Talk:Easter/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the Good and the bad in wikipedia

Wikipedia is a good place to get information, but it also includes ridiculous POV, that not very "normal" person or so wrote:

Anti-Easter Christians

Some Christian fundamentalists reject nearly all the customs surrounding Easter, believing them to be irrevocably tainted with paganism and idolatry.

In addition, some Christians believe the holiday is named for the Babylonian goddess Ishtar ([1] (http://www.origin-of-easter.com/) [2] (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t020.html) [3] (http://www.lasttrumpetministries.org/tracts/tract1.html) [4] (http://www.pathlights.com/theselastdays/tracts/tract_22n.htm) [5] (http://www.tiral.com/2004/04/the_origins_of_.html)), but there exist no etymological indications that would support such claims. In lands where this goddess was historically known, the holiday was never called by any name resembling hers. unfortunatly I never meet one. What has easter has to do with Ishtar? GIVE ME A BREAK! -Pedro 12:47, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Give you a break? These "Christians" do exist, and they do claim that Easter is named for Ishtar. The links document their beliefs, and your gross ignorance of them doesn't mean they don't exist.Dogface 01:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course they exist. There are plenty of morons around who don't know what they are talking about. Fundamentalists, JW's, SDA's, often delight in exhibiting their ignorance. No doubt they believe the moon is made of green cheese. Maybe we should put that in the article on the moon?Cestusdei 23:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I accidentally deleted the link to the cartoon and can't remember how to do a revert. Dogface 21:02, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Changed "Lenten Season" to "Lent" as that is more conventional usage and will most likely be the search term. --Carpentis

It should also be noted the Easter is almost an exclusively English term. Almost everywhere else Easter is known as some variant of the word Pascha (from Greek meaning passover).

Except for Germany where it’s called “Ostern”. -- Bombe

Keep content and wiki process separated: use "article", not "wiki page". - Patrick 11:25, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Symbolism section

67.etc's preferred version

The religious symbolism of Easter is explicitly Christian, with many elements adapted from the Passover celebration in Judaism—for example, the image of Jesus as the Lamb of God, which is linked to the Jewish paschal lamb. The Christian celebration of Jesus' Resurrection also paralleled pagan celebrations of nature's rebirth in the spring; the traditional customs of Easter eggs and the Easter Bunnys (originally a hare) are both tied to pre-Christian paganism.

Some Christian fundamentalists reject nearly all the customs surrounding Easter, believing them to be irrevocably tainted with paganism and idolatry. The Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Easter at all, believing it to be entirely a pagan invention [1] [reference was added in the second iteration].


(67.71.79.45) I think this version states the general scholarly and religious consensus on Easter and its customs, with minority views also discussed and attributed. (It's a bit short, but that's a separate matter.)

61.etc's preferred version

(diffs are highlighted)

The religious symbolism of Easter is explicitly Christian, with many elements adapted from the Passover celebration in Judaism—for example, the image of Jesus as the Lamb of God, which is linked to the Jewish paschal lamb. But Passover celebrated on Nisan 14th of Jewish calendar, though Easter doesn't celebrate on same date. Precisely,the early Christians celebrated the death of Jesus Christ, not resurrection of Him.(1 Corinthians 11:26) Then the Christian celebration of Jesus' Resurrection would come from pagan celebrations of nature's rebirth in the spring; the traditional customs of Easter eggs and the Easter Bunnys (originally a hare) would be both tied to pre-Christian paganism.

Some Christian fundamentalists don't celebrate nearly all the customs surrounding Easter, believing them to be irrevocably tainted with paganism and idolatry.

(67.71.79.45) I have strong objections to the latter version. First, the quibble over the date of Passover isn't all that important, and implies nothing major; Passover celebrations were followed by the week-long Feast of Unleavened Bread, in those days regarded as a continuation of the Pesach feast. The point is, Easter and Passover are closely linked; they happened only a few days apart, the title "Lamb of God" was in use by the first century, and the overwhelming consensus among historians and believers is that the former is the main reason for the latter.

(67.71.79.45) Second objection: Who thinks that early Christians didn't celebrate the resurrection of Jesus? Whoever it is, they're a tiny minority, and the article should make it clear that their opinion is rejected by the overwhelming majority of religious historians -- and its implication (that modern Christians shouldn't be celebrating the Resurrection either) is rejected by the vast majority of believing Christians.

(67.71.79.45) So those are my objections. I of course welcome discussion and explanation.

Sorry,I'm short of explanation, I'll add my explanation. (I'm Japanese, I can't explain very well.) First, about Passover, it was celebrated on Nisan 14th in Biblical era. But now, Jewish celebrate on another day, not on Nisan 14th. Second, about Easter, I suppose that it wasn't celebrated in 1st Century, but that Lord's supper was celebrated.(1 Corinthians 20-34) Latter is different from easter, because date of both are different. For example, this year, Easter will be held on April 11, but Nisan 14th will start on April 4 evening. So, I suppose Easter has no evidence on Bible, then I wrote that it came from paganism. ja:利用者:K.M.
(67.71.79.45) Okay then. Passover and Easter happen on different days, but they're usually within a week or two of each other; this is because of differences between the Hebrew calendar and the Gregorian calendar. So the dating issues are really non-existent.
(67.71.79.45) Who holds the view that Easter was not celebrated in the 1st century? Their views should be attributed to them, not presented as fact. The facts are these: the vast majority of Christians believe that Easter -- the celebration of Jesus' resurrection -- is the most important day of Christianity. The same majority believes that it is an ancient Christian tradition, not a pagan invention (though some of its customs might be pagan in origin). They believe these things because of this, that, and the other pieces of evidence. A small minority -- is it just the Jehovah's Witnesses? -- believe otherwise; they argue that Easter is entirely a pagan celebration. Their evidence for this is (what is it? Discrepancies between dates? Lack of explicit description in the New Testament? Knee-jerk anti-Catholicism? What?) Your comments, please.
For as often as you eat this loaf and drink this cup, you keep proclaiming the death of the Lord, until he arrives. - 1 Corinthians 11:26.
This sentenses explain the death of Jesus, not the resurrection of Jesus. And Jesus own said:
"Keep doing this in rememberance of me"(Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24)
He didn't say that his resurrection should be celebrated in Bible. Added to this, 1 Corinthians 10:21 says that Christians shouldn't be takeparking of Lord's table and Demon's table. You said some of [Easter']s customs might be pagan in origin. Then Christians SHOULD avoid these customs, and shouldn't celebrate Easter. ja:利用者:K.M.
(67.69.188.80) Please understand that I am not trying to convince you, or anyone else, that my beliefs are correct: religious articles are war-prone enough without the added heat of conflicting evangelists, and Wikipedia is not the place to proselytize. That said: your argument in the paragraph above could be presented as one of group X's cases against Easter, if other members of that group have used the argument—if it is yours alone, then it would be disqualified as original research.
(67.69.188.80) With the above in mind, do you think this proposal is satisfactorily neutral? i.e. that among self-described Christians, there are two main categories for views on Easter:
  1. Easter is a Christian celebration; Christians should celebrate it.
  2. Easter is a pagan festival; Christians should not celebrate it.
2. is wrong. I proposed that Easter is a Christian celebration which came from pagan celebration. Readers should decide it whether Christians should celebrate it or not. ja:利用者:K.M.
(67.69.188.80) And that different numbers of self-described Christians subscribe to each belief:
  • A large majority of Christians believe #1.
  • A small minority of Christians believe #2
(67.69.188.80) Therefore the article should present #1 as the Christian perspective on Easter (as it currently does), while noting that a few self-described Christians hold belief #2, for reasons X, Y, and Z. Do you think that this formulation would satisfy the demands of NPOV? Here is a rough example of what I mean:

