Whats the difference between BC and BCE?

There are two major dating schemes in use in the West today, BC/AD and BCE/CE. AD stands for Anno Domini (in the Year Of Our Lord) and CE stands for Common Era. Whereas BC is Before Christ, and BCE is Before Common Era. Historian Tom Holland recently tweeted about his dislike of the Common Era dating scheme, suggesting that it is somehow dishonest. So this is a good opportunity to talk about the different dating systems and why most scholars prefer Common Era over Anno Domini.
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @tabletsandtemples
Patreon: / tabletsandtemples
+ Help me make more videos!
Paypal: www.paypal.com/paypalme/Lachl...
BTC Wallet: 1MJYqAi5VMfPH3qcJeeCCmhcnJyKwWgPwN
+ Stay in the loop:
Instagram: / tabletsandtemples
FB: / bibleunbox
Twitter: / tablets_temples
Subscribe: kzbin.info...
This channel is now known as Tablets and Temples, unpacking ancient history and religion. Formerly known as Bible Unboxed.
Sources:
Academic books/papers
- Georges Declercq , Anno Domini: the Origins of the Christian Era, 2000
- Lynn Hunt, Measuring Time, Making History, 2008
Some more accessible laymen articles:
www.worldhistory.org/article/...
udayton.edu/magazine/2022/01/...
Some info on the council of Nicea and the Easter date:
- Cambridge Companion to the Council of Nicaea (2021)
- The Council of Nicea,” in The Church of the Ancient Councils: The Disciplinary Work of the First Four Ecumenical Councils (1996).
BC/AD, B.C., A.D., Anno Domini, Before Christ, Common Era, Before Common Era, BCE/CE, B.C.E, C.E., Tom Holland Historian, Dionysius exiguus, dating system, christian era, tom holland christianity, anno domini 919, anno domino

[@TabletsAndTemples]

Just a little note on something I left out of the video for time. The BC "Before Christ" part wasn't invented in 525. Bede may have been the first to use a similar phrase, but it wasn't until the 1700s that "before Christ" and "before the common era" were in regular use.

[@Andrew34234]

It's the Christian calendar so it will always be BC and AD for me. I'm not even Christian.

[@TabletsAndTemples]

This was reupload this to fix a mistake pointed out by a viewer. Thanks guys!

[@drsamkfelix]

You're welcome

[@InquisitiveBible]

One other quirk about the BC/AD system (besides the weird mixing of English and Latin) is that the numeral is supposed to go before BC but after AD.

[@TabletsAndTemples]

That is very odd! I did not know that.

[@jeremygilbert7190]

One common error repeated here on the calculation of Easter - the part about the first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox. No, it's the first Sunday after the first full moon (according to tables) after the fixed date of March 21. It was this fixed date that forced the Gregorian calendar change in 1582, and is the reason the Eastern churches, which use the old calendar in their Easter calculations, and hence the March 21 on that calendar (=April 3 I think on the new calendar) often celebrate Easter on a different date.

[@TabletsAndTemples]

Thanks for the comment! I'll offer up a bit more context, the TL;DR is, yes for today, but in the 4th Century, the equinox was taken into account or assumed to be equal to 21st March. You are correct about Easter generally today. It was a little more complicated in the 4th century. By the late 4th century, it was assumed (incorrectly) that March 21 and Spring Equinox were equivalent. Dionysius correctly traced this tradition back to Theophilus of Alexandria. But he assumed (probably incorrectly) that the same tradition traced back to Nicaea. Nevertheless, that was the assumption. Regarding Nicaea, it's actually quite complex determining what they meant. They didn't actually write down the Easter formula at Nicaea (i.e., with the 20 canons). They said Easter should be celebrated on the same date - we have then reconstructed what they meant from letters of those who attended and the writings of subsequent bishops after Nicaea. What we can gather from these letters is that Equinox was a factor in determining an appropriate Easter celebration. For those curious about further reading, I'm basing this from: - Cambridge Companion to the Council of Nicaea (2021) - The Council of Nicea,” in The Church of the Ancient Councils: The Disciplinary Work of the First Four Ecumenical Councils (1996).

[@drsamkfelix]

I use BC/AD and CE/BCE interchangeably. I usually reserve BC/AD for religious and pastoral reasons, and CE/BCE(era system) for nonreligious and academic reasons.

