Executive Summary

This paper examines the widespread academic adoption of the terms “CE (Common Era)” and “BCE (Before Common Era)” in place of the traditional “AD (Anno Domini, ‘in the year of our Lord’)” and “BC (Before Christ)”. It analyzes the philosophical, ideological, and sociolinguistic motivations for the shift, evaluates how the transition alienates religious communities—particularly Christians—and considers possible alternative dating systems. Finally, it explores the identity and worldview commitments inherent in any chronological framework, arguing that calendar systems are not neutral tools but cultural declarations of what events or entities are considered central to history itself.

I. The Historical Context of Chronological Systems

1. The Christian Calendar and Its Origins

The AD/BC system, developed in the 6th century by the monk Dionysius Exiguus, was designed to date events relative to the supposed year of Jesus Christ’s birth. It eventually supplanted the Roman ab urbe condita (“from the founding of the city”) and other regional dating methods. This Christian framework became the de facto global standard through European colonial expansion, Christian missionary activity, and the rise of Western scientific modernity.

2. Secularization and the Rise of CE/BCE

The CE/BCE convention emerged gradually in the 19th and 20th centuries, driven by efforts to adopt “religiously neutral” terminology in scholarship. The Oxford English Dictionary records “Common Era” as early as 1708, but its widespread academic use began in the late 20th century alongside broader movements for inclusivity, secularism, and interfaith sensitivity.

II. Motivations Behind the Shift to CE/BCE

1. Secular Neutrality

Proponents argue that “CE” and “BCE” maintain the same chronological structure as “AD” and “BC” but remove explicit theological language. The “Common Era” is presented as a neutral, global standard compatible with multicultural and secular institutions.

2. Academic and Interfaith Inclusivity

In multi-religious contexts, particularly in globalized academia, “CE/BCE” avoids privileging Christianity over other faiths. Universities and international organizations often justify the switch as an act of intercultural diplomacy, enabling shared discourse across religious boundaries.

3. Postcolonial and Political Correctness Pressures

The terminology shift also reflects a broader decolonization of language, where academic institutions seek to distance themselves from the Eurocentric, missionary, and imperial legacies embedded in “Anno Domini.” Some scholars consider “AD/BC” remnants of religious hegemony incompatible with pluralistic ethics.

III. Religious and Cultural Alienation

1. The Illusion of Neutrality

Although “CE/BCE” purports to be neutral, it retains the same epoch—the birth of Jesus Christ—as its defining moment. Thus, the linguistic secularization masks a Christian-derived temporal order, creating what critics describe as “sanitized Christianity” rather than true neutrality.

2. Alienation of Believers

For devout Christians, the replacement of “AD/BC” signals a symbolic erasure of faith from public intellectual life. It represents the marginalization of a worldview in which Christ’s incarnation is central not only to theology but to history itself. Many perceive this linguistic shift as a soft form of secular exclusion—a denial of the sacred in historical consciousness.

3. The Identity Crisis of Western Civilization

Western civilization’s intellectual and moral frameworks historically presuppose a linear, redemptive conception of time grounded in Judeo-Christian theology. Substituting CE/BCE reflects an effort to separate Western identity from its Christian roots, a process some critics call chronological self-denial.

IV. Alternative Dating Systems

1. Religious Epochs

Hebrew Calendar (AM, Anno Mundi): Counts years from the creation of the world, currently 5786 in 2025. Islamic Calendar (AH, Anno Hegirae): Begins with the Prophet Muhammad’s migration to Medina (622 CE). Buddhist Calendar (BE): Begins with the death of the Buddha, typically 543 BCE. Hindu Vikram Samvat and Shaka Eras: Based on traditional Indian historical markers.

Each of these systems defines time relative to a sacred event in its tradition, underscoring that calendars always reflect theological and civilizational commitments.

2. Secular or Event-Based Systems

Some humanists and scientists have proposed natural or historical reference points:

Holocene Era (HE) dating adds 10,000 years to CE dates, marking the start of human civilization after the last Ice Age. Post-Atomic (PA) or Space Age calendars mark humanity’s technological thresholds. Unix Epoch (1970) and similar digital standards govern computational timekeeping.

Each of these reflects an implicit humanist or technocratic worldview, displacing divine revelation with anthropocentric milestones.

V. The Identity Commitments Behind Any Calendar

1. Calendars as Theological Maps

Every dating system encodes a narrative of meaning: what counts as “Year Zero” defines what the society reveres.

AD/BC centers divine incarnation. CE/BCE implies pluralist human consensus. AM, AH, BE, etc., center respective sacred histories. Holocene or Atomic eras glorify human progress.

Thus, adopting a calendar is a declaration of civilizational loyalty—to revelation, humanity, or technology.

2. Temporal Dominion and Cultural Power

Chronology determines how knowledge, history, and memory are organized. The global dominance of the Christian-derived system, whether expressed as AD/BC or CE/BCE, reflects Western cultural hegemony. Attempts to revise it reveal ongoing struggles over who owns time and whose story defines history.

3. The Myth of Value-Free Time

All calendar systems are interpretive acts, not empirical measurements. Even the Gregorian reform (1582) was not merely astronomical but theological. To use any epoch is to affirm a worldview, consciously or not.

VI. Possible Compromise or Reform Approaches

1. Dual-Notation Systems

Some scholars propose listing both (“2025 CE / AD 2025”) to respect tradition while maintaining inclusivity.

2. Contextual Usage

Faith-based institutions can retain “AD/BC” internally, while using “CE/BCE” in interfaith or public discourse, acknowledging the contextual plurality of time.

3. Reclaiming “AD” Theologically

Christian writers may reaffirm “Anno Domini” as a confessional marker, embracing it precisely because it declares Christ’s dominion over time—a countercultural statement in a secular age.

VII. Conclusion: The Moral of the Calendar

The debate over “AD/BC” versus “CE/BCE” is not merely about semantics—it is a contest over the metaphysics of history.

To say “AD” is to declare that time belongs to God. To say “CE” is to claim that time belongs to all humanity. To invent a new epoch is to redefine the center of meaning itself.

The choice of a dating system thus becomes an act of identity and allegiance—whether to faith, to secular modernity, or to the myth of neutrality. Scholars and institutions must therefore be honest about the values they inscribe in their calendars, for how we measure time reveals what we believe history is for.

Appendix: Comparative Table of Dating Systems

System

Epoch Definition

Worldview Basis

Approx. Current Year (2025 CE)

AD/BC

Birth of Christ

Christian

2025

CE/BCE

Same epoch, secular phrasing

Secular humanist

2025

AM (Hebrew)

Creation

Theocentric (Jewish)

5786

AH (Islamic)

Hijra of Muhammad

Theocentric (Islamic)

1447

BE (Buddhist)

Death of Buddha

Theocentric (Buddhist)

2568

Holocene (HE)

Dawn of agriculture

Anthropocentric

12025