Jump to content

Talk:Easter/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 9

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)

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

Rwflammang (talk · 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 [1] 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[2], 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)

"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. [3] 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.[4] 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)

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[5] 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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Easter/Archive_3&oldid=893285531"