As if Greece didn't already have enough trouble: in the Greek isles, a volcano has awakened

Myrrh,
This little back-and-forth is beginning to look like a discovery document for a mediation process piling up in binders. People may begin to talk. But it’s fun, I must admit, hence my levity which you seem to be displeased about. Being clued-out about a lot of the science which almost everyone here seems to think should be easy, I don’t get a lot of opportunities to go in-depth on many things, so if I get my grip on something I can actually go on about, I hang-on for as long as I can.Your indulgence is appreciated.
I cried “uncle” first and took a peek at Wiki…I try not to in most discussions here as I still vaguely feel as if it’s some form of cheating. The amusing bit that I didn’t know about is that “(the) expression ‘Common Era’ can be found as early as 1708 in English, and traced back to Latin usage among European Christians to 1615, as vulgaris aerae, and to 1635 in English as Vulgar Era.” This kind of puts a dent on your argumrent-from-tradition and on my assumption that the new terms are uniqely Jewish in origin. The sweet irony is that we are squabbling over what appears to have been a Christian inter-denominational theological squabble in Britain. Nevertheless, this reframes the whole issue by placing it within the tradition of British tolerance for religious dissent. To me, knowing a bit about the development of modern Jewish scholarship, it’s quite clear that it was the religiously liberal…not traditional Orthodox….Jewish scholars who took up critiques of Christianity and most likely adopted the BCE/ACE thing in kind of a declaration of independence from once clergy-ruled…i.e., polically correct for the times... universities. Moreover, traditionalist Orthodoxy, which you seem to think is behind this issue, is actually very timid about confrontations of any kind with either Christians or Muslims, owing to religiously-based proscriptions regarding interactions with legitimate authorities and a long memory of an “uneasy” coexistence under various Christian and Muslim regimes.
Nevertheless, the terms “Christ,” the “Annointed One”…implying royal or messianic status…and the anno Domini…”year of the Lord”…were clearly intended as declarations of faith and a membership in religious community. That is very different from the use of the Pagan Roman names of the months; I’m sure that you can see the practical differences between a living, politically powerful religion and one that’s been lost in the mists of antiquity. To some sectors in the Orthodoxy, the anno Domini is, understandably, indistinguishable from a prayer or an affirmation of faith, especially as it was used in many formal documents such as “in this year of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
So, when you ask me “…why not stick to BC/AD…?” my short and speaking-for-myself answer is that because I can now use, without risk, and for the first time in two millenia, an increasingly acceptable designation that identifies me as a non-Christian and one which doesn’t imply an affirmation of a majority belief. And no, no offense taken by me and I don’t construe any of your arguments as a general attack on Jews. Thank you for your consideration. It’s unfortunate that you may have been exposed to brethren of mine who are not as brilliant and pleasant as I am, but my reflexive bellicosity notwithstanding, I’m certain that while this may have coloured your perception of the specific issue, it didn’t spill into your general view of Jews. As someone in the modern Orthodox sector and as a “card-carrying” Zionist who gets into nuclear-level political disputes on other blogs, I think I have a pretty good nose for such things and the nose didn’t twitch this time. What irks me, I must admit, is your assumption that those of us who prefer BCE/ACE are somehow part of the fairly recent push for “political correctness” and the demeaning assumption that we get “apoplectic” over the issue. I argued the first assumption and regarding the second one, I’m struck by the irony of an over-the-top, totally mis-directed and overly strident opposition by you and others here to what I see as a relative non-issue, a voluntary and personal choice that shouldn’t impede on anyone’s enjoyment of life. What happened to just matter-of-factly asking the reasons for one’s position, before jumping to conclusions and accusations?
