn't necessary, although I do list Arabic coins as e.g. AH761/AD1359-1360. But then there would have to be a whole different discussion about what to do with Anno Hegirae, 'Year of the Hijrah' (itself a confusing mix of Latin and Islam).

Edited December 4, 2022 by John Conduitt

[NathanB]

5 hours ago, ewomack said:

After reading more of this discussion, I realized that somewhere along in the years, I stopped using "AD" and "CE" completely. I only use "BC" or "BCE" to designate the "before" or "negative" dates. None of my attributions (either my own or from dealers, so far) use "AD." If something dates 579, I just say "579." Likewise for 2022. I would never say "2022 AD" or "2022 CE," because there is simply no need to. So, one can eliminate the "AD" or "CE" from most contexts, if one wants to. As for the "BC" or "BCE," I guess that remains a personal preference. The more recent books of history that I've read, along with any recent scholarly work that I come across, tend to use "BCE" and "CE." I see them more and more, so perhaps they're becoming more of a convention. It would probably take some sort of social upheaval, a la Khymer Rouge, to alter the West's current "year 0" reference, but I don't doubt that it could happen someday, hopefully in a much more peaceful manner. In the meantime, eliminating "AD" and "CE" makes for a slightly more inclusive nomenclature. Yet the year numbering itself, even without those acronyms, remains inextricably tied to the counting from that specific event, so it will likely remain until larger forces intervene, if that ever happens. So even negative numbering can't escape the religiohistorical origins of the "zero year." "2022" itself, the very year that will soon end, is itself a product of that same system, with or without the attachments. Ultimately, I would choose a less inclusive system over a violent social upheaval. This remains one of those endlessly fascinating subjects that doesn't occur to me unless I think about it explicitly. It seems to rarely come up in everyday life.

Interesting comment, ewomack.  I agree with part of it, but I had a few points of disagreement, too:

• regarding the "year zero" terminology, I couldn't tell if you were referring to a year zero in between 1 BC/BCE and 1 AD/CE (there was no such year zero), or if you were referring to counting from a starting point, that being the hypothetical year of Jesus' birth (which we now take to be around 4 BC/BCE) rather than 1 AD).
• I agree that our modern calendar system of counting years is completely based on the traditional way of Christian counting of time, but I don't think the alternative to this is "violent social upheaval."  And if that really were true, it's incredibly sad.  That said, I think we are all too locked in, as one person above put it, to change.  I also think such change is unnecessary and undesirable--it would be a monumental undertaking with thousands of practical as well as technological complications.  I like the inclusiveness of the BCE/CE terminology, but I have no more objection to the fact that it originates in Christian calendrical reckoning than I do of the fact that Tuesday is named after a Norse deity or the fact that September is named as the seventh month of the year. 🙂

Edited December 5, 2022 by NathanB

[ewomack]

20 minutes ago, NathanB said:

Interesting comment, ewomack.  I agree with part of it, but I had a few points of disagreement, too:

• regarding the "year zero" terminology, I couldn't tell if you were referring to a year zero in between 1 BC/BCE and 1 AD/CE (there was no such year zero), or if you were referring to counting from a starting point, that being the hypothetical year of Jesus' birth (which we now take to be around 4 BC/BCE) rather than 1 AD).
• I agree that our modern calendar system of counting years is completely based on the traditional way of Christian counting of time, but I don't think the alternative to this is "violent social upheaval."  And if that really were true, it's incredibly sad.  That said, I think we are all too locked in, as one person above put it, to change.  I also think such change is unnecessary and undesirable--it would be a monumental undertaking with thousands of practical as well as technological complications.  I like the inclusiveness of the BCE/CE terminology, but I have no more objection to the fact that it originates in Christian calendrical reckoning than I do of the fact that Tuesday is named after a Norse deity or the fact that September is named as the seventh month of the year. 🙂

Hello, @NathanB

-I was using "year zero" just as a reference for when counting began, i.e., the once thought birth year of Jesus.

