Hubbry Logo
Common EraCommon EraMain
Open search
Common Era
Community hub
Common Era
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Common Era
Common Era
Common Era
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Common Era (CE) and Before the Common Era (BCE) are year notations for the Gregorian or Julian calendar, and are exactly equivalent to the Anno Domini (AD) and Before Christ (BC) notations. The expressions "2025 CE" and "AD 2025" each equally describe the current year; "400 BCE" and "400 BC" are the same year too.[1][2] BCE/CE are primarily used to avoid religious connotations,[3] by not referring to Jesus as Dominus [Lord].[4][5][a]

History

[edit]

The expression can be traced back to 1615, when it first appears in a book by Johannes Kepler as the Latin: annus aerae nostrae vulgaris (year of our common era),[7][8] and to 1635 in English as "Vulgar Era" with the term 'vulgar' used in the historical sense of "relating to the common people".[b] The term "Common Era" can be found in English as early as 1708,[9] and became more widely used in the mid-19th century by Jewish religious scholars.

Origins

[edit]
See also: Anno Domini

Around the year 525, the Christian monk Dionysius Exiguus devised the principle of taking the moment that he believed to be the date of the incarnation of Jesus to be the point from which years are numbered (the epoch) of the Christian ecclesiastical calendar.[10][11][12] Dionysius labeled the column of the table in which he introduced the new era as "Anni Domini Nostri Jesu Christi" (the years of our Lord Jesus Christ).[10]: 52  He did this to replace the Era of the Martyrs system (then used for some Easter tables) because he did not wish to continue the memory of a tyrant who persecuted Christians.[10]: 50 

This way of numbering years became more widespread in Europe, with its use by Bede in England in 731. Bede also introduced the practice of dating years before 1 backwards, without a year zero.[c]

Vulgar Era

[edit]
Look up vulgar in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Johannes Kepler (1571–1630), the German astronomer, mathematician, astrologer, natural philosopher and writer on music[13]

The term "Common Era" is traced back in English to its appearance as "Vulgar Era" to distinguish years of the Anno Domini era, which was in popular use, from dates of the regnal year (the year of the reign of a sovereign) typically used in national law.[14] (The word 'vulgar' originally meant 'of the ordinary people', with no derogatory associations.[15])

The first use of the Latin term anno aerae nostrae vulgaris[d] may be in a 1615 book by Johannes Kepler.[8] Kepler uses it again, as ab Anno vulgaris aerae, in a 1616 table of ephemerides,[16] and again, as ab anno vulgaris aerae, in 1617.[17] An English edition of that book from 1635 may contain the earliest known use of "Vulgar Era" in its title page.[18][e] A 1701 book edited by John Le Clerc includes the phrase "Before Christ according to the Vulgar Æra, 6".[19]

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary gives 1716 as the date of first use of the term "vulgar era" (which it defines as "Christian era").[20][f]

The first published use of "Christian Era" may be the Latin phrase annus aerae christianae on the title page of a 1584 theology book, De Eucharistica controuersia.[22] In 1649, the Latin phrase annus æræ Christianæ appeared in the title of an English almanac.[23] A 1652 ephemeris may be the first instance of the English use of "Christian Era".[24]

The English phrase "Common Era" appears at least as early as 1708,[9] and in a 1715 book on astronomy, it is used interchangeably with "Christian Era" and "Vulgar Era".[25] A 1759 history book uses common æra in a generic sense to refer to "the common era of the Jews".[26] The phrase "before the common era" may have first appeared in a 1770 work that also uses common era and vulgar era as synonyms in a translation of a book originally written in German.[27] The 1797 edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica uses the terms vulgar era and common era synonymously.[28][29] In 1835, in his book Living Oracles, Alexander Campbell wrote: "The vulgar Era, or Anno Domini; the fourth year of Jesus Christ, the first of which was but eight days".[30] He refers to the common era as a synonym for vulgar era: "the fact that our Lord was born on the 4th year before the vulgar era, called Anno Domini, thus making (for example) the 42d year from his birth to correspond with the 38th of the common era".[31] The Catholic Encyclopedia (1909), in at least one article, reports all three terms (Christian, Vulgar, Common Era) being commonly understood by the early 20th century.[32]

The phrase "common era", in lower case, also appeared in the 19th century in a "generic" sense, not necessarily to refer to the Christian Era, but to any system of dates in everyday use throughout a civilization. Thus, "the common era of the Jews",[33][34] "the common era of the Mahometans",[35] "common era of the world",[36] or "the common era of the foundation of Rome".[37] When it did refer to the Christian Era, it was sometimes qualified (e.g., "common era of the Incarnation",[38] "common era of the Nativity",[39] or "common era of the birth of Christ").[40]

An adapted translation of Common Era into Latin as Era Vulgaris[g] was adopted in the 20th century by some followers of Aleister Crowley, and thus the abbreviation "e.v." or "EV" may sometimes be seen as a replacement for AD.[42]

History of the use of the CE/BCE abbreviation

[edit]

Although Jews have the Hebrew calendar, they often use the Gregorian calendar without the AD prefix, as Judaism does not recognize Jesus as the Messiah.[43] As early as 1825, the abbreviation VE (for Vulgar Era) was in use among Jews to denote years in the Western calendar.[44] As of 2005, Common Era notation has also been in use for Hebrew lessons for more than a century.[45] Jews have also used the term Current Era.[46]

Contemporary usage

[edit]

Some academics in the fields of theology, education, archaeology and history have adopted CE and BCE notation despite some disagreement.[47] A study conducted in 2014 found that the BCE/CE notation is not growing at the expense of BC and AD notation in the scholarly literature, and that both notations are used in a relatively stable fashion.[48]

Australia

[edit]

In 2011, media reports suggested that the BC/AD notation in Australian school textbooks would be replaced by BCE/CE notation.[49] The change drew opposition from some politicians and church leaders. Weeks after the story broke, the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority denied the rumours and stated that the BC/AD notation would remain, with CE and BCE as an optional suggested learning activity.[50]

Canada

[edit]

In 2013, the Canadian Museum of Civilization (now the Canadian Museum of History) in Gatineau (opposite Ottawa), which had previously switched to BCE/CE, decided to change back to BC/AD in material intended for the public while retaining BCE/CE in academic content.[51]

Nepal

[edit]

The notation is in particularly common use in Nepal in order to disambiguate dates from the local (Indian or Hindu) calendar, Bikram or Vikram Sambat. Disambiguation is needed because the era of the Hindu calendar is quite close to the Common Era.

