|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 28, 2023 15:16:56 GMT
I have noticed for a few years now that the likes of University Challenge manage the mouthful BCE instead of the much more succinct BC and also CE instead of AD. The things means exactly the same as I understand it and being an Atheist I never had a problem with using Before Christ and the year of our Lord as all that really mattered was fixing a point in time. However changing it seems to be an act of some form of either appeasement or misplaced inclusivity. Too much pandering to those who would have us respect their way whilst not respecting our way at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on Dec 28, 2023 16:37:45 GMT
This is nothing new. The term "Common Era" began as a Christian term when Common to everyone meant common to Christians. In the form of “Vulgar Era,” meaning common or ordinary, it can be found in a 1635 English translation of the Latin phrase vulgaris aerae in the astronomer Johannes Kepler’s Ecclogae chronicae, written in 1615 and dealing with the chronology of the life of Jesus. The term "Common Era" shows up in the early 18th century in the 1708 bibliographical almanac The History of the Works of the Learned, Or, An Impartial Account of Books Lately Printed in All Parts of Europe. mosaicmagazine.com/observation/history-ideas/2017/12/why-the-terms-ce-and-bce-replaced-ad-and-bc-and-why-jews-care-about-it/ |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 28, 2023 19:36:08 GMT
This is nothing new. The term "Common Era" began as a Christian term when Common to everyone meant common to Christians. In the form of “Vulgar Era,” meaning common or ordinary, it can be found in a 1635 English translation of the Latin phrase vulgaris aerae in the astronomer Johannes Kepler’s Ecclogae chronicae, written in 1615 and dealing with the chronology of the life of Jesus. The term "Common Era" shows up in the early 18th century in the 1708 bibliographical almanac The History of the Works of the Learned, Or, An Impartial Account of Books Lately Printed in All Parts of Europe. mosaicmagazine.com/observation/history-ideas/2017/12/why-the-terms-ce-and-bce-replaced-ad-and-bc-and-why-jews-care-about-it/I would not disagree it is its move into common parlance as a matter of principle. If one goes back to University Challenge even just ten years ago to my recall it was BC and AD as it is in almost every history book I have ever read and every article I have seen. At some point it suddenly appeared as the official way. There was no reason to change it. Notwithstanding its origins its use in the West, where we reside, was ubiquitous and it seems a conscious decision was made to change it and it is not clear why that should be. If, as the article says, that Jewish writers have a problem with it it seems a strange situation when Jewish writers have been around for hundreds of years and to my recall Simon Schama used the standard notation of BC and AD in his Histories of Britain. There seems to be no good reason why it should suddenly become a problem and need to be changed and it grates every time I hear it because it is so incongruous. |
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on Dec 28, 2023 20:23:17 GMT
This is nothing new. The term "Common Era" began as a Christian term when Common to everyone meant common to Christians. In the form of “Vulgar Era,” meaning common or ordinary, it can be found in a 1635 English translation of the Latin phrase vulgaris aerae in the astronomer Johannes Kepler’s Ecclogae chronicae, written in 1615 and dealing with the chronology of the life of Jesus. The term "Common Era" shows up in the early 18th century in the 1708 bibliographical almanac The History of the Works of the Learned, Or, An Impartial Account of Books Lately Printed in All Parts of Europe. mosaicmagazine.com/observation/history-ideas/2017/12/why-the-terms-ce-and-bce-replaced-ad-and-bc-and-why-jews-care-about-it/I would not disagree it is its move into common parlance as a matter of principle. If one goes back to University Challenge even just ten years ago to my recall it was BC and AD as it is in almost every history book I have ever read and every article I have seen. At some point it suddenly appeared as the official way. There was no reason to change it. Notwithstanding its origins its use in the West, where we reside, was ubiquitous and it seems a conscious decision was made to change it and it is not clear why that should be. If, as the article says, that Jewish writers have a problem with it it seems a strange situation when Jewish writers have been around for hundreds of years and to my recall Simon Schama used the standard notation of BC and AD in his Histories of Britain. There seems to be no good reason why it should suddenly become a problem and need to be changed and it grates every time I hear it because it is so incongruous. I don't entirely disagree with you. I grew up with the terms BC/AD, so I tend to prefer them. However, it makes no sense to call the start of the common era the anno domini if Jesus was born in 4 years earlier. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2023 21:11:40 GMT
