Primer To The Quartodeciman Controversy

Any good discussion on Easter ought to eventually mention the disputes in the early church over the observance of Easter, and particularly the one that has since become known as the Quartodeciman Controversy (aka the Easter Controversy). In the fourteen years since I first started investigating Easter, I have never dug into this topic in its own post.

Many people try to adopt the Quartodecimans. I find it curious that many of those who try to ally with the Quartodecimans don't really understand them. Many know they refused a fixed Sunday observance of Pascha, but that is about it, and the imagination fills in the rest. I found the reality quite interesting. My point today will be to review the general framework of the Quartodeciman Controversy and try to clarify what really happened and when.

This topic is far larger than I ever anticipated. The Quartodeciman Controversy is just one of many Easter-timing disputes at that time. It seems the presence of Jewish converts and the multitude of calendars and ways to calculate moons caused several areas to be slightly off from one another - both before and after Nicaea. Disputes started in the first century and continue until today.
But regarding only the Quartodeciman issue, there are already so many things written on the topic by so many people over so much time, it wouldn't be possible for me to address everything. I am forced to summarize, then begin cutting out material from there. So, today's post is going to be a primer only. A thirty-thousand foot view, so to speak.

For the sake of clarity, I am going to try not to use the word Easter so much. Instead, I will use the older word Pascha. Easter specifically refers to Pascha observed on Sunday. Since the crux of the issue is one feast being observed in two ways, I feel using Easter will be unnecessarily confusing. Whereas Pascha is my way of referring to the New Covenant Passover regardless of particulars. I prefer Pascha over Passover because Passover is specific to the Jews and I don't want confusion there either.

Let's start digging!

INTRO TO THE QUARTODECIMAN CONTROVERSY

Early Christianity was divided over the details of the Paschal Fast and the Paschal meal.

One group, not coincidentally from areas with high populations of Jewish converts, always observed the Lord's Supper on a certain date regardless of what day of the week it fell on - the 14th day of the Hebrew month of Nissan (according to the calendar used at the Temple in Jerusalem).
They received the nickname Quartodeciman, after the Latin term quarta decima meaning fourteen. They were "the fourteeners". The term Quartodeciman doesn't appear until closer to the fourth century, and was not used by the Quartodeciman side to describe themselves.

The other group, from areas with high populations of Gentile converts, always observed the Lord's Supper on a certain day of the week regardless of what date it fell on - Sunday (after the 14th of Nissan). They didn't have a nickname. I will just call them "traditional Christians", for lack of a better term.

I don't have time to explore this today, but by the end of the second century a third group would appear. The Quartodeciman group would split into a third opinion which could be described as between the two.

Eusebius of Caesarea introduces the Controversy this way:

"A question of no small importance arose at that time [in the second century]. For the parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Savior's Pascha. It was therefore necessary to end their fast on that day, whatever day of the week it should happen to be. But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this time, as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the resurrection of our Savior."
-Eusebius, "Church History", book V, chapter 23

Please do not misunderstand. Eusebius is not saying some new Pascha tradition appeared in the second century. That is not the case. He specifically means a dispute arose in the 100s AD over pre-existing traditions. The traditions were old, the dispute was new.
Some have claimed the Controversy was over two separate days, one Christian and one pagan. That is not true. Eusebius tells us there was, 

“...diversity of judgment in regard to the time for celebrating one and the same feast...”
-Eusebius, "Life of Constantine", book III, chapter V, in section “Of the Disagreement Respecting the Celebration of Easter”.

It was one feast, entirely Christian, with differences of opinion on how and when it should be kept.

Most people believe the disagreement was entirely over when to observe the Pascha, but that is not accurate. It could be argued the dispute had more to do with fasting then feasting. The disagreement was over 1) the length of the fast before the Lord's Supper, 2) what to fast from, and 3) when to stop fasting and observe the communal meal of the Lord's Supper.

In the 190s AD, Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (France), wrote a letter to Victor, Bishop of Rome, which gives us a little more detail about the debate itself:

"For the controversy is not only concerning the day, but also concerning the very manner of the fast. For some think that they should fast one day, others two, yet others more; some, moreover, count their day as consisting of forty hours day and night."

-Eusebius "Church History", book V, chapter 24

Eusebius' own criticism adds another detail.

"...some afflicting themselves with fastings and austerities, while others devoted their time to festive relaxation..."
-Eusebius, "Life of Constantine", book III, chapter 5

So, there was fasting, but not universally. Some people were on holiday. Sounds a lot like I Corinthians 11: 17-22.

I think that accurately builds a picture on the issues. Now, a word on what they agreed on.

Both sides agreed our Lord ate the Last Supper and was betrayed on the night at the start of 14th of Nissan according to the Hebrew calendar used at the Temple in Jerusalem. Both sides agreed our Lord was crucified on a Friday and they also agreed He was resurrected on Sunday, the third day after being crucified. There are plenty of Quartodeciman documents that make this plain. These details of timing were never in dispute on either side of the issue. The Quartodecimans were not advocating a Wednesday to Saturday crucifixion scenario. (But that is for another article.)

FASTING (LENT) IS CENTRAL

Fasting was an integral part of Judaism and therefore Christianity. The Mishnah describes a fast before Passover.

"On the eve of Passover, adjacent to mincha [afternoon prayer] time, a person may not eat until dark, so that he will be able to eat matza that night with a hearty appetite."
-Mishnah Pesachim chapter 10

The Mishnah was written a bit later on, but it still illustrates the point of Jews and fasting.

The early church had several regular fasts, even weekly. To this day, the Catholics and Orthodox have a fast before taking the Eucharist on Sunday. There was a fast every year before the Paschal meal.
In English and German the fast came to be called Lent. The Catholic Encyclopedia article on Lent says this:

"The Teutonic word Lent, which we employ to denote the forty days' fast preceding Easter, originally meant no more than the spring season. Still it has been used from the Anglo-Saxon period to translate the more significant Latin term quadragesima (French carême, Italian quaresima, Spanish cuaresma), meaning the "forty days", or more literally the "fortieth day". This in turn imitated the Greek name for Lent, tessarakoste (fortieth), a word formed on the analogy of Pentecost (pentekoste), which last was in use for the Jewish festival before New Testament times."
-Thurston, Herbert. "Lent." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 9. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 15 Apr. 2023 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09152a.htm> 

The Germans had a habit of naming holidays after the time of year in which they fell. The English inherited it, because Saxons are German, and here we are today. The Paschal Fast is called Lent for exactly the same reason why Pascha is called Easter.

The Paschal Fast was central to the Quartodeciman debate. The Paschal Fast was clearly not 40 days at first, as it is today. Not even close. As Irenaeus said, "For some think that they should fast one day, others two, yet others more; some, moreover, count their day as consisting of forty hours day and night." It started small and grew over time. A 40-day tradition can be seen by the year 329AD in Alexandria:

"We begin the fast of forty days on the 13th of the month Phamenoth (Mar. 9). After we have given ourselves to fasting in continued succession, let us begin the holy Paschal week on the 18th of the month Pharmuthi (April 13). Then resting on the 23rd of the same month Pharmuthi (April 18), and keeping the feast afterwards on the first of the week, on the 24th (April 19)..."
-Athanasius, Festal Letter #2, for the year 329-330

Socrates of Constantinople has quite a bit to say about the fasts, and it turns out forty days was quite popular (even if it wasn't really forty days):

"And it will not perhaps be unseasonable to notice here the diversity of customs in the churches. The fasts before Easter will be found to be differently observed among different people. Those at Rome fast three successive weeks before Easter, excepting Saturdays and Sundays. Those in Illyrica and all over Greece and Alexandria observe a fast of six weeks, which they term `The forty days' fast.' Others commencing their fast from the seventh week before Easter, and fasting three five days only, and that at intervals, yet call that time `The forty days' fast.' It is indeed surprising to me that thus differing in the number of days, they should both give it one common appellation [of forty days fast]; but some assign one reason for it, and others another, according to their several fancies. One can see also a disagreement about the manner of abstinence from food, as well as about the number of days. Some wholly abstain from things that have life: others feed on fish only of all living creatures: many together with fish, eat fowl also, saying that according to Moses, these were likewise made out of the waters. Some abstain from eggs, and all kinds of fruits: others partake of dry bread only; stilt others eat not even this: while others having fasted till the ninth hour, afterwards take any sort of food without distinction. And among various nations there are other usages, for which innumerable reasons are assigned. Since however no one can produce a written command as an authority, it is evident that the apostles left each one to his own free will in the matter, to the end that each might perform what is good not by constraint or necessity. Such is the difference in the churches on the subject of fasts."
-Socrates of Constantinople (Scholasticus), "Church History", Book V, chapter XXII

The fast was broken by a communal meal as an observance of the Lord's Supper. And that leads us to the big question at hand - when should the fasting and feasting happen? That is the critical issue in the controversy.

And, no, Lent has nothing to do with weeping for Tammuz. That happened in the month of Tammuz, which is about three months later, around June/July.