United Kingdom

[edit]

In 2002, an advisory panel for the religious education syllabus for England and Wales recommended introducing BCE/CE dates to schools,[52] and by 2018 some local education authorities were using them.[53]

In 2018, the National Trust said it would continue to use BC/AD as its house style.[53] English Heritage explains its era policy thus: "It might seem strange to use a Christian calendar system when referring to British prehistory, but the BC/AD labels are widely used and understood."[54] Some parts of the BBC use BCE/CE, but some presenters have said they will not.[53] As of October 2019, the BBC News style guide has entries for AD and BC, but not for CE or BCE.[55] The style guide for The Guardian says, under the entry for CE/BCE: "some people prefer CE (common era, current era, or Christian era) and BCE (before common era, etc.) to AD and BC, which, however, remain our style".[56]

United States

[edit]

In the United States, the use of the BCE/CE notation in textbooks was reported in 2005 to be growing.[45] Some publications have transitioned to using it exclusively. For example, the 2007 World Almanac was the first edition to switch to BCE/CE, ending a period of 138 years in which the traditional BC/AD dating notation was used. BCE/CE is used by the College Board in its history tests,[57] and by the Norton Anthology of English Literature. Others have taken a different approach. The US-based History Channel uses BCE/CE notation in articles on non-Christian religious topics such as Jerusalem and Judaism.[58] The 2006 style guide for the Episcopal Diocese Maryland Church News says that BCE and CE should be used.[59] The US-based Society of Biblical Literature style guide for academic texts on religion prefers BCE/CE to BC/AD.[60]

In June 2006, in the United States, the Kentucky State School Board reversed its decision to use BCE and CE in the state's new Program of Studies, leaving education of students about these concepts a matter of local discretion.[61][62][63]

Rationales

[edit]

Support

[edit]

The use of CE in Jewish scholarship was historically motivated by the desire to avoid the implicit "Our Lord" in the abbreviation AD.[a] Although other aspects of dating systems are based in Christian origins, AD is a direct reference to Jesus as Lord.[64][65][66] Proponents of the Common Era notation assert that the use of BCE/CE shows sensitivity to those who use the same year numbering system as the one that originated with and is currently used by Christians, but who are not themselves Christian.[67] Former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has argued:[68]

[T]he Christian calendar no longer belongs exclusively to Christians. People of all faiths have taken to using it simply as a matter of convenience. There is so much interaction between people of different faiths and cultures – different civilizations, if you like – that some shared way of reckoning time is a necessity. And so the Christian Era has become the Common Era.[69]

Adena K. Berkowitz, in her application to argue before the United States Supreme Court, opted to use BCE and CE because, "Given the multicultural society that we live in, the traditional Jewish designations – B.C.E. and C.E. – cast a wider net of inclusion."[70] In the World History Encyclopedia, Joshua J. Mark wrote "Non-Christian scholars, especially, embraced [CE and BCE] because they could now communicate more easily with the Christian community. Jewish, Islamic, Hindu and Buddhist scholars could retain their [own] calendar but refer to events using the Gregorian Calendar as BCE and CE without compromising their own beliefs about the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth."[71] In History Today, Michael Ostling wrote: "BC/AD Dating: In the year of whose Lord? The continuing use of AD and BC is not only factually wrong but also offensive to many who are not Christians."[66]

Opposition

[edit]

Critics note the fact that there is no difference in the epoch of the two systems—chosen to be close to the date of birth of Jesus. Since the year numbers are the same, BCE and CE dates should be equally offensive to other religions as BC and AD.[72] Roman Catholic priest and writer on interfaith issues Raimon Panikkar argued that the BCE/CE usage is the less inclusive option since they are still using the Christian calendar numbers and forcing it on other nations.[73] In 1993, the English-language expert Kenneth G. Wilson speculated a slippery slope scenario in his style guide that, "if we do end by casting aside the AD/BC convention, almost certainly some will argue that we ought to cast aside as well the conventional numbering system [that is, the method of numbering years] itself, given its Christian basis."[74]

Some Christians are offended by the removal of the reference to Jesus.[75]

Conventions in style guides

[edit]

The abbreviation BCE, just as with BC, always follows the year number. Unlike AD, which still often precedes the year number, CE always follows the year number (if context requires that it be written at all).[76] Thus, the current year is written as 2025 in both notations (or, if further clarity is needed, as 2025 CE, or as AD 2025), and the year that Socrates died is represented as 399 BCE (the same year that is represented by 399 BC in the BC/AD notation). The abbreviations are sometimes written with small capital letters, or with periods (e.g., "B.C.E." or "C.E.").[77]

Similar conventions in other languages

[edit]
  • In Germany, Jews in Berlin seem to have already been using words translating to "(before the) common era" in the 18th century, while others like Moses Mendelssohn opposed this usage as it would hinder the integration of Jews into German society.[78] The formulation seems to have persisted among German Jews in the 19th century in forms like vor der gewöhnlichen Zeitrechnung (before the common chronology).[79][80] In 1938 Nazi Germany, the use of this convention was also prescribed by the National Socialist Teachers League.[81] However, it was soon discovered that many German Jews had been using the convention ever since the 18th century, and Time magazine found it ironic to see "Aryans following Jewish example nearly 200 years later".[78]
  • In Spanish, common forms used for "BC" are a. C. and a. de C. (for "antes de Cristo", "before Christ"), with variations in punctuation and sometimes the use of J. C. (Jesucristo) instead of C. The Real Academia Española also acknowledges the use of a. n. e. (antes de nuestra era, 'before our era') and d. n. e. (después de nuestra era, 'after our era').[82] In scholarly writing, a. e. c. is the equivalent of the English "BCE", "antes de la era común" or "Before the Common Era".[83]
  • In Welsh, OC can be expanded to equivalents of both AD (Oed Crist) and CE (Oes Cyffredin); for dates before the Common Era, CC (traditionally, Cyn Crist) is used exclusively.
  • In Russian since the October Revolution (1917) до н.э. (до нашей эры, lit. before our era) and н.э. (нашей эры, lit. of our era) are used almost universally. Within Christian churches до Р.Х./от Р.Х. (до/от Рождества Христова, i.e. before/after the birth of Christ, equivalent to Latin: Ante Christum natum) remains in use.
  • In Polish, "p.n.e." (przed naszą erą, lit. before our era) and "n.e." (naszej ery, lit. of our era) are commonly used in historical and scientific literature. Przed Chrystusem (before Christ) and po Chrystusie (after Christ) see sporadic usage, mostly in religious publications.
  • In China, upon the foundation of the Republic of China, the Government in Nanking adopted the Republic of China calendar with 1912 designated as year 1, but used the Western calendar for international purposes. The translated term was Chinese: 西元 (xī yuán, "Western Era"), which is still used in Taiwan in formal documents. In 1949, the People's Republic of China adopted 公元 (gōngyuán, "Common Era") for both internal and external affairs in mainland China. This notation was extended to Hong Kong in 1997 and Macau in 1999 (de facto extended in 1966) through Annex III of Hong Kong Basic Law and Macau Basic Law, thus eliminating the ROC calendar in these areas. BCE is translated into Chinese as 公元前 (gōngyuánqián, "Before the Common Era").
  • In Czech, the "n. l." (našeho letopočtu which translates as of our year count) and "př. n. l." or "před n. l." (před naším letopočtem meaning before our year count) is used, always after the year number. The direct translation of AD (léta Páně, abbreviated as L. P.) or BC (před Kristem, abbreviated as př. Kr.) is seen as archaic.[84]
  • In Croatian the common form used for BC and AD are pr. Kr. (prije Krista, "before Christ")[85] and p. Kr. (poslije Krista, after Christ).[86] The abbreviations pr. n. e. (prije nove ere, before new era)[87] and n. e. (nove ere, (of the) new era)[88] have also recently been introduced.
  • In Danish, "f.v.t." (før vor tidsregning, before our time reckoning) and "e.v.t." (efter vor tidsregning, after our time reckoning) are used as BCE/CE are in English. Also commonly used are "f.Kr." (før Kristus, before Christ) and "e.Kr." (efter Kristus, after Christ), which are both placed after the year number in contrast with BC/AD in English.
  • In Macedonian, the terms "п.н.е." (пред нашата ера "before our era") and "н.е." (наша ера "our era") are used in every aspect.[citation needed]
  • In Estonian, "e.m.a." (enne meie ajaarvamist, before our time reckoning) and "m.a.j." (meie ajaarvamise järgi, according to our time reckoning) are used as BCE and CE, respectively. Also in use are terms "eKr" (enne Kristust, before Christ) and "pKr" (pärast Kristust, after Christ). In all cases, the abbreviation is written after the year number.
  • In Finnish, "eaa." (ennen ajanlaskun alkua, before time reckoning) and "jaa." (jälkeen ajanlaskun alun, after the start of time reckoning) are used as BCE and CE, respectively. Also (decreasingly) in use are terms "eKr", (ennen Kristusta, before Christ) and "jKr". (jälkeen Kristuksen, after Christ). In all cases, the abbreviation is written after the year number.

