We unthinkingly use the abbreviations AD and BC which have always it seems gone together. So why is AD a Latin abbreviation (Anno Domini) while BC is English (Before Christ) - or is it?

Dragonkin

These are from wikipedia.com. Search for "Calendar Eras" - A.D. (or AD) — for the Latin Anno Domini, meaning in the year of our Lord. Years are counted from the beginning of the dominant or Western Christian Era. AD is used in the Gregorian calendar. Anno Salutis, meaning in the year of salvation is identical to the same era. Note: AD was also used in the medieval Julian Calendar as well, but the calendars are not identical. To distinguish between them, O.S. and N.S. were often added to the date, especially during the 17th and 18th centuries, when both calendars were in common use. Old Style (O.S.) was used for the Julian calendar. New Style (N.S.) was used for the Gregorian calendar. A.C., B.C. (or BC) — for the Latin Ante Christum, and the English Before Christ, respectively. In all cases, years count backward from the year AD 1. Note that there is no year 0 in the Julian or Gregorian calendars, but there is in astronomical year numbering, as well as in the Hindu and Buddhist calendars. Mar 09 06, 2:21 PM

Baloo55th

Some of us don't. We use CE and BCE instead. Mar 09 06, 3:18 PM

lanfranco

We do. But it's worth noting that "Anno Domini" as a dating designation didn't become popular until the 7th or 8th centuries (CE, that is). "B.C." didn't gain currency until the late 15th century, by which time various vernacular languages, such as English, were gaining ascendancy over Latin as mediums of even official communications. And in the late 15th century, intellectual interest in pre-Christian eras was developing rapidly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini Mar 09 06, 5:43 PM

davejacobs

I think we are clear what these concepts are. My question was really, why was one changed from Latin to English and the other not? Mar 09 06, 6:28 PM

davejacobs

Incidentally I have come across, in old parish registers, the term 'Anno Incarnationis', which I a sure needs no explanation. Mar 09 06, 6:31 PM

lanfranco

And I tried to answer that. "B.C." wasn't Latin from the beginning. It was English, or the equivalent in other vernacular languages. Mar 09 06, 6:32 PM

davejacobs

And the question still is: Why wasn't AD translated at the same time, or under the same social influences, as BC? I suspect some theological superstition prevented interference with the years of Our Lord, but no such feeling stopped a change to anything that happened before Our Lord. Mar 10 06, 1:48 AM

lanfranco

I suspect it was as much a matter of sheer habit as reverence. By the time B.C. came to be common, AD had been in use for several centuries. In addition, what appropriate alternative was there? Not "After Christ," given that the Christian era and Christ's presence and relevance in the lives of the faithful were considered to be ongoing. AD expressed that concept well and and with convenient brevity. Translating it literally would have been a bit awkward in many cases. Though one does see some letters and documents that are headed with "The Year of Our Lord," written out in full, plus the date. Mar 10 06, 6:57 AM

ILUVNM

I like BCE abd CE myslef. Mar 11 06, 10:45 AM

ILUVNM

I like BCE and CE myself. (my bad) Mar 11 06, 10:45 AM