What are your thoughts on BC/AD and BCE/CE? Which is more accurate? Are they both acceptable? Comment your thoughts? To support the channel, become a Patron and make history matter! Patreon: www.patreon.com/The_Study_of_Antiquity_and_the_Middle_Ages Donate directly to PayPal: paypal.me/NickBarksdale Enjoy history merchandise? Check out affiliate link to SPQR Emporium! spqr-emporium.com?aff=3 *Dislaimer, the link above is an affiliate link which means we will earn a generous commission from your magnificent purchase, just another way to help out the channel! Join our community! Facebook Page: facebook.com/THESTUDYOFANTIQUITYANDTHEMIDDLEAGES/ Twitter: twitter.com/NickBarksdale Instagram: instagram.com/study_of_antiquity_middle_ages/ Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/164050034145170/
"Common Era" is so demeaning. There is nothing common about it. It's not even an era. "Oh, Christ was born that year, so that' now an ERA and it's common, no matter if you have never heard of him!" It's better to be honest and specific. Call it "Gregorian Count" or something similar. "The battle of hastings (1066 GC)" and "Julius Caesar died in the year 44 BGC". (And just to be entirely clear, I am atheist, so that's not the reason).
I've just popped open the video, but I believe I heard bc/ad is nowhere near as old as most people think. I think bc might've been first used in English in Tudor times? Maybe even Stuart? The Romans used ab urbe condita or more commonly "The year of the consuls C. Julius Caesar and M. Antonius" (44 BC). That said, I think it's silly to change BC/AD to BCE/CE while not changing the cornerstone date. It's still grounded around the supposed birth of Jesus of Nazareth, whatever letters you wanna use. If they're gonna change it up, change it up, y'kno? It'd be a bitch to relearn all the dates, but I'd be on board for a Before Battle of Hastings/After Norman Conquest dating system, although a Pre/Post Columbian Exchange would prolly be more comprehensive to the most people
termeownator I was just beginning to question my original assumption that anyone who would use the name "termeownator", even ironically, must be lacking critical cognitive ability when you proved it by using the non-word "prolly".
@@jackgraeme3557 Hah, is prolly really that big of a faux pas? It's weird, it creeps in every now and again almost of its own volition. *Probably* a holdover from aim, and also that's kind of how I say it in real life now that I think about it. I imagine it's akin to g'day and the like, only more red. Termeownator's solid gold, though. The absolute goofiest of the "meow" trope that mangles the word it's embedded in so utterly yet somehow still conveys the message is at least mildly clever. To be fair, though, if I knew how to change a TH-cam handle, I'd switch to Edward Lambshanks in a heartbeat. Now tell me that doesn't just exude critical cognitive ability. It's like something a Welshman still bitter about the 13th century would name his young boyfriend
I'm an atheist and I have never been bothered by the AD/BC system. CE/BCE refers to the exact same dates anyhow. A TH-camr named Lindybeige suggested that we use AD for "ascending dates" and BC for "backwards chronology." That way sensitive non-Christians could avoid some butt hurt. I don't like how "BCE" and "CE" sound so similar to each other. AD/BC uses four different letters, So I do prefer that system and I DO think that the whole CE/BCE thing is mainly due to political correctness. Or at least I see the recent adoption of it to be PC.
If they're that upset about the religious connotations then why aren't they upset about the names of the days of the week, or the names of the planets? It's absurd really.
It has nothing to do with being bothered - just aware that when A.D. is used you are basically saying "the year of our Lord" - when he is not our Lord and we as a nation don't have the establishment of any religion and those who are atheists or other religions would be able to use what they wish and this is a good way to do it - thus public places and institutions should be neutral. As the Vid said it had nothing to do with P.C. - it was in use since the 17th century particularly by the educated.
Thank you for considering this issue as you have done, rather than viewing it as an opportunity to score points against Christians. I definitely agree that AD/BC is a better system with less potential for confusion, and of course if anyone wants to see them as acronyms for something other than Anno Domini and Before Christ, they are welcome to. I've spoken with atheists who genuinely think that if we educate everyone to a high level and purge every last trace of Christianity from our society and culture, we will usher in a new Age of Reason and all work together towards the Greater Good. As a Christian I don't share this vision, of course, and although I do make an effort to take care of this world (by recycling, limiting unnecessary purchases, etc.) my hopes are entirely placed in the promise of heaven for those who repent and choose Christ.
both BCE/CE and BC/AD are used to date historical events, but BCE/CE is a secular alternative that avoids religious associations, while BC/AD is historically rooted in Christian tradition. The choice between the two systems is often a matter of personal, cultural, or academic preference. Both systems are widely recognized and used in various contexts.
You can say whatever you like, naturally. But I saw the designations BCE/CE for the first time in 2000's. All my life before that (around 40 years) I only ever saw only the BC/AD used. And, BC/AD are more practical, since you see at a glance, which era is meant.
BCE an additional letter to say the same thing. I have noticed that BCE and CE can be confused in presentations or misheard. BC and AD are phonetically different and universally known as 'older' and 'newer'. Revisiting this dating system seems as silly as renaming Wednesday as 4thday by claiming its more accurate, and then labeling anyone who disputes as Oden Saga-thumping Religious Zealots.
I believe this whole thing is ridiculous! I have never heard of or heard anyone who is actually offended by the use of BC or AD! And I'm an educated man! A number of years ago, I was invited to a talk held at the Colorado Museum of Natural History, which is now called the Denver Museum Of Nature and Science. This was the return of two men that authored a book on evolution of a certain type of fish, and our descent from it. At that time, all of them used the BC/AD calendar system without complaint. Even though at certain points during the talk, people would actually yell out something along the lines of "Praise Darwin!". It was the silliest thing I have ever heard! If they had been yelling "AMEN", I would have thought I was in a Baptist Church! That was silly rss that made me embarrassed to even be in the audience! And this BCE and CE versus BC and AD when they mean exactly the same thing is just another silly way (that's right! I said silly!) that atheists are trying to remove any reference to God from our culture! No thank you! I will continue to use BC and AD, and I hope you don't like it! Amen!
1 AD following 1 BC - without any year zero inbetween - is actually not a mistake by Dionysius or Bede but the proper way to go about it. If you think of your own lifespan, there is no 0th year of your life either. The year starting with your birth is your 1st year. It seems that sometimes ancients are smarter than moderns.
Except for doing math with years that span the epoch. There's a well known History podcaster who gave several Romans a lifespan one year longer than they actually lived, because he added their BCE birthdate to their CE death date as if there *was* a year 0. Eg Claudius (Aug 1, 10 BCE - Oct 13, 54 CE) was 63 years old, not 64.
But there is a 0th year you were alive. You were 0 years, and 2 months old at some point but we just drop the "0 years" and say "2 months old". The zeroth year of your life is the first year you're alive. Eventually you turn "1 year old" therefore you start your 2nd year on earth. So if you're 30 years old and 4 months, then you are currently living your 31st year on earth but you haven't finished your 31st year, so we say you're only 30 years old. When you're 31st birthday comes you will be 31 years old, but again you just started your 32nd year on earth - and so on. So a newborn baby is 0 years old but is currently living it's first year on earth. Yet, it is 0 years old.
@@the_original_Bilb_Ono There is no 0th year. The year you refer to is the 1st year. It ends when you are one year old because then you have surpassed your first year. BTW, you yourself call it "your first year"
I reject the usage of BCE/CE. Regarding history, classical methods are prefered because those methods have stood the test of time. There is no reason to convert to BCE/CE other than to satisfy post modernists. It is true that the use of BC/AD did not begin until 532 AD with Dionysius Exiguus. However, because Exiguus was aware that the dating system commonly used at that time began with the tyranical Emperor Diocletian era beginning in 284 AD, Exiguus changed the system to begin with the events of Jesus Christ. Exiguus' calculation is based on the calender used during his time which causes "1 A.D." to be 4 years after the birth of Christ in modern calenders. Exiguus' calculation is sound when compared with the records of Josephus who was born in 37 AD. (see p11 "The Annals of the World" James Ussher 1654/2003)
@@WorldofAntiquity Although the Venerable Bede (Baeda) contributed a system to date events beginning from Christ's birth, Bede comes 150 years after Exiguus. Because Exiguus was commissioned by Pope John I, we have sufficient evidence of Exiguus' work. We cannot say the same for Bede (Baede) of whom we know little of.
@@WorldofAntiquity "The Christian Era (that is the scheme of dates beginning 1 AD) was not devised until 532 AD. Its inventor, or contriver, was a monk named Dionysius Exiguus" (p11 James Ussher Annals of the World). "The Christian Era began with the birth of Christ Jesus ... The Nativity year in use today was established in AD 525 by Pope John I who commissioned Dionysius Exiguus the Little, a Roman abbot ... Dionysus calculated the commencement of the Christian Era as being January 1, 754 A.U.C. Thus 754 AUC became AD 1 on Dionysius' calendar" (p207-208 Dr Floyd Jones The Chronology of the Old Testament)
@@scottsoenksen842 Ussher doesn't say that Exiguus invented the BC/AD system, only that he came up with the idea of a Christian era. And Floyd Nolen Jones is not a historian. He gets it wrong.
