Christianity in Chronology and After

 

Since the birth of the Christian era, the periodization of history into ‘dark ages’ and the ‘age of light’ and modernity have found favour with the Christian world. This ahistorical periodization was encouraged by historians and meta-historians like St. Augustine, Celerius, etc. Jesus Christ was made the epicenter of historical evolution. The birth and life of Christ proved to be landmarks in historical progress. All history and civilisation preceding the birth of Christ were considered profane, evil, inferior, and barbarian. Mankind began its spiritual and material progress only after the birth of Christ. Civilisation and humanity were the results. Hence, B.C. signified a period before Christ and was synonymous with darkness, ignorance, and sin. A.D. symbolised the age after Christ and was synonymous with enlightenment and modernity.

This division of history and its evolution were not acceptable to the people of the orient, especially of the non-Christian world. It was also to be borne in mind that not all thinking and rational people of the occident accepted this periodization of history. They found it historically, politically, and scientifically incorrect. There have been movements of stupendous progress and great achievements in philosophy, arts, literature, sciences, etc., in the so-called period before Christ. All of the medieval ages were not enveloped in darkness or wrapped in non-progress.

In the age after Christ, dispassionate study shows enormous spans of darkness and non-progress. Many a page of history has been darkened by misdeeds and bloody exploits. Naturally, a new system or nomenclature that would substantiate ‘B.C.’ with a more universally accepted ‘B.C.E.’ was rooted. ‘Before Common Era’ (B.C.E.) was accepted by a large section of scholars and historians. However, the change from ‘B.C.’ to ‘B.C.E.’ has not found its way into all historical texts. Similarly, ‘A.D.’ has been substantiated by ‘Common Era’ (C.E.). This change is more scientific and rational although it cannot be viewed as a paradigm shift in the concept of periodization.

The changeover is slow and partial, primarily because, old habits do not die easily rather than a lack of conviction in the new changes. Another perceptible reason was the difficulty in comparative studies where earlier authors have profusely adopted ‘B.C.’ and ‘A.D.’