Were Quartodecimans and Traditionalists Enemies?

This is going to be my final post in my series on Quartodecimanism. There is so much more to say, but that is exactly the problem. And, chances are you're getting tired of it too.

I started looking into the Quartodecimans due to an article I wrote back in January 2024, called "Refusing To Understand". Realizing this might aid my "Easter FAQ" article, I decided to keep digging for more information. It was not a simple thing. How could I possibly put all of this into a Blogspot post? Can't. So, I chose to concentrate on a few points that had the most relevance to me, considering my background in Armstrongism. (If you don't know what Armstrongism is, just glance at the "Welcome to ABD" blurb or read the "About ABD" page.) All said, I could easily have two more posts just out of the material I cut from the three posts I published. And that's why this has to be the last in this series. I just wanted a little look into Quartodecimans, not a PhD specialization.

In the first post in this series, "Primer to the Quartodeciman Controversy", I reviewed the basics like timelines and locations. We found Lent is a real thing, the Council of Nicaea wasn't the shock to the system and tool of unfair oppression it is made out to be, and that the Controversy's origins were a strange combination of Apostolic tradition and personal freedom exaggerated by calculation and calendar differences.
In the second post, "Quartodecimans - Were They Law-Keepers?", I reviewed the claim that the Quartodecimans were theological ancestors of Old Covenant legalists like Armstrongism. Turns out they were not. They used law words, but understood them in a very non-law way.

I will finish this series today by reviewing an unexpected oddity I found while reading through Quartodeciman writings. You've heard how the two sides were different. I was told the two sides were virtually incompatible. One was God's true Christianity and the other were pagan agents of Satan himself. But is that really so? Read on and find out.

I honestly do not think you stand a chance of truly understanding the Quartodecimans without this.

UNCOMMON COMMONALITY

One problem with doing studies like this is the baggage you bring with you. The wilder your background, the more baggage you bring. I only had what I was given by my Armstrongist upbringing. So, I went in with those old biases and pre-existing ideas affecting me without being aware of it. That very baggage can keep you blind to certain truths. But if you try to stay neutral and let the data take you where it will, strange new things can open up to you. Oh, you'll still misstep, but on the whole you're better off.

As I read about Quartodecimanism, an idea began tickling the back of my mind. I began to suspect something wasn't right, but I couldn't quite tell what. Finally, it occurred to me: I had been making assumptions. There are at least two assumptions going on here:

1) Traditional Christians oppose the 14th of Nissan.
2) Quartodecimans oppose Good Friday and Easter Sunday.

Your initial reaction might be to say, yes, of course they did those things. But don't decide yet. We all know they refused to honor Pascha in the same way. That goes without saying. I'm not talking about that. I am questioning if that refusal means more. It is one thing to decline to do something, it is another thing entirely to actively oppose it. Was there no common ground at all? Did they see themselves as theological enemies?

Judging from how Victor reacted to Polycrates, you might think there was no common ground. The battle lines were drawn and shots were fired, right? Actually, no. That was a one-off. Practically everyone else in nearly every other instance urged unity.

If something was truly seen as heterodox, for example Gnosticism, there was no push for unity. There was quite a bit of condemnation. When Origen wanted to counter Celsus, he wrote eight books, each with more than sixty chapters - one has 99 chapters!
Irenaeus did not fly in to save Blastus when he caused a schism in Rome and afterward sought to introduce Pascha on the 14th of Nissan (Tertullian, "Against All Heresies" chapter VIII). Irenaeus opposed him as much as Victor did.
No one complained when Victor excommunicated  Eleutherus, who, like Blastus, was causing schisms in Rome and issuing challenges against Victor over Pascha (Charles L. Souvay, "The Paschal Controversy under Pope Victor I", The Catholic Historical Review, Vol. 15, No. 1, Apr., 1929, pp. 52-53, on JSTOR.org).
Many scholars think the reason why Victor reacted to Polycrates by excommunicating Quartodecimans was directly because of Blastus and Eleutherus.

Unity was not afforded to everyone. I think that fact only serves to highlight the overall push for unity.

How can there be such call for unity if Quartodecimans and Traditionalists reject and oppose each other? In Armstrongism, where I came from, the Quartodecimans are called "true Christianity" and the Traditionalists "paganism". There is an ocean of difference there. Armstrongists wouldn't side with Victor; they would side with Blastus and Eleutherus. If that were true, how could there have been such unity? Why unity rather than libraries written about their errors? How can Polycarp go to Rome and share the Eucharist with Anicetus? That would be like Herbert Armstrong flying to Rome in his Gulfstream G-III to attend Sunday Mass with the Pope himself. How can Polycrates call a synod upon the request of Victor if Victor was the pinnacle of evil? Speaking of synods, how can there be synods held to decide? A local synod wouldn't be held to decide whether or not to adopt a heresy. After Nicaea, Arianism was clearly treated as a heresy and condemned, but Quartodecimanism was just decided against. Do you see the difference? How can both ideas coexist, mostly peacefully, in several regions throughout the Empire? They had their differences, sure enough, but overall they did not condemn each other. We were told by Herbert Armstrong, and the claims are repeated to this day, that the Traditionalists were killing the Quartodecimans by the thousands. I see no killings at all. Not even close. There are no records of Quartodecimans condemning Easter Sunday, and only one record of one Traditionalist (Victor) condemning Pascha on the 14th - which was met with calls for unity. As I said in my last post, Polycarp, Aphraphat and Melito - Quartodecimans all - are Catholic Saints. And Ephram the Syrian is a Doctor of the Catholic Church!

Hopefully you see what I mean now. It is one thing to decline to do something, it is another thing entirely to actively oppose it.

In Armstrongism (and similar groups), that opposition is central. There needs to be a world of difference in the past because there is a world of difference in the present. That opposition affirms the movement. It practically requires it. It is energized by words like "Controversy". It must paint one side to be "true Christianity" and the other "Babylon the Great" or there is no point in existing. No product differentiation means no good reason people should keep paying for the product. But, what if there was no true opposition?

I needed answers.

TRADITIONALIST VIEW ON 14 NISSAN

I wanted to know what traditional Christians thought about the 14th. After Nicaea, definitely there would be opposition. But prior?

It didn't take long before it became fairly obvious that both sides believed Jesus suffered on the 14th. Just because traditional Christians did not have an observance on the 14th does not mean they opposed the 14th (prior to Nicaea).

I will give Clement of Alexandria, a traditional Christian who died around 215 AD, as an example. He wrote his work "On the Passover" because he was so inspired by Melito's "On the Passover". A Traditionalist so inspired by a Quartodeciman that he needed to imitate it? The sincerest form of flattery. Where is the conflict there? Estimates on the dating range from 182-202 AD. Sadly, Clement's work is lost. But we do have some fragments, and here's one:

"Suitably, therefore, to the fourteenth day [of Nissan], on which He also suffered, in the morning, the chief priests and the scribes, who brought Him to Pilate, did not enter the Praetorium, that they might not be defiled, but might freely eat the Passover in the evening."
-Clement of Alexandria, "On the Passover" [bold mine]

You can see here, Clement believed our Lord suffered on the 14th. That's the Quartodeciman view, from a Traditionalist. Both sides agreed on this. Oh, you'll find an outlier here or there who believed He died on the 15th, I believe Socrates of Constantinople wrote about this, and clearly they are wrong, but in general everyone agreed on the 14th.