THANK YOU for making this video. I had so many questions and watched a ton of videos that didn’t have the answers I was looking for and really appreciate that you took the time to make this piece of content. 💯👊🏼
You keep saying BCE/CE is more accurate, but failed to explain how so. You say BC/AD is off by 7 years or so, which has been well known for centuries, we have always known it was never perfect. Your video should either be saying it's the year 2027 CE (approx), or it's 2020 AD, but instead we get 2020 CE, which is confusing! Want to be PC, then how is that not appropriation? You explained the history behind BCE/CE, saying it's not a modern day attempt to remove Christ, then you explain it's a 17th century attempt to remove Christ... That is the only difference between BCE/CE and BC/AD as far as I can tell because you didnt explain how BCE/CE was more accurate. You just mentioned when it started to appear, not how it was created and more precise/accurate. You say this calendar system needs to be secular to be welcoming to non-Christians, but how is it inherently not? Islam, Jews, and other religions have their own calender's dates pinned to their own prophets. Will they be held to the same standard? It's ego centric to say our western calendar is default for the world. The west has its own system within its own bubble. Only in the last hundrend years, when globalism has taken root that other countries, who want to do business with the west, have started using it. Even still, non-western countries use their tradition calendars all the time: Chinese Lunar calendar is one example. Islam uses Hijri and its 1441 for them, is another example. Will scholars says its 1441 CE in Muslim countries, to be accomdation to non-Muslims? Doubtful. Even if they did, the year 1441 is still refering to their prophet Mohammed! And if non-Christian are really bothered by it, then I never see it. I see non-Christians celabrate Christian holidays all the time! Not once have I ever heard any Hindu, athesis, Muslim complain about it, but I do see them joining in on the holiday cheers. (And they're welcome too) If you are really offended by BC/AD, becaues it's not secular, well, guess what. Neither are the week days, or months! Wednesday and Thursday are just two examples of days of the week being named after Nordic gods, Odin (Or Wodin) and Thor. The Month July and August are named after Roman emporers, who were considered gods, Juluis Ceaser and Augustus. Keep in mind, Juluis Ceaser is famed for murdering a million Guals and enslaving another million. It's like having a month named after Hilter, or a North korean dictator. If you want to secularize the calendar fine, but at least do an honest job of it. The French Revolution tried just that. The BCE/CE fails to solve the very problem it is claimed to solve. Therefore, it's not an answer. The only difference it has from BC/AD is that it lacks Christ factor. 2020 CE still conveys what 2020 AD means, that we are 2020 years away from when we think Christ was here. Anyone with any critical thought should be able to see that. Now if I am still missing any facts from this video, or others sources, please feel free to correct me were I am wrong. Thank you.
Sorry for the mistakes. I know, *Where, not were. And other mistakes, I wish I could edit, or proof read lol. Thank you for your videos, I enjoy your content.
It's a very bad attempt at secularization, because CE actually stands for Christian Era, and obviously the whole Christian calendar starts with the traditional birth of Jesus. (Unless they're saying that the birth of Jesus is "common", i.e. central and shared by all mankind, which is actually more religious than the humble claims of Anno Domino.) It just makes dates unreadable while making second-rate academics feel edgy.
@Jeffrey Long I have literally read a Japanese work that translated it as Christian Era. If they aren't offended by it, it ain't offending non-christians
The claim that BCE/CE is not PC is, of course, silly. At the end of this presentation the mention of 'inclusiveness' is the dead giveaway. I am not a Christian and I realize that even if I were there is nothing in the Bible that gives a firm date on the Birth of Christ nor is there any reference to the concept of AD or BC. To that extent this presentation is totally correct. So What? BCE/CE is referring to the exact same time period. If one says something occurred in 325 CE that is no different than 325 AD. And there is no evidence that in the past that that BCE/CE was specifically used either. But BC/Ad certainly has written authority.The presentation was so tortured in its 'explanation' that it is laughable. The use of BC/AD does not disrespect other religions or cultures. I have no problem with for example, the Jewish calendar, if they want to use that. Again, more double speak and deflection from the PC crowd.
I use CE BCE because I am too thin skinned to refer to a religion I don't believe in, too lazy to actually come up with a new dating system, and too cowardly to admit that it's just exactly the same as BC- AD. So I will just use BC- AD, while pretending that I'm not - "common era".
This channel, compared to all other channels on this platform, in regards to the material presented, is most important to anyone who has a sincere desire to understand out past.
14:38 "Until by the late 20th century, it again reverted to simply common era." This suggests that the calendar itself is responsible for removing the "respectful nod to Christianity" referenced around 14:30, and that it was not intentionally done by late 20th century human actors. It's the old distinction between "it fell from me" versus "I dropped it." If we're going to accept this change, it is only proper to admit that it was intentional, and... well, you tell me what motivated the removal of respect for Christianity.
That’s because the Old Testament alone does not reference Jesus and anything as such happening, there are many contradictions in the new testament, especially regarding Jesus birth date,
I’ll go with BC/AD. First time hearing BCE/CE. We have lived with the former for so many years now, not changing. I have so many Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and atheists friends, honestly I don’t think they gave a damn and am quite sure 99,99% wouldn’t even know about this BCE/CE thing. Much ado about almost nothing. Maybe other parts of the world are more knowledgeable but it is going to be difficult convincing so many to change.
Bla bla bla It's AD/BC we all know the only reason anyone would be offended by that You can try to remove Christ Jesus all you want But you'll sure enough acknowledge his return
The video is only half-honest due to a couple of points: 1. Quoting the 17th century as the origin of CE and BCE still means it's a lot younger than BC/AD, the opposite of giving CE more authority. 2. Just because it had been used before does not mean it was not hijacked by leftists in the humanities, which, unfortunately, is the majority. 3. It follows the general apologetical, self-denying trend in the West, which, by the way, no other cultural group follows.
1: the video never claimed that the length of the usage equals the level of authority of said usage; therefore your response is irrelevant and dishonest; because it accuses the content of being half-honest while misinterpreting it on purpose; that is the true dishonesty.
Exactly, and ave Caesar! An honest video might have mentioned the more pertinent modern historical introduction of the Common Era in Bolshevik Russia. Kepler is irrelevant.
I am not a Christian and though I intend to write historical non-fiction I will never use the phony pretentious and offensive PC - BCE and CE. It will always be (as it should be) B.C. and A.D.!!!
B.C. and A.D. are the correct terms. You are correct that the precise date of the birth of Christ is not known, but no sensible would place the date before 7 B.C. or after 7 A.D. The Eastern Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church and the Ethiopian Christian Church all use different calendars. So even amongst ourselves Christians don't agree. And so what! You don't have to believe in the divinity of Christ to accept that he was a major historical figure. Ours is a Western Civilization. We need not include decadent easterners or barbarous southerners.
Thank you for your time and work, I wish everyone could watch this, growing up in the Bible belt was a different type of education,and yes some of us worship nature and yes comments will be interesting/ugly, have a great day and stay safe
Yes, we need a ''Metric system'' equivalent for historical time. May I suggest we use 4000 B.C. as the new ''year 1''. The beginning of human civilization
th-cam.com/video/czgOWmtGVGs/w-d-xo.html @Kurzgesagt promotes the Human Era which begins in 10,000 BCE. For current CE years just put a 1 in front of the year. But it does leave vast swathes of years with "nothing to do". Other than ancient Egypt and Sumeria, most of dateable history doesn't start until the 9000s.
Making CE exactly the same as AD implies that Christianity is the norm, and by extention alternatives are inferior. If it truly was a common era then a system linked to a particular religion wouldn't be used. That's why I always call CE Christian Era, because that's what it is. p.s. It is irrelevant that the system was devised using some guesswork, it is still tied to that religion.
1st: the video doesn't deny that it's related to religion, it spends the majority of its length explaining how its origins in the religion and how its related to it. 2nd: you need to keep in mind the important point displayed in the video which concerns the accuracy of Jesus' birth, the CE system in that regards doesn't impose an inaccurate date to the event unlike the BC/AD system; therefore it is arguably more respectful to Christ and not inferior to the BC/AD set -- at least in that regard.
@@theonlygoodlookinghabsburg2081 Whether historians now believe that Christ was born a earlier or later than the moment right at zero (that time between 1 BC and AD 1, like midnight on a clock) is meaningless, they did their best at the time and created the metric, which stands to this day. That CE/BCE is a system purportedly based on nothing so it cannot be inaccurate does not recommend it -- it is still simply changing the letters on the AD/BC system, and hence tries to hide the fact that it is religiously based. Pretending that it isn't also does not recommend it. The point remains, too, that using this CE/BCE outright proclaims the superiority of the Christian system, its "common" nature, that colonialism and Euro-American dominance has imposed its way on the world. That may be true as a practical matter, but imposing the phrasing "common" on everyone is like spiking the ball in the end zone. Discourteous at best.
