BCE/CE Dating.

Bible and Interpretation recently posted an article by Robert Cargill on Why Christians Should Adopt the BCE/CE Dating System. In it Cargill argues:

Thus, it is time for Christians to let go of the inaccurate, and to many, offensive BC and AD calendar labels and adopt the BCE/CE system. If using BC and AD to designate calendrical dates is the central identifier of a person as a Christian, then that person has bigger problems than an insistence upon a calendar. Likewise, adopting the BCE/CE system allays the discrepancies of the chronologies of Jesus’ life, while the archaic BC/AD system only highlights them. The BCE/CE system is the de facto dating system for the scientific community, joining the metric system as a standard that peoples of all nations and faiths can accept. This dating system is also the most widely used system outside of the scientific community. The BCE/CE system requires no conversions and no re-dating of historical events; only the renaming of BC to BCE and AD to CE is needed. And, as has been demonstrated above, because the AD/BC system is not actually based upon the birth of Jesus, but is rather off by approximately 7 years, there is no concern from non-Christian peoples to be suspicious of being surreptitiously forced into adopting a dating system based upon the life of Christ.

This is a fascinating discussion as I think it exposes much about one's thought of Christian influence on the culture, especially the "culture war" defense often imposed by Christians. Cargill takes the angle that Christians often are not aware of the problems, not only culturally but theologically as well, that are created by the BC/AD dating system. Interesting angle and well worth the read.

Personally, I whole heartedly embrace the BCE/CE dating system. No real reason, outside of the fact that it is becoming the standard nomenclature in the scholarly realm. While it may be an issue for some, it really has never become an issue for me.

The article did leave me with one question. If the nomenclature of a particular dating system is a threat to the faith, as it is often posited, what is this implying about our faith in the first place?

Love to hear your thoughts. Is this an issue worth fighting over?

Comments

[Mike Clawson]

I totally agree. In fact, I posted on this very topic myself a few months ago: http://emergingpensees.blogspot.com/2009/07/bce.html

[RevK]

The change over would really ruin my testimony! You know, because I like to speak of my "pre-conversion" days as, "BC." Sort of ruins it. Now I have to say something like, "Before Christ's Election..." See, that really doesn't work either, theologically speaking, because that happened before the foundation of time altogether! SO, "Keep Christ in the Calendar!" That's what I say!

[RevK]

From WiseGeek.com:
"Supporters of the BCE/CE method of identifying historical dates say the removal of Christian references works as a bridge between different religions and cultures. The BC/AD system appears to endorse Jesus Christ as the superior world religious figure, which could be viewed as disrespectful of other religions and belief structures. Although the birth of Christ is still used as a reference in the BCE/CE system, the Christian influence is not as apparent."

So if Jesus is still the reference point, then let's just call it, "Before Christ's Epiphany," and "Christ's Eucatastrophe!" Jesus still centers history and rules over it!

[Jered]

The coup de grâce:

If the nomenclature of a particular dating system is a threat to the faith, as it is often posited, what is this implying about our faith in the first place?

Well said.

[Jeff Swanson]

once again i see that there are forces out there trying hard to have conformity to the "world" the issue here. i remember back in the mid 70's when they tried to conform us to the metric system that it backfired.

If using BC and AD to designate calendrical dates is the central identifier of a person as a Christian, then that person has bigger problems than an insistence upon a calendar.

[Jeff Swanson]

to continue.....

as Robert Cargill said in his article. i have to wonder what his motive really is. i for one do not identify BC and AD as strictly being an Christian identifier. i have always looked at it as tradition from a calander system that has been used for centuries. i see BCE and CE as very confusing just like the metric system. but then again i really don't pay much attention to BCE/BC and CE/AD. besides why should we as Christian believers need to conform to the world? oh, wait we need to not step on anyone's toes. so once again i wonder what's next..... our Christmas trees???

[Mike]

Jeff, so I'll take that as a "yes, this is a fight worth having"? [BTW, yes... those nasty secularists are now coming after your Christmas tree!]

Seriously though, I think the defending of BC/AD on the grounds of a "culture war" on Christianity is missing the mark. I just have a hard time seeing how the Christian faith is being minimized by the migration to the use of BCE/CE as calendar terms.

As for the failed metric conversion, that particular conversion was a very different kind of change - one that impacted a larger scope of usage. I would put that in a whole different category than changing BC/AD to BCE/CE. Just my take though...

K, love the "Christ Eucatastrophe"! I'm in.

[jeff]

mike,

sometimes it is hard to get exact thoughts translated into text... i think that changing the anotation of BC/AD to BCE/CE is o.k. and not as destructive to the Christian faith of the west and east. but i do think that this author is ignorant and trying to hit hard where it counts. maybe if he took a different approch it would make more sense to the masses. sure there are going to be groups thinking that this is a direct blow to their "faith" but what else is to be expected? but he is trying to condem a particular group for being "imperialistic" when throughout history one empire after another tried to implement their ideals on the "world".

very thought provoking!

[Daman]

To be honest, I am Christian and wouldn't mind the change merely because to me, it could mean, before Christian era, and Christian era. That being said, being so over politicly correct is far too bullshit. I mean, why not stop calling The days of the week what we do? Each one is built upon religous beliefs? Number systems?months? Even numbering years? Yes. ALL religous in origin. Therefore this is stupid. I'm borderlining sounding hypocritical I know, but why change it? This is like watching someone build a perfectly good building. Someone buys it, and it becomes a small church. Years later the church finds a new place. Someone of another religon or an atheist buys the building from the church. So... They tear it down and rebuild the building? Duh. No. It's stupid. Leave the situation alone. Quit worrying about being "Politically correct" and focus on more important issues. Like how we can stop our financial crisis. Or prevent al gore from making speeches about global warming, then proceeding to fly around in a jumbo jet to get to the next place to make the same speech.

[Bob Harlan]

I think about 4.5 Billion would be more accurate.