BBC Drops B.C./A.D. Dating Method: Christians Outraged (UPDATE)

By Al Webb
Religion News Service

LONDON (RNS) British Christians are incensed after the state-funded BBC decided to jettison the terms B.C. and A.D. in favor of B.C.E. and C.E. in historical date references.

The broadcaster has directed that the traditional B.C. (Before Christ) and A.D. (Anno Domini, or Year of the Lord) be replaced by B.C.E. (Before Common Era) and C.E. (Common Era) in its television and radio broadcasts.

The BBC said in an official statement that since it is "committed to impartiality, it is appropriate that we use terms that do not offend or alienate non-Christians."

It described the terms B.C.E. and C.E. as "a religiously neutral alternative to B.C./A.D.," although critics quickly pointed out that the new terms, like the old, were anchored around the birth of Jesus Christ.

The new edict drew immediate accusations that the network was guilty of political correctness run amok as the BBC's phone lines were jammed with irate listeners and readers.

Retired Anglican Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali of Rochester, a leading British evangelical, told journalists that "this amounts to the dumbing down of the Christian basis of our culture, language and history."

"These changes are unnecessary," said Nazir-Ali, "and they don't actually achieve what the BBC wants them to achieve. Whether you use Common Era or Anno Domini, the date is still the same and the reference point is still the birth of Jesus Christ."

The network also drew fire from Britain's Plain English Campaign, whose spokeswoman, Marie Clair, said "it sounds like change just for the sake of change. ... It is difficult to see what the point of the changes are if people do not understand the new terms."

UPDATE:

On Wednesday (Sept. 28), a BBC spokeswoman addressed the controversy, saying: "Whilst the BBC uses B.C. and A.D. like most people as standard terminology, it is also possible for individuals to use different terminology if they wish to, particularly as it is now commonly used in historical research."

Comments

[RandwulfRay]

01:09 PM on 10/10/2011

To me, the best evidence points to Jesus being born in 3 or 2 B.C. (see bethlehemstar.net for more info).

I'm a fundamentalist Christian, but I think it's silly to be "outraged" about this. We are guests in this world. I personally find B.C.E. and C.E. harder to pronounce than B.C. and A.D., but if people are going to make an issue out of it we can use whatever is the most common style. At least C.E. will solve the problem of people putting A.D. after the date, when proper form says it should go before: A.D. 70, not 70 A.D.

The most common sense approach is what the BBC seems to actually be using, according to their latest statements. It was suggested by a contributor to the “Queries & Comments” section of “Biblical Archaeology Review” several years ago, who said that the author of an article or news report should be allowed to use whichever dating designations he/she prefers. That way everyone is happy and more tolerant of other views.

[jthor]

06:21 PM on 10/04/2011

good for them! drop the hocus-pocus!

[DeuxExMachina]

07:40 PM on 10/04/2011

Read the article. The BBC hasn't dropped the BC / AD date standard designators for themselves but is allowing other contributors/programmers to use the PC BCE / CE ones if they wish.

[jthor]

07:52 PM on 10/04/2011

well, lalala!

[bryanzth]

05:37 PM on 10/04/2011

I'm still outraged that there's no year ZERO! Arrgghhhhh! ;0)

BZ.

[DeuxExMachina]

02:14 AM on 10/05/2011

Even if the Ancient Romans had the concept of zero which they didn't, you still can't have a year 0. Zero means just that, i.e. nothing. You can't have a nothing year although it can be argued the way the last few years have been for the economy and jobs it may feel that way :-)

[bryanzth]

09:21 AM on 10/05/2011

Well, sure. I feel like we've had nothing years ever since W blew away the surplus getting revenge against Saddam for touching his Daddy (not that G.H.W. Bush should have been ___, but the reaction was out of range with the act).

Hey, maybe that's what we can call the first decade of the 21st Century, "The Zero Years". You may use that, btw:  "2001 to 2010 - The Zero Years. And let us remember that effects of causal incidents last for 2-3 times longer than we think. Add to that the way that corporations have taken advantage of the purposeful destruction of our Nation, and the effects might last until 2050 at least.

I would prefer to have the year of the Christ's birth to be Year Zero for all that Christians have done to improve this world. Now, Jesus, that guy was all right, but they killed him when he started talking communism, socialism and community activism, eh? ;0)

BZ.

