Wikipedia

Talk:Easter/Archive 5

< Talk:Easter
Latest comment: 13 years ago by ZabiggyZoo in topic Lead section
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 → Archive 9

Zombie Jesus Awareness Day

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

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

Deleted - thanks for the heads up. Rklawton (talk) 02:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Sure. I also found Template:Zombie Jesus (mostly unused userbox) - should probably be userfied. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 14:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


Pagan origins

Latest comment: 13 years ago25 comments14 people in discussion

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

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

Web searches reveal lots of things not necessarily connected to reality. Why don't you do a search in scietific literature? It will show you that the pagan Easter idea had some popularity among scientists 100-50 years ago; that since then it has been discredited as unfounded; that Bede's "Eostre" is looked at as a quite unclear reference for Eostre and yields NOTHING about an alleged festival of hers; and that there is not much we know for sure about preChristian Germanic rites altogether; that the ample information about Eostre's holy animal, egg-rites etc you find on the internet are very recent inventions (not the slightest hint at Bede!).
As for your astonishment that the most important festival is not celebrated by some (small) denominations: yeah, that's how these big religions work; pretty wide range of habits and views under the same label.. Try Islam - and be amazed that the "5 pillars" are not observed by all Muslims.... --Kipala (talk) 18:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't this article reference Bede's mention of the hare and Egg? Are you sure he never mentioned either? Because the eggs have seemingly been in use for over 1000 years, from what I gather. You mean to tell me that this Holiday and its rites have no significant origin?
I can fathom that Bede invented that God, but it seems like he was directly basing it on or confusing it with the Greek God Astarte. The word Eostre is obviously a take on the Latin word Oestrus; based on the Greek "oistros;" female sexual excitement. "Easter" in old English is "Astre". Given the pervasiveness of Astarte worship in the ancient world, is it that much of a stretch to suspect the worship spread to the Germanic tribes? Why would Bede have invented the origin.
Lastly, why would any self-respecting scientist of the 1950's care a thing about the origin of Easter? And why does it matter how recent information is claiming Easter has older or non-Christian origins. Bede was a major Catholic source alive when most Germans were practicing 'paganism' and apparently he isn't a credible source. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 06:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Ēostre#Bede's account has the complete text of Bede's account of Eostre. There is no mention of hares or eggs. Einhard: The life of Charlemagne (817-836) as translated by Samuel Epes Turner (1880), in the section "Reforms" states that Charlemagne renamed April to Ostarmanoth. Again, no mention of hares or eggs. Easter eggs#Christian symbols and practice mentions the Eastern Orthodox tradition of red-colored easter eggs, which symbolize the blood of Christ. Easter eggs#Pious legends recounts two legends that attribute these blood-red eggs to Mary Magdelene. — Joe Kress (talk) 21:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
The article states that the earliest reference to Easter (using the name Pascha) occurred in the mid-2nd century Paschal homily Peri Pascha (On the Passover) by Melito of Sardis. By the late 2nd century Easter was well established when the Quartodeciman bishop of Smyrna Polycarp and the bishop of Rome Anicetus debated when Easter should be celebrated. Thus Easter began in the Mediterranean area during the second century while Christians were still being persecuted by Romans, far away from Germania and long before Christianity encountered any Germanic Pagan traditions, such as the hare and egg. This was about 600 years before Bede mentioned Eostre and thus long before Pascha acquired its English name, Easter. Since Easter began when its name was Pascha (Passover), there is no need to even discuss Astre and Astarte, let alone Oestrus. Just becaue these Latin spellings are similar does not mean they have any etymological relationship. Any such claim requires a reliable source. — Joe Kress (talk) 01:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Self respecting scientists do a lot of research on strange sounding subjects. Visit a University library! Besides the "pagan" origin of hare and eggs has never been shown convincingly. Egg has such a wide symbolism that and pops up in very different cultures - no way to show that they copied from each other; egg-symbolism may be so self evident that it keeps on being rediscovered without outer influences; and it fits nicely into Christian resurrection symbolism. As for the hare there is nothing historical about Germanic hares but quite a bit about Roman traditions and early Christian tradition (cf German Wikipedia on "Hare in Art" with references. How this once popular Christian hare-symbolism was connected to Easter is not clear yet but can be guessed with more argument than the Germanic connection.--Kipala (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Folks, this has been beaten to death already. (See sections 25-27 of Archive 3, especially.) and that's just the recent archives). Please read over some of the archived discussion before resurrecting this debate again. Ben (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
That is Western POV! In some cultures it is/was common to take the corpses out of the grave annually for remembrance ceremonies. The whole topi IS about resurrection, isn't it?--Kipala (talk) 09:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
That's not resurrection. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
On the contrary, people who removed bodies from graves were called "resurrectionists". This was usually done in the springtime after the ground was no longer frozen. Obviously this was appropriated by Christians to form the origin of their Easter story. Ben (talk) 13:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
There's nothing at all obvious about it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, it may not be obvious to you, or to scholars, but I'm sure I read it on a website somewhere, so please go off and re-write the article for my un-sourced conspiracy theory. Thanks! Ben (talk) 14:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Digging up bones is not resurrection. Coming back to life is resurrection. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
resurrection:"a revival from inactivity and disuse" lol. Only in christianity does it mean reincarnation: "embodiment in a new form"! Don't mix words in discussion of the non-christian spring life and fertility occasions. Beyond that, those who call it an AS issue are also missing other issues here; in that it was also celebrated by a similar traceable name in pre-Persia, and Central Asia; in Jainism and Taoism. And thousands of other faiths. Lostinlodos (talk) 07:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The English word "resurrection" is from a Latin translation of "anastasis", which is from a Greek root meaning "to rise up". Likewise, Greek Christians do not and have never used the word "Easter" (at least not in Greek). They use "Pascha", which means "Passover".Dogface (talk) 05:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