See also

[edit]

Explanatory notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Common Era

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Common Era (CE) denotes the calendrical era commencing with year 1, reckoned from the approximate date of Jesus of Nazareth's birth, and extending indefinitely forward; it is numerically identical to the Anno Domini (AD) system employed in the Julian and Gregorian calendars. Before the Common Era (BCE) correspondingly marks preceding years, supplanting Before Christ (BC). This notation emerged in the early 17th century among Protestant scholars in Europe, initially as the "Vulgar Era" (from Latin vulgaris, meaning common or ordinary), to distinguish the prevalent Christian timeline from alternative historical reckonings without altering its foundational anchor in the Incarnation. Widespread adoption of CE/BCE occurred primarily in academic, scientific, and interfaith contexts from the onward, driven initially by Jewish historians to mitigate the explicit Christian connotations of AD/BC, thereby fostering inclusivity in scholarly . Its prevalence surged in the late 20th and early 21st centuries within universities, peer-reviewed journals, and international bodies like the , reflecting a broader trend amid , though AD/BC persists in everyday, religious, and many non-Western usages. Proponents view it as neutral and ecumenical, yet critics contend it constitutes a superficial that obscures the era's indelible Christian origin—the calendar's remains causally rooted in the historical figure of , rendering true chronological neutrality illusory absent a wholesale reformulation of global timekeeping standards. This tension underscores ongoing debates over in , where institutional preferences in academia—often aligned with progressive —have elevated CE/BCE despite limited empirical advantages in precision or universality.

Definition and Core Concepts

Equivalence to Anno Domini and Before Christ

The Common Era (CE) is chronologically identical to the Anno Domini (AD) system, with year numbering commencing at the same epoch traditionally dated to the approximate birth year of Jesus Christ as calculated by Dionysius Exiguus in 525 CE. Thus, any given year labeled as, for example, 2025 CE corresponds precisely to 2025 AD, encompassing the same temporal span without any offset or adjustment in dating. This equivalence preserves the proleptic Gregorian or Julian calendar framework, where positive integers count forward from year 1, reflecting the era's foundation in Christian chronology despite the secular nomenclature of CE. Before Common Era (BCE) similarly aligns exactly with Before Christ (BC), denoting years prior to the shared and counted backwards from year 1 CE/AD 1, such that 100 BCE matches 100 BC in duration and position relative to the dividing line. There is no in either system; the transition occurs directly from 1 BCE/BC to 1 CE/AD, a convention originating from Dionysius's that avoids a null year to maintain seamless progression. This structure ensures that historical events dated under one notation—such as the fall of the in 476 CE/AD—retain identical placement when converted to the other, facilitating across scholarly and secular contexts without altering factual timelines. While CE/BCE terminology emerged to provide religiously neutral alternatives, the underlying chronology remains anchored to the incarnational , rendering the systems functionally interchangeable for precise purposes. Differences lie solely in labeling conventions: AD often precedes the numeral in traditional usage (e.g., ), whereas CE typically follows (e.g., 500 CE), but these stylistic variations do not affect equivalence. Adoption of CE/BCE does not imply a revision of historical zero points but serves contextual preferences, particularly in multicultural or academic settings where explicit Christian references are minimized.

Etymology and Notation Conventions

The phrase "Common Era" first appeared in English scholarship in the early , modeled on continental European usages denoting a universally applicable chronological reckoning distinct from explicitly religious terminology. Its earliest documented English instance dates to 1708 in the publication The History of the Works of the Learned, where it served as a for the Christian era without invoking Latin religious phrases. The term draws from the Latin aera vulgaris or "vulgar era," in which vulgaris connoted "common" or "of the people" rather than profane, reflecting a practical system for shared dating across diverse users. By the mid-18th century, "Common Era" had established itself in as a neutral descriptor for the post-1 CE timeline, though its abbreviations CE and BCE emerged later, with CE attested around 1838 and BCE by 1881, primarily as secular alternatives to and BC. Notation for the Common Era follows specific conventions to ensure clarity and consistency in historical and scientific texts. The abbreviations "CE" (Common Era) and "BCE" (Before Common Era) are placed after the year numeral, yielding forms such as "2025 CE" or "500 BCE," which contrasts with the flexibility of "" (often preceding, as in "AD 2025," though post-positioning occurs). This postfix convention aids readability in sequences of dates and aligns with style guides from bodies like the and , which recommend it for scholarly publications to avoid ambiguity. No year zero exists in the system; BCE years decrement directly from 1 CE (e.g., 1 BCE precedes 1 CE), preserving the continuous integer progression established in the original framework. In formal writing, full expansions like "Common Era" may appear on first use, with abbreviations thereafter, and approximations use "circa" (e.g., "circa 1500 BCE").

Historical Foundations of the Christian Epoch

Establishment of the Anno Domini System by Dionysius Exiguus

Dionysius Exiguus, a Scythian monk active in Rome during the early sixth century, originated the Anno Domini (AD) system in 525 while compiling a continuation of Alexandrian Easter tables that were set to expire after the year 247 of the Diocletian era. These prior tables, rooted in the Alexandrian computus tradition, relied on the era of Diocletian, which began in 284 and honored an emperor notorious for persecuting Christians, prompting Dionysius to devise an alternative reckoning aligned with the Incarnation of Christ. His new 95-year cycle projected Easter full moons and Sundays from 532 to 626, marking years explicitly as "Anno Domini" to denote intervals from the Lord's birth rather than a pagan or persecutorial baseline. To establish year 1 AD, calculated backward from narratives and Roman consular records, positing Christ's birth in the consulate of Caesar Augustus and Capito (dated by him to the 754th year , or from Rome's founding). He treated the —conceived as occurring on in the —as the pivotal event, assigning no preceding and thus sequencing directly before 1 AD without interruption. This methodology drew from earlier Christian chronographers like Hippolytus and but innovated by standardizing a continuous forward count from a fixed Christian origin point, independent of imperial reigns. In his accompanying letter to , justified the shift as theologically preferable, arguing that numbering years from Christ's advent honored over human tyranny. Though Dionysius's tables circulated in papal and monastic circles shortly after 525, the system's broader lagged, with his projected birth year for Christ later revised by scholars to approximately based on Herod the Great's death and astronomical data for events like the . His framework nonetheless laid the numerical foundation for the Julian and eventual Gregorian calendars' year numbering, emphasizing a linear progression from a singular salvific event rather than cyclical or regnal cycles common in antiquity. The absence of a in his design, a deliberate choice reflecting incomplete zero notation in sixth-century , persists in modern usage and affects cross-era calculations, such as in astronomy where negative years bridge the transition.