LOCATING THE GROUPS

You may have heard this issue was east vs west, or Jerusalem vs Rome, but it wasn't nearly as simple as that. From the evidence we have, it is reasonable to conclude both opinions existed to some degree in nearly all areas. All areas had their own struggles deciding between the two. The issue was addressed region by region. Eventually, the only remaining strongholds of Quartodeciman practice were Asia Minor (ie. modern Turkey), Syria, and some areas of Persia. In other words, areas of the Syriac Orthodox Church. Due to this slow decision process, by the time the Council of Nicaea was called, the Quartodecimans were deeply in the minority.

We can see which regions held which opinion from Eusebius' book "The Life of Constantine". In it, Eusebius quotes a letter from Constantine written after the Council of Nicaea. This is the official letter where Constantine wrote to the entire church informing them of the decisions of the Council. Constantine urges them all to come into agreement. In that letter, Constantine says:

"...and since that arrangement [the decision at Nicaea] is consistent with propriety which is observed by all the churches of the western, southern, and northern parts of the world, and by some of the eastern also: for these reasons all are unanimous on this present occasion..." 

"...that practice [observing the Lord's Supper on Sunday] which is observed at once in the city of Rome, and in Africa; throughout Italy, and in Egypt, in Spain, the Gauls, Britain, Libya, and the whole of Greece; in the dioceses of Asia and Pontus, and in Cilicia, with entire unity of judgment. And you will consider not only that the number of churches is far greater in the regions I have enumerated than in any other..."
-Eusebius, “Life of Constantine”, book III, chapter 19 [bold mine].

This isn't the only place where Eusebius gives us evidence of which areas joined which side. He provides more in his "Church History". I will quote the entire 23rd chapter:

"A question of no small importance arose at that time. For the parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Savior's Passover. It was therefore necessary to end their fast on that day, whatever day of the week it should happen to be. But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this time, as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the resurrection of our Savior.

"Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, and all, with one consent, through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree, that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other but the Lord's day, and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on this day only. There is still extant a writing of those who were then assembled in Palestine, over whom Theophilus, bishop of Cæsarea, and Narcissus, bishop of Jerusalem, presided. And there is also another writing extant of those who were assembled at Rome to consider the same question, which bears the name of Bishop Victor; also of the bishops in Pontus over whom Palmas, as the oldest, presided; and of the parishes in Gaul of which Irenæus was bishop, and of those in Osroene and the cities there; and a personal letter of Bacchylus, bishop of the church at Corinth, and of a great many others, who uttered the same opinion and judgment, and cast the same vote.

"And that which has been given above was their unanimous decision."
-Eusebius, "Church History", book V, chapter 23 [bold mine].

Now I will quote the entire 25th chapter:

"Those in Palestine whom we have recently mentioned, Narcissus and Theophilus, and with them Cassius, bishop of the church of Tyre, and Clarus of the church of Ptolemais, and those who met with them, having stated many things respecting the tradition concerning the Passover which had come to them in succession from the apostles, at the close of their writing add these words:

" 'Endeavor to send copies of our letter to every church, that we may not furnish occasion to those who easily deceive their souls. We show you indeed that also in Alexandria they keep it on the same day that we do [Alexandria was not a Quartodeciman area]. For letters are carried from us to them and from them to us, so that in the same manner and at the same time we keep the sacred day.' "
-Eusebius, "Church History", book V, chapter 25 [bold mine].

You can see now that the areas where Quartodecimanism was in the majority were mostly located in Asia Minor (except Pontus in the north, and Osroene and Cilicia in the south). We can tell from other writings there were Quartodecimans throughout Syria and some areas of Persia. The rest of the world was in the traditional camp.

ORIGINS OF THE CONTROVERSY

From Herbert Armstrong, I was made to believe Easter Sunday was adopted into Christianity from foreign paganism at the Council of Nicaea due to pressure from the Pope and Constantine the Great. That might perhaps lead one to believe the debate was after Nicaea. All of that is absolutely, completely false.

If I had used even the slightest amount of logic, I would have noticed the Quartodeciman Controversy was one of the reasons the Council of Nicaea was called in the first place. The debate existed within Christianity long before Nicaea. I was surprised to learn not only did the issue predate Nicaea, it existed from the very start, it was debated for centuries, and multiple local Synods were held about the topic before there was a Constantine. I wonder why I didn't know this earlier. Herbert Armstrong knew it! He said as much:

"I found in historic records that there had been heated and violent controversies over this very question directly and indirectly during the first three centuries of the Church."
-Herbert Armstrong, "Where Is The True Church?", 1984, p.21

When I say 'very beginning' I mean it. Nicaea was in 325 AD. Three centuries before that means what? The very beginning.

Most of what we know comes from the historian Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea in Syria (a Quartodeciman region). Eusebius related details from historical documents he had access to. From what he relates, both groups claimed to have received their traditions directly from the Apostles. The Quartodecimans were taught by John and Philip, according to Polycarp and Polycrates. Traditionalists were taught by unnamed Apostles, according to sources such as Claudius Apollinaris and Eusebius. Tradition states it was Paul and Peter. The pseudepigraphal work of "The Paschal Canon" of Anatolius of Laodicea/Alexandria, chapter X, supports that it was Peter and Paul, and Socrates of Constantinople (called Scholasticus) in his "Church History", book V chapter XXII, recognizes it. Socrates also mentions no one could prove their claims with any written evidence from the Apostles.
Nothing specifically says this, but if Rome was taught by Peter and Paul, then it is reasonable to conclude Alexandria was taught by Mark.

There is at least one non-Armstrongist scholar who would disagree with me: Gerard Rouwhorst. In the spirit of balance, I figured I would mention him. I respect him. He knows his material. He leaves room for others to disagree with him, and that makes me respect him all the more. Understand that there are a multitude of opinions on just about anything, and the origins of this controversy are not exempted.

I find it supremely interesting that Socrates of Constantinople says about the origins. He believes the Apostles did not ordain any festivals at all, but left things up to people to make up their own minds. Truly, that makes a great amount of sense to me.
Socrates begins chapter 22 of book 5 with a review from the Bible of the Old Covenant law being done away, then he speculates on the origins of Easter in this way:

"Wherefore, inasmuch as men love festivals, because they afford them cessation from labor: each individual in every place, according to his own pleasure, has by a prevalent custom celebrated the memory of the saving passion. The Savior and his apostles have enjoined us by no law to keep this feast: nor do the Gospels and apostles threaten us with any penalty, punishment, or curse for the neglect of it, as the Mosaic law does the Jews. It is merely for the sake of historical accuracy, and for the reproach of the Jews, because they polluted themselves with blood on their very feasts, that it is recorded in the Gospels that our Savior suffered in the days of `unleavened bread.' The aim of the apostles was not to appoint festival days, but to teach a righteous life and piety. And it seems to me that just as many other customs have been established in individual localities according to usage. So also the feast of Easter came to be observed in each place according to the individual peculiarities of the peoples inasmuch as none of the apostles legislated on the matter. And that the observance originated not by legislation, but as a custom the facts themselves indicate."
-Socrates of Constantinople (Scholasticus), "Church History", Book V, chapter XXII

And that, out of all the things I've read, makes the most sense to me given what else I've read about this and other things in other places. I think the two are compatible, though. I could speculate the original Apostles did keep a certain tradition of observing the Lord's Supper on the 14th of Nissan and passed it on, but not as a matter of law or requirement of any kind. And that Peter and Paul did teach the Gentiles they were not required to observe anything on the 14th, but could observe on Easter Sunday if they wished, or not, and so they had a hand in starting the two. But nothing at all was required of either side. This view explains quite a bit in my mind, including how there were indeed more than only two traditions, how there is no set way to calculate anything, and how no one seemed to be able to appeal to anything but Apostolic tradition.

Until recently, I thought the controversy began purely due to calendar differences growing slowly between distant areas. I no longer believe that. The origin according to the historical documents we have is Apostolic. The calendar issues existed without a doubt, but were secondary. Perhaps the Apostles were attempting to solve a calendar-based issue in two different ways. Perhaps the Apostles, being Jews themselves, maintained a more Jewish tradition when with other Jewish converts, but not while they were with Gentile converts (GAL. 2: 11-13), which caused calendar issues. Perhaps the two traditions coexisted better before distance and time exaggerated certain calendar issues. Calendar issues do not appear to be the root cause of the difference, the cause is Apostolic, or perhaps a combination of Apostolic and free will, but certainly calendars and calculations made the debate worse and harder to settle.

I know some people will balk at the claim the Apostles taught both sides. I understand. However, I am only relating what the legitimate historical documents indeed say. I must go where they lead me. This is the historical record. Anything else is simply not the historical record. If you've read anything here on this blog at all, then you know we utterly reject Alexander Hislop as a legitimate source. His claims of paganism are empty and worthless.

