Talk:Easter

For most recent comments, see bottom of page

Easter was celebrated April 11

In Sweden and I believe also in other nordic countries easter was celebrated yesterday (the 11th April). Easter is always celebrated the day before the Easter day. I believe this is worth mentioning somewhere. --78.70.129.70 (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Easter was also celebrated the 11th here in the United States. I was under the impression that Easter was the second sunday of april... Confusion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.84.120 (talk) 03:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

A great deal of confusion on your part. The article is accurate regarding how Easter's date is determined. It is not always the second Sunday in April. Dogface (talk) 14:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Parts of the UK?

"Canada and the United States and parts of UK". I would say that the UK is more secular than the US - which parts of the UK don't have a secular easter? Northern Ireland and some bits of Scotland? I'm going to change this to the UK unless anyone disagrees. Secretlondon 05:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion agreed with wholeheartedly here. Tomjol 23:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Netherlands section

Hey there, can't edit the page myself. Can someone please change the Netherlands section to include Northern Germany where Easter fires are also quite common. thanks :) Marco (Northern Germany) Bonteburg 20:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Not in ########## of John

Under "Etymology", the meaning of the word "Passover" in John 28:8 is mentioned. If this is referring to ########## of John, there is no John 28:8; ########## of John is only 21 chapters long. I can't edit this; perhaps someone can. However, I haven't found an alternative verse to cite. John 19:8 and 20:8 don't have the word "Passover" in the New International Version. There is a Matthew 28:8, but no reference to the word "Passover" there either (using the same version). Perhaps someone can find the right Gospel of John reference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by John ISEM (talk • contribs) 14:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

I provide more appropriate citations. — Joe Kress 20:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Etymology: Interpretations of chronologies in the gospels

There are varying interoperations of when the gospels state that the Last Supper took place. There is wide-spread agreement that the Synoptic Gospels say is was the Passover meal, so that is easy. The more difficult issue with the Gospel of John. One main interpretation is that says the same thing as the other gospels; another main interpretation is that says the Last Supper was earlier. A good, reliable source that I found that provides insight into the breadth of each opinion is the NIV Study Bible. The authors sift through the various theological writings and digest scholars opinions and includes a sense of how popular a given interpretation is. Using a source like this is a big step up from past versions of this article that didn’t provide any source regarding the popularity of an article. Still, if someone can find an even better sources to help with providing an unbiased overview, there is room for further improvement. --Ed Brey 11:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mention John 19:14 regarding the interpretation that John differs because it's not clear as to the rationale for the interpretation. Does anyone have a source for that? --Ed Brey 11:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The "last supper" was not the Passover Seder meal as mentioned in this entry. Why? This is determined quite simply by common sense as applied to the manner in which God commaded that Passover was to be kept. (Read Exodus chapter 12) Jesus was OUR Passover lamb. His shed blood redeemed us from our sinful state of bondage in the same manner that the original Passover lamb redeemed the Israelites from bondage in Egypt. He was sacrified on preparation day (Nisan 14), at the same time the High Priest was sacrificing the lambs, as our full and final sacrifice. At sundown, which began Nissan 15, the Passover meal was to be eaten. Now read very carefully, the Lamb is eaten AT the Passover meal, it is the main course. You cannot have the Passover Seder while the lamb is still alive. So again, since Jesus is our Passover Lamb he was dead and buried by the time the nation of Israel, including the disciples, was sitting down to the Passover meal. The last supper was simply that, the last meal he sat down to partake with his disciples. Without doubt, he included elements of the Seder meal which pointed to his fulfillment of the Passover sacrifice. But it was not the seder which he ate on the evening of Nisan 13. This would have been contrary to God's commands. Disobeying God is sin. Jesus was without sin. So he would not have broken his Father's command regarding the keeping of the annual Passover feast. I have had fellow religious scholars debate me and try to prove that it was the Passover feast and Jesus was alive for it. BUT, if you can prove that Jesus was alive on Nisan 15 and ate the Passover meal then you also prove that Heeaster k ahabout the lord thats all byeis a day to have a great time and thinIS NOT our Passover Lamb. And as such, his death means nothing. Why? Because God's law regarding the sacrificial system is very specific. No where in scripture does it allow for an offering to be sacrificed on Passover day itself. A sacrifice so offered would be an abomination to God and his law. So let's review the facts. The "last supper" was just a last meal with the 12 before his crucifixion. This meal took place late Nisan 13/early Nisan 14. He was crucified on Nisan 14 and died around 3pm. He was quickly buried before sunset, at which time Nisan 15 began and commenced the High Sabbath of Passover. <tww, apr-04-2007>

A masterpiece of a priori logic. I look forward to your defense of the ptolemaic universe. Doops | talk 04:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

tww, are you saying that the Last Supper was a Passover meal, but not the Passover Seder? Or perhaps some other meal? The biblical sources refer to "eating the passover". In light of the principle you brought up that Jesus is the passover sacrifice, what are you saying that Matthew 26:17, Mark 14:12, etc. are referring to? Can you point to any reliable sources that expound upon the interpretation? --Ed Brey 11:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I can, but not according to tww's reasoning. More to the point, the required elements of a seder seem to be missing even from the synoptic accounts. In the original language, they are clearly using leavened bread. (The bread is called "artos" in Greek. Unleavened bread is everywhere else called "azymos".) At least Eastern Orthodoxy (if not other traditions) uses the chronology in John as normative. See the answer to Question 1 here. TCC (talk) (contribs) 17:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

There are two mentions (the redundency is a problem in itself) in the article that the Last Supper was a Passover Seder, neither of which cites specific sources, nor does the Last Supper article cite specific sources (only general references). The NIV Study Bible source cited in the Etymology section refers to the Last Supper as "a Passover meal", without calling out one way or the other whether it was a Seder. Given your exegesis and the lack of specific sources indicating it is a "Seder", I would lean toward more sure text, such as replacing "a Passover Seder" with "a Passover meal". --Ed Brey 11:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

TCC, you are absolutely correct in your observation on the bread. I too, have used this point as well to prove that the "last supper" was not the Passover meal. To cite an additional point, the narrative in John 13:29 indicates that the other disciples thought that Judas was perhaps leaving to buy things for the Passover meal/feast, or to give to the poor. IF, they had just finished the Passover meal with Jesus, and it was now early on Nisan 15, they NEVER would have consider that Judas left for those reasons. Why? First, the meal would already be over. Second, Passover is a High Holy Sabbath, so no buying or selling takes place. I'll try to add some clarity to my previous entry on the date of the crucifixion... I entered that late at night after a long day of Passover preparations. I will simply say this... Many have "proven" to me that the last supper was the Passover Meal that Jesus ate with the disciples on Nisan 15. If this IS the case, then following the chronological order of events recorded in the Gospels, Jesus would have been crucified the following afternoon which would still be PASSOVER. But, the Gospels also clearly recount that Jesus was crucified on PREPARATION day, Nisan 14 (John 19:31). Therefore, the last supper occured late Nisan13/early Nisan14. [Note: For those not familiar with Biblical timing, God's day has always been measured from sunset to sunset. NOT a 24hr period beginning at midnight] The argument for the last supper being Passover DOES NOT fit the chronological test. In addition, God's law regarding the sacrifical system is very precise. (See the enire book of Leviticus) The Passover Lamb MUST be chosen on Nisan 10, observed for four days, and sacrificed on Nisan 14. (Exodus 12)In order for Jesus to be an acceptable sacrifice as our Passover Lamb, he MUST meet these same criteria. Therefore, if the last supper was the Passover Meal eaten on Nisan 15 with Jesus in attendance, then He obviously WAS NOT crucified on Nisan 14. Again, this possible scenario is disproved by Scripture. So my answer to my unlearned religous colleagues has been this... IF you manipulate facts and prove to me that Jesus was alive and ate the Passover Meal on Nisan 15, then you also prove to yourself that He IS NOT the Messiah. I personally believe He is our Messiah and Savior. He did fit the model and criteria of the Passover Lamb. And He was crucified on Nisan 14, the day of preparation for Passover. The facts (Scriptural, historical, and cultural) support this viewpoint. Too Doops, this is not a stretch of deduction or a hypothetical scenario. Stick to commenting on topics you know somehting about. <tww apr-07-2007 15:30US-EDT>

Ed, please clarify your definitions of Passover Meal and Passover Seder. I assume from context you are understanding a Seder to be a symbolic observance of the Passover Meal, but not the actual meal itself. For instance, we have held symbolic/teaching Seders that explore the ways in which Christ fulfills the prophetic pictures given us in the Passover Feast. We use all the required elements and go through the complete Haggadah. These typically occur AROUND Nisan 15, but not on Nisan 15. On that night, we are home with our families actually celebrating the Passover Feast. I will point out, however, that we use the SAME ELEMENTS. To this point, I find it hard to believe that Jesus would have used LEAVENED bread as part of a symbolic Passover Seder on Nisan 13 to represent His sinless body. So again, I must stand by the facts which support my position. The last supper was simply that, the last meal he had with the disciples. Moreover, it was the meeting where he finally let them know WHY they have been keeping the Passover Feast (now only a day away) for generations and what it truly means to them. <tww apr-02-2007 15:33US-EDT> —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.63.102.120 (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

My understanding is that a “Passover Seder” specifically recalls the miracle in Exodus and thereby necessitates eating unleavened bread, whereas a “Passover meal” is a more ambiguous term (which seems appropriate given the uncertainty) that can be any meal that was eaten during the 7 day festival that occurred around that time. “Passover meal” leaves open the possibility that the meal was a Passover Seder, as some have suggested, e.g. from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, “theory that when the Passover fell on Friday night, the Pharisees ate the meal on Thursday and the Sadducees on Friday, and that Jesus followed the custom of the Pharisees (Chwolson, Das letzte Passahmal Jesu, 2nd edition, Petersburg, 1904)”. --Ed Brey 11:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Format

I had to remove the "double curvy bracket" christianity}} tag because it messed up the formatting of the page - made everything centered and other things. I do not know how to edit such a thing. Ellimist 00:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I put the template back because I really don't see anything wrong with it. Could you be specific? Carlo 02:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It had been vandalized a short time ago. No doubt Ellimist was seeing either the vandalized version or a cached copy of it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 17:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it is fine now. I had looked back in the history, but the same error kept popping up. Oh well. Whatever it was is fixed now. Thanks. Ellimist 19:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Pascha

Since Pascha redirects here, I am adding it to the beginning of the article. Majoreditor 03:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

THis is debatable, it is just as probable that the latin root for Easter derives from "Passio", latin for suffering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.5.234.30 (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

When does Lent end?

The Easter Triduum article declares that Lent ends on Holy Thursday, but the Lent article states that it ends either at the dusk of Holy Saturday (Easter Vigil) or the morning of Easter Sunday. These seem to conflict, so which one is right??74.62.177.140 20:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Lent ends on Holy Saturday in the Western churches. It may end earlier in Eastern Orthodox churches; I'm not sure. (I know it starts earlier there). —Angr 11:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

--84.13.86.63 (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

---

Lent ends on Palm Sunday ( Passion Sunday ) because that day is exactly 40 days after Ash Wednesday ( The start of Lent ) and there are 40 days in Lent !!!! So you see how it all makes sense ? Does anyone have any different opinions ?

Lent ends on the Thursday preceding Easter. The following days until Easter Vigil are considered the Triduum, or "three days", and "personal penances" - what an individual gives up for lent - ends with the Triduum, NOT Lent. Lent is called 40 days because that is referenced in the Bible, but there are a number of ways to get to this count, including not counting Sundays (which are "mini-Easters") or by arguing the start-date of Lent. This is the stance of the Catholic Church, I don't know the other stances (although they would have more or less arisen from the Catholic tradition, anyway). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.147.33 (talk) 09:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The answer varies in different churches. The Roman Catholic Church takes one approach, but theirs is not necessarily the "final answer". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

And by the way, "Lent" refers to springtime, as does "Easter". A blending of different religious traditions. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Easter and Hitler

Every 14 years, the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the birth of Hitler occurs on the same day. Next Occurrence will be on April 20th 2014 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Funkadelic1 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

Unlike Jesus, Hitler will not come again . . . in 2014 or at any other time.

2012, with the saucers. Anyway, this subject is important enough to deserve its own article, Jesus and Hitler. Dawud (talk) 02:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Easter in Bulgarian

Regarding the name : the article mentions bulgarian easter translation but it is wrong. In Bulgarian easter is Velikden (or "Великден"), which is selebrated on Sunday and the night before is called Bydni Vecher("Бъдни Вечер")which is the expectation of Easter. Also, in those countries the official days off are Friday through Monday, not as in catholic world, where it starts with good friday and end on sunday. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.80.41.47 (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

Cults?

I don't think that calling certain groups "cults" is an NPOV sort of thing. 141.152.79.93 15:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I have removed it. --BigDT 00:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Easter Fires

Easter Fires (Påskbrasor) is tradition in Scandinavia (Sweden specifically) and this is not reflected in the text.

Not just Scandinavia, but much of Northen Europe, including Germany and Britain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.230.73.2 (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

Is it correct that Scandinavia calls theirs Bale or Balder Fires? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.122.36.252 (talk) 09:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

s-protection

Is there any reason for the pre-emptive protection of this article? There's a definite reason to leave it not protected - we want someone googling Easter to be able to edit it and potentially become a user. If every high profile page is s-protected preemptively, then potential new users get the idea that they can't "edit this page right now". --BigDT 00:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree with protection. The high volume of vandalism is not worth the slight possibility that someone might add something useful during the next day or two. Academic Challenger 01:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the protection. As a general rule, pages linked from the main page should not be protected unless the vandalism gets so bad we can't keep on top of it (i.e. reverting vandalism actually results in edit conflicts with the vandals). —Angr 11:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Three Days?

This might sound like a stupid question, but I'm unsure of something. the article states:

"Easter, the Sunday of the Resurrection...It celebrates the resurrection of Jesus, 
which his followers believe occurred on the third day after his death 
by crucifixion...Good Friday."

If he was killed on Friday, and he was resurrected three days later, wouldn't that be Monday? Friday to Saturday is one day, Saturday to Sunday is two days, and Sunday to Monday is three days. The text says 'the third day after his death', so Saturday is the first day after, Sunday is the second day after, and so Monday is the third day after. Is there an error in the article, or can I not count? 須藤 04:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on the topic, but I think that Friday is counted as the first day, Saturday is the second day and Easter is the third day. Anyway, the idea of Jesus rising on the third day is in the bible. I'm sure there have been lots of debates on this. Another thing to remember is that at that time, days were considered to have begun at sunset. That's all I know about it, I've wondered about that also. Academic Challenger 05:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It's the third day if we count inclusively, which is how the ancients tended to count (the day, the second day, the third day, etc.). Of course, the problem is the word "after" since to our modern ears it implies exclusive counting (the day, the first day after, the second day after, etc.). We can't change "third" to "second" — "the third" is too traditional — but maybe there's a way to cut the word "after." Doops | talk 05:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I couldn't figure out how to remove the word "after"; so I just put in a parenthetical note. Doops | talk 05:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, many conservative Protestants believe that Good Friday is wrong and that Christ was crucified on Thursday. He was crucified on the "preparation day" before a Sabbath, but, the first day of Passover was a Sabbath, over and above the Saturday Sabbath (Exodus 12:16). John 19:14 says in no uncertain terms, "And it was the preparation of the passover". So the day Jesus was crucified was the day before Passover, not necessarily on a Friday. So if we're going to get 3 days + 3 nights, that makes it a Thursday. --BigDT 12:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, most all of the above is not supported by my research, except for the statement that God's day does run from sunset to sunset. In order to fulfill the OT prophecy of Jonah, Christ had to be dead and buried in the grave for 3 nights and 3 days. These are literal days. The reasoning supplied by Doops is not scripturaly or culturally correct but one most often espoused by the Seventh Day Adventist movement for counting three days from Friday to Sunday. It doesn't work. Not culturally. Not scripturally. The problem is this, in our perverted western religious system, we have been taught nothing of the OT and Hebrew culture and customs. When we see 'Sabbath' most all of us think of the only Sabbath we are familiar with... the weekly seventh-day Sabbath of the Ten Commandments. This was my narrow-minded level of understanding for almost 30 years of study and research. The fact is that God ordained His High Holy days throughout the year... these days are Sabbath days as well... and Passover is one of these Sabbath days. John 19:31 clearly indicates that the 'preparation day' on which Christ was crucified was the preparation day for the High Sabbath of Pesach (Passover). According to ancient lunar calendars, the month of the Abib barley would have begun on a Wednesday night in the year 28CE, this would be Nisan 1. Fourteen days later on Wednesday Nisan 14, the nation of Israel was preparing for the High Sabbath of Passover. It was on this preparation day, that Jesus was crucified and died at appox 3pm in the afternoon. His body was quickly prepared and buried prior to sunset which marked the beginning of the Passover on Nisan 15. He layed in the grave from sunset Wednesday to sunset Thursday. DAY ONE. Sunset Thursday to sunset Friday. DAY TWO. and Sunset Friday to sunset Saturday. DAY THREE. The scriptural, historical, astronomical and cultural evidence supports this chronology for the prophetic three nights and three days in the grave. At the end of the weekly Sabbath (on Saturday) He was resurrected to life again. John 20:1 tells us that Mary came early on the first day of the week while it was still dark. In historically and culturally correct terms, "early on the first day of the week while it was still dark" is equivalent to our Saturday evening/night. By the time the sun rises on Sunday morning, the first day of the week is half-over. We need to think outside the teachings that are being continually regurgitated at our theological seminaries. We are no longer taught to think, search, and reason for ourselves... but to only do so within the confines of the "box" in which a particular denomination or religious movement places us. Jesus told us to keep asking, keep seeking, and keep knocking. Proverbs and Ecclesiates tell us to seek wisdom above all else. If we stop seeking God for ourselves and simply accept the spoon-feeding from religious leaders, we set ourselves up for the false teachings of false prophets to come in the latter days. —The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages <tww, Apr-08-2007>|unsigned]] comment was added by 71.63.102.120 (EaStEr Is CoOl DiD U nOnou

The issue of what actually did or did not happen two milennia ago is not what my response was concerned with; I was simply explaining how it is that the crucifixion is by tradition commemorated on a Friday, Easter on a Sunday, and yet "on the third day" is always the wording. Doops | talk 19:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Doops, Your point is now made and understood with more clarity. But unfortunately, it is still grossly incorrect and unsupported by fact. The statement that Christ arose on the "third day" is a truncation of the actual prophetic message. It is also very dangerous and misleading to use this terminology out of context because it begs the question... "what third day?" Ridiculous arguments can be made to support any "third day" scenario. Scripture is the final authority and very specific. Jesus did not say that He would simply be raised on the "third day" and leave it at that. He very specifically said the only sign given would be that of Jonah... THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS. (see Jonah 1:17 and Matthew 12:40) You cannot get three days and three nights with a Friday crucifixion and a Sunday morning resurrection. It doesn't work. I supported my position by Scriptural, cultural, historical, agricultural evidences. I see you are a young Harvard grad and probably not without intellectual merit. I applaude your effort to give time and concern to the value Wikipidea brings to the web. But I will say to you again, stick to commenting on Wikipedia topics about which you possess Godly, scholarly knowledge. In matters where you are lacking, read, study, and research to gain years of knowledge and wisdom; then enter into the fray. This venue needs to present valid, well thought-out topics of discussion and dissention for people to contemplate in light of their own spritual and intellectual growth. <tww, 08-Apr-2007> —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.63.102.120 (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

This is all quite interesting, but it's utterly irrelevant to this article, since Wikipedia does not allow original research. The fact, quite apart from anyone's interpretation of anything, is that the vast majority of Christians commemorate the Crucifixion on a Friday and the Resurrection on a Sunday. That's all that matters to this article. —Angr 21:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It also seems to me that Christians have been commemorating the crucifixion on Friday for as long as Christianity has existed, and no one ever suggested that it was the wrong day until some fundamentalists sometime around 1975. So why would anyone take it seriously?