-My use of "violent social upheaval" was a (slight) exaggeration of what it might take to actually change the currently very entrenched counting system. Such a change would seem to necessitate some kind of drastic cultural realignment that possibly could arrive in a violent form, say in the aftermath of a revolution or a world war. It seems like so much of Western civilization would have to get uprooted and altered for something so embedded to change, so that such an enormous change would likely arrive via some sort of "violent social upheaval." Though I obviously have no idea how it would actually happen, I have trouble seeing such a change coming about by some sort of "rational consensus" where certain people in power sit down and agree to a new way to count years. Right now, it certainly doesn't seem practical for cultures that use that particular system to discuss a new system. So, if such an event were to happen any time soon, I can honestly only see it occurring through some kind of "takeover" in which the new victors would prove their dominance over the "old culture" by altering something so fundamental as the "BC/AD" system (I use the former Cambodian regime called "Khmer Rouge" as an example because they essentially did this as a symbol of "the rebirth of Cambodian history," and they accompanied this with excessive violence). I don't actually see that happening, of course, but that's why I chose the phrase that I did. And, honestly, I would rather use a less inclusive counting system than experience such a violent social upheaval, so I continue to use "BC/AD" and "BCE/CE" without complaint for at least that reason. Like it or not, we're very likely stuck with it for the foreseeable future. As for the analogy with Norse, Greek or Roman gods, I don't find that a particularly useful analogy. Christianity, unlike any ancient religion, remains a dominant world religion with far more impact on the lives of people currently living. The power of ancient religions today cannot begin to compare to the current power of Christianity and that's why some people find the counting system more invasive and unsettling than anything involving Norse gods or Mars or Jupiter. I'm not one of those people (though I would fully support a counting system not based on Christianity), but I do understand and sympathize with their arguments up to a point. In the end, we basically agree, we're stuck with the current system and I've decided to make peace and tolerate that inevitability.

[John Conduitt]

27 minutes ago, ewomack said:

Hello, @NathanB

-I was using "year zero" just as a reference for when counting began, i.e., the once thought birth year of Jesus.

-My use of "violent social upheaval" was a (slight) exaggeration of what it might take to actually change the currently very entrenched counting system. Such a change would seem to necessitate some kind of drastic cultural realignment that possibly could arrive in a violent form, say in the aftermath of a revolution or a world war. It seems like so much of Western civilization would have to get uprooted and altered for something so embedded to change, so that such an enormous change would likely arrive via some sort of "violent social upheaval." Though I obviously have no idea how it would actually happen, I have trouble seeing such a change coming about by some sort of "rational consensus" where certain people in power sit down and agree to a new way to count years. Right now, it certainly doesn't seem practical for cultures that use that particular system to discuss a new system. So, if such an event were to happen any time soon, I can honestly only see it occurring through some kind of "takeover" in which the new victors would prove their dominance over the "old culture" by altering something so fundamental as the "BC/AD" system (I use the former Cambodian regime called "Khmer Rouge" as an example because they essentially did this as a symbol of "the rebirth of Cambodian history," and they accompanied this with excessive violence). I don't actually see that happening, of course, but that's why I chose the phrase that I did. And, honestly, I would rather use a less inclusive counting system than experience such a violent social upheaval, so I continue to use "BC/AD" and "BCE/CE" without complaint for at least that reason. Like it or not, we're very likely stuck with it for the foreseeable future. As for the analogy with Norse, Greek or Roman gods, I don't find that a particularly useful analogy. Christianity, unlike any ancient religion, remains a dominant world religion with far more impact on the lives of people currently living. The power of ancient religions today cannot begin to compare to the current power of Christianity and that's why some people find the counting system more invasive and unsettling than anything involving Norse gods or Mars or Jupiter. I'm not one of those people (though I would fully support a counting system not based on Christianity), but I do understand and sympathize with their arguments up to a point. In the end, we basically agree, we're stuck with the current system and I've decided to make peace and tolerate that inevitability.

I don't know if it would be that difficult to implement. The problems might be exaggerated, like the Millennium Bug. England cut several months off the year in 1751. Russia moved to the Gregorian calendar in 1918. GMT was switched to UTC. The UK decimalised in 1971 and (mostly) completed the switch to metric in 2000. Norway even changed which side of the road they drive on in 1967. The reason it won't happen is that unlike all these things, there's no desperate need to go to the considerable expense to do it. Maybe such a time will arrive for more mundane reasons than revolution, but it will involve saving money.

