As a scholar, I completely understand the reasons why much of the scholarly community has adopted the designations of BCE and CE to indicate dates on the calendar. The BCE and CE designations are more inclusive because they do not specifically relate to Christianity. However, I have also noticed that many highly influential scholars have chosen to continue the use of BC and AD. These scholars are not just stubborn holdouts. They see very good reasons to maintain the use of the former designations.

Perhaps Greek scholar Vincent Taylor said it best:
“We are bound to consider how we think of time, whether past events are only isolated points in a series, or whether God invades history with abiding consequences. This issue seriously engages the attention of theologians today. It is best considered by reflecting upon (1) events as points in the time-series; (2) events with permanent significance; and (3) events as divine invasions in time.”

I do not believe the advent of God’s Son was part of a mere point-in-time series. I see the birth of the Savior as an invasion of time by God himself. Thus, despite scholarly arguments that Christians should adopt the BCE/CE dating system, it appears to me that many in the scholarly community have completely missed the point. They have either not appreciated or not understood that incredible moment that, when God invaded time in the little town of Bethlehem, He was not simply staging a timeshare for multiple religious communities.

I am with Ed on this request. After all, what is the demarcation point for the ‘common era?” Isn’t if the birth of Jesus Christ? Why try to pretend it is not by giving the epochs new names?

BAS has been honoring scholars’ use of “B.C.E.” and “C.E.” for several decades now. It’s not my decision, but I suspect we will continue to use that widely-accepted demarcation system for many decades to come.