Talk:Easter/Archive 2

Easter in May ??

Csernicka added Easter on the list of May holidays. I reverted that because Christianity has made a point to celebrate it on 25 April at the latest. C. reverted this again with the argument that the Orthodox sometimes celebrate it in May. That would be May in the Gregorian calendar. But in that case the Orthodox use the Julian calendar and still 25 April is the latest date. So I maintain that Easter is not a May holiday. You can not mix calendar systems. I still want this classification removed. Tom Peters 11:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

We mix calendar systems routinely. Most Orthodox Churches (although not most Orthodox Christians) now use the New Calendar ("Revised Julian") for the fixed holidays, but retain the old reckoning for computing the date of Pascha. This is unsatisfactory in many ways, but it's what we're currently stuck with. Besides, any listing of the dates for Pascha will give it on the civil calendar, including the one in the article. Wouldn't it be more than a little strange to give a May date, and then claim that the day does not actually fall in May? TCC (talk) (contribs) 18:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The GOARCH (Greek Orthodox Archdiocese) of the USA certainly CAN celebrate Pascha in May. This is, as has been noted, due to the use of the "Revised Julian Calendar". While the Old Calendrists would maintain that May is never used, on the Revised Julian Calendar, it is quite obvious that the date of Pascha can fall on may. Do not look only to Old Calendar rigorists for the norms of Orthodox Christianity. The Eastern Orthodox Church accepts both Old Calendar and New Calendar Orthodox.Dogface 20:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• The "scholar(s)" {hereinafter 'he/him' as a generic pronoun referring to the author(s)} that authored this entry in wikipedia needs to put down the pen for good. He has bedazzled the reader with so much information; the basic falsehoods that form the foundation of his entry are completely obscured. The unwary reader is falling into a dangerous pit. I am happy to see reason, sanity, and truth written here on the discussions page. However, is saddens me to think most people looking up "Easter" on wikipedia will end their reading with his terribly misleading article.

Those entering comments on this page are correct; Pesach (Passover) has nothing to do with the pagan celebration of easter. And contrary to what is written in the primary article, the timing of easter has nothing to do with the timing of Passover. They are completely unrelated. In some years, the two dates can fall several weeks apart. God commanded that the month of the exodus from Egypt was to become the first of months. This was the month of Nisan. To commemorate the Exodus, the Passover was to be observed throughout the generations on the 15th of the first month, Nisan. However, the beginning of Nisan was not an arbitrary date. In order for Nisan to begin, the religious leaders had to search the barley fields and determine if the grain had reached a state of ripening called 'Aviv.' That is why the first month is also called the month of the Abib (barley). If the barley was found to be 'aviv/abib' then Nisan could begin with next new moon sighting. IF, the barley was still too green to be 'aviv', then a 13th month was added to the calendar allowing the crops an additional lunar cycle to fully ripen. The month of Nisan (the month of the Abib), and thus the dating of Passover (Deut 16:1), is subject to the barley grain. Easter is subject to dating according to the first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox.

During the Diaspora, Hillel II instituted a Hebrew calendar that approximated the lunar cycle and leap years with impressive accuracy. However, this was not the Biblical method of calculating time according to God’s word. Now that the Jewish people are home again, we can return to God’s reckoning of time. There are religious scholars and researchers in Israel that have resumed a calendar based upon the ripening of the barley crops. To illustrate the potential timing difference between easter and Passover, let us consider this year (2007). The barley crops were found to be abib in mid-march allowing the month of Nisan to begin on March 20. This placed Passover, according to the Agriculturally and Biblically Corrected Hebrew Calendar on April 4th. Had the barley not been found aviv when they searched, an extra month (Adar II) would have been added and Passover would not have occurred until early May. This disproves the author's position that Easter is directly related to Passover. It is a terrible disservice to wikipedia and its users to have a blatantly errant entry in its dbase. In my opinion, this author sought not to edify truth, but manipulate data to support his belief that easter is one of the most holy religious holidays and almost synonymous with the Jewish Passover. True scholarly research is undertaken to establish truth. Many times, this research uncovers truth that is quite uncomfortable to our current understanding and knowledge. You cannot curtail learning to fall short of trampling on your personally held "truths." <tww apr-04-2007 19:11EDT>