All arguments against a religion-based era being called "common" just as much cobtradicts an era not based on a religion "common". An era by definition refers to some event and such an event can never be universally common.
Since folks have NO definitive evidence, none of us actually know. I feel it in my soul that We have been here and washed away more than a few times. 🤞🏾 Here's to the next flood 🥂 May we all be humbled and reminded how to love one another again.
What system of measurement did the Chinese use in their culture at the time? Were there any historical disagreements amongst different cultures for how time should be measured or did they all just use a similar agreed upon event like the birth of a ruler etc, until Judeo Christian thinking overtook the world? Your head starts to spin when you realize that measuring “history” is based on an agreed upon event in time and not fact.
Personally, I think this comes across as a little hypocritical. I've heard some scholars refer to this a Before the Christian Era or the Christian Era, but they also say that it is less offensive to non Christians. Let those who wish not to use BC and AD continue with whatever tradition they were given, but don't try to claim one is less offensive than the other. That is an absolute lie. As long as university professors don't demand the use of either, I am ok with whichever people choose to use. Otherwise, it could lead to law suits against a professor and the university, and for good reason.
Islamic coins were the first to have dates on them, albeit not Christian dates. The first Christian dates on a coin are said to be on a coin dated 1234 struck in Denmark using Roman numerals. The earliest coins with Arabic numerals and AD dating was 1464 on a Half Thaler of Tyrol, Austria. The usage of AD dating on coins made it more ubiquitous and cemented its usage in Europe. Some dates on Spanish and German coins only have the second two digits of the date.
I just watched a video that presented its information in an educated way even citing sources such as the Bible. Funny how the comments are full of unsubstantiated nonsense.
You just watched a video that put up a ridiculous strawman (I have never seen BC/AD defended as biblically based), and waffled on about some "accuracy" that is ultimately meaningless as the change is only about the name, not about the actual numbering. This is like the absurd rebranding corporations do now and then. Using the Christian calendar while refusing to acknowledge to whom you owe its existence is pathetic.
The reasoning about the supposed flaw in the AD/BC system is itself flawed because it clearly ignores the way the Anno Domini timeline truly works. No matter what you figure out with the reigns of Herod and Augustus Christ will always be born on *0 BC/1 AD.* It never ceases to amaze me that people forget this and accept such stupidity as believing Christ could be born 6 Years before He was supposed to be born i.e. *6 BC.*
My major issue with CE is the word “common”. It isn’t historically accurate when covering a 2000+ year period. I would accept New Era, Western Era, or Christian Era. All are far more accurate than “Common”. And when I see someone use BCE CE, I automatically assume they fundamentally don’t understand human history, cultural and linguistic evolution, technological evolution, or the timescale of which they speak.
Informative video. I use BCE/CE regularly for the reason you do: it is historically inaccurate, and as a historian, I want to be as accurate as possible. But I have to admit that when giving talks or presentations to non-Christians, I have caused offense in the past (to Jewish people, for example) when using BC/AD. Now yes, some Christians might be offended by my using BCE/CE, but to me it seems slightly preferable to offend people by what I don't say than to offend people by what I say.
do you think that the new chronology took advantage of this initial error to reform the chronology of western events? the approach of this school is rather radical.
What’s the symbol of Jesus? The fish, what age started 150 bc? The age of Pisces, the fish, Jesus is a continuation of sun worship, born December 25th and died and rose on the 3rd day, same as the winter solstice as the sun is in the bows of the earth for 3days through the trajectory of the earth being the shortest days of the year and rises again in the north eastern hemisphere and brings life back (in northern hemisphere) and portrays the movement of the sun throughout the whole Bible
The gregorian calendar is more in accordance to the movement of earths planetary system The purpose implementing Anno Domini at that time in history proves a differentiation of some 500 years history being altered with cultures of the East. Mainly India and formation Zoroasttrianism.
Opinion vs facts. Lots of supposition here. How can you say w all the “missing explanations” that there was no anti Christian or Christ sentiment in the adoption of CE nomenclature over time? Do you know the heart of Dionisis was not hostile to Christ? I hear your logic arguments. Where are the arguments of the Spirit? Or do you not believe the Spirit of Jesus Christ is alive real and active? How can you assess the adoption of such a perspective, which takes Christ out of man’s thinking of history, while saying no extant anti christ influence exists within all these these people over time? I like history. This video goes beyond presentation of history and facts . It expresses an opinion of men’s intentions, purporting to know their inner thoughts & motivations, and presents those opinions as facts. You cloud those opinions in a diatribe of eloquent language, but present them as facts and history. Stop it. Just the facts please.
BCE is wokery. Plain and simple. And its deceptive. So if a student asks what is the current era? And the answer is, since Christ, but we're not allowed to say that anymore.
For those who are outraged and are having issues understanding what the video is about. Take a look. www.macmillandictionary.com/us/buzzword/entries/common-era.html
Scholar Robert R Cargo? Scholar in what area or discipline? This guy knows less about ecclesiastical history and about the Bible, than a 1st year theology student.
To summarize, the effort to remove any hint of Christianity from the dating system has been going on for several centuries. The modern efforts to remove Christianity are a continuation of that. You utterly failed to disprove claims that there is an effort to remove Christianity from the dating system.
I like BP, Before Present. I've read that that refers to 1950 as starting (present) so that everyone could agree on a staring point but I don't know if it's true. Since 1950 is 70 years ago that date cannot work for me. I'll use the present year in my own mind as close enough since I'm not in academics.
I actually prefer BCE/CE. It makes more sense when dating historical events non related to Christian polities or cultures. For example, dating the War of the Three Kingdoms in China as 220-280 AD doesn't make sense for anyone, not even for Christians. Dating it as 220-280 CE, even if the span of time is just the same, makes more sense as it is related to our present-day dating system. Yeah, it is still based upon acculturation, but to be honest the troubles it would imply to "invent" a new dating system would make the effort pointless. Replacing AD for CE it is just convenient. Of course, being who we are there will be people that will be triggered: don't sweat it; continue using BC/AD if that is what makes you happy. None will be angry at you by doing so. And if someone is, just ignore it as a bigot.
BCE and CE sound phonetically similar and thus increases chances of confusion in spoken presentations. BCE is an extra syllable and letter than BC. It is more cumbersome anyway you put it.
Using CE/BCE makes matter complicated when new generations make a serious inquiry of where and Common era occurred but if accidentally one who introduced it never bother to research it that it was based on AD/BC synonimously these new learners would be in hanging situation and must do more historical research. Then come to realized that the proponents of CE/BCE were stupid people .
Strange error at 8:41. Because of the "slaughter of the first born" including those up to 2 years old, you place Jesus's birth possibly at 6 BCE. Then you say "if we include the missing year zero that means he could have been born in 7 BCE." So there are two problems with this. 1) There is no year 0. It's not "missing" like everybody lived through it but nobody remembered to record any historical events. It never happened. Nobody's BCE birth year would be different because of including year 0. 2) by "adding" the missing year 0, you added 1 to the absolute value of the birth year. In fact the opposite would happen. If we turn BCE years into negative numbers by "adding" year 0, they reduce by one. 1 BCE becomes 0, 2 BCE becomes -1, etc. So 6 BCE would become -5, not -7.
Then you make a further strange inference at 8:56, usefully spelt out in a caption. Doubt about Jesus's birth year means we can infer that Jesus was 7 years older than we think, not that the events of his life took place 7 years earlier. What we don't know is exactly when Jesus was born, not when he preached and died. The fifteenth year of Tiberius was 28-29 CE. Pontius Pilate was indisputably prefect from 26-36 CE. It's ridiculous to redate the events of the gospels by assuming that "about 30 years old" is correct while the other undoubted dating texts are wrong.
It's funny how some individuals in the comments keep accusing the usage of BCE/CE as being inevitabely a product of political correctness; yet they are the ones who keep getting triggered and bringing up the subject when it's almost entirely irrelevant or marginal -- of course I' talking about some of the previous videos of this channel which were and are unrelatable to the subject.
"BCE/CE as being inevitabely a product of political correctness" Just because some obscure Germans toyed around with the idea centuries ago it doesn't mean that it's not being pushed by woke secularists who get triggered by Christ.
@@Chrysostomus_17 Yea and just because it's been used by seculars doesn't mean it's a secretly desired PC tool that is indeniably seeking to undermine Christ. We could play this game forever. First of all; these aren't some "obscure Germans," they are clearly "well known Germans." Secondly, the video explains how the system has become the used one through providing a chronological context. And as long as you don't provide any emperical proof to how the usage is inevitebly a PC tool of triggered seculars through debunking what is said in the video and providing alternative material in support of your claim; you're just speaking your mind.