Anatolius of Alexandria (also called Anatolius of Laodicea) adds this about the Traditionalists:

"And the other party, passing the day of the Lord's Passion as one replete with sadness and grief, hold that it should not be lawful to celebrate the Lord's mystery of the Passover at any other time but on the Lord's day"
-Anatolius of Alexandria, "Paschal Canon", chapter X [bold mine]

What this quote is saying is, they observed that day with "sadness and grief". The traditional Christians did not reject the Passion on the 14th. They did accept that our Lord ate the Last Supper, was betrayed, tried, crucified, and was buried on the 14th. They just didn't observe it as their focal Paschal day.

I need to be more specific. They disregarded the Jewish calendar. They did not observe the 14th day of Nissan with sadness and grief. The day Jesus was crucified, the 14th, was a Friday (As Bereans Did has several articles about this, perhaps try "Two Sabbaths of Matthew 28"). What they observed with sadness and grief was a fixed Friday, Good Friday. Even though they ignored the Jewish calendar, they accepted the original Good Friday was the 14th.

Some chose to follow after Nissan 14, whenever it happened, and some chose to follow after Friday, ignoring the Hebrew calendar - which was increasingly wrong anyway. Both saw themselves as observing one and the same thing. For the most part, neither denied the other. Sure, you could find a Blastus or an Eleutherus on either side, but why judge the whole by such errant examples?

So, you see, even though the Traditionalists were not observing the Passion on the 14th, they were also not condemning the importance of the 14th. It is one thing to not observe the Pascha on Nissan 14, it is another thing to oppose it.

QUARTODECIMAN VIEW ON EASTER

This made me want to know about the opposite side of this coin. If the the traditionalists accepted the 14th of Nissan as the date of the Passion, then did the Quartodecimans accept the 14th was on a Friday? In other words, did the Quartodecimans accept a Good Friday to Easter Sunday timeline of the entombment and resurrection?

Again, I want to hearken back to my post "Refusing To Understand". The United Church of God read a document called the Didiscalia Apostolorum, which is at its core a Quartodeciman document originally written in Syria in the 200's AD. This is a central document for any study into Quartodecimanism. The Didiscalia has a very unique timeline. It puts the Last Supper on a Tuesday. The United Church of God, copying Herbert Armstrong, saw the Last Supper on Tuesday and stopped there. To them, a Tuesday Last Supper equals a Wednesday crucifixion scenario. Their conclusion was that since the Didiscalia mentions a Tuesday Last Supper, that meant someone out there had a Wednesday crucifixion (a Wednesday crucifixion is the official Armstrongist position). I showed how that conclusion was premature. Truth is, the Didiscalia is the only Quartodeciman document with a Tuesday Last Supper, and it blatantly supports a Friday-Sunday crucifixion scenario:

"But when it drew on (towards day) on the Friday, they accused him much before Pilate; and they could show nothing that was true, but gave false witness against Him. And they asked Him of Pilate to be put to death; and they crucified Him on the same Friday.

... And again (there was) the day of the Sabbath; and then three hours of the night after the Sabbath, wherein our Lord slept."
-Didiscalia Apostolorum, chapter XXI [bold mine]

He was crucified on a Friday and resurrected three hours after midnight on Sunday morning.

Regardless of placing the Last Supper on Tuesday, the Didiscalia still honored the Good Friday to Easter Sunday timeline. The UCG even acknowledged this! ...Then continued to say it indirectly supported a Wednesday crucifixion anyway. *sigh*

But, more importantly, the answer to my question is yes. Quartodeciman team did accept the Good Friday to Easter Sunday timeline.

Isn't that odd? I bet you never read that on a Living Church of God website, "Accept Good Friday crucifixion and Sunday resurrection, like the Quartodecimans."

But I can show you something even greater than this.

Aphraphat the Persian was a Syriac Christian and a later Quartodeciman who lived from about 270-345 AD. In the source I pulled, the translating author wrote this way in summary of Aphraphat:

"Therefore the true Passover is celebrated in the Church, that is the sacrifice of Christ (sections  5-6). Jesus is numbered with the dead, from the time of the last supper on Thursday. From the night of the fourteenth of Nisan until when he arose on the dawn of the sixteenth, he has completed three nights in Sheol (section  7). Our Lord gave the true baptism on the night of the Passover, when he washed the feet of his disciples (section  10). Jews celebrate the Passover on the fourteenth, but for the Christians the greater day is Friday, the fifteenth (sections  8 and  12). Our festival of unleavened bread is the festival of our Saviour. If the Passover of the passion of our Saviour happens to  us on Sunday, it is right to celebrate it on the Monday, so that the whole week with his passion and with his unleavened bread is observed (section  12).
-Kuriakose Valavanolickal, "Aphraphat Demonstrations II", p. 18, Baker  Hill, Kottayam, Kerala,  India, March  2005 (summary of the Demonstration on Passover, XII) [bold mine]

You get three heavy-hitting statements in here.
1) As a Quartodeciman, he honored 14th of Nissan as the Passion of our Lord. That date could fall on any day of the week. Regardless, he honored Easter Sunday so much that if the 14th of Nissan were to be on a Sunday, he would have the Pascha delayed to Monday in honor of the resurrection.
2) He regards Good Friday as a greater day than the Jewish Passover.
3) There is a difference between the Old Covenant Passover of the Jews and the "Passover of the passion of our Savior". This wasn't about law-keeping.

Here is what Aphraphat says, in his own words:

"For if the day of the Passover of the passion of our Savior happens to us on the first day of the week, according to the law it is right to celebrate it on the second day...  If the passion (of Christ) happens on another day of the week, we have no dispute about these things..."
-Aphrahat, "Demonstrations" XII The Demonstration on Passover

That quote puts Sunday in such regard, due to the resurrection, that the Quartodecimans would not fast on Sunday.

The Didiscalia agrees with Aphraphat on that first point:

"For it is not lawful to you to fast on the first of the week, because it is My resurrection; wherefore the first of the week is not counted in the number of the days of the Fast of the Passion..."
-Didiscalia Apostolorum, chapter XXI

Do you get the significance of this? They honored Easter Sunday so much, they would alter their Pascha traditions to avoid fasting on Sunday.

It is one thing to not observe the Pascha on Sunday, it is another thing entirely to oppose Easter Sunday.

QUARTODECIMAN VIEW ON GOOD FRIDAY

You will often read that Quartodecimans observed the Pascha regardless of what day it was. I will offer this example from a much later writer named John of Damascus (676-749 AD):

"The Quartodecimans celebrate Easter on a fixed day of the year. On that day which coincides with the fourteenth of the moon, whether it be a Saturday or Sunday, they fast and celebrate the vigil and the feast simultaneously."
-John of Damascus, "The Fount of Knowledge II: On Heresies" 

From what we have seen, this claim is not entirely accurate. At least not for later Quartodecimans. Clearly, at least for later Quartodecimans, they did not fast on Sunday. Clearly, many had high regard for Sunday.

And not just Sunday, but Friday, too. Remember back when I said Clement of Alexandria was inspired to write "On The Passover" by Melito of Sardis? Both were lost for centuries. In 1936, a writing was discovered that many believed to be most of Melito's "On The Passover". In 1960, a second copy was found that guaranteed this was the missing work. It turns out the work was a sermon. A sermon some say was given ... on Good Friday.
If that is true, it speaks volumes.