Spring Holiday

Some editors have found a variety of verifiable sources that in some places people are now calling "Easter" "Spring Holiday." i created a section of this article called "Spring Holday" and added the contents on who and how people have come to call Easter "Spring Break." AYArktos reverted. Do others agree this material is ireelevant to Easter? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

"Spring Break" has been used in the USA for decades, with no reference at all to Easter. It just refers to a short break in the school season. It's a non-issue in the USA. Dogface 19:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Dogface, I urge you to look at the article in question, Spring Holiday. I happen to agree with you and think that article should cover holidays with no reference to Christianity or Easter. However, the principal authors of the article insist that it is just another name for Easter or Good Friday. Would you be willing to comment here [1] and in the subsequent section, here [2]? It seems to me that there are two choices concerning the Spring Holiday article: either it is about a variety of holidays that do not have to do with Easter, in which case it stands as an independent NPOV article, or it is about Easter under a new name, in which case it should be merged with this article. You seem to take the first position, but Crazy'n'Sane and ARKytos do not. Nor do they take the second position (I personally find the first and second positions equally acceptable). Their position is that Spring Holiday is really Easter, but that it must be its own, independent article. I would aprpeciate your thoughts, especially on that article's talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Rubenstein, Dogface said that "Spring Break" is used in the USA with no references to Easter. He is correct. For that article, see Spring break. As for Spring holiday, that is a direct euphemism to the holidays of Easter Sunday, Easter Monday, and/or Good Friday. I think Dogface merely misunderstood the issue. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(IN)`SANE<sup>`} 03:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

If "Spring holiday" is a direct euphamism for Easter, then discussion of this euphimism for Easter belongs in the article on Easter. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to whatever is being dishonestly claimed, "Spring Break" has NEVER been a euphemism for Easter, except, perhaps among a microscopically tiny group of secularist extremists. Likewise, "spring holiday" has never been a euphemism for Easter except among a similarly vanishingly tiny group. Is Wikipedia to be a special soap box for such out-of-mainstream practices?Dogface 20:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Easter is called Passover?

Hi. I haven't had time to read the whole article yet, and I see of course there's been a lot of discussion here. My first instinct is to ask -- at the first sentence-- Who calls Easter "Passover" in English? As a native (US) English speaker, I have never heard any other US, UK, Aussie, or Canadian English speaker use the words "Passover" and "Easter" interchangeably, nor substituted "Passover" for "Easter".

Who ever wrote this article is purposely misleading the public. Pesach and Easter ARE NOT the same!!!!!!! Nor has Easter ever been called Pesach (or Passover in English--or any other language for that matter! The author needs to correct this gross error!!! Pesach/Passover is Scripturally based, while Easter IS NOT!! If the author does not correct this serious error then those in Wikipedia need to!!!!!!

Oops, forgot to sign: J Lorraine 00:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Most Christians call it by something like "Pascha". This is Greek for "Passover". TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, like J Lorraine, I'm also interested to hear about Easter being called "Pascha"; this is the first time I've heard of it. I hail from Australia, but have never heard about Easter being referred to as "Passover" or "Pascha" here in Roman Catholic/Protestant usage. This makes me wonder, could this be something unique to the Eastern Orthodox Church? Or have other people also heard about "Pascha" used in this way? I'm interested in your thoughts. Brisvegas 03:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It's common usage among English-speaking Eastern Orthodox, true, but it's also the usual name in most languages other than English. It's become necessary to point this out right from the start due to the propagation of certain theories on its origin based on the word "Easter". This establishes that "Easter" as a name really has nothing to do with the origin of the holiday. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I would not rush to translate "pascha" as "passover." Words change in meaning, and their meanings expand. In Latin America, Pascuas is used to refer both to Easter and Christmas, for example. Jews will use it to refer to Passover. Does this mean that it "really" means "passover?" I think it now means at least three different things. The question is, when people call Easter "Pascua" are they consciously identifying it with Passover? in my experience, no. We should not be surprised that one word can be translated in different ways. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

