From: Will Wagers (wagers@computek.net)
Date: Sat Dec 23 1995 - 03:52:42 EST
Dr. Timothy L. Bratton writes:
> Astronomers and historians prefer using B.C.E. ("before the
>common era"). Thus a non-Christian can use B.C. dating without
>formally recognizing Christ's claims by pretending that the
>practice is merely a cultural artifact. It smacks of "political
>correctness" to me, although one can rationalize that it _really_
>stands for "before the Christian era." Another possible reason
>for the new terminology is that Dionysius Exiguus, writing about
>A.D. 530, calculated that Jesus was born in _ab urbe condita_
>("from the foundation of the city," i.e. Rome) 754, which became
>A.D. 1. Actually, Jesus probably was born between 7 and 2 B.C.,
>but Dionysius' mistake is now so fixed in historical chronology
>that we're stuck with it. B.C.E. thus becomes little more than
>an arbitrary, but useful, yardstick based on Dionysius' labors.
Astronomers prefer BCE because the system has a year 0. This makes
calculations simpler. This system is preferred by some historians and
mathematicians for its orthogonality.
The historical convention omits the year 0, so the transition from BC
to AD skips from December 31, -1 to January 1, 1.
So, there is a difference of 1 year between BC and BCE dates.
CE and AD dates are the same.
I hope this eases your mind and softens your heart towards all
those "heathen" astronomers and historians who are slyly
ignoring Christ's claims.
Will
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:35 EDT