It wasn't as if the Quartodecimans observed the 14th only. They had an entire week of fasting with special observances on the Friday and the Saturday.

"But on the Friday and on the Sabbath fast wholly, and taste nothing. You shall come together [Saturday night] and watch and keep vigil all the night with prayers and intercessions, and with reading of the Prophets, and with the Gospel and with Psalms, with fear and trembling and with earnest supplication, until the third hour in the night after the Sabbath; and then break your fasts. For thus did we also fast, when our Lord suffered, for a testimony of the three days; and we were keeping vigil and praying and interceding for the destruction of the People, because that they erred and confessed not our Savior."

-Didiscalia Apostolorum, chapter XXI

What this means is, the Quartodecimans did not only observe the 14th whenever it may be. They also observed a Friday and a Sunday. At least from the 200s onward, Quartodecimans did all three!

The Traditionalists did not do all three. They did not have an observance on the 14th of Nissan. But the Quartodecimans did have a Friday and Sunday observance, like the Traditionalists.

Any number of sources will tell you this observance of Friday, with its fasting and mourning, and Saturday, with its fasting and vigil, and Sunday, with its joyfulness, was the same for Quartodeciman and Traditionalist alike. Catholic and Orthodox churches still have these elements.

Once again, these rituals may not have been the same in form, and they may not have been at the same time, but at their core and in their spirit they were exactly the same.

It is one thing to not observe the Good Friday, it is another thing entirely to reject it.

THE SAME COIN

The Traditionalists did not reject the 14th of Nissan, and the Quartodecimans did not reject Good Friday / Easter Sunday.

I am guessing if you didn't like what I said about Unleavened Bread and Sabbath in my last post, you really did not like what you just read in this post. If one wishes to claim some ancestry from the Quartodecimans, it follows that one also adopts Good Friday crucifixion and a Sunday resurrection as we saw in this post, reject a legalist view of Sabbath and holy days as we saw in the last post, and observe Lent as we saw in the first post. Still want to be a Quartodeciman?

If you listen to the Church of God ministry, they would tell a tale of two very different groups arguing over some serious, incompatible points of doctrinal disagreement - far deeper than just the 14th/Sunday issue. Sadly, from what I've seen, this is not unique to Armstrongists. And the more they insist on saying "Yeshua" or "Yehoshua" rather than "Jesus", the worse it gets. I have found I cannot trust any legalist group who writes about the Quartodecimans. They all seem to do the same things, which is sad. They all seem to adopt the Quartodecimans, then transform them into versions of themselves.

That's what Herbert Armstrong did - transformed them into himself. Armstrong's personal version of the Quartodecimans is the unrealized baggage I came into this study with. It took a lot of reading to understand how wrong I was about their nature. I had been conditioned to believe the Quartodecimans were something very, very different from what they really were. This was not some group of legalist anti-Romans (for the most part). Quite the contrary. They could not have co-existed so closely with the rest of the church in every area, with unity being stressed so much, while being as different from the rest of the church as Armstrongism is to Catholicism. Those kinds and magnitudes of differences could not exist in unity. They would not have been tolerated together anywhere. I had to adjust my understanding, and once that happened I could see how the similarities greatly outweighed the differences.

If I had to summarize the difference, I would say it boils down to the exact same thing that keeps the Orthodox and the Catholics separate: insisting on tradition.

The Quartodeciman group started by doing exactly as the Apostle John did when John did it. It wasn't about law-keeping nor by compulsion. They knew the law couldn't be kept. And it wasn't as if they didn't understand how anyone could have Pascha on a Sunday - they had the Eucharist every Sunday just as much as most everyone else did. It was just their Pacsha tradition, and that was that. Jesus did it on that date, so why change it?
The Traditionalists group did exactly as the Apostles permitted them to do. They didn't keep the law, either. And they didn't care to rely on the broken Hebrew calendar. It was just their Pacsha tradition, and that was that. Sunday already pictured the Passion and the resurrection, so why change it?

So, when the two would debate which practice should win out, all either side could do is appeal to tradition. "We were taught by John." "We were taught by Paul." I do not criticize either side for this. After all, what is "orthodoxy" if not traditions handed down? One is going to guard one's traditions. Such is life. Naturally, the only solution we have is to get together into synods and ecumenical councils and hash it out before taking a vote. I feel Nicaea truly was the right way to handle it.

And that's the odd thing about this Quartodeciman Controversy, the two groups really were not very different at all. No wonder they were able to share the Eucharist together. No wonder why Victor excommunicating Polycrates seemed like such an overreaction. It all makes the centuries-long dispute seem so ... pointless. But to them, it wasn't pointless.

CONCLUSION

In my first post in this series, I said this:

"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.)"

This was that other article.

These, dear reader, are the beliefs of the Quartodecimans whom Herbert Armstrong called disciples of Christ's true Christianity. The Church of God splinter groups continue to this very moment to say the same. Do they understand the Quartodecimans beyond the shallow, surface knowledge of the Controversy? I don't think so, or they wouldn't say such things.

The more I study about this topic, the less and less I agree with claims about how different these two groups were. In fact I practically don't agree with it at all any longer. From what I have seen, these two groups were 99% compatible. This was not at all a case of "true Christianity" versus "Babylon the Great". They were not enemies. They were not even "frenemies". It seems a lot less like two groups, two dates, one and the same event, and a lot more like one group, two dates, one and the same event.

I don't want to come across as saying the difference was no difference at all. It was a difference. But it was not nearly what I had been conditioned to accept up until now.

Even if you disagree with what you've read in my series, please at least grant me this much: I am stating my case with sources cited. Please grant me a pardon if I distrust the Armstrongist narrative at this point. Along with all of the other things that As Bereans Did has presented over the years, we have beyond any shadow of a doubt proven that the claims Armstrongism makes must be fact-checked before they are accepted.

List of some sources used in this series:
I have taken the time to find and provide links to make your life simpler and to show how the most important parts of this are available for free online.
I do not recommend doing your own study into the maddening world of the history of Quartodecimanism. But, then again, maybe you should.

Aphraphat, "Demonstrations", XII The Demonstration on Passover, and XIII on Sabbath, on Archive
https://archive.org/details/aphrahatdemonstr0024aphr/page/18/mode/2up

Anatolius of Alexandria/Laodicea, "Paschal Canon", on Bible Hub
https://biblehub.com/library/anatolius/the_paschal_canon_of_anatolius_of_alexandria/index.html

Athanasius, "Letters", on New Advent
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2806.htm

Claudius Appolinarus, on Early Christian Writings
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/apollinaris.html

Clement of Alexandria, "On the Passover", on Early Christian Writings
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/clement-fragments.html

Didache, on Early Christian Writings
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html

Didascalia Apostolorum, on Early Christian Writings
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didascalia.html

Ephram the Syrian, "Hymn 19" on Unleavened Bread, on Colby
https://web.colby.edu/re181/files/2018/07/Ephrem-19th-Hymn-on-Unleavened-Bread.pdf

Epistula Apostolorum, on Early Christian Writings
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/apostolorum.html

John Chrisostom, "Adversus Judaeos", on Catholic Library
https://catholiclibrary.org/library/view?docId=Fathers-EN/Chrysostom.AdversusJudaeos.en.html

John of Damascus, "The Fount of Knowledge II: On Heresies", on Catholic Library
https://catholiclibrary.org/library/view?docId=Synchronized-EN/Damascus.FountKnowledge2.en.html

Hippolytus of Rome, "Against the Jews", on Early Christian Writings
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/hippolytus-dogmatical.html

Melito of Sardis, "On Faith", on Early Christian Writings (look for fragment IV)
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/melito.html

Melito of Sardis,  "On Passover", on St. Anianus Coptic
http://sachurch.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/On-Pascha-Melito-of-Sardis.pdf

Philip Schaff, "History of the Christian Church", volume II, on Christian Ethereal Library
https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc2/hcc2

Socrates Scholasticus, "Church History", Book I, on New Advent
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/26011.htm

Sozomen, "Ecclesiastical History", on Bible Hub
https://biblehub.com/library/sozomen/the_ecclesiastical_history_of_sozomenus/index.html

Tertullian, "Against All Heresies", on New Advent
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0319.htm

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

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

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

Quartodecimans - Were They Law-Keepers?