That's no rush. All the hymnography and theology connected with the day in the traditional Christian churches (Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church) associate it with Passover. This is especially true among the EO where Greek is still a primary liturgical language: "Pascha" cannot be understood in any other way. Even if this has not entered the popular consciousness in some -- or even many -- places, it's known to the educated. Although it can hardly be avoided when the hymnography is so explicit. I can't speak from knowledge about Latin American usage except that Christmas may well be regarded as a "Winter Pascua" much as the EO view the Advent fast as a kind of "Winter Lent". TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• From [3] - Pascal - : From the Late Latin name Paschalis, which meant "relating to Easter" from Latin Pascha "Easter", which was in turn from Hebrew פֶסַח (pesach) "Passover". Passover was the ancient Hebrew holiday celebrating the liberation from Egypt. Because it coincided closely with the later Christian holiday of Easter, the same Latin word was used for both. The etymology is not the same as saying Easter is called Passover.--A Y Arktos\^talk 22:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This is, however, incorect. Among other things, this reference neglects to mention that it's a Greek word in origin, not Latin. (Added: By which I mean, that it came from Hebrew into Greek and thence into Latin, not directly from Hebrew into Latin.) In Christian theology, Easter is exactly Passover. I need to find the time to write that section we discussed below. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Whipping

"In the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia, a tradition of whipping is carried out on Easter Monday" I am not aware of any whipping here (Hungary), only sprinkling. Frigo 16:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

And I'm not aware of whipping in the Slavic countries either; only sprinkling as well. Or sometimes a thorough dousing. My grandmother told me of a woman who used to sit by her second-floor window with a bucket on Bright Tuesday. No man was safe on the sidewalk beneath her. (This was Bayonne, New Jersey in the Carpatho-Russian émigré community.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

translations - sometimes cannot be literal

Just because people use one word to refer to two different things does not mean those two things are the same. Thus, one should not translate the word the same way in both contexts. Each context merits a different translation. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Except, of course, where the context is not different. Read the article. For most Christians, "Easter" is the Christian Passover. The word is understood in Greek (and by the Greeks) in exactly that sense. It is not insignificant that the same word signifies both Christian and Jewish feasts; they are inextricably tied in the Christian view. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Note the Greek wiki article doesn't even put the Jewish and Christian feasts in separate articles. (Both halves of the article are badly underdeveloped.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Do Christians today still consider Ester to be Passover? I am tryuing to distinguish between etymology of a word and contemporary usage. Thanks. Slrubenstein | Talk 06:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Yes we do. That's what I've been saying. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Easter is considered to be the "Holy Passover" within Orthodox Christianity. It is the "fulfilled" Passover, just as Christ is the fulfillment of the lamb of the Jewish Temple. Thus, those Christian traditions that use "Πάσχα" will think of it as their (our) Passover. Dogface 11:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

