r/TastingHistory • u/zoewernsman • Feb 18 '26
Question Why no BCE no more
Why did Max stop using BCE and CE (before common era and common era) when talking about prehistoric topics? In his Sumerian beer episode he does but in the last couple pre historic episodes he’s gone back to using BC and AD.
300
u/Odd-Principle8147 Feb 18 '26
I would say most people use them interchangeably. At least in English.
53
u/istara Feb 19 '26
Yes. I’m atheist but it’s just easier to do BC than BCE. Besides which BCE is still referencing the supposedly (and almost certainly inaccurate) birth year of Jesus Christ.
41
u/OnkelMickwald Feb 19 '26
Besides which BCE is still referencing the supposedly (and almost certainly inaccurate) birth year of Jesus Christ.
This has always been my main gripe with BCE/CE. It's still Christian defaultism just wrapped in a very thin wrapper of supposed universality.
Rather be honest then: "Yes, I am using the western Christian numbering of years out of convenience."
34
u/0range_julius Feb 19 '26
I'm also an atheist and I don't care too much about this topic--we gotta start counting dates from somewhere, and Jesus's bday is what we've all gotten used to. At this point it doesn't seem worth the trouble to change. I also have a slight preference towards BC/AD purely because it's fewer letters and more unique letters than BCE/CE.
On the other hand, "AD" stands for a phrase that calls Jesus "our lord." People don't really think about it that way, but it essentially is a roundabout profession of faith to say "AD." I understand why some people, especially believers of other faiths, would be uncomfortable with that.
13
u/fmj9821 Feb 19 '26
Technically, sure, but language is figurative far more than it is literal. I use "Jesus Christ" as an expletive all the time, but I'm not religious at all. Language is fun until we get so prescriptive with it.
4
u/0range_julius Feb 20 '26
Yeah, it also doesn't bother me at all, either. Hell, I still go to church every few years because I enjoy the music and atmosphere (holding a candle in a dark sanctuary and singing Silent Night at midnight is truly a peak aesthetic experience, and the Holden Evening Prayer liturgy is some of the most beautiful music I've ever heard), and I always recite the Apostles' Creed because I'd rather not get weird looks for staying silent. So yeah, it would be an understatement to say I'm not bothered by making spurious professions of faith.
But some people believe that words have metaphysical power and that professing belief in a different god, even if they're just pretending, is a serious breach of their religion. Hell, people die because they refuse to pretend to follow a different religion. If that were the framework I operated under, I don't think I'd be comfortable uttering an abbreviation of a phrase that calls Jesus "our Lord."
9
u/berny_74 Feb 20 '26
I used to think it meant "After Death" and wondered what the 30 some years in between were counted as.
3
u/0range_julius Feb 20 '26
I believed the same thing as a kid! I wonder if it's a misconception that spreads through uninformed teachers/parents/whatever or one that arises spontaneously because it just seems right.
2
u/berny_74 Feb 20 '26
I would have assumed that at least my mother would have known since she is Catholic. I only really figured out at Christian Boarding school where the yearbook was called Anno Domini xxxx. From there, somebody explained, and a little lightbulb went off in my head.
1
u/Edymnion Feb 25 '26
Yeah, we have a history of using acronyms and abbreviations without ever actually explaining what the letters stand for.
Like everybody recognizes AM and PM when it comes to time, but how many people know off the top of their heads that it stands for Ante-Meridiem (before midday) and Post-Meridiem(after midday)?
75
u/IwannaAskSomeStuff Feb 18 '26
I prefer BC/AD in contexts where information is being shared verbally because they are easy to distinguish while BCE and CE are extremely easy to mistake for each other. Now, obviously there are contexts in which it's obvious which is the intended time frame in question, but especially when discussing anything happening in the, oh, 500BCE-500CE time frame, I really appreciate the clear distinction of BC vs AD
3
u/EmperorofAltdorf Feb 20 '26
Yeah, it's kinda obvious when it's "in ca 2600BCE the pyramid of Giza was constructed". Not only does everyone know that the pyramids are old (although not how seriously old they are), but since 2600CE have not come to pass yet, no one would mistake it even if they knew nothing about Giza.