"The Day of Preparation and the next day was to be a special Sabbath" seems pretty clear to most people who don't have some weird anti-Catholic axe to grind. Carlo 21:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It's quite simple really: this is an encyclopedia. We describe things. Spiritual and intellectual growth aren't in the job description. Doops | talk 22:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

All the Gospels state that Jesus was crucified and entombed on the day of preparation for the sabbath (Matthew 27:62, Mark 15:42, Luke 24:54, John 19:42). "Sabbath" is traditionally regarded as the seventh day of the week (sunset Friday to sunset Saturday), not necessarily the first day of Passover. According to this view, Jesus was crucified during daylight hours on Friday. A synopsis of all these events, emphasizing the disagreement between the Synoptic Gospels and John, is The Death of Jesus in Mark vs. John. The author, Felix Just, a Jesuit, notes that the phrase "day of preparation" is ambiguous in John, but that this was the weekly sabbath in the Synoptic Gospels. The alternative view that sabbath meant an annual sabbath is argued in 'Preparation Day' of Passover: Friday or 14th of Abib. A more involved discussion from a published book, The Preparation for the Sabbath, including consideration of Wednesday and Thursday crucifixions and the "third day", concludes "The easiest reading of Scripture places the day of preparation and the crucifixion on Friday before a Saturday Sabbath Passover." A view from the early Church is needed. — Joe Kress 21:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, as an Atheist, I don't care about all this theology. I just, for the sake of Wikipedia, want the article, as I'd want with any, to be clear, logical, and make sense. If there needs to be a new section added about a possible contreversy, OK. If the article needs to say 'it is unsure what this means' or 'there are differing views as to the meaning or validity of this...which is discussd elsewhere' that's fine. We just need to be factual, logical, and clear. 須藤 21:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear People. Let me shed some light on this topic. Before I start, I'd like to say that all of my information I have gotten from books, not web, so I'm not sure how to cite them. Easter was never associated with the scriptural death and ressurection of the Son. It was a pagan festival, celtic in origin, which celebrated the goddess Ishtar/eostre/fria/frigga/eshtar/aphrodite/venus/etc. depending on the specific paganism. It celebrated her fertility, and the fertility of the world in spring. She was pictured as a rabbit (symbolic of sex) who fell from the sky in an egg (symbolic of fertility). The rabbit then laid eggs, which the children were sent to find. Now the tradition of this festival was to sacrifice infants and die the eggs in their blood. The eggs were then scattered about the fields as a protection from famine and pestilence. This is the origin of the dying of eggs, and to this day the whitehouse spreads blood red eggs all over the lawn. I hope this helps to clarify some of the issues your having. You see the Egg-containing-a-rabbit fell on a "fria-day" and the egg was said to have "hatched" on "the day of the sun". The actual passover sacrifice would have most likely been on the 4th day of the week, not the 6th. The day of preparation was not a weekly thing, it was somthing commanded in Torah(hebrew for law, name of the 1st 5 books of scripture) and it is the clue to understanding all of this. I also believe that the Pagan roots of this festival should be included in this encyclopedia, being that it is fact. My sources are Lew White's "Fossilized Customs ver.5", Encyclopedia Britanica 1990 Comprehensive Edition, and Discussions with multiple accomplished religious scholars, including Michael Rood, Nehemiah Gordon, Web Hulon, Richard Coennen, and Garner Ted Armstrong. Doonak 20:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, some of the practices associated with Easter, and perhaps the English (and Germanic) name, are derived from pre-Christian European religion. However, the date of Easter is based on that of Passover, the Jewish festival. Its use in the early church is partly to continue the observance of that festival, but, more importantly, to celebrate the death and resurrection of Jesus. Easter is the earliest festival adopted by the church (excepting every Sunday), long before Christianity came in contact with Celtic and Germanic peoples. I have heard the above statements made many times before, but it's complete bunkum based on a few stiched together facts — Germanic name, bunny and eggs. These three things are late additions to the Easter celebrations. Most ancient cultures have some kind of fertility cult — food and children are important — but to stitch them all together into some universal mother goddess (while done in some minor modern religions) is not an academic approach to the distinct nature of these cults in each area. After all, Christians actually celebrate Jesus on this day, and have done for two-thousand years. It is a bit odd to call that really pagan. The pagan elements are there, but they are fringe elements. — Gareth Hughes 21:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Third Day

As I'm sure that someone will revert my recent edit without thinking..... the old statement either alleges that Jesus died on Thursday or was resurrected on Monday. The third day after Friday is Monday: Friday (0), Saturday (+1), Sunday (+2), Monday (+3). I spelled it out agonizingly in the comment, which probably should be editted down, but I'm hoping someone won't revert it if they read it. The phrase: "on the third day he rose again" includes Friday, the day he was crucified, as the first day. So he was ressurected on the second day after, not the third day. KV(Talk) 01:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No. Two things here. Firstly the 'day' refers to daytime as opposed to a measure of 24 hours. Secondly, the first X after an event (where X is a unit of time) is not, in English, called the zeroth X; it is called the first X. This is a similar same concept to the first century not being the zeroth century. Put the two together and in this instance the first day is the first daytime after the event. Since the event took place in daylight it happens to be the same day as the one immediately before the event, namely Friday. Thus the first day is Friday, the second is Saturday and the third Sunday. Quod erat demonstrandum. Stormerne (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your conclusion, Stormerne, but I'm not sure about your reasoning. The prediction was that Jesus would rise again "on the third day", not "on the third day after the crucifixion". The third day after would indeed have been Monday. But that's not what the issue is. The first day was the day of the event, Friday; the second day was Saturday; and the third day was Sunday. People read "third day" and assume that about 3 x 24 = 72 hours must have elapsed between crucifixion and resurrection, placing the latter event on the afternoon of Monday. But it happened on Sunday morning, only about 40 hours later. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Egg roll

I know much of the easter egg tradition is included in the easter bunny article however, what about adding the American?(not sure if it originated elsewhere.) tradition of the egg roll in the "Non-religious Easter traditions" section.

the Wikipedia entry is [1]

By egg roll I mean the tradition of racing others while propelling an egg with your nose or a spoon not the Chinese appetizer.

Sdumont 13:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed major change - remove Christian POV

I think this article glosses over Easter's pagan origins as a festival celebrating renewal. It's a very christian-centric article as is. I'm proposing to bring the pagan origins up front and mention that the ealy church appropriated it as a means of streamlining conversion. --Eamonnca1 22:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

That's pseudo-scholarship. Easter is derived from the Jewish Passover. InfernoXV 03:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Easter is a Christian festival; that should be the focus of this article. By all means include sections on it being derived from Passover, and even on theories that it was appropriated from a pagan feast. But, this is an encyclopedia which must reflect that Easter is the most important Christian festival. If someone types Easter into the search box, I believe they should be directed to an article on Easter as a Christian concept. Dave 08:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Pseudo-scholarship? How do you explain all the pagan traditions such as the decorated eggs, the movable date, and the name that sounds strikingly similar to Eostre, the goddess of spring? I quote from the other Easter article:

According to Bede (c. 672 - 735), writing in De temporum ratione ("On the Reckoning of Time"), Ch. xv, "The English months" [2], the word "Easter" is derived from Eostre, an Anglo-Saxon goddess of spring, to whom the month of Eosturmonath, corresponding to our April (Latin: Aprilis), was dedicated:

"15. The English Months.

"In olden time the English people -- for it did not seem fitting to me that I should speak of other nations' observance of the year and yet be silent about my own nation's -- calculated their months according to the course of the moon. Hence after the manner of the Hebrews and the Greeks, [the months] take their name from the moon, for the moon is called mona and the month monath.

"The first month, which the Latins call January, is Giuli; Februrary is called Solmonath; March Hrethmonath; April, Eosturmonath; May Thrimilchi;..."

"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."

What is secure in Bede's passage is that the lunar month around the month of April in the Julian calendar was called Eostur or similar; In Vita Karoli Magni Einhard tells, that Charlemagne gave the months names in his own language and used 'Ostarmanoth' for April.

Those who question Bede's account of a goddess suggest that "the Anglo-Saxon Eostur-monath meant simply 'the month of opening' or 'the month of beginnings'." .

--Eamonnca1 17:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Quite simple. The Easter-Eostre connection only exists in English. The name of the festival in almost every other language is Pascha (French 'paques', Italian 'pasqua', greek 'paskha', slavonic 'paskha', and so on). This is derived from the Hebrew name for Passover. To suggest that the rest of Christendom derived its greatest festival from some obscure germanic goddess feast is Anglo-Germanic-centrism and unspeakably silly. InfernoXV 18:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was common knowledge that many of the so-called 'Christian' festivals are converted pagan festivals. The Easter egg tradition has no biblical roots, but it ties in neatly with pagan festivals at that time of year that celebrated the rebirth that comes with spring. Just like Christmas is a re-packaging of the pagan festival of Yuletide that previously was a party in the middle of the depressing winter to lift everyone's spirits, so to speak. Decorated trees, turkey dinners, christmas puddings, all of these things have no biblical basis but are derived from pagan rituals that started in Scandinavia and spread throughout Christendom when the church authorities found that it was easier to tweak existing traditions for their own purposes than to eliminate them. To leave that out of an article like this is a bit of a glaring omission IMHO. --Eamonnca1 20:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a common belief, but it's incorrect. There's no actual evidence for it, just a lot of wishful thinking on the part of those who dislike these holy days for one reason or another. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The name in most other languages is from the Jewish Pesach/Pescha (Passover). The "movable" nature of the feast is from the Jewish lunar calendar. The decorated eggs? From the Jews. The holiday was an adaptation of Passover LONG before elements from some backwater Germanic nowhere were added to it. Dogface 22:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[inserted for clarification] Dear 'Dogface', Easter eggs are 100% pagan. Being that I am, in fact, a jewish scholar I take offence to the fact that you would even consider saying that it had anything to do with Jews. Easter took NOTHING from Pasach. NOT the rabbits, NOT the eggs, NOT even the days! The movable date would be from a lunar based calendar, but the fact is, it's not based on anything lunar, it's based on a weekly occurance of Friday-Sunday. Sorry, Easter is NOT in any way jewish, and if you think it is, look closely at the orthodox seder's of the jews. Then look at easter. Nothing in common. Also, it is COMMON KNOWLEDGE that the christians of the 3rd and 4th centuries, and even on into the 5th century, DID IN FACT adapt ALL christian festivals from a pagan source, not the scriptures. The old "Jewish" days were considered "out of date" and too "jewish" by Constantine and his fellows, and the pagan festivals were adapted in christianity to smooth over the transition of the pagans. Doonak 21:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You claim to be a "jewish scholar" (sic). List your degrees and universities, in that case. It looks to me like you are, instead, merely parroting a neopagan and/or hardcore anti-Easter (7th Day Adventist-style) party line, distilled from a lot of tenth-rate pseudo-scholarship that is credulously passed around in the equivalent of the back alleys of "scholarship". YOU are the one who claims that we merely take your word on things on the basis of being a "scholar", so cite your credentials. If you can't do that, then cite the written works upon which you base your claims. Likewise, the idea that Constantine "invented" Easter and all the other Christian festivals smacks entirely of hardcore fringe Christian and neopagan claims, nothing at all claimed by reputable Jewish scholars. I call shenanigans. Dogface 00:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

'Common knowledge' only in the sense of a popular myth. The reason why Christmas, for example, is widely perceived in the Anglo-Gemanic world as a repackaging of Yuletide is because the converted Anglo-Germanic barbarians transferred some of their old festivities to the new holiday, festivities that had nothing to do with the celebration of the holiday in the older, more civilised parts of the Roman Empire. Decorated trees began with Martin Luther. Turkey dinners were certainly not done in any rituals anywhere in the old world, much less Pagan Scandinavia - don't forget turkey only came to the old world after Columbus. Christmas Puddings again are an Anglo-Germanic bit of window dressing. Try to look beyond your cultural millieu. InfernoXV 07:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear 'InfernoXV' the christmas tree originated in Babylon, in the worship of Tammuz. The "evergreen tree" was cut down, decorated with silver and gold tinsel, worshiped, and then they sacrificed infants on top of the tree by burning. That is where the tradition of the "cherub" on top of the tree comes from. All of the Yule traditions that have ever been recorded are presently found in christmas. So I would like to know where you got your information, because it is completely false. Doonak 21:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to know where you got your "information", because it's a load of second-rate conspiracy theory nonsense Dogface 00:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. There is a proposed move regarding this (well, a hybrid solution), currently to be discussed at Talk:Easter_(disambiguation)#Requested_move. Please take the discussion there. Many thanks, --Rebroad 10:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The proposed move isn't really actionable until this page has had a formal notice of the proposal, by the way. Doops | talk 19:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

In response to all of the above: this page clearly has nowhere near enough coverage of today's secular Easter holiday; it definitely needs more. On the other hand, the pagan antecedents of Easter, although real and not really open to question, can't really be called "Easter" without the benefit of hindsight -- we can't impose a definitiveness and specificity on things that, although real, are somewhat nebulous. The word "Easter" really can't be taken to refer to anything other than the modern holiday -- that that holiday is only partly religious and that it has some pagan origins (as well as Jewish ones) are important points; but where do they belong? This page. Doops | talk 19:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

No, this is dead wrong. There are no demonstrable pagan roots to Pascha. Not even most of the secular customs can be shown to be pagan as such, except where it employs universal symbols with a very common recognized meaning. (But by that standard, the alphabet is also "pagan".) TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Pascha comes from the Jewish Passover, as Inferno mentioned. As Csernica says, it's not pagan.

agreed. easter was initally a pagan festival. we need a historian of pagan gods and relgions to add facts.

The history of the Christian festival of Easter is quite clear: it is the continuation of the Jewish Passover with focus on the death and resurrection of Jesus. It is true that various pre-Christian spring/fertility customs became attached to the celebration of Easter, but, for Christians, the focus of celebration has remained unchanged for two millennia. Neo-Pagans have attempted to revive a number of documented pre-Christian customs and celebrate them, but they specifically are not celebrating Easter. Secular Europeans and North Amercians are basically left with celebrating some of the pre-Christian customs attached to Easter while rejected the central theme of the festival. I don't think this latter situation can adequately be summed up in the phrase 'Easter is pagan'. — Gareth Hughes 19:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I would oppose this proposition. Easter as a Christian celebration is totally independent in nature, origin, and observance from pagan traditions. I believe it is accepted scholarship that as the Roman Empire sought conversion of pagans to Christianity following Constantine, the Church incorporated some elements of pagan vernal equinox holidays into Easter (much as Christmas Trees were incorporated into Christmas) to make Christianity more palatable. This is, however, not Easter having its origins in Pagan traditions, but Easter coopting those traditions and bending them to the overall celebration of the Resurrection of Christ.66.57.229.78 16:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

This article should remain Christian centric as the word "easter" in its most common usage, refers to the celebration of Christian idea of the Resurrection of Christ. 66.57.229.78 16:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Eostre was a Germanic goddess. It is the root from which 'Easter' is derived. -- Easter is not exclusively a Christian holiday, and should not be treated as such. -- Wikipedia is about fact, not feelings.

Given that old (no longer celebrated) religious celebrations have Wikipedia entries, the full truth about Easter should be given. It should not be removed simply for fear of offending the religious, or God himself. 22:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Wikipedia is supposed to be informative, and leaving out a good chunk of a holiday's origin and history simply to satisfy a specific religious group should not be tolerated. All entries should be from a third party point of view, not one-sided or based on opinion. With that said, I completely agree that the Pagan history of Easter needs to be included. Whether it is offensive to the christians or not, it is truth, and we all deserve to know the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Only Seeking Shade (talk • contribs) 17:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You could at least read the article. Easter certainly does not derive from a Celtic celebration, and there may never have BEEN any goddess named "Eostre." Such a goddess is mentioned in ONE ancient source, at least a hundred years after any such cult allegedly existed. Carlo (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I second Carlo. Check out: http://methodius.blogspot.com/2007/09/easter-christian-or-pagan.html http://methodius.blogspot.com/2009/04/eostre-making-of-myth.html A pagan weighs in - http://reallivepreacher.com/node/1422#comment-3901 Pennycake (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

elements of a clean-up

PS -- lots of detail currently in this article should be spun off elsewhere and things rearranged. A better layout would be somthing like this:

• pre-TOC intro

1. Etymology, kept very very brief
2. Religious observance of Easter (including a brief bit about its position in the church year)
3. Easter as a secular holiday
4. The date of Easter (with only simple stuff; more detailed stuff should be spun off elsewhere)
5. History and contested points (including a summary of easter & the early church; anti-easter christians; etc.)

