Talk:Easter

For most recent comments, see bottom of page

Slavic Section

I do not know all of the languages referenced in the Slavic Section, but the etymologies listed are CERTAINLY incorrect. The prefix {V#Z} in slavic languages generally means to rise. Hence even though vzem in modern Croation /resembles/ vzesti (to take) it is not genetically related to it. It literally means to 'go up' from the old-slavonic roots. This must be changed by a competent slavic lexicographer. As as start. Here is Fasmer's commentary:

Ближайшая этимология: др.-русск., ст.-слав. въскрьсениЉ ўnЈstasij (Супр., Euch. Sin.), въскрkшэниЉ -- то же (Супр.). Из "день воскресения (из мертвых)" получилось знач. "воскресный, нерабочий день". Первонач. в этом знач. употреблялось недеґля, откуда понедеґльник. Ввиду наличия вос- (а не вс-) заимств. из цслав. (http://vasmer.narod.ru/p115.htm) Template:Unisgned2 when jeues died thats the day we cebate $ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.234.229 (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I fully endorse this opinion. It is absurd and anachronistic to link an Old Church Slavonic term to modern Croatian. It is commonly accepted in the scholarly community that the literary language of St. Cyril and Methodius has at its base a mid-ninth century Slavic dialect of Salonika region. The word въскрьсeньe is derived from the verb въскрьснѫти (rise again, be resurrected) and it is a perfectly good Old Church Slavonic word.

(Source: Old Church Slavonic glossary, compiled by Horace G. Lunt, Harvard University 1959, rev. 1969). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.126.224 (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Pagan origins

A web search for "Easter Origins" yields several results stating basically that 'Easter originates in paganism'. However, this page differs sharply from them, preferring to talk about etymology rather than origin. They also refer more to the passover than to Easter. The wiki disambiguated article for Pascha says it is an East Orthodox variant of easter. Given that the article dismisses any claims about Easter's apparent origins are Pagan and commonly refers to it as Pasha... I would venture that the article has been taken by POV influence.

It badly needs a cleanup. It looks like a huge mess; long and rambling. The first sentence says "Easter is the most important Christian holiday": very POV considering that the next sentence says 'some Christian denominations do not celebrate Easter.' If Rabbits and eggs are a recent trend, why did Bede refer to them? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 22:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Web searches reveal lots of things not necessarily connected to reality. Why don't you do a search in scietific literature? It will show you that the pagan Easter idea had some popularity among scientists 100-50 years ago; that since then it has been discredited as unfounded; that Bede's "Eostre" is looked at as a quite unclear reference for Eostre and yields NOTHING about an alleged festival of hers; and that there is not much we know for sure about preChristian Germanic rites altogether; that the ample information about Eostre's holy animal, egg-rites etc you find on the internet are very recent inventions (not the slightest hint at Bede!).

As for your astonishment that the most important festival is not celebrated by some (small) denominations: yeah, that's how these big religions work; pretty wide range of habits and views under the same label.. Try Islam - and be amazed that the "5 pillars" are not observed by all Muslims.... --Kipala (talk) 18:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't this article reference Bede's mention of the hare and Egg? Are you sure he never mentioned either? Because the eggs have seemingly been in use for over 1000 years, from what I gather. You mean to tell me that this Holiday and its rites have no significant origin?

I can fathom that Bede invented that God, but it seems like he was directly basing it on or confusing it with the Greek God Astarte. The word Eostre is obviously a take on the Latin word Oestrus; based on the Greek "oistros;" female sexual excitement. "Easter" in old English is "Astre". Given the pervasiveness of Astarte worship in the ancient world, is it that much of a stretch to suspect the worship spread to the Germanic tribes? Why would Bede have invented the origin.

Lastly, why would any self-respecting scientist of the 1950's care a thing about the origin of Easter? And why does it matter how recent information is claiming Easter has older or non-Christian origins. Bede was a major Catholic source alive when most Germans were practicing 'paganism' and apparently he isn't a credible source. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 06:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Ēostre#Bede's account has the complete text of Bede's account of Eostre. There is no mention of hares or eggs. Einhard: The life of Charlemagne (817-836) as translated by Samuel Epes Turner (1880), in the section "Reforms" states that Charlemagne renamed April to Ostarmanoth. Again, no mention of hares or eggs. Easter eggs#Christian symbols and practice mentions the Eastern Orthodox tradition of red-colored easter eggs, which symbolize the blood of Christ. Easter eggs#Pious legends recounts two legends that attribute these blood-red eggs to Mary Magdelene. — Joe Kress (talk) 21:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The article states that the earliest reference to Easter (using the name Pascha) occurred in the mid-2nd century Paschal homily Peri Pascha (On the Passover) by Melito of Sardis. By the late 2nd century Easter was well established when the Quartodeciman bishop of Smyrna Polycarp and the bishop of Rome Anicetus debated when Easter should be celebrated. Thus Easter began in the Mediterranean area during the second century while Christians were still being persecuted by Romans, far away from Germania and long before Christianity encountered any Germanic Pagan traditions, such as the hare and egg. This was about 600 years before Bede mentioned Eostre and thus long before Pascha acquired its English name, Easter. Since Easter began when its name was Pascha (Passover), there is no need to even discuss Astre and Astarte, let alone Oestrus. Just becaue these Latin spellings are similar does not mean they have any etymological relationship. Any such claim requires a reliable source. — Joe Kress (talk) 01:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Self respecting scientists do a lot of research on strange sounding subjects. Visit a University library! Besides the "pagan" origin of hare and eggs has never been shown convincingly. Egg has such a wide symbolism that and pops up in very different cultures - no way to show that they copied from each other; egg-symbolism may be so self evident that it keeps on being rediscovered without outer influences; and it fits nicely into Christian resurrection symbolism. As for the hare there is nothing historical about Germanic hares but quite a bit about Roman traditions and early Christian tradition (cf German Wikipedia on "Hare in Art" with references. How this once popular Christian hare-symbolism was connected to Easter is not clear yet but can be guessed with more argument than the Germanic connection.--Kipala (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Folks, this has been beaten to death already. (See sections 25-27 of Archive 3, especially.) and that's just the recent archives). Please read over some of the archived discussion before resurrecting this debate again. Ben (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

That is Western POV! In some cultures it is/was common to take the corpses out of the grave annually for remembrance ceremonies. The whole topi IS about resurrection, isn't it?--Kipala (talk) 09:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not resurrection. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, people who removed bodies from graves were called "resurrectionists". This was usually done in the springtime after the ground was no longer frozen. Obviously this was appropriated by Christians to form the origin of their Easter story. Ben (talk) 13:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing at all obvious about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it may not be obvious to you, or to scholars, but I'm sure I read it on a website somewhere, so please go off and re-write the article for my un-sourced conspiracy theory. Thanks! Ben (talk) 14:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Digging up bones is not resurrection. Coming back to life is resurrection. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

resurrection:"a revival from inactivity and disuse" lol. Only in christianity does it mean reincarnation: "embodiment in a new form"! Don't mix words in discussion of the non-christian spring life and fertility occasions. Beyond that, those who call it an AS issue are also missing other issues here; in that it was also celebrated by a similar traceable name in pre-Persia, and Central Asia; in Jainism and Taoism. And thousands of other faiths. Lostinlodos (talk) 07:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The English word "resurrection" is from a Latin translation of "anastasis", which is from a Greek root meaning "to rise up". Likewise, Greek Christians do not and have never used the word "Easter" (at least not in Greek). They use "Pascha", which means "Passover".Dogface (talk) 05:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

One more question. What does an egg have to do with resurrection or rebirth? Maybe in Persian folklore: in the real world, eggs don't have a cycle of hatching, dying and coming back to life. I heard something about Jesus being an egg and the yoke his spirit; if the article discussed symbology I wouldn't have to ask.--IronMaidenRocks (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Eggs are symbolic of new life. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a very interesting debate. Why is none of this reflected in the article? I agree there is a huge POV problem here. I didn't have to look far to find reliable sources supporting pagan origins. The BBC states, "...not all Easter customs are Christian; some, such as the Easter Bunny, are Pagan in origin." They have a link to an article that states, "Most religious historians believe that many elements of the Christian observance of Easter were derived from earlier Pagan celebrations." The WP article on Easter eggs mentions this at the very top. Therefore the following claim in the introduction makes no sense:

"Relatively newer elements such as the Easter Bunny and Easter egg hunts have become part of the holiday's modern celebrations, and those aspects are often celebrated by many Christians and non-Christians alike. There are also some Christian denominations who do not celebrate Easter."

Could we at least add something in the introduction that states, "The pagan origins of Easter are frequently debated," or something to that effect instead of pretending there is no debate? I would do this myself and add the sources I mentioned above, but the article seems to be locked. Otherwise I think the article should be labeled as potentially biased.94.222.212.141 (talk) 15:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The fact that some aspects of the way Christians celebrate the Resurrection of Jesus Christ may have originated in pre-Christian customs should be neither surprising nor disturbing to Christians who are aware of church history. In every place where Christianity has taken hold and become the dominant religion, people have not abandoned their former ways entirely. They got rid of what was clearly incompatible with the new faith (e.g., human sacrifice), but mostly just reinterpreted their customs and symbols with Christian meaning. For instance, pagan winter solstice festivals became Christmas, and ancestor worship was replaced by the veneration (not worship) of the saints. In Scandinavian languages, Christmas is even still called by the name of the former pagan festival, Jul ("Yule"). Because the death and resurrection of Jesus is uncoincidentally connected in time with the Jewish Passover, which happens to be in the spring, it is not surprising in the least that pagan converts to Christianity reinterpreted their celebrations of new life in the spring as symbolic of the resurrection and new life in Christ. Christianity's detractors might say that the church "hijacked" those older traditions. Another reading of the history is that the culture was converted along with the people. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 16:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Cultural syncretism. All very fascinating - but not reflected in the article. The article focuses on linguistic etymology and does not discuss the origin of the secular customs (eggs, bunnies). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.74.215.225 (talk) 21:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Unfortunately for some of the more extravagant etymological speculators, reputable linguistic reference works point towards the word Easter being ultimately derived from an Indo-European root *aus- or *awes- basically meaning "dawn" or "east". All other proposed etymologies are highly speculative (or in some cases, downright ridiculous). AnonMoos (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

That raises an excellent point, one that might help settle disputes more easily. Do we have, or could we develop, a list of reputable linguistic reference works - like a "Tier I"? In this way, casual editors can more easily differentiate between Joe Plumber and Joe Ph.D. It irks me when I find "Joe Plumber" sources mixed in those of respected journals and given undo weight. Rklawton (talk) 23:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

For accessible basic information, just look at a standard dictionary with etymological information. Some editions of the American Heritage Dictionary have convenient Indo-European root information gathered into a cross-referenced appendix, and the OED generally contains authoritative etymologies. AnonMoos (talk) 23:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Easter is the Christian Festival that celebrates the Resurrection of Jesus following his execution by crucifixion. The Gospels of Matthew (ch26 v17), Mark (ch14 v12) and Luke (ch22 v7) state clearly that the Last Supper was a celebration of the Passover meal observed by every Jewish family. John's Gospel is less direct in connecting the supper (ch13 v3) to the Passover (ch13 v1). This article correctly points out that the date of Easter changes because it is related to the date of the Passover for the reasons just given. The date of the Passover (and hence Easter) is related to the full moon following the spring equinox which is about 21 March. The "Oxford Library of Words and Phrases" states that the name of Easter was derived by Bede from the name of a goddess whose feast was celebrated at the vernal equinox. Her name in Old English was eastre with similar variants in Old German and Frisian. The is Part III of The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology , Editor T F Hoad, Oxford University Press, 1986, and published subsequently as Part III of "Oxford Library of Words and Phrases" London:BCA, 1993. Easter is therefore a Christian not a Pagan Festival though its name was derived from a pagan goddess whose feast day coincided by chance with the time of the crucifixion and resurrection. Bryanjones1944 (talk) 20:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Bryanjones1944 (talk) 7 April, 2010

I completely agree. I am a christian and therefore I find it very offending when it is suggested that Easter is merely a product of pagan pre-christian traditions. Jesus did rise from the dead and there are over 500 eye-witnesses to prove it. one scholar writes: "there is more evidence that Jesus is alive than Oliver Cromwell or George Washington is dead". Another writes: "there is more evidence for the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus than Julius Ceaser ever existed". We Christians don't know this by faith alone, but by "many infallible proofs" (Acts 1:3). Paul "proved that Jesus is the Christ" (Acts 9:22). Paul later says, "test and prove all things" (1 Thessalonians 3:21). We are also told, "the word of the LORD is proven" (2 Samuel 22:31, Psalms 18:30). Even Solomon ounce said, "these things I have proven through wisdom" (Ecclesiastes 7:23). Christians know all things through facts, not faith.--Nate5713 (talk) 22:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

John 1:1 says: In the Beginning, there was rationality. And the study was with God, and the rational was God.--Nate5713 (talk) 03:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Calvinists, Puritans, et. al. originally against Easter?