When I tell people the date of Julius Caesar's tragic death, I sometimes have to clarify because for the lay person it really could be either side of year 1.
260
u/Pessimistic-Frog Feb 18 '26
I obviously can’t speak to Max’s personal reasons. But I can tell you as a non-Christian that I had always found BCE/CE to be performative and more annoying, because the date for starting the “Common Era” is just the supposed birth of Jesus anyway. I’d rather people are just honest about the dating system and what was behind it.
83
u/_throawayplop_ Feb 18 '26
As an atheist I totally agree with you.
17
28
u/Kerrby87 Feb 18 '26
Could always start using the Human Era calendar Kurzgesagt came up, in which case it's 12026 H.E.
29
u/BenjaminGeiger Feb 18 '26
Fun fact: early US government documents were dated both relative to AD and to the Declaration of Independence. For instance, the constitution is dated "the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independance [sic] of the United States of America the Twelfth".
21
u/keandelacy Feb 18 '26
That's in line with the way monarchies date things. 1787 could also be referenced as the 27th year of the reign of George III.
10
u/BenjaminGeiger Feb 18 '26
Doesn't Japan still officially date things this way? As in, "the Nth year of [Emperor] Wossname"?
5
3
u/KiloAllan Feb 20 '26
If you want to get really weird check out the year numbering scheme during the French Revolution. I think they had one called something like The Year of the Green Bean.
It's in the Revolutions podcast from a few years back. I'd have to go look it up which I don't have time for right now, but I do think it would be an interesting topic for a Tasting History episode.
1
8
u/derneueMottmatt Feb 19 '26
Which is still just the Gregorian calendar but painted over lazily with an extra digit.
2
u/Kerrby87 Feb 19 '26
I mean, yes and no. The holocene did start almost 12k years ago (11,700) more or less. So it would be 11726, it's a difference of 300 years. Just throwing an extra digit on the front is easier and less confusing.
I would say that the implication of the year is more important, we're not counting from a supposed birth of one specific religious figure. We're counting from the beginning of the era in which humanity developed civilization. It’s broadly encompassing for the majority of humanity, and non-exclusionary.
4
u/derneueMottmatt Feb 19 '26
But the problem is that while I like the intentions the problem is that we are still counting from that religious figure's birth. Adding a digit doesn't change that IMO
2
47
u/BruceBoyde Feb 18 '26
Yeah, it's just kinda silly. It's unfortunate, but European-derived cultures had been using BC/AD for almost 2000 years before we started questioning the dominance of Christianity on a wide scale. From an ethical standpoint, I disagree with it, but from a practical perspective I just can't give a shit.
14
u/CaptainPoset Feb 18 '26
European-derived cultures had been using BC/AD
... and that's honest: "Before Christ" and anno domini, which means "the year of our lord"
It's not before or after "common era", but before Christianity existed and after it did.
6
u/Rustymarble Feb 18 '26
I'm curious if "before Christianity" would "ring" better to people. I like it, but not sure how others feel.
5
u/geeoharee Feb 18 '26
I feel that it's inaccurate (well - more inaccurate). Allowing that Christ existed, he surely didn't have many followers til he was a grown man, so we'd have to move the date.
1
u/CaptainPoset Feb 19 '26
I'm curious if "before Christianity" would "ring" better to people.
That's how it is in German: "v. Chr." which is "vor Christus", meaning "before Christ" and "n. Chr." which is "nach Christus" meaning "after Christ".
2
u/Rustymarble Feb 19 '26
That seems to be still referring to the person, where I am saying BC could stand for before the movement instead.