DEVELOPMENT OVER TIME

Anicetus and Polycarp

First, in "Church History" book IV chapter 24, Eusebius recounts a discussion between Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna and Anicetus, Bishop of Rome. Judging from the time between when Anicetus was elected Bishop and when Polycarp died, this conversation had to be between 153-155 AD. This is quite early, and is our first hint of a dispute. Polycarp traveled to Rome to discuss it with Anicetus. Both men explain how they inherited their tradition. The entire arguments of both men were based not on law or removal of law, nor on accusations of paganism, but on tradition. The two unsuccessfully tried to convince the other of who had the stronger tradition. In the end, they confirmed their mutual respect and decided to live together in peace. They even shared a Eucharistic meal together.

The next time the United Church of God tries to tell you Quartodecimans were true Christians and Romans were pagans, remind them the two lived in peace and shared the Eucharist together. Or when they try to pin Easter Sunday on events after the Bar Kokhba Revolt (132-136 AD), remind them that Irenaeus, whom they cite, specifically mentioned Bishops of Rome by name going back to 115 AD, which was prior to Bar Kohkba.

Start of Local Synods

The timing in this next phase in the dispute seems to last form the 150s to the 190s AD, and beyond. Eusebius, in "Church History" book IV chapter 23, briefly mentions local synods being held in areas such as Rome, Caesarea, Jerusalem, Gaul, Pontus, and Corinth. He recounts that the decision of these synods were in favor of Easter Sunday.

"Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, and all, with one consent, through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree, that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other but the Lord's day [Sunday], and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on this day only."
-Eusebius "Church History", book V, chapter 23

From this we know the Council of Nicaea was not even remotely the first time Christians gathered to debate the issue. We also know this is a short list. In the next section, we will see the infamous fight between Victor and Polycrates. Hidden in there is another mention of a local synod in Asia Minor, called upon Victor's request. How many other areas had synods which were left unmentioned? We will never know for certain, but we know it wasn't zero. It seems as if Eusebius' list was meant to convey the idea that synods were happening all around the Empire.

The 1975 booklet "Seven Proofs of God's True Church" page 53, Garner Ted Armstrong says:

"Study into the 'Quartodeciman' controversy some time. See how it finally required pressure from the state to finally force people to quit keeping Passover on the 14th of Nissan..."

When we study into the history as Garner Ted suggested, we see history doesn't quite match the claims of "God's True Church". This stopped surprising me long ago.
The local areas were deciding for themselves, and the vast majority were deciding in favor of Sunday.

Polycrates and Victor

Next, in "Church History" book V, chapters 23-25, Eusebius recounts another important discussion, this time between Polycrates the Bishop of Ephesus and Victor the Bishop of Rome. Judging from the time between when Victor was elected Bishop and when Polycrates died, this conversation had to be between 189 and 196 AD. Eusebius dedicates three whole chapters to this debate, which I will summarize.

From previous paragraphs, we can see Victor wrote to Polycrates to inform him of the decisions of the local counsels and to ask him to assemble his own counsel in Asia Minor. The church leaders in the region were assembled as requested to discuss the issue and the decision came down in favor of the Quartodeciman view. Polycrates wrote back to Victor about their decision. Polycrates, in a rather defiant tone, lays out his case that the Apostles John and Philip taught them, and many church leaders kept that tradition. They decided they were following God and so would continue observing as they had. Victor clearly took offense and responded by excommunicating everyone from the Quartodeciman side of the issue. The majority of the church reacted against Victor's decision, including those who sided with Victor on timing.

Something clearly happened that went unreported by Eusebius. This wasn't Victor and Polycrates' first conversation. Polycrates called the local counsel as Victor asked him to, so there had to have been earlier conversations. The tone in Polycrates' two phrases "I ... am not affrighted by terrifying words" and "we ought to obey God rather than man" leads me to believe he felt pressured by Victor to come to the same conclusion everyone else had. That's my opinion. We have no way to verify it. Polycrates' seemed somewhat passive aggressive. Passive aggression is still aggression. By Victor's harsh response, there must be some layering here. I tend to suspect this was not just Victor lashing out after being slighted. Was Victor grieved the Asians purposefully did not come into unity with the rest of the church? Was Victor angry about Marcionite heretics rising up around the world, including in Italy, and taking it out on Polycrates? There is no telling. We are missing critical information here. I do not agree with Victor's response. But I feel they were both wrong, not just Victor. The rest of the church reacted to Victor as well. You might think the reaction was mainly due to Victor not having the authority to act as he did. From what I can tell, that was not the case. The tone was unity and peace, not authority.

As a brief aside, you will read how this was Rome's first attempt to assert authority over other churches. That is absolutely not true. Examples can be given of other churches looking to Rome to make decisions well before this. Polycrates did call his local synod at Victor's request, after all. Don't mistake me for trying to cheerlead a Pope. I am not. I am just relating historical facts to clear up misconceptions. But I digress.

Eusebius then quotes from a letter by Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, to Victor. Irenaeus laid out the case for both sides, emphasized how the church had always lived in peace about this issue, pointed out how no one was excommunicated over it before then - even providing a list of Bishops of Rome who lived at peace with the Quartodecimans, and pleaded for Victor to relent.
Irenaeus was born in Smyrna and was a disciple of Polycarp. This means he grew up a Quartodeciman. He had since become the Bishop of Lyon (France). We can tell from various sources that Irenaeus was no longer a practicing Quartodeciman. Therefore, he lived under both traditions at one point. If anyone was capable of understanding both sides it was him. (I can relate.)

In theory, Victor relented - but we don't know that because that's missing information, too. And the debate went on.

Council of Nicaea

Finally, the issue left to fester over the next century until we get to the reign of Constantine the Great. According to Eusebius, in "Life of Constantine" book III, before Nicaea, Constantine sent out letters to church leaders in several areas imploring them to settle the issue (which was doomed to fail, since they had been trying to settle the issue for two centuries already).
All who to paint Constantine as some strong man forcing one opinion on the church seem to never mention this. I am sure you can see for yourself why that is. Constantine didn't care either way what they chose. He just wanted the issue settled because peace in the church meant peace in the empire.

When that naturally failed, he called the Council to make leaders from all areas sit down together and work it out. He chose a location in Quartodeciman territory that was central for everyone. He paid their travel expenses plus room and board. He let them debate and decide on their own. He was not afforded a vote. When the bishops had finally decided - in favor of Sunday - he enforced their decisions.

Here is what Socrates of Constantinople, also called Scholasticus, says about those who attended:

'Wherefore the most eminent of the ministers of God in all the churches which have filled Europe, Africa, and Asia, were convened. And one sacred edifice, dilated as it were by God, contained within it on the same occasion both Syrians and Cilicians, Phœnicians, Arabs and Palestinians, and in addition to these, Egyptians, Thebans, Libyans, and those who came from Mesopotamia. At this synod a Persian bishop was also present, neither was the Scythian absent from this assemblage. Pontus also and Galatia, Pamphylia, Cappadocia, Asia and Phrygia, supplied those who were most distinguished among them. Besides, there met there Thracians and Macedonians, Achaians and Epirots, and even those who dwelt still further away than these, and the most celebrated of the Spaniards himself took his seat among the rest. The prelate of the imperial city was absent on account of age; but some of his presbyters were present and filled his place."
-Socrates of Constantinople (Scholasticus), "Church History", Book I, chapter 8

Understand, the primary topic of the Council was an issue that started in Alexandria over the nature of Jesus - the heresy of Arius. The details of Pascha were quite secondary at the Council. Nicaea was not called over Pascha, but if you're going to be gathering and making decisions, why not settle Pascha too?

This was not Constantine trying to force his Easter opinions on the church. Constantine was there, but could not vote. Constantine didn't even personally follow all of the decisions of the Council. Constantine is reported to have sided with Arius on the nature of Jesus, and retained that opinion until much later in life. How can Nicaea be Constantine forcing his opinions on the church when he apparently did not agree with all of the decisions of the Council? It cannot. If you know anything about Constantine, you know he liked to play it safe. He wasn't even baptized until he knew he was dying, just to make sure all his sins would be covered. He wasn't given to taking extreme positions on religious particulars. It really is a baseless accusation to blame Easter on him. That whole canard really needs to be ended. It's dishonest.

Armstrong would have us believe this was all the doings of those dastardly Catholics who were up to no good again, forcing the innocent and godly Passover-keepers to bow to their will. That is a serious mischaracterization. First, as stated earlier, the traditional dating was already well established in most areas. Rome had its own local synod. Second, every bishop voted. If people have power when they can vote to elect a government, then the same holds true here. Losing a vote is not the same as being oppressed. Third, the Pope wasn’t even at the Council of Nicaea. Eusebius states the Bishop of Rome didn't attend due to his "extreme old age" (Eusebius, "Life of Constantine", book III, chapter 7), so he sent two representatives to be there in his place - Vitus and Vincent. Two representatives out of an estimated 318 Bishops (the exact number of Bishops present is unknown and various numbers were given). Fourth, records indicate the delegates in attendance were mostly from the East. Nicaea was in Quartodeciman territory after all, naturally it would be weighted in their favor. And finally, delegates from Persia and other areas outside the Roman Empire came as well. They could not be pressured by the Pope or Constantine. What shall people say about them?