We were asked to watch this video in one of our assignments and write an essay, I had destroyed the credibility of this video as anti-Christian and got an A from my professor. This video is based on myths and lies.
It's just an indexing point in time. But, I dislike giving even unintentional lip-service to a religion. No one owns the date with BCE/CE, it's almost entirely certain that it wasn't even when the person referred to as Jesus was born, and we don't have to change historical dates around. 👍
I say, again, Thank Goddess I was raised by an Atheist lol ... seriously, it's nice to be able to objectively accept information for it's own value ...
Excellent history lesson. CE and BCE are best. The whole world uses the Christian/Western dating system, and it is counter-productive to be triumphalist about it. 😃
The only reason to switch to BCE and CE is to show that we respect those who are part of the modern world but who have beliefs that are not Christian. And that is not a *bad* reason per se. But, that said, some people are only happy if they can shove their personal religion down people's throats. For many of them, any deviation that tends to decentralize their preferred religion is often seen as an "attack" on that religion rather than as as an attempt at being polite to others. If you are used to your religion being dominant, then any move towards equal respect for others violates expectations, and the breach of what one expects is often a cause of outsized emotional reactions. (For a non-secular example, someone cutting you off in traffic is trivial in the grand scheme of life, and yet because it's unexpected it sometimes makes certain drivers irrationally angry.)
@Pecu Alex No one denies it was originally based on a miscalculation by religious officials of the year in which Jesus was (supposedly) born. But, that religious impulse notwithstanding, in light of the inconvenience of changing the dating system in common use, we simply keep the numbering system while acknowledging that for more than half the world's population the supposed event around which it was originally based is not at all important. It is true that most of the world has adapted to using that particular dating system as a common standard, not because of Jesus, but because of globalization. There is nothing wrong with acknowledging that those people shouldn't have Christianity foisted upon them or in acknowledging that their religious beliefs (or lack of them) are to be respected equally. This change is a nod to that much in the way that saying "Happy Holidays" in early December is more inclusive than "Merry Christmas." Being more generic, it includes the beliefs of more people... and yet, were it not for the historical fact of Christmas being in December we would not say *either* phrase. But, as I said, some people want to shove their religion down other people's throats at every opportunity as if all should be forced to acknowledge that particular mythology as if it were true. For those people "Happy Holidays" is offensive. For many of them, "Xmas" is offensive even though that's reasonably ancient. No one objects to your or anyone else's use of "B.C." if you prefer it, and no one has been drinking out of being an historian for not using BCE, it, like "Happy Holidays" is an alternative there for those who either don't accept Christianity or who do but wish to signal that they understand that it is but one religion among many, and not give it pride of place. Again, they still have to use the dating system, because that is what is in common use, but they don't have to be dicks about it. At the same time, again, Christians who want to are free to be use BC if they want.
@@Pandaemoni I don't shriek in terror when Muslims greet me with Salah and so I don't expect non-christians to shriek in terror if I greet them with Christmas.
@@ikengaspirit3063 I don't believe anyone does shriek in terror when you greet them with a Merry Christmas (although I wonder if they roll their eyes). On the other hand, I live in America where Christians often "REEEEEE!" in anger if they hear the words "Happy Holidays" or Starbucks introduces a plain red cup that doesn't say "Merry Christmas" on the side (and take it as disrespectful to Jesus or even as part of a "War on Christmas"). www.eater.com/2015/11/10/9705570/starbucks-holiday-red-cups-controversy-history
To those that feel the need for the B C and AD concept, try this BCE= Before Christian Era, CE = Christian Era. As a compromise with a recognition that the currently used dating system is based from the Christian tradition.
BCE and CE sound phonetically similar and thus increases chances of confusion in spoken presentations. BCE is an extra syllable and letter than BC. It is more cumbersome anyway you put it.
The statement in minute 16 about someone not being able to say he was born 20 years ago without having another person referencing that date of birth is exactly why evolution will only ever be a theory and not fact and makes it not science. Human accounts/WORD is the primary and I dare say the only natural testament we have of dating time. This is an interesting video. Jesus Christ can never be removed from history though because history is in our WORDS and Jesus is the WORD. The only thing we can do to the word is affirm it or deny it and both carry a consequence.
@@celteuskara lol one random comment on TH-cam doesn't express the "central motivation" of the whole thing; it's just one random dude expressing his opinion. It doesn't say it all at all.
Not everyone is Christian. Don't use Christian dates. Pretty simple. Even if we all know the dates revolve around Christ. If you want to use them in a church setting, fine. That's where they belong. But not in the public sphere.
@@Chrysostomus_17 Good point. Why are these people upset about BC/AD referring to Jesus, but okay with March (ref. to the god Mars) and Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday referring to pagan gods? Not very consistent.
@@adamclark1972uk, Because while ancient Greek and Roman religions have long since faded into myth and have lost all meaning in them, Christianity on the other hand is still as popular as it was thousands years ago and is still the most followed religion in the world right now so because of that not everyone in the world can have the same beliefs as Christians.
@@adamclark1972uk Yes, th econsensus of the historians who most often also happen to be theologians. there are a lot of historians who view this differently, the most prominent of which would be Richard Carrier. But there are a lot of others. I find their arguments pretty compelling.
ya thats some pretty comon sense on the comon concept of comon era ! i can dig it and keep an open mind to dig more when its my time to dig a little deeper ! 🕊🫡 it's said if you want to see time fly ? just throw your timex watch out the window ! just don't flip father time the 🕊 bird ! 🤙👍🫡
![F.HERO Ft. JSPKK x ลำไย ไหทองคำ x M-PEE - ไม่สนิทบิดหมด (Thai Riders Anthem) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kPJZ0UihBfk/mqdefault.jpg)
What are your thoughts on BC/AD and BCE/CE? Which is more accurate? Are they both acceptable? Comment your thoughts? To support the channel, become a Patron and make history matter!
Patreon: www.patreon.com/The_Study_of_Antiquity_and_the_Middle_Ages
Donate directly to PayPal: paypal.me/NickBarksdale
Enjoy history merchandise? Check out affiliate link to SPQR Emporium!
spqr-emporium.com?aff=3
*Dislaimer, the link above is an affiliate link which means we will earn a generous commission from your magnificent purchase, just another way to help out the channel!
Join our community!
Facebook Page:
facebook.com/THESTUDYOFANTIQUITYANDTHEMIDDLEAGES/
Twitter: twitter.com/NickBarksdale
Instagram: instagram.com/study_of_antiquity_middle_ages/
Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/164050034145170/
"Common Era" is so demeaning. There is nothing common about it. It's not even an era. "Oh, Christ was born that year, so that' now an ERA and it's common, no matter if you have never heard of him!"
It's better to be honest and specific. Call it "Gregorian Count" or something similar. "The battle of hastings (1066 GC)" and "Julius Caesar died in the year 44 BGC".
(And just to be entirely clear, I am atheist, so that's not the reason).
In my university we used B.P. (Before Present), curiously, because it is (I think) more common in other sciences and disciplines.
I've just popped open the video, but I believe I heard bc/ad is nowhere near as old as most people think. I think bc might've been first used in English in Tudor times? Maybe even Stuart? The Romans used ab urbe condita or more commonly "The year of the consuls C. Julius Caesar and M. Antonius" (44 BC).
That said, I think it's silly to change BC/AD to BCE/CE while not changing the cornerstone date. It's still grounded around the supposed birth of Jesus of Nazareth, whatever letters you wanna use. If they're gonna change it up, change it up, y'kno? It'd be a bitch to relearn all the dates, but I'd be on board for a Before Battle of Hastings/After Norman Conquest dating system, although a Pre/Post Columbian Exchange would prolly be more comprehensive to the most people
termeownator I was just beginning to question my original assumption that anyone who would use the name "termeownator", even ironically, must be lacking critical cognitive ability when you proved it by using the non-word "prolly".
@@jackgraeme3557 Hah, is prolly really that big of a faux pas? It's weird, it creeps in every now and again almost of its own volition. *Probably* a holdover from aim, and also that's kind of how I say it in real life now that I think about it. I imagine it's akin to g'day and the like, only more red. Termeownator's solid gold, though. The absolute goofiest of the "meow" trope that mangles the word it's embedded in so utterly yet somehow still conveys the message is at least mildly clever. To be fair, though, if I knew how to change a TH-cam handle, I'd switch to Edward Lambshanks in a heartbeat. Now tell me that doesn't just exude critical cognitive ability. It's like something a Welshman still bitter about the 13th century would name his young boyfriend
I'm an atheist and I have never been bothered by the AD/BC system. CE/BCE refers to the exact same dates anyhow. A TH-camr named Lindybeige suggested that we use AD for "ascending dates" and BC for "backwards chronology." That way sensitive non-Christians could avoid some butt hurt. I don't like how "BCE" and "CE" sound so similar to each other. AD/BC uses four different letters, So I do prefer that system and I DO think that the whole CE/BCE thing is mainly due to political correctness. Or at least I see the recent adoption of it to be PC.