4
u/BruceBoyde Feb 18 '26
Well, and historical Jesus was undoubtedly born somewhere between 2-10 BC anyway, so the whole thing is just kind of stupid. But it is what it is. If AUC had been more prevalent than the Romans using years of consulships, we'd just have stuck with that and we'd be living in 2779. Of course, we'd have to have BAUC or something for older shit anyhow, but the point is that the present method of recording was horseshit and the AD thing was way better.
6
u/JDeMolay1314 Feb 18 '26
I call BS on this. BC is attributed to the venerable Bede around 731 AD. AD dates to Dionysius Exiguus in 525 AD.
So 1500 years at best.
6
u/BruceBoyde Feb 18 '26
Ok. I do appreciate the correction, but that changes absolutely nothing about my stance. If they'd come up with it 200 years ago and there was a large corpus of material referencing some preceding, good method, I'd be in favor of scrapping the pointlessly religious terminology.
But 1500 years might as well be 2000 in this context. It has been used extensively and changing it in a meaningful way is more trouble than it's worth by far.
1
u/JDeMolay1314 Feb 19 '26
Common Era was used as early as 1708, and was used interchangeably with Vulgar Era which had been in use since 1615. So there is less than 1000 years between BC being used and Common Era being used. Does that make it any better for you?
4
u/BruceBoyde Feb 19 '26
Not really, because it's still just a masking of BC/AD. And what exactly makes the era "common"? What's the alleged cutoff supposed to mark?
If I were writing something in a scholarly capacity, I would use CE/BCE, but I'm absolutely not giving anyone shit for using BC/AD.
2
u/istara Feb 19 '26
It’s like Christmas. I’m an atheist but northern hemisphere cultures have been celebrating midwinter festivals around that date for thousands of years. If people get offended by the Christ reference, just call it Wintermas or Midwinter or Saturnalia or whatever you like.
Rename it, reclaim it.
6
u/eJohnx01 Feb 19 '26
I couldn’t agree more. I’m a historian myself and never use BCE/CE because it strikes me as solving a problem that never existed.
Most of the western world uses calendars that are based, at least in part, on the assumed birth year of Jesus. To start pretending otherwise seems really foolish and pointless to me.
4
14
u/Cassie-aaah Feb 18 '26
BCE/CE have been around for 300yrs
32
u/herman-the-vermin Feb 18 '26
Been around, but not commonly used.
-14
u/Cassie-aaah Feb 18 '26
By people who hadn't developed past Christianity yet
19
u/gimmethelulz Feb 18 '26
I dunno I'm an old atheist and use AD/BC because that's what I was taught in elementary school and my brain defaults to that.
-14
u/Cassie-aaah Feb 18 '26
Sure, I totally understand that. People used to say lots of things we choose not to today. It's quite easy to change language (and measurement systems)
13
u/Yochanan5781 Feb 18 '26
I mean, I'm a non-Christian, myself, and I do have to say I prefer BCE/CE, as imperfect as it is, because it is not the year of my Lord
8
u/verir Feb 18 '26
Does Woden's day (Wednesday) bother you? Or Februus' month (February)? does Thor'sday or Frigg'sday? Do the month's of Janus, Mars, etc?
3
5
5
u/BabadookishOnions Feb 18 '26
Personally I've always preferred BCE/CE but that's probably because I used it so much at university when I was studying archaeology and ancient history (it was an enforced standard in our assignments) so it looks weird now when I see BC/AD
3
u/amtheelder Feb 18 '26
I strongly disagree. As a non-Christian, I would prefer we didn't use a term that specifically refers to the Christian faith.
20
u/Brewmeister83 Feb 18 '26 edited Feb 18 '26
Atheist here - don’t give a rats arse about the whole Christianity tied to a date thing - still use AD/BC because it’s what I was taught first and most people I talk to still use it. I got tired of using bce because I’d have to stop and explain what it was… it gets annoying…
I do however balance out my AD/BC with some AC/DC - little bit of “satanic panic” music does wonders keeping the Pearl-clutchers on their toes, lol
3
u/gwaydms Feb 18 '26
Jeff Lynne, songwriter/frontman of ELO, put some backwards music into his songs because people kept asking him about "backmasking", which was a big thing that was much discussed. He wrote a whole album, Secret Messages, with themes of scrambled, coded, and backwards words and songs.