And the long list of other-language names can go altogether. Doops | talk 19:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If information is relavant, factual, and NPOV, than I don't think it should be removed. That said, should the list of other language names be re-directed to Wiktionary?須藤 22:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting tired of this. Easter is a Christian festival. We all know that it derives from Passover, that's fine - it's still first and foremost a Christian festival. It seems that it has a complicated etymology where the English word for it invites confusion with pagan stuff - that's fine too - it's still first and foremost a Christian festival. Turns out that people like to do stuff with rabbits, chocolate and eggs on this day - fine - it's still first and foremost a Christian festival. Get the big stuff right and the minor details will sort themselves out. Christian Easter is the main thing - add all other topics on the end of that. Dave 23:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this post in its entirety. "Easter" as most commonly used, refers to the Christian celebration of the Resurrection of Christ.66.57.229.78 16:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yet so much evidence *unsighted and ignored by most people of most religions whether pagan or christian* points to the fact that the very holiday of Easter was celebrated prior to christianity, a 2000 year old religion, and christianity has fabricated it to its own purposes, as with many other stories told on a similar lines. The following website has such examples, far too comprehensive to be discussed here; www.exposingchristianity.com. As an article on Easter, on a public, editable wiki-encyclopedia, there should be more reference to Easter as a pagan celebration as well, not necessarily more but it IS needed to ensure the neutrality of a reference that so many people use worldwide as a reliable source of LEGITIMATE information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.110.180.146 (talk) 11:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Remove translations

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Should the translations be moved to Easter wiktionary article and removed from this article? --Bkkbrad 05:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

"Easter alleged a Babylonian festival"

The mention of Bel and Astarte seems to be a mistake for Bel and Ishtar (or Sarpanit)as Bel (Marduk) mythology relates him to these two goddesses.

"Ishtar is the Assyrian and Babylonian counterpart to the Sumerian Inanna and to the cognate northwest Semitic goddess Astarte" Dogface 13:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Easter a Pagan religion

Surely Easter was initally a pagan ritual and was around at 2400BC?

I don't think this article is neutral and also i notice that so called references in the text are actually taken from the bible. The bible is not a factual book and is actually works from many authors - many of these books are not part of the historic timeline.

I think a banner should be put of this page about neutrality until this issue is resolved.

Comments on this welcome..

Pascha was never a pagan festival. That's urban legend and conspiracy theory.Carlo 15:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

To say that easter was "initially a pagan ritual" is misleading. Easter as the celebration of the resurrection of Christ is a distinct Christian concept. This is the most common usage of the term easter, and has nothing to do with paganism. I believe accepted scholarship is that in converting pagans in the early history of the Church, the Church allowed the incorporation of some pagan traditions to make easter celebration and the Christian religion more palatable to those they were attempting to convert. This does not mean that Easter has its "origins" in Pagan tradition. 66.57.229.78 16:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Oestre was a pagan goddess celebrated in the spring to recognise new growth and prolification, that is why spring flowers, rabbits and eggs are used as symbols. The symbolism of the return of life was hijacked by the church for obvious reasons, much the same as Christmas was introduced into the Yuletijd, the coming of the light. Not just Christians but people of all religions should be aware that the "books", "rules" and "traditions" they follow were all produced by mankind albeit in the name of a god. While I agree with the positive social aspect of the church, it can be argued that religions are created to work against God's purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JCartmer (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Why can't Easter fall on March 21???

Here's the scenario:

What if March 21 fell on a Sunday? Also, what if a full moon were to occur just after midnight on that Sunday, March 21?? Then, wouldn't Easter fall on March 21, since it is the first Sunday on or after the first full moon on or after the vernal equinox??? PhiEaglesfan712 15:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

First, in the Church tables, "vernal equinox" and "full moon" as well as "Sunday" are regarded as full days, not instants of time. Second, your rule is erroneous: Easter is the first Sunday after (never on) the first full moon (Luna XIV) that is on or after the vernal equinox (March 21). Indeed, in the actual rules, it is explicitly stated that if Luna XIV occurs on a Sunday, that Easter must be delayed one week. Luna XIV, the fourteenth day of the moon, is the term used in the Church tables—full moon is not used. Nevertheless, during the Middle Ages, Luna XIV was regarded as equivalent to the full moon. Between 1700 and 1775 in Germany and until 1844 in Sweden, astronomical tables and the instants of the full moon and of the vernal equinox were actually used, based on the Rudolphine Tables of Johannes Kepler (1627). As a result, Easter was one week early about once every twenty years (IIRC). — Joe Kress 21:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Easter is the first Sunday after (never on) the first full moon (Luna XIV) that is on or after the vernal equinox (March 21).

Actually, it is after March 21, not the vernal equinox. A crucial distinction. Canada Jack (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It is on or after March 21, which is the vernal equinox according to the Roman Catholic Church. Specifically, in paragraph 7 of Inter gravissimas we find the definition "the vernal equinox, which was fixed by the fathers of the [first] Nicene Council at XII calends April [March 21]". This definition can be traced at least back to chapters 6 & 59 of Bede's De temporum ratione (725). This may be called the ecclesiastical vernal equinox, to distinquish it from the astronomical vernal equinox. — Joe Kress (talk) 08:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

March 21 is not the real vernal equinox, it is the ecclestiastical vernal equinox, as you state. While it seems like a quibble to point this out, making that distinction explains why the date stays the same even when spring started March 20 this year, and why most years the Eastern churches have Easter so much later, as they retain the same nominal date. Canada Jack (talk) 14:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I should mention that my 'tracing back' is conservative. The rules were in a state of flux before Bede—actually before Charlemagne accepted the Alexandrian rules as enunciated by Bede via Alcuin sometime before 800. The vernal equinox was first specified as the demarcation between Easter seasons by Pope Dionysius of Alexandria c.250. Anatolius of Laodicea (Latakia, Syria) specified c.277 that the equinox occurred on March 22 (this comes from Eusebius, whose words were so imprecise that some believe Anatolius used March 18). The Church of Rome traditionally placed the equinox on March 25. Pope Peter of Alexandria c.305 was probably the first to place the equinox on March 21 and to fix the Alexandrian rules which we now use. But the Church of Rome refused to accept March 21 until 342 (it conveniently overlooked this history in its papal bull). Even then, its rules for [Christian] Passover differed from those of the Church of Alexandria. Although Dionysius Exiguus correctly stated the Alexandrian rules in 525, we have no evidence that the Church of Rome accepted them until the ninth century. The best discussion of these matters is by Charles W. Jones in "Development of the Latin ecclesiastical calendar", pp.1-122 within Bedae opera de temporibus (1943), which I neglected to cite in the article. The article already has some of this history, as does Computus, without mentioning the vernal equinox. — Joe Kress (talk) 19:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this conversation may be going a bit astray of championing Easter's origins. The relative merits of "the Church" to one side, the Christian faith, and the Catholic church in particular, has been more than happy to incorporate pagan holidays and rituals into their version of the Christian story as noted above with the Yuletide/Christmas timing. Easter is a holiday of renewal and an affirmation of life after death, read: spring after winter. That these holidays were used to incorporate a bridge between pagan rites and Christian rites is well-established and widely accepted. The purpose was not one of kindness on the part of the church. The purpose was to avoid revolt by the masses of pagans that were highly suspicious of the church's stories and credibility. I think it highly appropriate for this wikipedia article to be inclusive of the CULTURAL HISTORY of the holidays Easter was meant to overwrite. Easter was not a brand new holiday to celebrate Jesus of Nazareth's ressurction. Easter is a holiday that not only borrowed from, but built upon thousands of years of non-Christian culture and tradition. The truth shall set you free (didn't Jesus say that?) (Kieran Taylor kieran.mclaury@gmail.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.51.214 (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• So an alternative rule for Easter (avoiding "ecclesiastical" terms) would be the third Sunday strictly after the first new moon on or after March 7th? Dbfirs 18:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The new moon in question is still an ecclesiastical new moon. Easter is the 3rd Sunday in the ecclesiastical lunar month that begins on a date in the range March 8 (which begins at sunset on March 7) to April 5 (which ends at sunset on April 5) inclusive. In the ecclesiastical lunar calendar there is always exactly one lunar month that has its new moon (i.e. its first day) in this 29-day period.--Mockingbird0 (talk) 23:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Orthodox Easter date

In Eastern Christianity, Easter falls between 4 April and 8 May between 1900 and 1970 based on the Gregorian date. Does it mean there was no Easter before 1900 or after 1970??? This needs rewriting. --Jotel 07:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I've made an attempt to clarify the sentence, but I refuse to give all possible date ranges for years before 1900 and after 2099. — Joe Kress 07:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It was implied in the previous version that the Eastern Orthodox were "mistaken" in their calculation of the date of Eastern. I removed this bias and attempted more neutral language. 11:40 AM, 19 October 2007

April 26

Why can't Easter fall on April 26? --88.78.228.207 (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Easter is the first Sunday after (never on) the first Luna 14 (full moon) on or after March 21 (vernal equinox). The latest Luna 14 in the tables used by the Church (both the Gregorian tables used by Western churches and Julian tables used by Eastern churches) is April 18. If that happens to be a Sunday, then Easter must be delayed for one week (seven days) to April 25 (Gregorian calendar in the West and Julian calendar in the East). These tables are quite complicated, see Computus. Neither set of tables uses astronomical calculations, so "full moon" and "vernal equinox" are misleading terms. — Joe Kress (talk) 22:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Verify this before any insertion; but I believe that the natural modification of the pre-1582 rule to accommodate the revised secular calendar (and revised knowledge of the Moon?) would have led to Easter sometimes being on April 26th, which could nor previously happen. To preserve the traditional date range, a complication was inserted. Verify that. 82.163.24.100 (talk) 12:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

"The English name, "Easter", and the German, "Ostern", derive from the name of a putative Anglo-Saxon Goddess of the Dawn (thus, of spring, as the dawn of the year) — called Ēaster, Ēastre, and Ēostre in various dialects of Old English and Ostara in German.[4]"

OK so the next paragraphs below the article debunk this. That not very neutural imo. Its giving incorrect accounts to boot. Xuchilbara (talk) 02:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Same consecutive Easter date

The cycle of Easter dates repeats after exactly 5,700,000 years. At any stage during that cycle, does Easter ever fall on the same date 2 years in a row? I think the answer is probably no, but I'd like confirmation. Thanks. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I just modified, tested, and ran a program to compare Easter dates of consecutive years from 10,001 to 5,710,000. No repeats. But it would be interesting to see how one can reason that out. Saros136 (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that quick response and the work you put in behind the scenes. Pity we couldn't include this in the article, but OR is OR. It's hard to see how reason could be of any help. Due to the mathematical and calendric complexities, and the huge length of the cycle, I doubt there's any way to establish by reason alone that a pair can't happen. But you never know, maybe some bright spark will read this and will demonstrate that it's not possible, without having to resort to a computer. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

In case you're wondering, this was to help answer a question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#Leapin' Lent. Thanks again. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Its impossible for them to fall on the same date twice in a row because multiple phases of the moon do not fit evenly within a year. Thus if you go ahead exactally one year, you can never been on the same phase point and the easter date can never been the same. If this could happen, the date of easter would not move at all.--Dacium (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Dacium. You're dead right; however it's not even necessary to consider moon phases. JimWae pointed out below that because the number of days in a year is not a multiple of 7, the same date in consecutive years can never be the same day of the week; hence, Easter, which always falls on a Sunday, can never be the same date 2 years in a row. QED. Even though Easter is not fixed, this reasoning works for precisely the same reason the 4th of July, for example, never happens on the same day of the week 2 years running. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Is the same date ever a Sunday two years in a row? - mathematically impossible with 7-day weeks * 365-day & 366-day years ---JimWae (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

**lights go on** - Oh, of course! Lateral thinking works best. Now you see why I don't contribute much to the Mathematics Reference Desk. Thank you, JimWae. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a complete list of the intervals between Easters of the same M-D date, starting 5 6 11 17 35 40 46 51 57 62 63 68 73 79 84 95, in http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/estrdate.htm#EDR. Such a list can easily be produced, quickly enough, by brute force on a computer. Since Sunday moves by one date per ordinary year and by two dates per leap year, it is clear that the shortest interval must be at least 5 years. 82.163.24.100 (talk) 13:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Non-sequitur?

The reason for this is that the full moon involved (called the Paschal full moon) is not an astronomical full moon, but an ecclesiastical moon. The difference is that the astronomical vernal equinox is a natural astronomical phenomenon, while the ecclesiastical vernal equinox is a fixed March 21.

I reread this several times and it doesn't make sense to me. While the first sentence is true, the second doesn't explain the difference, as it speaks to the date of the equinox rather than the moon. A full moon is a full moon regardless of the date we set for the equinox. Equinoxes and full moons astronomically are two independent phenomena. (I'm not disputing the fact that there are differences between both ecclesiastical/astronomical moons and equinoxes, just saying they are two separate issues while the juxtaposition of the two sentences indicates otherwise). Gr8white (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

That paragraph is indeed poorly worded. The juxtaposition is valid only because Easter can be determined using either ecclesiastical tables (both moon 14 and March 21) or astronomical tables (true full moon and true vernal equinox), but never one table from each realm. Astronomical tables (in particular, Kepler's Rudolphine Tables) were used in Germany from 1700 to 1775 and in Sweden from 1740 to 1844.[3] — Joe Kress (talk) 07:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It still bothered me how the sentences flowed, seeming to imply the difference between astronomical & ecclastical moons stemming from the difference in determining the equinox. I reworded so the two sentences read "One reason for this..." and then "Another difference...". Hope that's OK. Gr8white (talk) 01:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC) All of this is true.

Gross Misinterpretation

An anon IP added some text suggesting "Pascha" is a "gross misinterpretation" of something. I reverted because it didn't add any useful information and was unreferenced (and doesn't belong in the caption of an image anyway). If there is some basis to this it might be added to etymology section if properly referenced. Gr8white (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Concerns regarding the Early Church section

I've noticed the section commenting on the early Church. I would like to clarify that there is indeed evidence that the Apostles (or at least one) did in fact honor pascha.

"When the blessed Polycarp was visiting in Rome in the time of Anicetus [c. 155],... they were at once well inclined towards each other, not willing that any quarrel should arise between them upon this matter [the observance of Easter]. For Anicetus could not persuade Polycarp to forego the observance [of his Easter customs] inasmuch as these things had been always observed by John the disciple of our Lord, and by other apostles with whom he had been conversant." Irenaeus (c 180), volume 1, page 569 in the Ante-Nicene Fathers (Hendrickson Publishers' edition).

There is also a lot more to be found concerning what these early Church Fathers said and wrote (particularly that it was indeed generally insisted that they celebrated it on Sunday) that I would love to include if I can get the time and access to this page. Any further questions or comments can be directed to me at sphorner at the g-m-a-i-l domain dot com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The masters servant (talk • contribs) 01:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Sunday Brunch

Is Sunday brunch a religious or non-religious aspect of Easter celibrations? Should it be mentioned? --Firefly322 (talk) 06:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Celtic??

The last amendment has added The name refers to the Eostur-monath, a month of the Celtic Year... sorry but Easter isn't really celtic, and the word Eostar-monath is anything but celtic. Did someone mean 'Germanic year? Akerbeltz (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. Carlo (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Year

33 is given as the year of the death of Jesus in the article. I understood that "most" people understood that Dionysius Exiguus computed the year wrong when he came up with the current system of numbering. (Dionysius article is ambiguous as well). Anyway, outside of Wikipedia (!) I thought most people believed that Jesus was really born in 4 BC (no year 0) and therefore died in 30 AD, in his 33rd year. This can even be pinned down to a day of the year 33, April 7 to correspond with Passover that year. Here is one such chronology which is probably not usable as a reference unfortunately. Student7 (talk) 22:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Easter footer

I'm working on a footer for Easter related pages. Feel free to jump in and help make it better. Remember (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Anglosphere

Someone has just coined the word "Anglosphere" for certain Anglophone countries. Isn't this WP:OR? Is India and Nigeria included? I assume not though there are more English books published in India than anywhere else. Sounds ambiguous to me. Student7 (talk) 11:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not OR as there is some established usage (>100,000 Google hits), though the term is somewhat ambigusous. The Anglosphere article was created in May 2006. Gr8white (talk) 16:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Note that nearly all definitions include South Africa which has to have different customs, wouldn't they? It seems too ambiguous to me. I realize the editor was trying to be concise but new definition just too broad, perhaps. Student7 (talk) 20:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

"Pascha"

The statement that Easter is "also called Pascha" is odd. That is the Latin term (hence "paschal", French "Pâques" etc.), but never used in English.

Not true. Google "Pascha". Apparently that is the common term used by English-speaking members of Eastern Orthodox churches. Gr8white (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Although "Easter" is the norm when it comes to the title of this holiday (in English that is), many English speaking Christians do use the term Pascha. Eastern Orthodoxy is a prime example of this. Though Orthodoxy does not have a major foothold in English Speaking countries comparative to other denominations, it still has a long history in Christianity and is still among the primary denominations worldwide. For these reasons (that of the word "Pascha" is used in english, and the term "Pascha" is commonly accepted amongst many around the world if those weren't made clear earlier) I'm adding "also known as Pascha" in the beginning of this article to add for a more neutral stance between the different ways of the Eastern and Western churches. Johnpjr (talk) 02:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Important etymology omitted

The etymology section should note that the ultimate root of the word is the same as that for "east" and "yeast" - all connoting "rising."

I don't know that there's any particular significance. The etymology section seems to cover it pretty well. It's true it probably comes from the same root as "east" via the pagan goddess, and ultimately derives from a word meaning "dawn". "Yeast" doesn't seem to be closely related. There isn't any direct association with "rising". Gr8white (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Etymology "germanic languages"

The etymology section "germanic languages" ought to mention, that there are only two languages, English and German, where the origin of the feast's name might derive from something like "eostur". All other germanic languages from Dutch to Icelandic use a form of "pascha" like all the non-germanic languages do. So if there ever was a goddess "Eostre" or so, it seems to have been at least no goddess common to all germanic tribes. Says someone who would like to apologize for his poor English. By the way: Happy Easter to everyone out there!80.144.191.189 (talk) 10:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

In introduction, too many details about link between Christian Easter and Jewish Passover?