It seems that some Protestant groups were originally opposed to the celebration of Easter (& Christmas) because they believed them to be "too Catholic" (and thus "too pagan"???). I am assuming that this included all or many of the Puritans, Separatists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, and other Calvinists who were the majority or plurality of the first European settlers in New England (USA); is this maybe why, even to this day, most US companies and corporations do not acknowledge Easter even as a deferred holiday (and if they are normally open for business on Sundays, remain so on Easter)? Or is there some other reason, such as it not being required by federal law or perhaps it was bargained away early on by the labor movement? I think if anyone can find information about this, it should be included in this article. Shanoman (talk) 06:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you'll find that the Puritans were opposed to Christmas but not Easter. Easter coincides with the Passover, which is one of the three pilgrimage feasts of the Law of Moses. That would have been important for the Puritans in legitimating Easter, as they were Biblical literalists and Sunday sabbatarians. By contrast, Christmas would have been viewed by the Puritans as an innovation of unknown provenance. Not only is Christmas lacking a strict Biblical sanction as a celebration, but, in those days, Christmas was celebrated by English-speaking peoples in a manner very similar to a cross between the modern New Year's Eve party (before the current sensitivity to drinking and driving) and the stereotypical modern office Christmas party (before concerns about sexual harassment suits moderated corporate behavior). The family-friendly Christmas celebration of today is a product of the Victorian era. Bob99 (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Descent into Hell Icon

I'm a little confused as to why the Descent Into Hell icon image on the article page is labeled with "he anastasis" ("the Resurrection" in Greek). Does anybody know more about the image, and are we sure the caption is accurate? Ben (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if maybe "Descent into Hades" is a misnomer and the image actually represents an ascent from that place? The image name is "Resurrection" Gr8white (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The icon of the Descent into Hades (Harrowing of Hell) is the icon that is traditionally used by Orthodox Christians as the festal icon for Easter ("Pascha" as the Orthodox call it). The first Divine Liturgy of Easter, celebrated on the afternoon of Holy Saturday, specifically commemorates the Harrowing of Hell. MishaPan (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Jesus had to "descend into hell" in order to be resurrected. It was all predestined before time began.Nate5713 (talk) 22:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Easter Link

Should this link be included somewhere in the easter article? http://www.easterau.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.99.144 (talk) 08:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

That article appears not to have been peer-reviewed. It contains numerous errors (e.g., Persian is an Indo-European language, not a semitic one) and typos, so that it is not possible to independantly verify the conclusions. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 03:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find where Persian was called an Indo-European language in that article. I seems to have been used by other sources. http://www.textus-receptus.com/w/mediawiki-1.13.2/index.php/Article:_Why_We_Should_Not_Passover_Easter_%28Part_1%29_by_Nick_Sayers and http://www.christian-witness-ministries.com/newsletters/cetf43.pdf also a second part.. http://www.christian-witness-ministries.com/index.php/component/content/article/41-mar-2009/120-why-we-should-not-passover-easter-part-2.html 124.184.99.144 (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not, and that's the problem. To quote the article, "he knew a great deal about Hebrew’s sister languages - like Arabic, Persian, Syriac, Aramaic, Coptic, etc. ". The article seems to be quite low-quality--with a blank references section--and therefore unsuitable as a source, despite being correct for the most part. -Ben (talk) 19:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Ben is correct. Persian is an Indo-European language, but the cited article seems to group it with simitic languages. That's just one example of the many sloppy errors that detract from the article's credibility and render it unfit as a source to be cited on Wikipedia. The thesis of the article may be valid, but one wonders, if the author is sloppy about things like that, is he sloppy about more important parts of the research as well? Ruckabumpkus (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Though the author's thesis is correct, the article's flaws are more grievous than its incorrect details like the classification of Persian or Coptic, or the etymology of auferstehen: the article doesn't mention Bede once! It's concerned entirely with the KJV translators. That's fine, but that concern seems to blind the author to popular usage of "Easter" before the seventeenth century. Since that popular usage is the source of pagan origin claims, it really doesn't have much to contribute to an encyclopedia article about Easter and the controversy over its origins. If it were better sourced, it might be appropriate for articles on the KJV, however. Ben (talk) 03:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

A glance at that link should reveal that it is completely useless for anyone not solely interested in a poorly written and laughably researched propaganda piece. I am frankly surprised that it has even received more than an "lol" in response to its proposed usage. It has no value anywhere on Wikipedia. :bloodofox: (talk)

Censorship of Pagan origins

There is a legitimate debate about the pagan origins of Easter (see above). Yet you wouldn't know it from reading this article. Rather than debate the evidence in the article body, it is deleted and relegated to the talk page.

Consider the following reliable sources:

- The BBC states, "...not all Easter customs are Christian; some, such as the Easter Bunny, are Pagan in origin."

- "Pagan festivities [in mid-March] have been included in Easter, such as Easter eggs, taken from Baltic paganism (see chapter 8), and the Easter rabbit or hare, which recalls the sacred hares of the British tribes." (A History of Pagan Europe, Routledge, 1997, p. 122)

- "Most religious historians believe that many elements of the Christian observance of Easter were derived from earlier Pagan celebrations."(http://www.religioustolerance.org/easter.htm) See also this page citing reliable sources.

- Ronald Hutton, Professor of History at the University of Bristol, gives the best and most balanced overview of the debate I could find:

"Two facts do seem to emerge from the discussion. One is that versions of the name given by Bede were used widely among speakers of Germanic languages during or shortly after his time; thus the Christian festival was known as Ostarstuopha in the main valley during the eight and ninth centuries. The other is that the Anglo-Saxon eastre, signifying both the festival and the season of spring, is associated with a set of words in various Indo-European languages, signifying dawn and also goddesses who personified that event, such as the Greek Eos, the Roman Aurora, and the Indian Ushas. It is therefore quite possible to argue that Bede's Eostre was a Germanic dawn-deity who was venerated, appropriately, at this seasoning of opening and new beginnings. It is equally valid, however, to suggest that the Anglo-Saxon "Estor-monath" simply meant 'the month of opening' or 'the month of beginnings'..." (The Stations of the Sun: A History of the Ritual Year in Britain, Oxford University Press, 1996, p. 180)

- Even Christians admit many of these pagan origins. The book Pagan Christianity? Exploring the Roots of Our Church Practices is written by Christians. They do not discuss Easter and Christmas because they do not feel that it hinders the faith in any way, but they explain openly on their website: "Our spiritual forefathers chose to compete with the pagans by redeeming certain days for Jesus Christ that had traditionally been kept sacred by their heathen neighbors."

I cannot edit the article, because I do not yet have an account, but I hope someone will make it more balanced with these sources. There is also no source or evidence for the claim in the introduction that the Easter egg and bunny are "relatively newer elements." 88.74.223.64 (talk) 14:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It's misleading to say that the "pagan origins" of Easter are being "censored." Even if the the word Easter derives from pagan roots, in contemporary English it refers to the Christian festival of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Christians would have been celebrating the resurrection at that time of year in any case, and if pre-Christian Europeans also had some kind of spring festival, by whatever name and in honor of whatever deity they believed in, that's mere coincidence. And if some of the cultural customs that have become connected to Easter are holdovers from paganism, that's not a problem for most Christians, because it's understood that those things are far from the essence of the celebration. You're not likely to find Easter bunnies in Christian sanctuaries. It's not like "pagan influences" are some kind of scandal in the Church. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 04:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

And, btw, no one is stopping you from creating an account. It's free and easy. The link is at the top of the page. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 04:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

In the United States, Easter also refers to a holiday where a completely secular ritual of basket-bearing children hunting for strategically placed gift-containing eggs takes place, which is frequently followed by the consumption of chocolate rabbits. It does not take a rocket scientist to deduce what eggs and rabbits have to do with springtime and how little it has to do with, say, Christianity. Substitute some Easter cakes for the chocolate, and chances are that this is not terribly far removed from the pre-Christian Germanic springtime festivals of yore (well, minus the sword dances and bonfires).

Funnily enough, the introduction does not mention the fact that the name of the festival is blatantly un-Christian in English (in fact, given the evidence, most scholars find it quite likely to reflect exactly what Bede says it did), and it completely ignores how millions today celebrate the holiday. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Etymology does not determine the meaning of a word. If it did, decimate would mean "kill a tenth of," not "mostly destroy." Is this article about the Christian celebration of the resurrection of Jesus Christ (known as Easter in today's English), or is it about celebrations of spring in general, one example of which is that funny Christian thing? Yes, it's likely that the rabbits and eggs and perhaps even the name of the festival itself are pagan in origin and have become attached to the Christian celebration due to the coincidence in time of year, but that doesn't mean they're part of it. Christians were celebrating the resurrection long before English speakers dubbed it Easter-- in fact, long before English existed. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 02:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

"Christians were celebrating the resurrection long before English speakers dubbed it Easter" - that statement is not correct. Easter (or Ishtar) was celebrated by Pagans in 2000 BC, long before Jesus was nailed to a plank of wood for saying how we should be nice to people for a change. So that's 2000 years before the Christians celebrated a supposed resurrection. It is true that the Jews celebrated Passover before it was hijacked by the Christians, and is detailed in Exodus of the Old Testament. Exodus was written between 1440 and 1400 BC, which is still 600 years after the Pagans. If Easter really was about the 'Resurrection' then it would be on a fixed day and not follow the cycles of the moon and the seasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.164.21.1 (talk) 05:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Except that there were no English speakers in 2000 BC. Look, Christians around the world hold an annual celebration of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Most Christians, not being English speakers, do not call it Easter. Wikipedia should have an article about this world-wide Christian celebration. How it came to be called Easter in English is an interesting question that deserves its own Wikipedia article. Same goes for the question of how the Christian festival may be related to pre-Christian customs (other than the Jewish Passover). No one is censoring those topics. However, those questions are not central to understanding the Christian observance, and controversies about them do not add to the quality of the article about it. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 13:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, lots of confusion and misinformation presented in these last three paragraphs. Let's get a few things straight here:

1. Easter has nothing to do with Ishtar. This absurd notion seems to be revitalized every year by confused and/or malicious Christians who have found a copy of Alexander Hislop's nonsensical The Two Babylons (which itself would be pure comedy if it wasn't so destructive). For those curious, Hislop's infallible logic on the topic is on display here: [1]
2. The Angles (that is to say the English) are attested by Tacitus, which means they existed prior to the invention of Christianity, and, obviously, so did their customs. (Further reading: Herbert, Kathleen (2007). Looking for the Lost Gods of England. Anglo-Saxon Books.)
3. By employing the science of comparative linguistics, scholars argue that Eostre etymologically descends from the Proto-Indo-European goddess *Hausos. If you weren't aware, Proto-Indo-European is the mother language of numerous languages, including the Germanic languages (including, yes, English), Celtic languages, Balto-Slavic languages, Hellenic languages, Indo-Iranian languages, and so on. Dropping arguments based on dating would be wise.
4. Keep in mind that Bede is also our sole attestation for Mōdraniht, which scholars connect to the Matres and Matrones. Bede's reputation in this area isn't exactly dubious.

My point is that there is quite a lot to say about the origins of what we now know as Easter here in the Anglosphere. English Easter is not the same thing as Christian Paskha. It has its own distinct history. It is often extremely secular, and it even has roots well attested enough to be recognized by modern neopagan groups ranging from Wiccans (Wheel of the Year) to groups more interested in reconstruction (Germanic Neopaganism).

This article does not reflect these facts as it stands. The critics are right when they say that this article is too Christian-centered. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You make my point. Christian Easter (or Pascha as it's known in other languages), is a distinct thing from the Easter you're talking about. The two should not be confused, though they obviously are. I would support the creation of separate articles on the two topics-- perhaps "Easter_(Christian)" and "Easter_(Pagan)", or suggest something better. It sounds like you'd be qualified to draft the article on Pagan Easter. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a pretty good summary, :bloodofox:. The problem is, as you say, that we're talking about three or four different things when we talk about the "origin of Easter", and that they're made especially blurry due to monolingual English-speakers, widespread ignorance of medieval and/or ecclesiastical history, folk-etymologizing, and intentional obfuscators (whether Puritan or Pagan).

1. Easter, the western religious Holy Day, clearly originates in Hebrew Passover and antedates the application of the word "Easter" to it.
2. Eostre, whatever she or it may have been before 597, is clearly Pagan and while the sources are sparse, they are well documented under the Eostre article.
3. Ancillary Easter traditions like eggs and bunnies are not obviously Christian or Pagan in origin. While they're not specifically Christian, we aren't really able to find continuity between modern usages and medieval Pagan sources either. To muddy the waters, plenty of similar traditions were invented or "redisovered" by Romantics of the Victorian period and attested continuity where there was none. I'd love to see this sorted out for bunnies and eggs, and haven't really seen it yet.
4. Easter, the English-speaking holiday observed by plenty of people who don't observe any religion, is an amalgam of most of these but has a sort of existence of its own, despite originating alongside Christian Easter in England. It is, furthermore, the way that most readers experience Easter in these secularized times.