Draft Proposal

The Rest Of The Article As It Now Stands

snip

[Here I think a section on Jewish and pagan symbolism in Easter celebrations and various mainstream opinions: from "Keep all the pagan customs -- they do no harm -- and keep celebrating Easter" to "Get rid of all the pagan customs -- they're nothing but idolatry -- and keep celebrating Easter".]

Objections to Easter

A few Christians do not celebrate it at all. Group A does so because Easter isn't in the Bible. Group B does so because they think Easter is a pagan holiday, which they should not celebrate. Group C believes both. These groups together are a tiny fraction of all self-described Christians.

Would this version be acceptable? If no, then why not? What would you propose as an alternative, and why? --67.69.188.80 09:38, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The version seems to imply Baptists don't celebrate Easter. Having been involved with more than one baptist denomination for most of my life, I have never met a Baptist church which did not celebrate Easter. I'm not sure where this information came from, but it doesn't bear itself out in reality.

Major Rewrite proposal

Hi! The whole article seemed to need a major revamping for organization and clarity, but since I saw that so many people have been revising it recently I didn't want to step on anybody's toes. Thus I put my revised version here: Talk:Easter-alt.

Some points about my revision:

  • the first paragraphs have been rewritten entirely for the sake of clarity: somebody wanting a quick explanation should be able to get it right away.
  • certain other parts of the article have been rewritten for clarity and prose style
  • however, its main goal was simply to organize and present the material in as straightforward a way as possible; so it doesn't really address any of the disputes you have been having recently. (perhaps the clearer hirarchy can put some of them into perspective, however)
  • to the end of clarity several parts have been rearranged and the hirarchical possibilities of headers used more.
  • it makes explicit the obvious point that an essential part of the article is missing
  • It could, if necessary be rearranged more: the whole date business could easily come later in the article.

My revised version breaks off from the main page version of April 11th 2004, 5:18 UST. Thus it does not incorporate any refinements made on the main page after that date. If you intend revisions to the current page, please check my proposed alternative to see if they are already incorporated there. If not, you may like to make your changes to my alternate so that it will be up-to-date if it ever replaces the current page!

Please, indeed, feel free to edit my alternate version just as if it were the main page; or if some old Wikipedia hand is willing to take the plunge and put it into the game, go for it. (I'm too shy myself.) Doops 01:36, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Update: On 5th May 2004, Talk:Easter-alt was swapped into the main page (thanks, Dogface); thus the major rewrite proposal (having been implemented) is over.Doops 22:18, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Moving On

I don't like the following bit, which is also on the current page:
"Fundamentalist flights of fancy about the entire holidy being named for the Babylonian goddess Ishtar cannot be reconciled with the simple fact that, in lands where she was known, the holiday was never called by any name resembling hers in the least."
It seems to be worded in a way that is intended to insult rather than to inform ('fundamentalist', 'flights of fancy'), it looks like a strawman (this sentence makes up a paragraph together with a sentence talking about the Jehova's witnesses, suggesting that they think Easter is named after Ishtar), and there is no reference to who these fundamentalists are and what they really say.
Here are some representative sites that make this claim:
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
You can find many more, if you want to look, showing that there are many fundamentalists who fervently have the easily disprovable belief in the lie that the holiday of Holy Pascha is named for this "Ishtar". Dogface 15:40, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
Your use of the word 'lie' makes it appear that you have come to this article with an agenda. If that is the case, I respectfully ask you to use caution when editing the Easter article.
Prove that the holiday is named for Ishtar. Account for the fact that NO place where Ishtar was actually worshipped uses a word that remotely sounds like "Easter" for the name of the holiday. And, if this matter is so important to you, have the courage and basic decency to sign up for an ID and sign your posts instead of hiding behind anonymity. Dogface 19:27, 18 May 2004 (UTC)


Better wording (this is just an example!) could be: "Some Christians think Easter was named after the godess Ishtar. Others think that the name is derived from the Saxon word Eostre. Certainly, many pagan elements have crept in the mainstream Christian celebration of Easter, such as [et cetera]".--Branko

NPOV? (moved down from top of page)

We do not celebrate "our belief in" the Resurrection of Christ. We celebrate the Resurrection of Christ. To say that we celebrate our belief in it is an entirely different statement from saying that we celebrate our event.

I'll lay it out nice and simple:

Christ is risen, hooray for the Resurrection. We believe that Christ is risen. Hooray for the fact that we believe this.

See, two completely different things. Whether or not an event actually happened is a different matter altogether from whether or not one CELEBRATES that event. Dogface 18:05, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. But we should at least do something to make that sentence more NPOV. At one point I had it phrased "to celebrate the alleged ressurection of Jesus," but somebody changed that almost immediately. Any alternative compromise suggestions? Doops 19:57, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

"Alleged" is used when the presumption is falsehood. Thus, saying that it celebrates the "alleged resurrection" means that the article presumes that it never occurred. In general, except for the Church of the Subgenius, no religion celebrates events that its own adherents consider to be false. Indeed, it can be presumed that any religious commemoration is of events that the adherents presume to be true. Have you appointed yourself watchdog of EVERY SINGLE RELIGIOUS ARTICLE in Wikipedia to make sure that EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM is hedged, alleged, and otherwise, or are you just picking on Christianity? (unsigned)
First of all, I don't think that "alleged" naturally presumes falsehood, unless you say it in a certain tone of voice. Written, I think it's neutral. It does, however, perhaps sound a little silly and legalistic for that sentence, or even somewhat anachronistic; which is why I'm more than happy to abandon the word if we can come up with a better way. And I think (see the current revision) that I have come up with a better way, so I think the question of "alleged" is closed. As for your second question --- no, I haven't appointed myself any sort of watchdog. And I'm certainly not "picking" on Christianity itself, since this (Easter) is the only article I've cavilled with -- all the other Christian articles are free from my interference. The reason I've nitpicked Easter a little bit, though, is because I've been a major contributor to this article; I initiated its recent thorough overhaul and am proud of my work on it -- so I feel a sense of responsibility. The people devoting hours of their time to other articles are the people who presumably feel a responsibility to hold them to a high standard. Doops 19:53, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

OK, I'll answer my own question: I've had an idea. What do you think of it? Doops 20:00, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

People born on Easter

I think it'll be very interesting to read an article about people born on Easter. --webkid 12:23, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why? Astrological reasons?