After Nicaea

Nicaea was a great effort, but in the end it was not entirely effective. Regardless of what the Bishops agreed to on any given topic, people continued to do what they pleased. It wouldn't be another century until a second ecumenical Council would have to be called to decide certain issues a again. The Quartodeciman practices would linger another century, mainly in Persia, until they eventually died out on their own. So much for the story you've heard about being being forced to give up their ways.

The Medieval Sourcebook has a detailed and mercifully brief article on the specifics of how Easter timing played out going forward, called "Excursus On The Subsequent History of the Easter Question". Nicaea may have created a formula for how to calculate Easter Sunday, but they didn't say what calendar to use. Here we go with the calendar issues again
Rome and Alexandria had back and forth issues with calculating Easter because they calculated moon phases differently. This went on and on until 525 AD when Dionysius Exeguus (the guy who invented "AD" and "BC"), built on an earlier work from Anatolius of Laodicea (aka Anatolius of Alexandria) and came up with a working system of 19-year Easter time cycles (wow does that ever sound familiar) that satisfied both sides. The new calculations would catch on slowly across the West, until about the year 729 AD when the whole British isles finally accepted them. At long last, there would be peace.

...Or not.
Technically, troubles continue until this very day, since the Catholics/Protestants and Greek Orthodox have two entirely different calendars and celebrate Easter almost always at different times. Hope for a solution seems to be possible, according to the article "Why Catholics and Orthodox might once again celebrate Easter on the same date" on CatholicNewsAgency, which says,

"According to an earlier report by Vatican News, [Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople] supports such a common date to be set for the year 2025, which will mark the 1,700th anniversary of the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea."

I wouldn't hold my breath, though.

That sums up the development of the issue over time. I only have so much space and cannot get overly detailed about it, but that is the summary of the major points. If you hear anything wildly divergent from what you've read here, you can be assured those claims are suspect at best.

CONCLUSION

As I said at the start, there is so much more to this one topic. I chose to cover what I did, which I feel are the basics, because these things were most relevant to my own history in Armstrongism. I had to read quite a bit about this topic. It's not like you just read Eusebius and you're done. There are rabbit holes inside the rabbit holes. I seriously have fifteen tabs open in just one of my three web browsers right this minute, all with pages on this topic.

Having come from an Armstrongist background, I found many things to be challenging to what I thought I knew. Challenging because so many things I thought I knew were wrong. Wrong because I had relied on thoroughly biased material from Armstrongists. I would never have known this had I not done what Garner Ted Armstrong suggested and researched the topic myself.

Today we've seen that both Quartodeciman and traditional practices were Apostolic, that the local regions held synods to decide for themselves well before Nicaea, that Quartodecimans were in the minority by choice of local regions, and that this was not due to pressure from the Pope or Constantine. The only example of pressure from the Bishop of Rome was met with pressure from the other Bishops.

Many will be surprised about the fasting. Lent is not some foreign pagan thing imported into Christianity in later years. It was there from the start, developing organically from Christian piety towards Jesus' betrayal and death. Everyone had a Lentin fast, even the Quartodecimans. If one wishes to claim some ancestry from the Quartodecimans, it follows that one also adopts a Lentin fast.

I bet you're wondering who was right in this debate, the Quartodecimans or the traditional Christians? In short: they were both right!
Life is messy. This was not by any means the first time the church dealt with two opinions on one topic (ACT. 15: 6-29; 21: 17-25 and ROM 14: 1-13). These are growing pains of a church leaving its infancy. Both groups were taught by Apostles from the start and both groups had long lists of illustrious names who agreed with them. They tried living in peace, but the years were not kind to that. The difference made for poor unity, and they disputed for centuries. They tried peace, pressure, councils, contention, and plain old ignoring it and hoping it would go away ... nothing worked. The dispute needed to be settled before it led to schism. I for one am persuaded it was necessary and a good idea to try and settle it at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD.
Even thought that didn't really settle it.

Remember at the start of this article when I said, "I find it curious that many of those who try to ally with the Quartodecimans don't really understand them"? In my next post "Quartodecimans - Were They Law-Keepers?", we will dig into actual details and investigate the beliefs of the Quartodecimans. I think you will find the reality quite interesting. It was for me!

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************

Easter History - part II

In part I of this series, we investigated Passover and how that ties in with the Lord’s Supper. We saw how Jesus ate the Passover Seder a day early, we saw there is no such thing as the Night To Be Much Observed, we saw that there are issues with any timing system that defines words too inflexibly, and we saw how people aren't really keeping the law they claim to be keeping after all.

In this installment, we will investigate how the Lord’s Supper ties in with Easter, and we will answer not a few questions that I hope clear things up about Easter and its supposedly pagan origins.


ORIGINAL NAMING OF EASTER

When Jesus and the Apostles ate the Last Supper early on the 14th, they used some new symbols that were a remembrance of Him. This broke the remembrance away from the Old Covenant Passover Seder, where Israel alone was saved from slavery and death, and pointed at our Savior, where all faithful through time are saved from slavery to sin and death. Even so, the name Passover remained.

In Hebrew and Aramaic the name is Pesach. In Greek and Latin the name is Pascha. 

When the New Testament was being formed, the name of the Last Supper was “Pascha.” Pascha is used 29 times in the New Testament. When the early church argued over timing, they argued over one and the same feast, which was Pascha. When we read the ancient histories, particularly by Eusebius who wrote about the Council of Nicea, the word he used was Pascha. When Constantine wrote letters to all Christians to inform them of the decisions of the Council of Nicea, the word he used for the Old Covenant Passover of the Jews and the New Covenant Passover of the Christians was the same, and that was Pascha. This is the name that was used for hundreds of years before English even became a language or the word Easter was ever uttered. To this very day the name of the feast throughout most of Christendom is Pascha (or some very similar derivative), as it always had been.

The Catholic Encyclopedia lists a great number of the Paschal names:

"The Greek term for Easter, pascha, has nothing in common with the verb paschein, "to suffer," although by the later symbolic writers it was connected with it; it is the Aramaic form of the Hebrew pesach (transitus, passover). The Greeks called Easter the pascha anastasimon; Good Friday the pascha staurosimon. The respective terms used by the Latins are Pascha resurrectionis and Pascha crucifixionis. In the Roman and Monastic Breviaries the feast bears the title Dominica Resurrectionis; in the Mozarabic Breviary, In Lætatione Diei Pasch Resurrectionis; in the Ambrosian Breviary, In Die Sancto Paschæ. The Romance languages have adopted the Hebrew-Greek term: Latin, Pascha; Italian, Pasqua; Spanish, Pascua; French, Pâques. Also some Celtic and Teutonic nations use it: Scottish, Pask; Dutch, Paschen; The correct word in Dutch is actually Pasen; Danish, Paaske; Swedish, Pask; even in the German provinces of the Lower Rhine the people call the feast Paisken not Ostern. The word is, principally in Spain and Italy, identified with the word "solemnity" and extended to other feasts, e.g. Sp., Pascua florida, Palm Sunday; Pascua de Pentecostes, Pentecost; Pascua de la Natividad, Christmas; Pascua de Epifania, Epiphany. In some parts of France also First Communion is called Pâques, whatever time of the year administered." 

-Holweck, Frederick. "Easter." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 5. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1909. 19 Apr. 2010

Easter is an English word; and not by any means the original name of the feast. Passover is also an English word. Anyone who wants to make a huge deal about original names should remember that the name of the celebration isn’t Passover. The date falls in the Hebrew month of Nisan. Nisan is Babylonian. The Hebrews adopted it during the Exile. Prior to the exile, the month was named Abib. Guess what. That's pagan, too! It's Canaanite.

If names is your sticking point, then definitely you should avoid celebrating Passover on the 14th of Nissan.

So, the origin of the Easter celebration is indeed the Jewish Passover; particularly the Last Supper which Jesus ate with His Apostles. As the article above demonstrates, the celebration is still called Passover in all non-Germanic languages throughout Europe and west Asia. We can definitively conclude that the origin of Easter is not pagan as some claim, regardless of what it's called.

For the sake of avoiding confusion, from here on in I am going to refer to Easter as either Easter or Pascha. That will distinguish it from the Jewish Passover.


LENT AND TIMING

I would like to divert briefly into the origins of Lent, because this has so much to do with the timing of Easter as we see it today. You might disregard Lent. You might not understand Lent. But this is going to be a long section because of how important Lent is to our topic.

It was traditional even in the Apostle’s day to fast before Pascha. Technically, this is a holdover from an ancient Hebrew tradition where the first-born male would fast before Passover. This fast is called the Fast of the Firstborn. Only, when the Christians perpetuated it, they called it the Paschal fast. So, the Paschal fast, regardless of tales told on the Internet and in Adventist circles, is not of pagan origin either. It was adopted from the Jews.