To elaborate, the West, or at least Protestantism in the West, has long had a fixation with explicitly distancing itself from every possible connection to Judaism. There is a constant emphasis upon how "new" and "different" Christianity must be from all that has come before. In the East, the emphasis has been completely different. The ecclesiological model has been one of stressing continuity from First-Century Judaism.Dogface 11:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. With all due respect, I suggest adding more (from verifiable sources, perhaps theologians or clergy) on how conemporary Christians understand 'Passover.' I am not being argumentative, but since it means something so different from the Jewish Passover, I think the article could benefit from more discussion of this. I am not just talking about the meaning of Easter as such, which the article covers very well, but rather the contemporary meaning of the word passover for Christians. My point is that the article would be much more informative if instead of just providing a translation of the word or its etymology it explained why Christians still think of Easter as a passover and what they mean by that. I think adding this really would improve the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this would be a valuable addition to the article, and I can't imagine how it might have escaped my attention that it was lacking until now. Thank you for pointing it out. (I honestly thought it was in there, so I apologize if I treated you as if you were being obtuse.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely no need to apologize. You weren´t treating me as if I were obtuse, and of course it was I who misunderstood a theological issue for an issue in translation. But these are the kinds of disagreements or confusions that talk pages are for, when the outcome is better understanding and a constructive suggestion for improving the article. I appreciate your patience and that of others in explaining the matter to me, user:Slrubenstein

"Oestre" or "Hystera" ?

I'm curious as to the reference stating that the English and German names of the holiday ("Easter" and "Ostern", respectively) come from "Oestre".

Oestre was an Anglo-Saxon goddess who only shares a passing likeness to modern, commercial, Easter paraphenalia, like the "Easter Bunny". The "Oestre" argument, when you think about it, relies more heavily on circular-reasoning, than on any historical fact.

Is it not more likely that said names come from "Hystera" (Greek for "womb")? This, to me, would make more sense since it was historically a Christian celebration of "being born again", celebrated with decorating of eggs and often closely associated with young children.

Or is there something else which I'm not aware of? Pine 21:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

No, not at all likely. It's a Germanic word, an element of a month-name before it was the name of the holiday. This is well-documented. The question is what was the ultimate origin of the month-name? A Greek connection would be very difficult to establish. Associations with the east and thus dawn are more etymologically likely.

Easter is not especially associated with small children, at least not before relatively recent times (the last 100 years or so). TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Nor is it clear that this Eostre (the more common spelling; no idea why you're swapping the first two letters) was actually a goddess. A consensus is developing that this was an error by Bede, our sole source for her existence. She doesn't appear anywhere else. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The holiday usually occured in "Oestremonat" (Oester-month). That much can be verified. The name of the month appears to pre-date Christanization of the Germanic peoples of Britain. For whatever reason, the Greek-derived name (Pascha--also used in Latin) was replaced with a more local name. A connection with "Hystera" would require that a word NEVER used in Greek-speaking lands have magically migrated, leaving no trace AT ALL of its use outside of Germanic lands for that purpose. It's as plausible as the "Ishtar" hypothesis.Dogface 11:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

While the comment that "A consensus is developing that this was an error by Bede" might be technically accurate it isn't very informative. There is as much evidence to support Bede as evidence to refute him on this matter (which is slim to none). Discrediting Bede's statement seems more a matter of personal preference than anything else.

In Bede's defense it would seem exceptional if Eostre was a word with categorically non-religious (and unexplained) origins given the fact that for the most part ancient cultures tended to attach enormous spiritistic and astrological significance to the seasons, calendars, and dating systems. Given this fact, the burden of proof should definitely be on the shoulders of anyone arguing against this well documented trend as well as Bede's statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.52.151 (talk • contribs)

More history distorting Chritian lies. 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." Despite attempts to Christianise it Easter is accepted by most serious scholars to be a pagan fertility rite in origin celebrating the rebirth of life in spring. There is more than a "passing resemblane" to here as she is the goddess of spring and rebirth and Easter is in Spring , her name is a Eastre , and both eggs and hares fertility and rebirth symbols. Please stop lying im sure your lord told you it was a sin.

Let me lay down the gauntlet, then. Document your claims and do more than just rant like a half-baked propagandist. Send us to the serious scholarly work, not just pop-press rehashes. And have the guts to sign your comments. Dogface 01:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Help figuring out when it is next on a date?