Eggs associated with Easter in non-Germanic contexts?

However, eggs were and are also associated with Christian Easter in places far away from Germanic influnce. Do we have references for this? As it is, it's just a blank assertion with no supporting evidence, so I'm taking it out of the article for now, pending a reference. It seems entirely plausible that eggs were introduced after Christianity assimilated the Germanic fertility festival and then propagated via Christianity into areas far from Germanic influences. Does anyone have any documentation of eggs being associated with Easter before the time when the Christian missionaries arrived in Germanic countries? Kwertii 03:09, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Yes, Eggs are part of Portuguese tradition. They are eaten colored by onion skin or spring flowers. It is also used to make the traditional easter cake. This is due that Eggs are usual in that time of the year. -Pedro 12:56, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Greeks have been doing it for very long, as have Christians east of them. The difference is that the color is always a very deep red, never multicolored. The practice seems to be a merging of Roman and Jewish customs. The Passover Seder includes hard-boiled eggs, for example. I'll start digging. Far too many Westerners labor under the impression that anything and everything is a direct result of northwest European tribal history. This is often not true. Case in point: The name of the holiday.
On the other hand, a few Germanic tribes (Vandals, Suevi, Visigoths) settled in Iberia from the 5th to 8th centuries. It could be the locals there assimilated their custom.
How many Greeks lived in Iberia? You're merely grasping at straws. It is testament to the egocentrism of so many English speakers that we presume every tiny little historical quirk of the history of Britain is normative for all of humanityDogface 20:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
In the Eastern Orthodox Tradition, they fast from all dairy during Lent and the eggs eaten on Pascha morning are the first in 40 days, and are regarded as a great pleasure, so it is natural that they would become associated with the day. In addition, there is an old legend that Mary Magdelene used an egg as an illustration of the resurrection, which miraculously turned blood red. She is shown holding a red egg in some icons.

Definition

I have reluctantly removed the following Definition largely added by 81.86.141.61:

=== Definition ===
Easter Sunday is the Sunday following the Paschal Full Moon (PFM) date for the year.
In June 325 A.D. astronomers approximated astronomical full moon dates for the Christian church, calling them Ecclesiastical Full Moon (EFM) dates. From 326 A.D. the PFM date has always been the EFM date after March 20 (which was the equinox date in 325 A.D.).
Ecclesiastical Full Moon Dates were approximated astronimcal full moon dates and from 1583, do not differ by more than 3 days from the astronomical full moon dates
==== Common Definition Errors ====
  • It is not related to astronomical full moon dates: Astronomical full moons occur at one instant and therefore on two different dates (consider the dateline). Different countries do not celebrate Easter on different dates.

Although it contains elements that are correct, it is historically wrong, as the rest of the Easter page makes clear. It is based, almost verbatim, on the cited web page and linked pages thereto. The principal historical inaccuracy is that the medieval and modern methods of determining Easter began in 326. But Rome used its own methods until the fifth or sixth centuries and possibly for a couple centuries thereafter. Furthermore, "Paschal Full Moon" does not appear in the papal bull Inter gravissimas which promulgated the Gregorian calendar, nor is it even mentioned before the eleventh century — official definitions always use the "fourteenth day of the moon". Although the "Common Definition Errors" are mostly correct, it ignores the fact that the term "vernal equinox" is actually used in "Inter gravissimas". Related official publications of the late sixteenth century clearly state that all dates are whole days, not instants, and that they apply equally to the southern hemisphere. For more info see Computus. — Joe Kress 18:57, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

Does anyone fancy working on WikiProject Christian liturgical year? Gareth Hughes 11:04, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand why the date statements aren't simplified, i.e., "In Western Christianity, Easter is celebrated on the first Sunday following the first full moon after the vernal equinox. Thus, for Western churches, the earliest possible date of Easter is March 22 and the latest possible date is April 25." To get this basic statement, the reader almost has to read the whole article, and put the pieces together on their own.71.244.163.156 23:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

One problem is that that phrase isn't actually accurate. Although the Western Church INTENDED that to be so, difficulties in actually determining the precise day and time of the full moon and the Vernal Equinox led the Western to adopt a 19-year moon cycle, which is called an "Ecclestiastical" or "Paschal" Moon, and is not necessarily that actual date of the real full moon. That's why you can calculate it with an algorithm. Carlo 02:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Eastern Christianity

The English translation of the Paschal troparion given here is atrocious. I apologize if putting it that way bothers anyone, but clarity has been sacrificed for the sake of preserving the Greek word order. I don't believe most English-speaking Orthodox Christians use it, and I'm substituting a clearer version. If another version would be preferable to someone I'd have no objection to it, but it ought to be good, comprehensible English. Csernica 03:21, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)


I've a question: Would you insist that Shakespeare's atrocious word order be corrected at every turn? He regularly uses poetic inversions, after all.


Hi Dogface. You forgot to sign.

No, of course not. But Shakespeare wrote good poetry. A poetic inversion is used where considerations such as scansion or rhyme scheme demand it. You certainly do not use them for no good reason and for fully half the text of the poem. If you did it would be as incomprehensible as the translation I replaced and not good poetry.

Besides, these weren't poetic inversions. They were slavish devotions to the Greek word order with some commas thrown in as a vain attempt to make them look like poetic inversions. That's neither good English nor good poetry. Csernica 00:42, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Easter bunny

Can we agree to take the Easter bunny image down (or at least move it further down the page)? It really is only an ancillary and localized image barely associated with the historical meaning of this Christian feast, and it genuinely strikes me as tacky and somewhat insulting. Unless there are any serious objections, I'm going to put a more traditional image at the top. --Preost 16:35, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Eostre/Ásatrú

I'm rewording the reference here. Ásatrú is the name for the modern revival of the old Nordic religion, as the referenced article confirms, so it's a mistake to use it for the historical religion. Eostre is often presumed to be a fertility goddess, but the scant references give little support for that. The only sure association we have for her is the springtime Since her name appears etymologically connected with the dawn, she may simply represent the seasonal renewal and not "fertility" with all the baggage that tends to carry along with it. Csernica 00:53, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As I was editing, I noticed that the section "Easter as a Germanic Heathen festival" seems to be in need of a major edit. It appears needlessly confrontational to me and there are some extremely awkward passages. However, I'm not willing to deal with the kind of controversy likely to be stirred up if I put my paws all over it at this time. Csernica 01:12, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The whole page appears to have been written (or edited) by someone with a serious Christian bent. Much doubt is cast over the pagan origins of the festival while none is cast on the equally dubious "resurrection".