Where does the name Lent come from, you ask? The Germans. The Catholic Encyclopedia article on Lent says this:

"The Teutonic word Lent, which we employ to denote the forty days' fast preceding Easter, originally meant no more than the spring season. Still it has been used from the Anglo-Saxon period to translate the more significant Latin term quadragesima (French carême, Italian quaresima, Spanish cuaresma), meaning the "forty days", or more literally the "fortieth day". This in turn imitated the Greek name for Lent, tessarakoste (fortieth), a word formed on the analogy of Pentecost (pentekoste), which last was in use for the Jewish festival before New Testament times.

-Thurston, Herbert. "Lent." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 9. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 15 Apr. 2023 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09152a.htm> 

The English call it Lent because the Angles and Saxons are Germans, and English is a Germanic language. The German Christians changed the name in their own German way, the English inherited it, and here we are today. You will see this pattern repeating throughout this article.

Practices regarding the Lenten fast varied from region to region and town to town. Some people fasted only from certain kinds of food, some from all food, some from food and water; some for one day, some for a week, some for 40 hours, and some for 40 days. Fasts were fairly common in those days. Many cities fasted every Saturday. The Catholic and Orthodox churches still have traditions regarding fasting Sunday mornings until one receives Communion (Eg. see Catachism Part II, Section II, Chapter I, Article 3, VI, 1387).

In those early years, there was no set rule regarding observance of Lent. But they all agreed you should observe a fast before Pascha. Another thing they agreed on was that, eventually, you need to stop fasting. They just couldn't agree on when!

Now we need to take a quick look at the calendar system in Israel to understand some things about timing.

The Hebrew calendar system was a mess. The calendar used in Jerusalem was a complex piece of work to begin with, incorporating many postponements, observations, and cycles. To be quite honest with you, the term "Hebrew calendar" is misleading. Many people, like Colin Humphreys in his book "The Mystery of the Last Supper", claim there were at least two different "Hebrew" calendars (Eg. See "Qumran Calendar"). In fact, there were no less than three calendars used in Israel - not counting the Greek and Roman calendars. One of the primary reasons why the Essenes separated themselves was over the many postponements, observations, and cycles inherent in the calendar used at the Temple. The Essenes didn't like the Sanhedrin's calendar with its complexities. They devised a (frankly impressive) logical, mathematical calendar, and declared it God's true calendar, because God would never author such confusion that was the Sanhedrin's calendar.
So, whenever you hear someone tell you about "Hebrew calendar" or "God's calendar" or "God's sacred calendar", you now know there wasn't a singular Hebrew calendar.

After the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD, and after the Jews were banished from Jerusalem because of the Bar Kochba revolt in 136 AD, calculating the timing of seasons, months, and days became even more difficult for the Rabbis. The Sanhedrin began closely guarding the means to calculate the calendar. In 359 AD, Rabbi Hillel II revamped the calculation of the calendar and included much more accurate calculation methods.
But by that time, however, the Christians had long since had enough.

Christians in Asia Minor followed the example of a Paschal fast ending on the 14th of the Hebrew month of Nisan. The people who insisted on the importance of the 14th of Nisan were called Quartodecimani (from the Latin word for 14).
Christians in the rest of the world followed the example of a Paschal fast ending on the Sunday after the 14th. 

Both sides claimed they were taught that by the Apostles. Now, it wasn't exactly an east/west split, because it was really Asia Minor versus the rest of the Empire, including Judea by the way, but let's just call it east/west here for the sake of simplicity.

Now, we need to be very clear about a few things ---
No one at that time ever doubted when Jesus ate the Last Supper. No one at that time ever doubted when Jesus was crucified. No one at that time ever doubted the day of His resurrection. And no one at that time abandoned the Nissan 14 timing.

That's right. No one did. Both sides tied their observances to Nissan 14. 

What they disagreed on was how long to fast and when to stop fasting for Lent to observe the Lord's Supper.
In the Asia Minor, doing as they said they were taught by the Apostles, they observed on Nissan 14. Everyone else, doing as they said they were taught by the Apostles, observed on the Sunday after Nissan 14.
Both sides said they were taught by the Apostles, and both sides timed their observance around Nissan 14. One group happened to observe on Nissan 14 whenever it fell, and the other group observed on a fixed Sunday after Nissan 14.

This is what we see in the historical record. Argue it all you want, but there it is.

How can both sides of the debate say they got their traditions from the Apostles? We aren't told. Please allow me hypothesize a moment.

[Begin speculation.]
In the East, there was a much higher concentration of Jewish converts to Christianity. You can see in Acts 21 the Jewish converts kept observing Old Covenant traditions as part of their national identity. So, chances are high there were several people observing on Nissan 14. In the West, on the other hand, they were primarily Gentile converts. While the Jews were allowed to keep their traditions, the Gentiles were taught no such thing. Refer to Acts 15 and 21. In fact, quite a lot of the New Testament is dedicated to why Gentiles do not need to be Jews in order to be Christians (see Galatians and Hebrews for more). The Gentiles were never taught they had to do anything on Nissan 14. Both groups were taught by the Apostles. Both groups fasted. Both groups approached it differently. Yet both groups timed their observances to Nissan 14 - one on the day, and one on the Sunday after.
[End speculation.]

There absolutely were not two different churches arguing over supremacy. That is an outright fabrication. There absolutely were not two different days being argued over. The disagreement was never over paganism in any way, shape, or form. Not a single one of them was arguing over whether to preserve the Old Covenant Passover. Not a single one!

Eusebius (who was there), clearly and without equivocation, shows us that the celebration people argued over is none other than the Last Supper, which is Passover. Eusebius says there was a:

“...diversity of judgment in regard to the time for celebrating one and the same feast...”
-Eusebius, Life of Constantine, book III, chapter V, in section “Of the Disagreement Respecting the Celebration of Easter”. [Emphasis mine.]

It specifically states it was one and the same Feast!

While Herbert Armstrong would invent two churches arguing over two days, Eusebius, who was there, says no such thing. 

I find it odd that the Armstrongists like to see themselves as descended from the Quartodecimani, but refuse to observe Lent, calling it pagan, when all of Christendom observed it and the Quartodecimen Controversy was mainly regarding it.

So, Easter is Pascha, Pascha is Easter, and neither Lent nor Easter are pagan.


WHAT ABOUT THE WORD "EASTER"?

Easter isn't Pascha because Easter comes from the pagan goddess Eostra, right? No.

Easter is an English word. It is taken from the Old English word “Eosturmonath.” English is a Germanic language. The Old High German word is "Ostermonath". Both are names of the fourth month (roughly April). This is (usually) the month when Easter starts.

Let's investigate this.

Armstrongists and Wiccans would make a great deal over the idea that “Eostre” is the name of a pagan goddess. But you should know something about that. The only source we have for the “Eostre was a pagan goddess” theory are the writings of a Catholic Benedictine monk named Bede (also called “the Venerable Bede”) in his work “De Temporum Ratione” (“The Reckoning of Time”) which he wrote in the early 700’s AD.
So, for all people who think Catholics are unreliable liars, your condemnation rests on Catholic writings. Keep that in mind.

Bede was a historian and was attempting to record the history of the Saxon peoples. Here is exactly what he wrote, translated into English of course:

"Eosturmonath has a name which is now translated 'Paschal month', and which was once called after a goddess of theirs named Eostre, in whose honour feasts were celebrated in that month. Now they designate that Paschal season by her name, calling the joys of the new rite by the time-honoured name of the old observance."

When we actually read Bede’s own writings, as opposed to taking pseudo-historical Internet gossip on blind faith, we read that Eostremonath is the Saxon name of a month - the month of April. And it was the month that took its name from a goddess. Bede goes on to say that by his day any pagan customs relating to Eostre that might have existed had died out entirely, and the Paschal Month alone had replaced them. Old name for a new rite. And that’s really all he says about it.

So, Easter is named after a month, not a goddess. It's the month that is allegedly named after a long-lost goddess. Splitting hairs? I don't think so. Easter is not at all named directly after a pagan goddess or ritual. That makes a world of difference. Do you honor Julius Caesar on the 4th of July? Of course not! It's not Julius Caesar's day. The day is named after the month. But July is named after Julius Caesar. Does that transfer a worship of Caesar to Independence Day? No, it doesn't. See the difference?

If you've come hunting for paganism, you won't find it here. Bede is clear that all pagan customs had died out; replaced, not absorbed, by Pascha. Anyone who tries to tie paganism to Easter has to contradict Bede who tells us all traditions had died out and were replaced by Paschal traditions. To rely on Bede to make a claim in the first place, then completely ignore what Bede actually says, is not proper.