I would not disagree it is its move into common parlance as a matter of principle. If one goes back to University Challenge even just ten years ago to my recall it was BC and AD as it is in almost every history book I have ever read and every article I have seen. At some point it suddenly appeared as the official way. There was no reason to change it. Notwithstanding its origins its use in the West, where we reside, was ubiquitous and it seems a conscious decision was made to change it and it is not clear why that should be. If, as the article says, that Jewish writers have a problem with it it seems a strange situation when Jewish writers have been around for hundreds of years and to my recall Simon Schama used the standard notation of BC and AD in his Histories of Britain. There seems to be no good reason why it should suddenly become a problem and need to be changed and it grates every time I hear it because it is so incongruous. I don't entirely disagree with you. I grew up with the terms BC/AD, so I tend to prefer them. However, it makes no sense to call the start of the common era the anno domini if Jesus was born in 4 years earlier. DC and Ad are fine as far as I am concerned. The fact it may be 4-5 years out does not really matter too much as the dividing point was early in his lifetime, near enough for most, and the same dates are used for BCE and CE so no one is trying to rewrite the calendar, it would just cause confusion. |
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on Dec 28, 2023 21:16:54 GMT
I don't entirely disagree with you. I grew up with the terms BC/AD, so I tend to prefer them. However, it makes no sense to call the start of the common era the anno domini if Jesus was born in 4 years earlier. DC and Ad are fine as far as I am concerned. The fact it may be 4-5 years out does not really matter too much as the dividing point was early in his lifetime, near enough for most, and the same dates are used for BCE and CE so no one is trying to rewrite the calendar, it would just cause confusion. It's just nonsensical to say that Jesus was born 4 years before Christ, though, isn't it? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2023 21:40:07 GMT
DC and Ad are fine as far as I am concerned. The fact it may be 4-5 years out does not really matter too much as the dividing point was early in his lifetime, near enough for most, and the same dates are used for BCE and CE so no one is trying to rewrite the calendar, it would just cause confusion. It's just nonsensical to say that Jesus was born 4 years before Christ, though, isn't it? Agreed. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 28, 2023 21:40:15 GMT
DC and Ad are fine as far as I am concerned. The fact it may be 4-5 years out does not really matter too much as the dividing point was early in his lifetime, near enough for most, and the same dates are used for BCE and CE so no one is trying to rewrite the calendar, it would just cause confusion. It's just nonsensical to say that Jesus was born 4 years before Christ, though, isn't it? Who cares as long as the the date that is understood is specific. Its origins in Christendom may cause confusion but my understanding, and I could be corrected on this, is that we go from BC straight to AD. My beef is why change a system we have used for hundreds of years which everyone understood, which defined clearly, in my mind a point in time and rename it which sticks in an extra letter for the important part. There was no need. |
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on Dec 28, 2023 22:11:08 GMT
It's just nonsensical to say that Jesus was born 4 years before Christ, though, isn't it? Who cares as long as the the date that is understood is specific. Its origins in Christendom may cause confusion but my understanding, and I could be corrected on this, is that we go from BC straight to AD. My beef is why change a system we have used for hundreds of years which everyone understood, which defined clearly, in my mind a point in time and rename it which sticks in an extra letter for the important part. There was no need. Both systems are Christian and both have been around for hundreds of years. It's just that one has grown more popularity over time among scholars. I don't think it's anything to worry about. You'll be understood regardless of the system you use. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 29, 2023 10:53:59 GMT
Who cares as long as the the date that is understood is specific. Its origins in Christendom may cause confusion but my understanding, and I could be corrected on this, is that we go from BC straight to AD. My beef is why change a system we have used for hundreds of years which everyone understood, which defined clearly, in my mind a point in time and rename it which sticks in an extra letter for the important part. There was no need. Both systems are Christian and both have been around for hundreds of years. It's just that one has grown more popularity over time among scholars. I don't think it's anything to worry about. You'll be understood regardless of the system you use. Being understood is not the problem. Having said that the first few times I heard BCE I had no idea what it meant, I could guess. It sounded incongruous being 50% longer than the concise BC. Everyone knew exactly what BC meant and what date it referred to, as did everyone understand what the measure of AD was. Why change something that was in widespread use in many history books and was the date method referred to by virtually all children being taught in the Western world. It is a bit like saying we no longer will call Kilometres Kilometres we will call them Klinker Matise distances or Kmd for short instead of the Km most people were used to, grew up with and had instilled into them. |
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on Dec 29, 2023 16:31:04 GMT