In my last post, "A Primer to the Quartodeciman Controversy", we looked at the general timeline of events in the Quartodeciman Controversy at a macro level. I didn't address things in detail. As I said in that post, the topic is far larger than I ever imagined. Take that as a word of warning should you get the same ridiculous idea I had, to go looking into this topic. It is maddening.

Today, I want to look more closely at one point in particular - were the Quartodecimans really Old Covenant law-keepers?

In the Church of God movement founded by Herbert Armstrong (which I call Armstrongism) certain points of Old Covenant law are required - like the Sabbath, holy days, tithing, and clean/unclean meats. Armstrong knew the Quartodecimans were observing a day called Passover on the 14th day of the Hebrew month of Nissan. Well, so did he. He concluded, if they were doing what he was doing then they must be doing it for the same reason: law-keeping. He adopted the Quartodecimans as theological ancestors, saying they were early members of "Christ’s true Christianity" that kept the Old Covenant laws.

While reading about Quartodecimanism, I noticed something odd. If you read the writings of a group who believes in law-keeping, you are going to read about Quartodeciman law-keeping. If you read the writings of a group who believes in Hebrew roots, you are going to read about Quartodeciman Hebrew roots. And so it goes. That doesn't sit well with me. How odd the Quartodecimans were so exactly like all of these dissimilar groups. Something about that sounds uncomfortably like spin. It seems the conclusion is based on certain assumptions.

And so we ask - is that really so? Were they law-keepers? Can history give us enough detail to verify this?

BE A QUARTODECIMAN?

During my own time in Armstrongism, I was told the Quartodecimans were preserving a true observance of Old Covenant law. Meaning, the law in the way I, a Sabbatarian, would understand it, of course. We understood that to mean, take up Old Covenant law and follow the Hebrew calendar. They were just like us, we thought. "If you aren't a Quartodeciman, you should be," we are told by the Living Church of God.

Armstrongism starts from certain assumptions and works its way out from there. (We didn't see them as assumptions, we saw them as God's truth.) One assumption is that the Old Covenant Passover must be kept by Christians, and therefore it was being kept. Now we just needed to find out by whom. The Quartodecimans were the target. They were keeping Passover and doing it on the 14th. How can that be anything other than law-keeping?

"Among the Gentiles the churches in Asia remained the most faithful to the word of God. We pick up the story of the true Church in the lives of such men as Polycarp and - Polycrates. They were called 'Quartodecimani' because they kept the true Passover celebration instead of Easter."
-Herbert Armstrong, "True History of the True Church", 1959, p.15 

How are they a "true church"? Because they kept the Gospel, or because they had faith? No. Just an observance on the 14th of Nissan. That's good enough.

This should come as no surprise to those who have been following along here at ABD. Herbert Armstrong also claimed the Waldensians as doctrinal ancestors (as well as other groups like the Henricians, Paulicians, etc). He told a story of how the Waldensians were Old Covenant law-keepers. They were also an era of God's true church. He didn't come up with this idea on his own. Armstrong plagiarized the idea from A. N. Duggar and C. O. Dodd of the Church of God (Seventh Day).

The Waldensians were Sabbatarian law-keepers, right? No.

It turns out the assumptions made about the Waldensians weren't even close to reality. You can find the truth about the Waldensians quite easily. Ask the Waldensians what their history was. They have the receipts. We have several articles of our own to demonstrate this. We recommend starting with "True History of the True Church??"

Having a terrible track record of historical fantasy, can we know if the Quartodecimans were law-keepers?

The Quartodecimans, unlike the Waldensians and other more modern groups, are not so easily discerned. These things happened long ago. Most of the documents that could clear this up completely are lost. What we have remaining is a cloud of scholars and commentators with almost every opinion possible. We are going to have to work for this. Are we going to have better luck with than we did with the Waldensians?

QUARTODECIMAN PURITANISM

There are some clear points of similarity between the Christian Pascha and the Jewish Pesach: the relative date, the name Passover, the reading of Exodus, a fast in advance, and the involvement of some kind of meal.
The Quartodecimans had all these. And more!

There was once a Persian named Aphraphat. He was a fourth century Syriac Christian and a Quartodeciman. Several of his works were discovered in the 20th century. Just read what Apraphat has to say:

If the Passover of the passion of our Savior happens to us on Sunday, it is right to celebrate it on the Monday, so that the whole week with his passion and with his unleavened bread is observed."
-Aphrahat, Demonstration XII "On the Passover" XII [bold mine]

Unleavened bread? Yes. Seven days! And not just that. Here is an example from Aphraphat's demonstration on the Sabbath:

"But let us observe the Sabbath of God, in a manner which pleases His will. Let us enter into the Sabbath of rest in which the heaven and the earth take Sabbath rest, all creatures will dwell in peace and take rest."
-Aphraphat, Demonstration XIII "On the Sabbath" section 13 [bold mine]

Looks like they were Sabbatarians keeping the law. Game over. Thank you for reading my blog. Go send away for some Armstrongist literature. God be with you 'til we meet again.

BUT!
Before you go, there's one tiny detail you are going to want to know -
None of what I just quoted means the Quartodecimans were Sabbatarians keeping the Old Covenant law. It only looks that way on the surface.

To understand why not, let's start by looking at the law.

HORSESHOES AND HAND GRENADES

Or rather, the impossibility of keeping it all.

Armstrongism is considered by many outside the system to be a "legalist" church. There is a heavy emphasis on law. It is assumed the early church also had this influence. But, as I said, it only seems that way. Armstrongism teaches the mandatory observance of Passover annually on the 14th of Nissan. This is particularly central to the Quartodeciman issue. That is the law, we said.

Did you know Gentiles were forbidden by law from participating in the Passover (EXO. 12: 43-49)? The Gentile converts to Christianity would have to be circumcised, join the nation of Israel, and become Jews in order to keep the Passover according to the law. What's more, the law forbids practicing Passover outside of Jerusalem. The Passover was a pilgrimage festival (EXO. 23: 15) - along with Pentecost and Tabernacles - and could only be observed in the area of Jerusalem (DEU. 16: 5-7).

That is the law!

The Traditionalists and Quartodecimans were both well aware of these laws about Passover. You can read about it yourself.