That's "NPOV" at Wikipedia. How about "...is generally accounted as one of the most important holidays..."' for equating timidity with a mainstream point-of-view! --Wetman 14:34, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This is because there is no credible evidence for a pagan origin for the festival -- or if there is, no one has bothered to display any. Csernica 08:05, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)


This article on modern scholarship of Bede and Eostre is worth further research and incorporation: http://www.themercury.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,12666249%255E3462,00.html Ben 20:22, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The possibility that Eostre was concocted by Bede is already mentioned in the article, isn't it? This lends further support to the idea, of course, so perhaps the point could be strengthened a bit. Csernica 22:47, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It is, and the article doesn't add too much to that. But tracking down the subject of the author and her work might give us an attribution for that statement. -Ben 04:33, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Ya know, this is one of those cases where the quest for NPOV has resulted in entirely too much space being devoted to what is really a fringe, minority theory (or its refutation) to the point where it detracts from the rest of the article. Sorry to be so blunt about it, but it's true. The whole idea really merits nothing more than a brief paragraph. Csernica 04:05, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the "of pagan origin" theories are fringe, and generally incorrect, but they're coming more and more into the mainstream. See [7], for example — the first (and representative) result for a Google search on "origin of easter". In cases like this, I think wikipedia is stuck going into detail of arguments and counter-arguments. Though if your comment was in reference to the "Bede extrapolated a goddess Eostre", rather than the general "pagan origins" theory, I'm inclined to agree, despite my comment above. -Ben 03:39, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dyngus Day

Is Easter Monday in Poland. According to the information here in the traditions section here, it is also celebrated in Czech Republic (and thus probably in Slovakia), and I've heard of a similar custom in Russia. I'm not sure of the names for the day are the same in all Slavic countries, but it seems to be a traditon common to the Northern Slavs. I don't know enough about it, so I've put up a request for a Dyngus article. In the meantime, I added a note that it's also celebrated in Poland, and I divided the Non-religious Easter traditions section into geographical regions. --Jpbrenna 23:53, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Table of dates

I reformated the table to make it more compact and easier to read. Could the rows where the western and eastern dates are the same have the cells be combined to give the date once? --BrendanRyan 05:00, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to Joe Kress for doing the combining. Now I know about colspan. --BrendanRyan 09:38, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Persians & Eggs

Someone removed info about the Persians having springtime egg-painting tradition as "...clearly false...". I don't know about the Armenians, etc., but the Persians have been doing it as part of Noruz for centuries, so that much is true. --Jpbrenna 23:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

The article mentions a Persian egg-giving custom and has for some time. As far as I know, it never mentioned that the eggs were painted. Csernica 23:36, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Actually I relocated that passage rather than removing it. See below for my strenuous objection to the reversion of that and other changes. CBDunkerson 02:36, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Obviously False and Improper Page

I've got a number of serious problems with this and related articles and the 'facts' they are being reverted to;

1: Heathens? Come on. It is an almost exclusively perjorative term. They generally prefer 'pagans' (though that also has perjorative connotations) as a collective term or the name of the individual tradition they follow. 2: This page, Eostre, Ostara, Easter Bunny, Fakelore, et cetera are all polluted with patently false claims that the 'Eostre to Easter Bunny' connection was retroactively constructed by Neopagans. Jakob Grimm clearly drew the connection with extensive commentary in his Deutsche Mythologie of 1835... decades before any of the Neopagan movements even existed (e.g. Crowley was born in 1875). Do the math. Contrary to the claims on every one of these pages (and likely others) this was NOT a Neopagan invention. The culprit, if there is one, was the respected historian Jakob Grimm. 3: The above articles frequently say things like 'scholars agree that Bede was probably making it up'. Nonsense. Every major encyclopedia and reference text on the subject reports Bede's conclusion as accepted fact. The argument to the contrary is wholly a product of recent revisionists. CBDunkerson 02:49, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

