FWIW Japan uses, in parallel, the Western system, but also a system where the years are counted from the beginning of the reign of the current emperor.
Well Japan's is a bit more baroque since every once in a while the emperor dies and it gets reset (currently it's the Heisei era, which began in 1989).
It is still very commonly used by everyone besides academics and, as others have said, papering over it by calling it the "common era" isn't really that convincing.
I was replying to "we still call it..." "We" are officially not calling it "the year of the lord" in secular contexts because inclusive language is really important. The language has changed. Certainly it has a meaning traced back to religion for historical reasons but so do a lot of other things and it's inconvenient to throw out very well established conventions sometimes. And, yes, new terminology takes a while to catch on.
> I first heard BCE/CE maybe ten years ago or a little less.
Well, if your username is a guide, and you were born in '86, then that makes you 29 or 30, so 10 years ago would be 19 or 20, so in college. That makes sense for the first time for someone to hear about it; it takes a while for ideas to trickle down into elementary & HS textbooks.
Yes, it often takes years for new terminology to catch on and sometimes it doesn't. If a whole generation grows up seeing it in textbooks, and hearing it in the classroom I have no doubt that it will catch on eventually. Most people don't talk BCE outside of a classroom anyways.
I've always found this odd. Declaring the last 2000 years the "Christian Era" seems much more offensive than a couple of letter standing for some fairly arbitrary latin. Added to which, even in countries which could be described as being in a Christian era, it just didn't get going for a couple of hundred years after 0AD
Anno Domini isn't "fairly arbitrary latin" it is very meaningful. CE doesn't stand for Christian Era, it stands for Common Era. There also is not a year 0, it goes from 1BCE to 1CE. Year zero probably doesn't exist because it doesn't make sense for how we count things, you don’t say "it is the 0th year of the common era."
the astronomical year numbering system actually does use year zero but they also use negative years rather than BCE notation.
What makes it so Common? What great event occurred on the year 1 CE that we decided we should start marking our years from that point? Ovid writing "Metamorphoses"?
> What great event occurred on the year 1 CE that we decided we should start marking our years from that point?
Absolutely nothing. You need to have a starting point, and for historical reasons we ended up with that one. It isn't a meaningful date for anybody, but it turns out having a common reference point is more important than having a significant reference point, so nobody cares.
It's actually a very meaningful date to a lot of people on this planet, although I'm not one of them.
We used to refer to years past that date using a short phrase in a dead language. However, this short phrase in a dead language referred to a religious figure, which is Not OK. So we decided we'd rename it "Common Era" but keep the numbers the same because that would be a big hassle. As a result, our calendar still counts how many years have passed since the alleged birth of Christ, but because people might be offended by the words "Anno Domini" we've called it something different.
If I were in the position to pick a new calendar start date, I'd probably just go with the Unix Epoch... AE, Anno Epocha? We'd now be in the year 46AE :)
> It's actually a very meaningful date to a lot of people on this planet
As galdosdi surmised, it's not about whether you're not a believer, it's about that 1 AD isn't believed to be the date for Jesus's birth. At some point historians & theologians realized the calendar was incorrect, and so they had a choice: keep the reference point everyone was familiar with, even if that date is no longer significant, or switch to a better estimate for Jesus's birth, keeping the calendar significant. People decided that commonly known was more important than significant, and so we're left with a BC / AD split, where the reference point is longer meaningful.
mcphage may have meant that it isn't a meaningful date for anybody, because we now know that 1 AD is probably at least several years off from the birth of Jesus Christ.
I always hear people make this claim, but on what evidence do we "know" that? There is no contemporaneous source talking about him while he's alive; the earliest we've got is Mark which was probably written around 60 or 70.
Conversely, I always hear the claim that Jesus was born on 1 AD, but on what evidence do we know that? Some random monks in the dark ages tried to guess so they could make a calendar, and that's the guess they came up with.
While the modern estimate certainly has uncertainty too (how could we ever _know_ such a thing with complete certainty?), there's no way it's _less_ accurate than the original estimate made by some random monk in the middle ages, working with much less data. It does not make sense to privilege that random monk's guesses over today's guesses.
According to Wikipedia, there's two different methods -- written Roman records of Herod as mcphage mentions, or using written Roman records of Pilate's crucifixion and subtracting the claimed age of Jesus at that time. Both methods give years that are in the same ballpark, roughly 4 to 6 BC, which should give confidence that they are close. No method gives an answer of around 1 AD. (Actually, it's pretty impressive that some monks working hundreds of years later in the dark ages are no more than a few years off from today's best estimates)
The Wikipedia page on this topic also mentions trying to work backward from the reference to Jesus being "about 30 years old" during his ministry, which could point to about 1. So really I don't think anyone knows for sure.
Yes, so the point is at best, there's no reason to privilege any particular one of these guesses, whether 4 or 5 or 1 or whatever. We just don't know, ergo the AD/BC date system does _not_ center about a date that has much meaning for anyone, which was the O/P's point
Herod, who according to the bible was king when Jesus was born, died in 4 BC. Whether or not you believe in Jesus, the fact that it didn't happen in 1 AD isn't a controversial fact anywhere.
I went and looked at this on Wikipedia and it seems there is some dispute about Herod's date of death: "Most scholars agree that Herod died in 4 BCE, although a case has also been made that Herod died only in 1BCE.[10][11][12][13][14][15]"
Anyway, this assumes historicity of the accounts saying he was born during the reign of Herod but that's kind of complicated by the Moses imagery; this isn't exactly neutral and unimportant. But I guess that is as good a basis as any to try and determine the real date.
FWIW Japan uses, in parallel, the Western system, but also a system where the years are counted from the beginning of the reign of the current emperor.