Edited December 5, 2022 by John Conduitt

[NathanB]

On 12/4/2022 at 6:57 PM, ewomack said:

Hello, @NathanB

-I was using "year zero" just as a reference for when counting began, i.e., the once thought birth year of Jesus.

-My use of "violent social upheaval" was a (slight) exaggeration of what it might take to actually change the currently very entrenched counting system. Such a change would seem to necessitate some kind of drastic cultural realignment that possibly could arrive in a violent form, say in the aftermath of a revolution or a world war. It seems like so much of Western civilization would have to get uprooted and altered for something so embedded to change, so that such an enormous change would likely arrive via some sort of "violent social upheaval." Though I obviously have no idea how it would actually happen, I have trouble seeing such a change coming about by some sort of "rational consensus" where certain people in power sit down and agree to a new way to count years. Right now, it certainly doesn't seem practical for cultures that use that particular system to discuss a new system. So, if such an event were to happen any time soon, I can honestly only see it occurring through some kind of "takeover" in which the new victors would prove their dominance over the "old culture" by altering something so fundamental as the "BC/AD" system (I use the former Cambodian regime called "Khmer Rouge" as an example because they essentially did this as a symbol of "the rebirth of Cambodian history," and they accompanied this with excessive violence). I don't actually see that happening, of course, but that's why I chose the phrase that I did. And, honestly, I would rather use a less inclusive counting system than experience such a violent social upheaval, so I continue to use "BC/AD" and "BCE/CE" without complaint for at least that reason. Like it or not, we're very likely stuck with it for the foreseeable future. As for the analogy with Norse, Greek or Roman gods, I don't find that a particularly useful analogy. Christianity, unlike any ancient religion, remains a dominant world religion with far more impact on the lives of people currently living. The power of ancient religions today cannot begin to compare to the current power of Christianity and that's why some people find the counting system more invasive and unsettling than anything involving Norse gods or Mars or Jupiter. I'm not one of those people (though I would fully support a counting system not based on Christianity), but I do understand and sympathize with their arguments up to a point. In the end, we basically agree, we're stuck with the current system and I've decided to make peace and tolerate that inevitability.

Hi ewomack! Thanks for answering my question about your usage of the "zero date" terminology.  I understand now.

About the second half of your most recent comment, though: I don't know of anyone who finds the current counting system invasive and unsettling.  I think most people here in western countries have made their peace with it.  I don't know too much about non-western calendars that are still in use today in other countries, though.  That said, if I immigrated to such a country, I would just have to get used to the local calendar, I guess.

[Octavius]

I don't really have a preference between BC/AD and BCE/CE, however I tend to use BC/AD more often only out of sheer habit. That's what I was taught as a kid , so it's more or less automatic. There is no religious component to the thought process.

One thing I would comment on is if one uses AD; if you use this it should come before the date, not after it.

As a collector of Roman coins, I wouldn't mind the adoption of AB URBE CONDITA - from the founding of the city - but I'm not sure how you would designate "before the founding of the city" - perhaps ANTE URBE CONDITA- thus we'd have AUC and AUC. That would really clarify things!

[kirispupis]

1 hour ago, NathanB said:

About the second half of your most recent comment, though: I don't know of anyone who finds the current counting system invasive and unsettling.  I think most people here in western countries have made their peace with it.  I don't know too much about non-western calendars that are still in use today in other countries, though.  That said, if I immigrated to such a country, I would just have to get used to the local calendar, I guess.

Yeah, even though I find the usage of BC and AD a bit unsettling, I would be against instituting any other type of numbering system. Like its origins or not, it's become far too common. It's even used in Israel, which has its own system that's far older than the current one.

My question was more on the naming - BCE/CE instead of BC/AD.

In terms of countries that currently use other systems, there are of course a number of other systems used for religious and semi-official purposes worldwide, but AFAIK most of those countries (Thailand, Ethiopia, Israel, Iran, Middle East, etc) use the Julian Calendar for business and official purposes.