We know that Charlemagne, scourge of the German pagans, officially named the month of March "Lenzinmonath" (after Lent), and April “Ostarmanoth” around the year 800. (Any Encyclopedia or a thousand other sources will have info on this. See the WikiPedia article on the Julian Calendar under the section “Month names” for example.) That name remained until the 15th century. Unofficially, the name was used even until the 20th century, and might even still be used to this day by some people.
Charlemagne, who I called the scourge of Germanic paganism, gave the Germans a unified calendar and kept the old name of the month of April. Would Charlemagne do that if he was worried about pagan associations? No. By the year 800, the word was so entirely synonymous with Easter, even Charlemagne thought that was just what it meant. So long dead was any possible paganism that might have been there originally. Or, maybe, it never was named after a goddess in the first place.

There is yet another important detail you should be aware of.
The Germanic week days were named after gods and goddesses. This is completely undeniable, and we know of the gods that the days were named after. The months, on the other hand, were not named after gods and goddesses. They were named after meteorological or environmental events. It doesn't really make sense that Eostarmonath would come from a goddess. Eostre/Ostara, as we will see shortly, expresses movement toward the sun, to shine, and to dawn (as in, rising of the sun). In other words, east. And could have simply meant the month when things bloomed. In other words, Spring. It really could be just that simple!

What's more, when we look into the historical record, we find no goddess named Eostre anywhere. Bede apparently made it up, out of an innocent best-effort to explain the etymology. He did speculate about other deities in his book, after all. So it's not huge stretch that he would have done the same here. And if we think about it, Bede wrote in the early 700s. The Germanic peoples were first beginning to be introduced to Christianity in the late 300s. The Saxons later than that. That leaves less than 300 years for Eostre to completely disappear. No seriously entrenched belief is going to disappear in that amount of time. You name a month after her, but she's gone in two centuries? Makes a lot more sense if she wasn't there at all.

So um up, Easter gets its name from the month in which it falls. Pascha was renamed after the month because this is how Germans named holidays. English are Germans after all, so that's what they inherited.
It is unfortunate that certain Germanic languages including English have changed the name of the festival and certain people have latched onto that name in order to build a false case against it. To the detriment of all who love to condemn a billion+ Christians, the timing bears far more on the name than any goddess does.

WHO IS OSTARA?

Some people will wise up and realize, "Hey, wait a minute! Eostre is a Saxon word. We can't find a German goddess from a Saxon word." And that, dear reader, is a fantastic observation!

A little known truth is that Jakob Grimm, of the Grimm Brothers Fairy Tales, factors into this. Don’t let the fairy tale connection sour you; the Grimm brothers were highly intelligent, well read, and thoroughly credentialed scholars!

Jakob Grimm wrote a book on German mythology which was first published in 1835 under the title “Deutsche Mythologie” (“Teutonic Mythology”) in which he investigated the origins of Eostre. Grimm comes to this realization that Eostre is not the right name. He says the right name should be something more like Ostara. The section on Ostara appears in Volume I, in chapter XIII section 7 which is titled “Hruoda (Hrede). Ostara (Eastre)”. Most of the information about Ostara comes in two paragraphs.
That's it. Two paragraphs.

Though I fear it will needlessly lengthen this study, I will print every relevant word that Jacob Grimm has written here for you to read in order that you may see how speculative it is for yourself:

"On the other hand, the Anglo-Saxon historian [Bede] tells us the names of two beings, whom he expressly calls ancient goddesses of his people, but of whose existence not a trace is left among other Germans. ... The two goddesses, whom Beda [Bede] (de temporum ratione cap. 13) cites very briefly, without any description, merely to explain the months named after them, are Hrede and Eastre, March taking its Saxon name from the first, and April from the second... It would be uncritical to saddle this father of the church, who everywhere keeps heathenism at a distance, and tells us less of it than he knows, with the invention of these goddesses."

-Grimm.[emphasis mine]  

Alternate link: http://www.northvegr.org/lore/grimmst/013_10.php

"We Germans to this day call April ostermonat, and Ostarmanoth is found as early as Eginhart [an abbot who worked as a Secretary for Charlemagne]. The great christian festival, which usually falls in April or the end of March, bears in the oldest of [Old High German] remains the name ostara; it is found mostly in the plural, because two days were kept at Easter. This Ostara, like the [Anglo Saxon] Eastre, must in the heathen religion have denoted a higher being, whose worship was so firmly rooted, that the christian teachers tolerated the name, and applied it to one of their own grandest anniversaries. All the nations bordering on us have retained the Biblical 'pascha'; even Uliphilas writes paska, not austro, though he must have known the word; the Norse tongue also has imported its paskir, Swedish pask, Danish paaske. The [Old High German] adverb ostar expresses movement toward the rising sun [this info taken from Gylfaginning which is the first section of a 13th century Icelandic prose book called Edda or Prose Edda – [you will note the 13th century is far later than 700 AD], likewise the Old Norse austr, and probably an [Anglo Saxon] eastor and Gothic austr. In Latin the identical auster has been pushed round to the noonday quarter, the South. In the Edda a male being, a spirit of light, bears the name of austri, so a female one might have been called Austra; the High German and Saxon tribes seem on the contrary to have formed only an Ostara, Eastre (fem.), not Ostaro, Easra (masc.). And that may be the reason why the Norsemen said paskir and not austrur; they had never worshipped a goddess austra, or her cultus was already extinct.
"Ostara, Eastre seems therefore to have been the divinity of the radiant dawn, of upspringing light, a spectacle that brings joy and blessing, whose meaning could be easily adapted to the resurrection-day of the christian's God. Bonfires were lighted at Easter, and according to a popular belief of long standing, the moment the sun rises on Easter Sunday morning, he gives three joyful leaps, he dances for joy. Water drawn on Easter morning is like that at Christmas, holy and healing; here also heathen notions seems to have grafted themselves on great christian festivals. Maidens clothed in white, who at Easter, at the season of returning spring, show themselves in clefts of the roch and mountains, are suggestive of the ancient goddess." 

-Grimm. [emphasis mine] 

Alternate link: http://www.northvegr.org/lore/grimmst/013_11.php

And there you have it. Jakob Grimm says Eostre was the wrong name to begin with. Thus, the "Easter = goddess" theory is gone! Replaced by "Ostara = goddess". 

Since Grimm had no evidence for Ostara. These proposals by Jacob Grimm are not a hard fact. He even admits that he is speculating about something Bede gave no detail about, and “of whose existence not a trace is left among other Germans.”
And by the way, the "Hrede" goddess... no evidence there either.

To sum up - Eosturmonath was the Saxon name for the fourth month. It only exists because it comes from the German language. Ostarmanoth was the Old High German name for the month of April. Bede speculates a goddess Eostre. Grimm speculates since Bede did not translate his Saxon into German, maybe the name was Ostara. And at the end of it all, Eostre and Ostara, so far as we can tell, never existed. Neither did Hrede. And the month name could have just meant Spring.

All the "Easter is pagan!" talk is empty and devoid of substance.

That doesn’t stop people from constructing elaborate scenarios, however, and with that they boldly condemn billions. I find it no less ridiculous than claiming Australia was named after Ostara.

MORE PAGAN DEITIES

Still other, far more determined people claim that if we go back far enough, Ostara derives from Ishtar/Ashtoreth. There is even less evidence for this than the no evidence at all we saw a minute ago. All claims of this nature are purely speculative (even so, they are taught as fact.) If we can’t find proof for Eostre/Ostara, how on earth can we possibly have the proof that links her to Ishtar? The words sound alike, and that’s enough. But this is what we call “false cognates.” They sound the same but in reality are not related.

This is a dead end. A nothing-burger.

It doesn’t help that these claims probably come from Alexander Hislop, who we should all know was wholly unreliable. Certainly Jacob Grimm never intended his work to be so grossly misused.

We now must turn and fend off some claims that get dangerously close to blasphemy.

Some of the true zealots hate the actual history of Easter so much that they would undermine the Deity of Christ in order to smear Easter. In a stellar example of “post hoc ergo propter hoc” (after this therefore because of this) there are many people who claim Easter - and even Christ Himself - is simply a hold-over from the worship of the ancient gods Mithra and Attis.

According to Edwin M. Yamauchi, PhD. who holds a doctorate in Mediterranean Studies from Brandeis University, taught at Miami University in Ohio for 35+ years, wrote over 17 books including the 578-page "Persia and the Bible", and in 1978 delivered a paper to the Second International Congress of Mithraic Studies (I only list this info to show that the guy knows his Mithra), there is a very high probability that Herbert Armstrong is flat wrong on his pagan origin of Easter. HWA always attributed Easter to pagan gods, but let’s hear from an actual historian.

About Mithra:

"Western Mithraism didn't exist until the mid-second century [AD]... too late to have influenced the development of first-century Christianity."
-Edwin Yamauchi. P.169
Ibid.

“…even though Mithras was a Persian god who was attested as early as the fourteenth century BC, we have almost no evidence of Mithraism in the sense of a mystery religion in the West until very late – too late to have influenced the beginnings of Christianity.”
-Edwin Yamauchi. P. 168
Strobel, Lee. The Case for the Real Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987.