Two other points. First, the spelling “G-d” versus “God,” which you brought up for reasons I’m not sure about. The use of the “G-d” spelling is not universal, even among the Orthodox, but like other things Jewish appears to have spread a bit, as I’ve seen in some Protestant Christian, specifically Evangelical literature. I understand the rationale up to a point and use “G-d” occasionally, as a courtesy to some readers and tried to bypass what I think is a religiously unnecessary alteration by writing “Almighty,” but now I see that some are writing “Alm-ghty.” Nevertheless, we do have a tradition of accepting minor differences and customs without resorting to attacks in either direction, so I’m not going to go apoplectic on this one. Secondly, in your subsequent posts I see you referred to a Jacobovici, whom I presume to be Simcha Jacobovici. I went to university with the chap and we belonged to the same Jewish association. He is a fine and honourable individual, a brilliant thinker and a skilled and successful film maker, but without trying to cause offense to him, I strongly object to his approach to historiography, Jewish or other. I charge that he unwittingly promotes loonie-fringe pseudohistory, the kind that may be entertaining and popular, but the kind that has little bearing on reality and does disservice to both general and Jewish historiography. To those of us who struggle to keep the relatively new field of modern Jewish historiography within the rationalistic and science-oriented mainstream, his contributions resemble Erich von Daniken’s “contributions” to archeology or Egyptology. It’s a hard thing to go on record about someone I have known personally, however peripherally (we had common friends, but I doubt he remembers me), and someone I admire for other qualities, but it irks me…there’s that word again…to see Jewish historiography finally slip out of the theistic claws of the ultra-traditionalists and to fly right into the mess in the cauldrons of populist pseudohistory. Just an opinion.

It must be due to Big Oil and their hydrofracking activities here in the USA.
Be warned. This is the next communist environmental hysteria campaign ahead.

Peter Kovachev says:
April 18, 2012 at 6:49 am
Myrrh,
This little back-and-forth is beginning to look like a discovery document for a mediation process piling up in binders. People may begin to talk. But it’s fun, I must admit, hence my levity which you seem to be displeased about.
Not at all, maybe I should have left in the sentence I wrote to your first paragraph, let’s see, something about were you sure you should be announcing your sd proclivities on such an open board..? I hope I don’t disappoint you again..
Being clued-out about a lot of the science which almost everyone here seems to think should be easy, I don’t get a lot of opportunities to go in-depth on many things, so if I get my grip on something I can actually go on about, I hang-on for as long as I can.Your indulgence is appreciated.
You have it. I been finding recently that many discussions I thought should be intelligible with a little application, that weren’t swamped with mathematics and obtuse terms, have become easier to follow now I’ve understood the majority here work to a completely different physics to mine.
I cried “uncle” first and took a peek at Wiki…I try not to in most discussions here as I still vaguely feel as if it’s some form of cheating. The amusing bit that I didn’t know about is that “(the) expression ‘Common Era’ can be found as early as 1708 in English, and traced back to Latin usage among European Christians to 1615, as vulgaris aerae, and to 1635 in English as Vulgar Era.” This kind of puts a dent on your argumrent-from-tradition and on my assumption that the new terms are uniqely Jewish in origin.
Hmm, I took a look the wiki page and I think they’re not making it clear that it was a general term in distinct contrast to regnal years, I think this is what they mean when they use the word “notation”, and that, as it also says, goes back to the 6th century, of Christian origin . Oh, before I go any further with that, it says there, on the wiki page:
“Use of the CE abbreviation was introduced by Jewish academics in the mid-19th century. Since the later 20th century, use of CE and BCE has been popularized in academic and scientific publications, and more generally by publishers emphasizing secularism or sensitivity to non-Christians.”
So the actual use of it as an abreviation was as I was told, introduced by the Jews from whence it travelled into general academe together with its accompanying meme – “emphasising secularism or sensitivity to non-Christians”.
However the phrase common era and era vulgaris and so on was used to distinguish calendar time specifically in contrast to regnal dating, and that goes right back to Dionysius in 525 to avoid giving Diocletian standing, a way of writing him out.
