Common Era: Difference between revisions
Restore external link-->discussion page |
→External links: if it's staying as a link, we need to highlight to the reader that the link is just the opinions of one quite unremarkable non-notable man |
||
Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
==External links== |
==External links== |
||
* [http://www.religioustolerance.org/ce.htm Religious Tolerance.org: The use of "CE" and "BCE" to identify dates] |
|||
* [http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/cmosfaq/cmosfaq.Abbreviations.html ''Chicago Manual of Style'' note on usage of CE/AD in the United States (see ninth question)] |
* [http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/cmosfaq/cmosfaq.Abbreviations.html ''Chicago Manual of Style'' note on usage of CE/AD in the United States (see ninth question)] |
||
* [http://www.ucc.org/ucnews/jan03/asiseeit.htm Whatever happened to B.C. and A.D., and why?] |
* [http://www.ucc.org/ucnews/jan03/asiseeit.htm Whatever happened to B.C. and A.D., and why?] |
||
Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
**[http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200503/s1314178.htm NSW Govt accused of rewriting history over BC ban] |
**[http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200503/s1314178.htm NSW Govt accused of rewriting history over BC ban] |
||
*{{dubious}} [http://www.religioustolerance.org/ce.htm Religious Tolerance.org: The use of "CE" and "BCE" to identify dates] (This article is written by someone who has only a first degree in applied science (engineering physics) for a webpage he runs for his organisation that has only 5 members, none of whom have any standing in the religious community. It is questioned on the [[Talk:Common Era|talk page]] whether this link should remain.) |
|||
[[Category:Calendars]] |
[[Category:Calendars]] |
Revision as of 11:44, 12 March 2005
The Common Era is the period beginning with a year near the birth of Jesus, coinciding with the period from AD 1 onwards. It is synonymous with the period called the Christian era and is sometimes used as a religiously neutral alternative to it. The term has been in use since the late 19th century and is common in academic circles around the world. Though it is increasingly used, it cannot be said to have entered into general use by the public. On the other hand, the Chinese equivalent of "Common Era" is universally adopted in China, whether in academic circles or among the general public, religious or secular.
Background
Though there are many calendar systems, the Gregorian calendar has achieved prominence in practical use worldwide. The days, months, and leap years of its direct predecessor, the Julian calendar, were devised by Romans in pre-Christian times. Virtually all Romans identified each year by naming the two consuls who held office that year until the sixth century, resulting almost always in non-numerical year notation.
Early Christian histories counted the years since the beginning of the world. However, in 525, the Anno Domini system was invented, which counted the years of the Julian calendar from the year of Jesus's birth. The transition by the Western Christian church to the Gregorian calendar, which was promulgated in 1582, corrected seasonal errors due to an incorrect leap year system, though this correction left the numbering of the years intact.
The spread of the Gregorian calendar has made it the standard international chronology, though some countries and cultures use their own calendars for religious and cultural purposes.
The Common Era and the modern calendar
When used as a numbering system for years, the Common Era is abbreviated as CE and the BCE/CE system is synonymous with the much more common BC/AD system ("before Christ" and "anno Domini," or "in the year of [our] Lord [Jesus Christ]"). Thus 500 CE is the same year as AD 500. Similarly, "before the Common Era" and BCE are used synonymously with "before Christ" and BC. Just like the AD/CE equivalency, any "BC" year is the same "BCE" year, so it is equally accurate to say that Julius Caesar was assassinated in either 44 BC or 44 BCE.
Both "CE" and "BCE" follow the year. This contrasts with proper use of "AD", which mirrors the fact that the original Latin is a prepositional phrase, so "in the year of the Lord 1601" is correctly written as "AD 1601", and not as "1601 AD", as many people write. This is opposite to correct usage of "BC", which is always written after the year it modifies (e.g. "44 BC").
Usage of term
The Common Era designation is most often used by academics, especially by scholars of non-Christian cultures. Some non-Christians, who believe that the incorporation of Jesus into the international timekeeping standard clashes with their own religious or secular beliefs, have also adopted the designation. Also the New Testament has very little date reference, only indirect ones such as the depiction of persons mentioned in independent historical sources. If the parts of the Gospel depicting the birth of Jesus are correct, he could not actually have been born in AD 1. This is because we know from the historical record that Herod the Great (depicted as threatening the life of the infant Jesus) died in 4 BC. Therefore, most scholars of the New Testament regard Jesus as having been born between 4 and 7 BC, seeing the AD/BC system as an early "best guess" adopted by Christians to give coherence to a new universal religious, cultural and political system.
BCE/CE is used in interfaith dialogue by some Christian churches[1] and by some news media in the United States[2] in articles when dealing with Palestine or interfaith matters. Secular organisations that use BCE/CE include the Royal Ontario Museum in Canada[3], and the U.S. National Center for History in the Schools, which publishes the National Standards for History that is taught to children aged from 5 to 17. [4].
Where there have been moves to introduce the term into schools in the United Kingdom and Australia, there have been complaints about "politically correct" governments trying to force their views onto children. On 2 March 2005 there were questions raised in the New South Wales Legislative Assembly complaining of such actions. In response the Minister of Education, Carmel Tebbutt said: "I am advised that BCE is largely used in museums and academic circles internationally. My own view is that the text should not have been changed; it should have been left as BC, with a footnote explaining that BCE is an alternative. I have asked the department to ensure that in the future this type of change is not made to texts." [5]
Opposition
Although Common Era dating is widespread amongst historians, archaeologists, and other academics, it has not gained general acceptance outside those groups, and the general public is still largely unfamiliar with Common Era notation.
In addition, some writers who view "Common Era" as an attempt to remove Christian references from the calendar use "CE" notation as shorthand for "Christian era", a term that predates "Common Era".
Reasons for opposing the Common Era designation include:
- It downplays the prominence of Jesus Christ in majority-Christian societies.
- The months and days of the week, named respectively after Roman and Norse gods, remain unchanged, so attempts to remove references to Jesus in the calendar are hypocritical.
- It is an example of political correctness.
- It preserves a Christian-centric worldview, at the expense of a neutral, non-religious timekeeping system. The year AD 1 is not 'common' to many modern cultures, where it is not the standard dating and where Jesus' birth (and the start of the Christian Era) are not considered major landmarks in the world's history.
- It is not as "common" as some people may believe. For example, most Muslim countries still use the Islamic calendar as their official calendar. Another example would be Thailand, which officially uses the Buddhist calendar.
External links
- Chicago Manual of Style note on usage of CE/AD in the United States (see ninth question)
- Whatever happened to B.C. and A.D., and why?
- In British schools:
- In U.S. schools:
- In Australian schools:
- [dubious – discuss] Religious Tolerance.org: The use of "CE" and "BCE" to identify dates (This article is written by someone who has only a first degree in applied science (engineering physics) for a webpage he runs for his organisation that has only 5 members, none of whom have any standing in the religious community. It is questioned on the talk page whether this link should remain.)