Ways to Use B.C. and A.D.: A Christian/Jewish Perspective
January 5, 2009 (or 9 Tevet 5769)
Although I had never given much thought to the use of B.C.E./C.E. and B.C/A.D., I have noticed that some Christian writers have taken the time to justify why they will use one or the other. For example, N. T. Wright in his The New Testament and the People of God says that he will use the politically incorrect B.C./A.D. since he is writing as a Christian. So, in a way, the use of B.C./A.D. becomes a statement of your presuppositions and worldview.
N. T. Wrong agrees with N. T. Wright (duh!) that B.C./A.D. should be used, but for another reason. He writes:
“By using ‘C.E.’ and B.C.E.’, we universalize a peculiar tradition. We make it out to be ‘common’ or ‘natural’, not requiring any special marking or qualification. As a consequence of the fact of Western power, the Gregorian calendar has been adopted as the most-used calendar in the world, and so does have some degree of ‘commonality’ in day-to-day use. But the change from A.D. to C.E. (and from B.C. to B.C.E.) obscures the particular Christian basis of this ‘common’ calendar, misrepresenting it as ‘normal’ – as somehow transcending historical particularities. By contrast, the other calendars are made out to be the only ‘localized’ and ‘particular’ calendars. While the Christian calendar is ‘naturalized’ by its designation as ‘common’, other calendars (Jewish, Persian, Islamic, Chinese, Hindu, Ethiopian, Thai, etc) are ‘artificial’ and ‘contingent’.” (N. T. Wrong?, Use A.D. and B.C.! [Out with C.E. and B.C.E.!!])
I had never thought about it this way. On the one hand, Christian authors could be making a statement of faith by using B.C./A.D. whereas non-Christians could use it to emphasize that this is “indeed” a Christian designation but at the same time refuse to say that this is in anyway superior to any other calendar. On a matter of principle, I think N. T. Wrong is exactly right. But practically speaking, it would be too cumbersome to preface your use of these terms along with footnotes as they would be liable to be misunderstood every time. I think that B.C.E./C.E. is an okay designation as it recognizes that this is indeed a Christian calendar (since its beginning originated with the birth of Christ) but avoids saying too much about your presuppositions. The truth of the matter is that when I see someone using B.C./A.C. I automatically I assume, right or wrong, that he/she is writing from a Christian worldview.
But there is an alternative. James Kugel, who considers himself to be an Orthodox Jew, said that he had a teacher who was impeccably Orthodox who used B.C. instead of B.C.E. He said that B.C. simply meant “Before Christianity”. So when asked what A.D. stood for, he answered:
“After Dat.”
Not bad.