[@ben-theamateurexegete6747]

I learned a lot here!

[@Hating_Palestine_Is_Based]

Before Christ/Anno Domini users:🗿✝️☦️

[@joshuaboanerges3776]

Thank you, this is interesting.

[@kittikorn6674]

BCE "before christ's era" CE "christ's era"

[@Nahasapasa]

Cope

[@OldVetUSN72]

@@Nahasapasanope -accept !

[@williamadamsinc]

Don’t say that you’re a Christian and then you don’t use AD

[@davidplowman6149]

Yeah, they’re still dating everything from the Birth of Christ. They’re still admitting that event had a profound effect on history in the West and, since the West had a profound effect on the world for the last few hundred years, on the world itself. Christianity has had a indelible effect on our current history and it is logical to date history from the birth of Christ for the western world but also, for the last 500 years, on the rest of the world.

[@DrKippDavis]

I like this video. Thanks.

[@TabletsAndTemples]

Thanks Kipp, love your work

[@DrKippDavis]

@Bible Unboxed aww, that is nice of you to say.

[@RipRoaringGarage]

First of all. It is offensive. To use modern rules, it is cultural appropriation. Make up your own calendar then. So its not 2024 for non Christians. The modern resurgence of CE is from a KGB operation with infiltrators in Western science journals, along with other operatives from the USSR. This was a big issue communists had, that they still were using a Christian calendar. Its making a resurgence now as part of cancel culture. As a former mathematician, and canceled ie fired for no reason other than race and faith. I will never use this annotation, and for that matter, any other antitheistic annotation.

[@wannabe_scholar82]

Is this a re-upload? Great video btw!!! I switch between both as I'm so used to the BC AD dating but I prefer the CE BCE dating more, also the whole jesus being born 6 BC (Before Christ) wouldn't make sense as Jesus can't be born before himself. Edit: From what I've seen most scholars place his birth between 6 and 4 BCE I could be mistaken on that tho

[@TabletsAndTemples]

Thank you! And yes, there was a small mistake (about Holland, not CE) so given it only had 20 views when it was caught I reuploaded. The 6-4BCE being accepted by "most" scholars is a bit of a funny issue. Most of the critical scholars (and even some evangelicals) accept that both infancy narratives are probably literary inventions. If that's true then there's actually no need for the historical Jesus to have been born between 6-4 BCE. What IS generally accepted is that Jesus was crucified under Pilate. In that case, IF Luke is at all accurate about the age Jesus started his ministry then Jesus could have technically been born anywhere from 7BCE to 4CE, with a more likely window being 4 BCE - 1 CE ("around 30 in the 15th year of Tiberius").

[@wannabe_scholar82]

@@TabletsAndTemples Thanks for the correction, can't wait for more of your uploads!!!

[@williamadamsinc]

I’m not going to watch you anymore because I believe in BC and A.D.

[@Matt_The_Hugenot]

Dionysius almost certainly used traditional Roman consul lists however he didn't know there were gaps that had been inaccurately filled in the past.

[@yurineri2227]

Great video but yeah I agree with tom holland, he is absolutely right, BCE/CE is pretty pointless, everyone knows BC/AD dating is ingrained in the Christian context, and it's pointless to try to pretend that historical context didn't exist, this calendar had the explicit purpose to try to make a dating site that was more friendly to Christians I also don't see any problem in using names that originate from other belief systems, I mean, I am Cristian, and half of the name of the week comes from the names of pagan gods, and I still use them all the time

[@TabletsAndTemples]

Yes, but I would stress BCE/CE isn't pretending not to be Christian, it was invented by Christian scribes after all. They wanted it to be clear it wasn't a monarch based dating system (hence the vulgar/common era). It just gained wider adoption in academia because it didn't require the implicit assumption that Jesus was divine. I don't think it's usage has so much to do with it coming from another belief system, more that the implicit acknowledgement of Jesus' divinity which is not possible for some members of other cultures.