  1. It's no one's problem but yours if you perceive "Heathen" as pejorative. It's a very common term for pre-Christian Germanic religions in a number of contexts. A simple Google search on "heathenism" turns up primarily sympathetic uses of the word, and it's not uncommon for, say, Ásatrú to refer to themselves this way. But if you object to that one word you should feel free to change it.
  2. No, neopagans didn't invent it, but they do tend to rely on it. Nor are neopagans the ones who use this argument most vociferously. That honor goes to certain Christian fundamentalists and Jehovah's Witnesses and anyone else who believe Christians should not celebrate this holiday and who therefore have a vested interest in imputing to it a pagan origin. All of which is neither here nor there. Grimm is not a historical source here since Deutsche Mythologie was not intended as an historical work. His goal was the same as Elias Lönnrot in composing the Kalevala and J. R. R. Tolkien in writing his mythology: to construct a national mythology for his people. (Grimm was, incidentally, not primarily a historian. He was in exactly the same line of work as Tolkien, a philologist and mythologist. This doesn't mean he didn't employ historical evidence, but rather that he applied different standards to it.) Like Lönnrot but unlike Tolkien he succeeded. Also like Lönnrot but unlike Tolkien he didn't have to make very much up out of whole cloth, but he did have to stich pieces together in a way that didn't always resemble anything historical. Easter bunnies and eggs were already current when Grimm was writing, so that he included it as part of his invented "Ostara" figure is not surprising. He clearly used Bede and cannot be cited as an independent reference. If you can find Grimm's sources for this other than Bede, cite them yourself.
  3. You grossly misrepresent the scholarly consensus on Bede's idea about Eostremonath (and, not incidentally, Hrethmonath.) These days it is most commonly thought he was guessing. This isn't "revisionist" so much as an acknowledgement that the harder we look for some other reference to "Eostre" without finding anything, the more likely it is that she's a figment. One single solitary source is all it would take to prove Bede right, but it can't be found. There's a link elsewhere on this talk page to a newspaper article (now unfortunately bumped from its host website; it came out around Easter) where an Australian scholar was willing to state, publically and definitively, that Bede was wrong. I should have written to her and gotten a cite for the article myself, as I had thought to do but never got around to. Csernica 02:02, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
False statements in your response:
'Grimm's work was the same as Tolkien's and not intended as a historical work': Grimm collected existing myths. Tolkien wrote new ones based on existing archetypes. There is a significant difference and he clearly stated that his intent WAS documentation rather than invention; "I have undertaken to collect and set forth all that can now be known of German paganism, and that exclusively of the complete system of Norse mythology." (from Grimm's introduction).
'Grimm invented Ostara and relied on Bede without other sources':Grimm cited reference to Ostaramanoth in Einhard's Life of Charlemagne (about 100 years after Bede). Ostaramanoth means either 'Ostara month' or 'Ostara's month'. Ergo, 'Ostara' was not created by Grimm... the name predated him by about a thousand years. As to your challenge that I cite Grimm's Ostara sources other than Bede; in addition to Einhard, Grimm documented the 'Ostern hare', identification of landmarks associated with Ostara/Eostre (Osterstube, Austerkopp, Astenburg, et cetera), other related traditions (Ostara moon pastries, Easter dawn ceremonies, easter plays, the ostara-sax, et cetera), and etymological analysis of the Eostre/Ostara relationship.
'This isn't revisionism': For well over a thousand years it has been unquestioned that there was a goddess named Eostre / Ostara. In the last twenty or so Christian scholars have challenged this claim... based on no NEW evidence whatsoever. That's revisionism. The common argument that 'there are no references to Eostre independant of Bede' is incredibly disingenuous. There's a REASON the man is known as "the Father of English History".
Maybe it'll help to address the problems one at a time. It is repeatedly stated that 'the term Easter is assumed to be derived from Eostre' or 'pagans pretend it comes from Eostre' or whatever. Always stated as a speculative origin. That's just plain false. There is no speculation involved. We KNOW that the name Easter comes from 'Eostre' and Ostern (same holiday in Germany) from 'Ostara'. Whatever 'Eostre' and 'Ostara' WERE, we can trace the holiday names down through the centuries (Eostre > Eastre > Estran > Esterne > Ester > Easter) from those earlier names. People can assume that Bede and Grimm were 'making it up' and Eostre/Ostara was a washerwoman rather than a goddess (or just not try to explain who she was), but whoever/whatever... that's the origin of the holiday name. Anyone disagree? If not I'm correcting it.CBDunkerson 13:13, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
I made no false statements in my repsonse. No scholar takes a single witness as authoritative, which is why there's always been something of a cloud hanging over Bede's statements about "Eostre" -- there are no other references to her whatsoever. I'm sure it was considered "revisionism" when it was proposed that the Earth orbited the Sun since for well over a thousand years it was "known" that it was the other way around. That made it no less true. Bede is not writing from a living memory, and there are no other references whatsoever for "Eostre". It is therefore becoming increasingly accepted by critical scholars (critical, not Christian) that he was just guessing and was mistaken, where earlier his word might have been accepted uncritically. There's nothing about "Eostramonath" that demands the existence of an "Eostre" any more than an "Ostramanoth" demands a goddess named Ostara. In any event, no single historian is an infallible oracle -- which is why we must always be able to corroborate what they say. There is no such corroboration here, and the etymological argument is circular. (You have to assume the existence of the goddess before you can extract them from the month names. There are other possible derivations. A dawn association is perfectly acceptable for the springtime, and "auster" is usually read as "east" -- as in, for example, Osterreich, a country you may have heard of.)
By the way, you're aware that Bede was a Christian himself, right? He's even a saint. I'm afraid that little ad hominem of yours tars with far too broad a brush for your purposes.
It's extremely disingenuous of you to misquote me when anyone can simply look at what I wrote to know what you did. I never said "Grimm's work was the same as Tolkien's". I said it was the same in intent, but made it perfectly clear he had pre-existing legends to work from. The comparison between the two is hardly original with me. Read Tom Shippey's work on Tolkien.
Yes, someone objects. Clearly, since the article is in the shape it is and I am not responsible for the vast majority of it but I'm objecting anyway. Among the reasons I give above, your proposed changes drag the article far off NPOV to be unacceptably centered on Northern Europe. As the article takes far too much space to demonstrate, this holiday did not originate there. Under its original name of Pascha it was celebrated around the Mediterranean long before any Germanic peoples had any contact with Christianity, and even before the Roman Empire was converted. Its primary association, as is preserved in its hymnography in those Christian churches with a liturgical tradition, are with the Jewish Passover, the Pesach. There are references to it from the second century onward. Too much focus on Germanic customs distorts the record. Csernica 21:03, 28 May 2005 (UTC)


Alrighty then. You said, "Grimm is not a historical source here since Deutsche Mythologie was not intended as an historical work." I quoted Grimm himself saying, "I have undertaken to collect and set forth all that can now be known of German paganism...". Ergo... your statement was false. The man himself said that it WAS his intent. I made no 'ad hominem' against Christians in general - if you dispute that the 'reinterpretation' of Eostre which has gone on in recent years is NOT being driven by a handful of reactionary Christian scholars please feel free to cite some of these numerous academics you say now reject the idea. As to 'revisionism'... the difference with the Earth orbit bit is that the change was based on new information. This change on 'Eostre' isn't. There is no more information available on this subject now than there was 1200 years ago, indeed it seems inescapable that there is LESS. Even if we assume (without justification) that Bede had nothing but the month name to go on and deduced 'Eostre' from that (the BEST case scenario for the revisionists)... it would remain a very logical deduction. We've got an untranslatable word (and thus likely a name) with a feminine ending appearing as the name of a month. Now, what sort of female might the ancient pagans have named a month after? Even assuming that the respected historians Bede and Grimm made it all up and had no real evidence for the conclusions they drew... just looking at the month names alone the 'goddess' explanation still strikes me as a very viable explanation. Yet here in these pages we have people claiming it is 'discounted by most scholars' or even 'disproven' with nothing to back up those claims. CBDunkerson 23:25, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Grimm indeed collected myth, legend and fairy tale from historical sources, but the synthesis that resulted from his work is entirely his own and can't necessarily be said to reflect the state of German mythology at any particular point in history.
Your argument on Eostre may or may not hold any water, and I frankly don't care if it does. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for our personal opinions, and our job ought to be to report the consensus of qualified scholarly thought on the subject. It is my understanding that current consensus is that Eostre did not exist, and mainly for the same reason you cite in support of the idea -- that in centuries of searching, nothing has been found to corroborate Bede at all. It personally doesn't matter to me one way or the other. However, I must agree with you that there are shockingly few references here, and I intend to track a few down. That is indeed a fair criticism.
I understand why you might be sensitized on this issue, but even the "Heathen" section is not aimed primarily at neopagans. As I said earlier, there are ultra-fundamentalist Christian groups who use her to try to establish a pagan origin for the holiday to bolster their claim that Christians ought not observe it. In this they are unforgivably Anglocentric of course, since the holiday was observed for centuries before Christianity ever arrived among Germanic people and before it was ever called "Ostern" or "Easter" or anything similar. I can find no references to neopagans at all in the article as it stands, but there is a section titled "Anti-Easter Christians."
Which brings me to my main objection to your proposed changes -- or what ought to have been my main objection, but I have a bad habit of allowing others to frame the terms of a discussion. This article is about the Christian holiday. I am already on record here that it devotes far too much space to addressing the whole Eostre-origin claim, which is false on its face. (I am also on record that at least some of the material in the "Heathen" section is in need of a rewrite, for some of the same reasons you do. See "Eostre/Ásatrú" above.) It is the wrong thing to do to expand this even more, and to bring in neopagan references where none existed before. The proper name of the holiday is Pascha, and in most languages it is known by either this or a close cognate. The etymological oddities of its name peculiar to the northwest corner of Old World Christendom is, or really ought to be, a side issue. So should a hypothetical ancient pagan festival and recent neopagan celebrations that really have nothing at all in common with the Christian celebration except for the name and the approximate time of year. (And maybe -- maybe -- a few of the associated secular customs although this is utterly unproven and stands on very little foundation.) If you feel they deserve some coverage, I could hardly object to a seperate article on them. (As long as, in the case of the ancient celebration, it reports what is really known, clearly identifies guesswork, and provides a well-supported evaluation of the liklihood of that guesswork being correct.) Csernica 23:04, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
We agree on alot of this. I'm not sure that the articles need to be separated (and if so they ought to be cross-linked in any case). I'm going to make some updates along the lines of what I think we agree on. Let me know what you think or adjust as needed. CBDunkerson 16:58, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Excellent work, and highly commendable, IMO. Csernica 04:46, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