The last paragraph in the current introduction seems overly complicated, at least for an introduction. Would you agree with that? If so, any thoughts on how to keep only the essential information in that paragraph and moving the details elsewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.254.165 (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I shortened it to the essentials, since "Second-century controversy" covers the details in depth. I also corrected a problem whereby the POV of contradictory gospels was given most prominently, even though it (obviously) isn't supported by primary sources and AFAICT, has no peer-reviewed citation; likewise, in "Second-century controversy", the varying interpretations for John were excluded altogether in on place. --Ed Brey (talk) 18:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

That John contradicts the synoptics is the neutral point of view. The Gospel texts themselves support this. It is trying to reconcile them that generates all kinds of sophistry and tendentious pleading.--Mockingbird0 (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

No, that John is DIFFERENT than the synoptics is the neutral point of view. That it "contradicts" is not. A contradiction is "a/NOT a." Carlo (talk) 18:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Mockingbird0, your edit removed a reference to a reliable source that presents two points of view of the interpretation of John, one that has John agreeing with the other gospels and one that has it differing. Firstly, how do you justify removing the reliable source? Second, that source gives the agreement interpretation as the major interpretation. This is corroborated by the primary sources (there were describing the same event, after all). Therefore, given the sources we have, the agreement viewpoint should be listed first as predominate. --Ed Brey (talk) 18:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The interpretation of John that Jesus was crucified on Nisan 14 (implying that the Last Supper was not the Seder) should be given greater prominence here because this article is not about Passover, but is about Easter, which has always been celebrated after 'Nisan 14' (as determined by Christians) ever since the Council of Nicaea anathematized the Quartodecimans, who celebrated Easter 'with the Jews' on Nisan 14. Mockingbird0 explicitly refers to the Zondervan Study Bible, so he did not "remove a reliable source". — Joe Kress (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Jews don't celebrate Easter, they celebrate Passover, beginning on Nisan 15. Also, the Council of Nicaea did not anathemize the Quartodecimans, Constantine simply decreed that all Christians should celebrate Easter on the same day, to be announced by the Bishop of Alexandria, without determining specifically what that day was, which is still true today, see Easter controversy. 64.149.83.12 (talk) 05:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the removed reference was in the "Second-century controversy" section. In my opinion, this is far enough away from introduction to warrant keeping the reference there. As to prominence, the issue of Nissan 14 is the topic of the detailed second-century controversy section, and fairly detailed summary in the introduction. I'm not sure what else you have in mind. --Ed Brey (talk) 00:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The annotations in the Zondervan NIV Study Bible take as their presupposition that there is no discrepancy between the Johannine and Synoptic passion chronologies. Such a tendentious reading is not NPOV. In any case, the wording I prefer cites this source accurately.

I see no justification for referring to the Gospel chronology question in the section about the quartodeciman controversy. Neither Hippolytus, nor Eusebius, nor the author of the Adversus omnes haereses attributed to Tertullian, nor Epiphanius mentions the chronology question in connection with their discussions of quartodecimanism. Epiphanius states as fact, in his discussion of the quartodecimans, that "Christ had to be slain on the fourteenth of the month in accordance with the Law," but he does not refer to any discrepancy with the synoptic Gospels, or connect the quartodecimans with the Gospel of John in any way. Following Hippolytus, he states that they take as their proof-text "Cursed be he who shall not keep the Passover on the fourteenth day of the month", while the "solar quartodecimans", who celebrate Easter on March 25th, take as their authority the Acts of Pilate. Panarion, Heresy 50. When Epiphanius goes through the Johannine chronology in detail, it is not in connection with the quartodecimans, but in his description of sectarians who refuse to accept the Gospel of John or the Revelation. Panarion, Heresy 51.

A much later Easter controversy involved the definition of the Week of Unleavened Bread, with some arguing for luna 14 to luna 20, and others for luna 15 to luna 21 (the view that prevailed and is still used). This is the controversy referred to by Columbanus and Bede, for example. It may be that the Gospel chronology question was cited in the course of this controversy (though no name springs to mind). But it was a later controversy, not the quartodeciman controversy.

The statement about Roman emperors interfering with the Jewish calendar, if it is not to be scrapped altogether, belongs in the section of 3rd/4th century controversy and council, not in the section on the quartodeciman controversy. Furthermore, Ben-Sasson is the editor, not the author, of the History cited, though he contributed the section on the middle ages. The author of the section in question (which clearly states that it is referring to the reign of Constantius in the 4th century) is S. Safrai, who cites no sources for the statement.--Mockingbird0 (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

No doubt the several authors of the Zondervan NIV Study Bible have formed their own conclusions from extensive study of the literature, which serve as presuppositions to subsequent study and commentary, just as all scholars do. The source is useful, in that it provides both major points of view and provides expert guidance (as do others, not all agreeing) as to the which viewpoint is primary and should be given first in the article. Bolstering the opinion those scholars are the primary sources themselves; given that there is a reasonable interpretation by which they all contribute the same facts about the same event, it would seem that the article would be taking needlessly pains to paint them as arguing among themselves.

Referring to the comment that started this section in the talk page, I don't see enough value in referring to the Catholic Encyclopedia to warrant its inclusion in the introduction. Mockingbird0, what's your rationale for including it?

I agree with your conclusion about omitting the reference to John in the Quartodeciman paragraph. --Ed Brey (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The Gospel of John reads clearly and consistently as placing Jesus' crucifixion on the 14th. This should be considered the primary interpretation. To get the Gospel of John to agree with the synoptics, passages have to be explained away. This should be the secondary interpretation.--Mockingbird0 (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You're way of reading the book is valid, but it isn't the only clear and consistent way to read the book. Taken alone, the Gospel of John doesn't give sufficient information to disambiguate the question at hand. This is OK, since we have additional sources to turn to for filling in the missing information. I expanded the section to represent a broader view of the theological significance of Easter according to the New Testament. I was also able to deal with the interpretation issue without stating that one interpretation or the other is "generally believed". I didn't retain the Chenderlin reference because I wasn't sure it still applied, and I don't think it is necessary now in any case. --Ed Brey (talk) 03:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Your wording still gives the fundamentalist interpretation more than it deserves. "Eat the passover" and "preparation of the passover" have clear meanings. There is no "missing information". There is no need to "disentangle" anything. Only if one comes to the gospels with the prejudice that they cannot disagree with each other does any problem arise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mockingbird0 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Transsylvanian Easter

In Northen Transsylvania, during the Easter's Monday, perfume or perfumed water is often sprinkled by men (especially young men) on women (especially not married women) in exchange for an Easter egg (red egg or painted egg). The sprinkled perfume or perfumed water is meant to "increase the atractivness and the beauty" of the "flower" (woman).

During the Third Easter's Day, the highlanders from Tara Motilor used to congregate on mountain tops (in fact mountain plateaus) in Apuseni Mountains for popular feasts (named "nedeea"). Some of the feasts included semi-ritualized free fights between local men. One of the most popular Easter feast spot was (until the late "80) the "Feast at the Manuntelu Cross", located on a scenic mountain top plateau, 5 km South from Campeni municipality.

These customs, some of them with pre-Christian origin, are tending to be lost during the latest years of the 20th century. My sugestion is to mention that facts on the Easter's edit. Happy Easters ! user: Transsylvanian

Please insure that the informations are real. Romania,first of all is not a slavic country,do not be misslead by Romania's geographic location. Please do check before writing!!!!! In what regards the traditions,all the information given are valid and real. Transilvania is a part of Romania,but it holds plenty of minorities,reasons of which there are more and diverse traditions for all the religious celebrations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.200.2.20 (talk) 03:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The Synoptics and 14 Nisan

There is no conflict between John and the Synoptics concerning the Last Supper and the crucifixion occuring on 14 Nisan. Matthew 26:17, Mark 14:12, and Luke 22:7 say that it was the first day of Unleavened Bread, so you would assume thats 15 Nisan. But both Mark and Luke in the same verses say that it was when the Passover lamb is sacrificed, which is the Preparation Day 14 Nisan. In Mark 15:42-47 and Luke 23:50-55 it is the Preparation Day when Jesus is taken down from the cross and buried - sunset to sunset, the same day as the Last Supper. Matthew 26:17 just says that the Last Supper was on the first day of Unleavened Bread. But like its fellow Synoptics we know its 14 Nisan from Matthew 27:62-66. We are told that the day after the crucifixion is the day after the Preparation Day. The Pharisees go to Pilate and convince him to put a guard at the tomb. The confusion arises because the Synoptics equate the first day of Unleavened Bread with the Preparation Day. The first Christians knew this and commemorated the crucifixion on 14 Nisan. Barney Hill (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Since I was discussing confusion about Holy Week, in my opinion Jesus wasn't crucified on a Friday. Good Friday comes from the mistaken belief that the sabbath after the crucifixion was the regular Saturday sabbath. John 19:31 says it was a special or great sabbath. If the crucifixion was on Preparation Day then the great sabbath has to be the Passover sabbath. Since Jesus said he would rise in three days, the crucifixion had to take place on a Wednesday for the Sunday resurrection. Barney Hill (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Error in top box

It says, under the icon picture, "Date First Sunday after the first full moon on or after March 21". That's misleading; it is not the real Full Moon, which in any case occurs on different local dates in different parts of the world. Granted, the main text has correct details; but I think that the term "Ecclesiastical Full Moon" should be used to indicate that there is something non-standard about it. 82.163.24.100 (talk) 12:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that the phrase "Ecclesiastical Full Moon" should be used. I don't think the phrase "Full Moon" should be used at all. The canons and the bulla never speak of full moons at all as far as I can see, they only mention the 14th of the lunar month, or "XIV Luna". All this talk of full moons and distinctions between types of full moons is confusing, irrelevant, and incorrect. As far as I can tell, in the real world there is only one definition of full moon. Maybe Wikipedia could reflect the real world for a change. Rwflammang (talk) 13:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

"Ecclesiastical Full Moon" should be "Paschal Full Moon", a term whose immediate source is the Tables for British Calendar Act of 1751 (p.347), which never mentions the 14th day of the moon. This act is also the immediate source of the rule that "Easter-day, on which the rest depend, is always the first Sunday after the Full Moon which happens upon or next after the 21'st Day of March; and if the Full Moon happens upon a Sunday, Easter-day is the Sunday after." (p.345) Both are given verbatim in the Easter tables of the Anglican (and Episcopal) Church's Book of Common Prayer. Replacing the 14th day of the moon with the full moon distanced them from the Roman Catholic Church.

In 725 Bede stated in Chapter 6 of De Temporum Ratione (Bede: The reckoning of Time, tr. Faith Wallis, p.25) a closely related rule, "For the only Paschal rule to observe is that the spring equinox be completed, with a full Moon following.", which he repeats in Ch. 50 (p.131) as "the fullness of the Paschal Moon ought not to precede the equinox, but rather should follow it". In both cases he justified this by arguing that on the fourth day of Creation, the Sun was created in the morning at the equinox and the Moon was created full in the evening. Because both occurred on the same day, he also implied but never stated that the Paschal full Moon could occur on the same day as the equinox. Later medieval computists explicitly stated that the fourteenth day of the Moon (XIV Luna) was the full moon. — Joe Kress (talk) 20:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Computations

It says that there are 35 possible dates for Gregorian Easter Sunday, March 22 to April 25, which is of course correct for yyyy-MM-DD dates. There are 36 possible Ordinal Dates (yyyy-DDD), 081 to 116. There are only 6 possible ISO Week Numbering dates, yyyy-W12-7 to yyyy-W17-7. http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/estrdate.htm#SC 82.163.24.100 (talk) 13:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Computations problem, help

Still related to the 35 possible dates above, it says that "... the Paschal full moon (the 14th of that lunar month) must fall on a date from March 21 to April 18 inclusive." Where does the date in the sentence "Accordingly, Gregorian Easter can fall on 35 possible dates - between March 22 and April 25 inclusive." came from? I'm reading Computus but cannot find the answer there either. Bennylin (talk) 05:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

nvm. I find the explanation by Joe Kress (talk) 22:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC) on #April 26 to be helpful. I'm moving his comment to the main page. Bennylin (talk) 05:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Useful image

This image should be in this article somewhere. Directly relevant to Easter.

Reenacting the Stations of the Cross in Jerusalem on the Via Dolorosa from the Lions' Gate to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

69.104.122.96 (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

Relationship to the date of western Easter and Rabbinic Unleavened Bread

This recently-added passage

The dates of Easter and Passover usually fall within a week or so of each other, but in years 3, 11, and 14 of the 19-year metonic cycle, which is used in the Hebrew calendar, Passover will fall about a month after the (Gregorian) Easter. This is because the metonic cycle does not correspond entirely to the length of the tropical year. So, over the centuries the date of the vernal equinox (which is March 21 by Christian reckoning) has been drifting to later and later dates in relation to the metonic cycle. In ancient times this was not a problem since Passover was set by actual observations of the New Moon and of the vernal equinox. However, after Hillel II standardized the Hebrew calendar in the 4th century, actual observations of celestial events no longer played a part in the determination of the date of Passover. The Gregorian calendar reform of 1582 brought the Western Church back into line with the astronomical cycle. Similarly, because of the interplay of these variables, Orthodox Easter occurs about a month after Gregorian Easter in years 3, 8, 11, 14 and 19 of the metonic cycle. In three of these years (years 3, 11 and 14), Passover also falls about a month after Gregorian Easter.

Contains multiple problems:

• It presupposes that there is a single "metonic cycle" whose years can be uniquely numbered. In fact both Christian Easter cycles and the Rabbinic calendar are metonic cycles, and the numbering of the years of the cycle differs. Year 1 of the Christian cycles corresponds to year 17 of the Rabbinic cycle. Year 4 of the Christian cycles corresponds to year 1 of the Rabbinic cycle.

• The statement "This is because the metonic cycle does not correspond entirely to the length of the tropical year", needs to be rewritten as "the implied solar year of the Rabbinic calendar is slightly longer than the spring equinox year."

• There is no evidence for "Hillel II's" calendar, or that "Hillel II" even existed.

--Mockingbird0 (talk) 14:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Rule of the equinox in the Jewish calendar

The statement that the breaching of the rule of the equinox by the Jewish calendar in the late 3rd/early 4th century was "not intentional" cannot be supported. In the case of the Jewish community recorded in the Sardica paschal table it clearly was intentional: the Jews of that city did not have a rule of the equinox. The Babylonian Talmud attributes a rule of the equinox to the 4th-century Rabbi Huna ben Avin (b. Rosh Hashana 21a) but it is not clear that this rule was consistently followed even in Rabbinic circles at this early peariod. The Rabbinic calendar didn't reach its present form until around the 8th/9th century CE.--Mockingbird0 (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Etymology section

[[::User:Rwflammang|Rwflammang]] ([[::User talk:Rwflammang|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Rwflammang|contribs]]) is pushing to have the etymology section bumped down far into the body rather than the usual front and center convention we see on Wikipedia. Generally, we have the etymology section as the first thing in the article when there's material for it. Rwflammang, please state your reasoning for this so we can discuss it rather than going through a pointless revert war. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Does the word "Easter" really rank in importance with the holiday itself? Really? Is that encyclopedic? Look, I like the etymolgy section, I really do. But we need to find a place for it that does not interrupt the flow of the article.

This article has a lot of really good information in it, but like a lot of wiki articles that have been worked over by many hands for a long time, its flow is a bit choppy. It could use a lot of work, quite frankly. The first place to start, in my opinion, is with the primary offender, the Etymology section. It is a largely self contained section, and can be moved elsewhere with little impact on the logical developement of the article.

However, :bloodofox: made a good point in one of his Edit Summaries that the Etymology can shed light on origins. Since historical summaries are a common way to organize information in an encyclopedia, I have no objection to including the Etymology in an Origins section. Needless to say, the Origins section should be laid out somewhat chronologically. Say, something like this:

• Origins
  • Easter in the early Church
    • Second-century controversy
    • Third/fourth-century controversy and Council
  • Etymolgy
    • Semitic, Romance, and Celtic languages
    • Anglo-Saxon
    • Slavic languages
    • Fino-Ugric languages

What do you think? Rwflammang (talk) 17:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The etymology section should not be tucked away into an "origins" section. It should be front and center like everywhere else on Wikipedia. The etymology of a term is extremely important in understanding basic fundamentals of a term: it provides a historical summary, its use, and introduces terms that will appear for the rest of the article, as well as terms used for the subject in different languages that redirect here on the English Wikipedia (which should also be in bold).

Firstly, if your beef with the etymology section is that it is bloated, then I can understand that, and it can easily be summarized. We can simply state what terms are derived from the Latin . I think it's in a very poor state (and the whole article for that matter). As it stands, it is far under sourced outside of the Anglo-Saxon term and its unique history (with cognate terms in continental Germany, as Grimm points out, and traditions directly stemming from continental Germanic areas).

There are probably also obviously numerous other non-Christian traditions that have survived into what we now have as "easter" that could likely be cited, but, as always, doing so requires a lot of caution in sources. No primary sources cited? Toss it out.

All information that is not sourced should technically be gone through and purged per WP:PROVEIT. The whole article needs this treatment, and every reference needs page numbers too. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The section can clearly be improved, but that is not my main problem with it's location. Actually, compared with much of the rest of the article, the section does not stand out as being particularly bad. Obviously I do not object to improving it. It can certainly be shortened with no loss of information.

My sole objection its location is that it starts off the detailed section of the article with what is essentially an aside; this article is about the actual holiday, which is an international holiday. It's name in various languages is important only for two reasons: 1) for the light that it sheds on the origin of the holiday, and 2) because it is interesting in its own right, but not so important that it deserves its own article. Point 1 makes it a good candidate for inclusion in an "Origins" section, and point 2 makes it a good candidate for a lagniappe section at the end of the article.

Rwflammang (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

14th day

After longer than "quick search", I cannot be certain what "14th day of moon" means - no less "first 14th". I think it probably means 14th day after new moon - but it could be 14th day after first crescent. I doubt it is 14th day after full, but others might easily read it that way - explanation needed somewhere --JimWae (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Bede states in Chapter 43 of De Temporum Ratione (Bede: The reckoning of time, tr. Faith Wallis, p.117), "Should it befall that the Moon is lit up by the Sun shortly after evening, it must be counted as, and it must be, the first Moon as soon as the Sun has set" (my emphasis). So the "14th day of the moon" is the fourteenth day of the lunar month, counting the first day as the day when a thin crescent moon is first seen shortly after sunset. — Joe Kress (talk) 20:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It may be of interest that the very young crescent is easiest to see from the northern hemisphere when the sun and moon are near the spring equinox, since the moon's elevation above the horizon (as seen from the temperate northern hemisphere) increases most rapidly with her elongation from the sun at this point in the sky. Here is a picture of this year's new Paschal crescent: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080315.html --Mockingbird0 (talk) 05:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Although the young crescent is easier to see near the vernal equinox than it is near the winter solstice, the easiest new crescent to see is near the summer solstice when the ecliptic has its highest angle to the horizon. The hemisphere does not matter if the terms apply to the seasons. — Joe Kress (talk) 22:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

At the soltices, the ecliptic is parallel to the equator. It is where it crosses the equator that it makes the largest angle. Making the approximation, to keep the analysis simple, that the moon orbits in the plane of the ecliptic: When the one of the solstices is on the horizon at sunset, the sun below the horizon and the new crescent moon above, the line segment connecting the sun and moon runs almost parallel to the equator. Its angle of intersection with the horizon will be almost the same as the equator's. When the spring equinox is on the horizon at sunset, the sun below the horizon and the new crescent moon above, the line connecting the sun and moon runs from south of the the equator to north of it. Its angle of intersection with the temperate northern hemisphere's horizon will be higher than the equator's.--Mockingbird0 (talk) 21:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Feast of Unleavened Bread

Perhaps User:Mockingbird0 would care to explain to us why the term Feast of Unleavened Bread is preferable to its synonym, Passover? Passover is by far the more common and less wordy term. People are much more likely to know what it means without consulting a dictionary. I prefer Passover, myself. Rwflammang (talk) 16:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

In the computistical context of late antiquity, the word "Passover" either referred to Easter Day itself, or to the 14th day of a lunar month, Jewish or Christian. This late antique context is implicit in all discussions of Paschal mathematics.