About Attis:

“… [Pierre] Lambrechts has demonstrated that the supposed ‘resurrection’ of Attis doesn’t appear until after AD 150 – more than a century after Jesus.”
-Edwin Yamauchi. P.177
Ibid.

 And about Adonis:

“Pierre Lambrechts  has shown that there are no indications of a resurrection in the early information we have about Adonis. While there are four texts that speak of his resurrection, they date from the second to the fourth century AD – long after Jesus.”
--Edwin Yamauchi. P.177
Ibid.

And about the common origin of all gods and goddesses which HWA often preached:

“Yes, there was a widespread view that there was a general, common mystery religion, but upon a closer examination of the sources, nobody believes that any longer.”
“These were quite different beliefs. In fact, by the mid-twentieth century, scholars had established that the sources used in these writings were far from satisfactory and the parallels were much too superficial.”
-Edwin Yamauchi. P.167
Ibid.

The fallacy that Mithra and Attis and Tammuz/Adonis and Ashtoreth/Ishtar are older than Easter, therefore Easter must come from them is what we call the “post hoc ergo propter hoc” fallacy; or “after this therefore because of this.” It's sloppy thinking. Nothing could be farther from the truth! Easter comes from Pascha, not paganism. And it would appear that paganism was far busier adopting Christian precepts in the decades after Christ than Christianity was busy adopting pagan precepts.


BUNNIES AND EGGS

So what of the Easter Bunny and these colorful eggs? Not a trace of them can be found in the Bible. They're obviously pagan, right?  Don't be so certain about that.

The idea of rabbits and eggs, although they are often found as fertility symbols in ancient religions, didn’t factor in to Pascha for a thousand years after Jesus died. Christians can make up traditions, too, you know. Just because it's new doesn't mean it's pagan.

About the eggs:

The tradition of Easter Eggs comes from the Lentin prohibition against eating eggs. Eggs could not be eaten during Lent, so they would be eaten up before Lent then stored up and eaten after Lent.

As for coloring the eggs, no one seems to know the ancient history. It is an old tradition. We can know this because both the East and the West have this tradition. It seems true the original color was red. But who started it and when? We don't know The decorating of eggs has many possible sources, some of which could perhaps come from pagan tradition.

The Orthodox say Mary Magdelene was the first to color eggs, which she colored red to symbolize Jesus' blood (I find that very unconvincing).
Some say it started with the Persian New Year celebration, “Nowruz” (but these ones never explain how it got to us). This is incredibly difficult to verify since I do not read Persian and cannot verify any reliable source material.

Some say it began with the Ukranians and the Pysanky egg (a forged poem tying the pysansky to paganism has been making the rounds on the Internet). 

Some say it started in Medieval England with the Pace egg (I find it interesting that pace eggs were wrapped in onion skin, and that the word Pace comes from Pascha). 

Some say it started with the Orthodox who died eggs red to symbolize Jesus’ death then cracked the egg to symbolize His resurrection (the Orthodox use symbolism quite a lot, so this is at least plausible). 

And some say it started with the ancient Chinese (again, no explanation on how that came to us).

Lastly we have the special group of people who just make up a story out of thin air and say it came from Nimrod and Semiramis. This all comes from one source - Alexander Hislop. Ignore that source. We have several articles on why Hislop is pure nonsense. I challenge you, dear reader, to bring me a single ancient document that can verify anything at all came from Nimrod and Semiramis, who lived hundreds of years apart from one another. I'll wait.

Though I am completely unable to verify for certain, I suppose it is plausible that the Orthodox Church adopted egg coloring from the Sarrasid Persians into the Byzantine Empire. That might explain why colored eggs seem so popular in Eastern Europe. It might also explain why both the Orthodox and Catholics have this tradition. If you are going to be eating a lot of eggs after Lent anyway, why not color them red and use them as a symbol of Jesus?

About the rabbits:

Yes, rabbits have been fertility symbols for millennia – they have been symbols for a great many things for millennia - but that is not prima fasciae evidence that Christians stole rabbits from the pagans. We simply do not know. But we do know the tradition is relatively recent and should not be misused to poison the entire Easter holiday.

Hares were very popular symbols among Christians in Medieval Europe, especially after the Crusades. Because people in the Middle Ages were generally ignorant about the life cycle of hares, they became symbols for a number of things. George Ferguson in his book “Signs and Symbols in Christian Art” p.20 sums a very long story up nicely as so:

“The hare, itself defenseless, is a symbol of men who put the hope of their salvation in the Christ and His Passion. It is also a well-known symbol of lust and fecundity. A white hare is sometimes placed at the feet of the Virgin Mary to indicate her triumph over lust.”

Yes, rabbits were used as a symbol by Christians. No, the presence of rabbits does not prove paganism. But we want to know about one rabbit in particular.

The trail of the Easter Bunny starts in Europe, most likely the Protestants in the Alsace region of Germany. Originally the animal was a hare, not a rabbit, and it was called “Ostern Hase” which translates to Easter Hare. The first mention comes from Georg Franck von Frankenau in his writing “De Ovis Paschalibus” [“On Easter Eggs”] in 1682. He said:

“In Alsace and the neighboring regions those eggs are called hare-eggs because of the myth that is told to make the simple-minded and children believe that the Easter Hare was laying and hiding them in the grass of the gardens, so the children search them even more eagerly, for the delectation of the smiling adults.”

In other words, the Germans were hiding Easter eggs for the kids to find. The kids asked where the eggs came from. The adults thought it would be good fun to say the hares were laying the eggs. The kids loved it! And that is the best explanation we have for the Easter Bunny.

The Easter Hare eventually became much like Santa Claus, bringing treats to good children and orphans. The Pennsylvania Dutch brought this tradition to the Americas, and it has developed here ever since.

Claims of rank paganism are simply overstating the facts. It could be quite as innocent as the tale related by Doctor von Frankenau. Since the Easter Bunny traces its roots to the 1600’s, then I find it quite anachronistic to smear the entire Easter festival on its account.

I would very much like to point out that in Christianity these rabbits and eggs are not objects of worship. They are not idols. No one bows before them, nor prays to them, nor puts their hope in them, nor considers them important to their faith or the worship of God in any way. No one sees them as fertility symbols. No one dedicates them to pagan goddesses. In fact, Armstrong had to spend a great deal of time and effort convincing people that these were fertility symbols in the first place in order to condemn them.

They are fun traditions for kids, and that’s all they are. To condemn a billion+ people over them seems a bit silly to me now that I have a better understanding of what Easter is. If they offend, leave them out! If they're sin to you, they're sin to you. They are nothing to the overall celebration of Jesus the Christ.

Let us now return to the topic of timing and investigate further some specific details..


AN EQUINOX FESTIVAL?

Some claim Easter is a celebration of the spring equinox, but this is false. Easter is not on the spring equinox; just like Christmas is not on the winter solstice. It can’t quite be a celebration of the equinox if it isn’t on the equinox!

Generally speaking, the 14th of Nisan is often closer to the Spring equinox than Easter is. So Easter moved away from the equinox. Part of Rabbi Hilel II's reason for changing the Jewish calendar was to make it easier to predict when the Paschal New Moon would fall before the Spring Equinox. The equinox is important, sure, but it isn't the focus.

The equinox was simply a reliable recurring guide for timing. Keep in mind, using the stellar bodies as timing devices is one of God's stated reasons for creating them as He did. So there's nothing at all wrong with it (GEN. 1: 14).

All of Christendom was of the opinion that Jewish reckoning of time was disruptive. So the Council of Nicea disregarded the Jewish calendar. They were wise enough to realize that calendars are messy things, so they wanted to pin the timing to something reliable. So, they pinned it to the equinox.

The rule since the 325 AD is: “Easter is observed on the Sunday after the first full moon on or after the day of the vernal equinox.” And that was chosen because the 14th of Nisan was impossible to determine with accuracy, yet it would keep the date near the 14th of Nisan.

You see, most people are blissfully unaware that, anciently, Passover was always on a full moon after the vernal equinox. Part of Rabbi Hillel II's reason for changing the Hebrew calendar in 359 was to make it easier to predict when the Paschal New Moon would fall before the Spring Equinox. The equinox always factored in. The Christians weren't inventing some new thing. All the Christians did was retain an old thing. Find that date, go up one Sunday and voila: Easter! Even if the Jews completely lost their ability to determine time, Easter would always be near the time when Jesus died because Jesus died on Nisan 14 which was always near the equinox.

Some may ask, "If that's true, then why isn't Passover always near Easter?" It was anciently, and still often is, but not always. Several calendars are involved now.

In the fourth century, a mere three decades after the date for Easter was set, the Jews under Rabi Hillel II changed the way the  Rabbinical Jews calculate their calendar. They now use a mathematical model to determine the calendar, and by extension the holy days which rely on the calendar. Unfortunately, if you rely on the modern Jews to provide the dating, you're still not observing the Holy Days as Jesus did. (I'm not knocking the Jews. They did what they had to do. I'm addressing people who judge and condemn people who observe Easter over timing that they themselves get wrong.)

