Daniel McClellan points to Bob CargilI’s short essay in favour of BCE and CE.
I am one of those who have so far been unpersuaded that BCE and CE provide anything other than a rather deceptive gloss to a fundamentally Christian dating system.
The reason we have our current calendar is due both to a Christian theological understanding of time, pivoting history around the incarnation, and to the history of Europe and its global expansion. Imperialism, Roman and Holy Roman, Spanish, British etc is the only possible reason for claiming that the time after Christ’s birth (English is one of the few languages to retain a Latin abbreviation, AD) is in any way a Common Era. In this sense, “Common” is a tribute to Western imperialism. It is commonality produced by trade and gunboats, powered by nations that at the time of global expansion professed a dating system based around a specific human figure revered as divine in the triumphant imperial culture.
There is nothing common about it, except that in the economic and educational world alike, English is currently the dominant language, and Christianity the heritage of the historically dominant English speaking countries. Therefore also, largely as a result of the British Empire, followed by American economic dominance, the Christian dating system is part and parcel of the English speaking world.
Bob Cargill tries to get round this historical bias:
Therefore, it would be better for all people—Christians and non-Christians alike—to adopt the BCE/CE system of dating. While it was originally supposedly based upon the date of Jesus’ birth, it in fact was not, but is rather loosely tied to events in the Roman Empire during that time that we can arbitrarily refer to as the beginning of a modern, common era. The BC/AD system no more accurately reflects the reality of Jesus’ life than does Monty Python’s The Life of Brian.
I fear that looks like sleight of hand, simply disguising the reality that, like it or not, the system is based on a Christian system – certainly an historically inaccurate and mistaken system – but nonetheless a Christian one. I see no benefit at all in pretending that the dating system is anything other than a result of Christian dominance and Western imperialism. Just because we’re embarrassed by that history (and rightly so by some of it) doesn’t justify calling it “common”. There is nothing “common” about it
Furthermore, it ignores the reality that other dating systems are also currently in use. Pretending the dating system with historical (and theological) Christian origins is religiously and culturally neutral in fact devalues, say, the Jewish or Islamic systems as inferior or unimportant. They’re religious and particular systems. The Christian one has become general, common and universal. How, exactly, is that a neutral position to take?
And who knows, a hundred years from now we may all be using a Chinese system as our common system, and BC / AD may be a local religious one again. “Commonality” is simply our current imperialist myth.
Anyway, that’s what I think in this year of grace 2009. Or if you prefer to do your imperialism differently, some 2762 years from the founding of the city.
Whatever. (And to each their own).
Update: I particularly recommend Mark Goodacre’s post
{ 22 comments }
Brilliant!
I’m sure someone else will be along soon to tell me I’m an idiot
I can’t speak for Dr. Cargill, but I’ve never been under the assumption that BCE/CE was in any way attempting to sidestep or hide its ethnocentric and imperialist origins. Nor do I think calling it the “Common Era” is a slap in the face to clearly less common systems. If you could point to another system that is as widely used then you would have a point, but “common” doesn’t mean better, it just means more common, which it undeniably is. That’s not to say it does not prioritize an originally ethnocentric dating structure, but as long as its widely agreed upon, it seems to me to be the best system. If anyone has a better suggestion, I think that would merit discussion, but right now I don’t see any. BCE/CE is the closest thing to neutral we have available, as far as I can see.
I think whether it’s widely agreed on, or simply widely tolerated is probably a moot point. I do understand the argument being made – which in a sense is an argument from convenience. I’m not going to turn this into a martyrdom issue, but I remain sceptical that this is still bias and imperialism disguised as neutrality and agreement.
Christian, yes. European in origin, yes. Anglocentric, no. It is not just British and American but also French, Spanish, Russian etc imperialism which has caused this dating system to spread right round the world, and be accepted in places (like Paris and Moscow) where a system from England or America would be treated with suspicion.
I use BCE and CE without fail, namely because it is largely the scholarly convention I have encountered within biblical studies (at least where I have been), and likewise it is respectful in matters of interfaith dialogue . . . . which is why I also use “Hebrew Bible” (which, though, is not a misnomer. I am reading BHS, which has an entirely different canonical ordering, that of the HB, as opposed to the Protestant OT).
My sentiments exactly.
The “common” era is the era that Christians and Jews hold “in common.” More or less. That’s pretty much all I can think of that’s “common” about it.