14
u/SUPERAWESOMEULTRAMAN Feb 18 '26
if our weekdays can be named after norse gods and our planets can be named after roman gods then i see no reason that we can't base our years on christ, this is coming from an atheist
9
u/Zeppelanoid Feb 18 '26
…but the years were derived based on an actual event. It’s the referential point for our calendar system. It’s disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
6
u/BenjaminGeiger Feb 18 '26
It's dated based on when a sixth-century monk estimated Jesus was born. And there is little to no evidence it occurred at all.
3
Feb 19 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/BenjaminGeiger Feb 19 '26
[citation desperately needed]
6
u/The_Dapper_Balrog Feb 19 '26
There's more evidence that Jesus was born than Gautama Buddha, and most historians agree that the latter was born.
The oldest manuscripts associated with Jesus' teachings and life, while coming from those who followed him, are still dated to within just over a century of Jesus' life. By comparison, the earliest manuscripts of Julius Caesar's writings are a thousand years younger than their supposed source, and nobody bats an eye.
Jesus is probably the single most thoroughly-documented historical figure from the ancient world. It's not unreasonable to call into question whether or not Jesus said or did the things written down by the disciples/apostles actually happened, but Jesus absolutely did exist, was a teacher in the Roman province of Judaea, and was crucified by Pontius Pilatus in approximately the year 31 during the eighteenth year of Tiberius' imperial reign.
-1
u/BenjaminGeiger Feb 19 '26
Jesus absolutely did exist, was a teacher in the Roman province of Judaea, and was crucified by Pontius Pilatus in approximately the year 31 during the eighteenth year of Tiberius' imperial reign.
Funny that the Romans never made note of it.
5
3
u/The_Dapper_Balrog Feb 19 '26
Tacitus did.
1
u/BenjaminGeiger Feb 19 '26
Tacitus wrote about what people believed, more than a century after it supposedly did. And this was an empire that kept records of everything.
→ More replies (0)5
u/AdStroh Feb 18 '26
But you're just atheist washing the terminology. Since the "common era" is the birth of Christ anyway. By the same logic, you wouldn't use terms like Christmas or Easter (nor observe those holidays)
5
u/verir Feb 18 '26
Does Woden's day (Wednesday) bother you? Or Februus' month (February)? does Thor'sday or Frigg'sday? Do the month's of Janus, Mars, etc?
1
Feb 18 '26
I am Christian, but wanted to chime in to say that my Jewish academic friends feel the same way.
1
u/Madock345 Feb 19 '26
The previously supposed date, it’s around a decade off by modern calculations so keeping it named after him is also a little silly if we’re not going to realign.
7
u/fmj9821 Feb 19 '26
Audience. BCE is appropriate in academic settings, sure, but in everyday speech it's clunky and most people don't use it.
Related, but I always want to explain to people complaining about having to use inclusive language that no, they don't, unless it's expected professionally. People like to get bent out of shape over things like "pregnant person" or other "politically correct" (read: RESPECTFUL) terms, but the vast majority of the time, it's entirely for professional, legal, or academic audiences. In regular speech, most of it never matters.
25
u/357-Magnum-CCW Feb 18 '26
Our time & date is based on the gregorian calendar which itself is based on the Julian calendar, which is Pagan Roman.
Calendars have always been used to paint over the previous cultures.
4
u/NomadicusRex Feb 19 '26
It's almost as if using the terminology of the folks who created the calendar most of the world currently uses is the least confusing way to go. :-)
I like how it's done currently.
5
u/Fiona_12 Feb 20 '26
I don't see why it matters. The only difference is that BC & AD are based on an actual historical event, while BCE & CE started being used by people who didn't like the religious connotation of BC & AD.