I understand this isn't the best place to ask, but I'm desperate. Well, I've been needing to figure this out for a long time for an essay that's due next week, and I haev searched most of the internet. I was born on Easter Sunday, March 26th, 1989, and was wondering how I might go about figuring out when the next time Easter will fall on March 26th will be. Any Help would be appreciated. Myzou 00:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

See Computus. You probably best use the tabular method and find it for each year until you hit the date. Tom Peters 09:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

According to the Side-by-side Easter reference external link given in the article, the next year that Easter will fall on March 26 is 2062, and occurs again in 2073 and 2084. Look under New style Catholic. — Joe Kress 05:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Baptists

The below section doesn't really make sense or read like an article. Also there is no citation that Baptists don't believe Jesus drank wine; I certainly never heard such a believe declared in 20+ years of attending a Southern Baptist church.

Baptists in particular, maintain that the Last Supper was shown in the Gospels to portray Jesus urging the gathered apostles to share bread and the "fruit of the vine" (expressed in this fashion because Baptists view that Jesus did not drink intoxicating wine at Passover, this is based on where proverbs states 'look not upon the wine when it moveth itself aright in the cup'... which would mean there are two states of wine, the latter not being the same as the first... talk to anyone who creates these beverages and they can explain there is a change.). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bcostley (talk • contribs) 04:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC).

Easter Act of 1928

"In the United Kingdom, the Easter Act of 1928 set out legislation to allow the date of Easter to be fixed as the first Sunday after the second Saturday in April. However, the legislation was never implemented." ummm? Really? Why isn't this expressed as 'the second Sunday in April'? Also, a source would be good.

The rules in the US for setting Election Day are similar: the first Tuesday after the first Monday in Novermber. This is so phrased to ensure that elections always happen after the 1st of the month. In this case, I imagine the point is to make sure Easter occurs more or less in the middle of April. As for sources, a Google search on "Easter Act of 1928" yields far too many results to be overly worried about it. The formal name of the law is 18 & 19 Geo. 5, chapter 35. To be implemented it requires an Order-in-Council, which has never been issued. TCC (talk) (contribs) 11:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If April begins on a Sunday, then the first Sunday after the second Saturday in April would be the third Sunday in April.Dogface 17:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

removed several questionable and outright inappropriate citations

1. http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/weblog/comments/2742/ - Actually a blog which references an article (now offline) of the Tasmania Mercury News. The article should cite the original Tasmania Mercury News article, if possible.
2. http://www.easterau.com/ - Christian website with a clear and singular goal to deny that Easter has a pagan connection. The website was written by Nick Sayers, with no biographical information provided.
3. http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t020.html - Christian website of unclear reliability.
4. http://www.lasttrumpetministries.org/tracts/tract1.html - A sermon of sorts on the pagan origins of Easter from a one-man ministry.
5. http://www.pathlights.com/theselastdays/tracts/tract_22n.htm - A selection of quotes from the Bible with interpretation from a Christian lesson plan.

I also removed http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=237&SID=3, which is semi-official response from the Orthodox Church of America about the connection to pagan traditions. It's actually a fine source to talk about the Church's position, but it was being used to support something completely different. – Þ  06:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The only thing more annoying than having fact tags attached to perfectly reasonable statements that are obvious on their face (especially those that state a negative position) is having someone nitpick the cites that are placed. If nothing else, the Museum of Hoaxes link is a perfectly good cite. The relevant bits were quoted directly from the original article.

And tell me, are there any religion-based sources that you'll accept ever? The claims that are being countered here are religiously motivated and of highly dubious scholarship in the first place, as would be obvious if any of those who keeps trying to insert them provided cites. Most sources with an interest in debunking them would also be religious in nature. Bede himself was an ecclesiastical writer. Seems an inherent double-standard. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I take no position on the debate at hand, I'm only commenting on the nature of the sources. Blogs are almost never considered reliable sources because they are not fact-checked or subject to editorial control. Someone apparently wanted to cite the Tasmania Mercury News article, but found that it is no longer online. It should be easy enough to find the original article with a LexisNexis search or similar and cite it directly. (You can ask someone to do it for you if you don't have an account.) It doesn't matter that the article is no longer online. There is also no citation for the other authors mentioned, Hutton and de la Saussaye.

