Comments on: response to comments about my recent bce/ce vs. bc/ad essay

By: Rogueclassicist

Rogueclassicist — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 01:24:09 +0000

Fwiw, in the grade seven religion text I teach with — written by the Canadian council of catholic bishops — the timeline of the bible is all bce/ce (!)

By: bobcargill

bobcargill — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 23:28:02 +0000

after darwin/before charles - well played. ;-) i take it you read this from earlier in the year?

By: clayboy » BC / AD once more: the Dickie Dawkins view?

clayboy » BC / AD once more: the Dickie Dawkins view? — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 23:17:20 +0000

[...] Now, in response, Bob Cargill replies: [...]

By: Doug Chaplin

Doug Chaplin — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 23:07:22 +0000

Thanks for the response. I’m honoured to have a tag of my own on your blog! :) I like some of the points you make – although since I first hung a Peters projection map of the world on my wall more than 30 years ago, you might assume that I would.

I’m still not convinced, however. In some contexts (talking to nearly anyone who isn’t engaged in mainly biblical – and some other historical – studies) BC / AD is the only system that doesn’t require an explanation. I’d be happier, as I said in comments on my blog, if the C in BCE/CE stood more clearly for Christian. Yes, I know technically the dates don’t work out, but I still feel “Common” is an imperialistic claim.

Fair point on Dawkins’ rhetoric, though. No doubt he longs for the day when I date this comment to the year 200 AD (for after Darwin). Everything else was, of course, Before Charles.