Not only that, but when the Council of Nicea was held and the timing of Easter established by the Bishops there, they were all under the Julian Calendar. Since that calendar was found to be flawed, Pope Gregory XIII declared a new and much more accurate calendar should be created. The West has been using that calendar since 1582. As an interesting bit of trivia, the Greek Orthodox Church still ties their reckoning of Pascha to the Julian calendar, hence the Catholic and Orthodox Easters are often on different weeks.

Some claim the Easter sunrise service is derived from the ancient pagan practice of welcoming the sun on the morning of the spring equinox, but this is false. As I said, Easter isn't on the equinox. We have ancient Christian documents as well as a Roman record from Pliny the Younger (c. 112 AD) showing Christians held sunrise services precisely because that is what they received from the Apostles and read in the Gospels about the timing of Jesus’ resurrection. Notice that 112 AD is over 200 years before the Council of Nicea.

Were there brand new Christian converts from paganism who were worshipping the sun on Easter? Yes! But that isn't until after Christianity had become legalized in the late 300s and converts came piling in all in a bunch. This is well after the Council of Nicea. How did the church handle this sun worship? They didn't get irate about it, because these were fresh converts, but they didn't just tolerate it, either. These people were corrected. The practice was stopped.


SOME FINAL ISSUES

Here is a good place to cover some final straggling issues.

• COGs Get Timing Wrong, Too

If timing is so crucial to salvation, as Armstrongism teaches, let’s spend a minute on that and see if they get timing right.

We saw in the first part of this series that HWA’s timing of Passover is wrong, there is a bitter ongoing dispute over the correct timing of Passover if it is the 14th or the 15th, and the Night to Be Much Observed is more or less a made-up thing. So their timing isn’t any better than anyone else’s.
But did you know that for 40 years Herbert Armstrong (supposedly an Apostle taught directly by God) taught Pentecost falls on Monday. According to this reasoning, everyone who lived and died observing the wrong date/time were terrible sinners awaiting condemnation.
RedFox of Living Armstrongism, in the post “What Was WCG Before 1970 Like?” adds this:

“Around 1948-9 a controversy erupted in RCG. It has been described as traumatic. Anyone who disagreed with HWA's Monday Pentecost was cast out of the church, only to learn 25 years later that they were right.”

In Armstrongism, to be cast out of the church means eternal death. One cannot overstate the gravity of convicting people of an offense worthy of eternal death… only to completely about face. In 1974, Pentecost was changed to Sunday. Incidentally, this change in dating caused a huge split in the church and prompted Raymond Cole to establish the Church of God the Eternal. To this day they observe Pentecost on Monday, citing as authority HWA’s claims that God revealed the truth to him at the beginning. Both cannot be right.

Timing issues appear in other areas as well. The Church of the Great God calculates Pentecost differently in years when the First Day of Unleavened Bread falls on a weekly Sabbath. Hidden in this Pentecost conflict is a debate on when the Wave Sheaf offering occurred (LEV. 23: 11-15), and thus a dispute over the timing of Jesus' resurrection.

So why all of this confusion over such a “plain truth” as timing? If it’s so vital for salvation, why can’t even the people who say they are doing it right seem to get it right?

It’s because timing isn’t as important as they say!

What really matters is Jesus.

(I COR. 11: 25) …This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.

And what matters is what’s in your heart.

(I COR. 11: 27-31) 27 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. 30 For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep. 31 For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged.

What would you suppose is in the heart of a person who would condemn another person over the timing of something which they themselves get wrong? My guess is it’s probably not the stuff that is pleasing to Christ. Good thing there’s still time to change the heart!

• Easter Isn't Commanded

I’ve been told, "You can't refute the fact that the Bible does not teach the observance of Christmas and Easter."
Oh, but I can!

Jesus’ birth is very much in the Bible. Whether we call it “Christmas” or not, and regardless of what day was eventually settled on for the festival, the birth of Christ is very real, and besides His death and resurrection there has been no other day in the history of mankind that compares to the day on which He was born. We get into Christmas in other articles.
But Pascha, on the other hand, it unambiguously teaches. If we can get past these childish disputes over names and timing, we would see this plainly.

The Bible doesn't teach the observance of Thanksgiving for that matter - yet there people are keeping it. The Bible doesn't teach the observance of Hanukkah either - yet there Jesus is keeping it (JON. 10: 22). So what are we to say? Seems to me like these arguments are grasping at straws.

For another great article on Christian liberty in holidays, read our article Established and Imposed.

• Copy Jesus

I’ve been told, “I only want to do what Jesus did.”

Then you can't refute the fact that Jesus kept Hanukkah (and the other Jewish festivals like Purim). So why don't you do those? This argument falls apart when we find the people who put such a high value on only doing what Jesus did are not actually doing what Jesus did.

Need I remind anyone that Jesus changed the timing of Pascha? He ate His Supper on the 14th when the Bible and the Jews clearly says the Passover Seder is on the 15th. Why then are a billion+ Christians, who fully trust in Jesus Christ as their personal Savior, condemned as pagans for changing the timing out of necessity just as Jesus Himself did?

Right now, someone out there is saying, "But Jesus was just restoring the correct timing of Passover, which had erred over the years." To which I reply, then why was Pentecost on the exact same day? Pentecost is tied to Passover, so it should have been a day earlier, too. But it wasn't.

I’ll bet “doing what Jesus did” suddenly became a lot less important for some people who claim that’s all they want to do.

• Word Games

What do we see throughout this article? Word games! It all boils down to word games.

This theoretical goddess nobody can seem to find bears no more influence on the name of Easter than Saturn’s Day has on the seventh-day Sabbath. Calling the Sabbath “Saturday” doesn’t make anyone any more a pagan than calling Pascha “Easter.” For all of the people who make such a huge fuss over something so simple as a name, don’t they know “Pentecost” is Hellenistic Greek word, and the real name of the day is Sukkot? Using this same line of thinking with which they condemn a billion+ Christians, aren’t they also a pagan for keeping Pentecost? The Hellenistic Greeks were pagans! (I hope you understand I'm being facetious.)

Herbert Armstrong was well known for playing word games. He once claimed Mussolini was called “Il Duce” because “duce” is the Anglo-Saxon word for “demon.” When in reality, it is the Latin word for “commander,” and from this same word we get the English word “Duke.”

I once attended a seminar where author Steven Collins said the Biblical Javan is the modern nation of Japan. Why? Because they sound alike! But Javan isn't Japan, it's Italy.

I used to play the same word games myself... until I stopped being afraid of the truth.

For anyone wanting more information about this, we recommend you read the following links on the subject. They are quite informative:

Is Easter Pagan? - YouTube video by Jimmy Akin
Where did Easter come from?
Eostre and Easter Customs (Yes, I am aware this is a pagan website. I put it here for balance.)
The Origin Easter - Pagan or Christian? (see p.2)
Is Easter a Pagan Festival?

CONCLUSION

Easter is Pascha. Pascha is Easter.
Easter is an English word that comes from the Saxon name for the month of April. It does not come from the name of a goddess.
Easter is not pagan in origin, but began as a matter of desiring a reliable, set timing for the Lord’s Supper and the end of the Lenten fast that went with it - that doesn’t rely on the Jews to determine the timing.
Eggs were traditions among the Orthodox since who knows when and weren't introduced in the Latin west perhaps until after 1,000 A.D. They don’t even factor in. Even if they were pagan fertility symbols to remote cultures, we have no evidence these things came from the Germans, or that they were adopted into Christianity from pagans. They could have been innocent Spring symbols.
Armstrongists shouldn’t condemn seasonal symbols. A great many times I have seen cornucopias and other harmless items set out on tables as a symbol of harvest. The Bible is full of symbols. The bread and the wine are symbols. There is nothing inherently wrong with symbols.

In the end of it all, it’s up to your faith and your relationship with God.
If your faith prefers to keep Passover with a church like the COG7 who invites all baptized Christians to their Lord’s Supper on the 14th of Nisan, then God bless you and I pray your observance is Spirit-filled and enriching. Hebrew converts in the early church did it, so there’s nothing wrong with it.
If your faith prefers to follow the western Gentile tradition and attend an Easter Sunday service – with or without rabbits and eggs – then God bless you and I pray your observance is Spirit-filled and enriching. The early Gentiles did it, Polycarp and Anicetus lived side-by-side through it, that’s how Christians have done it for 1,900 years, so there’s nothing wrong with it.

Just remember Jesus the Christ, and keep Him in your heart to purify it. Condemnation is not an option – towards yourself or others.

So, whichever way your faith in God leads you to worship Him, I pray He purifies your heart and blesses you. I pray He leads to see that condemnation isn’t proper. Who would demand the law, yet ignore the many commands against condemnation? And I pray He leads you to further study on this topic, and a deeper understanding of the New Covenant in His blood.