In modern calendars and almanacs, however, "Passover" means, not Nisan 14 or Eastermonth 14 (as it does in the computistical context), but Nisan 15, the first day of Unleavened Bread according to the Rabbinic computation. If a late antique computistical writer stated that Easter must come "after Passover", he meant that it must come on one of the 7 days luna xv to luna xxi according to the Christian computation. When the modern Eastern Orthodox say that Easter must come "after Passover", they don't mean this. They mean that it must always come after Nisan 15 according to the Rabbinic computation. By using the term "Rabbinic Feast of Unleavened Bread" we avoid the ambiguity inherent in the term "Passover", which is a computistical term of art as well as a modern Jewish observance.--Mockingbird0 (talk) 04:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting point you make about the moving of Passover from the 14th to the 15th. But I don't see how this makes Feast of Unleavened Bread an improvement. It is a synonym for Passover in modern times, and it was a synonym for passover in ancient times as well. If Passover really did move from the 14th to the 15th, then what is needed is a referenced statement to that effect, and not a wholesale replacement of terms, or worse, a false distinction between two synonyms. Rwflammang (talk)

Perhaps the distinction you want to make is between the Paschal sacrifice (14th) and the Passover Seder (late afternoon / evening of the 14th/15th). Rwflammang (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I never said "the Passover moved". I said the word has multiple meanings, and that the multiple meanings can create confusion if the word is not used carefully. As you note, the lamb was sacrificed on the 14th, but it was not eaten until the 15th, after the sun had set a few hours later. (Originally the Passover was sacrificed "between the two evenings" (Lev. 23.5) just before being cooked and eaten, but by 2nd Temple times the number of lambs had become so large that "between the two evenings" was re-interpreted, and the sacrifices took up much of the afternoon.) The day the lamb is slaughtered is "Passover" strictly so-called. The day it is eaten is the first day of Unleavened Bread. Because the Passover (the lamb) was eaten on the 15th, the days of Unleavened Bread were (and are) popularly called "Passover." But the day of Passover strictly so-called is the 14th, and in computistical discussions of the 4th century the word "Passover", when it refers to a lunar date, always means the 14th of a lunar month, never the 15th. In a discussion about the relationship between the Gregorian and Rabbinic lunar calendars, "Passover" necessarily means the 15th of Nisan, not the 14th, since Rabbinic Jews don't sacrifice the lamb. Referring to Nisan 14 as Passover and Nisan 15 as the first day of Unleavened Bread avoids this ambiguity.--Mockingbird0 (talk) 14:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

"Referring to Nisan 14 as Passover and Nisan 15 as the first day of Unleavened Bread avoids this ambiguity." I'm not convinced that it avoids this ambiguity, since Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread are synonyms now, and have been synonyms for the whole history of Easter. To avoid ambiguity, I propose the terminology "day of the Paschal sacrifice" and "day of the Passover Seder", which seem to me to be more to the point. I must say that I find the term "Passover properly so called" to be especially un-illuminating. Rwflammang (talk) 19:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere in my last post did I use the phrase "Passover properly so-called", though I did twice use the prhase "Passover strictly so-called".

The word Passover has not "for the whole history of Easter" been a synonym for Feast of Unleavened Bread. As I noted above, in the computistical literature the distinction is crucial. One need look no further than Ceolfrid's letter to Naitan (Bede, HE 5.21)

Primum ergo diem azymorum appellat eum in quo exercitum eorum esset educturus de Aegypto. Constat autem quia non quartadecima die, in cuius vespera agnus est immmolatus, et quae proprie Pascha sive Phase dicitur; sed quintadecima sunt educti ex Aegypto. (He calls it the first day of Unleavened Bread in which he was to bring their host out of Egypt. But it is clear that they were not brought out on the 14th day, in the evening of which the lamb was slain, and which is rightly called the Passover or Phase; but on the 15th day they were brought out of Egypt.)

Since the section of the article discussing the relationship between calendars is inherently computistical, the distinction should be maintained there.--Mockingbird0 (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a thought: are we sure we are taking into account that the Jewish religious day begins at sunset? Thus, the evening of the fifteenth day of the moon is on the fourteenth day of the moon when reckoned with civil days. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 23:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

If you read what I wrote above, you'll see that I stated that "the lamb was sacrificed on the 14th, but it was not eaten until the 15th, after the sun had set a few hours later."--Mockingbird0 (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I have read this section on the relationship of the date of Easter to Passover, trying to understand what is being asserted, and I can say that in its present form it makes absolutely no sense to me. It explains nothing. It uses terminology which only Mockingbird0 seems to know. Perhaps we should revert to plain English such as (in outline form only): the Jewish calendar uses strict astronomical phenomena of the equinox, full moon etc in the determination of Passover (see Hebrew calendar). Easter, on the other hand, is determined using the fixed date of March 21 as the equinox date (irrespective of the actual astronomical date) and using its particular 19-year lunisolar calendar cycle which runs independent from the actual astronomical equinox by inserting the intercalary lunar month at set points of its 19-year cycle, which is different to the 19-year metonic cycle used by the Jewish calendar...

Mockingbird0 seems to be obtaining his material from some unnamed source. If that is the case, I would appreciate its citation, to enable me to refer to it to understand what he is "trying" to say. I was the one who tagged his material as "dubious", which I still think is the case, and his table does not seem to really explain the assertion.

In the third place, I am beginning to get very uncomfortable to his repeated use of the adjective "Rabbinic". I know that the modern Jewish calculation-based calendar was a product of rabbinic Judaism, but it is now the normative calendar in use by all Jewish communities, with some small exceptions. It is not the rabbis' calendar nor is Nissan 15 nor whatever. I would like to know where his terminology, including his repeated use of the term Feast of Unleavened Bread is coming from. It's from no source that I know of.

Lastly, though it may be interesting that the paschal lamb was sacrificed on the 14th, etc, what has that got to do with the relationship between the two holidays? Whether Passover starts on Nissan 14 or 15 makes no difference in this context. So what is the point of the paragraph on the seder, or Maundy Thursday?Ewawer (talk) 23:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand Ewawer's difficulty here. The distinction between Passover (Nisan 14) and the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Nisan 15-21) is one of the most basic facts of the Jewish calendar.

On the fourteenth day of the first month is the Lord's passover. And on the fifteenth day of this month is a feast; seven days shall unleavened bread be eaten. (Numbers 28.16).

Likewise Philo:

[On] the Crossing-feast, which the Hebrews in their native tongue call Pascha...many myriads of victims from noon till eventide are offered by the whole people...The day on which this national festivity occurs may very properly be noted. It is the 14th day of the month....With the Crossing-feast [Moses] combines one in which the food consumed is of a different and unfamiliar kind, namely, unleavened bread, which also gives its name to the feast....The feast begins at the middle of the month, on the fifteenth day, when the moon is full [and] is held for seven days... (Special Laws II.27-28).

Likewise Josephus:

In the month of Xanthicus, which with us is called Nisan and begins the year, on the fourteenth day by lunar reckoning, the sun being then in Aries, our lawgiver, seeing that in this month we were delivered from bondage to the Egyptians, ordained that we should year by year offer the same sacrifice which....we offered then on departure from Egypt-the sacrifices called Pascha. And so in fact we celebrate it by fraternities, nothing of the sacrificial victims being kept for the morrow. On the fifteenth the Passover is followed up by the Feast of Unleavened Bread, lasting seven days, during which our people subsist on unleavened loaves... (Antiquities 3.10.5).

In addition, as I have tried to show, the distinction between the Passover and the Days of Unleavened Bread is important in the literature of the computus and the Easter controversies. In an article about Easter it seems prudent to maintain this distinction.

"Rabbinic calendar" is a perfectly good term for the modern Hebrew calendar. It distinguishes it from the various Jewish calendars that were in use at the time the independent Easter computations were beginning to be devised, since the Rabbinic calendar did not exist in the 3rd and early 4th centuries. Even according to the late and unsupported Geonic tradition about the supposed mid-4th century "Rabbi Hillel II", the Rabbinic calendar was not "instituted" until the mid-4th century. I don't see what objection anyone can have to the term "Rabbinic calendar", but I can agree to "modern Hebrew calendar" as a substitute.

The Rabbinic calendar does not "use strict astronomical phenomena of the equinox, full moon etc in the determination of Passover." It uses exactly the same scheme that the Easter computus uses, dividing 19 solar years into 235 lunar months of 30 and 29 days, which generally alternate. The beginning of the year is determined by the molad. The period from one molad to the next is twelve or thirteen mean lunations of 29 days, 12 hours, 793 divisions. That is the basic computation of the Hebrew calendar: Multiplying 29-12-793 by 12 or 13 and adding the result to the molad of the prior year. The new year's 1 Tishri falls on the day of the molad if the molad occurs before noon; otherwise it falls on the next day. There are then a couple of tweaks to prevent 1 Tishri from falling on Sunday, Wednesday, or Friday. These determine precisely how many days the year will have. Dealing with them is more complicated that the basic molad computation. Once this task is completed, the months of the year are then fixed for the entire year, and except for the tweaks and the embolisms, they alternate, 29-day months following 30-day months and 30-day months following 29-day months. The Rabbinic calendar does not, (as the modern Chinese lunar calendar does) attempt to stay close to the true lunations; it uses the average, just as the Easter cycle does. Nor does the Rabbinic calendar have any explicit rule of the equinox; the regular scheme of intercalations takes care of the equinox automatically. The Rabbinic calendar includes a concept of tekufoth (seasons.) These are based on a Julian calendar year of 365.25 days. They are needed for mapping the Rabbinic calendar back into the civil calendar. They also determine the time when a prayer for rain is inserted into the Amidah. But they don't enter into the basic computation of when the molad occurs and how many days the year will have. If you don't believe me, check Louis A. Resnikoff, "Jewish Calendar Calculations", Scripta Mathematica 9,191(1943) and 9,274(1943).

That the implicit solar year in the Rabbinic calendar is a little too long you can work out for yourself. The mean lunation used by the Jewish calendar is 29 days, 12 hours, and 793/1080 of an hour, or 29.530594 days, very close to the true mean synodic month of 29.530598 days. Nineteen solar years is set equal to 235 such lunations, or 6939.6896 days. This comes out to 365.2468 days per year. The vernal equinox year is 365.2424 days. The Gregorian calendar's is 365.2425 days. So the Rabbinic calendar's solar year is too long by about ten and a half hours in a century. The Rabbinic calendar, in other words, sacrifices accuracy in the solar year in order to stay close to the mean lunations. This is a known feature of the Hebrew calendar. On page 22 of Arthur Speier's Comprehensive Hebrew Calendar (1986 edition) you will find the statement that

The deviation [of the Hebrew calendar] from the true astronomical figure is very slight as far as the lunar month is concerned, and therefore the Hebrew calendar months still follow the course of the moon quite closely in our time. The difference between the traditional length of the sun year and the respective astronomical figure is,however, not negligible and causes the Hebrew months to advance against the sun approximately 4 1/2 days in a thousand years For example, we celebrate Pesah 4 1/2 days later, on the average, than our ancestors did 1000 years ago at the time of Saadia Gaon.

But because the Hebrew calendar's months stay close to the observed lunations, this drift in the solar year doesn't show up as a gradually later and later start of the lunar months. It shows up instead as in the form of the month of Nisan occurring more often, as the centuries go by, in a later lunation, relative to the equinox, than in earlier centuries. Here's how it works: In the Gregorian Easter cycle, the embolisms are formally at the end of the 3rd, 6th, 8th, 11th, 14th, 17th and 19th years. But in actual fact, going by the number of lunations between Easters, the embolisms formally occurring at the ends of years 6 and 17 occur de-facto earlier in the year. To keep things simple, we can assign them to the ends of the years 5 and 16. Beginning in 2200 the embolisms in the Gregorian Easter cycle will still formally be at the ends of the years 3, 6, 8, 11, 14, 17, and 19, but in actual fact (going by the number of lunations between Easters) they will be in years 3, 6, 8, 11, 14, 16, and 19. In other words, the embolism that is now de-facto at the end of year 5 will then be both de-facto and formally at the end of year 6. The embolisms in the Rabbinic calendar, meanwhile, will be, as always, in years 3, 6, 8, 11, 14, 17, and 19 of that calendar. So the relative scheduling of embolisms in the two calendars will change beginning in 2200. Currently the de-facto embolism at the end of year 5 of the Easter cycle matches the embolism that follows a few months later in year 3 of the Hebrew cycle. If Easter and Pesach/Matzoth are in the same lunation in year 5 Gregorian, due to this de-facto embolism they will still be in phase in year 6. In the years 2200-2299 this will no longer happen. If Easter and Pesach/Matzoth are in the same lunation in year 5 Gregorian, they will be in different lunations in year 6, because the Hebrew embolism in Hebrew year 3 will no longer be compensated by a matching embolism between the same two Easters in the Easter cycle. Only after the embolism at the end of Easter cycle year 6 will the two calendars be back in phase in year 7. Meanwhile, the three mismatches that currently occur, in years 3, 11, and 14 of the Gregorian cycle, will continue to occur in 2200-2299. Hence the effect will be seen in four years of every 19, instead of in only 3.

The note that the first seder never falls on Thursday night was added simply because it seems like something a reader of this section of the article would want to know. The section is about the relative scheduling of the two holidays. That the situation depicted in the synoptic Gospels, of the first seder occurring on Thursday night, can now never occur, is one fact of this relative scheduling.--Mockingbird0 (talk) 04:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you kept the explanation simple and brief. Unfortunately, with respect to your efforts, it seems to me that it misses the point, which is what rules of the two cycles cause the two festivals to deviate from each other, especially as they started off originally from the same starting point.

In my view whether Passover starts on Nisan 14 or 15 is irrelevant here. But just for the record, it actually starts on the 15th. However as the Jewish day starts at sunset on the previous Gregorian day (ie the 14th), one can write a book on which day is the "de facto" start of Passover. All that is important is that it is the day of the full moon of the lunar month of Nisan, which is the month which includes the northern spring equinox - that is, the first month of spring.

Then, the Christian rule going back to the 4th century if not earlier was for Easter to be observed on the Sunday after Passover (however defined). That's also a simple rule to understand, and should result in a difference of no more than 7 days, with Easter always being after Passover.

Then sometime in the 4th century both the Church and the rabbis separately adopted mathematically-based systems, with both attempting to simulate the astronomical phenomena referred to above. But obviously, the two systems missed their marks of simulating mathematically the astronomical cycles, resulting in the divergence. I'm still trying to come to grips with the rules that resulted in the divergence of dates, and your explanation deals with the results of the different rules and not the rules themselves.

I also pick you up on your assertion that "we celebrate Pesah 4 1/2 days later, on the average, than our ancestors did 1000 years ago at the time of Saadia Gaon" - later than what? According to the Hebrew calendar it is spot on. I'm not even sure that in relation to the Gregorian calendar that is the case, nor even in relation to the computus. I suspect that the source here may still be in the mind-set of pre-Gregorian reforms to the Christian calendar, when the "seasons were drifting over time".

It is also said that "The distinction between Passover (Nisan 14) and the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Nisan 15-21) is one of the most basic facts of the Jewish calendar." I can say, in brief: bullocks. Most Jews would not even know what the Feast of Unleavened Bread is. The whole festival is nowadays simply referred to as Passover or Pasach. Quoting from the bible and other ancient sources, whether Jewish or Christian, in this respect is humbug. Furthermore, the article is about Easter and not Passover, so I won't waste any more time on that point.Ewawer (talk) 07:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Ewawer claims to have certain knowledge that "most Jews would not even know what the Feast of Unleavened Bread is." Yet the kiddush open the seder says quite plainly, "Thou hast given us in love the day of this Feast of Unleavened Bread and this festival of holy convocation, the season of our freedom, in commemoration of the out-going from Egypt." The festival amidah that is used on some of the Days of Unleavened Bread likewise contains the phrase "Feast of Unleavened Bread (hag ha-matzoth), the season of our freedom." So some folk apparently haven't gotten word that Ewawer thinks they aren't supposed to know this phrase.--Mockingbird0 (talk) 01:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Easter and Pesach/Matzoth 1 moon apart 2200-2299

Someone marked as "dubious" the statement that in the years 2200-2299, Rabbinic Nisan 15 will be 1 lunation later than Easter in 4 years out of 19, instead of in only 3, as now. Here, to demonstrate that it is so, are 19 years in the period 2200-2299.--Mockingbird0 (talk) 23:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Gregorian year	Golden number	Hebrew year	Year of Jewish cycle	Gregorian Easter	Rabbinic Nisan 15
2201	17	5961	14	April 19	April 19
2202	18	5962	15	April 11	April 8
2203	19	5963	16	April 3	March 29
2204	1	5964	17	April 22	April 17
2205	2	5965	18	April 7	April 6
2206	3	5966	19	March 30	April 24
2207	4	5967	1	April 19	April 14
2208	5	5968	2	April 3	April 2
2209	6	5969	3	March 26	April 20
2210	7	5970	4	April 15	April 10
2211	8	5971	5	March 31	March 30
2212	9	5972	6	April 19	April 18
2213	10	5973	7	April 11	April 6
2214	11	5974	8	March 27	April 26
2215	12	5975	9	April 16	April 15
2216	13	5976	10	April 7	April 4
2217	14	5977	11	March 30	April 22
2218	15	5978	12	April 12	April 11
2219	16	5979	13	April 4	April 1

Tables for Easter

The Article has : "To prevent any differences developing in the dating of Easter, the Catholic Church has compiled tables for Easter, which are based on the ecclesiastical rules described above. All affiliated churches celebrate Easter in accordance with these tables."