The only two non-Julian official calendars I know of were both instituted by dictators - in North Korea and Turkmenistan (which as I understand was recently dropped).

[ewomack]

On 12/4/2022 at 9:24 PM, John Conduitt said:

I don't know if it would be that difficult to implement. The problems might be exaggerated, like the Millennium Bug. England cut several months off the year in 1751. Russia moved to the Gregorian calendar in 1918. GMT was switched to UTC. The UK decimalised in 1971 and (mostly) completed the switch to metric in 2000. Norway even changed which side of the road they drive on in 1967. The reason it won't happen is that unlike all these things, there's no desperate need to go to the considerable expense to do it. Maybe such a time will arrive for more mundane reasons than revolution, but it will involve saving money.

We're essentially in agreement, I'm just being more dramatic. Yes, if the powers that be sat down and decided to change the counting system, it could happen. There is obviously no incentive to do so and no urgency or really even any need. Barring that, the only other way it could happen is through the more dramatic scenario I mentioned. I was going way out there to make a point that we're going to keep using the system, because I don't actually see such an upheaval happening. I do know, and have known, people who are upset by what they call the "Christian counting system." Usually I use thae "violent upheaval" example to argue how stuck we are with it for the foreseeable future (I probably resorted to that here out of habit). In the end, I think it's fine. As I said before, those who want to use "BC/AD" can do so and those who want to use "BCE/CE" can do so. It does its job overall. The world has bigger problems to solve.

[kirispupis]

On 12/6/2022 at 9:40 AM, ewomack said:

We're essentially in agreement, I'm just being more dramatic. Yes, if the powers that be sat down and decided to change the counting system, it could happen. There is obviously no incentive to do so and no urgency or really even any need. Barring that, the only other way it could happen is through the more dramatic scenario I mentioned. I was going way out there to make a point that we're going to keep using the system, because I don't actually see such an upheaval happening. I do know, and have known, people who are upset by what they call the "Christian counting system." Usually I use thae "violent upheaval" example to argue how stuck we are with it for the foreseeable future (I probably resorted to that here out of habit). In the end, I think it's fine. As I said before, those who want to use "BC/AD" can do so and those who want to use "BCE/CE" can do so. It does its job overall. The world has bigger problems to solve.

The problem is whichever reference point is taken, it's going to offend because it will select one culture over the exclusion of others. That's why pretty much everyone is fine with what we have. The only adjustment some (including myself) are advocating is renaming it.

If we were to switch to a different system, it would probably not be under rosy circumstances. Changing calendar systems is the ultimate fashion statement for dictators. [Removed] 

Edited December 8, 2022 by Restitutor

[AETHER]

it is really just a standard set long ago by someone whos views leaned one way over the other. You can argue this for numerous things, ways, and standards, but no need to make a mountain out of a mole hill. Christ existed, weather he was divine or not, does not matter.  He shaped culture and religion on a mass scale going forward. You do not have to believe or support, but his impact, along with other religious cultures shaped this world. There is no need to get offended or even consider anything insensitive about this. Because there isn't.  You simply have to look at it as a standard at the time, influenced by a huge historical figure, that is still in use today. 

[kirispupis]

1 hour ago, AETHER said:

it is really just a standard set long ago by someone whos views leaned one way over the other. You can argue this for numerous things, ways, and standards, but no need to make a mountain out of a mole hill. Christ existed, weather he was divine or not, does not matter.  He shaped culture and religion on a mass scale going forward. You do not have to believe or support, but his impact, along with other religious cultures shaped this world. There is no need to get offended or even consider anything insensitive about this. Because there isn't.  You simply have to look at it as a standard at the time, influenced by a huge historical figure, that is still in use today. 

That's a tough argument to make, since BCE/CE - though not as old as BC/AD, date from at least the early 1700's. BCE/CE is also a 'standard' depending on where you are publishing.

This reminds me a bit of an incident on my sons' football team recently. The name of the team is the "Saints" and their logo has been the fleur-de-lis for years. When they hired a new coach, he took issue with the logo because the fleur-de-lis has a history with branding slaves.