Any group with an agenda related to the matter at hand is rarely a reliable source. When the author or group is particularly prominent, then their work may be cited as evidence of their opinion or position, which is why the OCA link could be reasonably integrated into the article. It's not clear to me that Nick Sayers, Paul S. Taylor, David J. Meyer, or Pathlights are particularly notable or their opinions worth citing. In any event, that's not how those citations were being used.

For more information, I suggest you read the previous version of the reliable sources guideline, which is more extensive than the version that was merged with WP:A. – Þ  00:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning up Citations and Links

This page has a hideous mish-mash of citations and external links. I am severely tempted to clean them all up as proper end-note citations. Does anyone object to this? Is anyone infatuated with links over proper citations?Dogface 15:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Larry Wright, 'Christianity, Astrology And Myth', (2000), Oak Hill Free Press, California, USA. ISBN:0 9518796 1 8

The book in question is essentially the text of my MA thesis entitled, 'Pagan Ritual And Myth, In The Early Christian Church'. It does indeed cover many aspects of the Jesus Myth, Christian festival et al...As an example, the first eight chapters are headed: (1)Rebirth of a Myth, (2)Christianity And The Sun God, (3)The Dying And Resurrected Saviour God,(4)Stars And Their Portents, (5)The Virgin Mother Of The World, (6)The Cave And Stable Myth, (7)Slaughter Of The Innocents, (8)Miracles...................etc. There are 16 chapters, 230pp, inc' Bibliography, and index.The work is therefore accademically sound, and relevant to many diverse aspects of Christianity. Larry Wright 25/03/07

Time to protect?

Looks like it's time to temporarily protect another holiday page, until the holiday passes. Anyone else think this?Dogface 19:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I am new register so I can't yet edit on here, but could someone please edit the section titled "Names derived from the Hebrew Pesach (פסח) Passover". Yesterday I added the Malayalam language to the section, but I couldn't find the Malayalam script. Today, the article was locked. Anyhow, I meant to add it in this manner: Malayalam പെശഹ (Pæsacha/Pæsaha) Thanks, MikeThomasChicago 28 Mar 07, 01:22UTC.

Parts of the UK?

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

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

Netherlands section

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

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

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

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

Etymology: Interpretations of chronologies in the gospels

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Format

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

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

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

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

Pascha

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

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

When does Lent end?

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

Easter and Hitler

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

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

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

Easter in Bulgarian

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

Cults?

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

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

Easter Fires

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

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

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

s-protection

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

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

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

Three Days?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Third Day

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

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

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

Egg roll

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

the Wikipedia entry is [4]

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

Sdumont 13:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

elements of a clean-up

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

• pre-TOC intro

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remove translations

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

"Easter alleged a Babylonian festival"

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

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

Easter a Pagan religion

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

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

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

Comments on this welcome..

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

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

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

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

Here's the scenario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Orthodox Easter date

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

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

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

April 26

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

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

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

Etymology

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

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

Same consecutive Easter date

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Non-sequitur?

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

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

That paragraph is indeed poorly worded. The juxtaposition is valid only because Easter can be determined using either ecclesiastical tables (both moon 14 and March 21) or astronomical tables (true full moon and true vernal equinox), but never one table from each realm. Astronomical tables (in particular, Kepler's Rudolphine Tables) were used in Germany from 1700 to 1775 and in Sweden from 1740 to 1844.[5] — Joe Kress (talk) 07:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Gross Misinterpretation

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

Concerns regarding the Early Church section

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

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

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

Sunday Brunch

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

Celtic??

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

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

Year

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

Easter footer

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

Anglosphere

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

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

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

"Pascha"

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

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

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

Important etymology omitted

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

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

Etymology "germanic languages"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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