It's just very hard to tease these apart into separate articles -- not least because for most readers, three of the four seem like the same thing.Ben (talk) 17:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

For me there's Easter the Christian observance and Easter with secular traditions and customs (bunny, eggs). The article discusses origins of the former and etymology, but doesn't mention at all the origin of the secular traditions and customs. I noted several sources above which link these (bunny, eggs) to pagan origins. Not only are these not mentioned, but they are dismissed in the introduction as "relatively newer elements." There is no source for that description, and it should be edited. There is also some content forking going on as Easter bunny clearly states "Eggs, like rabbits and hares, are fertility symbols of extreme antiquity" and Easter egg states "The egg was a symbol of the rebirth of the earth in celebrations of spring and was adopted by early Christians as a symbol of the resurrection of Jesus." 88.74.215.225 (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

This may be an oversimplification, but I think it’s at least approximately true and may help in understanding why this is such a neuralgic issue. There appear to be two groups who are most eager to highlight the "pagan origins" of customs associated with Easter (as well as other Christian traditions) and one group most eager to suppress them. One group highlighting the pagan origins consists of zealous Christian sectarians who wish to adduce them as evidence that the Catholic, Orthodox and mainline Protestant churches are syncretistic or idolatrous, and therefore illegitimate (along the lines of Hislop). The other consists of atheists, neo-pagans and others who wish to discredit Christianity in general. The group most wishing to suppress the issue consists of insecure Catholic, Orthodox and mainline Protestant Christians who feel attacked and worry that the fact of pagan origins of Christian traditions might actually constitute a legitimate critique of Christianity (which I'm convinced it does not, as I've commented previously). So here's the puzzle: since there are hotheads in all of these groups, who are likely to perceive a bias no matter how the issue is presented, or if it's not presented at all, how can a NPOV section on the "pagan origins" of certain aspects of Easter be crafted? I stand by my opinion that the Wikipedia should have an article about the Christian celebration of the resurrection of Jesus Christ that's relatively uncluttered by ancillary issues such as where the Easter Bunny came from, but it should include one or more links to one or more articles about those issues. Likewise, any article about "Secular Easter" should have a link to the one about the Christian celebration. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 03:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The Easter bunny is an "ancillary issue" to an article about Easter? For you Easter may be primarily about the resurrection of Jesus Christ, but many people are also interested in the secular element. NPOV means including both elements and not privileging the views of Christians. Perhaps two different articles is the solution, but until there are two different articles, this article should also reflect a NPOV. I otherwise agree with your analysis but not sure how much it matters in the end. Ultimately the content should reflect reliable sources; I began this thread by listing several. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.222.211.17 (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Why this is an issue? All of major christian holidays are in the fact pagan holiday. And paganism just predated neolithic holidays. So, for example, easter is merely a spring equinox. Nature awakens from the winter. See any parallels with resurrection celebrated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.141.133.172 (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Just came across this. Interesting also that the German version of this article states in the introduction "Many Easter customs are of non-Christian ("pagan") origin" ("Viele Osterbräuche sind außerchristlicher („heidnischer“) Herkunft"). So we have language forking as well as content forking going on. 94.222.211.17 (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

It may be correct to say that all major Christian holidays were pagan holidays, but as observed by Christians today they are no longer pagan. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 20:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

And therefore, as observed by the secular people of the modern western world (most easily found outside the Americas) they are secular holidays with interesting histories. But seriously, there's a hell of a lot of pagan people around who see the spring equinox as a pagan holiday; a lot of christians who see it as a christian holiday; a lot of secular people who see it as a secular holiday; and it seems quite a few christians who see it as a coopted pagan holiday. --203.202.43.53 (talk) 01:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't confuse Easter with the spring equinox. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 02:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. See Lady Day for the Christian co-option of the Spring Equinox. -Ben (talk) 14:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

WHY IS THE WORD "EASTER" OR 'EOSTRE' NOT A LINK TO THE WIKI PAGE ON EOSTRE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.247.136 (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It's the second word in the article, and it's linked. Rklawton (talk) 14:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Etymology

I'VE GOT IT, I GOT IT!!! I KNOW WHERE THE WORD EASTER COMES FROM!!!! And it has nothing to do with this so-called "Eostre". "-ter" is a suffix that refers to a holiday. "Ea-isis", the rest of the word, may or may not resemble the word "Eostre", but it undeniably derives from the Latin Vulgate "Iesus" (pronounced ea-isis). "Iesus" literally means Jesus! so in conclusion, EASTER LITERALLY MEANS JESUS-DAY!!!!! Nate5713 (talk) 03:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The above paragraph appears to be sarcasm that adds nothing to the discussion. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 13:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I find your statement hilarious. It's true! Easter=Iesus+ter=Jesus day!!!!--Nate5713 (talk) 01:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You'll have to better than just announcing this discovery. You need to give evidence. In which language is "-ter" a suffix that refers to a holiday (please provide a reference)? By which linguistic authority do you claim the derivation of "eas" from Latin "Iesus"? And while you are doing so can you please provide the authority for the pronounciation of "Iesus" as "ea-isis"? I don't doubt that you are in good faith, but at the moment you have only provided what looks like Original Research, which of course we can't accept. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Certainly. Now where to began? Ah, yes! Well, J was not added to the Alphabet until the 1500s, so a transliteration of the Hebrew "Juh" (J sound) into Latin would be "eey" (I sound). Therefore, Iesus is pronounced Eey+esus.--Nate5713 (talk) 23:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, "ter" is, again, from Latin, and it literally means: three fold. Thereby referring to the three days Easter. As well as the three-part nature of Christ: Father, (John 10:30) Son, (Mark 14:61) and the Holy Spirit. (Acts 10:38).--Nate5713 (talk) 00:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Unless you're being sarcastic, you need to proceed directly to Wikipedia:No original research. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not fully understand. I gave exact references for every argument, which no one has questioned, so how does that make it Original Research? I identified this on my own. I'm extremely proud of that, being that I am usually more of a math person. Now, some people might classify that as Original Research (I don't), but that does not change the fact that it's the truth.--Nate5713 (talk) 03:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You have not answered any of my questions. When I asked for a suffix "-ter" meaning holiday, you gave a prefix meaning three. When I asked for a linguistic authority giving the derivation of "eas" from "Iesus" you gave a spurious argument about the letter J not being in the alphabet. ("Iesus" is actually Greek, not Latin, and the letter J was certainly in the English alphabet at the time of John Wycliffe in 1380. Both of these facts are in the article Iesus, which you referred to but patently have not read.) When I asked for your authority for pronouncing Iesus as "ea-isis" you have given a different pronounciation "eey+esus", but again no authority.

In other words, you have not given any references for your arguments. That fact that you have identified this "on your own" is exactly the same thing as original research. Your theory of the derivation of Easter remains just that, a theory. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Does this mean I have to publish a paper on the internet, before I can say the same thing on Wikipedia? Seems pretty silly and backwards to me. However, I apologize for not citing all my references, I assumed you already new. When translating Jesus into Latin Vulgate, the J turns into an I. Because J was not added until the 1500s. (When you say John Wycliffe, you probably mean his original name: Iohn Wycliffe.) This is pronounced ee-eh-s-us. --Nate5713 (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I also find it odd that I patently have not read a link that is purple on my computer.--Nate5713 (talk) 03:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You would have to cite an article in a peer-reviewed journal, or something of similar scholarly quality. Besides, I think you're simply wrong about the etymology of Easter. If it were derived from Latin, as you say, then why isn't some variation of it used as the name of the festival in modern Latin languages, instead of some variation of Pascha? You're also wrong about the derivation of the name Jesus (originally Aramaic Yeshua, transliterated into Greek as Iesous, and into Latin as Iesus). Ruckabumpkus (talk) 03:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That's what I've been saying, Iesus is Jesus with an I. You accuse me of not citing references? what is Pascha? seems a bit of digression to me. There's a good reason why there's no variation of the term in modern Latin. Because there is no such thing, Latin is a dead language. --Nate5713 (talk) 15:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Wait a sec, I just followed my own link. "Pascha" is a synonym for Easter. It's like calling the satellite Luna the Moon. It's not its real name, but it works just as well. However, I doubt this has anything to do with this discussion, being that the term started with the Eastern Orthodox Church, which is in Russia, almost a thousand years after Easter was recognized.--Nate5713 (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't need to cite sources in the talk page; you need to cite them if you're going to put your idea into the text of the article. And, you miss my point. The festival we English-speakers call Easter was called Pascha (derived from Hebrew Pesach, "Passover") by Greek-speaking Christians in the earliest days of the church. Latin-speaking Christians, very soon after, simply adopted the Greek word, spelling it in Latin characters instead of Greek. Modern Latin languages, such as Spanish, French, Italian, Romanian, Portuguese, etc., all use some variant of Pascha as the name for the holiday. If Easter were of Latin origin, instead of Anglo-Saxon, as the references cited in the article all agree, why would none of those modern descendants of Latin use a variant of Easter as the name for the holiday? Ruckabumpkus (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear Nate5713, your explanation sounds wonderful. Go, collect your arguments and write a book about it. I am sure if you can make your point you are earning yourself a doctorate or maybe even higher positions. Then we will quote you here at length - promised!! But as long as it is an idea which you have not shared yet with the scholarly community it will not be visible here. That is how wikipedia works. Good luck! Kipala (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but I have never heard of pascha before in my life. If you do not cite references against me, then I am forced to conclude that you are wrong and I am right. As far as I have observed, Easter is called Easter in Spain, Portugal, Italy, Argentina, etc. Hears a reference for you: Prof. Thomas F. X. Noble, who is chairman at the Department of History at the University of Notre Dame, mentioned the origin of Easter in passing during a lecture on Church history. He said, and I quote,

"Remember, 'Ee-ister' was a festival to celebrate the resurrected Jesus".

So much for "pagan origins" then. Later, he mentions pascha as being a holiday to sacrifice lambs. Little of nothing to do with Easter. I restate, Easter=Iesus+ter=Jesus day!!!!--Nate5713 (talk) 01:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Nate, I have followed the link you give above and cannot find the phrase you quote on the page. In fact, I note that Prof. Noble's lectures are not available in written form and therefore your quotation of the spelling "Ee-ister" is not valid. Just because you have never heard of wt:Pascha doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Try exploring Wiktionary as well as Wikipedia under the various spellings Pascha, Paschal, Pascal, Pasqual, Pasqua, etc. and you will see that all of the Romance languages (modern day derivations of Latin) use one of these variant spellings as their word for "Easter". Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I sat at one of Prof. Noble's lectures just yesterday, and he clearly pronounced it. You buy his lectures on tape at this link. Prof. Noble further states that the festival was called Easter as early as 200 A.D. long before romantic languages formed. You mention several spellings of Pascha? this is what they mean:

• Pascha is the Russian word for Easter. (Russian is not a Romantic language)
• Paschal may refer to various Jewish festivals, like the one I mentioned above.
• Blaise Pascal was a prominent French mathematician.
• Pasqual is a common Spanish surname.

However, I digress, the whole point of my conversation is: Easter sounds more like Iesus, and less like Eostre.Nate2357 (talk) 16:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I was typing up a reply, but then I realized that this must be some sort of joke. I advise other editors to keep this in mind before feeding the troll. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Joke? what Joke? My proceeding comment is there to reinforce that ALL spellings of Pascha have Little to do with Easter.Nate2357 (talk) 20:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't think that you are joking. I believe that you are in earnest. However, you simply are not going to convince us of your interesting but flawed etymology. Word derivations have very little to do with what they sound like in modern English. My apologies for the redlink in last night's comment above, it should have been wikt:pascha. Prof. Noble may well be right that the festival was called Easter as early as 200 CE. However, it wasn't called that in Latin. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

How did this notion of Pascha enter the conversation? As far as I know, (remember I am usually more of a math person) the way all etymology works is to associate words with common linguistic roots. Thus, there is a whole bunch of hullabaloo on how Easter is merely an extension of the festival of Eostre, some Greek sex goddess, just because the words sound similar. Therefore, I identified a word, of closer origin, (remember medieval Latin is more recent than ancient Greek) that sounds more similar, and makes more sense. What other evidence do want from me? I even cited a Prof. that agrees with me. Perhaps you don't want to believe me! Perhaps you want Easter to be merely a product of it's culture! Perhaps even you wish Easter was prognosticated by pagans, rather than created by Christians. Nate5713 (talk) 19:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

To Nate5731: This Christian finds your argument that the word Easter is derived from the name Jesus completely ridiculous. The festival of the Resurrection is called by that name only in English, and the best scholarly evidence is that the word is of Anglo-Saxon origin. In most other languages (whether related to Latin or not) Christians refer to the celebration by some word related to the Hebrew Pesach ("Passover"). The apparently pagan origin of the name we English-speakers give it in no way implies a pagan origin of the festival; only that formerly pagan Christians on the British Isles called the festival by a name formerly used in reference to something on the old pagan calendar. Why does this bother you? You come across like you're trying to defend Christianity against an accusation of some kind. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Where's your references? I defend my argument in the hopes of eliminating Eostre (a link you have patently not read, she is Greek, not Anglo-Saxon) from this article. The reason I feel so strongly about this, (and many people call themselves Christian) is this: so many people claim that Christianity grew out of some sort of Mystery cult, and thus, Jesus never really lived, but rather was fanaticised by the decedents of pagans (and there you get the idea of Pagan origins). If resurrection day was invented by pagans, then adopted by Christians, then:

"...you're still in your sins! ...and we (fellow Christian) are, by all men, the most pitiable." 1 Corinthians 15:12-19.

We know (fellow Christian) that this cannot be true!

"and now, Christ is risen from the dead!..." 1 Corinthians 15:20.

Therefore, Easter must be derived from Jesus, not just because it has to, but for other reasons which I have stated in previous comments.

I think it should be clear that I don't care where Pascha come from!!!!! That has nothing to do with this discussion! still, I have yet to see an Iota of evidence that pascha is Easter in all romantic languages. Not even an Iota!! I use the word Easter as it was coined in the council of Nicea. Nate5713 (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Now, I will admit that most media tend to disagree with me. "for man's heart is evil from youth, and madness is in his soul". Genesis 8:21, Ecclesiastes 9:3, gospel of John 3:19, Letter to the Romans 3:23. Nate5713 (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Nate5713, you are seriously misinformed. First, it's in the introductory paragraph on Eostre that she is part of Anglo-Saxon mythology, not Greek. Second, it is indeed true that all major Romance languages use words derived from Pascha as the name for the Christian festival of the resurrection of Jesus (as the article states), which argues against Easter being of Latin origin. Third, though it is true that some have argued that Christianity evolved from Helenistic mystery cults or pagan fertility religions, I do not subscribe to that view, and it has nothing to do with the etymology of Easter. As one who believes that Jesus Christ is Lord and that he indeed rose from the dead, I find your argument for Easter being derived from the name of Jesus unpersuasive. Furthermore, the fact that the English word is apparently of Anglo-Saxon pagan origin does not logically imply that the festival so named, the Christian festival of the resurrection of Jesus, is itself of pagan origin, as I've been arguing in other parts of this talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruckabumpkus (talk • contribs) 00:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a summary of my thoughts:

• You agree with me that Easter was called Easter as early as in the year of our LORD (A.D.) 200. That predates the earliest celebration of Easter in England.
• The festival as we know it started in Rome, not England, half a world away.
• Eostre (a goddess of fertility and the sunrise) is absolutely nothing smiler to Iesus (the anointed Son of God).
• Iesus sounds more like "Easter" than Eostre could ever sound.
• Rome, where Easter was officially recognized, spoke Latin. (like, Iesus instead of Jesus)
• The celebration of Eostre is absolutely nothing similar to Easter.
• Pascha comes from the Finnish verb pääse meaning "to be released" (unless you have a reference for me?)
• Prof. Thomas F. X. Noble, who is chairman at the Department of History at the University of Notre Dame, completely agrees with me. Nate5713 (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Now, the above references are giving you the benefit of the doubt. Eostre is derived from the Greek Goddess Eos, and therefore, my previous concerns are real. Even if you don't subscribe to it, other people might be confused. [[Nate5713 (talk) 21:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)]]

I'm having a hard time telling if you're being serious (and not actually reading what's been written here) or silly (and getting more annoying by the post). To begin with, I do not agree that Easter was called Easter as early as AD200. The earliest references to it are in Greek, not Latin, where the word is Pascha (derived from the Hebrew Pesach - "Passover"). The point you seem to be missing is this: the origins of the English word Easter and of the Christian festival that the word refers to are almost completely unrelated. The festival we call Easter is much older than the English name for it. Most Christians do not call it by any name even remotely close to "Easter." A notable exception are the Germans, who call it "Ostern," which also seems to be derived from Eostre. I invite you to read the entire article on Easter (and also the one on Eostre before you make any further comments on this topic. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 22:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Ruck, as I said earlier, you're only feeding a troll. He's grasping at straws to be as obnoxious and as absurd as possible; internally linking nouns, bolding every other word, his comments are filled with little more than hyperboles, he rants that Eostre is a "Greek sex goddess", and attempts to claim that Pascha ultimately derives from Finnish (while claiming that Easter is used in Romance countries). Come on.