"Our Father" / Very POV

I've found that jumping in and editing these types of entries doesn't always work, so I'll point out my problem here and the continual editors can take over (appears at the bottom of the page)

In all cases Easter is not a celebrated festival of our Fathers word. In fact only three festivals are defined in the word, all of which are defined in Leviticus chapter 23. Chapter 23 verse 5 specifically defines the timing of passover, which is the 14th day of the 1st month. In the whole of the 23rd chapter of Leviticus, there is no mention of Easter.
Jesus clarified this in Matthew Chapter 5 verse 17 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets, I am not come to destroy , but to fulfil, Verse 8 "For verily I say unto you,Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Paul tells us in 1 Thessalonians chapter 5 verse 5 " Ye are all the children of light and the children of the day, we are not of the night, nor of darkness. When you put this with Genesis Chapter 1 verse 16 " And God made two gerat lights, the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night he made the stars also. Its easy to see our festival timing is related to the suns events during the year. With such an accurate measuring device, we shoild not need the moon (night) to measure our festivals by.
Easter simply put is a festival of man. Our Father never defined it and the fact that the timing is so unpredictable (measured by the moon "NIGHT") should be a definite indicator that man conceved it.

Basically this sounds like a sermon, and looks like it's a cut and paste job in places and preaching in others. The entire deal is hogwash, in my POV, as the Moon was used by Hebrews... but I assume that is what is being preached here. Not only does it smell of anti-Jewish propaganda that I hear and read elsewhere but it is a direct assult on Catholic beliefs. If there are points here, someone bring them out and drop the rest. Besides, misspellings and worse! Please Easter editors, help us readers out. A less controversal entry/article and I'd clean it up in a heartbeat. I must admit, I'm not a Christian so I don't think I have a place editing this article (simply because I don't know enough and would be very POV). I believe the word for this text is "juxtaposition" - the editor is stringing together bible quotes that don't belong together. Thank you for your considerations. JoeHenzi 14:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Most important holiday

While it is undoubtably true that Easter is more important than Christmas from a religious point of view, I believe that the intro ignores the ambiguities of the word "holiday" and is accordingly potentially misleading. In the UK for certain, and I believe in many other traditionally Christian countries, Christmas is much more important as a holiday/festive season or generally as a feature of the year. In the UK the difference in significance in favour of Christmas is vast. I'm going to amend the intro to reflect this. Bhoeble 23:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

And I'm going to amend it back, at least partially. In the US as well, Christmas is much more significant in most people's lives as a secular holiday, but this article is primarily about the religious celebration and not the secular one. As a religious celebration it's of overwhelming importance. Not only was the event itself absolutely foundational to Christianity, but the entire liturgical calendar revolves around it in a way that it does not around Christmas. Your information relative to Christmas therefore really belongs in the "Non-religious Easter traditions" section. Furthermore, the early reference in the intro to Easter as a Christian holiday, an extremely salient point, was removed. I am editing accordingly. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:31, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
This article should not serve the needs of Christians or Christianity, but describe the world as it is. I'm restoring it. I did not remove the reference to Christianity; I moved it later in the sentence in order to provide separate links to liturgical year and Christianity. Bhoeble
I'm only not reverting this because I don't feel like getting into a revert war right now. I'm sure certain others I have in mind will take some kind of action when they notice. This isn't about "serving the needs of Christians". Christians don't need this article; they already know all about what it has to say. Look at the thing. How much of it is about secular traditions and how much of it is about the primary, religious meaning? To mention so prominently in the intro an aspect of the day that receives relatively so little notice in the main body is bad form IMO. I would also tend to think its relative unimportance as a secular holiday is a strong argument for paying more attention to the religious dimension, and its importance in that context ought to be given primary emphasis.
Or maybe I'll do the revert later when I'm feeling more energetic and cranky. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:00, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Holidays

You may be interested in the WikiProject, WikiProject Holidays, a WikiProject that will focus on standardizing articles about Holidays. It has been around for quite some time, but I'm starting it up again, and would like to see some more members (and our original members) around the help out. Cheers. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 21:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

External links

The external links section seems to have reached the point where there are s many that everybody starts adding their own :-)

I have pruned it per my understandign of WP:EL and removed the following:

is rather POV and doesn't add to the article. Is it a source? If not, I don't see much point in linking it

Two links to one site (bad); no evidence that this is widely viewed as an authority; it doesn't appear to add anything to the article.

We don't need dozens of calculators, and this is a university subpage (they often go 404)

geocities pages not good sources; multiple links to the same geocities user looks like vanity

duplicates the purpose of the article, either it's a source or it's a distraction

Two links to a user page? looks like vanity. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 11:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

"Easter in the early Church" section

Although I just gave the section a copyedit, ISTM that this section is mainly an attempt at presenting the same material covered in the Quartodecimanism article and could be reduced to a summary. It also doesn't cover what it purports to (that is, Easter in the early Church), but simply addresses Quartodecimanism as though that were the only feature of the early Church's Paschal observances. Comments? —Preost talk contribs 14:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

You're perfectly correct, but after an initial clash I ran out of the energy necessary to deal with it myself. There were some very energetic editors working for a while there. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

War on Easter

Removed section and link of promotional info for Brian Flemming's "War on Easter". Main article is on AfD and there is no WP:V or WP:RS coverage of this. If someone can post links showing that this story has been picked up and reported by major news media, I'll have no objection to it appearing here. Right now though, it is promo material for a stunt that has gotten zero coverage.--Isotope23 19:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49678

I don't know if thats a good enough news site, but its not like it has to be about WarOnEaster.org. I thought it would fall under controversies and there are news station talking about that.--The Anti-Theist 00:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

May?