I must admit that I had difficulty accepting this, since the symbol has significant national and religious history. I considered it merely unfortunate that it was also used to brand slaves and was against replacing the logo, although I did not make my feelings public out of respect for the new coach.

Since then, however, I've thought of the matter differently. The swastika was a symbol far older than BC/AD and had a fairly benign meaning until the Germans used it. Were a team to put a swastika on their helmets today, I'd be extremely offended and I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one.

I still can't fully agree with the coach on the fleur-de-lis, since I still view it as a symbol of French royalty, but I can accept that he was offended, and as coach of the team he should obviously not have to face a symbol that offended him. I'm not of the view that the fleur-de-lis should be stricken everyone, but I do accept that others don't see this symbol as I do and in certain situations we must compromise.

I've also learned that interpretations of symbols and words aren't set in stone. A symbol that was perfectly innocuous in the 1920's is now accepted worldwide as a symbol of hatred. The meaning and perspective of symbols - and date abbreviations - do change over time.

[AETHER]

@kirispupis Well that is apple and oranges, you are talking swastikas vs a dating system based on a religious leader. There is nothing offensive about the AD/BC system, at all.  To glorify Hitler is one thing. To accept BC/AD is another. The BC/AD system does not glorify Jesus or Christianity ..at all. Even if it was a bad thing, which it is not. 

Should we as a society be mad that fries are generally called French Fries? Like who cares.  I am not sure how I feel about this coach either. He's hired to be a coach, not the moral police in HIS VIEWS. Does he think the origins supported slavery? Highly doubt it that was the case.    Similar thing happened to the Cleveland Indians, now called the Guardians because some bright mind thought it was insensitive ? Since when is it insensitive to be called Indian?  Strange world we live in.  

"as coach of the team he should obviously not have to face a symbol that offended him" 

That is ridiculous, he took the job, by the same argument, they should change it back because I'm sure there were people associated with the team that were offended that it was changed. 

There is a fine line between something that is actually offensive and immoral, and knit picking.  The coach is knit picking. Changing AD / BC is knit picking.  

[kirispupis]

8 minutes ago, AETHER said:

@kirispupis Well that is apple and oranges, you are talking swastikas vs a dating system based on a religious leader. There is nothing offensive about the AD/BC system, at all.  To glorify Hitler is one thing. To accept BC/AD is another. The BC/AD system does not glorify Jesus or Christianity ..at all. Even if it was a bad thing, which it is not. 

@AETHERI certainly I can understand that you find nothing wrong with BC/AD, since you're used to the system. However, neither can you argue that I find it offensive. The exact reasons behind this I won't enumerate since this is primarily a coin site, but it rests on my own experiences growing up as a non-Christian.

13 minutes ago, AETHER said:

That is ridiculous, he took the job, by the same argument, they should change it back because I'm sure there were people associated with the team that were offended that it was changed. 

Again, this is a coin site. My point was to illustrate an occasion where I didn't agree with someone else's interpretation of a symbol, but I recognized that I also couldn't disagree that he found it offensive. I balanced my feelings with the great respect that I, the other parents, and most of all the players had/have for the coach. His achievements with players on and off the field were exemplary.

I'll take another example that I'm sure you'll disagree with. My wife is a real estate agent and recently I laughed when she mentioned that they can no longer use the term "master bedroom." The reason was due to the slavery connotation. The new definition is "primary bedroom."

I must admit that I still find it weird. However, thinking about things fairly.

• Since I'm white, how can I possibly look at things from the perspective of a black person, who may find the words offensive? In other words, I'm in no situation to deem the term harmless.
• In some ways, the word "primary" fits better. Although a mathematician may disagree, it makes a bit more sense to say a house has "multiple primary bedrooms" vs "multiple master bedrooms."
• How much harm does it do me to say "primary" instead of "master"? Does it really make my life that difficult? 

You may wonder the relevance, but I would argue that all three are relevant to the discussion of BCE/CE.

Now, to temper your anger, I'm certainly not going to report posts with BC/AD, nor am I going to show any ill will towards those who use them, nor do I have any expectations that things will suddenly move to BCE/CE.

