a gentle argument for using "CE" and "BCE" in SWB's "The History of the Ancient World" (and other histories)

[serendipitous journey]

Well, I'm sure that there are many reasonable perspective on the use of BCE/CE  (including SWB's, which in her History of the Ancient World is that "using BCE while still reckoning from Christ's birth seems, to me, fairly pointless") but as I pick up reading THotAW I wanted to toss out a concern I have -- and a request for adjustment in future editions -- as a sort of public letter open to comment & disagreement. 

SWB's point is one my [secular humanist] husband has made himself: really, if you are just relabeling stuff and continuing to track dates from around the birth of Jesus, then what is the point of swiching from BC/AD to BCE/CE?  And generally I have found that mainstream Christians, orthodox Christians, and many secular folks share this sentiment. 

If the labels were BJ and AJ for "before Jesus" and "after Jesus," then the argument would hold.  "Jesus" is our version of the name of the Palestinian Jew who came to be at the center of the Christian faith.  However. 

The initials used are BC and AD.  They mean "before Christ" and "Anno Domini" (in the year of the Lord).   Neither refers to the name of a historical person.  Both refer to messianic titles bestowed upon a historical person by those who believed he was the Jewish Messiah.   So while my Muslim friends have wonderful conversations with me about "Jesus" they have never once had a conversation with me about "Christ":  "Christ" is a Messianic title they don't apply to Jesus.  Even less would my Jewish, Muslim, or Buddhist friends be comfortable labeling the historical Jesus as their "Lord." 

So, by using the abbreviations for "Common Era" (CE) and "Before the Common Era" (BCE), we allow observant followers of non-Christian religions, and the more carefully-spoken secularists among us, to use speech that is plain and honest.  We do not press them into calling "Christ" or "Lord" a man who is neither to them. 

Thanks for reading, and considering these things! 

Edited December 2, 2021 by serendipitous journey

[Farrar]

Yes, I agree with this. Also, given that most serious historians of the life of Jesus don't believe that he was born in the year 1 anyway, it's all a bit smoke and mirrors to me. Those of us who advocate the change are not trying to get around the reality of how we practically number things. But it's always been "engineered" to suit the people who name things. We're allowed to do the same to reflect the reality of the use of the common calendar by a variety of peoples. It's a more honest name because it never accurately represented the life of Jesus anyway and was always part of a practical, secular government's choices.