[Prospero]

I don't know if I would classify the BCE terminology precisely as true revisionism, as I've understood it's usage first in archeological circles beginning perhaps fifty years ago. Because it is still a reference to the Gregorian calendar's focus on what was for many years thought to be the time of the birth of Christ, they are interchangeable.

It is, therefore, certainly unnecessary.

For many years I followed after this convention, out of sensitivity for those to whom the name of Christ is like the proverbial cross before a vampire. About a decade ago, however, I returned gradually to the original Latin conventions because "the Common Era" is a clumsy device. Archeology and history remain seated in the Gregorian calendar, and because the preponderance of historical evidence favors the reliability of the witnesses to Christ's resurrection. This unique event in the record makes that birth an excellent frame of reference.

[Hostage]

> “About a decade ago, however, I returned gradually to the original Latin conventions because “the Common Era” is a clumsy device.”

Well good for you.

Revisionist historians can adopt their own reference point without infringement, say year 2000 AD as the zero CE/BCE marker.

But changing the historical usage of AD/BC is similar in motive to taking Crosses down from public view or arguing that the Ten Commandments be taken out of courthouses.