If you wanted to know about why eggs look to have been eaten at Easter try this link Easter egg after Lent EdwardLane (talk) 13:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a very interesting debate. Why is none of this reflected in the article? I agree there is a huge POV problem here. I didn't have to look far to find reliable sources supporting pagan origins. The BBC states, "...not all Easter customs are Christian; some, such as the Easter Bunny, are Pagan in origin."[1] They have a link to an article that states, "Most religious historians believe that many elements of the Christian observance of Easter were derived from earlier Pagan celebrations."[2] The WP article on Easter eggs mentions this at the very top. Therefore the following claim in the introduction makes no sense:

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

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

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

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

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

That raises an excellent point, one that might help settle disputes more easily. Do we have, or could we develop, a list of reputable linguistic reference works - like a "Tier I"? In this way, casual editors can more easily differentiate between Joe Plumber and Joe Ph.D. It irks me when I find "Joe Plumber" sources mixed in those of respected journals and given undo weight. Rklawton (talk) 23:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
For accessible basic information, just look at a standard dictionary with etymological information. Some editions of the American Heritage Dictionary have convenient Indo-European root information gathered into a cross-referenced appendix, and the OED generally contains authoritative etymologies. AnonMoos (talk) 23:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

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

Etymology

Latest comment: 13 years ago111 comments12 people in discussion

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

The above paragraph appears to be sarcasm that adds nothing to the discussion. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 13:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I find your statement hilarious. It's true! Easter=Iesus+ter=Jesus day!!!!--Nate5713 (talk) 01:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
You'll have to better than just announcing this discovery. You need to give evidence. In which language is "-ter" a suffix that refers to a holiday (please provide a reference)? By which linguistic authority do you claim the derivation of "eas" from Latin "Iesus"? And while you are doing so can you please provide the authority for the pronounciation of "Iesus" as "ea-isis"? I don't doubt that you are in good faith, but at the moment you have only provided what looks like Original Research, which of course we can't accept. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Certainly. Now where to began? Ah, yes! Well, J was not added to the Alphabet until the 1500s, so a transliteration of the Hebrew "Juh" (J sound) into Latin would be "eey" (I sound). Therefore, Iesus is pronounced Eey+esus.--Nate5713 (talk) 23:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, "ter" is, again, from Latin, and it literally means: three fold. Thereby referring to the three days Easter. As well as the three-part nature of Christ: Father, (John 10:30) Son, (Mark 14:61) and the Holy Spirit. (Acts 10:38).--Nate5713 (talk) 00:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Unless you're being sarcastic, you need to proceed directly to Wikipedia:No original research. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I do not fully understand. I gave exact references for every argument, which no one has questioned, so how does that make it Original Research? I identified this on my own. I'm extremely proud of that, being that I am usually more of a math person. Now, some people might classify that as Original Research (I don't), but that does not change the fact that it's the truth.--Nate5713 (talk) 03:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