I don't think that clearly expresses whatever the situation is.

That, if it remains, needs an immediately-visible link, perhaps via a footnote, to authoritative and legible versions of those Catholic Tables.

There should be a corresponding statement for the Anglican Church, since the ultimate Anglican authority (Prayer Book / Calendar Act) expresses the calculation in a manner which is only moderately like that of the ultimate Catholic authority (the Bull and Canons of 1582). Its corresponding link should not currently be to the Statute Law Database.

82.163.24.100 (talk) 23:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Size of Discussion

I suggest that the trimming robot be invited to operate here. 82.163.24.100 (talk) 23:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Dates in Top Box

The head of the article gives the dates of nearby Easters, Eastern and Western. It says that next years' are on the same date. Actually, they are on the same Gregorian date and the same day; the Julian and Gregorian dates differ next year. IMHO, the type of date should be indicated. That will become even more important after 2100-02-29, when one will not be able to tell whether an Easter date is Julian or Gregorian by knowing that it must represent a Sunday. 82.163.24.100 (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Echo what was said above, this article is currently very Christian-centric

My daily life interferes too much for me to get too involved, but I'll just echo what was said above. This article's focus is clearly on the Christian holiday, rather than on the larger meta-holiday that is pagan, secular, and christian. The article is upfront about this focus: "This article is about the Christian religious festival." The article dutifully tacks on a mention here or there that other peoples, passed and present, have celebrated the holiday along the way and have different traditions for its celebration-- but these are mostly asides; the Christian religious festival is clearly the primary and most central focus of the current article.

Nothing wrong with that, but there should also be an article on Easter from a culturally neutral point of view. What Easter _primarily_ is-- secular or pagan or christian, probably can't be stated definitively. A US court [4] ruled, for example, that Easter is primarily a secular holiday. Hundreds of millions of Christians would say it's primarily a secular holiday. Cultural anthropologists, looking at eggs and bunnies and candy and the name, might say it first and foremost a pre-christian Spring holiday.

The current article doesn't try to strike a balance-- it definitely focuses first and foremost on the Christian holiday. It's an entirely defensible decision, but I doubt it's a fully neutral point of view.

I'm not in a position to try to fix it, but I'd encourage the next person who comes along and concurs to try to help the article find a better balance, farming out some content to Easter (Christian festival) as needed. --Alecmconroy (talk) 10:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above poster. I mean, the most important part of Easter--the Easter Bunny--is hardly even mentioned, while the article goes on and on about some kind of astrology shit. And it tries to make Easter eggs out to be some kind of religious thing. Hello...? Did Jesus lay eggs? Maybe they think so in Russia, I dunno.

I'm not saying the J-man's not important. After all, we wouldn't even have the holiday if he hadn't gotten burned at the stake way back when (or maybe we would, but it would all be Wiccan shit). But what about all those Rankin-Bass claymation cartoons? Why are their no pictures of fursuited bunnies--you know, the kind that kids get their picture taken with? If you really want to include obscure gay stuff, there's all that "Easter bonnet" / "Easter parade" stuff from a hundred years ago.

No hard feelings, I hope. Happy Bunny Day, dudes. --Wayne

That's quite a lot of unsourced speculation and opinion. There is no pagan holiday based on the Jewish calendar. I think you are mistaking Christmas for Easter. Christmas falls on the date of a pagan holiday. Anyway, the article already has a great deal of information on the secular aspect of Easter. If you feel strongly enough that there should be an article that has a culturally neutral point of view, then start the article "Easter (secular holiday)." You are committing the very fallacy you are trying to avoid: pushing a cultural point of view that everyone should accept. So who is right? You, the secularist, or the Christians? Apparently, the case you cited was overruled:

We note that we find nothing in the record or otherwise that indicates that Easter, the holiest day in all of Christendom, is, as the district court concluded, “a highly secularized holiday.” The anecdotal evidence in the record before us concerning the secularization of Easter proves nothing. Neither Koenick's reliance on the deeply religious aspects of Easter for practicing Christians nor the Board's recitation of the many seemingly secular events surrounding the day evidence the level of secularization of the holiday. See Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 675, 685-86, 104 S.Ct. 1355, 79 L.Ed.2d 604 (1984) (Christmas does not have to lose its religious significance for believers in order to be considered a secular holiday); County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, 633, 109 S.Ct. 3086, 106 L.Ed.2d 472 (1989) (O'Connor, J., concurring) (“The Easter holiday celebrated by Christians may be accompanied by certain ‘secular aspects' such as Easter bunnies and Easter egg hunts; but it is nevertheless a religious holiday.” ). What is necessary to prove Easter's secularization is evidence of the numbers of persons who observe the holiday in a purely secular way-that is, the number of persons for whom the holiday has no religious significance but who nonetheless celebrate the occasion in some manner. See, e.g., County of Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 585, 616-17, 109 S.Ct. 3086 (noting that many Americans have a Christmas tree in their home or otherwise celebrate Christmas or Chanukah “without regard to [their] religious significance” ). This record is devoid of such evidence. Accordingly, unlike the district court, we do not base our holding on a finding that Easter is a secular holiday.

Koenick v. Felton 190 F.3d 259 (4th Cir. 1999) Wow, look at that! Then, the US Supreme Court refused to hear the case. 528 U.S. 1118 (2000) Guess the law in the United States is that Easter is a religious holiday and not a secular one. I would suggest someone should edit the article to reflect the Federal recognition of this fact. Here is a thought: maybe it should have a greater religious point of view seeing that it is a religious topic. 76.99.55.47 (talk) 02:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixing the Date of Easter

The Article currently includes Their proposals include always observing Easter on the second Sunday in April, or always having seven Sundays between the Epiphany and Ash Wednesday, producing the same result except that in leap years Easter could fall on April 7.

To keep Easter on a Sunday, such proposals must necessarily allow seven or more Gregorian month-day dates. The unimplemented UK Easter Act 1928, for example, uses the Sunday after the second Saturday in April (April 9th-15th). The above "seven Sundays between" uses eight month-day dates.

It would be better to choose the Sunday of the fifteenth ISO 8601 week of the year - a truly fixed date, mapping on to April 12th-18th for common years and April 11th-17th for Leap Years. It would be as if the Paschal Full Moon date were always the 101st day of the year (100 days after New Year's Day), April 11th or 10th respectively.

Diaries commonly show, and businesses commonly use, ISO week-numbering.

82.163.24.100 (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Unpublished synthesis?

Someone has put an "unpublished synthesis" banner over the section "Easter in the Early Church".

I have never been very satisfied with the wording of the citation to Socrates that opens that section and would happily revise it if that is the reason for the banner.

But in any case, if whoever posted the banner doesn't show up soon and support the action on this talk board, I intend to delete the banner.--Mockingbird0 (talk) 02:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I support the tag's deletion. — Joe Kress (talk) 07:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I took issue with the final opinion in the first paragraph, "but does not leave the question free of doubt." The quote "By the later second century, it was accepted that the celebration of Pascha (Easter) was a practice of the disciples and an undisputed tradition." is unsourced and in the passive voice. Passive voice is a red flag. Who accepted this tradition? How do we know this? What secondary source rules out other possibilities? The 2nd century section contains quite a few conclusions but only citations to primary sources. It is improper synthesis to state a position as true from a collection of sources. If a secondary source states the fact and it is undisputed, then this is merely a citation. With citations from primary sources, it is better to quote the specific passage and let the reader draw their own conclusion rather than give it to them. This is fine in an academic paper, but hopefully, this article could direct the leader to the information for forming their own conclusion rather than taking these assertions a priori. By analogy, one does not make the statement, "Hamlet, like Shakespeare's other revenge tragedies, borrowed heavily from Seneca the Younger." without citing a secondary source that makes the same statement. One cannot also cite passages from Seneca alone to prove the assertion either because these are primary sources.

There is no citation for "Because of this dissatisfaction with reliance on the Jewish calendar, some Christians began to experiment with independent computations. Others, however, felt that the customary practice of consulting Jews should continue, even if the Jewish computations were in error." This is a very central point, but where does it come from? Because the entire section has quite a few absent citations, conclusions not taken from secondary sources, and cites to primary ancient texts, I put up the synthesis tag. 76.99.55.47 (talk) 02:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Are we reading the same article? The statement that "others felt that the customary practice of consulting Jews should continue, even if the Jewish computations were in error" if followed immediately by a quotation from a primary source which expresses precisely that opinion.--Mockingbird0 (talk) 03:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I quoted much more than the single sentence you pointed out. As far as just that sentence is concerned, it is misleading in the use of the indefinite pronoun "others." The only group identified is the Audiani heresy. The rest is "implied": an obvious unsourced conclusion. Inter alia, you did not address the first part of my quote above, "Because of this dissatisfaction with reliance on the Jewish calendar, some Christians began to experiment with independent computations." Quoted as a source of the "dissatisfaction" is this citation:

"Eusebius reports that Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, proposed an 8-year Easter cycle, and quotes a letter from Anatolius, Bishop of Laodicea, that refers to a 19-year cycle. Eusebius, Church History, 7.20, 7.31. An 8-year cycle has been found inscribed on a statue unearthed in Rome in the 17th century, dated to the third century. Allen Brent, Hippolytus and the Roman Church in the Third Century, Leiden, E.J. Brill, 1995."

Where does this express dissatisfaction with reliance on the Jewish calendar? Indeed, 7.20 Church History states "it is not proper to observe the paschal feast until after the vernal equinox." According to the Passover page, Passover is observed after the vernal equinox. How does this express dissatisfaction with reliance on the Jewish calendar? Additionally, 7.31 of Church History has nothing to do with the calculation of an Easter date[5], yet it is part of the citation. It's one thing to put an opinion into an article rather than a fact, but this is an opinion not supported by any fact. We are not reading the same article; I am reading an essay, an unpublished synthesis, not an encyclopedic entry. It places the whole historical section into doubt. Check your cites and correct the errors. 76.99.55.47 (talk) 09:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The citation to 7.20 and 7.31 is given in support of the statement that some Christians began to experiment with independent computations, as anyone can see. The statement that some were dissatisfied is supported by the earlier citations.

The Audiani (who were a schism, not a heresy) are accurately called "others." They became schismatics precisely because they wanted to continue the custom of following the Jewish calendar.

The Hebrew calendar now puts Passover always after the equinox. In the 3rd and 4th centuries, it didn't.--Mockingbird0 (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I will request moderation. Gx872op (talk) 19:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Easter holiday

Easter is the most important religious feast in the Christian liturgical year. In Christian mythology, Jesus was resurrected from the dead three days 2 after his crucifixion. Many Christian denominations celebrate this resurrection on Easter Day or Easter Sunday (also Resurrection Day or Resurrection Sunday), two days after Good Friday. The chronology of his death and resurrection is variously interoperated to be between the years 26 and 36 A.D. Easter also refers to the season of the church year called Eastertide or the Easter Season. Traditionally the Easter Season lasted for the forty days from Easter Day until Ascension Day but now officially lasts for the fifty days until Pentecost. The first week of the Easter Season is known as Easter Week or the Octave of Easter. Easter also marks the end of Lent, a season of prayer and penance. Easter is a moveable feast, meaning it is not fixed in relation to the civil calendar. Easter falls at some point between late March and late April each year (early April to early May in Eastern Christianity), following the cycle of the Moon. After several centuries of disagreement, all churches accepted the computation of the Alexandrian Church (now the Coptic Church) that Easter is the first Sunday after the Paschal Full Moon, which is the first moon whose 14th day (the ecclesiastic "full moon") is on or after March 21 (the ecclesiastic "vernal equinox"). Easter is linked to the Jewish Passover not only for much of its symbolism but also for its position in the calendar. It is also linked to Spring Break, a secular school holiday (customarily a week long) celebrated at various times across North America, and characterized by road trips and bacchanalia. Cultural elements, such as the Easter Bunny, 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.195.183.212 (talk) 08:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Source for new Dyngus Day in Poland

"A similar tradition existed in Poland (where it is called Dyngus Day), but it is now little more than an all-day water fight." and where's the source for this please? Luggerhead (talk) 10:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Clarification

{{editsemiprotected}} Recommend the following clarification edit. From:
determining the date of Orthodox Easter is also March 21 according to the Julian reckoning, resulting in the divergence in the date of Easter in most years. (see table)
To:
determining the date of Orthodox Easter is also March 21, but according to the Julian reckoning, which corresponds to April 4th on the Gregorian calendar, resulting in the divergence in the date of Easter in most years. (see table)
Petervog (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I took a run at it. Tell me what you think. CapitalElll (talk) 01:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done fahadsadah (talk,contribs) 09:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The new wording is better overall. However, the 13-day difference causes the divergence only in 5 years out of 19, which can't be said to be "most" years. In other years, the divergence is due to the differences on the lunar side. I have modified the passage to include mention of the lunar discrepancy's contribution.--Mockingbird0 (talk) 21:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

link to passover

"Easter is linked to the Jewish Passover not only for much of its symbolism but also for its position in the calendar." erm, it's pretty much completely unrelated especially in symbolism, i challange you to find a depiction of the cross in any celebration of the passover, being roughly the same time of the year is coincidental, this is like saying christmass is related to hanakah (sp?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.5.186 (talk) 00:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

editsemiprotected

In the section "Etymology" the phrase "and that feasts held her in honor" should read "and that feasts held in her honor." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.118.222 (talk) 04:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

2009 Easter

Why is there a * next to the 2009 Easter date in the two tables? 76.67.210.125 (talk) 12:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

---

I reckon it is because that is THIS YEARS date ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.86.63 (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

 ::you guys need a star for that?? really? 76.67.210.125 (talk) 11:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I dunno - looks like original research to me. Where's the reliable source that we are actually in the year 2009? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Oh. Never mind. :)

A family fun holiday

Easter is just like Christmas in a way. Families get together and celebrate for religious reasons or just to come together. Even if you dont celebrate it consider it a day of just family fun activities. HAPPY EASTER EVERYONE!!!!!!!!!! --Soccerchick9 (talk) 13:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

OK wasnt EASTER a Pagan Holiday first?

Maybe I didnt red article well enough? Wasnt Easter from Asarte I beleive???? A Pagan holiday of sopringtime first thanks!(Dr. Edson Andre' Johnson D>D>ULC> sP.M.Sn.April12,200921stCentury)Andreisme (talk) 02:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Many cultures celebrated the arrival of spring, which is what the word "Easter" refers to. As with the winter solstice celebration, the church took over these holidays, as Resurrection Day and Christmas, respectively. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

This article is very poor. It fails to note the pagan origins of Easter, nor to explain the corresponding origins of Easter traditions, such as the Easter bunny. It is really only suitable as Easter (Christianity) Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

There are lots of urban legends about the "pagan origins" of Easter. White the article could perhaps note their existence, if it is to be factual it should not give credence to them. SteveH (talk) 04:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

That's covered in the companion article. [6] Easter is now primarily a Christian holy day, more properly "Resurrection Day". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It should be properly linked in and have accompanying text summarising its contents. The article, prior to my edits, was so poor that the uninformed reader could have ended up believing the Easter was originally christian. Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

If I may jump in: "Easter" is only it's name in English, and it most certainly has nothing to do with the Syro-Phoenician goddess Astarte. The Anglo-Saxons called it Easter because it occurred during their month of Oestermonath - "the month of buds (or opening)". Apart from a single reference by Bede there is absolutely not one shred of evidence that there was every a pagan goddess of spring or fertility worshipped by that name or any similar name anywhere in Britain or on the Continent. The feast of the Resurrection (Pascha) was not an adopted pagan holiday either. There is no evidence of such a pagan festival coinciding with Passover, and all those supposed "dying and resurrected gods of spring" in the Near East weren't: most never died, and those who did weren't ever resurrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.25.43.63 (talk) 11:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The better Christian connection to spring fertility rites is Annunciation Day, which once coincided with the spring equinox, and which was obviously (9 months later) connected to the pagan rites associated with the winter solstice, which at that time coincided with Christmas. Resurrection Day being in the spring is a happy coincidence. The bunny and the eggs are leftovers from the rites of spring. The connection between the two is metaphorical: the resurrection of Jesus and the renewal of life that spring symbolizes. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Passover has no obvious connection to the rites of spring, at least none that I can think of; while the connection of Passover and Jesus is very strong, with the Last Supper being the Seder, and Jesus being symbolized as the sacrificial lamb of Passover. Passover, of course, occurs in the springtime month of Nisan. "Easter" means spring and "Lent" means spring, both of those words deriving form old German. Anything connected to renewal or rebirth obviously has a strong metaphorical connection with springtime. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

About the "absolutely not one shred of evidence" business—you seem to be forgetting etymology, which pretty solidly places Eostre (an Anglo-Saxon goddess) right next to the goddesses Aurora and Eos, and points to a development from a much older Proto-Indo-European goddess of the dawn. This "month of openings" stuff is not widely accepted, and most modern scholars accept Bede's commentary. I should note that Bede also mentions Mōdraniht in the same section, which there is no question about. However, it is true that none of this has anything to do with Astarte. :bloodofox: (talk) 13:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

However, Anglo-Saxons didn't come into close contact with Easter until around 500 A.D., by which time Easter had already been celebrated in the Mediterranean for centuries; the simple historically-verifiable fact is that the basic Christian observance of Easter originated as a Christianized version of the Jewish Passover (not from from Anglo-Saxon paganism). AnonMoos (talk) 11:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the detail of the debate, the fact remains that this article desparately needs to be sanitised of its Christian slant and given some kind of historical credibility. I'm tagging it. Andrewjlockley (talk) 13:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

What "Christian slant?" The article is about a Christian holiday. It must explain Christianity's view of its own holiday in order to be accurate and informative. This is not a "slant". It is fact. --Mockingbird0 (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, etymology is important. In Romance languages and and some Romance-influenced ones, it is a derivative of Pascua. Since this is the same holiday, I assume that making a note of the interesting etymology in English is enough. In any case, this article is about the Christian holy day, as the term "Easter" is commonly used in modern English, and not about the pagan holiday. Awickert (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

So far as I'm aware, there are four different 'pagan origin of Easter' theories, and I'm curious which one the current batch of pagan-Easter editors support:

1. Christians appropriated a Germanic Pagan Eostre celebration that goes back to a PIE dawn goddess. They did this around 600AD, at the time of the conversion of England. Supporting evidence is Bede and Grimm.
2. Christians appropriated some Greco-Roman spring festival. They did this in the first few centuries AD.
3. Christians appropriated an ancient Sumero/Semitic festival honoring Ishtar or Astarte. Supporting evidence is the resemblance between the English word "Easter" and those names, elaborated by early 20th-century anti-Catholic tracts.
4. Christian Easter actually does originate with Jewish Passover, but Christians added so many pagan traditions as to make the holiday indistinguishable from one resulting from theory #1 or #2.