” The year numbering system used with Common Era notation was devised by the monk Dionysius Exiguus in the year 525 to replace the Diocletian years, because he did not wish to continue the memory of a tyrant who persecuted Christians.[16] He attempted to number years from an event he referred to as the Incarnation of Jesus,[16] although scholars today generally agree that he miscalculated by a small number of years.[17][18] Dionysius labeled the column of the Easter table in which he introduced the new era “Anni Domini Nostri Jesu Christi”[19] Numbering years in this manner became more widespread with its usage by Bede in England in 731. Bede also introduced the practice of dating years before the supposed year of birth[20] of Jesus, and the practice of not using a year zero.[21] In 1422, Portugal became the last Western European country to switch to the system begun by Dionysius.[22] ”
So, it’s the wiki use of ‘notation’ that’s bothering me, I think as they use it here it is confusing as it gives the appearance at quick skim as if Dionysius was using the actual term Common Era as if it existed then, but as they give it, he went straight into creating Anno Domini and their use of it is merely in contrast to the other system, regnal dating, and, that it is actually itself created by Dionysius to be in contrast to regnal dating. And, if the phrase ‘common era’ was used in some books more than a thousand years later, so what? It was still in contrast to whatever legal regnal dating was being used, meaning ‘of the people’, common to all, and might well have been to avoid associating the works with any particular monarch rather than some statement against association with Christianity, which in English ‘common’ would have natural association with Christian – at that time there were no ‘Atheists’.., the Church dominated. Ah, just a thought, it was around then that the first stirrings of real protestant rebellion against the Church were taking place, the use then could also have had something to do with this directly – not against its connection with Christ, but its connection specifically to the Latin monopoly of the Church. And iirc, this first grew from what is now the Czech Republic, Jan? on the tip of my tongue.., who translated the Bible into his vernacular, got burned at the stake. So possibly that as the first book it’s been found in was by Kepler. Huss! I’ll check. Yes. http://everydaysaholiday.org/jan-hus-czech-republic/ Considered the forerunner of Protestantism. Kepler studied in Prague and was a Lutheran. So its use in those books could have been to distance themselves from the Roman Catholic Church.
So, my point still stands. CE was introduced by the Jews deliberately to distance themselves from AD connection with Christianity, so there’s nothing secular about that introduction regardless the claim for it.
The sweet irony is that we are squabbling over what appears to have been a Christian inter-denominational theological squabble in Britain. Hmm, I must get in the habit of reading through a whole post first…
Nevertheless, this reframes the whole issue by placing it within the tradition of British tolerance for religious dissent.
None at all. Catholics still can’t sit on the throne.. And those that went to America went to where they had free rein to persecute others deviating from them.
To me, knowing a bit about the development of modern Jewish scholarship, it’s quite clear that it was the religiously liberal…not traditional Orthodox….Jewish scholars who took up critiques of Christianity and most likely adopted the BCE/ACE thing in kind of a declaration of independence from once clergy-ruled…i.e., polically correct for the times… universities. Moreover, traditionalist Orthodoxy, which you seem to think is behind this issue, is actually very timid about confrontations of any kind with either Christians or Muslims, owing to religiously-based proscriptions regarding interactions with legitimate authorities and a long memory of an “uneasy” coexistence under various Christian and Muslim regimes.
Well, I’ll take your most likely adopted with a pinch of salt, as I’ve said, my discussions were wide ranging and detailed and I’ve no reason to doubt the knowledge of this from ivory tower Orthodox and Liberals alike. But anyway, it still therefore comes from a particular belief system wanting to distance itself from another – this isn’t secularism.
Nevertheless, the terms “Christ,” the “Annointed One”…implying royal or messianic status…and the anno Domini…”year of the Lord”…were clearly intended as declarations of faith and a membership in religious community. That is very different from the use of the Pagan Roman names of the months; I’m sure that you can see the practical differences between a living, politically powerful religion and one that’s been lost in the mists of antiquity. To some sectors in the Orthodoxy, the anno Domini is, understandably, indistinguishable from a prayer or an affirmation of faith, especially as it was used in many formal documents such as “in this year of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Which is why its use doesn’t bother me, my objection only to its presenting itself as secular. But as above, it’s beginning not lost in the mists of time, it was created by Dionysius as he created the concept common era – so either way, you’re honouring a Christian beginning… As for the pagan Roman names not causing the same offence, well, I think I’m correct in saying that these are only in use from the Roman Catholic connection, Orthodox don’t use these. For example, Saturday is from Saturn in Western Christianity, while for the Orthodox is still the Sabbath day. I think you’d object to using the Orthodox for Sunday.