Spread and Standardization in Medieval Europe

The Anno Domini (AD) system, devised by in 525 for tables, saw limited initial adoption in , where regnal years, consular dating, and indictions remained prevalent. Its broader dissemination began in the through the Anglo-Saxon scholar (c. 673–735), who systematically applied AD dating in his Ecclesiastical History of the (completed 731), marking events from the onward and thereby popularizing the method in monastic and scholarly circles in . Bede's chronological work De Temporum Ratione (725) further reinforced this by integrating Dionysius's framework into computus traditions for calculating , influencing subsequent Anglo-Saxon chroniclers and aiding the system's entrenchment in Insular . The transmission to continental Europe accelerated during the (late 8th–9th centuries), when the Northumbrian scholar of (c. 735–804), invited to Charlemagne's court in 782, endorsed AD as the preferred era in educational reforms and scriptoria. Charlemagne's adoption of AD for official imperial acts and diplomas from around 796 onward formalized its use in Frankish administration, supplanting Diocletian-era and aligning with efforts to unify liturgical and historical reckoning across the empire. This endorsement extended through Carolingian successors, with AD appearing consistently in charters, annals like the Annales Regni Francorum, and ecclesiastical texts by the mid-9th century, though regional variations persisted, such as Byzantine indictions in eastern influences or local regnal counts. By the , AD had achieved standardization in Western European historiography and diplomacy, as evidenced in chronicles like those of and the increasing uniformity in papal bulls and royal edicts, displacing alternative systems amid growing centralized monarchies and the Gregorian Reform's emphasis on precise chronology. Full dominance, however, varied: in post-Conquest (), Norman scribes reinforced it via Anglo-Saxon precedents, while in and Iberia, hybrid uses lingered until the 13th century due to Roman legal traditions and documentation. This standardization reflected pragmatic needs for cross-regional communication in trade, warfare, and church councils, rather than uniform decree, with AD's Christocentric anchor providing causal continuity from Dionysius's theological intent.

Development of Common Era Terminology

Early Christian Precursors: Vulgar Era and 17th-Century Usage

The term "Vulgar Era" originated in early 17th-century as a neutral descriptor for the chronological reckoning from the birth of Christ, with "vulgar" stemming from Latin vulgaris, denoting "common," "ordinary," or "popular" rather than connotations. This phrasing served Christian scholars in astronomical and calendrical computations to reference the standard era without invoking ecclesiastical titles like , while distinguishing it from specialized eras such as the Julian Period for eclipse predictions. Johannes Kepler, the German astronomer, first documented the expression in his Ephemerides novae motuum coelestium (New Ephemerides of Celestial Motions), titling sections ab anno vulgaris aerae starting from his 1617 edition covering years 1617 to 1636. Kepler employed it again in a 1616 ephemerides table and subsequent works, reflecting its utility in scientific tables aligned with the Christian calendar's widespread acceptance. An English edition of Kepler's 1635 work introduced "Vulgar Era" to English readers, marking its translingual adoption among Protestant scholars. Throughout the , "Vulgar Era" appeared interchangeably with phrases like "Christian Era" in Latin texts by European astronomers and chronologists, underscoring its roots in Christian intellectual traditions rather than secular or interfaith motivations. For instance, a Latin publication used Vulgaris Aerae to denote post-Christ dating in theological contexts. This era nomenclature persisted among as a practical variant, preserving the Dionysian epoch's Christian origin while facilitating computations in pluralistic scholarly exchanges.

19th-Century Jewish Adoption for Religious Neutrality

In the early , Jewish communities in and Britain began employing the "Vulgar Era" (VE) and later "Common Era" (CE) notations as alternatives to the Christian "Anno Domini" (AD) system, enabling the use of the Gregorian calendar's timeline without explicit reference to as "" or "Christ." This practice addressed theological incompatibilities, as does not recognize the or Messiahship central to AD's origin, while facilitating integration into secular scholarship and administration dominated by Christian dating conventions. An early documented instance appears on headstone A13 in the Old Jewish Cemetery at , , inscribed in 1825 with "VE" to denote the era, reflecting its application in commemorative contexts among . Here, "vulgar" derived from Latin vulgaris meaning "common" or "of the people," underscoring the era's ordinary, non-regal status rather than implying coarseness. By mid-century, the notation transitioned to printed scholarship; for example, Morris Jacob Raphall's Post-Biblical History of the (1856) systematically used "CE" for post-epoch dates and "BCE" (Before Common Era) for preceding ones, marking a deliberate in historical writing. This adoption coincided with Jewish emancipation efforts across Europe, where intellectuals sought to reconcile traditional observance with Enlightenment rationalism and participation in universities and publishing. Unlike AD/BC, which originated in 6th-century monastic calculations tied to Christ's birth, CE/BCE preserved chronological continuity but stripped overt Christological language, prioritizing pragmatic utility over doctrinal endorsement. The shift remained confined largely to Jewish-authored works until broader secular uptake in the , underscoring its initial role as a workaround rather than a universal reform.

20th-Century Academic and Secular Revival

The Common Era notation, after its limited adoption among Jewish scholars in the , underwent a revival in broader academic and secular circles during the , particularly from the mid-century onward. This resurgence reflected growing emphasis on in Western scholarship, where explicit Christian terminology like was increasingly viewed as parochial in pluralistic or international contexts. Non-Jewish historians and scientists began incorporating CE and BCE to denote the same chronological epochs without invoking dominus () in reference to Jesus Christ, aligning with post-World War II trends toward deconfessionalized and research. By the and , CE/BCE appeared in specialized academic works, such as astronomical and historical analyses, where neutrality facilitated collaboration; for instance, it gained traction in publications addressing global timelines without assuming a Christian audience. Usage accelerated in the late , with adoption in university presses and peer-reviewed journals, driven by editorial policies favoring amid rising and toward religious framing in public institutions. This period marked a departure from predominant AD/BC conventions in earlier 20th-century texts, though traditional notations persisted in many conservative or religiously oriented outlets. The revival was not uniform; it proliferated first in fields like , , and outside confessional seminaries, where scholars sought to emphasize empirical chronology over theological implications. Proponents argued that CE/BCE preserved chronological precision while accommodating non-Christian perspectives, yet critics within academia noted that the underlying epoch—calibrated to the approximate birth of —retained its Christian origin, rendering the relabeling semantically superficial rather than substantively neutral. By the and , style guides from major academic publishers, such as the Chicago Manual of Style in its evolving editions, began recommending CE/BCE for certain contexts, solidifying its foothold in secular despite ongoing debates over historical transparency. This academic endorsement extended to educational curricula in secular universities, where it served as a tool for ideological distancing from Eurocentric religious norms, though empirical surveys of publication trends indicate gradual rather than abrupt dominance until the century's end.