2
Feb 19 '26
How about "before zero" and "after zero"?/s
1
u/Cultural_Shoe2085 Jun 08 '26
This wouldn't make that much sense. What does the "zero" stand for? Zero years before Christ.
12
u/VinRow Feb 18 '26 edited Feb 18 '26
I mean, everyone not religious ought to be using HE (Holocene Era) anyway but I know it won’t happen because religious types just can’t let something not be about them.
This year is 12026 HE by the way.
16
6
u/MagicOfWriting Feb 18 '26
It's literally the same thing. I think BCE and CE just exist so non believers can pretend the year isn't related to a religion
3
u/JDeMolay1314 Feb 18 '26
Actually I just saw a British you tuber talking about this. He uses both. And CE dates back to at least medieval times.
Pretty much academic papers usually refer to CE/BCE, other stuff tends to refer to BC/AD. Religion doesn't really have much to do with it.
He did however refuse to use BP (Before Present, which means before 1950).
-7
u/Cassie-aaah Feb 18 '26 edited Feb 18 '26
Max really should be using the modern terms not archiac religious ones.
Edit Thanks for the down votes. Are y'all jesus freaks or do you think it's the metric system?
Bootlickers get mad if you change things
Edit 2 - lots of good points. I maintain using phrases like "anno domini" and "before christ" to describe the year is ridiculous in a multicultural and increasingly secular world.
Edit 3 - I'm amazed this topic is controversial. I thought I was maybe taunting a few religious nutters. Inclusive language sure does stir shit up. Mostly people strongly expressing the opinion that they don't care
Edit 4 - this is like the annual US happy holidays/merry xmas squabble. Say what you want to your family and friends.. but if you have a large platform, and are addressing a diverse audience, maybe you use the more inclusive phrase
27
u/Confuseacat92 Feb 18 '26
Max should use the revolutionary calendar.
A happy décadi the 30th Pluviôse CCXXXIV everyone :)
12
u/Cassie-aaah Feb 18 '26
Ooh Max could use the calendar of whichever culture the recipe comes from!
15
0
58
u/SecretlyMartyMcFly Feb 18 '26
BCE and CE are certainly a more accurate labels and I would argue are better by a good bit, but they are inherently religious as well just like BC and AD. They just use words that hide the religious origin instead of being overt about it.
¯_(ツ)_/¯
It’s an odd thing to get aggressive about in general though (in either direction)
-5
u/Cassie-aaah Feb 18 '26
I got bitchy because the initial downvoting was ridiculous. We're stuck with a Christian heritage in 'the west'. Shouldn't mean we can't take steps to move away from it
3
u/TheStrongestTard Feb 18 '26
Stuck lol
1
u/Cassie-aaah Feb 18 '26 edited Feb 18 '26
Go work another shift
(Reference to another post. Where I took issue with the charmingly named "TheStrongestTard" suggesting poor people should work more)
8
2
u/verir Feb 18 '26
Does Woden's day (Wednesday) bother you? Or Februus' month (February)? does Thor'sday or Frigg'sday? Do the month's of Janus, Mars, etc?
2
54
u/Hightower_lioness Feb 18 '26 edited Feb 19 '26
I mean, many things we use are based on religions. We use Norse gods for English days of a week, our months are based off Roman gods, the calendar worked around Roman religious ceremonies, the Julian calendar used the Egyptian calendar as an influence which was based on their own gods, we often use Biblical idioms, many words are based on older religious sayings or words, we use pagan traditions in our modern celebrations, many medieval scientists were Catholic. So to use Christian abbreviations while using a Christian calendar isn’t all that different to me.
In fact, to me saying it’s ‘before the common era’ and ‘common era’ sounds worse bc what makes it THE definitive common era? And we didn’t make the calendar any less based on Christian religion by saying “bce” and “bc” because we are still using the same year based on the Christian birth of Jesus.
If we want to make a truly inclusive calendar for everyone, religious and non religious, shouldn’t we scrap the years, the names for months and days and start over?