So, when you ask me “…why not stick to BC/AD…?” my short and speaking-for-myself answer is that because I can now use, without risk, and for the first time in two millenia, an increasingly acceptable designation that identifies me as a non-Christian and one which doesn’t imply an affirmation of a majority belief. And no, no offense taken by me and I don’t construe any of your arguments as a general attack on Jews. Thank you for your consideration. It’s unfortunate that you may have been exposed to brethren of mine who are not as brilliant and pleasant as I am, but my reflexive bellicosity notwithstanding, I’m certain that while this may have coloured your perception of the specific issue, it didn’t spill into your general view of Jews. As someone in the modern Orthodox sector and as a “card-carrying” Zionist who gets into nuclear-level political disputes on other blogs, I think I have a pretty good nose for such things and the nose didn’t twitch this time.
Ah, now, there’s an argument to be had… Though it wouldn’t be allowed on this blog, but I’ll leave you with a question, with no further elaboration, why has the dictionary definition changed?
What irks me, I must admit, is your assumption that those of us who prefer BCE/ACE are somehow part of the fairly recent push for “political correctness” and the demeaning assumption that we get “apoplectic” over the issue.
Ah no, perhaps I didn’t make myself clear. As I was told it, the designation was introduced by those who still get apoplectic about Christ, and this was then jollied along into mainstream academe with the claim that it thus avoided giving offence to non-Christians, note the word offence, that’s what makes it ‘politically correct’ as the idea grew from this that secular would avoid upsetting those who took such things seriously. As you said, it could be construed by some that BC/AD was a statement of faith, and I do appreciate how important such a thing is, not only to Jews. I was only commenting on its claimed origins being secular, which it clearly isn’t from the trusted information I received. In other words, it is still from a statement of belief, the Jews first began using it as abbreviation in place of BC/AD. As I was thinking about this when I posted earlier and nudged by some of the alternatives suggested, I couldn’t think of anything that could be actually secular to replace it, but I’ve just had a thought, Year Zero is going spare… 🙂 BZ/AZ?
I argued the first assumption and regarding the second one, I’m struck by the irony of an over-the-top, totally mis-directed and overly strident opposition by you and others here to what I see as a relative non-issue, a voluntary and personal choice that shouldn’t impede on anyone’s enjoyment of life. What happened to just matter-of-factly asking the reasons for one’s position, before jumping to conclusions and accusations?
Well, I hope I’ve made it clear where I stand on this. My input was only to point out that it couldn’t really be classified as being secular. As well known that it was introduced by the Jews, so, it comes from a particular view/belief system. And this is what I think is upsetting those who get upset about it, even if they didn’t know how and why it was first introduced deliberately to replace BC/AD, it has had the effect of making BC/AD politically incorrect, and that aspect is becoming more prominent.
Especially recently in Britain, now become politically incorrect to even wear a cross on show in some companies for example, while allowing other belief systems to continue with their personal expressions, Sikhs allowed to wear turbans instead of whatever regulation head gear and so on. Where pc correctness has gone to the extreme of so ‘protecting’ the interests of other belief systems that some want to stop calling Christmas, Christmas. It has become an attack. It’s become an attack under the guise of being pc, that’s touted as being for secular reasons, but is part of the growing movement which has actively penalised Christians, a nurse getting sacked for telling a patient she would say a pray for him, iirc. This may not have spread across the pond yet..
My gripe is solely about “political correctness” being used to justify it. That’s what I find offensive anyway, to have that concept become sacrosanct, so while I don’t object to its use, I do object to BCE being presented as coming out of secularistic ideals, just because it aint true, and because this effectively hides the insidious use it’s being put to which is actively making Christianity alone non pc among belief systems by some determinately targetting it, for whatever their reasons, by denigrating the use of BC/AD – ‘and we should have no objections to using BCE for the greater ideal of secularism’. That’s were I get a sense of humour fail… 🙂
Two other points. First, the spelling “G-d” versus “God,” which you brought up for reasons I’m not sure about. Just because I knew it. The use of the “G-d” spelling is not universal, even among the Orthodox, but like other things Jewish appears to have spread a bit, as I’ve seen in some Protestant Christian, specifically Evangelical literature.