I like your honesty!
If they're that upset about the religious connotations then why aren't they upset about the names of the days of the week, or the names of the planets? It's absurd really.
It has nothing to do with being bothered - just aware that when A.D. is used you are basically saying "the year of our Lord" - when he is not our Lord and we as a nation don't have the establishment of any religion and those who are atheists or other religions would be able to use what they wish and this is a good way to do it - thus public places and institutions should be neutral. As the Vid said it had nothing to do with P.C. - it was in use since the 17th century particularly by the educated.
Thank you for considering this issue as you have done, rather than viewing it as an opportunity to score points against Christians. I definitely agree that AD/BC is a better system with less potential for confusion, and of course if anyone wants to see them as acronyms for something other than Anno Domini and Before Christ, they are welcome to. I've spoken with atheists who genuinely think that if we educate everyone to a high level and purge every last trace of Christianity from our society and culture, we will usher in a new Age of Reason and all work together towards the Greater Good. As a Christian I don't share this vision, of course, and although I do make an effort to take care of this world (by recycling, limiting unnecessary purchases, etc.) my hopes are entirely placed in the promise of heaven for those who repent and choose Christ.
@@billbillerton6122that’s what they’re going for next lol
both BCE/CE and BC/AD are used to date historical events, but BCE/CE is a secular alternative that avoids religious associations, while BC/AD is historically rooted in Christian tradition. The choice between the two systems is often a matter of personal, cultural, or academic preference. Both systems are widely recognized and used in various contexts.
You can say whatever you like, naturally. But I saw the designations BCE/CE for the first time in 2000's. All my life before that (around 40 years) I only ever saw only the BC/AD used.
And, BC/AD are more practical, since you see at a glance, which era is meant.
I have been reading history for over 30 years and I don't recall BCE/CE ever being used until recently.
BC/AD 👍
BCE an additional letter to say the same thing. I have noticed that BCE and CE can be confused in presentations or misheard. BC and AD are phonetically different and universally known as 'older' and 'newer'. Revisiting this dating system seems as silly as renaming Wednesday as 4thday by claiming its more accurate, and then labeling anyone who disputes as Oden Saga-thumping Religious Zealots.
Yes
I believe this whole thing is ridiculous! I have never heard of or heard anyone who is actually offended by the use of BC or AD! And I'm an educated man!
A number of years ago, I was invited to a talk held at the Colorado Museum of Natural History, which is now called the Denver Museum Of Nature and Science. This was the return of two men that authored a book on evolution of a certain type of fish, and our descent from it. At that time, all of them used the BC/AD calendar system without complaint. Even though at certain points during the talk, people would actually yell out something along the lines of "Praise Darwin!". It was the silliest thing I have ever heard! If they had been yelling "AMEN", I would have thought I was in a Baptist Church!
That was silly rss that made me embarrassed to even be in the audience! And this BCE and CE versus BC and AD when they mean exactly the same thing is just another silly way (that's right! I said silly!) that atheists are trying to remove any reference to God from our culture! No thank you! I will continue to use BC and AD, and I hope you don't like it! Amen!
Typical Christian attitude!
1 AD following 1 BC - without any year zero inbetween - is actually not a mistake by Dionysius or Bede but the proper way to go about it. If you think of your own lifespan, there is no 0th year of your life either. The year starting with your birth is your 1st year.
It seems that sometimes ancients are smarter than moderns.
Except for doing math with years that span the epoch. There's a well known History podcaster who gave several Romans a lifespan one year longer than they actually lived, because he added their BCE birthdate to their CE death date as if there *was* a year 0. Eg Claudius (Aug 1, 10 BCE - Oct 13, 54 CE) was 63 years old, not 64.
But there is a 0th year you were alive. You were 0 years, and 2 months old at some point but we just drop the "0 years" and say "2 months old". The zeroth year of your life is the first year you're alive. Eventually you turn "1 year old" therefore you start your 2nd year on earth. So if you're 30 years old and 4 months, then you are currently living your 31st year on earth but you haven't finished your 31st year, so we say you're only 30 years old. When you're 31st birthday comes you will be 31 years old, but again you just started your 32nd year on earth - and so on. So a newborn baby is 0 years old but is currently living it's first year on earth. Yet, it is 0 years old.
@@the_original_Bilb_Ono There is no 0th year. The year you refer to is the 1st year. It ends when you are one year old because then you have surpassed your first year. BTW, you yourself call it "your first year"
The concept of ‘zero’ was unknown at that time. Google it!
I reject the usage of BCE/CE. Regarding history, classical methods are prefered because those methods have stood the test of time. There is no reason to convert to BCE/CE other than to satisfy post modernists. It is true that the use of BC/AD did not begin until 532 AD with Dionysius Exiguus. However, because Exiguus was aware that the dating system commonly used at that time began with the tyranical Emperor Diocletian era beginning in 284 AD, Exiguus changed the system to begin with the events of Jesus Christ. Exiguus' calculation is based on the calender used during his time which causes "1 A.D." to be 4 years after the birth of Christ in modern calenders. Exiguus' calculation is sound when compared with the records of Josephus who was born in 37 AD. (see p11 "The Annals of the World" James Ussher 1654/2003)
Our current BC/AD system is based on Bede, not on Exiguus. And in Bede's system, 1 AD referred to the same year in his time as it does today.
@@WorldofAntiquity Although the Venerable Bede (Baeda) contributed a system to date events beginning from Christ's birth, Bede comes 150 years after Exiguus. Because Exiguus was commissioned by Pope John I, we have sufficient evidence of Exiguus' work. We cannot say the same for Bede (Baede) of whom we know little of.
@@scottsoenksen842 But Exiguus didn't invent the BC/AD system. We're not even sure in what year he placed Jesus' birth.
@@WorldofAntiquity "The Christian Era (that is the scheme of dates beginning 1 AD) was not devised until 532 AD. Its inventor, or contriver, was a monk named Dionysius Exiguus" (p11 James Ussher Annals of the World). "The Christian Era began with the birth of Christ Jesus ... The Nativity year in use today was established in AD 525 by Pope John I who commissioned Dionysius Exiguus the Little, a Roman abbot ... Dionysus calculated the commencement of the Christian Era as being January 1, 754 A.U.C. Thus 754 AUC became AD 1 on Dionysius' calendar" (p207-208 Dr Floyd Jones The Chronology of the Old Testament)
@@scottsoenksen842 Ussher doesn't say that Exiguus invented the BC/AD system, only that he came up with the idea of a Christian era. And Floyd Nolen Jones is not a historian. He gets it wrong.
THANK YOU for making this video. I had so many questions and watched a ton of videos that didn’t have the answers I was looking for and really appreciate that you took the time to make this piece of content. 💯👊🏼
bc & ad was good enough for my ancestors & it will remain good enough for me.
Can't teach an old dog new tricks
Silly
Your ancestors also believed the world was flat are you good with that?
@@HalfBakedProductions420 Those ancestors that last thought the world was flat dated by reference to archons, Olympiads and consuls.
My thoughts are that we just keep using BC/AD with the acknowledgement that Christ was born slightly earlier.
MrArchonAlarion how do you know that?
I despise the BCE/CE system. Reeks of the PC culture to me. Can’t stand it.
And that's exactly why they use it!
I will always use BC/AD.
How DARE you stick with logic and facts!
You keep saying BCE/CE is more accurate, but failed to explain how so. You say BC/AD is off by 7 years or so, which has been well known for centuries, we have always known it was never perfect. Your video should either be saying it's the year 2027 CE (approx), or it's 2020 AD, but instead we get 2020 CE, which is confusing! Want to be PC, then how is that not appropriation?
You explained the history behind BCE/CE, saying it's not a modern day attempt to remove Christ, then you explain it's a 17th century attempt to remove Christ... That is the only difference between BCE/CE and BC/AD as far as I can tell because you didnt explain how BCE/CE was more accurate. You just mentioned when it started to appear, not how it was created and more precise/accurate.
You say this calendar system needs to be secular to be welcoming to non-Christians, but how is it inherently not? Islam, Jews, and other religions have their own calender's dates pinned to their own prophets. Will they be held to the same standard?
It's ego centric to say our western calendar is default for the world. The west has its own system within its own bubble. Only in the last hundrend years, when globalism has taken root that other countries, who want to do business with the west, have started using it. Even still, non-western countries use their tradition calendars all the time: Chinese Lunar calendar is one example. Islam uses Hijri and its 1441 for them, is another example. Will scholars says its 1441 CE in Muslim countries, to be accomdation to non-Muslims? Doubtful. Even if they did, the year 1441 is still refering to their prophet Mohammed!