Which is it? Ben (talk) 20:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I think a balance of the above should be used, according to their notability. What should not be done is leave it as the current article, which has no credible discussion of likely origins. Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

"Balancing" the approaches amounts to vague hand-waving. Look, either Christians incorporated pre-existing pagan festivals or they didn't. If they did, it was done by some specific Chrstians, to some specific Pagan festival, at some specific time. I'm sorry, but you have to choose, and to defend that choice based on the history.

The article already covers theory #1 in detail in the etymology section, including Grimm's suppositions and the "implications" people have drawn. In fact, it cites every historical fact I'm aware of supporting theory #1 in that section.

If there's literature on theory #2, we should add that within context -- perhaps an "origins" section. I'm unaware of such literature, but was hoping that a 'pagan Easter' advocate would be able to supply some. Theory #3 is transparently laughable, but does feature in some old Protestant anti-Catholic tracts (e.g. "The Two Babylons") and so might be worth covering in the Controversy section.

Ben (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The name Ishtar/Astarte is NOT linguistically/etymologically connected with the word "Easter", as previously discussed at Talk:Ishtar. To put it simply, if Eostre is connected with an Indo-European root *AUS- "dawn", that fact in and of itself makes a Semitic language connection extremely unlikely. AnonMoos (talk) 11:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm for giving the "pagan origins" hacks a few more days to come up with credible evidence from credible sources. But if what we've seen here is the best they can do, the tag should come down. The dispute will have been resolved by sensible people concluding that those who put up the tag didn't have a leg to stand on.--Mockingbird0 (talk) 02:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Pagan origins of Easter:

The name "Easter" originated with the names of an ancient Goddess and God. The Venerable Bede, (672-735 CE.) a Christian scholar, first asserted in his book De Ratione Temporum that Easter was named after Eostre (a.k.a. Eastre). She was the Great Mother Goddess of the Saxon people in Northern Europe. Similarly, the "Teutonic dawn goddess of fertility [was] known variously as Ostare, Ostara, Ostern, Eostra, Eostre, Eostur, Eastra, Eastur, Austron and Ausos." 1 Her name was derived from the ancient word for spring: "eastre." Similar Goddesses were known by other names in ancient cultures around the Mediterranean, and were celebrated in the springtime. Some were:

Aphrodite from ancient Cyprus Astoreth from Ancient Israel Astart from Ancient Greece Dememter from Mycenae Astaroth from Ancient Egypt Ishtar from Assyria Kali, from India Ostara, a Norse goddess of fertility

An alternative explanation has been suggested. The name given by the Frankish church to Jesus' resurrection festival included the Latin word "alba" which means "white." (This was a reference to the white robes that were worn during the festival.) "Alba" also has a second meaning: "sunrise." When the name of the festival was translated into German, the "sunrise" meaning was selected in error. This became "ostern" in German. Ostern has been proposed as the origin of the word "Easter". 2

Many, perhaps most, Pagan religions in the Mediterranean area had a major seasonal day of religious celebration at or following the Spring Equinox. Cybele, the Phrygian fertility goddess, had a fictional consort who was believed to have been born via a virgin birth. He was Attis, who was believed to have died and been resurrected each year during the period MAR-22 to MAR-25. "About 200 B.C. mystery cults began to appear in Rome just as they had earlier in Greece. Most notable was the Cybele cult centered on Vatican hill ...Associated with the Cybele cult was that of her lover, Attis (the older Tammuz, Osiris, Dionysus, or Orpheus under a new name). He was a god of ever-reviving vegetation. Born of a virgin, he died and was reborn annually. The festival began as a day of blood on Black Friday and culminated after three days in a day of rejoicing over the resurrection." 3

Wherever Christian worship of Jesus and Pagan worship of Attis were active in the same geographical area in ancient times, Christians "used to celebrate the death and resurrection of Jesus on the same date; and pagans and Christians used to quarrel bitterly about which of their gods was the true prototype and which the imitation."

Many religious historians believe that the death and resurrection legends were first associated with Attis, many centuries before the birth of Jesus. They were simply grafted onto stories of Jesus' life in order to make Christian theology more acceptable to Pagans. Others suggest that many of the events in Jesus' life that were recorded in the gospels were lifted from the life of Krishna, the second person of the Hindu Trinity. Ancient Christians had an alternative explanation; they claimed that Satan had created counterfeit deities in advance of the coming of Christ in order to confuse humanity. 4 Modern-day Christians generally regard the Attis legend as being a Pagan myth of little value. They regard Jesus' death and resurrection account as being true, and unrelated to the earlier tradition.

Wiccans and other modern-day Neopagans continue to celebrate the Spring Equinox as one of their 8 yearly Sabbats (holy days of celebration). Near the Mediterranean, this is a time of sprouting of the summer's crop; farther north, it is the time for seeding. Their rituals at the Spring Equinox are related primarily to the fertility of the crops and to the balance of the day and night times. Where Wiccans can safely celebrate the Sabbat out of doors without threat of religious persecution, they often incorporate a bonfire into their rituals, jumping over the dying embers is believed to assure fertility of people and crops.

  1. Larry Boemler "Asherah and Easter," Biblical Archaeology Review, Vol. 18, Number 3, 1992-May/June reprinted at: http://www.worldmissions.org/Clipper/Holidays/EasterAndAsherah.htm
  2. Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod Q & A Set 15, "Why do we celebrate a festival called Easter?" at: http://www.wels.net/sab/text/qa/qa15.html
  3. Gerald L. Berry, "Religions of the World," Barns & Noble, (1956).
  4. J Farrar & S. Farrar, "Eight Sabbats for Witches," Phoenix, Custer, WA, (1988).
  5. "Sunna," TeenWitch at: http://www.teenwitch.com
  6. "Dies Solis and other Latin Names for the Days of the Week," Logo Files, at:
      http://www.logofiles.com/
  7. "Sunday Observance," Latin Mass News, at:  http://www.unavoceca.org/122.110.180.146 (talk) 10:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I've already attempted to add that info, and it was stripped. Could I ask the editor to a) sign and b) suggest wording. Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. None of the links seem to work in the references. However, it seems that the information not already in the article is the bit about Attis and Cybele, as it actually argues for specific Mediterranean Christians adopting the Resurrection myth and the Easter festival from a specific pagan religion. I wish we had a more accessible/recent source than Barry, however. Ben (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The above is a cut-and-paste from ReligiousTolerance.org. They're not known for historical rigor, but I still think it's worth tracking down Berry's Attis/Easter claim. Ben (talk) 14:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

A Christian apologetic analysis of the Jesus=Attis theory may be found here: http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/attis.html Ben (talk) 15:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to dispute alba, what I presume to be the feminine form of albus, to have an alternative meaning of "sunrise." Of all the years I have studied Latin, I have never come across that meaning.[7] We have two sources using albus in reference to the sun: Cicero uses it (so another source says) as an epithet for both the sun and moon, and another source describes the "bright, white radiance of Hyperion." Neither of these two references are to oriens or orientalis, sunrise. Albus means white, not sunrise. It is completely false that there would be a problem translating alba into German with the fictitious dawn meaning. Gx872op (talk) 08:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Ostara-Eostre should be rectified

The artcle gives too much honour to the Ostara-speculation of the German romantic area. For generations there has not been a scholar in the German speaking academia who still upholds Ostara as being valid (cf de:Ostern). This was a pure assumption by Grimm. As far as Eostre is concerned I am not familiar with the scholarly debate in English but in German it is at most looked at as a possibility but with no more probabilty that Bede just guessed; I live where the Angles and Saxons came from and there is no trace of a former "Eostre/Ostara" over here. Definitely the claim that "pre-Christian Saxons had a spring goddess called Eostre, whose feast was held on the Vernal Equinox, around 21 March. Her animal was the spring hare" (so the present article) has no factual base and is pure phantasy. Cf Eostre.

Nothing at all is known about an Eostre except her being mentioned once by Bede. --Kipala (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

"Christian theological significance" misplaced and misleading

The whole paragraph looks misleading to me. It does NOT discuss the significance of Easter in the Christian theology but a mere aspect of the Easter tradition namely passover and the death thus the whole paragraph looks more Good Friday than Easter. As it stands it debates a side aspect and therefore should really not be in the beginning of the article. Any of the authors around who could say in a nutshell why he wanted this paragraph here? --Kipala (talk) 14:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and deleted the whole thing. There is already far too much information on (for example) the calendar calculation, which really ought to go somewhere else. The Passover connection should go in the section on ancient Christianity.

By the way, I've changed the beginning to make it not so exclusively Christian, and made a lot of cuts. Cuts are important, because I feel the reader is in danger of drowning amidst "too much information." To the poster who doesn't like the Easter Bunny--well, like him or not he does seem to be one of the most recognizeable symbols. And no, I don't mean for him to displace Jesus, whose icon is below (though I wish I could find a better way to balance the two images). Er, isn't that the resurrection of the dead and the final judgement, rather than Christ's descent into hell?Dawud (talk) 03:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

These "by-the-way-changes" in the beginning have to be reversed. Easter was and is a Christian festival which - like some other festivities- has also been taken up by people outside this religious community. But the claim that "it has roots in pre-Christian Europe, as a celebration of the arrival of Spring" is at best something to be debated (which I see as a misleading statement) but surely nothing that belongs into the initial summary. There is simply no valid argument that an originally Jewish holiday depending on the Jewish calender with widely variing dates should be "an pre Christian European spring festival" which cannot be traced in history. That a festival roughly in spring time aquires customs relating to the environment is a different matter but this is true even for many customs of Pentecost which is still in late spring.

The paragraph on "theological significance" was beside the point and it is no harm that it went altogether, especially from its prominent position. --Kipala (talk) 13:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think replacing one POV for a different POV is constructive. The Easter bunny is German, and for some reason, those German traditions became popular here in the United States. The rest of the world has resisted German influence, however. The replacing material has a distinct American and secular point of view. What is the basis that this POV is better? Because Easter/Pascha is celebrated world wide, should the article not reflect a worldwide perspective in accordance with Wikipedia policy? Perhaps this secular point of view would be better suited as an addition rather than a replacement of the existing material. As far as the lead image is concern, perhaps Raphael's Transfiguration or other resurrection themed masterpiece would be more appropriate. Gx872op (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Gx872op, I appreciate your reversing the changes for the opening paragraph. I would like to comment on your views above. Your ideas about "Easter Bunny" are a bit off the point. "Easter bunny" is definitely not German (I am German) - it looks pretty American. It is an American evolution of the German Easter Hare (Darwin is chuckling from above). But the very old tradition of Christian "hare"-symbolism in art and allegoric teaching has not yet been taken up which connected to resurrection and was the historic base for the German Easter Hare tradition.

I don't see that the world had to resist an German Easter-bunny-onslaught; German emigrants brought their traditions to some places in the world.

Having spent a number of years in Middle East and Africa I don't agree that that Easter is celebrated world wide. Where Christians are few Easter is not much of a topic. Easter is a distinct Christian festival. It has grown beyond Christanity in cultures which where formed/influence by Christianity and where significant numbers of population have come to see themselves as not Christian any more. As it happens with strong traditions in such environments people who cannot connect any more to the original context are looking for some different explanations in order to continue with the festivals. As far as I see it is only Christmas which really has spread to cultures not strongly informed by Christianity (Xmas as a consumers festival in Japan, parts of Muslim countries etc..). The attempts to refer Easter to an alleged pre Xian spring/fertility tradition have been popularized heavily in the context of European secularization but have not base in real history (look into Eostre although it is still short on account of historical criticism of its alleged attributes).

When you talk about "addition" I agree that these changes in reception by people should be shown in this article. Showing e.g. how Easter has been incorporated into modern movements like Wicca should be included even if these involve only small numbers of people.--Kipala (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is the page as it was, before being reverted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Easter&oldid=284783964

Couldn't we have BOTH Jesus and the bunny? Or if the rabbit is too German / American (obscure countries, I admit), I wouldn't mind replacing the bunny with a basket of Easter eggs (NOT those Russian ones that look like icons! Normal secular eggs). Anyway, I think it's important to balance the Christian elements with pagan and secular ones. --Dawud

The theological significant content related to passover is important regarding the calendar position and also Easter's place within the time continuum of theology. What's missing is information about why the resurrection is significant. I'll see if I can add that. --Ed Brey (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I added info about the theological significance of the resurrection. I also made the following updates:

1. Removed "Christian" from the section heading. Easter isn't significant to any other theology so as to require qualification.
2. Removed singling out of Paul, since other NT writers corroborate.
3. Removed reference to unidentified "later writings".
4. Put passover quote back inline with paragraph so that the paragraphs now separate the three main topics of the section.
5. Removed "More importantly". This judgment call seems unnecessary and may not be verifiable.
6. Removed qualification of "is often held" regarding the inconsistency. This implies advocates of a way to reconcile the interpretation with the gospels' text, but there is no citation of such support.
7. Only called out specific translations when quoting. Changed the quotes referring to the literal translations in John to use YLT and added text indicating that the quotes are literal.

--Ed Brey (talk) 06:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Related to point 6 above, User:John J. Bulten summary for his 15:40, 8 June 2009 edit says, "Theological significance: Restoring (again) important nuance, lost in what looks like an unrelated reversion by Ed Brey 13 May; chronology of Jesus says "apparent inconsistencies", in support". The concrete language was intentional, and I restored it. Chronology of Jesus states generally that there are apparent inconsistencies between the gospels regarding the time of death, which is a good way to summarize the matter when dealing with all interpretations generally. However, the context in the paragraph present paragraph in Easter is dealing only with a single interpretation of the texts. For that narrower context, we don't have any reliable sources that state that the gospels are consistent given that interpretation. All indications are that there is no argument against saying that the if one assumes that interpretation, he will find the gospels inconsistent. --Ed Brey (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Replace a human in bunny costume

Pink bunny is not appropriate for essentialy religious celebration. All other pictures are religious. Somebody was too interested in rodents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.83.241.4 (talk) 11:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The Easter bunny is an American symbol. It is no improvement over the Russian icon that was there before. From touring Italy and Greece over Easter, I can't say I ever saw this image of German origin there. Apparently, German pagan traditions failed to permeate all of Europe whereas Christian traditions did. For some reason, the editor replaces material that is religious in nature with that that is American and secular in nature and without citations. Gx872op (talk) 14:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I think there's a certain part of this debate is absurd. Easter is, indeed, a christian high holy day. One need only look at the date calculation technique (a clear attempt to reconcile the solar and semitic calendars) to realize that this is the essential nature of Easter. Easter has clearly based on passover -- which if you look at it has several clear spring festival aspects, like every other culture that needs a spring festival -- i.e. in passover one eats preserved foods, in preparation for being able to eat fresh food. Now, this said, as it IS a spring holiday, it has clearly appropriated aspects of other spring holidays. This maybe deserves another article, and certainly deserves acknowledgement. It is NOT a pagan holiday -- while it may have appropriated pagan traditions in its celebration in places, no pagan would calculate the date in such a ridiculous fashion -- they would pick either a solar calendar or a lunar one, not the ridiculous mishmash the popes came up with. (Christmas IS a fully appropriated pagan holiday, including the date, taking a pagan holiday (and later, various pagan holidays) and adding a 'christian' aspect and is a totally different matter.) -- Arkenian (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Bunnies and coloured eggs are just local custom. And I never heard of people dressing in pink costumes as typical or any part of Easter. It felt like prank on Christians (in Europe this would be a symbol of gay movement). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.83.241.4 (talk) 23:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

See above. Easter is NOT primarily a christian festival. The culturally common elements of eggs and bunnies (actually hares) have no significance to christianity whatsoever. This article should be about Easter, the christianised pagan festival, not the christian ressurection myth etc. Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

How can you be sure that that's not Jesus in the bunny costume? (Pink?! I thought it was white. Jesus must have got his laundry mixed up while cleaning up from all that gay sex he had at the furry convention.)

(Ahem!) Seriously, we seem to have doubled the discussion (or zillionoupled, since it seems to be a recurring one). Here's the earlier page (with bunny), for the consideration of any editors newly arriving here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Easter&oldid=284783964

I realize there is debate / skepticism about Easter's pagan origins, but this still seems important enough to emphasize. If scholars now think that it has no pagan origins whatsoever, then say that. (My faith in Ostara will not be shaken so easily!) But as I understood things, the standard view was that the holiday has origins both inside and outside of Christianity.

Is it possible to get reliable information about how religious or secular the holiday is in various countries? In the U.S. both seem important, but which is number one would probably depend on your family and what circles you move in. I am aware that Easter is the biggest holiday in Russia, and that it is overwhelmingly religious. In Taiwan it is only celebrated by Christians, though kids may learn about the American customs (eggs and bunny) in school. So, what about the various European countries? What about Africa? Input please.--Dawud —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.60.55.9 (talk) 00:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

In the United States, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals have noted that it is predominately a religious holiday rather than a secular one. See Koenick v. Felton[8] and County of Allegheny v. ACLU (O'Connor concurring opinion). The secular aspects are not very significant in the US according to US courts. US courts have reached the opposite conclusion for Christmas and Hanukkah. I think the secular aspects of Easter have been overstated. Easter has just not caught on as a secular holiday in the US as of yet. Gx872op (talk) 03:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The standard view as I understand it is that the holiday itself is a Christian holiday with Jewish roots, as Christians maintain. Culture-specific practices (eggs, bells, rabbits, and such) on the other hand have roots that are pagan, pre-Christian, or simply secular. It is important to distinguish these two sets of things when talking about 'origins'. Ben (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not quite that simple. Christian holiday with some Jewish roots (coincidence of Passah and Jesus death, Passah symbolism thus connected to last hours of Jesus) is agreed. But culture-specific practices are mostly not "pre Christian" - instead specific cultures that developed in Christian formed cultures. Much ink has been spilled to trace the easter hare (american: bunny) to Germanic goddesses; same for xmas-tree. Scholarly debate agrees widely that these are pretty young traditions (although a bit older than the USA) which developed inside cultures shaped by Christianity. Egg of course is a much older concept, and it has seen similar symbolism in pre-Xian cultures and religions which comes from the characteristics of the egg as such (similar: light symbolism ...).