Well I can understand how it’s spreading… 🙂 But, in some discussions I had on line it would have seriously offended if not used, even the Liberal Jews used it out of deference.
I understand the rationale up to a point and use “G-d” occasionally, as a courtesy to some readers and tried to bypass what I think is a religiously unnecessary alteration by writing “Almighty,” but now I see that some are writing “Alm-ghty.” Nevertheless, we do have a tradition of accepting minor differences and customs without resorting to attacks in either direction, so I’m not going to go apoplectic on this one.
I didn’t think you would, and as we see, some will go even further to change other words too because it matters to them, but again, in no discussion was I ever demeaned by anyone suggesting I, or others, should use it, no one made us blush if we didn’t.
Secondly, in your subsequent posts I see you referred to a Jacobovici, whom I presume to be Simcha Jacobovici. I went to university with the chap and we belonged to the same Jewish association. He is a fine and honourable individual, a brilliant thinker and a skilled and successful film maker, but without trying to cause offense to him, I strongly object to his approach to historiography, Jewish or other. I charge that he unwittingly promotes loonie-fringe pseudohistory, the kind that may be entertaining and popular, but the kind that has little bearing on reality and does disservice to both general and Jewish historiography. To those of us who struggle to keep the relatively new field of modern Jewish historiography within the rationalistic and science-oriented mainstream, his contributions resemble Erich von Daniken’s “contributions” to archeology or Egyptology. It’s a hard thing to go on record about someone I have known personally, however peripherally (we had common friends, but I doubt he remembers me), and someone I admire for other qualities, but it irks me…there’s that word again…to see Jewish historiography finally slip out of the theistic claws of the ultra-traditionalists and to fly right into the mess in the cauldrons of populist pseudohistory. Just an opinion.
Yes, he does give that impression at times, but he does ask some good questions. There were certainly ideas in his programmes, of those I saw, which I thought a bit odd, but I do think that Jacobovici may well be on to something in his Exodus one because of the information from various excavations and many now looking at the dating anomalies of the pharaohs – but I have to admit that at the time I became interested in exploring the dating from his programmes and found myself in a such a confusion of different opinions that it was quite beyond me to even work out who were in agreement about anything.. I gave up. I put it in for interest because of the Santorini connection, and because I found the programme enjoyable for looking at sources outside of the approach of ‘western’ mainstream archeologists – don’t get me going on how they’ve managed to convince the Indians they hadn’t a thought about anything prior to 2000 BC..

Myrrh, So, yeah, read your stuff and looked again at Wiki and you’re right. The BCE/ACE is a Jewish invention, as I was told o-so many years ago. Unless we venture out of Wiki territory, but I’m too lazy for research right now. For a moment I was disappointed that it was the proto-Protestant dissenters who came up with it just to be ornery. Hus, btw, is a national hero to the Czechs, and even in the depth of the communist craze when I lived in Prague as a kid, the teachers treated him with awe. Somehow they made him out into a secular socialist hero…I don’t remember how…and then in ’67 when anti-Stalinist thaw began, they started going on about the religion, which totally messed up and freaked us out, all of us still being red-kerchiefed Young Pioneers and Comsomoltsi-Young Communist Leaguers……
……. hang on, one of my kids is harrassing me (very effectively too) for the big PC with Illustrator; I’ll move to my crappy little mini-laptop with the quirky screen and go blind, but who cares, it’s only Dad….

Myrrh cont’d ….
Made it back, after a brief detour at the dish-washing station. So, you’re a Brit, then ? A Catholic from the North, perhaps? Ha! Catholics aren’t dissenters to the CofE…they’re still waving the semaphores at Phillip’s Armada, aren’t they? But not to worry, Parliament just ok’d women for the successions, so it won’t be long before you Papists get a shot at the sceptre and orb too too. That’s unless we beat you to it…I hear Lord and Chief Rabbi Sacks is about to retire! But I’m just kiding of course; the Muslims will get there before any of us.