And if non-Christian are really bothered by it, then I never see it. I see non-Christians celabrate Christian holidays all the time! Not once have I ever heard any Hindu, athesis, Muslim complain about it, but I do see them joining in on the holiday cheers. (And they're welcome too)
If you are really offended by BC/AD, becaues it's not secular, well, guess what. Neither are the week days, or months! Wednesday and Thursday are just two examples of days of the week being named after Nordic gods, Odin (Or Wodin) and Thor. The Month July and August are named after Roman emporers, who were considered gods, Juluis Ceaser and Augustus. Keep in mind, Juluis Ceaser is famed for murdering a million Guals and enslaving another million. It's like having a month named after Hilter, or a North korean dictator.
If you want to secularize the calendar fine, but at least do an honest job of it. The French Revolution tried just that.
The BCE/CE fails to solve the very problem it is claimed to solve. Therefore, it's not an answer. The only difference it has from BC/AD is that it lacks Christ factor. 2020 CE still conveys what 2020 AD means, that we are 2020 years away from when we think Christ was here. Anyone with any critical thought should be able to see that.
Now if I am still missing any facts from this video, or others sources, please feel free to correct me were I am wrong.
Thank you.
Sorry for the mistakes. I know, *Where, not were. And other mistakes, I wish I could edit, or proof read lol.
Thank you for your videos, I enjoy your content.
This is the best response to the video's content, but alas wasted because the video's content isn't the least bit sincere.
Wow, perfect answer! I will definitely use your arguments!
You are a master scholar in this sphere of knowledge. Tell me, what books did you read to discover these truths?
@@anthonysantacruz8967 I would like to know the same. It's all very interesting.
It's a very bad attempt at secularization, because CE actually stands for Christian Era, and obviously the whole Christian calendar starts with the traditional birth of Jesus. (Unless they're saying that the birth of Jesus is "common", i.e. central and shared by all mankind, which is actually more religious than the humble claims of Anno Domino.) It just makes dates unreadable while making second-rate academics feel edgy.
@Jeffrey Long I have literally read a Japanese work that translated it as Christian Era.
If they aren't offended by it, it ain't offending non-christians
The claim that BCE/CE is not PC is, of course, silly. At the end of this presentation the mention of 'inclusiveness' is the dead giveaway. I am not a Christian and I realize that even if I were there is nothing in the Bible that gives a firm date on the Birth of Christ nor is there any reference to the concept of AD or BC. To that extent this presentation is totally correct. So What? BCE/CE is referring to the exact same time period. If one says something occurred in 325 CE that is no different than 325 AD. And there is no evidence that in the past that that BCE/CE was specifically used either. But BC/Ad certainly has written authority.The presentation was so tortured in its 'explanation' that it is laughable. The use of BC/AD does not disrespect other religions or cultures. I have no problem with for example, the Jewish calendar, if they want to use that. Again, more double speak and deflection from the PC crowd.
I use CE BCE because I am too thin skinned to refer to a religion I don't believe in, too lazy to actually come up with a new dating system, and too cowardly to admit that it's just exactly the same as BC- AD.
So I will just use BC- AD, while pretending that I'm not - "common era".
This channel, compared to all other channels on this platform, in regards to the material presented, is most important to anyone who has a sincere desire to understand out past.
14:38 "Until by the late 20th century, it again reverted to simply common era." This suggests that the calendar itself is responsible for removing the "respectful nod to Christianity" referenced around 14:30, and that it was not intentionally done by late 20th century human actors. It's the old distinction between "it fell from me" versus "I dropped it." If we're going to accept this change, it is only proper to admit that it was intentional, and... well, you tell me what motivated the removal of respect for Christianity.
That’s because the Old Testament alone does not reference Jesus and anything as such happening, there are many contradictions in the new testament, especially regarding Jesus birth date,
@@evabernardo5847 Regardless, it's motivations are purely political correctness since the exact same dates are used. I will never use BC or BCE.
I’ll go with BC/AD. First time hearing BCE/CE. We have lived with the former for so many years now, not changing. I have so many Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and atheists friends, honestly I don’t think they gave a damn and am quite sure 99,99% wouldn’t even know about this BCE/CE thing. Much ado about almost nothing. Maybe other parts of the world are more knowledgeable but it is going to be difficult convincing so many to change.
Bla bla bla
It's AD/BC
we all know the only reason anyone would be offended by that
You can try to remove Christ Jesus all you want
But you'll sure enough acknowledge his return
The video is only half-honest due to a couple of points:
1. Quoting the 17th century as the origin of CE and BCE still means it's a lot younger than BC/AD, the opposite of giving CE more authority.
2. Just because it had been used before does not mean it was not hijacked by leftists in the humanities, which, unfortunately, is the majority.
3. It follows the general apologetical, self-denying trend in the West, which, by the way, no other cultural group follows.
1: the video never claimed that the length of the usage equals the level of authority of said usage; therefore your response is irrelevant and dishonest; because it accuses the content of being half-honest while misinterpreting it on purpose; that is the true dishonesty.
Exactly, and ave Caesar! An honest video might have mentioned the more pertinent modern historical introduction of the Common Era in Bolshevik Russia. Kepler is irrelevant.
Comment section is going to be a dumpster fire 😂
UsefulCharts that could be my endgame, haha!
Oh yes, that was bold to open the comments section here... ;-)
I am not a Christian and though I intend to write historical non-fiction I will never use the phony pretentious and offensive PC - BCE and CE. It will always be (as it should be) B.C. and A.D.!!!
@Actionbastard That's just your fantasy, noone is calling people who use BC or AD racists or phobes or whatever.. it's your own phantasm.
@Actionbastard It's not "self" hating when it comes from people of non-Christian heritage. It's just good old fashioned Christian-hating.
Apply this same logic of a "more correct" description to any scientific name and see scientific names change every decade.
B.C. and A.D. are the correct terms. You are correct that the precise date of the birth of Christ is not known, but no sensible would place the date before 7 B.C. or after 7 A.D. The Eastern Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church and the Ethiopian Christian Church all use different calendars. So even amongst ourselves Christians don't agree. And so what! You don't have to believe in the divinity of Christ to accept that he was a major historical figure. Ours is a Western Civilization. We need not include decadent easterners or barbarous southerners.
Excellent presentation. Thank you for your research. I use BCE and CE on my channel and get a lot of flak for it.
yea because you need to give credit to the creator of the exelent common calendar. :)
Thank you for your time and work, I wish everyone could watch this, growing up in the Bible belt was a different type of education,and yes some of us worship nature and yes comments will be interesting/ugly, have a great day and stay safe
Yes, we need a ''Metric system'' equivalent for historical time. May I suggest we use 4000 B.C. as the new ''year 1''. The beginning of human civilization
th-cam.com/video/czgOWmtGVGs/w-d-xo.html
@Kurzgesagt promotes the Human Era which begins in 10,000 BCE. For current CE years just put a 1 in front of the year. But it does leave vast swathes of years with "nothing to do". Other than ancient Egypt and Sumeria, most of dateable history doesn't start until the 9000s.
Thanks all your uploads are just brilliant
That was clear as mud.
mike blubaugh 😂😂👍
Making CE exactly the same as AD implies that Christianity is the norm, and by extention alternatives are inferior. If it truly was a common era then a system linked to a particular religion wouldn't be used. That's why I always call CE Christian Era, because that's what it is.
p.s. It is irrelevant that the system was devised using some guesswork, it is still tied to that religion.
1st: the video doesn't deny that it's related to religion, it spends the majority of its length explaining how its origins in the religion and how its related to it.
2nd: you need to keep in mind the important point displayed in the video which concerns the accuracy of Jesus' birth, the CE system in that regards doesn't impose an inaccurate date to the event unlike the BC/AD system; therefore it is arguably more respectful to Christ and not inferior to the BC/AD set -- at least in that regard.
@@theonlygoodlookinghabsburg2081 Whether historians now believe that Christ was born a earlier or later than the moment right at zero (that time between 1 BC and AD 1, like midnight on a clock) is meaningless, they did their best at the time and created the metric, which stands to this day. That CE/BCE is a system purportedly based on nothing so it cannot be inaccurate does not recommend it -- it is still simply changing the letters on the AD/BC system, and hence tries to hide the fact that it is religiously based. Pretending that it isn't also does not recommend it. The point remains, too, that using this CE/BCE outright proclaims the superiority of the Christian system, its "common" nature, that colonialism and Euro-American dominance has imposed its way on the world. That may be true as a practical matter, but imposing the phrasing "common" on everyone is like spiking the ball in the end zone. Discourteous at best.
All arguments against a religion-based era being called "common" just as much cobtradicts an era not based on a religion "common". An era by definition refers to some event and such an event can never be universally common.
It is a useless gesture that creates a confused departure from the posterity of events in the western calendar. I will never use BCE/ CE.