But then it makes no sense to call it "pagan" (neither in the sense linked here at wikipedia nor in the sense of Xian or Muslim polemics - there has never been a pagan Easter before the invention of neo-paganism in the 19th century). Spring e.g. is a deep experiences for (rural) people - you don't need the phantasy of ancient rites that somehow misteriously survived milenia in order to see certain patterns of spring receptions that keep on resurfacing in different cultures, religions etc. Even if Easter is NOT the typical spring-holiday (because of its shifting date - different from e.g. Nowruz) it has in folk culture naturally been connected with a lot of spring symbolism - but that is true also for Pentecost! Kipala (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

My point is that some editors are pointing to these non-Christian practices (eggs and bunnies and whatnot), and conflating them with the origin of Easter in order to claim that Easter is a "christianised pagan festival". Doing so lets them avoid substantiating that absurd claim, lending it plausibility through vague hand-waving. Those editors who support traditional scholarship must be precise if we are to demand precision in turn. Frankly, I think that's the route to the least contentious resolution of this "pagan origin" dispute, as once you consider the history of the Paschal Feast itself, it's pretty clear that the article should be driven by the actual history of Easter, while noting the various conspiracy theories in a controversy section. Ben (talk) 03:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It's important to distinguish between the date and the rites when discussing the origins. The eggs and bunnies ain't christian, no doubt about that. Whether they form part of a pre-existing and same-date festival is the point to be determined. There is ample evidence of Eostre, spring equinox and other festivals pre-dating easter. Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

And that evidence would be? I'm sure you'll agree that there's no evidence of any influence of Germanic Eostre celebrations that predate Christian Easter as celebrated (and documented) in the Mediterranean. (i.e. We all can agree that theory #1 above is bogus.) What's the evidence for any other "pre-existing and same-date festival"? Ben (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I disagree that determining the origin of bunnies and eggs is the point. If we're talking about the origin of Easter, we're talking about the origin of the Christian religious holiday. Tracking the history of cultural practices like eggs and bunnies is a valuable part of the article, but doesn't really speak to the origin of Easter itself. Ben (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Andrewjlockey, there is lots of spring festivals all over the northern countries but definitely no "ample evidence of Eostre"; if at all the scant and only one mention at Bede. But people don't like to think about some facts (eg this single Eostre-news is from England only, easter hares appear 800 years later in an completely different area ). Then there is a very ancient Christian traditions of eggs and hare as faith symbols. Christian egg symbolism is connected to antique cultures; Christian hare-symbolism does not talk about fertility but about timidity. --Kipala (talk) 10:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The 'ample evidence' is for various, Non christian origins of easter I was talking about, not one source. Let's face it, it's a pagan mishmash, not christian. Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Resurrection Day is not a Christianized pagan festival. Christmas is. Easter is not. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, lets break this down systematically:

• Name - from german pagan, cited by Bede
• Resurrection myth - predated christianity by decades/centuries Aoestre(?)
• Bunnies/Hares - not even native IMO to areas where christianity originated
• Eggs - again, I don't beleive these are commonly, if ever, a feature of christianity, unless adopted by European christians

Can anyone suggest one single bit of Easter that's actually, difinitely, categorically Christian? Cos I can't. ::::Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making your arguments more focused.

• Name -- In English, which adopted Christianity fully six centuries after the foundation of the religion, it is from a pagan source. In every other language except German -- and in particular in those languages spoken in Christian cultures that participated in converting England, it's a derivative of the Hebrew word for Passover.
• Resurrection myth - occurs in many cultures. However, the specific memorial of Christ's resurrection is of course unique to Christianity. I'm unsure how someone can make an argument from analogy here that sticks -- I mean, other cultures/religions have a belief in a Supreme Being, so does that mean that Christianity copied its God from them?
• While I have no idea about the habitat of bunnies, they are not a part of Easter celebrations outside of England and the United States. For a humorous exposition of the cultural isolation of the bunny thing, I recommend David Sedaris's account of discussing Easter in France, where EVERYONE KNEW that chocolates were brought to children from Rome by flying bells. You can find it online, or in his collection Me Talk Pretty One Day
• Eggs show up all over the place, and nobody argues that they're Christian. They are, however, notably absent from actual Easter religious celebrations.

Regarding things that are indisputably Christian about Easter, I'd recommend attending an Easter service -- especially an Easter Vigil mass. There are no eggs, no bunnies, and more references to the word "paschal" than "easter". Frankly, eggs, bunnies, and the word "Easter" are completely irrelevant to religious Easter celebrations. I imagine that an English-speaking editor of good faith, with no religious background would look at the secular trappings of Easter (the name, the egg hunts, the chocolate) and conclude that there is no "there" there. However, these are historically ancillary to the Easter holiday, which is, after all, historically a holy day.

Please, please be willing to consider the possibility that of A) Easter originating with Germanic Eostre, B) Easter originating with some Mediterranian or Semitic pagan festival and given Christian trappings, C) Easter originating with Jewish Passover and evolving as described by the Church Fathers, some of your fellow editors have actually considered all three theories, weighed the evidence, and concluded that C is overwhelmingly most probable. Really, we're not working from zero evidence here, and the "pagan origin" theories have been advanced before, both within the history of post-Reformation argument and on this very Wikipedia talk page. Ben (talk) 03:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

In short, the alleged pagan origin of Easter is a bogus argument. Resurrection Day is closely associated with Passover, which happens to be a springtime event. The Last Supper was the Passover Seder. It has nothing to do with anything pagan. Annunciation Day and Christmas do. Not Ressurection Day. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think what you're distinguishing here is between the religious Easter and the cultural Easter, as celebrated by the general population. The article doesn't make this distinction clear. I'm happy to accept that the Judeao Christian tradition was what brought the religious festival, but the cultural event in the English speaking world (which uses this English version of WP) clearly includes overriding pagan/other elements which are nothing to do with Christianity. The current article largely ignores the significance of this origin in determining what the cultural Easter actually consists of. To most people in the English speaking world, it's a German-pagan named festival with pagan rites of celebration. The Christian element is entirely ancilliary to this, and we misrepresent the matter by arguing otherwise. It's as if we are writing about cars and base everything we write on the Dodge Viper, completely ignoring the fact that most people own, drive and look at different cars. Please, lets have some balance that's relevant to the vast, secular majority who still celebrate the pagan rites of the pagan-named festival, and don't give a care for the Christian interpretation of ressurection-whatever which happens to be at the same time. Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The rites of spring originally centered on the spring equinox, which was March 25 in the early Christian era. That's why Annuncation day was placed on the 25th, to merge into that festival. Likewise with Christmas being on December 25th, in reference to the winter solstice. It was the pagan stuff that gravitated toward Ressurection Day, not the other way around. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Andrew, the claim that a vast secular majority celebrates Easter should be backed up with some kind of demographic information; good luck with that. You might find the research illuminating. Even moving beyond this falsehood, what current demographics would mean, if your statement were actually true, about the inception of Easter is unclear to me.69.212.51.56 (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess about 4pc of the UK pop are regular church attenders, and about 95% recognise Easter with PAGAN rites. Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

What pagan rites? Is eating chocolate supposed to be a pagan rite? I don't know anyone except little kids that pay any attention to the Easter Bunny, and there is really no evidence that either the egg or the rabbit have their origins in paganism. Carlo (talk) 01:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

First, Andrew, the UK is not the world, and this article is about the worldwide celebration of Easter, not "Easter in the UK". Second, not being a regular churchgoer does not equate to being secular, anyways; in the 2001 census 71.6% of Britons were identified as being Christian, and, however lax, recognise Easter as a Christian celebration. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/uk.html#People We should note that 23.1% of people identified themselves as "unspecified or none", which deflates your vast secular majority (in this single country) to a minority. Third, and finally, you have singularly failed at every point to prove any pagan precedants for Easter. The Eostre-babble is thoroughly discredited (and an Anglo-only concern), and the Easter Bunny itself (again, an Anglo and not world tradition) originated in 16th Century Protestant Germany, and 16th century Protestant German's were not notable for their paganism in any historical treatment that I have ever seen.69.212.51.56 (talk) 02:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It really would be interesting to figure out how many people participate in various Easter traditions. I'm guessing a quarter to a half of Americans attend church services on Easter itself, and that the majority of those do egg hunts or cook-outs. I'm not sure how you'd figure out those who don't attend church but do some sort of traditional practice -- since the US rarely gives either Good Friday or Easter Monday off of work, most of the non-religious families I know generally aren't even aware it's Easter. And then, of course, there are the far vaster numbers of people worldwide who don't follow the Anglo traditions of eggs and bunnies, but attend church services and/or participate other secular observances, like chocolate bells or mock spankings. Ben (talk) 00:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen any figures or reliable citations that would support Easter being a pagan holiday to such a degree that the article needs to be changed to reflect a grossly minority perspective. The article already contains this information to make it sufficiently balanced. I move for a formal resolution that a man in a bunny costume would be fine in the secular traditions section rather than the lead image for the entire article. 76.99.55.47 (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) as a bare minimum, the article should explain that the traditions and english name of easter are secular. Further, it should also explain the origins of christian easter myths Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the article explains the origin of the name "Easter" exhaustively. What do you think the "origins of christian easter myths" might be, other than the Gospel account that Christians claim them to be? Please don't neglect to include attribution. Ben (talk) 02:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

By way of comparison, the article on "Spring Break" (which I tried to link to) emphasizes the history of the parties rather than the holiday time itself (originally the same as Easter). It's an interesting question. I suggest both aspects be treated equally (time and content).

I agree to the need for a historical approach, beginning with the early Christian adaptation of Passover and ending with secularization. "Pagan" theories need not go at the beginning, but might be more properly included as part of European Nationalism or Romanticism.

I am inclined to believe claims to the effect that Easter is not in fact a pre-Christian holiday (though the other theory needs to be mentioned, if only to be debunked). This would not save us from the task of balancing Christian elements with secular ones, some of which are indeed pre-Christian or at least non-Christian. (As an aside, could we agree on a basket of eggs for the main illustration, or would that custom be too geographically limited as well?)

I disagree that we need to explain the Resurrection of Jesus here. That has it's own article, or should have.

Some sort of geographic survey of Easter customs, or distinctive variations, would be welcome. For example, the Sedaris book mentioning bells that bring chocolate from Rome, or some such? That would make a fascinating addition. I do not mean to exclude distinctive religious traditions, such as crucifixions in the Philippines.

A number of people have dismissed the Easter Bunny as being limited to the USA, Britain, and maybe Germany. These however amounts to a significant mass of people, whose customs have influenced perceptions of Easter very far afield. For purposes of this article, perhaps we could divide the world into "Anglo-American", "Latin-American", "East European", and "Continental" spheres? (I assume African and Oceanian customs would be derived from these...?) With each section about the same size? Dawud (talk) 03:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the regional traditions should be visible. Easter bunny is the Anglo variation of an Easter Hare from the German speaking countries. For Easter observation in tropical countries like Africa etc. the connotation of spring is meaningless; hare and eggs are not found outside the homes of European / US- immigrants and some shopping centers. Hare symbolism in Africa is rich but very different from European-Mediterranean traditions and not connected to Easter. For Latin America I don't know but I'd be surprised if Easter eggs are more than a sectoral custom depending on the immigration background of parts of the population. --Kipala (talk) 12:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It's been a week with no attributed arguments from "pagan Easter" editors. Can we strip the NPOV tag from the article now? Ben (talk) 12:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Give it a try. They've probably tired of this and have moved on to the next targeted holiday. Perhaps we'll soon see claims that Mother's Day has satanic origins. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

To look at it another way, it's been a week since the Christian crowd has responded. Are we then entitled to switch it back to the bunny? Dawud (talk) 11:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the NPOV tag was added by Andrewjlockley, and was motivated by the 'Easter is originally Pagan'/'this article is crap' line of reasoning. I gather that his views have moderated somewhat, and he seems to have moved on to other things. Ben (talk) 12:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Today is May Day, which is closer to what was being claimed for Easter as far as "pagan" origins are concerned. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Affirm POV dispute

The POV tag was originally due to allegations of "Christian bias", which I would agree with weakly, but here's a few more issues, just from the lead, that strike me as POV:

1. Why say most important feast based on one source when other sources would say "Christmas"?
2. "On the third day after" brings in the day-of-week chronology of Jesus debate over what this ambiguous phrase means.
3. Not all Christians celebrate Good Friday and a sizable chunk do not celebrate Maundy Thursday. Ditto for several other terms, such as Lent, where the subset of observers should be stated, or the provenance of terms like "Octave" should be named.
4. 40/50-day "traditional" or "official" season should be sourced and "Easter Season" should be in quotes as a (church) term (who?) rather than a (Biblical) concept.
5. Calculation sentence should say "a formula approximating", because equinox and full moon are mathematically and not astronomically calculated.
6. Western calculation is stated as definitive ("the" date of Easter), displacing the Eastern alternative before it is mentioned.
7. Relationship to Passover should be expanded, including mentioning IN LEAD: Easter's alternate name Pasch or Pascua (from Pesach; and Pascha redirects here?); similar customs, such as annual agape feast related to (arising from?) seder; institution of communal remembrance by Jesus fully within Jewish context of Passover (if not a seder itself); reference to Levitical festival of First Fruits (now dated in Judaism to avoid always being Sunday); and actual dating of First Fruits as in Lev., i.e., "day after Sabbath" following 14th day of 7th month, i.e., first spring month (first spring month was later legislated by Sanhedrin by math or astro).
8. Agree that secular events need more sourcing and more lead space.
9. Why some denoms don't celebrate (alleged pagan origin, Hebrew-roots dating, anti-Romanism, etc.) should be stated, as it's a major controversy associated with Easter and thus lead-worthy.

Then we jump right in with "The Christian tradition, based on New Testament and later writings, links the Last Supper with Passover." A couple problems here are that: this first section, on significance of Easter, starts out with this linkage (as if basic to Easter) and only later throws "Easter" in as if it not only is already there in the linkage but also is named in 1 Cor., yet "Easter" does not appear in the Bible at all (except in a single KJV mistranslation of "pascha"); and there is NO source in this section for the only 2 claims made for Easter, that it commemorates either crucifixion or resurrection; and if nobody called it "Easter" for a century, we ought to say that it was something else before it was called "Easter"; so the reference to the Biblical customs itself is a bit of a diversion. Even trying to fix this sentence of its (in this case skeptical) bias would only yield something as tame and unadvancing as "Christian tradition, beginning with the New Testament and patristic writings, places great stress on Jesus's Last Supper, death, and resurrection having occurred during Passover week." Reading on, I am told that "anastase" means "upstanding", which is a real distractor, because who would ever guess from that that it means "resurrection", or (literally at least) "rising back", not "standing up" (let alone "upstanding"); or that the concept was so important to Paul that he was interpreted by idol-worshipers as promoting the worship of Anastasia? Anyway, this is just "a-start" on fixing these issues. Apologies for those points that have neat references in archives or above that you can speedily point me to. JJB 17:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice try, JJB but that is a bit much I see now way how to discuss this plethora of points all lumped together. Just for omne point: No, the passover-theme should NOT be expanded razher concentrated; it takes too much space anyway. Context passover-Last Supper has space elsewhere. Last Supper is not really an Easter topic unless you silently accept a theological notion of Easter as a festival period including the time from at least Maundy Thursday until ... Easter Monday? --Kipala (talk) 18:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's sharpen the focus of this discussion by bearing in mind Wikipedia's primary function as a reference work. As such, anybody consulting a Wikipedia article on Easter would be expecting to learn:

1. a)What the meaning and significance of Easter is
2. b)the historical development of Easter
3. c) the customs associated with the holiday.
4. and d)the differing perspectives on Easter across denominational lines.

1. We cannot discuss any of these things adequately without discussing Easter's importance as a Christian holiday and the broader season in which Easter Sunday is situated. For a few Wiki editors to decide by fiat that Easter is now a secular holiday and its article should be shorn of its Christian content is akin to deciding that St. Patrick's Day is a holiday celebrated primarily by drunken American frat boys and focused accordingly. Anybody researching St. Patrick's Day on Wikipedia would be poorly served by such an article; likewise, anybody researching Easter would be poorly served to find an article stating that "Easter is a holiday observed by some atheists with children who hide Easter baskets laden with eggs and chocolates behind the drapes of their homes." Such an article would be pointless and brief, but unfortunately it would fit the polemical agenda of too many Wiki editors.69.212.53.213 (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The answer to # 1 seems to be, because Orthodox Christians have been editing the article (see the lead image), and they think Easter is more important than Christmas. (My edits, which were roundly criticized as anti-religious, said it was "one of the most important Christian holidays, rivalled only by Christmas" or some such.)

That Christ rose "on the Third Day" is in the creeds. As to why this was thought to count as three days, there are several possibilities (maybe the J-Man was crucified on Thursday), but..does this really need to be here?

I agree with the proposed historical approach, which would solve the problem of Western > Eastern calculations (the "Eastern" being older). But a paragraph on "the meaning of Easter" is going to bring us to the same controversy as here. To me, it is as much about eggs and the bunny, and I am baffled that anyone would downplay these internationally-recognized (if not necessarily internationally-observed) elements.

One difficulty is that in English and German, "Easter" has taken on the name of what seems to be...is it still considered a pagan goddess? Something like that...whereas in other languages, it has the same name as Passover. Yes, the ancient Christian holiday veered off from Passover. But the section that used to be there went on and on about the theological significance of Passover, and Christ's saving death, which is too much IMHO. No, the Bible would not be discussing the holiday (as opposed to its origins), which is why there is so much attention paid to the liturgical churches which created the church calendar.

St. Patricks Day is, in fact, more often a drunken bacchannal than a celebration of the titular saint, or even Ireland, and Mardi Gras actually has little to do with Lent. This is an important social fact, which may be bad religion, but it is the reason why these holidays are more important than the Feast of the Dormition of the Holy Prepuce.118.165.205.226 (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC) <--Sorry, it's Dawud again. I never know if I'm logged in or not.

I went and fixed #2 by changing "third day after" to "third day from", which allows sufficient ambiguity to cover the ground. The others I may or may not fix at convenience; some are equally simple, if the fixes stand. However, the problem is that this is a highly visible article and thus important nuances are lost in the hubbub. The problem is not heathen vs. holy, because neutral coverage of both facets of the same celebration works itself out over time (other than chronic tension about weighting). A bigger problem is that an abundance of folk religion leads people to think that certain POV statements are actually neutral because they've heard them enough times. But the regulars should take WP:LEAD (more) to heart. JJB 21:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

What source says that Christmas is more important than Easter? Easter is the most important day on the Christian calendar according to the Orthodox, Catholics, Anglicans, everyone. Carlo (talk) 00:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

easter bunny!

Why is there not even a mention of the Easter Bunnyon this page!?68.9.130.10 (talk)