Ok, well, if you’d told me you’re a Brit and the issue was the pc craze, I’d have understood. And if you’re an Aussie, please accept accept my heart-felt condolences for Gillard and Gang…we’ll bring flowers and send emergency Canadian wheat shipments when your economy goes belly up a few months from now. But anyway, as annoying as pc can get, we need to keep a perspective on things. Most ordinary secularists, Muslims, Jews, gays and minorities would actually prefer not to have such a fuss made about them and resent being exploited for political purposes by their “community” or “religiouds leaders” and the oily sycophant politicians. Canada isn’t far behind, but as I keep boasting, I think we somehow lucked into the best government in the Western world…which means the entire world by default. But we do deserve it after decades of pink Liberal party rule and fake conervatives, the once-named “Progressive” Conservitive Party, if you can believe such inanity. The Mongol invasions would’ve been kinder.
But a quick re-visit to the “dating” thing; I’m simply astounded that liberal Jewish bloggers would be offended at a non-Jew using BC/AD. It makes no logical sense to me. Not that I don’t believe you, but you should understand that you probably have a better connection to liberal Jews than I ever had. After the university days, where I stuck with the conservative and Zionist groups, I simply lost all touch with the liberal and secular Jewish culture. I blog in Orthodox circles (“modern” and “religious nationalist”) where we get the occasional religious Christian straggler and welcome them as long as they don’t annoy us by trying to spread the Good News. Wouldn’t dream of being stupid or rude enough to ask one of them to please abstain from using BC/AD, and can’t imagine any of my pals doing so either.
Now to Jacobovici. Simcha’s “trick” or the “forcing” is in treating the Exodus both as an established historical fact and a central theological event. But the fact of the matter is that the theology and science relating to it cannot be harmonized at this time. A sprinkling of related factoids, place names, words and rulers does not empirically establish the reality or nature of a Jewish Exodus as biblically described, much less they casually assign a date for it, as Simcha and others do. I wish it were otherwise, but there is no corroborating evidence…as we understand historical evidence…that can satisfy the secular historian. Perhaps one day. Not that it personally bothers me; I fully accept the Exodus as fundamentally true, and I affirm its central message purely on faith-based grounds. On the issue of the Exodus I refer to the interpretations of past and living sages of ours and leave it at that. This thing that Simcha and many others do, this trying to make religious mysteries seem every-day, plausible and rational harm religion. Likewise, their “sexing-up” of history to make it fun and mystical, inspiring and relevant for everyone by adding a bit of religion here and there damages the science. Historiography is a “soft” discipline as our gear-head buddies here will sneer, it’s certainly not a precise science and may never be one, but it can follow the rules of and methods of science with certain limitations. And speaking of limitations, I must cease philosophising, must kick my eldest off my machine and get back to my project and tomorrow’s deadline.
[Moderator’s Note: one moderator who teaches sociology of religion is becoming a bit concerned about the direction of this conversation. Keep it academic and don’t let it become personal. -REP]

Moderator: I hear you loud and clear; my apologies and appreciation for your tolerance; I didn’t think any of you folks stayed awake for this kind of stuff. Myrrh and I got a bit over-heated earlier on due to a few misunderstandings but being reasonable chaps we meandered to happy grounds. In the end, even though we strayed from earthquakes a tad, we managed to return to the issue of science. Somehow. Miracles happen in the strangest places.Thank you for your hard work and good night .
[REPLY: No apologies necessary. Confucious is reputed to have said “where three men are gathered, I can find one to be my teacher.” Teach me. No Baiting. A-Sholom. -REP]

Santorini (actual Greek name is Thira): beautiful island! I was there couple of years ago and visited Akrotiri. A little village which was burried under the vulcanic ash of the eruption / explosion1650 bC.. Really amazing to walk among the ancient buildings and imagine what life would be like in those days.
Fresco’s were found inside the houses, showing the island covered with green-leaved trees/plants, . Nowadays only bushes and grass grow on Santorini.