I highly suggest that you stop taking him seriously. In fact, this entire ridiculous thread should be stricken on the grounds of WP:SOAP and/or very poor WP:OR, if not just blatant WP:TROLLery, and the user's (Nate5713 (talk · contribs)) edit history should be examined for similar nonsense. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I've known lots of zealous fundamentalist Christians who sincerely believe equally preposterous things and complain of a vast atheist conspiracy to suppress the "truth." Creationism is the most notable example. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 13:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is going nowhere.

• I provide proofs and references, and an astute Professor.
• You Don't.

Maybe I should Edit the article myself. Nate5713 (talk) 20:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

As for your professor, can we please have a quote from a book or article by him, if a book, including the page number. As for 'Easters etymology, see the The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O27-Easter.html] - "derived by Bede from the name of a goddess whose feast was celebrated at the vernal equinox, Ēostre,". For the name Easter being unknown in 200, see [2]. I don't understand your point about Paschal and Pascal, they are simply different spellings of the same word. As for 'pascha', there are loads of sources, eg The Oxford Companion to British History which says that Easter is a "Christian feast celebrating Christ's resurrection, an ever-present event to believing Christians. Originally however pascha ..." Dougweller (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Now, I will admit that most media tend to disagree with me. "for man's heart is evil from youth, and madness is in his soul". Genesis 8:21, Ecclesiastes 9:3, gospel of John 3:19, Letter to the Romans 3:23. Nate5713 (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Easter=Jesus, that's all I'm saying! Sheeesh! Isn't that what Church fathers been saying for 2,000 years? Nate5713 (talk) 00:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I'M NOT JOKING!!! I'M JUST HUMOROUS!!! I like to have some fun while I make my point. Nate5713 (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Nate5713, you appear to be confused about the difference between Easter, the word, and Easter, the thing the word refers to. You are entirely correct that the thing (the festival of the Resurrection) is nearly 2000 years old and is entirely about Jesus Christ. On the other hand, the word is clearly English, since the thing is not referred to by that name in any other major language. The word, Easter, appears to be derived from Eostre, which was the name of an Anglo-Saxon deity. Your connection of the word, Easter, with Greek mythology is indirectly correct, because Eostre is almost certainly related by etymology to Eos (Greek for "Dawn"). However, the earliest celebrators of the festival of the Resurrection did not call it by a name that was etymologically related to Eos or Eostre or Easter. They referred to it by a name, Pascha, that was derived from Hebrew. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 18:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent summary and we should edit on that basis. Rklawton (talk) 18:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but would it be too much to ask for you to actually prove your point? nothing personal, it's just that I find it unfair that I gave some 20 references and some circumstantial proofs, and though you give the typical definition of Easter over and over again, I don't see any references or verifications. Nate5713 (talk) 12:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you actually read the article you're criticizing? The references are in there. And, no, you haven't given 20 references, by my count, and what you have given is not up to snuff in academic rigor. You haven't cited any actual published material. Page numbers of books or journal articles are needed. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 12:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not enough just too say, "Oh everybody knows that Easter is clearly derived from Eostre" a word that has nothing to do with the festival, so why does it have everything to do with the Etymology? Tamora Pierce ounce said,

"I must meet this 'everyone' some time, he gets everything wrong"

Nate5713 (talk) 12:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know who you're quoting ("Oh everybody knows that Easter is clearly derived from Eostre"), but I have seen no such assertion here. The derivation of Easter (the word, not the festival itself) from Eostre (the word, not the germanic pagan deity) is based on solid linguistic and historical scholarship, not speculation (see references in the article). It might be wrong, but it's probably right. And in any case, it really doesn't matter to this Christian, because what's important is the event the festival celebrates, not the name the festival goes by. I don't understand why you're making such a big deal out of the derivation of the word. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 20:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

By my count, I reference 16 external links, plus a myriad of internal links which gives a generous minimum of 20. Just because some liberal magazine or some know-it-all prof. says that Easter is pagan, doesn't mean its true. (I give such references anyway, but apparently they're not up to academic rigor for you). The proofs I prefer go "back to the sources" to quote the Renaissance man, as well as "conviction by scripture, and plain reasoning" to quote Martin Luther. What I propose is what I like to call, Novo Notium ('cause everything sounds better in Latin), a New concept, a New idea, a New understanding, a New proposition, a New law, a New theory, a new "something-that-isn't-quite-yet-proven-but-makes-more-sense-than-what-we-already-have". Just look at this timetable and you'll see see what I mean:

Rome conquered England in 50 B.C., but didn't really occupy it until 117 A.D. England officially became Christian somewhere between 200 and 300 A.D. Rome fell in 476 A.D., but the Churches in England continued to speak Latin until the King James Bible was printed in 1604. Thus, the churches of Anglo-saxon Britain could make there own choice on Easter: either name it after their own colloquial pagan tradition, or name it after the risen Christ in the church language (i.e. Iesus). Nate5713 (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Well then, by your own admission it's OR. Novo Notium==Original Research. (In addition to contradicting all the historical and linguistic sources and being wholly unsupported by the kind of references we can actually read.) But I suspect you'll keep trolling for reactions. Ben (talk) 15:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

There is practically no OR. Use your own plain reasoning, don't just say what everyone else is saying, think about it. Would the Bishops, the Deacons, the Elders, the church fathers of Anglo-Saxon Briton really want to name Resurrection day after an outmoded, sexual, pagan goddess of the morning? OR would they really want to name "the day that Jesus rose from the dead on" after Jesus, who rose from the dead on that day. Nate5713 (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

To your point about plain reasoning, I'd argue that the historical sources and scholarship trump speculation about "what would I do if I were them". First, I'd ask you to look at the instructions given to the first successful missionaries to the Anglo-Saxons, especially [letter of Gregory to Melitus] (AD 601) and its instructions about gradual conversion of pagan places of worship and feasts: "For there is no doubt that it is impossible to efface everything at once from their obdurate minds; because he who endeavours to ascend to the highest place, rises by degrees or steps, and not by leaps."

I'd also point out that you're arguing that the church fathers would of necessity want to impose a Latin loan-word in English rather than adopting/converting a native English word. After all, this was done for some words ('angel', 'cross'). However, in other cases the church fathers freely adopted English terms for Christian concepts, like 'heaven' instead of coel or 'God' instead of Deus. And if they had wanted to use a Latin loan-word for Easter, why not use the Latin word for Easter (pascha) which they already had, as was in fact done in most other languages. Why invent a new Latin-derived word for the English to use? -Ben (talk) 14:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

And there are no such thing as trolls. They are mythical creatures who appear solely in fairy tales. Nate5713 (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Is that it? are we on the same page? have we established that Easter is most likely derived from Jesus? ARE WE GOING TO START EDITING THE ARTICLE now? --Nate5713 (talk) 23:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

No, "we" have not established any such thing. Apparently you're convinced of it, but I've seen no evidence that you've persuaded anyone else. And even if you have, Wikipedia is not the place for the initial publication of your novel theory (original research). After you've gotten your thesis published in a peer-reviewed journal, then we can talk about including it as an alternate theory for the derivation of the word, Easter. In the mean time, please rest assured that the consensus of opinion agrees with you that the Christian festival that English-speakers call Easter (and others call by other names) is not in fact of pagan origin (though the English name for it, along with some of the secular accretions, such as bunnies, may well be). Ruckabumpkus (talk) 00:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for reasoning. It is the place for reliable, verifiable sources. Since Nate has admitted it's a "new idea" and has admitted that we're already using "traditional definitions" - I think it's pretty clear that we're following Wikipedia's policies. Nate, you've lost this one. Let it rest. Rklawton (talk) 03:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I see that this debate has gotten monstrously long, and it's about to digress into philosophies on Wikipedian policy. So, seeing that I have successfully proven the Etymology, I will continue with policy here. Nate5713 (talk) 17:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Nate5713, I do NOT believe that you have successfully proved your point about the etymology of Easter. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 20:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I will not rebuttal the above comment, NOT because I require further evidence for the Etymology of Easter, but because I cannot seem to convince some people individually. Of coarse, isn't that the way it is with all new ideas?. Nate5713 (talk) 22:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

If it is indeed a "new idea," then it's original research and does not belong on Wikipedia. I'll let other readers of this page speak for themselves if any of them are convinced by your reasoning. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 03:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Nate5713, none of your fellow editors--neither Christian, nor secular, nor Pagan--think that "Easter < Iesus" is has any validity, and indeed most think your theory so absurd and your behavior so quixotic that you're probably just trolling for reactions as a prank. However even if we unanimously agreed with you, abandoning centuries worth of study and debate because we were dazzled by your insight, we still wouldn't allow it into the article, because you have provided no attribution. Show us one link we can click on and read your theory, or book we can hold in our hands and read--not just the name of a professor, but something written by that professor--and it might deserve a footnote in the article. Even garbage like "Easter < Ishtar" has more place in the article than your Original Research, because it can be attributed. -Ben (talk) 17:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Nate, I'm going to lay things out in a way I hope you can understand. Wikipedia is a written tertiary source. As such, the acceptable citations for it will be written primary or secondary sources. Your citations amount to "hearsay"--you claim to have heard some minor professor say it. You claim that his lectures can be purchased. That's all cute and special, but they are not acceptable citations. Cite the papers he has written that show the line of evidence to demonstrate the claim made. Then it will all be settled. It is a sign of the charlatan, the pseudo-scholar, or the deluded that they keep demanding people ignore the established rules of citation and evidence and just "see" what they claim to be "self-evident". Likewise, a professor's claims mean nothing if that professor doesn't believe them enough to lay them down for large-scale inspection in a published and accessible source. Dogface (talk) 20:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

And, for whatever it's worth, "Iesus" in medieval Latin was pronounced either "YAY-soos", "JAY-soos", or "ZHAY-soos", depending on the region, sometimes dropping the final s. Never, ever was it pronounced with the three-syllable "EE-uh-soos". Furthermore, according to your source, ter- is a prefix, not a suffix, and is not interchangable with suffixes. Triduum is the Latin word traditionally applied to the Easter three days. -Ben (talk) 12:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

does this mean that even if you believed every proof I give, you still wouldn't adhere to it simply because the revelation dawned on me first? I have an extensive philosophy on such policy, too extensive for this page, so I continued the discussion HERE. Here is my conclusion (and I hope this ends the matter):

The word has 2 syllables: "Eas" and "ter". "ter" is Latin for three fold. This should make sense because everything in Easter revolves around 3. Why did I choose Latin? because the word "Easter" started in England some time before 725 A.D. At which time, the Church language in England was Latin. Following suit, the syllable "Eas" must also come from Latin. The most common etymology of the word is to say it came from the ancient, pagan, sexual, Anglo-Saxon goddess Eostre. This has multiple issues: 1) the Church language at the time was Latin, not Anglo-Saxon (in fact, the other half of the word is Latin). 2) the vowel sound "Eos" is a very different pronunciation than "Eas" (Which by the way, comes from the Greek goddess Eos). 3) Why would the Christian Church name a Christian Holiday after a pagan goddess? it's not just unlikely, it's impossible. 4) The celebration of Eostre is completely different from the celebration of Easter.

Therefore, I propose the root Iesus. It's Latin, it means Jesus, the person we're celebrating on Easter, and the center of all Christian thought.

I am sorry for the whole Prof. Noble thing. I thought it was enough to say that he agreed with me, I didn't know I had to prove it. I suggested that you'd watch his lecture, NOT so that you could cite him, but just so that you would believe me.

I hope this closes the matter, either edit the article or don't, or give me positive feedback if you agree with me. But I sincerely hope that the back sliding criticism ends here. Nate5713 (talk) 14:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's my reference (again) on the pronunciation of Iesus Nate5713 (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

To answer your question "does this mean that even if you believed every proof I give, you still wouldn't adhere to it simply because the revelation dawned on me first", Yes. The reason for that is attribution. Let me compare Easter<Iesus-ter with Easter<Ishtar. Linguistically and historically, both theories are nonsense. As a Christian, I slightly prefer "Iesus-ter" as it's pious nonsense instead of pernicious nonsense like "Ishtar". However, the Ishtar derivation, while bogus, has 1) been advanced in print [see The Two Babylons article], 2) played an important role in both sectarian debate and in Christian discussions about whether or not to observe Easter, and 3) found its way into popular culture, and is something readers are likely to look up in Wikipedia. On the other hand, your "Iesus-ter" theory is something that only exists based on your own reasoning. If I found your reasoning persuasive, the next action to take would be to search through the literature (and indeed the web) for other people who have advanced the same theory, or one that was close. We'd then incorporate the theory into the article as an important alternative to the scholarly consensus (Eostre). That's how it normally works.

