|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The distinction between dates before and after year 1 can be made in two ways. The astronomical convention is the more logical and simply assigns the number 0 to the year before year 1, then proceeds to negative numbers, avoiding the B.C. notation altogether. The more usual historical convention eschews zero as a counting number and proceeds backward from year A.D. 1 to year 1 B.C. Thus, a year designated by N in the astronomical convention represents the year N + 1 B.C. in the historical convention. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the historical convention, years in the Western calendar are given a character string or abbreviation to indicate their relationship to the epoch. Years after the epoch are considered years Anno Domini, abbreviated A.D., which precedes the year number or date. Years before the epoch are considered years Before Christ, abbreviated B.C., which follows the year number or date. Common usage places the A.D. notation after the date, but this notation is incorrect. To simplify the formatting functions, however, both the A.D. and B.C. abbreviations are placed after the date, in conformity with this incorrect but popular usage. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In recent years, among certain academic circles, it has become de rigueur to attempt to introduce other abbreviations for A.D. and B.C. The notation "C.E." is often used to mean Common Era, and a corresponding "B.C.E." is intended to mean Before the Common Era. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is little doubt among modern scholars that the date of the birth of Christ is simply a convention which is meaningful because of its acceptance. Even among Biblical scholars, there is general agreement that the birth of Christ occurred several years before the year dated 1 B.C. and almost certainly did not occur on 25 December. Except for highly suspect Christian documents acknowledged to be the product of censorship, editing, alteration, and selective destruction, little evidence exists to suggest that such an individual actually existed historically. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are some reasonable grounds, therefore, for the proposal that, since the event described as the birth of Christ is incorrectly dated, and very possibly apocryphal, that a new epoch should be selected for the Western calendar. Such a proposal is not terribly practical, but has theoretical merit. You might expect that the term Common Era, therefore, refers to such an epoch. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The term Common Era, however, has exactly the same functional significance as Anno Domini. A date C.E. is the same as the corresponding date A.D. The motivation for the use of this term seems to be simply yet another manifestation of the desire among the politically correct to avoid any symbology with a religious association. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From a calendric perspective, this attitude seems rather odd, since the Western calendar is a liturgical calendar. From a functional perspective, the multiplication of nomenclature that serves no functional purpose and contributes nothing but additional verbiage is not only pointless, but destructive of communication. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The SCDTL system adopts the view that the A.D. and B.C. notations are simply conventions used and understood almost universally and have been used for so many purposes for so many centuries that they are no longer liturgical in any sense except the historical. |
|
|
|
|
|