[@yurineri2227]

@@TabletsAndTemples yeah I get that, I was trying to be a bit hyperbolic I'm my original comment for the impact of it, I don't really mind BCE/CE, but I do agree with Tom holland, everyone knows that BCE/CE and BC/AD are synonymous, I don't think it should be required by top journals or by any kind of editor to use BCE/CE, if someone wants to use BCE/CE, they should use BCE/CE, and if someone wants to use BC/AD, they should use BC/AD, I just don't think there is any need for one to take over the other ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[@diansc7322]

except that Jesus was probably not born in AD 1

[@samuelericci3959]

For once, I'm happy to be Italian. The dating system here is and will continue yo be AC (Avanti Cristo) and DC (Dopo Cristo), referring to the birth of Jesus Christ. I personallt find it awful to say that the birth of Jesus, were it a real event or not, was not influeantial at all for people not of Christian Belief. Christianity in all its forms was the basis for many cultures of the west for ages, and a belief that led by itself to a lot of events. What is more, the current calendar is a Christian system. I can see why they would prefer not to, but as someone else said: English days are based on nordic ancient religion, and since it is dead and not followed, it should be changed. You see how that does not make sense?

[@jessjmanns]

AD & CE use the same starting point? So its absurd to use CE. Need to pick a different starting point for CE than.

[@Happyland1971]

Not to mention Jesus would have actually been born before 4 BC, so the calendar isn't even marking the birth of Jesus.

[@js1423]

Isn't Tom Holland more of a popular author of history instead of an actually academic historian? He doesn't seem to have a PhD or teaching position, and his books appear to be through popular press. If I'm wrong on this, I'd love to be corrected though.

[@TabletsAndTemples]

Good question. A doctorate is not required to be considered a professional historian. He's currently a senior research Fellow in Ancient History at Buckingham University, where they mention he has a literature degree with double honours. Perhaps by analogy, you don't need a PhD to be a scientist. You could get into the field with a degree, or even industry experience. Similarly, there is no barrier to being a professional historian by not having a doctorate.

[@yurineri2227]

he is an actually respected historian in his field by most of his academic contemporaries

[@js1423]

@@yurineri2227 Really? Can you give some academic appearances. He seems to be pretty popular among conservatives and apologists, but are the lectures and presentations by him at major universities?

[@yurineri2227]

@@js1423 yes he has given lectures in oxford for example: kzbin.info/www/bejne/mJSzm2dshdB5otE of course, there have been things he said which many of his fellow scholars disagree, but that can be said about all most all historians, and overall his work seems to be very respected

[@adityavarma2138]

Any evidence of Jesus birth and death dates ??

[@TabletsAndTemples]

We've got a whole video on what year Jesus was born

[@cerebrofan]

To all the ‘Libs’ who you ‘You do you’….. I say AD/BC.

[@magjag8257]

The BCE and CE users need to come up with their own numbering system, then. They took an existing system based on Jesus's birth and mislabeled it. In a way, they have simply copied it. They are still using the B.C. and A.D. system, just changed the label. How disrespectful. What, they couldn't come up with their own numbering system? In addition, B.C. is not religious, it is historical because it is based on a historical event, not a religious event.

[@_Anna-annA_]

C.E. christ exists

[@hannahmontana-uy1ee]

Can we stop beating around the bush and adopt a non-religiopus universal dating shceme that we can all agree is beneficial for humanity? Masking the religious nature of BC/AD by calling it a different name is asinine. It's literlly not fooling anyone but people who want to delude themselves into thinking that calling something by a different name changes its nature.

[@cerebrofan]

It is religious and am not ashamed to be religious. If CE wanted an arbitrary date to start CE from, should’ve chosen a different date and corrected all history books /records to reflect a new reference point. Not stuck with the same date everyone agreed to as Jesus’s birth and just call it a different name.

[@TabletsAndTemples]

You realize CE was invented by Christians right?

[@hannahmontana-uy1ee]

@@cerebrofan I'm suggesting exactly that? Are you a little lost friend? I'm saying that we should just pick a different date that doesn't link to jesus in any way.

[@InquisitiveBible]

I think a culturally and religiously neutral dating system would be really interesting…something like the stardates from Star Trek. It would also be nice not to have to use negative years for any events during recorded history. But it would be an enormous challenge to come up with a sufficiently ancient yet completely reliable event to set as year 1. Maybe an astronomical event?

[@amoretpax199]

BCE and CE are dumb.