I should mention I regret my contribution the hostile tone you've received here. You're a new user, and have no idea how your theory and behavior looks to us. -Ben (talk) 12:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to address the "Iesus-ter" argument on the merits further, but first I'd like to pose a couple of questions to Nate5713:

1. How do you explain "Easter"'s cognate in German, "Ostern"? The two words clearly have the same root according to the comparative method (c.f. most obviously English "East"==German "Ost", but others as well). Ostern, however, is clearly not derived from "Iesus" in any way -- in fact the existence of the cognate indicates that the word (or its root) was in use in the proto-Germanic period, which was pre-Christian.

2. How do you explain glomming the "ter-" prefix (used in words like "tercentenary" or "tertiary") onto the end of Iesus? It's not a suffix, and is not used as a suffix anywhere else in Latin or Latin-derived English words.

The consensus derivation from Eostre explains #1 handily, and your theory should be able to provide a more convincing explanation for the cognate to persuade anyone. -Ben (talk) 12:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Ben, you're obviously a big linguistic expert, and I'm usually more of a math person. It would take me a bit to find a "cognate". However, I would like to see a reference on "Ostern", it is only mentioned in the article as being the modern German word for Easter. Thus, the Germans could have taken the English word "east" and translate it "Ost", turning "Easter" into "Oster", and later "Ostern". Nate5713 (talk) 13:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Nate5713, we've tried several times to explain this, but you don't seem to have gotten it. No one is saying that the Catholic Church named the festival of the resurrection after a pagan goddess. What we're saying is that Christianized Anglo-Saxons transfered the name of a spring month (named for one of their former pagan deities) to the Christian celebration. In ecclesiastical Latin, what we call Easter is called Pascha. You seem to be trying to misunderstand this point with your insistence that "the church" would never name its festival after a pagan goddess. "The church" didn't. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

When I say "Church", I mean the Church body. That is to say, no Christian is that stupid. You say that christianized Anglo-Saxons transferred the name to the Christian celebration, WHY? imagine if, when George W. Bush declared June 10, 2000 as Jesus-day, the "christianized British-Americans" transferred the name "prime" to the Christian celebration, simply because June is one of the months of Summer. (of coarse they didn't, but it would be just as crazy to name Easter after a Spring month) Doesn't it make more sense to name it after Christ, just as we did in 2000?. Nate5713 (talk) 22:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I looked over the whole article, and I found no reference that Easter is Pascha in Church Latin. Nate5713 (talk) 22:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that the article is unclear when it states: "The name refers to Eostur-monath, a month of the Germanic calendar named after the goddess Ēostre of Anglo-Saxon paganism." Why would the English do that when every other country uses more Biblical terms, like Passover. Also, the article cites Jacob Grimm, and I doubt that the man who wrote Grimm's fairy tales is very serious on the subject. Nate5713 (talk) 23:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Nate5713, I am no longer persuaded you are being serious. From your comments, it appears that you are deliberately trying to find ways to misconstrue statements others are making. I'm through corresponding with you. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 00:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Folks, how much more of this banter do we need to see on this talk page before it's made clear to everyone that Nat5713 (talk · contribs) is trolling? Better to not feed the troll. In fact, I vote that we delete this entire nonsensical thread. It's completely useless. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I really appreciate all (alright, most) your comments. I started out reading previous comments, confused why so much media promotes Easter as starting with some barbarian, pagan tradition. I thought little of it until, one day, I thought: Imagine that the Church commissioned me to come up with the name for the holiday, on which Christ rose from the dead. Alright, why not Jesus day? well, that would work, except that the Church would insist on using Latin. Okay, Iesus is Jesus, but what about day? I supposed (wrongly, but I corrected later) that sense festivals like Eostre have a "ter" on the end, then "ter" must have something to do with a holiday. Now we put them together: Iesus+ter, Iester, Eaister, Hey! it's Easter! Man, I was so excited, I immediately got on the discussions page and told everyone my new revelation. There was already a heated debate going on so, hilariously, the first comment was: "the above comment is clearly sarcasm". After straitening that out, we got into what already expected: Questions, concerns, suggestions, which I merrily explained, and to some I actually changed my basic idea. The most comforting comment (and some of you could learn from him or her) came from Kipala. But then the conversation diverged, challenging, not my idea, but my entire thought process! The worst came from :bloodofox:, whose comment, sense he seems obsessed with Norse mythology, I thought was a joke! So go ahead, don't comment, you're only saving me from being personally offended. I would leave this thread up, for those who might agree with me. Nate5713 (talk) 11:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing the discussion, I now think Nate5713 had been editing in good faith, not trolling as he's appeared -- he's offered references (although they do not support his conclusion), and is merely unaware of both Wikipedia's requirements for attribution and the basics of historical linguistics. I suspect that we may be able to convince him that A) his theory doesn't hold water, and B) even if it did, it doesn't belong in the article. I suggest we leave the thread up. -Ben (talk) 11:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

This is all I ask to be put in the article:

The festival of Easter is undeniably related to Jesus. In fact, the Latin word for Jesus is Iesus (Pronounced: Ee-isus) 2.

That's all I ask, nothing more. the first sentence is understood, of coarse Jesus is the center of Easter. In the rest of it, I innocuously mention an independent statement that happens to bare implications on the reader. And hear is something I would add later, but not as important:

Easter in England is first mentioned by the Venerable Bede in his book, The Reckoning of Time, in 725 A.D. Therefore, it must have started in England some time before that. At which time, the Churches in England spoke Latin in their Liturgy.

I once again looked over the entire policy, and never does it mention full attribution. Nate5713 (talk) 14:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Capitalization of Son of God

This is ridiculous. It is completely standard throughout the English-speaking world, even in secular publications, to capitalize "Son of God" when referring to the Christian belief about who Jesus is, regardless of whether the writer agrees with that belief or not. If a pedantic interpretation of Wikipedia's style manual requires "son of God" instead, even in an article about an important topic in Christianity, then it's Wikipedia's rule that's wrong. To insist on the lower-case "s" despite the standard usage and objections by Christians themselves comes across as an expression of contempt for Christian doctrine. As such it fails the NPOV test. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 01:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Happy Easter, everyone. Looks like I just dropped in on an edit war here. WP's style manual provides for the initial word of a phrase to be capitalised and the rest of it to be lower case. To give an example which caused much blood to flow, Commonwealth Realms or Commonwealth realms. Following the style manual, Son of God is correct. 217.169.37.146 (talk) 10:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Then by that reasoning the following sentence from Muse

"According to Hesiod's Theogony (seventh century BC), they were daughters of Zeus, the second generation king of the gods, and the offspring of Mnemosyne, goddess of memory."

Should read

"According to Hesiod's Theogony (seventh century BC), they were Daughters of Zeus, the second generation King of the gods, and the Offspring of Mnemosyne, Goddess of memory."

Yes, I agree it is ridiculous. In fact the whole paragraph reads as if it came from a sermon rather than an objective, POV neutral statement of the theological significance of this holiday. Gr8white (talk) 15:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

While I believe this paragraph could be improved, its whole purpose is to explain the Christian POV. The footnotes point to statements by early Christians about how they understand the significance of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The fact that the letters in which these statements appear have been collected into a book called the Bible does not change the fact that we have a summary of Christian belief with references.

Oddly, footnote six appears twice. The second time it is attached to the statement that "the resurrection established Jesus as the powerful Son of God". Footnote six points to 1 Corinthians 15:12-20, but there I find no mention of the phrase "Son of God".

Chappell (talk)

The MOS says that the first letter of a phrase should be capitalized when it's the beginning of a sentence or title. The context in which "son of God" is used is not one of those cases, so by that logic the lowercase spelling is correct. (Of course, there are other reasons why one would want to capitalize the "S"; I'm just saying that the MOS isn't one of them.) --160.94.88.15 (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That's the last I have to say about this and I've unwatched the page. Gr8white (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, just one more comment. I want to point out the MOS section cited above is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand, as it deals only with whether an entire phrase or just the first word should be capitalized, given an initial assumption that the phrase itself should be. It doesn't address this question at all.

The only argument I've heard in favor of capitalization is that from a Christian believer's standpoint it should be. But WP guidelines make it abundantly clear that articles aren't written from a believer's standpoint, but a neutral POV. A believer in Greek mythology might think "Daughter of Zeus" should be capitalized, but it isn't because that would be POV. Just because the article is on a Christian topic doesn't mean it should be written from a believer's POV. Gr8white (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Neither should an article about a Christian (or other religious) topic be written from an anti-belief POV, which the unconventional "son of God" would represent. The difference is that "Son of God" in reference to Jesus functions not only an identifying description but also as a proper name, whereas the phrases in the above quotation ("daughters of Zeus" etc) do not. I agree that the paragraph in which the phrase appears has other issues as well. The current explanation of the theological significance of Easter for Christians is not a formulation all Christians would agree on Ruckabumpkus (talk) 23:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The proper name argument is valid, and I think it should be capitalized as being a title. In fact, "Son of God" is probably less POV than "son of God" would be. But for a gross comparison, consider David Berkowitz, which has several references within to his "imaginary friend" or whatever, called "Son of Sam", with "Son" capitalized even when it's in the middle of a sentence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been debating internally whether to chip in here or not. In my best fence sitting mode: both are right and both are wrong. In the particular context in which the phrase is used in this article there is a relationship being expressed ("son of God") rather than Jesus' title ("Son of God"). But, were the paragraph to be re-worded a little, then it would be the other way round. However, I think the paragraph (and possibly the section) needs a complete re-write, the result of which may well be that the issue of capitalisation becomes moot. I'll try and find time to have a proper go at it over the next few days. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Ruckabumpkus, I don't think those who write "son of God" instead of "Son of God" mean anything by it. Capitalization rules for English have changed significantly since the current edition of the KJV came out in the middle of the 18th century. In the 18th century writers capitalized far more words in a sentence than we do today.

Those who write "son of God" are probably just following the advice of modern style guides for referring to government officials, which Christ Jesus as king of God's kingdom (or King of God's Kingdom) is. For example, style guides tell us to write "He is the president of the United States." but "President Kennedy said...". If we were to follow these style guides, we might write "I believe that Christ Jesus is the son of God."

Though I am a Christian, I do not consider this to be disrespectful.

Chappell (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I am Catholic. If the article intends to discuss the RELATIONSHIP between Jesus and God, then 'son of God' would be correct. If the article intends to reference 'Son of God' as one of his many honorifics (like 'Prince of Peace', etc) then 'Son of God' would be correct. It depends on the context. Please rewrite the 'offending' portion to make the usage clear and unambiguous, and lay this to rest. Tinfoil666 (talk) 14:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

If Son of God is a name or title, then it's capitalized. If son of God is a description, then it is not capitalized. If it's a description, though, then using the phrase "son of God" would be POV since most people do not believe Jesus to be the son of God and using that phrase without qualification would make it sound like Wikipedia was endorsing Christianity. Personally, I suspect that Son of God is a name or title and so capitalizing it is OK. Rklawton (talk) 15:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

As Chappell alluded to, the citation for the statement that the resurrection established Jesus as the powerful Son of God was incorrect. I fixed it. Regarding the capitalization question, while not definitive, one helpful point of reference is to look at existing practice of reputable publishers. Taking a quick look at the translations I have loaded on my installation of e-Sword (ESV, HCSB, KJV, and YLT), all of them capitalize "Son", even though ESV and KJV do not capitalize personal pronouns with divine antecedents. --Ed Brey (talk) 05:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we should use sources other than Bible publishers - as Bible publishers would represent the Christian point of view, and it's our intent to make this article more neutral. Though I suspect we'll end up with the same result, it would be best to do it with a more neutral source. Rklawton (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Easter and Passover

The lede of this article says that "Easter is linked to the Jewish Passover by much of its symbolism, as well as by its position in the calendar." However, the article doesn't seem to explain this connection very well, and many of the editors of Passover seem to be implying that Easter doesn't have a special connection with Passover. See Talk:Passover#What precisely is that spiel about Easter in aid of?. If Easter is really as strongly connected to Passover as the lede seems to imply, the article should explain this better and IMO, there should be a section in Passover#Influence about this very notable Christian holiday. If not, the lede should be changed. What are your thoughts? --AFriedman (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

For starters, the Last Supper was the Passover feast. Both Passover and Easter are determined by a formula having to do with the first full moon after the vernal equinox (though not the identical formula). Notice that we are in the midst of Passover week right now, although they do not always coincide. See the various links within Paschal for further info. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The relationship of Easter (the Christian celebration, not the pagan one) to Passover is complex. First, the events Easter celebrates happened in the context of a Passover, and so the church's method of computing the date for Easter is derived from, but not the same as, the Jewish date for Passover. Christians regard the events of Good Friday through Easter as superceding the events celebrated on Passover, calling it a "new Exodus." Jesus is referred to as the "Lamb of God," meaning that the sacrifice of his life replaces the Passover lamb and other animal sacrifices prescribed in the Hebrew Bible. And in most languages, the name for the celebration is derived from Hebrew via Greek (as the article explains). On the other hand, there is very little in the way Christians celebrate Easter that bears any outward resemblance to Passover. For instance, there is no seder, and unlevened bread has no significance. Unlike Passover, the celebration of Easter is not seen as commanded by God but as a human invention, which can be changed and adapted over time. No special foods or rituals are prescribed, but customs vary from place to place. (E.g., where I'm from, it's common to have ham for Easter dinner, in celebration of the fact that Christians are not bound by any religious dietary rules.) Ruckabumpkus (talk) 22:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Jesus took the matzo and wine from the Seder, metaphorically (or so He thought) referring to them as His body and blood, and asked His disciples, "Do this in remembrance of me." As you say, implying a replacement of Pesach with Resurrection Day. The Church(es) took some steps to make their formula(s) not necessarily coincide with the Pesach week, in part to distance themselves from Judaism, and in part to ensure that the celebration of the Resurrection always occurs on a Sunday. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

And obviously, eggs and rabbits have nothing to do with the Resurrection directly, although as symbols of renewal of life, they loosely connect with both the Resurrection and with the pagan "rites of spring". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

And Christians disagree about what Jesus meant when he said the bread is his body and the wine is his blood, but that's part of a whole nother discussion. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 22:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Perhaps the information in this discussion could be added and clarified in the article. For example, as of now the easter ham is mentioned briefly but its significance is not. Baseball and Ruckabumpkus, do you have sources for the information you just gave? --AFriedman (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to find "sources" for some of these things, since they're common knowledge among my Christian friends where I live. Some of it you can find in the New Testament (e.g., Jesus as the "Lamb of God" is in John 1, etc.; and the fact that Christians are neither commanded nor forbidden to observe any particular festivals is in Romans 14). I wouldn't know where to look for documentation about things like the "Easter ham," which is a relatively minor thing anyway. Maybe it originated as celebration of freedom from dietary laws, or maybe people who liked having ham for a family banquet attached that meaning to it, or maybe it's a holdover from some pagan observance that involved sacrificing a boar that got reinterpreted when Christianity took hold-- there may be no way to tell. Some Christians I've known who come from other parts of the world think our Easter ham is weird and insist on roast lamb, because Jesus is the Lamb of God. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 20:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Nordic countries

The following sentence is incorrect considering Finland, where there is no traditional meal for Holy Saturday: "For lunch/dinner on Holy Saturday, families traditionally feast on a smörgåsbord of herring, salmon, potatoes, eggs and other kinds of food."