Well, yes and no. Yes, the date of Pascha on the Orthodox calendar does occasionally fall in May on the Gregorian calendar. But it never falls in May with respect to the Julian calendar by which its date is computed. So is that May or not? TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Pesach the start of Easter?

Pesach is not the origin of Easter. Pesach itself came from the Exodus of the Hebrews during the time of Moses. They were commanded to celebrate this exodus from generation to generation through Passover. (More can be found in Exodus chapters 11-12 regarding Pesach.) Some seem to think that Passover came from the Babylonians during the Babylonian captivity, however this occurred much much later in the history of Israel.

This article seems to be misleading and biased towards a Christian origin for Easter, however there are many articles which present the viewpoint that Christians merely adopted the cultural norm into their holiday practice. Here are a few links that I have found...

"Modern-day Easter is derived from two ancient traditions: one Judeo-Christian and the other Pagan. Both Christians and Pagans have celebrated death and resurrection themes following the Spring Equinox for millennia. Most religious historians believe that many elements of the Christian observance of Easter were derived from earlier Pagan celebrations."-- for more go to http://www.religioustolerance.org/easter.htm


(These links are a little less professioanl in its writing, but nonetheless talks about the origins of Easter and the churches use of it from a biblical perspective.)

http://www.bright.net/~1wayonly/easter.html http://www.kingshouse.org/easter.htm http://www.albatrus.org/english/festivals/easter/is_easter_pagan.htm http://www.thunderministries.com/pagan/easter/IsEaster.html

It's funny that this is the one subject on which certain Fundamentalist Christian groups agree wholeheartedly with modern neopagans. We've been through this discussion before here, and I doubt many are interested in re-opening it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
The possibility of a pagan origin for Pascha is thoroughly covered in the article. It simply isn't much of a possibility when the facts are objectively laid out. Carlo 00:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
It very much is. --Oscillate 14:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I have not found "religioustolerance.org" to be a reliable source for information on Christian history. They credulously repeat secondary or tertiary "sources" and never seem bothered to check beyond that. What are the original sources for the "Easter is pagan" claim? How many of them make the easily-demolished statement that the entire holiday was named for "Ishtar" (explain away the use of "Pascha" for centuries before the use of "Easter")? Likewise, how many of them blindly assert (or presume) that the holiday was invented by the Saxons (cf misinterpretation of Bede's speculation), thus ignoring the centuries of the holiday's observance before Christianity made it to those particular Britons? Here are the things you have to do to prove that Holy Pascha (called "Easter" by most English speakers) is just a pagan ceremony: Refute Eusebius of Caeseria, for starters. Give a source older than Eusebius that holds Pascha to be a pagan celebration. Refute Socrates Scholasticus. Give a source older than he that holds Pascha to be a pagan celebration. Refute Melito of Sardis. Give a source older than his Paschal Homily that proves easter to be a pagan celebration. It is a sad and sorry trait of so many people to forget that not all Christians are English-speakers and not all Christians are even Western Christians. It is a sad thing, indeed , that so much of what is flatly repeated about Christian history was pretty much unsupported speculation or even wholesale fabrication from the 19th century. Dogface 15:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
There is so much that is obviously non-Christian in origin, it's amazing to see how many people who call themselves Christian think it's perfectly acceptable to God to mix in the celebration of something so important with things from pagan religions. The commemoration or remembrance of Jesus' ressurrection is fine, the commemoration of his death even better, since Jesus commanded his followers to do so (Luke 21:19,20), but the other components and customs of what is now Easter in most of the (Western) Christian world I think is absurd, as is the various church's approval of such customs. --Oscillate 16:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Please prove that all of us who celebrate Holy Pascha are Western Christians and use the trappings of Western Christianity. I lay down my challenge. Holy Pascha is the Christian sequel of the most Holy of Passover events, the Final Sacrifice of the Final Lamb (Great and Holy Friday). Once again, I challenge you to prove that Holy Pascha is merely pagan. I challenge you to refute the Church historians and sermons I have cited. Dogface 23:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
You don't think the article adequately addreses the difference between the non-Christian trappings of Easter (eggs, rabbits, chocolate) and the religious observance itself? Don't forget that there is a big difference between claiming a non-Christian origin for the Easter Bunny and claiming a non-Christian origin for Easter. -Ben 17:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
No, the article is good. I was just responding to the opinion above. No problems here. --Oscillate 18:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Slight anglocentrism?

From the description box: "Observed By most Christians, although many non-Christians observe secular practices, especially in Australia, Canada, UK and the US"

Having lived both in continental Europe and North America, I don't see how Easter is any more prevalent as a secular holiday in the Anglosphere (Britain and its [former] colonies) than the rest of Western civilization. In Scandinavia, for instance, Easter is a public holiday and observed by pretty much anyone to a greater or lesser degree, and those countries are arguably more secular than Australia, Canada, et al. Perhaps it would be better to say "Observed by most Christians, as well as a secular holiday by most people in formerly majority-Christian countries", or something to that effect. Unigolyn 06:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I changed it accordingly. joturner 06:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, I know it's not especially popular as a secular festival in Spain or France. The Easter Eggs and Easter Bunny things are Anglo-Saxon, not Christian or generic European in origin. To say it's particularly popular in "the Western world" is somewhat vague and awkward. While what you say about Scandinavia may be true, what is in the article at the moment is vague and not entirely accurate. elvenscout742 09:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Punctuation inside quotation marks

Just to get THIS one off my chest: Apparently the Wikipedia Manual of Style does specify that periods and commas can go outside of quotation marks. But that's just wrong. I was a proofreader for five years for a large company. Inside is according to the New York Times Manual of Style and Usage and according to every single book you pull off your shelf. How do you change that? It's ridiculous. That usage is disagreed with by every publishing company in the country. Carlo 20:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

In the country? Do you mean the United States? Wikipedia is an international project, remember. But even in the U.S. (and I am an American too) there is more than one style. The style WP adopted very early in the project, often called the logical style, is often used by those who work with computers, because of the importance of quoting strings very exactly. I assure you many "in the country" do use it. In any case, it is the house style here. Jonathunder 21:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
In the United States OR England. Pull a British book off your shelf and check. And this isn't a computer program, these aren't strings, and the English Language isn't Visual Basic. In other words, I strongly disagree. But ok. Not my decision. Carlo 21:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I have run into martinets who told me that I was wrong for daring to deviate from the all-sacred MLA citation dogma when I write scientific papers, then they tried to dictate that I ought to follow "correct" procedure even when the journal editors plainly stated that their journals did not use MLA. What the senior editor or editorial board determines to be acceptable use is acceptable use.Dogface 15:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
As I understand it, the historical reason for the rule where punctuation always goes inside quotations was aesthetic. For most typefaces, it looks much better for the quote marks to always be on the outside. This is just how the art of typography evolved; there's no real grammatical justification for it. However, as Jonathunder mentioned, this is falling by the wayside because it is inherently illogical. Especially in a computer context, it's impossible to accurately express command line examples and so forth if the punctuation is constrained in this way. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Importance

I would like to check one point. I have always thought that Easter is the most important holiday for Eastern Christians, while the Roman Catholics celebrate Christmas with much more pomp. However, I infer from our article that Easter is the principal holiday for all Christian denominations, Orthodox and Catholics alike. Can anyone sort it out for me? --Ghirla -трёп- 09:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This is an instance of "Do as I say, not as I do." From a doctrinal, soteriological, and otherwise spiritual standpoint, Easter is supposed to be more important. The reality appears to be quite the opposite. The vast majority of attention is given to Christmas in the West, and Easter is a very poor second when it comes to Western Christianity.