However, if I at least spread the realization that not everyone is a Christian and that many of those who aren't are also not crazy over these abbreviations, then I'll consider it a success, even if many aren't prepared to switch over any time soon.

[AETHER]

@kirispupis I absolutely do no agree and think it is ridicules to associate "master bedroom" with slavery in any way, shape or form.  I guess if Sega was still making gaming consoles, it would no longer be called a Sega Master System? The world has gone mad.  

But to be honest, I really do no care if the realtor decided to change it, that's on them to do. Just don't except me to conform to this. This does nothing but promote hate and divide further.   We are all equal. I am no way responsible for the actions of people in the past simply because of my skin color.  No one gets special treatment, nor am I the problem.  And we ALL deal with bullshit that we find offensive. IMO, we need to be stronger and worry about important things instead of associating words with negatives every chance we get.  And the reason I do no agree to with the realtor is because confirming to someone like this only enables bad behavior. 

I am not angry or have a temper either. And I would not care if the sciences adopted a new term for AD/BC or time measurements.  It really does not matter, even if it is for stupid reasons.  This world is diverse and can't please everyone.  We just got what we go and its a way to measure. 

 I think if adults in this world do not know that everyone is not Christian , then there is a huge problem, but I think they do, so you do not need to spread this "realization", we are all aware. 

For the record I do not practice any religion. 

Also I would like to end our debate, we have our views. I respect yours, even if I may not agree. 

Have great Holiday. 

Edited December 16, 2022 by AETHER

[kirispupis]

21 minutes ago, AETHER said:

Also I would like to end our debate, we have our views. I respect yours, even if I may not agree. 

Have great Holiday. 

Thanks @AETHER. That's why this is a great site. We can not agree, but still be cordial and respect each others' opinions. For the record, I absolutely understand where you're coming from.

Have a great holiday!

[Ancient Coin Hunter]

• I went to a Catholic high school (not because I am Catholic but because it offered a solid education) which gave me the opportunity to attend Berkeley as an undergrad. In Latin class (I took 3 years) and Church History we used B.C. and A.D.
• At Berkeley, only B.C.E. and C.E. were used in that academic environment. Several professors of mine including Erich Gruen (who has written a lot about 1st century Judaism as well as the Augustan age of Rome) and Warren Treadgold (noted Byzantine scholar) used B.C.E and C.E. in their lectures. Similarly in Egyptology professor Weeks (who wrote the book The Lost Tomb after his KV 5 tomb discovery) followed suit. 
• Either way I don't get too worked up about it, but the latter seems a bit more scientific

[DonnaML]

6 hours ago, AETHER said:

no need to make a mountain out of a mole hill. . . There is no need to get offended or even consider anything insensitive about this. . . You simply have to look at it as a standard at the time, influenced by a huge historical figure, that is still in use today. 

And here I just said yesterday that I haven't gotten in a single argument since I joined this forum! I hope that didn't jinx things, because I don't want to get in one now. However, I have to say, @AETHER, that you are being a bit disrespectful here. I personally don't care what system you use or anyone else uses; go right ahead. I made very clear that my feelings about BC and AD concern  only my own reaction to those terms and my own reasons for preferring not to use them myself. It shouldn't be necessary to repeat my own explanation in this thread, but I'll do so:

"if I say a year with "AD" I'm quite literally stating that it's that year of "Our Lord," whether I intend to convey that meaning or not. Whose Lord? He's not mine. Using BC for a year means I'm stating, equally literally, that it's a given number of years before Christ, i.e, before the Anointed One, a Greek translation of the Hebrew for Messiah. Christ isn't just a surname like Smith or Ben Yosef!  Again, whose Messiah? Not mine. It shouldn't be difficult to understand why many Jewish people feel an instinctive reluctance to utter those "magic words" or phrases -- equivalent to the "magic words" we've too often been forced to utter over the last two millennia -- and prefer the compromise, when using the "common" numbering system, of avoiding them while still making ourselves understood to others for civil and secular (or even numismatic) purposes."

It is not your place to tell me what I should see as a mountain or a molehill, or how I "have" to look at things. You look at it your way, and I'll look at it my way.

 

[kirispupis]

I should note - and I admit I'm being pedantic here, that - given the below two statements - only the second is correct.