On the traditional side, none other than Athanasius (famous for his role in the Council of Nicaea) mentions these things in his "Festal Letters".
On the Quartodeciman side, Aphraphat mentions it several times in his "Demonstration on the Passover" section 2, and Ephram the Syrian mentions it in his "Hymn 21".

How could anyone keep law under those conditions? They could not. If you don't keep all the law, then you're not keeping the law at all (JAS. 2: 10). Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. And the law could not be kept as written. That was the entire point of those ancient writers. Not even the Jews could keep the law anymore. How could they? They could not. But if even the Jews could not then how could the Gentiles, whom the law expressly excludes? (I suppose, if you think about it, the Gentiles kept the law better because the law excluded them, so by not keeping it they were doing what it said. But let's not go there right now.)

Since that is the case, it is fair to ask, if they weren't keeping the law then why did they mention the law? And why insist on the 14th?

LOST IN TRANSLATION

I just got done telling you how the Quartodecimans knew the law couldn't be kept. Yet, some of the things they wrote make it look like they kept it anyway. How? If you really want to know how the Quartodecimans can use words like Sabbath and Passover and unleavened bread, yet did not keep the Sabbath and Passover and unleavened bread, then you have to read all of their writings. Not just enough of their writings to see the words Sabbath and Passover and unleavened bread and that's where you stop.

Sometimes, it can be a simple misunderstanding.

In my post "Refusing To Understand" I reviewed an article from the United Church of God that was claiming the weekly Sabbath was being kept in Asia Minor (Quartodeciman home turf). They quoted from a Quartodeciman named Socrates of Constantinople, who lived just after Aphraphat and Ephram. They saw the word Sabbath, then they stopped. But on further inspection, it turns out "Sabbath" in this context cannot mean Saturday.

“In Asia Minor most people kept the fourteenth day of the moon, disregarding the sabbath [this would be the Quartodecimans disregarding the Sabbath] ... While therefore some in Asia Minor observed the day above-mentioned, others in the East kept that feast on the sabbath indeed, but differed as regards the month.”
-Socrates of Constantinople (Scholasticus), "Ecclesiastical History" chapter XXII

There were two groups observing a thing they called Pascha, yet no one observed the Lord's Supper on Saturday. Well, not unless the 14th of Nissan happened to be a Saturday in that year. No one on any side regularly observed the Lord's Supper on Saturday.
Can you see that 'Sabbath' here cannot refer to Saturday? Socrates uses the phrase "sabbath of the Passover" earlier. Sabbath can mean annual holy day. In later years, Sabbath eventually became interchangeable with Sunday. Haven't you read articles that ask, "Is Sunday the Sabbath?" We cannot just assume Sabbath always means Saturday.

But sometimes it's not a simple misunderstanding. Context is key!

That quote from Aphraphat earlier, the one about "let us observe the Sabbath", came from his demonstration written against the Jewish keeping of the Sabbath. That makes it a polemic against how the Armstrongists understand Sabbath. Context is key! How can you get Sabbath observance from a treatise against Sabbath observance? You can't.

The entirety of his demonstration shows there is no salvation value at all to a Sabbath rest, nor does it convey any righteousness, nor any justification, nor any purity, nor profit for sinners. If it could do any of those things, then it would have been given to the patriarchs, but it was not. The physical Sabbath was given for a physical rest only, to the Jews and their animals.

Immediately prior to that quote, he says this:

"He [God] took and threw them [the Jews] out of His land, and scattered them among all the peoples because they did not observe the rest of God, but observed Sabbath according to the flesh. But let us observe the Sabbath of God in a manner which pleases His will..."
-Aphraphat, Demonstration XIII "On the Sabbath" section 13 [bold mine]

So, the Sabbath was good for physical rest only, and the Jews were doing that, and it had no other value, but something about it displeased God. It seems those two words 'of God' makes a world of difference. We need to figure out what a 'Sabbath of God' is.

From other areas in his demonstrations, we can reasonably conclude Aphraphat sees the destruction of the Temple and the Bar Kokhba rebellion as the point the Jews were expelled. It was in the Christian era. The Christian era changed things. God was displeased because they kept the Sabbath physically, as the Armstrongists understand it, but not according to the true Sabbath rest. The true rest had come, but they rejected it for the physical rest.

(MAT. 11: 28) Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

To a Syriac Christian, everything in the Old Testament pointed to Christ. Everything that came before Him was a type or a symbol or a mystery that, when properly understood, points to Jesus - Passover, bread, and Sabbath included. They read the Torah every Passover, but they didn't see it for Israel being freed from Egypt. They saw Jesus in every word. They read about Moses and saw Jesus. They read about lambs and saw Jesus. They read about unleavened bread and saw Jesus. They read about Sabbath and saw Jesus.

"I do that, too," an Armstrongist might say. Perhaps. But not like they did.
Let's see an example from the Quartodeciman author Ephram the Syrian:

1. The lamb of Truth arose and broke his body for the innocent ones who ate the lamb of Passover.
2. The paschal lamb he slaughtered and ate, and he broke his body. He caused the shadow to pass over and he provided the Truth.
3. He had eaten the unleavened bread. Within the unleavened bread his body became for us the unleavened bread of Truth.
4. The symbol that ran from the days of Moses until there, was ended there.
-Ephram the Syrian, Hymn 19 on unleavened bread [bold mine]

Physically unleavened bread ended there. The unleavened bread they wanted was Jesus. Can it get more plain? I think maybe it could.

Melito of Sardis, contemporary of Polycrates and mentioned in Polycrates' letter to Victor of Rome, says this:

"35) Nothing, beloved, is spoken or made without an analogy and a sketch; for everything which is made and spoken has its analogy, what is spoken an analogy, what is made a prototype, so that whatever is made may be perceived through the prototype and whatever is spoken clarified by the illustration. 
...
37) When the thing comes about of which the sketch was a type, that which was to be, of which the type bore the likeness, then the type is destroyed, it has become useless, it yields up the image to what is truly real. What was once valuable becomes worthless, when what is of true value appears.
...
41) So the type was valuable in advance of the reality, and the illustration was wonderful before its elucidation. So the people were valuable before the church arose, and the law was wonderful before the illumination of the Gospel.
42) But when the church arose and the Gospel came to be, the type, depleted, gave up meaning to the truth: and the law, fulfilled, gave up meaning to the Gospel.
43) In the same way that the type is depleted, conceding the image to what is intrinsically real, and the analogy is brought to completion through the elucidation of interpretation, so the law is fulfilled by the elucidation of the Gospel, and the people is depleted by the arising of the church, and the model is dissolved by the appearance of the Lord. And today those things of value are worthless, since the things of true worth have been revealed."
-Melito of Sardis, "On Passover" [bold mine]

Now that is plain!
And it's just like Colossians.

(COL. 2: 16-17) 16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.

Armstrongism is aware of this verse, and a shadow and a fulfillment. We read this verse all the time. Only, we read it to support law-keeping. The shadow (law) was even more important than before. That is clearly not how the Quartodecimans saw things. As you can see from Ephram and from Melito, the law was completely fulfilled in Jesus Christ then discarded. The Torah did not point them to law, nor to some "fulfilled" and harder law-keeping, but only to Christ! They didn't see the law as God's tool for our righteousness or necessary for His plan. The law had done it's job, it guided Israel until the Messiah could come, and was now fulfilled, depleted, worthless.