Since folks have NO definitive evidence, none of us actually know. I feel it in my soul that We have been here and washed away more than a few times. 🤞🏾 Here's to the next flood 🥂 May we all be humbled and reminded how to love one another again.
What system of measurement did the Chinese use in their culture at the time?
Were there any historical disagreements amongst different cultures for how time should be measured or did they all just use a similar agreed upon event like the birth of a ruler etc, until Judeo Christian thinking overtook the world?
Your head starts to spin when you realize that measuring “history” is based on an agreed upon event in time and not fact.
This channel is so good.
I wonder who was the first person to use the date
Personally, I think this comes across as a little hypocritical. I've heard some scholars refer to this a Before the Christian Era or the Christian Era, but they also say that it is less offensive to non Christians.
Let those who wish not to use BC and AD continue with whatever tradition they were given, but don't try to claim one is less offensive than the other.
That is an absolute lie.
As long as university professors don't demand the use of either, I am ok with whichever people choose to use.
Otherwise, it could lead to law suits against a professor and the university, and for good reason.
Islamic coins were the first to have dates on them, albeit not Christian dates. The first Christian dates on a coin are said to be on a coin dated 1234 struck in Denmark using Roman numerals. The earliest coins with Arabic numerals and AD dating was 1464 on a Half Thaler of Tyrol, Austria. The usage of AD dating on coins made it more ubiquitous and cemented its usage in Europe. Some dates on Spanish and German coins only have the second two digits of the date.
I just watched a video that presented its information in an educated way even citing sources such as the Bible. Funny how the comments are full of unsubstantiated nonsense.
You just watched a video that put up a ridiculous strawman (I have never seen BC/AD defended as biblically based), and waffled on about some "accuracy" that is ultimately meaningless as the change is only about the name, not about the actual numbering. This is like the absurd rebranding corporations do now and then. Using the Christian calendar while refusing to acknowledge to whom you owe its existence is pathetic.
@@celteuskara Exactly. Even if a chronicled event is annacurate, it still doesn't mean that the event didn't happen.
Just call it bc and ad its just the same thing changing it is useless.
The reasoning about the supposed flaw in the AD/BC system is itself flawed because it clearly ignores the way the Anno Domini timeline truly works. No matter what you figure out with the reigns of Herod and Augustus Christ will always be born on *0 BC/1 AD.* It never ceases to amaze me that people forget this and accept such stupidity as believing Christ could be born 6 Years before He was supposed to be born i.e. *6 BC.*
Polybius sometimes uses the Olympiad dating system which, in my opinion, is the best.
I don't get the problem, believers just have to think of CE as Christian Era (or whatever they want, there's a C for Christ)
My major issue with CE is the word “common”. It isn’t historically accurate when covering a 2000+ year period. I would accept New Era, Western Era, or Christian Era. All are far more accurate than “Common”. And when I see someone use BCE CE, I automatically assume they fundamentally don’t understand human history, cultural and linguistic evolution, technological evolution, or the timescale of which they speak.
Informative video. I use BCE/CE regularly for the reason you do: it is historically inaccurate, and as a historian, I want to be as accurate as possible. But I have to admit that when giving talks or presentations to non-Christians, I have caused offense in the past (to Jewish people, for example) when using BC/AD. Now yes, some Christians might be offended by my using BCE/CE, but to me it seems slightly preferable to offend people by what I don't say than to offend people by what I say.
do you think that the new chronology took advantage of this initial error to reform the chronology of western events? the approach of this school is rather radical.
What’s the symbol of Jesus? The fish, what age started 150 bc? The age of Pisces, the fish, Jesus is a continuation of sun worship, born December 25th and died and rose on the 3rd day, same as the winter solstice as the sun is in the bows of the earth for 3days through the trajectory of the earth being the shortest days of the year and rises again in the north eastern hemisphere and brings life back (in northern hemisphere) and portrays the movement of the sun throughout the whole Bible
The gregorian calendar is more in accordance to the movement of earths planetary system
The purpose implementing Anno Domini at that time in history proves a differentiation of some 500 years history being altered with cultures of the East. Mainly India and formation Zoroasttrianism.
I like how you read from one source to make your video instead of doing your own work.
Opinion vs facts. Lots of supposition here. How can you say w all the “missing explanations” that there was no anti Christian or Christ sentiment in the adoption of CE nomenclature over time? Do you know the heart of Dionisis was not hostile to Christ? I hear your logic arguments. Where are the arguments of the Spirit? Or do you not believe the Spirit of Jesus Christ is alive real and active? How can you assess the adoption of such a perspective, which takes Christ out of man’s thinking of history, while saying no extant anti christ influence exists within all these these people over time? I like history. This video goes beyond presentation of history and facts . It expresses an opinion of men’s intentions, purporting to know their inner thoughts & motivations, and presents those opinions as facts. You cloud those opinions in a diatribe of eloquent language, but present them as facts and history. Stop it. Just the facts please.
BCE is wokery. Plain and simple. And its deceptive. So if a student asks what is the current era? And the answer is, since Christ, but we're not allowed to say that anymore.
my system is unconfusing year one adam year 1000 x character year 4000 y character ? who understands the stand in time in ac bc fc sy ky?
Well done...thank you...
For those who are outraged and are having issues understanding what the video is about.
Take a look.
www.macmillandictionary.com/us/buzzword/entries/common-era.html
Klaus Schwab scowls at BC/AD ready to attack.
Scholar Robert R Cargo? Scholar in what area or discipline? This guy knows less about ecclesiastical history and about the Bible, than a 1st year theology student.
To summarize, the effort to remove any hint of Christianity from the dating system has been going on for several centuries. The modern efforts to remove Christianity are a continuation of that. You utterly failed to disprove claims that there is an effort to remove Christianity from the dating system.
I like BP, Before Present. I've read that that refers to 1950 as starting (present) so that everyone could agree on a staring point but I don't know if it's true. Since 1950 is 70 years ago that date cannot work for me. I'll use the present year in my own mind as close enough since I'm not in academics.
Then you have a problem of rolling reference points and chronologies becoming anachronistic without continuous updating.
In 1708 I doubt few were concerned with Hindi Buddist communitties
I actually prefer BCE/CE. It makes more sense when dating historical events non related to Christian polities or cultures. For example, dating the War of the Three Kingdoms in China as 220-280 AD doesn't make sense for anyone, not even for Christians. Dating it as 220-280 CE, even if the span of time is just the same, makes more sense as it is related to our present-day dating system. Yeah, it is still based upon acculturation, but to be honest the troubles it would imply to "invent" a new dating system would make the effort pointless. Replacing AD for CE it is just convenient. Of course, being who we are there will be people that will be triggered: don't sweat it; continue using BC/AD if that is what makes you happy. None will be angry at you by doing so. And if someone is, just ignore it as a bigot.
BCE and CE sound phonetically similar and thus increases chances of confusion in spoken presentations.
BCE is an extra syllable and letter than BC.
It is more cumbersome anyway you put it.
Using CE/BCE makes matter complicated when new generations make a serious inquiry of where and Common era occurred but if accidentally one who introduced it never bother to research it that it was based on AD/BC synonimously these new learners would be in hanging situation and must do more historical research. Then come to realized that the proponents of CE/BCE were stupid people .
Stomping on historical religion much?
Strange error at 8:41. Because of the "slaughter of the first born" including those up to 2 years old, you place Jesus's birth possibly at 6 BCE. Then you say "if we include the missing year zero that means he could have been born in 7 BCE."
So there are two problems with this. 1) There is no year 0. It's not "missing" like everybody lived through it but nobody remembered to record any historical events. It never happened. Nobody's BCE birth year would be different because of including year 0. 2) by "adding" the missing year 0, you added 1 to the absolute value of the birth year. In fact the opposite would happen. If we turn BCE years into negative numbers by "adding" year 0, they reduce by one. 1 BCE becomes 0, 2 BCE becomes -1, etc. So 6 BCE would become -5, not -7.
Then you make a further strange inference at 8:56, usefully spelt out in a caption. Doubt about Jesus's birth year means we can infer that Jesus was 7 years older than we think, not that the events of his life took place 7 years earlier. What we don't know is exactly when Jesus was born, not when he preached and died. The fifteenth year of Tiberius was 28-29 CE. Pontius Pilate was indisputably prefect from 26-36 CE. It's ridiculous to redate the events of the gospels by assuming that "about 30 years old" is correct while the other undoubted dating texts are wrong.
It's funny how some individuals in the comments keep accusing the usage of BCE/CE as being inevitabely a product of political correctness; yet they are the ones who keep getting triggered and bringing up the subject when it's almost entirely irrelevant or marginal -- of course I' talking about some of the previous videos of this channel which were and are unrelatable to the subject.