[asgspifs]

05:28 PM on 10/04/2011

The xtians find yet another excuse to be offended about something, and this is news? Why?
Again, they seem to think they are the only people in the world, or the only people who matter.

I've been seeing the use of the religiously neutral terms BCE and CE for years. It's about time someone officially acknowledged them as a better, more progressive way to represent dates.

And as the critics of this point out that the dates are still framed around the (estimated) life of Jesus - so what are they so pi$$ed about?

[edgraham]

10:34 AM on 10/04/2011

Since we just make-up dates, why not just say this is the year 4,500,000,011?

Then you need no modifier.

[bryanzth]

05:38 PM on 10/04/2011

No, in MY science textbook, it's really the year 4,500,000,008! See you out back with your dukes up!

BZ.

[cuoi]

08:55 AM on 10/04/2011

"Random thoughts" dept: Why not reset the the calendar reference point to at least 3,000 years before the first known writing (to take into account more recent discoveries may set the date back)? For example, if Mesopatamia is accepted as first documented instance of writing at 3200 BCE, then today's date would be 5211. Anything before year 0 would be "BW" or Before Writing. So, in most usage one would have to write AD, BC, BCE, or CE. Yeah, I know...this would go over like a Runic Calendar

[cuoi]

08:57 AM on 10/04/2011

Errata: In my example, add 3,000 years to Cuoi Calendar. Today would be year 8211.

[ThomasTrom]

05:59 AM on 10/04/2011

Please recognise that B.C and A.C's reference point refers to an *estimation* of the birth time of Jesus, but overwhelmingly scholars hold that Christ was born some years before AD 1. If you read your Bible's, you might realise that the Gospel of Luke clearly states that Jesus/Yahshua was conceived during the reign of Herod the Great [Luke 1:5] (i.e., before 4 BC). Therefore, this inaccuracy of labelling years should be scrapped and misguided, zeal of some ignorant Chr-stians put away. We should be using B.C.E and A.C.E.

[Deluded]

04:56 PM on 10/03/2011

If this causes offense to christians they should get out more!

[cuoi]

08:39 AM on 10/04/2011

Or at least read more...

[Saul Bolocs]

03:16 PM on 10/03/2011

"Retired Anglican Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali of Rochester, a leading British evangelical, told journalists that "this amounts to the dumbing down of the Christian basis of our culture, language and history.""

No, sir, YOU are responsible for the dumbing down of people with your religious brainwashing. What the BBC do has nothing to do with Christianity. Keep your distorted beliefs to yourself and don't try to spoil other people with them.

[Willie12345]

01:35 PM on 10/03/2011

It's all about PC and nothing else.

[signgrrl]

11:34 AM on 10/03/2011

yeah, because there is NOTHING ELSE they could possibly have to be outraged about . . . .

[dpavsek]

05:41 AM on 10/03/2011

For all of the upset christians (I purposefully use the lower case "c"), they should simply read B.C.E. as before the christian era and C.E. as the christian era. Now wasn't that easy? And everyone is happy.

[hatch821]

07:47 PM on 10/04/2011

What a great suggestion. Brilliant!

[DeuxExMachina]

02:57 AM on 10/03/2011

If people would carefully read the update at the end, the BBC has issued both a denial and a clarification. Also check out:
http://tabloid-watch.blogspot.com/2011/09/bbc-bans-bcad-lie-continues-to-spread.html

In summation, the BBC is sticking to the BC / AD conventional standard herself but is allowing the PC BCE / CE designators in deference to the preference of some archaeologists and historians. Not a problem. That is what being inclusive is about.

The BBC as one of the remaining standard (but much reduced) bearers of British culture will no doubt also continue to date their programs with Roman numerals.

[iknowscottyknows]

12:39 AM on 10/03/2011

C.E. Christian Era.

B.C.E. Before the Christian Era.

Thanks for the clarification.

[Dorian Hatibi]

01:42 AM on 10/03/2011

Fantastic! Thank you iknowscottyknows!

[logicanada]

02:27 PM on 10/02/2011

The Christians can fund their own international broadcast network and do as they wish.

[Willie12345]

01:36 PM on 10/03/2011

Will they be able to use tax money to do so, like the BBC ?

[logicanada]

01:59 PM on 10/03/2011

Sure. An amount equal to what they contribute.

[Saul Bolocs]

03:17 PM on 10/03/2011

Yes, "Christianity" is a very profitable business today. Look at the billions the Vatican has.