Psychology weighs in on the BC/AD – BCE/CE debate

Page 1 Page 2

Dionysius Exiguus invented Anno Domini years to date Easter.

There is an ancient proverb which states that “If a man is to change his traditional way of living, if he is to throw away his good customs, he should first make certain that he has something of value to replace them.”

In the sixth century, there was a monk by the name of Dionysius Exiguus who hit upon the idea of establishing a dating system for historians. He decided to use the birth of Jesus Christ as a starting point. By this time, Christianity was taking hold throughout Europe. His position was that historical events taking place before the birth of Christ would be referred to as BC or Before Christ. He chose to call the years after the death of Christ as AD, which was the abbreviation for the Latin Anno Domini, in the year of our Lord. Later, it was often called “After Death.” So, for the past 1,500 years this has been the universal dating procedure.

Today, this is being challenged by those who want to change it to BCE, Before the Common Era and CE, the Common Era. It would be the same time wise, but it would eliminate the “Christian concept”.

During the 18th and 19th centuries, the British traveled the world Anglicizing everything in sight. In France, it was determined that the language of diplomacy be French. In South and Central America, on pain of death, you must accept the language, customs and traditions of Spain.

When the early missionaries began going to China, they wanted to assimilate by learning the language and practicing the local customs. When trade began to flourish, it was a very different story. In British Shanghai, everything looked as if it had been transplanted from the towns and villages of England. In Qingdao, when the Germans descended upon the area it looked like Bavaria or Berlin.

Growing up within a British culture, I was taught to believe that God was an Englishman and that in fact He played cricket. There was no question in the mind of the Europeans that they were superior to Asians, for example.

Today, there are many western teachers going to China and other Asian countries. Upon entering the class room, the first order of business is to assign the Chinese students a western name. This is done because the teachers don’t want to bother to learn how to pronounce Chinese names. The students, of course, resent having to lose a vital part of their culture and many refuse to accept a western name.

Changing things is historic. Being pragmatic, the Romans allowed the people they conquered to retain their language, their religion and their customs. They insisted that if they were to do business with the Romans that it be done in Latin however.

I have no problem with wanting changes in any aspect of society, both domestic and international. I take the position that there must be a structure set up to guard against superimposition. Let me present an example. As a boy age ten I was taken to Egypt and learned how to read the ancient language as well as to find out how it was to be pronounced. Today, scholars who should know better, cannot pronounce the names of the pharaohs correctly. The boy king is called Tootincommon. If one reads the hieroglyphics it has the two loaves of bread and a quail chick which are pronounced “tot” followed by the sign of life pronounced “ankh”, the solar disk and the flowing water pronounced “Amun”. The correct pronunciation should be Tut Ankh Amun. With the 19th dynasty pharaoh, his name contains three fox skins pronounced “M” a shepherd’s crook pronounced “S” and the sun disk “Ra”. It should be pronounced “ Ra Mes” but it is incorrectly pronounced Ramses.

To get across my point. I write articles, I give lectures and go about my task in a sensible way. I follow a procedure established by scholars.

Today, out of the blue, there are those who have decided to change the dating nomenclature. There were no conferences on the subject, no articles in journals, or for that matter internet blogs.

As an international teacher and researcher, no one ask for my opinion or from any of the old school traditionalists. It was at this point that I turned to psychology to try to find some answers.

First of all, I discovered that the change proponents were made up of “non-Christian” people, most of whom had no academic credentials. Their arguments were emotional. They wanted to let it be known that they didn’t want anything as important as historical dating to be associated with religion, more especially the Christian religion. They were not Christians and believed that they were being forced to accept a Christian concept or procedure. They demanded that a change be brought about.

Voltaire once said, “I disagree with what you are saying, but I would lay down my life for your right to say it”. My belief that in a free society, we need latitude in allowing for expression, but not giving complete freedom to run rough shod over conventional thinking. In the past, this was done with impunity, but I very much hope that it will not be done today.

Page 1 Page 2

Alfred Jones has a Ph.D in psychology, advance studies in law and education. He is an Egyptian scholar having taught in the UK, USA and China. He is also a former consultant to the San Jose California Egyptian Museum. Author of seven books and over twenty articles for professional journals., Mr. Jones delivered speeches to such groups as the World Health Organization, the British Psychological Society, the American Psychological Association, the State of Washington Psychological Association and the State of Texas Psychological Association.

Alfred Jones

View all posts by Alfred Jones
Alfreds website

Pages: 1 2