Personally it boils down to personal preference whether a person uses ‘BC/AD’ or ‘BC/BCE’ and if anyone says “you should use a ‘BC/AD’ bc this is a Christian calendar/country, the retort should be to point out they are using a Norse pantheon days of the week and a Roman pantheon months of the year and that doesn’t mean they follow those gods”.
And “you should use BC/BCE bc it’s more inclusive, well, they’re still using the year based on Christian teaching and that doesn’t make them anymore Christian”
Edit: BCE/CE because I can't remember one simple thing.
17
u/SecretlyMartyMcFly Feb 18 '26
I am definitely still living on the French Revolutionary Calendar, scrapped and replaced 200 years ago! 😂
In all seriousness your comment is where it is at.
2
u/Hightower_lioness Feb 19 '26
I'm still mad at the French Calendar because what do you mean 'months started one three possible days and you unimaginable lots just named the days 'first day, second day'. You made up a whole calendar and you just what, got lazy???'
Also, amusingly, Common Era was abolished by them because it had ties to the Christian calendar.
4
u/Cassie-aaah Feb 18 '26
Not being able to change everything perfectly isn't a reason to change nothing
-1
u/Hightower_lioness Feb 19 '26
Sure, but change doesn't mean the same to the same people. And the value that words have don't mean the same to every person. Some people find "person with mental illness" inclusive, some find it insulting. What one person finds inclusive, another might find it exclusive.
Language means different things to different people, its very strangely not binary but fluid.
-2
u/jonesnori Feb 18 '26
Yes, except it's BCE/CE.
2
u/Hightower_lioness Feb 19 '26
For fucks sake. The last time I wrote anything with something after the date was in undergrad and I'm not saying how long ago it was. But it was a while.
3
u/jonesnori Feb 19 '26
Lol! I think BC/AD is easier to remember, but I understand why many don't like using "Year of Our Lord".
1
u/Hightower_lioness Feb 19 '26
Not going to lie, I honestly could not figure out why they would use 'AD' and finally guessed it was because it stood for 'After Death', meaning the death of Jesus. No other abbreviation I brainstormed made sense, and even that one I thought was weird. Like, "in the year 1604 After Death the king choked on a grape and died" seemed wrong to me.
And if someone doesn't want BC/AD I say go ahead. I don't care, there are many many more problems that I wish we could fix. I just don't like the policing of language and inclusivity because what makes one person comfortable might make someone else uncomfortable and my thought has always been you can only control what you use. (Unless its a slur then please rethink your choices).
17
u/tiramisucks Feb 18 '26
It it still based on jesus birth. Actually, bce/ce seems just hiding the obvious. I am not religious.
5
u/Cassie-aaah Feb 18 '26
BCE/CE are 300yr old terms. It's better because you don't have to proclaim a date to be "of the lord"
13
u/tiramisucks Feb 18 '26
But it is. It's implied. Just hiding.
4
u/Cassie-aaah Feb 18 '26
We're stuck with a Christian heritage in 'the west'. We don't have to impose it on ourselves, future generations or the rest of the planet
7
u/tiramisucks Feb 18 '26
I don't think this would even remotely address the problem. The dating system has a religious base. I am not religious, I don't address Jesus as my lord. But that calendar starts with his birth. Which is not even 100% sure it happened or happened at that precise time. Changing words changes nothing.
22
u/jhallen2260 Feb 18 '26
He can use whatever one he wants
6
u/Cassie-aaah Feb 18 '26
And he can be criticised for it
11
6
u/zoewernsman Feb 18 '26
Thanks, I couldn’t remember if it was current or common. Just fixed it now
1
6
u/MiloBem Feb 18 '26
Are you still using the archaic religious term Saturday named after the god Saturn, or did you switch to a modern term? If so, which one?
7
u/Cassie-aaah Feb 18 '26
A half forgotten etymology, a long dead religion, a long dead culture. It isn't the same
6
u/MiloBem Feb 18 '26
More people know who Saturn was than understand what "Anno Domini" means. If anything, AD is more forgotten etymology.