Patterns of Contemporary Adoption

Prevalence in Scholarly and Educational Institutions

In academic disciplines such as , , and , BCE/CE notation has gained significant traction since the late , particularly in publications aiming for terminological neutrality amid diverse readerships. This shift is evident in American and international scholarly journals, where CE replaces AD to align with secular standards, though BC/AD persists in fields like early medieval European history and archaeology. For instance, many university presses and peer-reviewed outlets in the humanities now default to BCE/CE in dating ancient events, reflecting institutional preferences for avoiding explicit Christian references in global scholarship. Educational curricula, especially in public schools and secular universities, show similar patterns, with textbooks increasingly adopting BCE/CE to comply with guidelines prohibiting religious endorsements. In the United States, this usage predominates in K-12 and undergraduate materials on world history, driven by legal precedents favoring neutral language in taxpayer-funded . However, adoption varies by region: British and continental European textbooks often retain BC/AD, particularly in contexts tied to Christian heritage studies, while North American institutions exhibit higher rates due to multicultural policies. No comprehensive global surveys quantify exact prevalence, but anecdotal analyses of recent publications indicate BCE/CE in over half of U.S.-based journals, contrasted with journalistic persistence of BC/AD. Style guides for scholarly writing, such as those from university presses, accommodate both systems but increasingly illustrate BCE/CE in examples for interdisciplinary work. This reflects academia's broader trend toward inclusivity, though critics note that such preferences may stem from institutional biases favoring secular framing over historical transparency, as BC/AD usage remains normative in non-academic historical narratives. In STEM-adjacent fields like , CE dominates timelines, underscoring its entrenchment in evidence-based, pluralistic discourse.

Regional and National Variations in Official Use

The official adoption of Common Era (CE) notation in governmental and national contexts exhibits significant variation, often reflecting a nation's religious demographics, degree of , and historical traditions rather than uniform standards. In countries with strong Christian heritage, such as those in and , (AD) or numerical years without explicit era markers predominate in civil documents and legislation, where post-1 CE dates require no annotation for clarity. Conversely, in more pluralistic or non-Christian majority states, CE/BCE may be favored to emphasize neutrality, though shows limited mandatory enforcement outside style guides. Australia represents a clear case of official preference for CE/BCE, as stipulated in the Australian Government Style Manual, which directs writers to use these terms for historical dates to denote the common era and preceding period, explicitly rejecting BC/AD in favor of secular equivalents. This guidance applies across federal communications, ensuring consistency in administrative and educational materials produced by government bodies. In Canada, federal language guidelines permit both BC/AD and BCE/CE, with the latter placed after the year in uppercase (e.g., 500 BCE), allowing flexibility based on context while maintaining uppercase for abbreviations; this accommodates diverse audiences in official bilingual publications from agencies like the Translation Bureau. In , the supplements the for civil and international purposes under the 1992 legislation standardizing dual usage, but era notation typically omits AD/CE markers for modern years, relying on numerical values; historical references in government-aligned academic or cultural documents often employ CE/BCE to align with Jewish scholarly conventions that avoid explicit Christian terminology. European nations show fragmentation: France's official historiography and legal texts retain "ap. J.-C." (after Christ) equivalents to AD, preserving the traditional anchor despite secular , while the United Kingdom's government publications under conventions generally default to AD/BC or unadorned numerals absent specific historical need. In the United States, federal entities like incorporate CE in astronomical tables for computational neutrality (e.g., "1 CE" alongside "AD 1"), but broader executive and legislative documents favor AD or omit notation, reflecting entrenched cultural norms over relabeling. These patterns underscore that official variations prioritize practical continuity over ideological shifts, with CE adoption confined to advisory styles in select secular administrations rather than binding national law.

Rationales for Preferring Common Era

Claims of Secular Neutrality and Inclusivity

Proponents of the Common Era (CE) and Before Common Era (BCE) notation assert that it achieves secular neutrality by replacing the Latin "" (AD), meaning "in the year of the ," and "Before Christ" (BC), which directly invoke Christ as a divine figure central to . This shift is claimed to eliminate explicit religious endorsements in calendrical references, rendering the system suitable for non-sectarian applications in and science. Advocates further maintain that CE/BCE enhances inclusivity in pluralistic societies by accommodating individuals from non-Christian backgrounds, who may perceive AD/BC as imposing a . For instance, in educational settings, the is promoted to foster an environment free from perceived theological , aligning with broader efforts to secularize public discourse and avoid alienating religious minorities. These claims gained traction in mid-20th-century academia, where CE/BCE usage proliferated in journals and textbooks to signal objectivity, particularly in fields like and . Supporters, including some style guides, argue the abbreviations maintain chronological continuity while stripping confessional language, thus serving diverse global audiences without necessitating a wholesale calendar overhaul. However, such rationales often emanate from institutions predisposed toward secular interpretations, potentially overlooking the persistent Christian origin of the epoch's zero point.

Avoidance of Explicit Christian References in Pluralistic Contexts

In pluralistic societies characterized by religious diversity, proponents of the (CE) notation argue that substituting it for (AD) mitigates perceptions of Christian dominance in chronological frameworks, fostering a semblance of inclusivity without overt theological endorsement. This preference stems from the view that AD's literal translation—"in the year of our Lord"—privileges by invoking Jesus Christ as a divine figure, potentially marginalizing non-Christian populations in shared public discourse. For instance, in multicultural educational settings, CE is adopted to present historical timelines as neutral tools rather than extensions of authority, aiming to accommodate students from Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, or secular backgrounds who might interpret AD as exclusionary. This avoidance manifests in and international contexts where religious neutrality is prioritized to align with broader secular or multicultural mandates. Institutions such as universities in diverse nations like the or often mandate CE in curricula to reflect pluralism, arguing it separates temporal reckoning from confessional language while retaining the underlying Gregorian epoch. Similarly, global bodies and scholarly journals favor CE to facilitate cross-cultural collaboration, positing that explicit Christian markers could undermine objectivity in fields like or , where participants hail from varied faiths. Advocates, including some historians, contend this relabeling promotes equity by not requiring non-Christians to implicitly affirm Christian lordship in everyday references to dates post-1 CE. Empirical adoption patterns underscore this rationale's influence, with surveys of academic style guides from the early showing increasing CE usage in non-theological disciplines to navigate pluralism without altering the zero-point anchored to the approximate birth of around 4–6 BCE. However, this approach presumes surface-level suffices for neutrality, as the epoch's origin in Dionysius Exiguus's 6th-century Christian calculations remains unchanged, rendering the shift more symbolic than substantive in erasing the system's foundational Christian causality.