But maybe not completely worthless. The law still holds many lessons for us, even if it doesn't apply directly to us. You might even find it unusual to learn that Anatolius of Alexandria in his "Paschal Canon" used the law in Exodus to better determine when to observe Easter. The law helped bring the timing of Easter in Rome and Alexandria together in unity. All while not feeling bound to the law.

When an Armstrongist sees "unleavened bread" or "Passover" or "Sabbath" written by a Quartodeciman, they naturally draw from their own worldview and think, "I know those words. Those speak of the law."
But that is not what the Quartodeciman mind thought. The law is not why they insisted on keeping Passover on the 14th. The 14th had value only in Christ, not Moses. They did not follow the Hebrew calendar as sacred. They only needed that one day, and only because it was the day Jesus was betrayed. It had nothing to do with law-keeping.

(Matthew 5: 18) For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

He fulfilled it all. All of it. Then, the Old Covenant being satisfied, was replaced. Those words now have very different meanings.

(HEB. 8: 13) In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Now, Christ is the Sabbath. Christ is the Passover. Christ is the unleavened bread.

Hippolytus was a Bishop of Portus near Rome. This is the same Hippolytus that I wrote about in my article "The Plain Truth About December 25". A fragment remains in which he quotes some unnamed person who is likely a Quartodeciman. Here are the words of the alleged Quartodeciman: 

"Christ kept the supper, then, on that day, and then suffered; whence it is needful that I, too, should keep it in the same manner as the Lord did. But he has fallen into error by not perceiving that at the time when Christ suffered He did not eat the Passover of the law. For He was the Passover that had been of old proclaimed, and that was fulfilled on that determinate day."
-Hippolytus, "On the Passover"

Regardless of whether you believe Jesus ate the Passover according to the law or not, it was not because of the law that the Quartodecimans kept the 14th, but because of Christ. That is not some kind of back door into the law. The law doesn't only say to eat at a certain time. It says other things, too. Those things weren't being done, which is why I included the last section "horseshoes and hand grenades" first.

And so it is when Aphraphat says "his unleavened bread" it doesn't mean physically unleavened bread, it means participating in Jesus. And when he says "Sabbath of God" it doesn't mean Saturday, it refers to a new life in Jesus. This is exactly what Paul was trying to say.

(I COR. 5: 7-8) "7 Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us. 8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth."

In the Church of God splinters, this verse is read annually, used as a proof-text in support of law-keeping. "It says 'let us keep the feast'," we would point out. But no, law-keeping is not what any of these people had in mind. Jesus Christ was in mind.

They couldn't keep the law as written. If you cannot keep it as written then you cannot keep it period. They didn't see themselves as obligated to try. It wasn't that they abandoned the law, per se, but that in Christ the law was fulfilled. If you have Christ, and they did, then you have faith and love, and if you have faith and love then you have fulfilled the whole law (ROM. 13: 10; I JON. 3: 23). A righteousness that exceeds the Pharisees is in you (MAT. 5: 20). So, in this way they were able to talk about points of the law but not keep to the letter of the law, because these words and the fulfillment meant something quite different to them.

If you want to know a little more about what Quartodeciman belief really was, apart from Passover, read "Early Syriac Theology" by Seely Joseph Beggiani. You aren't going to find very much in common with Herbert Armstrong. Remember how the Waldensians are still here and can refute claims about their law-keeping? Same is true about the Syrian Church. Go ask them what their history is. They have the receipts. Aphraphat, Melito, Socrates, and Ephram were Syriac Christian. Polycarp, Aphraphat and Melito are venerated as Saints. And Ephram the Syrian is a Doctor of the Catholic Church! Didn't you know that?

Still think you should be a Quartodeciman?

I am sure the protest will be, "The pagans had already infiltrated and perverted the truth by the time of Melito and Ephram and Aphraphat etc."
But that's not what Herbert Armstrong said. He called Polycrates "another disciple of Christ’s true Christianity" ("Mystery of the Ages", p.53). Go to "Life, Hope, and Truth" ministries, a media outlet for the Church of God, A Worldwide Association, and see how they call these men true followers of God.
Polycrates outlived Saint Melito. Mystery of the Ages is the grandest book Herbert Armstrong ever wrote. It was called 'another book of the Bible'. If Polycrates was a "disciple of Christ's true Christianity", and Polycrates agreed for the most part with all of these people I've quoted here, then they are also disciples of "Christ's true Christianity". What does that say? It can't be "Christ's true" and pagan, both. So, which is it?

If you choose pagan, then the words of any Quartodeciman author no longer hold any benefit. Stop reading them. All that talk about why we should all be Quartodeciman just went right out the window. But if you don't choose Christ's true, then welcome to mainstream Christianity, my friend. You can cancel that subscription to Armstrongist literature now.

And what shall we say about the blessed Polycarp, disciple of John, who lived well before the other examples I've given so far. He says:

"...it is by grace you are saved, not of works, but by the will of God through Jesus Christ."
-Polycarp, "Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians"

CONCLUSION

At the start of this post, I asked, "were the Quartodecimans really Old Covenant law-keepers?" Confidently, we can answer no.

Were there some we could describe as Judaizes? I'm sure. Socrates of Constantinople records some instances of this sort (e.g., Sabbatius in "Church History", book V, chapter XXI). It was a problem enough in Galatians 2 for Paul to mention both Peter and Barnabas struggled with it. But for the most part that does not describe the Quartodecimans.

Some see Pascha on the 14th and think, the law! But that is not the case here. They read words like Passover, unleavened bread, and Sabbath and think, our ancestors! But that is not the case here. How can the Living Church of God say, "be Quartodeciman," when they don't have the slightest idea what that means? They cannot. As it turns out "be Quartodeciman" actually means "be our version of Quartodeciman". But their version is a fake.

Just like the Waldensians, the Quartodecimans are not at all Armstrongist theological ancestors. It's all a fraud. Again and again and again, a pattern of dishonest documentation. Do you see the emptiness of these fabrications now that you know the Quartodecimans never kept the law to begin with?

We absolutely must read more than just a quote here and a paragraph there to understand any topic. If we are going to read, we must understand what we read in the context the Quartodecimans intended. Or what's the point? Are we reading at all? In order to get that context, we need to read as many of their works we can. We see the people who create content for the Church of God splinter groups do not understand them. They clearly didn't read to understand. They have no interest in context. They read many things, but only to find what they think will support predetermined conclusions. Is that reading at all? If what they find doesn't match what they hoped for, we either never hear about it at all or they make something up whole cloth to explain it away. Wouldn't it be better just to tell the truth? Oh, but they've already said too much to go back now.

In my next post, I will further explore the similarities between Quartodecimans and Traditionalists. You think their views on the law are unexpected? I think you might be quite surprised indeed to peek behind this curtain.

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

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

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

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

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

Does John 11 Define A Biblical Day?

(JON. 11: 8-9) 8 The disciples said to Him, “Rabbi, lately the Jews sought to stone You, and are You going there again?” 9 Jesus answered, “Are there not twelve hours in the day? If anyone walks in the day, he does not stumble, because he sees the light of this world."

Many are the times when I have heard someone point to John 11: 9 in an attempt to support a 72-hour length of time for the phrase "three days and three nights" in Matthew 12: 40. "Jesus comes right out and tells us precisely how long a day is," they say, "so we know He had to be 72-hours in the tomb." Are they right about that? Is it truly appropriate to take "are there not twelve hours in the day" and apply that to the phrase "three days and three nights"? Or, are there other mitigating factors we should be aware of before we go this route?