I have a blog post in which I argue that BCE/CE is actually the more audaciously Christian option and BC/AD the more neutral.
http://speculativehermeneutics.blogspot.com/2009/04/bce.html
Actually, the “common” part is that nearly every country in the world now uses this dating system. Some as a primary system and some as a secondary system. So the reality is that this is only “common” dating system shared by the rest of the world. It’s not about what “we” do. It’s about what “they” do. Sure its origins come from imperialism, gun-boat diplomacy, and so on. But today, in the post-WWII period, nations have adopted it because it enables them to coordinate their trade and diplomacy. If it did not work, “they” would be doing something else.
While we “imperialistically” claim that we developed the CE/BCE as an alternate to BC/AD, we should not kid ourselves. The non-Christian world was using the designation long before it was being urged in the West.
I see no benefit at all in pretending that the dating system is anything other than a result of Christian dominance and Western imperialism.
I’m still with you on this one, Doug. And it doesn’t mean that the pretense is deliberate and intentional. It’s insidious and sneaky.
Mike Fuller uses BCE and CE in his overview lectures at New Wine. He was the first person I came across who did that. His reasoning was twofold – firstly becuase it is, as previous comment makes clear, accepted academic practice and secondly (a bit ‘PC’) it takes the words ‘Christ’ and ‘Lord’ out of the dating system and is therefore respectful to those who do not (yet) believe Jesus is Lord and Christ. I’m ambivalent but this all feels like it’s too late to do anything about and we sound like those who want pound notes back.
I’ll be interested to see what spam you get after blogging on a Christian dating system. Or is that just my warped mind?
Some really interesting comments.
@Paul. It would be fascinating to see a history of the term’s / system’s developments.
@Steve. I share some of that ambivalence. I’m not sure how common BCE / CE is outside academic circles. For example the titles of TV programmes and news headlines seem still to use BC / AD – even if the text may say something different.
Everyone else, just thanks. I’m more confused than ever, but in a good way.
‘The BC/AD system no more accurately reflects the reality of Jesus’ life than does Monty Python’s The Life of Brian.’
Happen not, squire, but it sure helps when talking to ordinary folk. Surely, ‘Blessed are the diary makers,’ are they not?
Written in the ninth year of the translation of my License to the Faithful City and in the two-thousand and ninth, or thereabouts, of the Lord.
peter – love it!!
may i join in this mess of discussions on intercalations and flesh wounds of the post-colonial soul?
“join in” – you started it!
The CE can mean either Common Era or Christian Era (and I believe the latter is actually the earlier usage according to the OED). Using CE/BCE does avoid two things
1. Referring to Jesus as the Christ (aka the anointed one)
2. Referring to Jesus as “Our Lord” (Domini)
Neither of which most non-Christians are likely to agree with (the latter more so). I believe English is a bit unusual in having the shorthand (AD) stand for a Latin phrase instead of one in the local language.
E.g., ac/dc Italian – Avanti Cristo (Before Christ) DC – Dopo Cristo
I understand that some Asian languages use “Western Era” for “Common Era”
I took out a paragraph suggesting (Before the) Christian Era as an alternative because it seemed to me to distract form part of the argument. I’m intrigued to read your observation that it’s earlier – although that makes a lot of sense.
Given the problems with dating Jesus’ birth, “Before the Christian Era” seems more accurate than “Before Christ.”
doug,
thanx for your comments. i’ve put together a few responses here:
http://bobcargill.wordpress.com/2009/10/02/response-to-comments-about-my-recent-bcece-vs-bcad-essay/
as for the deception, i don’t think the bce system is at all deceptive. it was an attempt to base dating upon jesus, but it miscalculated. i acknowledge this attempt in my essay. i still think it better to use neutral labels instead of being unabashedly pro-force-xn-dating-upon-others (like eharmony attempts to do
bc
[I'm cross-posting this comment to Bob Cargill's blog]
Thanks for the response. I’m honoured to have a tag of my own on your blog!
I like some of the points you make – although since I first hung a Peters projection map of the world on my wall more than 30 years ago, you might assume that I would.
I’m still not convinced, however. In some contexts (talking to nearly anyone who isn’t engaged in mainly biblical – and some other historical – studies) BC / AD is the only system that doesn’t require an explanation. I’d be happier, as I said in comments on my blog, if the C in BCE/CE stood more clearly for Christian. Yes, I know technically the dates don’t work out, but I still feel “Common” is an imperialistic claim.
Fair point on Dawkins’ rhetoric, though. No doubt he longs for the day when I date this comment to the year 200 AD (for after Darwin). Everything else was, of course, Before Charles.
Comments on this entry are closed.