1. Alexander the Great died on June 10/11 323 BC (Before Christ)
2. Alexander the Great died on June 10/11 323 BCE (Before Common Era)

Why? Because, based on my Google searching prowess, Jesus was born sometime between 6 BCE and 4 BCE. Therefore, the following statement would also be potentially incorrect.

     3. Alexander the Great died on June 10/11 319 BC.

Because we don't know the exact year when he was born. Therefore, only the following statement would be correct (as far as we know).

    4. Alexander the Great died on June 10/11 in either 317 BC, 318 BC, or 319 BC

Or, to simplify things, we could just say

    2. Alexander the Great died on June 10/11 323 BCE

[AETHER]

@DonnaML Sure, you can look at it anyway you want. But I did not make this system, nor do I support the Christian church. I simply understand that it is nothing new , and that it's a standard which we as a society have used.   But I will stick to the fact that there is nothing insensitive or offensive about it. BHonestly I don't see it.  Sorry to offend I suppose. I don't mean disrespect or to offend.   

[John Conduitt]

12 minutes ago, kirispupis said:

I should note - and I admit I'm being pedantic here, that - given the below two statements - only the second is correct.

1. Alexander the Great died on June 10/11 323 BC (Before Christ)
2. Alexander the Great died on June 10/11 323 BCE (Before Common Era)

Why? Because, based on my Google searching prowess, Jesus was born sometime between 6 BCE and 4 BCE. Therefore, the following statement would also be potentially incorrect.

     3. Alexander the Great died on June 10/11 319 BC.

Because we don't know the exact year when he was born. Therefore, only the following statement would be correct (as far as we know).

    4. Alexander the Great died on June 10/11 in either 317 BC, 318 BC, or 319 BC

Or, to simplify things, we could just say

    2. Alexander the Great died on June 10/11 323 BCE

This isn't really the case, though. We've established that BC is a convention. It doesn't matter when Christ was actually born, or if he was even born at all. BC means 'before the year we all agree is 1'. BCE is also a convention. There's no such thing as the 'Common Era', except to create this convention. Its definition relates to BC, so it's just as ambiguous. But of course it isn't, because we all agree we're in 2022 in the Gregorian calendar, so BC has a fixed date.

To me, BC and AD have no meaning in the same way Wednesday has no meaning. But I also don't get offended by the word 'man' being used to mean 'all people' and can see how women might prefer a different word. I've already stopped using AD, and found that I don't need CE either. BC(E) denotes 'minus' years, so 'plus' years don't need any notation, in the same way I don't count +1, +2, +3.

[kirispupis]

23 minutes ago, John Conduitt said:

This isn't really the case, though. We've established that BC is a convention. It doesn't matter when Christ was actually born, or if he was even born at all. BC means 'before the year we all agree is 1'. BCE is also a convention. There's no such thing as the 'Common Era', except to create this convention. Its definition relates to BC, so it's just as ambiguous. But of course it isn't, because we all agree we're in 2022 in the Gregorian calendar, so BC has a fixed date.

I understand that. My point was that if you take BC literally, it's not correct. Obviously everyone today understands what these dates mean, even if the literal meaning of the abbreviation is incorrect.

I would also argue that acceptance of the word 'Wednesday' is much different than 'BC/AD'. 'Wednesday' is an element of the language. When translated into other languages - such as Mittwoch, среду, and 星期三, the literal translations are entirely different. The German and Russian mean "middle of the week" while Chinese means "third day".

BC/AD, though, are usually translated literally. The French say "avant J.C." or "après J.C" while the Germans use "vor Chr" and "nach Chr". Interestingly, the Russians use "before our era" and "after our era", which I suspect has a political history.

Therefore, arguments of BC/AD as "part of our language" aren't really true. They are certainly conventions, but they aren't as ingrained as the days of the week or months of the year, or else they wouldn't differ from one scholarly publication to another.

[John Conduitt]

38 minutes ago, kirispupis said:

I understand that. My point was that if you take BC literally, it's not correct. Obviously everyone today understands what these dates mean, even if the literal meaning of the abbreviation is incorrect.