Let's just start off by putting this out there - it is an undeniable fact that the ancient Hebrews (and most of the surrounding cultures besides) did recognize twelve hours in a day and twelve hours in a night, making twenty-four hours altogether. Hebrews apparently got this from the Babylonians, who got it from the Egyptians. Nothing at all that I say here should be understood as disputing or taking away from that fact. It is true.

Does that mean the game is over? Set and match? Let's investigate this further.

IDIOMATIC EXPRESSIONS

Their day had twenty-four hours just as much as ours does. But is it true we always mean a twelve or a twenty-four hour period every single time we say the word day? No. We can use words in colloquial ways. When we use a word in a non-literal sense, it is called an idiom.

Webster's first definition of idiom is:

"1. An expression in the usage of a language that is peculiar to itself either in having a meaning that cannot be derived from the conjoined meanings of its elements (such as up in the air for "undecided") or in its grammatically atypical use of words (such as give way)"
-Mirriam-Webster, "Idiom", https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/idiom

The meaning of an idiom cannot be derived from its elements. In other words, you say one thing but mean something else entirely. Do you know what the phrase "tickling the ivories" means? It means playing the piano. Every culture has idioms, and the Bible is full of them.
Perhaps the most well known is this:

(PRO. 7: 2) Keep my commands and live, And my law as the apple of your eye.

Is there an apple in your eye? No. Not literally. There is not a Macintosh inside your eye fluid or a Red Delicious in the reflection. Here's a fun fact for you - "apple of your eye" is an English idiom, not a Hebrew one. The literal translation is "little man of the eye". It just means your pupil.
Here is another:

(JOB. 19: 20) My bone clings to my skin and to my flesh, and I have escaped by the skin of my teeth.

Are your teeth covered in flesh? No. Not literally. A completely other understanding is hiding in that phrase.
Here is an example we all know:

(GEN. 4: 1a) Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain...

You know exactly what is really meant when the Bible says "knew". They say it, but they don't say it. Idioms are very handy for that sort of application.
Here is an example from the very verse we focus on most:

(MAT. 12: 40) 40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Jesus was placed inside the literal beating heart within the cardio-vascular system of the earth? No. An idiom is right here in exact same verse which people demand is the most literal of all.
Let's do just one more:

(ISA. 2: 12) For the day of the Lord of hosts shall come upon everything proud and lofty, upon everything lifted up - and it shall be brought low -

I chose this example specifically because it uses the word day in a way that is neither twelve nor twenty-four hours. Taken all together, the many examples of the phrase "day of the Lord" will paint a very clear picture that this is a period of time far beyond a single day. The word day is not always literal, dear reader. It just isn't.

These are all examples of non-literal uses of words and phrases. They are idiomatic expressions. 

Today, we can use the word day every bit as literally or idiomatically as anyone else. Take for example the phrase "in my day." It doesn't mean, "In my literal twelve or twenty-four hour period of time." It means, roughly, "Back when I was in my prime." Jesus used the phrase "my day" (JON. 8: 56). He didn't mean Abraham saw his literal 24-hours. For another example, "Have a nice day!" Do we intend people only to have twelve nice hours, or for their period of niceness to end at sunset? No. Not at all. It was never intended to be chronologically specific. Sometimes language can just be unspecific. It's one of the hardest parts of literal translations of the Bible, and why we sometimes need thought-for-thought translations.

A person went to a job interview at 3 o'clock PM. They did well and got the job. The hiring manager said, "You're hired. You start in two days." Two days later, the employee arrived precisely at 3 o'clock PM. The manager saw the person walking in, and angrily said, "What is the meaning of coming here at this hour? Turn right back around and go home. You're fired!"
Why? The employee arrived exactly forty-eight hours later, didn't they? But starting time was 8 o'clock AM, not 3 o'clock PM. When the manager said, "in two days," their intent was at the appropriate hour on the second day. It is still the case, even in our mathematically and chronologically meticulous day and age, that day is not always meant to be literally twelve or twenty-four hours.

A minute has sixty seconds, does it not? Must it follow that every time we use the word minute it only refers to a literal sixty-second period of time? No. For example, we say "a hot minute." When things get hot, they expand. A hot minute is a completely inexact period of time that is longer than a minute. It has no specific meaning at all. It's the same when we exclaim, "Give me a minute!" We don't mean to say, "Give me precisely sixty seconds because that's the definition of a minute." No. We just need more time. It doesn't matter how much time, precisely, just however much more it takes to finish the task at hand.

Why waste so many words on this simple concept? Two reasons. First, to show that words with specific meanings like day can be idiomatic under the right circumstances. Second, because I intend to demonstrate an inconsistency. It is the tendency of some people to apply a literal meaning to day when they want to force the length of Jesus' interment to be precisely 72-hours. They will go right back to defining a day loosely elsewhere. Let's see that.

CONSISTENTLY INCONSISTENT

As I pointed out in my article "Three Days and Three Nights", the only verse in the New Testament that uses the phrase “three days and three nights” is Matthew 12 verse 40. There are twenty other places where the length of Jesus interment was described. In all of these twenty other instances, none of them repeat Matthew 12: 40. Here is how they play out in the NKJV:

• "The third day" 11 times.
• "In three days" 5 times.
• "After three days" 2 times.
• "On the third day" 1 time.
• "Within three days" 1 time.

There is no possible way all of these can be taken literally. All twenty-one instances (these 20 plus Matthew 12: 40) speak of one and the same event. One event that played out one way described with six different phrases. They cannot all be literal. Every single person who just set John 11: 9 as their standard to define day as exactly a twelve or twenty-four hour period of time in order to make Matthew 12: 40 into 72-hours, will now abandon that standard for most if not all of these other phrases.

If someone, unwisely, decides not to abandon their literal standard, they cause a terrible issue. Let's see that. Let's replace the word day with twelve-hour period.

• The third twelve-hour period.
• In three twelve-hour periods.
• After three twelve hour periods.
• On the third twelve hour period.
• Within three twelve hour periods.

Do you see the problem caused? The, in, after, on, within... creates several different resurrection times. If we insist on a strict literal interpretation, we turn the Bible into an inconsistent mess. No one involved agreed on the length. Not even Jesus Himself!

Of those, if we only look at what Jesus said, we see: "the third day" 8 times, "in three days" 1 time, and "after three days" 1 time. One man speaking of His own resurrection in four different ways (these three plus "three days and three nights"). When we force a literal definition onto the word day, we see only inconsistency in the words that came from Jesus' own mouth.

There is but one way to solve this issue: they all mean the exact same thing and day is not meant to be taken as a literal twelve or twenty-four hours in any of them. Not even in "three days and three nights".

EMPTY ASSERTIONS AND PREDETERMINED CONCLUSIONS

It seems we have an option. I have shown you why I think day should not be literal. Now we need to ask, what evidence is there to support applying a literal definition to "three days and three nights"?

Please supply a reason why we should. We need some kind of legitimate, biblical reason, not just, "Because it suits our desired outcome of Jesus not dying on a Friday." Demanding a certain definition without plotting out support for it makes it just that - a baseless assertion. If this were some petty point, nobody would really care. But it's not. This is a premier claim for some people, and they use it to accuse billions of other Christians of being pagans. Evidence for something this important is required. So, where is this evidence?