Misleading statement currently in the article

"Perhaps the earliest extant primary source referencing Easter is a 2nd century Paschal homily by Melito of Sardis, which characterizes the celebration as a well-established one."

This statement is misleading and anachronistic. Melito of Sardis was clearly a Quartodeciman, the "well-established" celebration was of course the biblical Quartodeciman (Lev 23:5). 63.201.25.74 05:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The statement is not at all misleading. The statement is merely to indicate early celebration of Pascha. Whether or not Melito observed "quartodecimian" usage is irrelevant to whether or not he celebrated at all. Point out specifically how a "quartodecimian" Pascha is not Pascha. Dogface 20:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

POV suppression of quoted material from article

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Easter&diff=53815106&oldid=53814542

Philip Schaff's History of the Christian Church, volume 3, section 79, The Time of the Easter Festival states: "The feast of the resurrection was thenceforth required to be celebrated everywhere on a Sunday, and never on the day of the Jewish passover, but always after the fourteenth of Nisan, on the Sunday after the first vernal full moon. The leading motive for this regulation was opposition to Judaism, which had dishonored the passover by the crucifixion of the Lord. ... At Nicaea, therefore, the Roman and Alexandrian usage with respect to Easter triumphed, and the Judaizing practice of the Quartodecimanians, who always celebrated Easter on the fourteenth of Nisan, became thenceforth a heresy. Yet that practice continued in many parts of the East, and in the time of Epiphanius, about a.d. 400, there were many, Quartodecimanians, who, as he says, were orthodox, indeed, in doctrine, but in ritual were addicted to Jewish fables, and built upon the principle: “Cursed is every one who does not keep his passover on the fourteenth of Nisan.” <footnote: Exodus 12:15> They kept the day with the Communion and with fasting till three o’clock. Yet they were divided into several parties among themselves. A peculiar offshoot of the Quartodecimanians was the rigidly ascetic Audians, who likewise held that the passover must be kept at the very same time (not after the same manner) with the Jews, on the fourteenth of Nisan, and for their authority appealed to their edition of the Apostolic Constitutions. And even in the orthodox church these measures did not secure entire uniformity. For the council of Nicaea, probably from prudence, passed by the question of the Roman and Alexandrian computation of Easter. At least the Acts contain no reference to it. At all events this difference remained: that Rome, afterward as before, fixed the vernal equinox, the terminus a quo of the Easter full moon, on the 18th of March, while Alexandria placed it correctly on the 21st. It thus occurred, that the Latins, the very year after the Nicene council, and again in the years 330, 333, 340, 341, 343, varied from the Alexandrians in the time of keeping Easter. On this account the council of Sardica, as we learn from the recently discovered Paschal Epistles of Athanasius, took the Easter question again in hand, and brought about, by mutual concessions, a compromise for the ensuing fifty years, but without permanent result. In 387 the difference of the Egyptian and the Roman Easter amounted to fully five weeks. Later attempts also to adjust the matter were in vain, until the monk Dionysius Exiguus, the author of our Christian calendar, succeeded in harmonizing the computation of Easter on the basis of the true Alexandrian reckoning; except that the Gallican and British Christians adhered still longer to the old custom, and thus fell into conflict with the Anglo-Saxon. The introduction of the improved Gregorian calendar in the Western church in 1582 again produced discrepancy; the Eastern and Russian church adhered to the Julian calendar, and is consequently now about twelve days behind us. According to the Gregorian calendar, which does not divide the months with astronomical exactness, it sometimes happens that the Paschal full moon is put a couple of hours too early, and the Christian Easter, as was the case in 1825, coincides with the Jewish Passover, against the express order of the council of Nicaea."

Theodoret's Ecclesiastical History 1.9 records The Epistle of the Emperor Constantine, concerning the matters transacted at the Council, addressed to those Bishops who were not present: "It was, in the first place, declared improper to follow the custom of the Jews in the celebration of this holy festival, because, their hands having been stained with crime, the minds of these wretched men are necessarily blinded. ... Let us, then, have nothing in common with the Jews, who are our adversaries. ... avoiding all contact with that evil way. ... who, after having compassed the death of the Lord, being out of their minds, are guided not by sound reason, but by an unrestrained passion, wherever their innate madness carries them. ... a people so utterly depraved. ... Therefore, this irregularity must be corrected, in order that we may no more have any thing in common with those parricides and the murderers of our Lord. ... no single point in common with the perjury of the Jews."

63.201.25.74 06:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, Schaff was exactly the obsolete source I was thinking of. He wrote over 100 years ago. Surely there's been some research into the question since.
A better reason not to give this idea so much space is that it's not at all clear it's a proper emphasis. The Quartodeciman question had existed for over 200 years by then, and this is the first whiff of anti-Semitism we have in relation to it. It's in no official communication from the Council or in anything like "minutes", but in a letter written after the fact by Constantine, who may have had an agenda of his own, and in reflections by Eusebius, who was Constantine's frank toady. I think we need a bit more than that before we ascribe this attitude to the Council as a whole as its main motivation for settling on the Roman method of computation. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Schaff obsolete? Hardly. As for the attitude of the council of Nicaea, we don't know that, it wasn't recorded. What we do have recorded is Constantine's opinion, according to Eusebius and Theodoret. That should certainly be expressed in a article on Easter, if it is to follow NPOV policy. If you wish to add a disclaimer that this is the opinion of Constantine and not necessarily that of the council, feel free to do so. However, that the council may have had a different opinion, which we don't know, is not a valid excuse to delete Constantine's opinion. This article is about Easter, not the First Council of Nicaea. 63.201.24.208 09:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Schaff's translations, as in the ANF and NPNF series? No, not obsolete at all. His history? There have been many new analyses made and ancient documents disovered in the intervening century. Yes, I'd call that obsolete.
You're right that we have no specific information about the attitude of the Council. But I fail to see why the opinion of a single attendee of the Council -- admittedly prominent, but who had no vote -- ought to be given such weight. Again, given the lack of historical antecedent for it, it appears anomalous on its face. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Easter/Archive_1&oldid=1142759344"