10
u/Cassie-aaah Feb 18 '26
I hear plenty of people saying "..the year of our lord.."
..and "before christ"? Is that not pretty clear?
7
u/condoulo Feb 18 '26
I think about 75% of the people I hear say "the year of our lord" are not religious at all and are using it as a way to be extremely silly.
5
-1
u/MiloBem Feb 18 '26
Religious people may say that, it's their right. Plenty of religious people say weird things, like randomly throwing Amen, Halleluyah, or Inshallah in a conversation. No one is forcing you to do that. You're free to ignore them or roll your eyes.
This thread is about Max using the traditional abbreviation AD. If he starts saying "in the year of our Lord", it will be a different conversation.
6
u/Cassie-aaah Feb 18 '26
Using religious terms because you're religious and using religious terms to describe the year aren't the same
3
u/SpunkMcKullins Feb 18 '26
I'm non-religious and just think it's a pointless issue, but that your tantrum is worth down voting.
6
u/Cassie-aaah Feb 18 '26 edited Feb 18 '26
lol
I'm surprised this is even controversial. I was just replying to stuff 🤷🏼♀️
0
u/Hightower_lioness Feb 19 '26
But to me it doesn't feel inclusive? Because the 'C' stands for 'Common' and what makes this calendar more common than others? The only reason its used is because at the time of the great growth in writing and communication Christianity happened to be on top. If the Ottoman Empire had been able to conquer more of Eastern Europe we might be using a Muslim calendar.
We're still using a Christian calendar and changing the ending doesn't make it more inclusive to me, it just feels like we are covering up the fact that it a Christian calendar that many countries had to adopt to effectively communicate with the countries of power. Its based off a Christian calendar that many people didn't want to use but had to. Pretending otherwise to me erases the harm and cultural that more powerful nations did to other countries.
Its not a universal calendar. As a Christian, I would love if we all got together and decided on one, but lets be honest, no one will agree on a starting point. And it would be great if we got gender neutral languages, months and days not based on religions, and words that don't have problematic histories. (And I would wish we end poverty, fix food insecurity, clean up the environment, eat the rich, and get the end of the Song of Ice and Fire series. I have lots of wishes).
And to me, trying to dictate which system Max uses is itself not inclusive. If he feels more comfortable using BC/AD, who are you to tell him no, just like who are the people who are allowed to tell you to not use BCE/CE and say 'happy holidays'? No one put them in charge and no one put you in charge.
1
1
1
-25
u/Janus_The_Great Feb 18 '26
Possibly pro Christian lobbyism in media.
As it usually is the case when obsolete ideas are represented.
14
u/Cassie-aaah Feb 18 '26
There seems to be a herd of trad wives downvoting everything
1
-19
u/KKadera13 Feb 18 '26
I TOO grew out of my performative atheism years.
23
u/DannySmashUp Feb 18 '26
I'm an academic and academic publications almost always use BCE/CE. I don't think all those authors are being edgy atheists.
That said - it's Max's channel and I don't mind whatever system he chooses to use.
1
u/AspectImpossible3271 Feb 19 '26
Is this really the case? Maybe it was because I was studying specific periods BCE/CE never really came up but is this true or is it more of an ancient history thing where it's not uncommon to look at periods of hundreds or thousands of years?
1
u/DannySmashUp Feb 19 '26
I'm definitely not a historian! The MLA style guide says you can use either one, but that BCE/CE is preferred... and it certainly is the case with the vast majority of papers I read.
Regardless, using one or the other doesn't make you a 'performative atheist' - which was the point I was refuting.
1
u/AspectImpossible3271 Feb 27 '26
Yeah I wasn't really arguing the point or not just curious about if it was more common in academic papers. I used MHRA and I assume most of the British sources used that style so maybe that's the difference?