You have not answered any of my questions. When I asked for a suffix "-ter" meaning holiday, you gave a prefix meaning three. When I asked for a linguistic authority giving the derivation of "eas" from "Iesus" you gave a spurious argument about the letter J not being in the alphabet. ("Iesus" is actually Greek, not Latin, and the letter J was certainly in the English alphabet at the time of John Wycliffe in 1380. Both of these facts are in the article Iesus, which you referred to but patently have not read.) When I asked for your authority for pronouncing Iesus as "ea-isis" you have given a different pronounciation "eey+esus", but again no authority.
In other words, you have not given any references for your arguments. That fact that you have identified this "on your own" is exactly the same thing as original research. Your theory of the derivation of Easter remains just that, a theory. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Does this mean I have to publish a paper on the internet, before I can say the same thing on Wikipedia? Seems pretty silly and backwards to me. However, I apologize for not citing all my references, I assumed you already new. When translating Jesus into Latin Vulgate, the J turns into an I. Because J was not added until the 1500s. (When you say John Wycliffe, you probably mean his original name: Iohn Wycliffe.) This is pronounced ee-eh-s-us. --Nate5713 (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

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

You would have to cite an article in a peer-reviewed journal, or something of similar scholarly quality. Besides, I think you're simply wrong about the etymology of Easter. If it were derived from Latin, as you say, then why isn't some variation of it used as the name of the festival in modern Latin languages, instead of some variation of Pascha? You're also wrong about the derivation of the name Jesus (originally Aramaic Yeshua, transliterated into Greek as Iesous, and into Latin as Iesus). Ruckabumpkus (talk) 03:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
That's what I've been saying, Iesus is Jesus with an I. You accuse me of not citing references? what is Pascha? seems a bit of digression to me. There's a good reason why there's no variation of the term in modern Latin. Because there is no such thing, Latin is a dead language. --Nate5713 (talk) 15:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Wait a sec, I just followed my own link. "Pascha" is a synonym for Easter. It's like calling the satellite Luna the Moon. It's not its real name, but it works just as well. However, I doubt this has anything to do with this discussion, being that the term started with the Eastern Orthodox Church, which is in Russia, almost a thousand years after Easter was recognized.--Nate5713 (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't need to cite sources in the talk page; you need to cite them if you're going to put your idea into the text of the article. And, you miss my point. The festival we English-speakers call Easter was called Pascha (derived from Hebrew Pesach, "Passover") by Greek-speaking Christians in the earliest days of the church. Latin-speaking Christians, very soon after, simply adopted the Greek word, spelling it in Latin characters instead of Greek. Modern Latin languages, such as Spanish, French, Italian, Romanian, Portuguese, etc., all use some variant of Pascha as the name for the holiday. If Easter were of Latin origin, instead of Anglo-Saxon, as the references cited in the article all agree, why would none of those modern descendants of Latin use a variant of Easter as the name for the holiday? Ruckabumpkus (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Dear Nate5713, your explanation sounds wonderful. Go, collect your arguments and write a book about it. I am sure if you can make your point you are earning yourself a doctorate or maybe even higher positions. Then we will quote you here at length - promised!! But as long as it is an idea which you have not shared yet with the scholarly community it will not be visible here. That is how wikipedia works. Good luck! Kipala (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't know about you, but I have never heard of pascha before in my life. If you do not cite references against me, then I am forced to conclude that you are wrong and I am right. As far as I have observed, Easter is called Easter in Spain, Portugal, Italy, Argentina, etc. Hears a reference for you: Prof. Thomas F. X. Noble, who is chairman at the Department of History at the University of Notre Dame, mentioned the origin of Easter in passing during a lecture on Church history. He said, and I quote,