Criticisms and Substantiated Objections

Inherent Christian Basis of the Epoch Undermined by Relabeling

The Anno Domini (AD) system, devised by the Scythian monk Dionysius Exiguus in 525, calculates years forward from the estimated date of Jesus Christ's incarnation, explicitly termed Anno Domini Nostri Iesu Christi ("in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ"). This framework anchors the epoch to a pivotal event in Christian doctrine—the birth of Christ—replacing prior Roman systems like the Diocletianic era, which commemorated a persecutor of Christians. By design, AD/BC delineates history relative to this theological fulcrum, reflecting Christianity's ascendancy in Western chronology after the Roman Empire's Christianization under Constantine in 312 and Theodosius I in 380. The Common Era (CE) notation, introduced among Jewish scholars in the and later adopted in secular academia, preserves the identical year sequence and zero point but substitutes neutral phrasing to evade overt religious . Despite claims of inclusivity, CE/BCE does not recalibrate the timeline; the year 1 CE corresponds precisely to year 1 AD, with the division still hinging on Christ's nativity as calculated by (later refined but never detached from its Christocentric origin). This superficial relabeling obscures the epoch's foundational reliance on Christian premises, as the dating convention emerged from ecclesiastical computations for tables and proliferated through Christian institutions like the in the . Proponents assert CE promotes pluralism by avoiding "" (Dominus), yet this maneuver undermines the epoch's transparency: the global standard for civil, scientific, and historical reckoning—used in over 95% of international contexts per —derives causally from Christianity's , not an abstract "common" consensus. Relabeling thus fosters a form of chronological revisionism, implying equivalence among eras while eliding the empirical dominance of the (revised from Julian in 1582 under Pope Gregory XIII) as a Christian export via European colonialism and missions. Critics, including Christian scholars, argue this erodes acknowledgment of verifiable historical : no alternative zero year supplants Christ's birth without fabricating a new system, rendering CE a semantic veneer over an indelible Christian substrate.

Evidence of Ideological Motivations and Historical Revisionism

Critics, including theologian R. Albert Mohler Jr., contend that the promotion of BCE/CE notation reflects an ideological drive to secularize historical dating by erasing explicit acknowledgments of Christianity's foundational role in the Gregorian calendar's epoch, which remains defined by the approximate year of ' birth as calculated by in 525 CE. This relabeling is viewed not as neutral but as a deliberate , preserving the Christian-anchored timeline—spanning from circa 4–6 BCE for the nativity to the present—while stripping terms like "Before Christ" and "" that affirm the Incarnation's centrality to Western for over 1,500 years. Such motivations are evidenced in institutional pushes, as seen in 2006 when 's Department of Education proposed mandating BCE/CE in curricula, prompting backlash from groups like the Family Foundation of Kentucky, who argued it denied the dating system's Christian origins and compromised educational transparency; the proposal was ultimately revised to allow both systems. Christian organizations, including at least one major governing body, have formally resisted the shift, attributing it to broader trends of , anti-supernaturalism, , and political correctness that seek to marginalize Christianity's cultural legacy without altering underlying facts. The revisionist aspect manifests in academic enforcement, where instructors have deducted points from students using BC/AD, interpreting adherence to traditional terms as non-compliant with secular norms, despite the notations' equivalence in referential precision. Commentators like Michael W. Perry liken this to ideological rewriting akin to historical distortions in totalitarian regimes, as it reframes a Christocentric framework under euphemistic "common" language to feign universality, ignoring the calendar's empirical roots in Christian computus while privileging non-confessional interpretations prevalent in left-leaning scholarly circles. This pattern aligns with critiques that BCE/CE adoption correlates with institutional biases favoring de-Christianized narratives, as evidenced by its disproportionate prevalence in , , and departments despite lacking chronological advantages over BC/AD.

Practical Inefficiencies and Loss of Cultural Transparency

The adoption of (CE) and Before Common Era (BCE) notations introduces practical inefficiencies relative to (AD) and Before Christ (BC), primarily through increased verbosity and communication friction. CE and BCE require spelling out longer phrases in full contexts—such as academic papers or public discourse—compared to the succinct two-letter AD/BC abbreviations, which have been standardized for over 1,500 years since their widespread use following the 6th-century calculations of . This extension can complicate typesetting, indexing, and data entry in fields like , , and archival records, where space efficiency matters. User confusion exacerbates these issues, as evidenced by ongoing debates in professional forums and public surveys indicating that BCE/CE remain opaque to non-specialists, including older demographics and international audiences outside Western academia. For instance, in numismatic catalogs and historical databases, BC/AD persist due to their entrenched familiarity, avoiding the need for glossaries or disclaimers that BCE/CE often necessitate. In spoken contexts, such as lectures or media, the shift demands repeated clarification, reducing efficiency in time-sensitive transmissions like or legal documentation. Beyond logistics, CE/BCE erodes cultural transparency by decoupling the dating system's explicit ties to its Christian origins, fostering a sanitized that obscures the epoch's foundation in the estimated year of Christ's (circa 1 AD, per Dionysius's 525 reckoning). While the underlying —dividing at this pivotal event—remains unchanged, the neutral phrasing masks Christianity's historical dominance in global timekeeping, from the Roman Empire's adoption through European colonialism's spread of the in the 16th–19th centuries. Critics, including historians and cultural commentators, contend this relabeling promotes ideological erasure, as it implies a generic "common" era without acknowledging the event's theological significance, potentially leading to diminished public understanding of Western calendrical heritage. This opacity is particularly evident in educational settings, where students encountering BCE/CE may infer a secular or multicultural origin devoid of religious , despite the system's roots in 4th–6th century Christian computations amid the Roman-to-Byzantine transition. Empirical observations from debates highlight how such shifts prioritize perceived neutrality over mnemonic clarity, resulting in generational knowledge gaps about the calendar's causal anchors. In dialogues, the terminology's ambiguity can hinder precise historical referencing, as non-Western scholars must navigate an implied that elides Christianity's empirical role in synchronizing disparate eras.

Guidelines in Publishing and Standards

Recommendations from Major Style Guides

, in its 17th edition, accommodates both BC/AD and BCE/CE notations but defaults to BC and AD in examples and does not advocate replacing the traditional terms, reflecting an ongoing debate rather than a settled preference for secular alternatives. Consistency within a publication remains the primary requirement, with AD placed before the year (e.g., AD 476) and BC, BCE, or CE following it (e.g., 476 BC or 476 BCE). The MLA Style Center explicitly prefers BCE and CE for era designations in its own publications, positioning these as alternatives that follow the year (e.g., 476 BCE), though it grants authors discretion based on context or audience. This stance aligns with broader academic trends favoring perceived neutrality, yet MLA acknowledges no universal mandate, allowing BC/AD where tradition or specificity warrants it. guidance, particularly for citing ancient or classical works, employs BCE (e.g., ca. 500 BCE) to denote periods before the common era, integrating it seamlessly into reference formats without prohibiting AD/BC but demonstrating a practical inclination toward the CE system in scholarly psychological and contexts. The absence of a rigid prescription in the APA Publication Manual underscores flexibility, with BCE used for approximations via "ca." (circa). The Associated Press (AP) Stylebook permits either BC or BCE interchangeably for pre-Christian dates, with BCE favored by some for its non-religious connotation, while maintaining AD as standard post-epoch without endorsing CE. This dual acceptance caters to journalistic versatility, prioritizing clarity for general audiences over ideological shifts.
Style GuidePreferred NotationKey Notes
BC/ADAllows BCE/CE if consistent; traditional examples use BC/AD.
MLABCE/CEWriter's choice, but preferred in MLA outputs for neutrality.
APABCE (for ancient dates)Used in guidance; no strict ban on BC/AD, emphasizes precision.
BC or BCEFlexible; AD standard, BCE optional for some users.
Other guides, such as those from scientific bodies like the , explicitly recommend BCE/CE over BC/AD to align with secular conventions in research. Overall, preferences diverge along disciplinary lines, with and retaining more tolerance for BC/AD's historical transparency, while social sciences and academia increasingly adopt BCE/CE amid claims of inclusivity, though without altering the underlying Dionysian epoch calculation.