Both systems are Christian and both have been around for hundreds of years. It's just that one has grown more popularity over time among scholars. I don't think it's anything to worry about. You'll be understood regardless of the system you use. Being understood is not the problem. Having said that the first few times I heard BCE I had no idea what it meant, I could guess. It sounded incongruous being 50% longer than the concise BC. Everyone knew exactly what BC meant and what date it referred to, as did everyone understand what the measure of AD was. Why change something that was in widespread use in many history books and was the date method referred to by virtually all children being taught in the Western world. It is a bit like saying we no longer will call Kilometres Kilometres we will call them Klinker Matise distances or Kmd for short instead of the Km most people were used to, grew up with and had instilled into them. The terms are interchangeable. It's just that one version links the time frame to the birth of Jesus and the other doesn't. If you continue to use BC/AD, those who use BCE/CE will still know what you mean just as you understand them. There's no requirement that you use the more recently popular terms. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 29, 2023 17:35:00 GMT
Being understood is not the problem. Having said that the first few times I heard BCE I had no idea what it meant, I could guess. It sounded incongruous being 50% longer than the concise BC. Everyone knew exactly what BC meant and what date it referred to, as did everyone understand what the measure of AD was. Why change something that was in widespread use in many history books and was the date method referred to by virtually all children being taught in the Western world. It is a bit like saying we no longer will call Kilometres Kilometres we will call them Klinker Matise distances or Kmd for short instead of the Km most people were used to, grew up with and had instilled into them. The terms are interchangeable. It's just that one version links the time frame to the birth of Jesus and the other doesn't. If you continue to use BC/AD, those who use BCE/CE will still know what you mean just as you understand them. There's no requirement that you use the more recently popular terms. The question is why are the more cumbersome terms now the more popular terms and why were they changed, and by whom, from what was obviously well understood, well used and very widely used terms. |
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on Dec 29, 2023 20:59:52 GMT
The terms are interchangeable. It's just that one version links the time frame to the birth of Jesus and the other doesn't. If you continue to use BC/AD, those who use BCE/CE will still know what you mean just as you understand them. There's no requirement that you use the more recently popular terms. The question is why are the more cumbersome terms now the more popular terms and why were they changed, and by whom, from what was obviously well understood, well used and very widely used terms. I can't answer that. Maybe some academics along the way decided that a dating system that didn't rely on a knowledge of Christian scripture would be accessible to more people. If I encountered a system that relied upon the birthdate of a religion that was not mine, I'd be quite lost. I'm guessing. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 29, 2023 21:09:41 GMT
The question is why are the more cumbersome terms now the more popular terms and why were they changed, and by whom, from what was obviously well understood, well used and very widely used terms. I can't answer that. Maybe some academics along the way decided that a dating system that didn't rely on a knowledge of Christian scripture would be accessible to more people. If I encountered a system that relied upon the birthdate of a religion that was not mine, I'd be quite lost. I'm guessing. Indeed however I new what BC meant very early on but not clear what AD meant except it denoted the years after Christ was born. These were fixed points with easy definitions that I understood. The time frames have not changed all that has happened is that Christ has been removed from the definition details. To me that was unimportant as it was a measure just as a yard was once from the King's nose to his fingertips if one was a republican one would not wish to change the yard or deny its origins. What I am missing is why it was changed which no one seems able to clear up. My guess it was appeasement of other religious groups which at best seems totally unsatisfactory. |
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on Dec 29, 2023 21:37:15 GMT
I can't answer that. Maybe some academics along the way decided that a dating system that didn't rely on a knowledge of Christian scripture would be accessible to more people. If I encountered a system that relied upon the birthdate of a religion that was not mine, I'd be quite lost. I'm guessing. Indeed however I new what BC meant very early on but not clear what AD meant except it denoted the years after Christ was born. These were fixed points with easy definitions that I understood. The time frames have not changed all that has happened is that Christ has been removed from the definition details. To me that was unimportant as it was a measure just as a yard was once from the King's nose to his fingertips if one was a republican one would not wish to change the yard or deny its origins. What I am missing is why it was changed which no one seems able to clear up. My guess it was appeasement of other religious groups which at best seems totally unsatisfactory. At some point it became apparent that the biblical descriptions of the birth of Jesus, ie, Herod's lifetime and the census during the period when Cyrenius was governor of Syria cannot all align in the year 0. At that point, common sense required a correction, because it's just nonsensical to say that Jesus was born before (or after) the calendar says he was. Perhaps that's why the traditional terms gradually fell out of favour and the other system gained more traction. |
|