The following sentence is inaccurate in that pasha is also eaten by the Lutheran majority in Finland. Pasha and mämmi are both generally available in grocery stores near Easter. "In Finland, the Lutheran majority enjoys mämmi as another traditional Easter treat, while the Orthodox minority's traditions include eating pasha (also spelled paskha) instead." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.201.190 (talk) 09:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Whoever wrote this about Finland is right. There is no traditional dinner for Holy Saturday. Finland is not Scandinavia - I wish Americans would learn this and start to recognize the individuality of our country. Life in Finland and life in the other three Scandinavian countries is extremely dissimilar - why everyone seems to bunch us together I will never understand. We have a different culture to the other three Scandinavians, different habits, different morality issues, a very different psychology, and an extremely different language. Oh, and we do not eat smörgåsbord. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.243.234.19 (talk) 07:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Scandinavia is the Roman name for the geographic area where Norway, Sweden and Finland is situated today. Denmark is not part of Scandinavia, however Norway, Sweden and Denmark are Nordic (speaking) countries, Finland is not. Why is this so difficult to remember? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avlokiteshvara (talk • contribs) 00:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The Finish don't like to be associated with Scandinavia regardless of the etymology. It's because they'd been p0wned by Sweden for so long; they hate that. Rklawton (talk) 01:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

A discussion on the word Scandinavia is out of place here. Unsure readers should consult Scandinavia. However, the article explicitly claims a traditional smörgåsbord dinner in Finland, which is incorrect, as smörgåsbord is not a tradition in Finland, not even on Holy Saturday. No sources for this false claim are mentioned either. 88.114.201.190 (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion for how to reword that paragraph? Ruckabumpkus (talk) 12:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of comments

A post by me to this talk page was deleted by Amatulic on March 31 2010. I was objecting to the Christian POV of this article which has to do with ARTICLE CONTENT. Perhaps this editor felt my comments were uncivil, but this is not grounds to delete talk page posts. WP:TPO states that removing harmful posts "generally does not extend to messages that are merely incivil." My comments are not directed at any individual editor and are therefore not a personal attack (WP:RPA). WP editors should have the right to criticize the POV of an article on the talk page without fear of being censored. Consider: If I wrote this article was dominated by "heathens," would that be deleted? Or is this another example of Christian censorship. 94.222.211.17 (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Calm yourself, first, then state what you want changed. NJMauthor (talk) 21:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I stand by my deletion of the comments, as discussed on my talk page, per WP:REFACTOR, and per WP:SOAP. I am also changing the heading of this section (re-added in violation of WP:POINT) to something less inflammatory and more germaine to this section. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Who says Easter is pagan?

Who says Easter is pagan. Easter simply comes from East which is German Ost. So are ALL words relating to East or Ost evil? That is not correct, because, I am sure there are 100's of words related to East, some good some bad. If I took the name ALLAH and made the same etymological fallacy, then all people called ALLan are evil, and all words like ALarm are Islamic and people need to repent of ALLigator worship and ALien demon worship when they use the word ALmighty.. Or Jesus SOUNDS like Zeus so they are connected somehow... it is a joke how these conncectiona are made..

Might sound stupid, but that is really the crux of the whole so called Pagan Easter association. Look at just one example, German Oster (which means Easter) is contained in simple words like the German name of Austria, Österreich, which derives from the Old High German word Ostarrîchi "eastern realm", and refers to Austria's position relative to other German-speaking lands. Oster in this word is simply EASTERN - i.e. Eastern Kingdom. No pagan goddess there, nor in the 100's of other words, names, places, people, names after East - including Easter. I mean 1000's of names are called so after North, East, South and west. Why throw out 2000 years of Christian practice, because of a false English. German etymology.

C. F. Cruse in 1850 AD pointed out that "Our word EASTER is of Saxon origin and of precisely the same import with its German cognate ostern. The latter is derived from the old Teutonic form of auferstehen / auferstehung, that is - resurrection."

Also "O.E. east, from P.Gmc. *aus-to-, *austra- "east, toward the sunrise" (cf. Du. oost, Ger. Ost, O.N. austr "from the east"), from PIE *aus- "dawn" (cf. Skt. ushas "dawn," Gk. aurion "morning," O.Ir. usah, Lith. auszra "dawn," L. aurora "dawn," auster "south"), lit. "to shine." The east is the direction in which dawn breaks." (Online Etymological Dictionary)

Here are some other links concerning this topic...

http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/easter_or_passove.htm
http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/easter.asp
http://brandplucked.webs.com/easterreplenish.htm
http://www.easterau.com/
http://sites.google.com/site/kjvtoday/home/translation-issues/easter-or-passover-in-acts-124
http://www.bible.net.au/flowplayer/example/index.html

It would seem that people like Bloodofox doesn't want to let the truth get in the way of a good story. 124.184.99.144 (talk) 21:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

"So are ALL words relating to East or Ost evil?" Since when does anything Pagan automatically mean "evil"? 98.223.48.241 (talk) 03:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The Resurrection Day part of Easter is Christian. The "rites of spring" parts (rabbits, eggs, etc.) are pagan. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

A blathering, anonymous rant about "evil" that references a bunch of confused Christian websites is hardly worth responding to. It should be obvious enough that you're wrong. Yet since you've called me out by name, I'll point you (well, more importantly, those that are reading this) to a few basic scholarly mainstream sources on the matter:

• Barnhart, Robert K. (1995). The Barnhart Concise Dictionary of Etymology. HarperCollins.
• Orchard, Andy (1997). Dictionary of Norse Myth and Legend. Cassell.
• Simek, Rudolf (2007) translated by Angela Hall. Dictionary of Northern Mythology. D.S. Brewer.

None of this is news, which a glance at Jacob Grimm's mid-19th century writing on the matter will attest (take a peek at the references provided on our Ēostre article). Enjoy! :bloodofox: (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Look, either Ostern comes from 'east' or it comes from auferstehen, but it can't be both. Believe it or not, people have been doing historical linguistics since some wishful-thinker in 1850 started making up things like auferstehen->Ostern from whole cloth. (In fact, historical linguists including the Grimms were doing more rigorous work even in the time of C. F. Cruse, whoever that might have been.) -Ben (talk) 01:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me add that we've discussed the quality of the easterau.com website before, and no editor on any side of the issue recommends using it as a source for the article. -Ben (talk) 01:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the word Easter is etymologically related to east, which is the direction of the rising sun, which is why it's easy to connect it with the concept of resurrection. It's also true that Easter and east are probably both related to the name of a pagan deity Eostre, who may have been regarded as the goddess of dawn, or of spring, and that some of the ways she was celebrated have been incorporated into Christian observances after being reinterpreted. It is, however, completely illogical for detractors of Christianity to adduce these facts as evidence against the validity of Christian practice. The same facts could equally well be adduced as evidence that even pre-Christian pagans had a sense that "rising" and "new life" were worth celebrating, lending more credence to the Christian message. Both are weak arguments. Christians have no need to get defensive about the "pagan origins" of many Christian traditions. They've been given a Christian meaning, so when Christians do them, they're Christian traditions, not pagan ones. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 02:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Likewise with Christmas, which originally celebrated the Winter Solstice, and which Emperor Constantine (the savior of Christianity, in some sense) associated with Jesus because he connected God with the sun. Having pagan origins doesn't make a holiday itself "pagan". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Easter, correctly Ēostre, or more exactly Ēostrevon, is the Pagan celebration of fertility, reproduction, and life. Eæstur-Mónaþ is the Nordic/Slavic celebration of the same, though lasting a full 28 days. The holiday that came before the Christian holiday, was/is/will forever be called Easter in Roman English by the hundreds of millions of pagan practitioners. They deserve their rightful, longer existing, far earlier existing, holiday to take up AT THE VERY LEAST an EQUAL part of this article, if not a larger back-story. Easter has existed in one way or another since 1000 years before anyone with the name Christ came along, and will be around as a celebration of life long after christianity is just another mythological footnote in history.
Can someone with a fuller understanding please send me a message so I can work up a more neutral layout for this article in a sandbox, and posibly something going on this.
As an aside note regarding all the above and archives related to this issue. I an not judaic/christian/islomic nor am I pagan. My intentions are free of bias from either side. Lostinlodos (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Easter is Easter, Ēostre is Ēostre, and we already have an article on Ēostre, and it's linked in the lead. We could add a bunch of Ēostre stuff to this article, but then in fairness, we should add a bunch of Easter stuff in the Ēostre article. Or we can just be satisfied that the two articles link to each other so readers ca get both pagan and Christian details as they deem appropriate. Rklawton (talk) 02:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt that "hundreds of millions of pagan practitioners" of the sort that celebrate Ēostre (per se as a pagan holiday, not a secular thing) even exist. Millions, perhaps, but not hundreds of millions, unless you can cite statistics from a reliable source. In any case, I think it's a safe bet that there are more practicing Christians than practicing pagans in the English-speaking world. And it's more than a bit speculative to say that paganism will outlast Christianity. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 04:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I believe that a merger of the half-dozen unlinked, loosely relate stubs into Ēostre, and the Holiday spun off from the goddess and merged into Easter would be most Ideal. All the various mythologies have their own link to the fertility/life/rebirth ceremony. It's a bit silly, in mnsho, to have all these various holidays taking up three sentence articles when they all refer to the same thing. At the same time, the largest single faith celebrating an 'Easter' is Christianity. However, without specific statistics to back any claim I'd take the hazardous guess that the total non-christian population celebrating some loosely related similarly timed holiday at the beginning of spring are nearly equal when generalized context is removed. Thereby, I'd support a full and complete merger of ALL spring life-rebirth-fertility-rejuvenation be merged into this article. As it stands now, I have to agree with the neutrality tag at the top of the page.
As far as the HoM statement, it wasn't a direct pull to the term Ēostre, it was a figure for the various holidays that fall into the same theme and time. Lostinlodos (talk) 15:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that this article concerns the Christian holiday (though renaming the article to be more specific might not hurt). Since the Christian holiday primarily concerns Jesus and not Ēostre, I think merging Ēostre-related articles into this article wouldn't be appropriate. Rklawton (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it would be completely inappropriate to merge all of those topics together. If anything, as I've said elsewhere, we need to divide them up, so the article about the worldwide Christian celebration (which goes by names related to Ēostre only in English and German, and in most parts of the world has no connection with germanic paganism) and the pagan and secular observances can be treated separately. BTW, the disambiguation page says this article is about the "Christian" celebration. A separate article for the pagan spring festival would allow the disambiguation page to be less ambiguous. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 16:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion on "Origins and Etymology"

There is a lot of controversy on the talk page, and it seems to relate to various original-research-type issues that center around the "Origins and Etymology" section. Here are two suggestions: First, move that section to the end. It is really the least important section in the article, and putting it up front probably discourages people from reading the entire article -- thus detracting from the whole. (It is also too long for an etymology section, but that's another issue entirely.) Second, change the name of the section to "Etymology and Names in Other Languages" because the section does not discuss the origins of Easter but instead discusses the origins of the word "Easter" and a few other words for the holiday in other languages. Indeed, though there may not be any takers, I would also suggest editing this "Origins and Etymology" section down to a paragraph, mentioning that most languages use a term ultimately derived from the Hebrew Pskh but that English uses a term that was apparently originally applied to a non-Christian Anglo-Saxon holiday that apparently occurred at approximately the same time. The other information could be moved to a separate article entitled something like "Name for Easter in Different Languages." Bob99 (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I oppose this suggestion. As just per norm, the etymology section needs to be front and center. Etymology provides not only history but crucial terminology for approaching the rest of the article.

Secondly, you seem to be confused. Easter in English does not derive from the name of a holiday, but the name of an Anglo-Saxon goddess. More specifically, it derives from the name of a month from the native Anglo-Saxon calendar, Eosturmonath ("Eostre month"), which refers to the goddess. Clearly, for some reason the name was not Christianized as elsewhere outside of Germany (including the rest of Germanic Europe), and it's not known why this is. Grimm, for example, theorized that it was because the native peoples refused to allow for a name change during the Christianization process (which is not unique - to this day we retain the very pagan Anglo-Saxon holiday name Yule and we continue to do very pagan things like erect maypoles and give people names like Alfred and Ingrid).

As discussed above, our "Easter" article not only neglects the very heavy secular element of Easter (where Easter is a spring celebration; hares, eggs, and so forth), but also the various theories handling the survival of elements from the original Germanic pagan festivities. Unfortunately, there's no recent scholarly work dedicated to thoroughly handling this as far as I am aware (but as I list above, there are a handful of scholarly entries in various handbooks on Germanic paganism that do cover it).