Institutional Policies and Debates

In academic institutions, the use of BCE/CE notation is often encouraged or required in scholarly publications to promote perceived neutrality, with organizations like the recommending it since at least 2019 for consistency in historical dating. Similarly, some university presses and journals, such as those affiliated with the , have adopted guidelines favoring BCE/CE, reflecting a broader trend in humanities departments where secular framing aligns with institutional emphases on inclusivity, though this shift is not universal and persists alongside AD/BC in fields like early medieval history and . Official Roman Catholic publications, however, consistently retain AD/BC, viewing the alternatives as unnecessary dilutions of the calendar's Christian origins. Public education policies vary by jurisdiction, with debates highlighting tensions between secular standardization and preservation of traditional references. In , the State School Board considered mandating BCE/CE over AD/BC in textbooks during 2006 deliberations, framing the change as enhancing accessibility in diverse classrooms, but faced opposition from religious advocates who argued it obscured the Gregorian calendar's foundational Christian epoch. Conversely, in , the state passed Senate Bill 13 on May 20, 2025, requiring public schools to use instructional materials employing "Before Christ" (BC) and "" (AD), effectively restricting texts with BCE/CE to counteract what proponents described as ideological erasure of historical context in K-12 curricula. This legislative pushback illustrates resistance in conservative-leaning states against academic norms, prioritizing explicit acknowledgment of the dating system's roots over neutral relabeling. Broader institutional debates often center on cultural and ideological implications, with critics in religious and conservative circles contending that mandating BCE/CE in publicly funded entities represents an overreach of , potentially fostering historical revisionism by masking the Anno Domini system's dependence on the estimated birth of Christ. Proponents, including entities like the and the , defend its adoption in educational resources for aligning with global scholarly practices and avoiding explicit theological endorsements, yet empirical surveys of usage indicate BCE/CE remains non-dominant in primary and secondary texts, comprising less than half of sampled American textbooks as of recent analyses. These contentions underscore ongoing policy friction, where decisions hinge on balancing empirical continuity of the Julian-Gregorian framework against interpretive preferences, without altering the underlying chronological anchors.

Comparative Eras in Non-Western Calendars

Examples from Islamic, Hebrew, and Other Traditions

The Islamic calendar, known as the Hijri or AH (Anno Hegirae) system, establishes its epoch at the Hijra, the migration of Muhammad from Mecca to Medina, corresponding to July 15, 622 CE. This lunar calendar counts years explicitly from this foundational event in Islamic history, with the first year (1 AH) marking the establishment of the first Muslim community in Medina, and it remains in official use for religious observances such as Ramadan across Muslim-majority countries without secular relabeling to obscure its origins. The employs the (AM) reckoning, with its epoch set at the traditional date of creation derived from biblical , equivalent to sunset on , 3761 BCE in the . Years are numbered from this point, as in the current year 5785–5786 AM (2024–2025 CE), reflecting a continuous lunisolar system tied to Jewish scriptural timelines and festivals like , which begins the year on 1 Tishri AM; this framework has been standardized since at least the 9th century CE and persists in religious and communal contexts without efforts to neutralize its theological basis. In Buddhist traditions, particularly in , the Buddhist Era (BE) calendar sets its epoch at the parinirvana (final passing) of Siddhartha Gautama, dated to approximately 543 BCE in Thai reckoning or 544 BCE in Sri Lankan and variants. Used alongside lunisolar or solar s in countries like (where 2567 BE aligns with 2024 CE), it directly commemorates the Buddha's death as , guiding liturgical events such as without rebranding to eliminate the founder's centrality. Hindu calendars feature multiple eras, including the (VS), commencing in 57 BCE to mark the legendary ascension of King , and the Samvat, starting 78 CE in association with the Kushan ruler Kanishka's reign. These lunisolar systems, prevalent in and , integrate epochs linked to royal or mythological inaugurations—such as the Kali Yuga's onset in 3102 BCE per Puranic texts—retaining explicit historical or scriptural anchors for festivals like , in contrast to secular dilutions elsewhere.

Interactions with the Gregorian Framework

The , utilizing Common Era (CE) and Before Common Era (BCE) notations for year numbering, serves as the primary civil standard in most nations with non-Western calendars, enabling practical integration for , , and international coordination. In Muslim-majority countries, the Hijri calendar governs religious affairs, while the Gregorian/CE framework handles secular administration; , for example, formalized this duality in November 2023 by approving Gregorian use for all official procedures except Shariah-related matters. Similarly, employs the for Jewish holidays alongside Gregorian/CE for civil purposes, reflecting a global trend where the solar-based Gregorian synchronizes economic and diplomatic activities despite cultural preferences for lunar or lunisolar systems. Interactions occur through conversion mechanisms that map non-Western dates to Gregorian/CE equivalents, accounting for discrepancies in year length and epoch origins. The Hebrew Anno Mundi (AM) system, commencing approximately 3761 BCE, converts to CE years via subtraction: AM minus 3760 for dates before Rosh Hashanah or 3761 afterward, with full date algorithms adjusting for 19-year Metonic cycles and leap months to align lunisolar months with Gregorian solar progression. For the Islamic Hijri (AH) calendar, starting in 622 CE with 354 or 355 days per year, approximate year conversion uses CE ≈ (AH × 970224 / 1,000,000) + 621.5774, though precise mappings depend on variable lunar month lengths determined by sighting or arithmetic, resulting in an annual drift of 10–12 days backward relative to Gregorian dates. Tools like multi-calendar converters facilitate these transformations, ensuring events such as Ramadan (e.g., AH 1446 aligning with early 2025 CE) or Hebrew New Year (e.g., AM 5786 in September–October 2025 CE) can be cross-referenced. The extends these interactions historically by applying modern rules retroactively to BCE periods, standardizing dates from ancient non-Western records—such as Babylonian or Persian sources converted via intermediaries like the —without the Julian-to-Gregorian skips post-1582. This yields a unified timeline for and , though inherent mismatches (e.g., Hijri's lack of seasonal anchoring) require ongoing recalibration, underscoring the Gregorian/CE's role as a pragmatic anchor amid diverse traditions.