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

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

Nate, I have followed the link you give above and cannot find the phrase you quote on the page. In fact, I note that Prof. Noble's lectures are not available in written form and therefore your quotation of the spelling "Ee-ister" is not valid. Just because you have never heard of wt:Pascha doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Try exploring Wiktionary as well as Wikipedia under the various spellings Pascha, Paschal, Pascal, Pasqual, Pasqua, etc. and you will see that all of the Romance languages (modern day derivations of Latin) use one of these variant spellings as their word for "Easter". Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I sat at one of Prof. Noble's lectures just yesterday, and he clearly pronounced it. You buy his lectures on tape at this link. Prof. Noble further states that the festival was called Easter as early as 200 A.D. long before romantic languages formed. You mention several spellings of Pascha? this is what they mean:
  • Pascha is the Russian word for Easter. (Russian is not a Romantic language)
  • Paschal may refer to various Jewish festivals, like the one I mentioned above.
  • Blaise Pascal was a prominent French mathematician.
  • Pasqual is a common Spanish surname.

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

I was typing up a reply, but then I realized that this must be some sort of joke. I advise other editors to keep this in mind before feeding the troll. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Joke? what Joke? My proceeding comment is there to reinforce that ALL spellings of Pascha have Little to do with Easter.Nate2357 (talk) 20:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately I don't think that you are joking. I believe that you are in earnest. However, you simply are not going to convince us of your interesting but flawed etymology. Word derivations have very little to do with what they sound like in modern English. My apologies for the redlink in last night's comment above, it should have been wikt:pascha. Prof. Noble may well be right that the festival was called Easter as early as 200 CE. However, it wasn't called that in Latin. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think it should be clear that I don't care where Pascha come from!!!!! That has nothing to do with this discussion! still, I have yet to see an Iota of evidence that pascha is Easter in all romantic languages. Not even an Iota!! I use the word Easter as it was coined in the council of Nicea. Nate5713 (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Now, I will admit that most media tend to disagree with me. "for man's heart is evil from youth, and madness is in his soul". Genesis 8:21, Ecclesiastes 9:3, gospel of John 3:19, Letter to the Romans 3:23. Nate5713 (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

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

This is a summary of my thoughts:

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

I'm having a hard time telling if you're being serious (and not actually reading what's been written here) or silly (and getting more annoying by the post). To begin with, I do not agree that Easter was called Easter as early as AD200. The earliest references to it are in Greek, not Latin, where the word is Pascha (derived from the Hebrew Pesach - "Passover"). The point you seem to be missing is this: the origins of the English word Easter and of the Christian festival that the word refers to are almost completely unrelated. The festival we call Easter is much older than the English name for it. Most Christians do not call it by any name even remotely close to "Easter." A notable exception are the Germans, who call it "Ostern," which also seems to be derived from Eostre. I invite you to read the entire article on Easter (and also the one on Eostre before you make any further comments on this topic. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 22:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Ruck, as I said earlier, you're only feeding a troll. He's grasping at straws to be as obnoxious and as absurd as possible; internally linking nouns, bolding every other word, his comments are filled with little more than hyperboles, he rants that Eostre is a "Greek sex goddess", and attempts to claim that Pascha ultimately derives from Finnish (while claiming that Easter is used in Romance countries). Come on.
I highly suggest that you stop taking him seriously. In fact, this entire ridiculous thread should be stricken on the grounds of WP:SOAP and/or very poor WP:OR, if not just blatant WP:TROLLery, and the user's (Nate5713 (talk · contribs)) edit history should be examined for similar nonsense. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. I've known lots of zealous fundamentalist Christians who sincerely believe equally preposterous things and complain of a vast atheist conspiracy to suppress the "truth." Creationism is the most notable example. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 13:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
This discussion is going nowhere.
  • I provide proofs and references, and an astute Professor.
  • You Don't.
Maybe I should Edit the article myself. Nate5713 (talk) 20:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
As for your professor, can we please have a quote from a book or article by him, if a book, including the page number. As for 'Easters etymology, see the The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O27-Easter.html] - "derived by Bede from the name of a goddess whose feast was celebrated at the vernal equinox, Ēostre,". For the name Easter being unknown in 200, see [1]. I don't understand your point about Paschal and Pascal, they are simply different spellings of the same word. As for 'pascha', there are loads of sources, eg The Oxford Companion to British History which says that Easter is a "Christian feast celebrating Christ's resurrection, an ever-present event to believing Christians. Originally however pascha ..." Dougweller (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Now, I will admit that most media tend to disagree with me. "for man's heart is evil from youth, and madness is in his soul". Genesis 8:21, Ecclesiastes 9:3, gospel of John 3:19, Letter to the Romans 3:23. Nate5713 (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Easter=Jesus, that's all I'm saying! Sheeesh! Isn't that what Church fathers been saying for 2,000 years? Nate5713 (talk) 00:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I'M NOT JOKING!!! I'M JUST HUMOROUS!!! I like to have some fun while I make my point. Nate5713 (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

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

I think that's an excellent summary and we should edit on that basis. Rklawton (talk) 18:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me, but would it be too much to ask for you to actually prove your point? nothing personal, it's just that I find it unfair that I gave some 20 references and some circumstantial proofs, and though you give the typical definition of Easter over and over again, I don't see any references or verifications. Nate5713 (talk) 12:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Have you actually read the article you're criticizing? The references are in there. And, no, you haven't given 20 references, by my count, and what you have given is not up to snuff in academic rigor. You haven't cited any actual published material. Page numbers of books or journal articles are needed. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 12:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
It's not enough just too say, "Oh everybody knows that Easter is clearly derived from Eostre" a word that has nothing to do with the festival, so why does it have everything to do with the Etymology? Tamora Pierce ounce said,