So, if anything, this article needs more of the reality of what the holiday is here in the modern Anglosphere, not less. To top it off, the lead of the article is supposed to be a summary of its contents (WP:LEAD). :bloodofox: (talk) 02:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You are correct that Bede states that the Anglo-Saxon month name "Eastur-monath" was named for their goddess Eostre ("quondam a dea illorum quae Eostre vocabatur"). I take it that there was an event dedicated to "Eostre" in the month.

It is not possible to speak knowledgeably about what pre-Christian Anglo-Saxons meant by "Eostur" because there are no sources. There is only the month name and speculations based on comparative linguistics. While this may be interesting stuff, it cannot rise beyond the level of original research, because there is no original source material on Germanic religious beliefs of this era. Grimm, for example, is a source for 19th Century German folklore, not the pre-Christian Germanic religious beliefs of Late Antiquity. Even the well-known Icelandic mythology sources are centuries later than the pre-Christian Anglo-Saxon period. Plus, they represent a different culture and may have been composed primarily for entertainment rather than to preserve a religious tradition.

I really don't think there are very many useful original sources for pre-Christian European folk religion dating later than the Romans. The Roman sources, however, have depth. And if one's interest is in gaining insights into prehistory of these things, the Roman sources have the added advantage of the inherent conservatism of the Roman mind.

Furthermore, there is nothing inherently Christian or pagan about symbols such as hares and eggs. Eggs, in particular, are pervasive symbols in Near Eastern spring holidays, including both the table set for the Passover seder and (frequently) the haft shin tables set by Iranians at Nowruz. Eggs symbolize Spring (indeed, some Native American languages call the Spring lunar month by a name that translates as "Egg month"), and there is no objective reason to view an egg as having particular religious significance. The Spring is a time when many bird lay their eggs, so eggs symbolize Spring.

Bob99 (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

First of all, you need to familiarize yourself with Jacob Grimm. Stating that Grimm was simply "a source for 19th century folklore" is absolutely wrong. As an example, Scholar Thomas Shipper recently (2005, The Shadow Walkers, page 6) argued that, essentially, Jacob Grimm was to the humanities as Darwin was to life Sciences. Scholar Rudolf Simek comments (2007, Dictionary of Northern Mythology) that "Grimm is not only the founder of German philology and antiquities but also of scholarly research into Germanic mythology so that a history of scholarship can be divided quite clearly into a 'pre-J. Grimm' and 'post-J. Grimm' era". If nothing else, it should be evident that you should try digging a little deeper than the Grimms' Kinder und Hausmärchen. In the realm of Germanic philology, Grimm's theories and evidence are widely cited and commented on to this day (as Shippey's work makes quite clear).

Secondly, you are incorrect regarding sources. Many of those Icelandic sources that you dismiss (or are simply unfamiliar with?) preserve material directly from pagan Norway (from as early as the 9th century), such as Ynglingatal and numerous skaldic poems. We also have, for example, the extremely important Merseburg Incantations from continental Europe. Then there are hundreds of runic inscriptions, toponyms, archaeological finds (sometimes even directly backing 13th century Snorri, such as the recent raven-flanked throne found recently—Odin_from_Lejre), and so on.

Third, Bede is not exactly a dubious source. As I point out above, he is also our sole source for Mōdraniht (which is backed by tons of continental evidence), and then there's also Hretha and Hredmonath.

Lastly and perhaps most glaringly, I have to wonder about your comment where you dismiss historical linguistics as mere "speculation"... uh, what's that about? :bloodofox: (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Grimm did not live during Late Antiquity and had no access to records as to beliefs of Late Antiquity, other than the records (or a subset of them) which are available to us today. Grimm was a linguistr and folklorist. You are making him out to be something else. The points you are making as you invoke Grimm are consistent with my statement above: "There is only the month name [Eostur-monath] and speculations based on comparative linguistics." One difference between Darwin and Grimm is that there are increasingly vast amounts of data corroborating Darwin's theory of evolution. Even if Grimm stood for the points that you attribute to him, irrespective of Grimm's influence on views of Germanic mythology, there is a difference between mythology and religion.

There are very few sources about pre-Christian Germanic religion. That is the point here. Religion is not the same a mythology. To find out about Greek religion, for example, read Walter Burkert; to find out about Greek mythology, read Padraic Column. There is no source for Germanic religion comparable to Burkert on Greek religion, because there is not enough information to serve as the basis for such a source.

Mythology is not religion, even though it may be have a connection to religion for example, by explaining ritual or some other aspect of religion. Mythology, taken alone and in the context of 20th-21st Century rationalism, does not reveal the religious practices or beliefs of the audience for whom the mythology was composed.

Here is an example of how much can be known about an ancient myth, even though it reveals very little to us about mythology. Dumezil and others have observed extremely interesting connections, in terms of both comparative linguistics and comparative mythology, between the Norse Ymir myth and an Indo-Iranian myth characterized by the Persian legend of Jamshid and myths of the Sanskrit deity Yama (as well as Sanskrit tales of King Yayate). The various names appear to derive from a proto-Indo-European word for "twin" which we also see in the name of the contellation Gemini. Nothing suggests, however, how the underlying myth of Yama/Twin related to a putative proto-Indo-European religion. Roman religion is rife the motif of twinning, particularly in religious contexts relating to representations of human collectives (cf. Yama as archetypal king). Thus, the lares (often represented as twins) are patron deities of the household, while another set of lares are patron deities of the vicus (neighborhood, from a proto-Indo-European word apparently referring to a closed corporate community), while the lares augusti are patron deities of the state in the religious reforms of Emperor Augustus. Similarly, Romulus and Remus are represented as twins, and the legend of Romulus killing Remus relates to Remus's violation of the boundary of the city of Rome -- something which seems like it may reflect a function similar to that of lares as protectors of the Roman vicus. There is reasonable linguistic suspicion that the Ymir/Yama name may be reflected in the Roman names Romulus, Remus, and Janus. In view of all of this (and more), we can hypothesize that twinning was extremely important in one area of Roman religious ideology. We not expect to be able to determine exactly what the twinning motif meant to the Romans, because there are no original sources providing that information and there are no ancient Romans to interview. However, there is very little mythology concerning the lares, even though they appear to represent a very important part of Roman religion. Thus, mythology does not necessarily tell us about religion. Indeed, it is possible that those aspects of religion which are viewed as the most sacred are the least likely to be reflected in mythology. (Remember what a flop "Son of God" comics were in the 1970s?)

Nothing the foreging, even when the source material is abundant, we typically cannot expect to move beyond extremely interesting suggestions of meaning. When the sources are limited to (i) Bede's account of Anglo-Saxon month names and (ii) comparative linguistics, as with "Eostur," we know next to nothing and do not have a reasonable methodology for advancing beyond that point.

I disagree that the Icelandic mythological sources are necessarily religious rather than poetic. I would view Adam of Bremen's account of the pagan ceremonies at the Temple of Uppsala as the kind of source that is typically lacking with regard to pre-Christian Germanic religion. As discussed above, myths may or may not illustrate aspects of religion. Similarly, the most sacred aspect of religion may be avoided by myth poets out of respect for the subject matter. Some myths may simply be entertaining stories similar to superhero movies, while others may be borrowed from a foreign culture (as the Romans borrowed Greek myths) and thus have little or no relationship to ghe religion of the intended audience. Without context, it is impossible to know what aspect of religion, if any, a myth relates to.

I agree that Bede is a good source; however, Bede is limited to providing the names of months in Anglo-Saxon. That's not very much information.

Historical linguistics is good information about linguistics, but it is not information about religion. Just as a one-to-one correspondence cannot be established between linguistics and archeology, it is also the case that a one-to-one correspondence cannot be established between linguistics and religion. Bob99 (talk) 18:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, I suggest getting more familiar with Grimm. He remains the single most important figure in Germanic philology, as my references above may quite clear.

Your Georges Dumézil cite is a poor example; we have much better examples of reconstructed Proto-Indo-European deities than the vagueness you've posted here. In fact, the "twin" element you're talking about is well attested and hardly as murky as you make it out to be (two of them are mentioned by Bede—Hengist and Horsa—but he has royally Euhemerized them per monastery policy, which he didn't do with Eostre...). I should also note that Ymir (Snorri, 1200 AD) and Tuisto (Tacitus, 1 AD) are considered directly connected (if not the same figure) in both modern and old scholarship. Here we have another example of a likely confirmation of Snorri (who based his work on that of the skalds before him) with a (Roman!) source a thousand years earlier.

I never made a nonsensical comment like "the Icelandic mythological sources are necessarily religious rather than poetic", because I would not agree or disagree. Obviously, the skalds were a product of pagan Germanic society and maintained concepts and religions practices (I can even think of surviving directions for pagan worship from skaldic poetry, and that is what just made it through the post-Christianization filter...), contributed to their development and acknowledgment, and continued to do so far into Christianization. After all, they depended on these references for their extremely intricate art. However, this discussion is getting quite off topic—exactly what is your point with that your myth versus religion comments? Let's keep it on topic. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Returning to the original point, my original comment was that the article would be improved by moving the "Origins and Etymology" section to the end, editing it down, and changing the name of the section to "Etymology and Names in Other Languages." I also proposed moving the original material to a new article. To this, I will add deleting the "Ostara" illustration, since the above discussion shows that one thing we agree upon is that it does not have anything to do with the holiday presently known as Easter. Bob99 (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it has everything to do with Easter because Eostre is where the name derives from. I oppose the image removal. It well illustrates the etymology section handling the issue. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I would like to comment on the "German" side of Bloodofox argument. Grimm just assumed "Ostara" - no German linguistic or historic scientist accepts her factuality any more. There is simply nothing to show for the alleged Ostara or Germanic pre-Christian tradition of Easter. This is scholarly standard since the first half of the 20th century - in spite of massive national-socialist propaganda for "old-germanic" rites which have, however, left quite some impact on wider popular opinion to this day. Entry should be corrected as Grimms assumption has just too much space. --Kipala (talk) 19:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You are completely wrong. As you have clearly yet to go to the most basic modern scholarly source on the matter (on the "German side"), I will (yet again) suggest that you do exactly that:

• Simek, Rudolf (2007) translated by Angela Hall. Dictionary of Northern Mythology. D.S. Brewer.

See my above posts for further references. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there in fact any first-hand documentary evidence about what pre-Christian pagans believed about Eostre or Ostara? As I understand it, by the time Bede wrote, Britain had already been largely Christianized, and the former pagan beliefs had ceased being living traditions. Over a thousand years after Bede, Grimm, lacking documentary evidence and using only linguistic clues, inferred "Ostara" as the name of a pagan goddess. Even if both Bede and Grimm are correct, there is zero credible evidence that those pagan beliefs were maintained with any continuity through the middle ages into the modern era. Any other conclusion from the facts would seem to be neo-pagan revisionism. The connection of the Christian celebration of Easter and the pagan goddess Eostre is etymological only. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 22:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Folks, if you're both so certain, I have no doubt that you can avoid Original Research by attributing your claims about the abundance/paucity of sources for Ostara to published works. :bloodofox:, perhaps you could set an example by quoting a couple of paragraphs from Simek? -Ben (talk) 03:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Here (brackets are mine):

Ēostre (or perhaps *Ēastre; Anglo-Saxon). A goddess mentioned by Bede, from whom the Ēostur-monath (= April) takes its name according to Bede (De temporibus ratione 15). Grimm concluded from this reference and also from the name of the OHG [Old High German] Easter festival Ôstarûn (pl. of *Ôstara) a West Germanic goddess of sunrise and of spring-time, Proto-Germanic *Austrō, OHG *Ôstara (cf. Latin Aurora). Despite repeatedly expressing doubt one should not disregard Bede's information totally. However, a spring-like fertility goddess will have to be assumed instead of a goddess of sunrise, despite the name, seeing that otherwise the Germanic goddesses (and matrons) are mostly connected with prosperity and growth. Cf. Hreda.