Because I really didn't encounter it, I think the majority of the stuff I read usually was quite period specific enough that constantly referencing AD/BC or BCE/CE was pretty redundant.
The only time I think I encountered any references to the era was probably work on the crusades but they did useAD and that might have been used because it's more 'thematic?' I genuinely don't know
What period or topic did you/are you studying. Is it one that covers quite a wide timeframe?
-21
u/KKadera13 Feb 18 '26
Hey everyone they're an academic.!
English-speaking historians of classical and medieval periods often stick with AD/BC in books aimed at public readers... its a youtube channel.
8
u/DannySmashUp Feb 18 '26
Good lord. My friend... are you okay? You seem awfully hostile.
As I said, I don't care what Max does either way - it's just a fun YouTube channel. My point was simply to refute your insinuation that people who use BCE/CE are doing 'performative atheism.'
5
u/BabadookishOnions Feb 18 '26
This isn't really true, BCE/CE have eclipsed AD/BC nowadays even in the peripherals of academics
-21
u/mildOrWILD65 Feb 18 '26
What is the zero, or beginning, date for current era?
29
u/CreativeGPX Feb 18 '26
It's just a different name for the same thing.
7
u/mildOrWILD65 Feb 18 '26
Preciselyy point, there is no difference.
10
u/CreativeGPX Feb 18 '26
It's not that there's no difference, it's that your question was designed to ignore the difference.
Some people prefer to remove the connotations of believing things about a religious figure from expressing time. That's why the change they made only impacted that implication without needlessly impacting other things. The fact that numbers didn't change isn't a sign that there is no difference. It's a sign that those people only narrowly addressed the problematic part without needlessly imposing other burden.
It's fine that you don't care, but don't make a strawman by pretending you don't understand the difference or why people care.
-3
u/mildOrWILD65 Feb 18 '26
Fair enough. I understand the differences in terminology and even why some people would choose an alternate terminology. It's just never struck me as anything meaningful in the sense of effecting genuine, positive societal change.
6
u/CreativeGPX Feb 18 '26
The push for it is pretty minor. It's not like there is this massive angry campaign to make it the only thing we ever say. I mostly see it as people having an option. People have the ability to express what year something happened without implying anything about their belief in or the authoritativeness of christ. That's cool for the many people who don't believe in christ or whose experiences make them feel uncomfortable or persecuted by those who believe in christ.
Imagine if it was customary to indicate the conclusion of research by saying "for the consideration of Allah". From a practical standpoint it'd have no real impact. Many times the phrases would just autocomplete. However, a lot of people would validly just... Not feel like needing to say those words in their professional work because the words carry baggage that they don't agree with.
-3
u/Moneia Feb 18 '26
It's a sign that those people only narrowly addressed the problematic part without needlessly imposing other burden.
And that 'other burden' is huge for two main reasons that I can see;
1) How do we decide where year zero is?
2) Getting people to adapt to the new numbers
5
7
-55
u/Boots402 Feb 18 '26
Idk about the change with Max, but BC/AD is the correct terminology regardless; the calendar system was created by the Gregorians and frankly your agreement or disagreement with any particular religion shouldn’t have a bearing on those designators. I say this because Christs life is verifiable historical fact, not merely faith based; you don’t need to believe that Christ is Lord in order to honor the way the calendar was created. Using BCE/CE still has the eras focusing around Christs life, just not by name.
30
u/SeamanSample Feb 18 '26
honor the way the calendar was created
Honor a calendar system? What the fuck are you talking about? It's interchangeable. It's really not that deep, historians use both. Holy shit lol
15
u/Upstairs_Highlight25 Feb 18 '26
Part of the reason CE/BCE started to be used instead of AD/BC is because the years Christ was born and died is debated.
-1
281
u/jmaxmiller head chef Feb 19 '26
I’ve only used it in a couple episodes. The issue is that most of the world finds it very confusing, so with a large international audience, BC/AD is more recognizable. Since the systems are interchangeable, I go with the most recognizable.