References

  1. https://earthsky.org/human-world/definition-common-era-bce-ce-bc-ad/
  2. https://www.antidote.info/en/blog/reports/bc-and-ad-bce-and-ce-whats-difference
  3. https://www.bibleodyssey.org/articles/bce-and-ce-versus-bc-and-ad/
  4. https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2021/12/05/a-history-of-the-common-era-bce-ce-dating-system/
  5. https://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/ce-bce-what-do-they-mean.html
  6. https://www.thoughtco.com/when-to-use-ad-or-ce-116687
  7. https://www.anthonydelgado.net/blog-1/what-is-the-meaning-of-bc-and-ad-versus-ce-and-bce
  8. https://agoodlibrary.com/bc-ad-bp-bce-ce-ka-cal-circa-whats-the-difference/
  9. https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1041/the-origin--history-of-the-bcece-dating-system/
  10. https://www.etymonline.com/word/C.E.
  11. https://ellii.com/blog/abbreviations-bc-ad-bce-ce
  12. https://style.mla.org/bc-ad-bce-ce/
  13. https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Abbreviations/faq0092.html
  14. https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/dates.html
  15. https://www.livescience.com/45510-anno-domini.html
  16. https://time.com/4462775/bc-ad-dating-history/
  17. https://soh.church/what-does-ad-mean/
  18. https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/dionysius_exiguus_easter_01.htm
  19. https://academic.oup.com/book/25620/chapter/192998181
  20. https://charlesasullivan.com/1842/dionysius-exiguus-and-the-ad-calendar-system/
  21. https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/jesus-historical-jesus/when-was-jesus-born-bc-or-ad/
  22. https://www.worldhistory.org/Bede/
  23. https://englishhistoryauthors.blogspot.com/2012/09/anno-domini-and-venerable-bede.html
  24. https://unm-historiography.github.io/metahistory/essays/medieval/bede.html
  25. https://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/ggo1lp/when_was_the_ad_and_bc_calendar_system_generally/
  26. https://dlab.epfl.ch/wikispeedia/wpcd/wp/a/Anno_Domini.htm
  27. https://www.fabriziomusacchio.com/weekend_stories/told/2024/2024-12-08-anno_domini_explained/
  28. https://landsurvival.com/schools-wikipedia/wp/a/Anno_Domini.htm
  29. https://www.addeigloriam.org/history/general/calendars-4.htm
  30. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/185632
  31. https://calendars.fandom.com/wiki/Common_Era
  32. https://www.jewishgen.org/jcr-uk/susser/plymouthinscriptions.htm
  33. https://www.acjol.org/index.php/jassd/article/download/5984/5798
  34. https://www.quora.com/When-did-the-use-of-A-D-and-C-E-become-more-common-than-B-C-and-B-C-E
  35. https://educatefromcore.com/what-do-ce-bce-and-ad-bc-mean-how-they-differ-from-each-other/
  36. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/389851014_THE_ROLE_OF_SECULARISM_IN_THE_SHIFT_FROMBEFORE_CHRIST_BC_AND_ANNO_DOMINI_AD_TO_COMMON_ERA_CE_AND_BEFORE_COMMON_ERA_BCE_IN_MODERN_HISTORICAL_DATING
  37. https://www.coursesidekick.com/arts-humanities/4181294
  38. https://howardwilliamsblog.wordpress.com/2022/04/07/bc-ad-or-bce-ce-archaeodeath-perspectives/
  39. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271659507_Is_the_CEBCE_notation_becoming_a_standard_in_scholarly_literature
  40. https://acjol.org/index.php/jassd/article/download/5984/5798
  41. https://albertmohler.com/2006/06/02/bc-and-ad-or-bce-and-ce-the-battle-over-history/
  42. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/383460073_Window_Dressing_in_Historical_Dating_The_Superficial_Shift_from_BCAD_to_BCECE_and_the_Global_Landscape_of_Calendar_Systems
  43. https://www.euppublishing.com/submit-an-article/sample-style
  44. https://udayton.edu/magazine/2022/01/common-era.php
  45. https://www.stylemanual.gov.au/grammar-punctuation-and-conventions/numbers-and-measurements/dates-and-time
  46. https://www.noslangues-ourlanguages.gc.ca/en/writing-tips-plus/bc-bce-before-christ-before-the-christian-era-before-the-common-era
  47. https://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/jewish
  48. https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/abbreviations-ad-ce.537575/
  49. https://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/millennium
  50. https://smart.dhgate.com/why-bc-is-now-bce-understanding-the-change-in-dating-systems/
  51. https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/opeds/why_3530
  52. https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-advantages-of-using-BCE-CE-instead-of-BC-AD-in-history-classes
  53. https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/32953/why-use-bce-ce-instead-of-bc-ad
  54. https://askfilo.com/user-question-answers-smart-solutions/what-is-the-importance-bce-and-ce-in-history-3333343736353936
  55. https://www.dailywritingtips.com/ce-vs-ad/
  56. https://themeltingthought2000.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/the-b-c-e-c-e-controversy/
  57. https://bibleprophecytoday.uk/why-bc-and-ad-should-stand-a-christian-perspective-on-the-calendar/
  58. https://creation.com/denying-the-greatest-event-in-the-history-of-the-world
  59. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B-kdnSUmlM
  60. https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/11lsfby/cmv_using_bce_and_ce_instead_of_bc_and_ad_seems/
  61. https://www.numisforums.com/topic/1714-why-do-we-still-use-bc-and-ad-for-numismatics/
  62. https://classicalwisdom.substack.com/p/bcad-or-bcece-the-results-are-in
  63. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1df8s93/is_the_use_of_the_christianoriginated_common_era/
  64. https://www.quora.com/Why-are-there-so-many-people-getting-agitated-when-others-use-BCE-and-CE-instead-of-BC-and-AD
  65. https://vridar.org/2012/02/22/uncommon-tantrums-over-a-common-era/
  66. https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/6ysdyp/cmv_bce_and_ce_are_cultural_appropriation_of/
  67. https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/166
  68. https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Abbreviations/faq0001.html
  69. https://apastyle.apa.org/blog/citing-classical-religious-works
  70. https://x.com/APStylebook/status/1651621249670422533
  71. https://www.facebook.com/apstylebook/posts/either-bc-or-bce-is-acceptable-in-ap-style-in-all-references-to-a-calendar-year-/797476171974279/
  72. https://www.agu.org/publications/authors/journals/grammar-style-guide
  73. https://editorsmanual.com/articles/bc-ad-bce-ce/
  74. https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/859/ad-bc-vs-ce-bce
  75. https://www.fox7austin.com/news/texas-senate-public-schools-use-bc-ad
  76. https://islamcal.com/history/
  77. https://aau.ac.ae/en/blog/how-and-why-did-the-hijiri-calendar-begin
  78. https://biblogic.org/2023/02/anno-mundi.html
  79. https://www.epo.org/en/searching-for-patents/helpful-resources/patent-knowledge-news/calendar-systems-and-their-role-1
  80. https://www.facebook.com/100087108365982/posts/did-you-know-the-current-thai-year-is-2567-be-which-is-543-years-ahead-of-the-we/539045729009035/
  81. https://www.baps.org/Article/2011/Indian-Calendar-System-2273.aspx
  82. https://iskconeducationalservices.org/HoH/practice/festivals/the-hindu-calendar/
  83. https://www.arabnews.com/node/2401501/saudi-arabia
  84. https://altalang.com/beyond-words/6-calendars-around-the-world/
  85. https://www.hebcal.com/converter
  86. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/25913389/how-to-convert-hijri-islamic-date-to-gregorian-date
  87. https://www.meforum.org/muslim-jewish-holy-days
  88. https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/calendar/
  89. https://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/gregorian-calendar.html
  90. https://www.islamicity.org/hijri-gregorian-converter/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.