Simek follows this entry with a series of references. Note that he points out that Grimm had comparative evidence in the Old High German festival (!) of Ôstarûn. Grimm, obviously, didn't just pull this out of his hat. Any modern scholarly work on the subject will yield similar results, though for some unapparent reason Simek doesn't go into the further evidence supplied by the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European *Hausos, and he is not correct when he says that goddesses in Germanic paganism are "mostly connected with prosperity and growth"—Freyja, Hel (note that modern English Hell derives from an underworld in Germanic paganism and was applied to the Christian underworld—similar to what seems to have happened with Easter), the dísir, and the valkyries are all examples of deities with evident traits contrary to this "mostly connected with prosperity and growth" line. The situation isn't as simple as that. :bloodofox: (talk) 13:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, :bloodofox: -- that's exactly what I was hoping for. Ruckabumpkus, do you have a source we could cite expanding on the paucity of evidence for Eostre? -Ben (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. Do I have any evidence that there's a paucity of evidence? How does one prove a negative? In fact, the source :bloodofox: cites makes the very case. Grimm inferred the name Ostara but did not point to any documentary evidence for it. He certainly didn't know of any practitioners of Ostarism he could interview on the subject. I don't doubt that germanic pagans worshiped a goddess by that name, as Grimm argued, but whatever beliefs they had about her are lost to history. The quotation from Bede in the article about Ēostre makes it clear, too, that Bede had no first-hand information from any actual Ēostre worshipers but stated that only the name of the old festival was transferred to the Christian paschal feast. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 14:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

No—as Simek makes quite clear, Grimm cites comparative evidence; Old High German Ôstarûn. This, and the names of some folk customs that refer to this event, are his basis for *Ostara. Grimm also goes into some detail about the folk customs surrounding the event (including Easter eggs). By the time Bede was writing, oral tradition and customs deriving from Germanic paganism were definitely alive in England despite the declared status of "Christian". Norse invasions would re-introduce a later form of Germanic paganism (Norse paganism) to parts of England before Christianization would again occur (though numerous elements would remain in every day life until even today). :bloodofox: (talk) 15:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The point of quoting someone else discussing the paucity of sources is that then we can quote them both in the article, and move this from an argument between a couple of commenters on a talk page to something that can be dealt with (or at least evaluated) based on NPOV. -Ben (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a scholar of germanic paganism. However, the burden of proof is not on me here. Those who are arguing that "pagan origins" deserve extensive coverage in the article about Easter have not made the case, based on the evidence they've cited. (Grimm cites no historical document that mentions "Ostara".) The point I'm making is this: there is a world-wide Christian celebration of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and Wikipedia should have an article about it. A NPOV treatment of the topic would mention that it is celebrated in different ways by different groups. In English, it's called Easter, and how it came to be named that is interesting and relevant. The fact that some of the ways English speaking Christians celebrate it may have evolved from pagan customs deserves mention, but the same could probably be said about the unique ways people in other cultures celebrate it as well. And the fact that non-religious folks celebrate many of the trappings of Easter without reference to the Resurrection is worthy of a section, perhaps. BUT, if this is an article about the Christian festival, those things are secondary. Extensive treatment of "pagan origins" and secular customs belongs in a separate article. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I would like to point out that perfectly mainstream modern works in Indo-European studies often cite *Hausos>Eostre as well accepted, not as a theory. Any of this nonsense claiming that "Eostre as a goddess is no longer treated as a valid theory" needs to be thoroughly obliterated wherever it may be seen, including the current German Eostre article. A few examples:

• Adams, Douglas Q. Mallory, J. P. (2006). The Oxford introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European world. Oxford University Press. ([3])
• Adams, Douglas Q. Mallory, J. P. (1997). Encyclopedia of Indo-European culture. Routledge. ([4])
• Mallory, J. P. (1991). In Search of the Indo-Europeans. Thames and Hudson.

Contributing to the spread of misinformation is the worst thing we can do here. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Which is completely beside the point. I'm not disputing that Ostara or Eostre was the name of a pagan goddess. Ostara/Eostre (the goddess) does indeed figure in the etymology of Easter (the Christian festival) but is otherwise a mere footnote in its history and largely irrelevant to a discussion of what Easter is. People who celebrate Easter, by and large, are not celebrating a pagan festival. Yes, there are traditional parts of the Easter celebration that can be traced to pagan practices or beliefs (e.g., the bunnies and colored eggs), but people do not generally attach any pagan meaning to them. They are either given a Christian interpretation, or merely regarded as fun things people do in connection with the holiday for no particular reason. The fact that Grimm had no documentary evidence for Ostara as the name of the goddess of spring (or maybe dawn) demonstrates that she had passed out of living tradition by the time the germanic people became literate (neo-pagan assertions that paganism had some kind of continuous secret following through the middle-ages notwithstanding). Likewise for Bede and Eostre. An undue emphasis on "pagan origins" in the Easter article would therefore introduce a non-neutral POV that would detract from the quality of it. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 22:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

That was not a response to you, thank you, but a response to the post above referencing German scholarship, and therefore completely on topic. I've outlined my position on your approach above, and again refer readers to my previous post regarding it. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

But you appear to persist in the fallacious argument from etymology to meaning. The fact that the word Easter derives from the name of a pagan goddess is almost completely irrelevant in determining what the word means today. If etymology determined meaning, then apology would only be used in the technical sense of offering a reasoned defense of an action or opinion and would never be used to refer to saying "Sorry." For over a thousand years, the word Easter (or its precursors) has been used primarily to refer to the Christian holiday. Neo-pagans may be trying to redefine the word back to its supposedly original meaning, but so far they haven't succeeded (which is not surprising, since Christians outnumber neo-pagans by well over 100 to 1). Academic pronouncements about what the word ought to mean belong in opinion pieces, not encyclopedia articles. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 04:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Uh, what are you talking about? Eostre is mentioned in this article because—and I'll put this plainly—this is where the word Easter comes from. And I've previously pointed out that your argument of age holds no water here—Eostre developed directly from Proto-Indo-European *Hausos over a period of somewhere around, oh, 5,000 to 8,000 years (depending on the scholar) prior to Christian adaptation of the term.

The reality of the situation is that Christianity can make no specific claim for what we now know as Easter; the term is quite pagan English, was appropriated during the Christianization of England (and not changed for reasons unexplained), and then continued to be used into the modern period where the picture is complicated by completely secular modern Eastern traditions and various neopagan movements. It's as simple as that, and that is what the article must reflect. Your opinions regarding a neopagan conspiracy, while curious, are better suited for a blog. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, left you for 2 days, back to bloodofox-Simek-Ostara: I repeat that I know of no German linguistic or historic scholar who accepts her factuality any more. Simek in your quote does not. He just gives the information on Grimms famous assumption, and goes on to plead that Bede`s Eostre should not be thrown out altogehther, adding his own guess on Eostre. That says nothing about Ostara or Simek upholding her. (You like to take Simek as the nonplus of German state-of-art on Ostara??? I recommend the Ostara-entry in HDA Handwörterbuch des Deutschen Aberglaubens vol 6, col 1311-1317, a bit older, but still the best collection of sources! <1166 words and 75 footnotes on Ostara - a bit more substance than Simek on Ostara possibly? - no fault of Simek as he really does not write about Ostara, just referencing Grimm.> HDA-summary: "If an Anglo-Saxon Eostra stood on shaky ground, research has shown a German goddess Ostara as unverifiable." (my translation)).

As for your insistence that there MUST be some more in Grimm: just read him! Here he is on the net: Jacob Grimm: Deutsche Mythologie; Ausgabe, 1843, Göttingen, pp 266 -268. I see Konjunktiv "könnte, mag..." and postulates "muß"; in my words: speculation.

I am not ging into the Eostre-business. I just state: "Ostara" is of 0.00 value for any question concerning Eostre and for this entry should be reduced to one sentence including the correct info that she is out of business, plus footnote giving some reference.--Kipala (talk) 09:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Response posted at Talk:Ēostre. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

:bloodofox:, you and I seem to be talking past each other. I agree that Eostre should be mentioned in the etymology of Easter, but we're construing the word Easter to refer to two almost entirely different things that happen to overlap a bit. I use Easter in referring to the world-wide, cross-cultural, Christian festival, which happens to be called by that name in English. You seem to be referring to a collection of spring-time customs and celebrations in the Anglosphere, among which is the Christian festival. Each of these topics is worthy of a Wikipedia article on its own. You and I appear to be agreed that the topic each of us is more interested in should not be weighed down by excessive emphasis on the other. So, we need two articles that link to each other, right?

Furthermore, the fact that Easter was originally a pagan word does not make it pagan today. By that logic, all words are pagan, because language appears to have evolved before any non-pagan (i.e., Abrahamic) religion developed. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

"Easter" does not comes from "Eostre." Bede's information is questionable, but even if accurate, he says it comes from "eostremonath" - the name of the MONTH, not directly the related to the (purported) goddess herself.

This is like claiming that Good Friday has something to do with the god Frigga because it's named after Friday.

The Easter/Eostre connection is really silliness at this point. Pascha didn't originate in England. Carlo (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Although in 725 Bede stated "April, Eosturmonath" at the beginning of chapter 15 of De temporum ratione, he explicitly stated at the end of that same chapter:

"Eosturmonath has a name which is now translated "Paschal month", and which was once called after a goddess of theirs named Eostre, in whose honour feasts were celebrated in that month. Now they designate that Paschal season by her name, calling the joys of the new rite by the time-honoured name of the old observance." [Bede: The Reckoning of Time, translated by Faith Wallis (1999), pp.53–54.]

— Joe Kress (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

But in the above, Bede says it was the pagans who called Pascha "Easter," not the Christians, at least if the word "they" has a consistent meaning. So it still has nothing to do with any pagan origins of the holiday. Carlo (talk) 11:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Bede clearly stated that "they" and "theirs" referred to the "English people" in the first line of Chapter 15. Hence "in olden time", when the English people were pagan, they celebrated feasts to honour Eostre, but "now", after they became Christian, they applied the "time-honoured name" Eostre to the "Paschal season". — Joe Kress (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 122.148.240.48, 9 April 2010

[[Template:--Kipala (talk) 09:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)editsemiprotected|{{--Kipala (talk) 09:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)editsemiprotected}}]]

Please change:

"...established the date of Easter as the first Sunday after the full moon (the Paschal Full Moon) following the vernal equinox.[3]"

To:

"...established the date of Easter as the first Sunday after the full moon (the Paschal Full Moon) following the northern hemisphere vernal equinox.[3]"

Because:

The reference to "the vernal equinox" is ambiguous. The vernal equinox occurs at 2 different times of year, separated by 6 months, depending on whether you are referring to the northern hemisphere vernal equinox or the southern hemisphere vernal equinox. For clarity, the article should state the timing of Easter as being relative to the northern hemisphere vernal equinox and not the southern hemisphere vernal equinox.

122.148.240.48 (talk) 00:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Done - and thanks, that's a really good point. Rklawton (talk) 00:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Marked as completed  Chzz  ►  00:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done

Zombie Jesus Awareness Day

An unused redirect Zombie Jesus Awareness Day redirects here. WP:RFD? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleted - thanks for the heads up. Rklawton (talk) 02:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I also found Template:Zombie Jesus (mostly unused userbox) - should probably be userfied. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Whole article disambiguation

I'd just like to propose people splitting this article and debate up nicely - I think it can be done. I'd suggest the page for 'Easter' begins with generic information about all the names of different Spring celebrations sharing the dates (or similar dates). I'd suggest that all such celebrations pointed to a similar (but differently named) page (or indeed the same page but I think that would be likely to offend people who had a strong religious affiliation).

Importantly after giving generic information the page then links into seperate 'sub' pages 'Christian theological significance and observances of Easter', 'Jewish theological significance and observances of Passover', 'Pagan theological significance and observances of Eostre' and similarly for secular observances, and any other faiths or diverse observances.

So the proposal basically is to merge all the common stuff from the various articles into the main 'easter' page and renaming (and linking to) all the existing pages and thus effectively disambiguating which version of the 'easter' story you are looking at in all the seperate sub pages.

I hope someone can feel bold and make such a change, or at least that others can take this idea and run with it. I have no particular bias in this matter and like to think that no person with any particular religious affiliation would be upset to see a page saying 'Easter is a spring celebration (spring as seen in the northern hemisphere) falling on these dates, various religions and groups observe similar (and perhaps related) celebrations. These include Easter, Passover, Eostre etc'

Obviously that would need fleshing out with links and references, but I think it might be a start to avoiding what appears to be a rather messy debate. EdwardLane (talk) 11:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

There already is a disambiguation page, which lists this article as covering the "Christian festival," so what you propose is already half done. All it will take is to start a page about generic spring festivals, add it to the disambiguation page, and cross-link the two. It might also help if the title of this article were changed to "Easter_(Christian festival)". Ruckabumpkus (talk) 14:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Well ok, I've been 'bold' and started that process on the disambiguation page.If people can tidy that up and make it a more correct article that would be good - and then when that's fully working much of the debate on this page can probably disappear. Sorry if I've offended anyone, hope my rough beginings are useful. Otherwise I guess they will be reverted eventually. EdwardLane (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The way you phrased the intro on the disambiguation page doesn't work, because Easter doesn't mean those things. In particular, I suspect most Jews would object to saying that Easter includes Passover. I don't think many lexicographers would agree, either, that Easter is a generic name for various spring festivals. Well over a billion Christians worldwide celebrate something that English-speakers call Easter, while only a relative handful of neo-pagans celebrate anything about Eostre. Let's think about the phraseology some more. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I do agree I wrote in haste. I began tidying the disambiguation page and then suddenly discovered that time was pressing. I think that Easter in English as the month around the northern vernal equinox - based on Bede is probably more acceptable. With that that time period coinciding with various spring celebrations. I'll go have a look at that page and if it has not been tidied since I was last there I'll see if I can patch it up somewhat. EdwardLane (talk) 22:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah it's been reverted - which is fair enough, it was a bit of a botch job, sorry about that.

Ruckabumpkus, you look like you're more competant than I in this matter. Would you care to make an attempt at that disambiguation? Is it best to do that here or on the disambiguation page (for the content that is not contentious - sorry for my earlier gaffe) or on the talk page for the disambiguation (if some of the content is contentious)? EdwardLane (talk) 22:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

On the talk page of Easter_(disambiguation) is a record of how a similar question was answered some time ago. Does stare decisis apply to Wikipedia? Ruckabumpkus (talk) 01:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest precedent is a useful guide in this regard - however that request did not appear to explain the general problems with this Easter page, nor did it mention that the proposal looked liked a possible 'least bad' solution to the problem. I think the archived discussion on the page with 'support' or 'oppose' in interesting. But the suggested solution at the end of that poll does not allow any means to disembroil this Easter article from it's current state. I think the intention of Wiki is to create the best encyclopedia entries overall - rather than neccessarily cater to one view or another. I don't know if there is an 'admin' that can make a call on this? EdwardLane (talk) 12:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, now that I think about it, it seems "Easter" really only refers to two things, or maybe three. One is the Christian festival. Another is the secular stuff (bunnies, etc.), and the possible third is the neo-pagan celebration of Eostre. However, it is certainly not an umbrella term for spring celebrations in general. It never falls on the solstice, for instance, and, as I mentioned above, I would guess most Jewish people would object to Passover being referred to as Easter (but I don't presume to speak for them myself). Ruckabumpkus (talk) 02:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Understood, I think I'd be happiest with Easter being the 'month' which contains the celebrations Easter, Eostre, Passover, etc. EdwardLane (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Except that I don't think Easter means anything like a month in contemporary English. In the church calendar it's 50 days (ending on Pentecost), but I think most folks would understand the word as referring to the day, and perhaps a short period of time around the day (as with Christmas), but not a month. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)