"BCE/CE as being inevitabely a product of political correctness"
Just because some obscure Germans toyed around with the idea centuries ago it doesn't mean that it's not being pushed by woke secularists who get triggered by Christ.
@@Chrysostomus_17 Yea and just because it's been used by seculars doesn't mean it's a secretly desired PC tool that is indeniably seeking to undermine Christ. We could play this game forever.
First of all; these aren't some "obscure Germans," they are clearly "well known Germans."
Secondly, the video explains how the system has become the used one through providing a chronological context. And as long as you don't provide any emperical proof to how the usage is inevitebly a PC tool of triggered seculars through debunking what is said in the video and providing alternative material in support of your claim; you're just speaking your mind.
I had to read the article; the narrator speaks way too robotically.
Julius altered the greek calendar.
Duh!! You did not know?
10 months and they had a 60 something days winter as an 11th month.
We were asked to watch this video in one of our assignments and write an essay, I had destroyed the credibility of this video as anti-Christian and got an A from my professor. This video is based on myths and lies.
I can’t be offended by someone I don’t understand 😂🤷🏽♀️
No thank you, i refuse to bend the knee to Hollywood and big tech
It's just an indexing point in time. But, I dislike giving even unintentional lip-service to a religion. No one owns the date with BCE/CE, it's almost entirely certain that it wasn't even when the person referred to as Jesus was born, and we don't have to change historical dates around. 👍
Jesus "born 8 to 4 BC" Christ
So?
I say, again, Thank Goddess I was raised by an Atheist lol ... seriously, it's nice to be able to objectively accept information for it's own value ...
Who asked?
Excellent factoid! Def lessened my ignorance on this subject-- Always wondered....
I suggest you research what a 'factoid' actually is before you use the term PARTICULARLY in this type of topic . Cheers and have a good day.
@@jonbservergeek Yes, a factoid is something that isn't true !
So... our calendar is based on the birth of Jesus Christ. Thanks :)
Excellent history lesson. CE and BCE are best. The whole world uses the Christian/Western dating system, and it is counter-productive to be triumphalist about it. 😃
The only reason to switch to BCE and CE is to show that we respect those who are part of the modern world but who have beliefs that are not Christian. And that is not a *bad* reason per se. But, that said, some people are only happy if they can shove their personal religion down people's throats. For many of them, any deviation that tends to decentralize their preferred religion is often seen as an "attack" on that religion rather than as as an attempt at being polite to others. If you are used to your religion being dominant, then any move towards equal respect for others violates expectations, and the breach of what one expects is often a cause of outsized emotional reactions. (For a non-secular example, someone cutting you off in traffic is trivial in the grand scheme of life, and yet because it's unexpected it sometimes makes certain drivers irrationally angry.)
BCE/CE is for cultural masochists who have been brainwashed into hating their religious heritage.
@Pecu Alex No one denies it was originally based on a miscalculation by religious officials of the year in which Jesus was (supposedly) born. But, that religious impulse notwithstanding, in light of the inconvenience of changing the dating system in common use, we simply keep the numbering system while acknowledging that for more than half the world's population the supposed event around which it was originally based is not at all important. It is true that most of the world has adapted to using that particular dating system as a common standard, not because of Jesus, but because of globalization. There is nothing wrong with acknowledging that those people shouldn't have Christianity foisted upon them or in acknowledging that their religious beliefs (or lack of them) are to be respected equally. This change is a nod to that much in the way that saying "Happy Holidays" in early December is more inclusive than "Merry Christmas." Being more generic, it includes the beliefs of more people... and yet, were it not for the historical fact of Christmas being in December we would not say *either* phrase.
But, as I said, some people want to shove their religion down other people's throats at every opportunity as if all should be forced to acknowledge that particular mythology as if it were true. For those people "Happy Holidays" is offensive. For many of them, "Xmas" is offensive even though that's reasonably ancient. No one objects to your or anyone else's use of "B.C." if you prefer it, and no one has been drinking out of being an historian for not using BCE, it, like "Happy Holidays" is an alternative there for those who either don't accept Christianity or who do but wish to signal that they understand that it is but one religion among many, and not give it pride of place. Again, they still have to use the dating system, because that is what is in common use, but they don't have to be dicks about it. At the same time, again, Christians who want to are free to be use BC if they want.
@@Pandaemoni I don't shriek in terror when Muslims greet me with Salah and so I don't expect non-christians to shriek in terror if I greet them with Christmas.
@@ikengaspirit3063 I don't believe anyone does shriek in terror when you greet them with a Merry Christmas (although I wonder if they roll their eyes). On the other hand, I live in America where Christians often "REEEEEE!" in anger if they hear the words "Happy Holidays" or Starbucks introduces a plain red cup that doesn't say "Merry Christmas" on the side (and take it as disrespectful to Jesus or even as part of a "War on Christmas"). www.eater.com/2015/11/10/9705570/starbucks-holiday-red-cups-controversy-history
I gained 15 minutes of my life
To those that feel the need for the B C and AD concept, try this BCE= Before Christian Era, CE = Christian Era. As a compromise with a recognition that the currently used dating system is based from the Christian tradition.
BCE and CE sound phonetically similar and thus increases chances of confusion in spoken presentations.
BCE is an extra syllable and letter than BC.
It is more cumbersome anyway you put it.
The statement in minute 16 about someone not being able to say he was born 20 years ago without having another person referencing that date of birth is exactly why evolution will only ever be a theory and not fact and makes it not science. Human accounts/WORD is the primary and I dare say the only natural testament we have of dating time.
This is an interesting video. Jesus Christ can never be removed from history though because history is in our WORDS and Jesus is the WORD. The only thing we can do to the word is affirm it or deny it and both carry a consequence.
BC AD is all I knew I wonder who pushed this other nonsense, oh you Mister Goldberg, oh yes I see, spare me I had no idea.
Its bc ad get your facts right....
#Cicada3301
We are.missing about 500-1500 years.
Giordano Bruno
Majic
th-cam.com/video/cxtgtv5DXa8/w-d-xo.html
Josephus Flavia
If it's offensive to Christians, then I am for it.
This comment says it all. The central motivation is mean-spirited pettyness.
@@celteuskara lol one random comment on TH-cam doesn't express the "central motivation" of the whole thing; it's just one random dude expressing his opinion. It doesn't say it all at all.
Now imagine that comment, but with Jews instead of Christians.
BCE and CE are just edgy reddit creations. AD and BC betta
Taylor John Thompson Shirley Harris John
Using BCE/CE is dishonest and disrespectful
Savages, I propose to return to Ab Urbe Condita, then there is no confusion anymore.
Not everyone is Christian. Don't use Christian dates. Pretty simple. Even if we all know the dates revolve around Christ. If you want to use them in a church setting, fine. That's where they belong. But not in the public sphere.
Sorry, not everyone is pagan. Please change the names of the days of the weeks and the months too.
@@Chrysostomus_17 Good point. Why are these people upset about BC/AD referring to Jesus, but okay with March (ref. to the god Mars) and Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday referring to pagan gods? Not very consistent.
I'm not a Christian, but I don't hate and spit on the Christian heritage of my ancestors.
@shardanette1 Why are you so bothered about using BC and AD, but not troubled by using the names of gods in the months and days of the week?
@@adamclark1972uk, Because while ancient Greek and Roman religions have long since faded into myth and have lost all meaning in them, Christianity on the other hand is still as popular as it was thousands years ago and is still the most followed religion in the world right now so because of that not everyone in the world can have the same beliefs as Christians.
BCE stop sugar coating it 😂 (Before Christ Entered) yes it’s true 🤷🏿♂️.
Lewis Michelle Robinson Larry Robinson Nancy
There is no letter J in Aramaic.
Y’all is typing too much in the comments😂 nobody feel like reading all yall paragraphs tf
Common era all the way!!!
demon
No this Christian based bullshit is not acceptable please say an update is pending.
FIRST COMMENT ❣️😅
Thy comment has been loved!
Uhh huh. It’s not believable that a Hippie Jesus was traveling around doing remarkable rebellious miracles in a Roman war zone.
if jesus was even a real person
AndDiracisHisProphet I will say that I believe Jesus did exist as a historical figure but I don’t believe in his divinity personally.
@@studyofantiquityandthemidd4449 if you chose to
@@AndDiracisHisProphet It is most likely that he did. This is the consensus of historians. The vast majority of historians agree that he did.
@@adamclark1972uk
Yes, th econsensus of the historians who most often also happen to be theologians.
there are a lot of historians who view this differently, the most prominent of which would be Richard Carrier. But there are a lot of others. I find their arguments pretty compelling.
FFS what a bunch off bullshit. Yes. Problematic.
ya thats some pretty comon sense on the comon concept of comon era ! i can dig it and keep an open mind to dig more when its my time to dig a little deeper ! 🕊🫡 it's said if you want to see time fly ? just throw your timex watch out the window ! just don't flip father time the 🕊 bird ! 🤙👍🫡