Having spent decades in a church that taught me to believe it should be literal, and having read thousands of articles and booklets over the years, and having reviewed many here at ABD, we have yet to see any particularly convincing evidence. No sermon from any minister I have ever heard, nor article from any author I have ever read or reviewed, nor any response from any person I have ever debated on this topic, has given any convincing reason why we should take that phrase literally. It is just assumed we should. So, I went to look for my own evidence. I went over in my article "Three Days and Three Nights" how there is no other biblical reason. In fact, there are several legitimate biblical reasons why it should not be defined literally. "Three days and three nights" is a known and quite ancient idiom.

Why is "three days and three nights" held as the gold standard, but those twenty other utterances are shoved aside? I will tell you why. Because the claim of 72-hours in the tomb absolutely relies on it. It is necessary in order to get the result they went looking for in the first place.
But, as we hope you have seen, there is no good Biblical reason to take the phrase literally. There is no good reason to showcase it to the exclusion of the others. Therefore, "three days and three nights" is simply a convenient means to an predetermined end. It is a conclusion looking for support.

Predetermined conclusions are not a very good thing. You know how scientific research is suspect when it has been funded by a special interest? It's practically the same thing here. Does that mean it is wrong? No, not necessarily. But it makes peer review more important. What happens when we peer review the 72-hour assertion in the patented As Bereans Did gauntlet? As I said, it comes up completely unsupported. We have a desired outcome looking for evidence and suppressing anything that disagrees.

One strict definition for day is used in one place, and another loose definition is used in twenty other places. One verse is emphasized, twenty others are shoved aside. The modern way to count time exclusively is used, and the way Hebrews count time inclusively is ignored. The demonstrably false claims of Alexander Hislop are promoted, and the historically documented ideas of the Pharisees and the early church are dismissed. The 12-hour definition of day is insisted upon in one verse, and the words sabbaton and prosabbaton used by Matthew and Mark are redefined out of existence.

Did I lose you there? I am referring to topics covered in other articles. See our articles "Three Days and Three Nights", "The Two Sabbaths of Matthew 28", and "Easter FAQ" for more.

There really is nothing whatsoever to support the conclusion. What some people are doing with John 11: 9 is neither intellectually honest nor consistent.

THREE DAYS IS FOUR DAYS?

I assure you, dear reader, that even after 14 years, we are still searching the topic, trying to be as even-handed in everything as we can. Perhaps we have missed something. Perhaps someone noticed some new detail everyone else overlooked. We have not come across anything that persuades us to change our minds.
That isn't to say we haven't seen new ideas. There are some. For example, there are people out there saying "the third day" is actually four days.

To explain, let's turn to the first chapter of the Gospel of John.
Some of John the Baptist's disciples are meeting Jesus for the first time and being called to follow Him, then they head together to Cana for the wedding where Jesus turns water into wine. There is a time progression described here that we need to see.

John 1: 29 says, "on the next day," then v.35 says, "again, the next day," then v.43 says, "the following day," and finally we come to John 2: 1 which says, "on the third day". Did you catch that? Day, day, day, third day.  ??
Some people look at that and conclude, "John says 'on the third day' when it was actually the fourth day, so 'third day' is a phrase that refers to the fourth day."

You might be saying, "Huh. I never noticed that before. That's really interesting." If so, that's fine. But please follow that up with, "I am going to go see if there is any other example anywhere within the Bible or without where 'the third day' indicates a fourth day, and if not, this conclusion is merely a simple misunderstanding which needs to be clarified."

There are several examples showing this is not how the Bible uses the phrase "third day". The Hebrews counted inclusively. The phrase "third day" is easily recognizable as being equivalent to saying 'day after tomorrow' (e.g., EXO. 19: 10-11; HOS. 5: 2). You can even find an example of "fourth day", where the timeline is meticulously laid out and there is no doubt that four days are involved (ACT. 10 all). In all of the Bible commentaries I dug through, none agreed that "third day" can be understood as "fourth day". In all the oldest and most reliable extra-biblical sources I read, I found no hint of support. So, we have no examples within the Bible or outside of it to support the claim that third day means fourth day.

It doesn't even make sense chronologically.

The distance between where John was baptizing in the Jordan in Judea, somewhere due west of Jericho, and Cana of Galilee where the wedding was, is roughly 60 miles in a perfectly straight line (verified on Google Maps). If you walk at a steady 4 miles per hour, it would take 15 hours. The terrain is rough, and Samaria lay in between the two. Jews would never go into Samaria unless they absolutely had to. The Bible makes no mention of it. Some time later, when Jesus did go through Samaria, the Apostles protested strongly. Clearly, this was not something they were accustomed to doing. We can reasonably assume they went around at this point. This means they would have to first go east into the Decapolis to go north and then west into Galilee. Your 60-mile trek just got much longer. The only way that journey could have been made in one day is by purchasing transportation, which Jesus was not accustomed to doing.

One cannot simply walk from the Jordan River on day three to Cana on day four. That interpretation is prohibitively difficult. So, I feel justified in rejecting it.

There are four explanations for John's choice of words:

1. John is referring to Tuesday, which was called 'the third day'.
2. John starts the count at John 1: 35 where Jesus first gains a following.
3. John means it had been three days since John 1: 43 where Jesus decides to go to Galilee.
4. John means it is the third day since Jesus entered the area of Cana.

Options #1 and #2 are weak, and the hardest to accept since they are so arbitrary. Options #3 and #4 are strong. I feel the more reasonable of those is option #3. They left John the Baptists on day one, on foot, and arrived in the region of Cana on day three.

There is no clear way to settle which is the correct option, but it is abundantly clear 'the third day' cannot be defined as 'the fourth day'. This is not only unsupported but contraindicated from the rest of the biblical and extra-biblical evidence. It is simply not a possible option.
Yet, someone is out there right this minute relying on it as part of their Biblical interpretation (in this case, the person making this argument wanted to support a Thursday crucifixion).

These are the wild things we get when people start with a conclusion -- making the cherry-picked evidence go in the direction of the pre-determined conclusion, rather than allowing the total evidence to lead us to the reasonable conclusion. What we should be doing is letting the Bible interpret the Bible.

CONCLUSION

Is a day defined as 12-hours in the New Testament? Yes, that is a possible option. We granted that at the start. But must that definition always apply to the word day? No. We demonstrated that. In fact, forcing a literal definition in every instance of day causes terrible issues for resurrection timing.
More importantly, does John 11: 9 define the meaning of Matthew 12: 40? Does it apply for "three days and three nights"? From what we have seen in this article and others, I say no.

If there is an option, we need a good reason why we should choose one or the other.

Those who argue Jesus was entombed for 72-hours make assertions without a compelling explanation why. We investigate the claims, and they keep coming up making the same mistakes over and over again. Their conclusion depends on proof-texting and too many other things I categorize as nothing shy of intellectual dishonesty.

As for the evidence we provide for our conclusion, aside what I have shown you here today, As Bereans Did has several articles where we lay our case out in detail. Some of them I have already mentioned. We invite you to our Categories page where our articles are listed under the topic Easter.

All of the best evidence leads us to conclude the phrase "three days and three nights" is a very ancient and known idiom that was never meant to be understood as literally 72-hours. Choose exegeses over eisegesis!

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

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

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