I would also argue that acceptance of the word 'Wednesday' is much different than 'BC/AD'. 'Wednesday' is an element of the language. When translated into other languages - such as Mittwoch, среду, and 星期三, the literal translations are entirely different. The German and Russian mean "middle of the week" while Chinese means "third day".

BC/AD, though, are usually translated literally. The French say "avant J.C." or "après J.C" while the Germans use "vor Chr" and "nach Chr". Interestingly, the Russians use "before our era" and "after our era", which I suspect has a political history.

Therefore, arguments of BC/AD as "part of our language" aren't really true. They are certainly conventions, but they aren't as ingrained as the days of the week or months of the year, or else they wouldn't differ from one scholarly publication to another.

I'm not sure I understand the distinction. Because something translates directly it can't be part of the language? I would say that Mittwoch and среду are very much the same - they literally mean the 'middle' or 'heart' (of the Judeo-Christian week). Even in Chinese, 星期三 refers to the 3rd day. Everything is counting towards Sábado = Суббота = Cубота = Samedi = Subota = Sobota = Σάββατο = Sabato, or the Sabbath. Whose Sabbath? This is not usually the 'day of rest' in the Protestant Church, so it's specifically Catholic/Orthodox/Jewish. If AD can offend, having a day named after the Sabbath surely can.

[kirispupis]

8 minutes ago, John Conduitt said:

I'm not sure I understand the distinction. Because something translates directly it can't be part of the language? I would say that Mittwoch and среду are very much the same - they literally mean the 'middle' or 'heart' (of the Judeo-Christian week). Even in Chinese, 星期三 refers to the 3rd day. Everything is counting towards Sábado = Суббота = Cубота = Samedi = Subota = Sobota = Σάββατο = Sabato, or the Sabbath. Whose Sabbath? This is not usually the 'day of rest' in the Protestant Church, so it's specifically Catholic/Orthodox/Jewish. If AD can offend, having a day named after the Sabbath surely can.

Saying "middle of the week" and "from the God Woden" are very different things. Clearly the words for 'Wednesday' in different languages have taken different roots.

In terms of Saturday, that too has different roots. The English word doesn't come from the Sabbath, but from the Roman god Saturn. Ancient Greek named the day similarly - Ἡμέρα Κρόνου. In Swahili, Saturday is jumamosi - or literally 'first day of the week' (interesting that they start on Saturday). Latvian puts it on the sixth day - sestdiena. The Swedes went a slightly different route - lördag. It's still religious, but "Lord's Day" and "Sabbath" are different roots and have different meanings.

What I find also interesting is that the Arabic word for Saturday is alsabt. Since Arabic and Hebrew are both Semitic languages, this makes sense. But, it makes me wonder whether the original meaning of the word was from a different root. I'm not a linguist, but I've heard that it comes from a root for the word 'rest'. Therefore, it's possible that Saturday was considered a 'rest' day across the region, and that the concept of 'Shabbat' changed significantly over time. 

While it certainly is true that many languages have borrowed from each other, there's no uniform translation for the days of the week. Some are named after ancient gods and others on the day's position (but even there they don't agree). Although I haven't studied them, I have a feeling an investigation of other non-Indo European languages without a history of Christian influence - such as the Dravidian languages - would provide even more differences.

But the translations for BC and AD don't have such differences. They're literal translations, mainly because these terms aren't built into the roots of the language itself, but are instead a translation of a convention. I expect it would be much the same with the equivalents of AC/DC current across languages.

[John Conduitt]

12 minutes ago, kirispupis said:

But the translations for BC and AD don't have such differences. They're literal translations, mainly because these terms aren't built into the roots of the language itself, but are instead a translation of a convention. I expect it would be much the same with the equivalents of AC/DC current across languages.

Well, I must be missing something, but I still don't get your point. What it boils down to is that I can't see how you can be offended by BC but not Sábado. They're both references to a religion that imply some sort of reverence. The fact that the weekday naming example doesn't apply in English doesn't make it irrelevant - the very idea of a 7 day week ending in a day of rest is rooted in religion, not language. We're quite able to create a few more days named after different ancient gods.