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

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

I don't know who you're quoting ("Oh everybody knows that Easter is clearly derived from Eostre"), but I have seen no such assertion here. The derivation of Easter (the word, not the festival itself) from Eostre (the word, not the germanic pagan deity) is based on solid linguistic and historical scholarship, not speculation (see references in the article). It might be wrong, but it's probably right. And in any case, it really doesn't matter to this Christian, because what's important is the event the festival celebrates, not the name the festival goes by. I don't understand why you're making such a big deal out of the derivation of the word. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 20:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
By my count, I reference 16 external links, plus a myriad of internal links which gives a generous minimum of 20. Just because some liberal magazine or some know-it-all prof. says that Easter is pagan, doesn't mean its true. (I give such references anyway, but apparently they're not up to academic rigor for you). The proofs I prefer go "back to the sources" to quote the Renaissance man, as well as "conviction by scripture, and plain reasoning" to quote Martin Luther. What I propose is what I like to call, Novo Notium ('cause everything sounds better in Latin), a New concept, a New idea, a New understanding, a New proposition, a New law, a New theory, a new "something-that-isn't-quite-yet-proven-but-makes-more-sense-than-what-we-already-have". Just look at this timetable and you'll see see what I mean:
Rome conquered England in 50 B.C., but didn't really occupy it until 117 A.D. England officially became Christian somewhere between 200 and 300 A.D. Rome fell in 476 A.D., but the Churches in England continued to speak Latin until the King James Bible was printed in 1604. Thus, the churches of Anglo-saxon Britain could make there own choice on Easter: either name it after their own colloquial pagan tradition, or name it after the risen Christ in the church language (i.e. Iesus). Nate5713 (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Well then, by your own admission it's OR. Novo Notium==Original Research. (In addition to contradicting all the historical and linguistic sources and being wholly unsupported by the kind of references we can actually read.) But I suspect you'll keep trolling for reactions. Ben (talk) 15:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
There is practically no OR. Use your own plain reasoning, don't just say what everyone else is saying, think about it. Would the Bishops, the Deacons, the Elders, the church fathers of Anglo-Saxon Briton really want to name Resurrection day after an outmoded, sexual, pagan goddess of the morning? OR would they really want to name "the day that Jesus rose from the dead on" after Jesus, who rose from the dead on that day. Nate5713 (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
To your point about plain reasoning, I'd argue that the historical sources and scholarship trump speculation about "what would I do if I were them". First, I'd ask you to look at the instructions given to the first successful missionaries to the Anglo-Saxons, especially [letter of Gregory to Melitus] (AD 601) and its instructions about gradual conversion of pagan places of worship and feasts: "For there is no doubt that it is impossible to efface everything at once from their obdurate minds; because he who endeavours to ascend to the highest place, rises by degrees or steps, and not by leaps."
I'd also point out that you're arguing that the church fathers would of necessity want to impose a Latin loan-word in English rather than adopting/converting a native English word. After all, this was done for some words ('angel', 'cross'). However, in other cases the church fathers freely adopted English terms for Christian concepts, like 'heaven' instead of coel or 'God' instead of Deus. And if they had wanted to use a Latin loan-word for Easter, why not use the Latin word for Easter (pascha) which they already had, as was in fact done in most other languages. Why invent a new Latin-derived word for the English to use? -Ben (talk) 14:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


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

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

No, "we" have not established any such thing. Apparently you're convinced of it, but I've seen no evidence that you've persuaded anyone else. And even if you have, Wikipedia is not the place for the initial publication of your novel theory (original research). After you've gotten your thesis published in a peer-reviewed journal, then we can talk about including it as an alternate theory for the derivation of the word, Easter. In the mean time, please rest assured that the consensus of opinion agrees with you that the Christian festival that English-speakers call Easter (and others call by other names) is not in fact of pagan origin (though the English name for it, along with some of the secular accretions, such as bunnies, may well be). Ruckabumpkus (talk) 00:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not the place for reasoning. It is the place for reliable, verifiable sources. Since Nate has admitted it's a "new idea" and has admitted that we're already using "traditional definitions" - I think it's pretty clear that we're following Wikipedia's policies. Nate, you've lost this one. Let it rest. Rklawton (talk) 03:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, I see that this debate has gotten monstrously long, and it's about to digress into philosophies on Wikipedian policy. So, seeing that I have successfully proven the Etymology, I will continue with policy here. Nate5713 (talk) 17:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Just to be clear, Nate5713, I do NOT believe that you have successfully proved your point about the etymology of Easter. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 20:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I will not rebuttal the above comment, NOT because I require further evidence for the Etymology of Easter, but because I cannot seem to convince some people individually. Of coarse, isn't that the way it is with all new ideas?. Nate5713 (talk) 22:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
If it is indeed a "new idea," then it's original research and does not belong on Wikipedia. I'll let other readers of this page speak for themselves if any of them are convinced by your reasoning. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 03:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Just to be clear, Nate5713, none of your fellow editors--neither Christian, nor secular, nor Pagan--think that "Easter < Iesus" is has any validity, and indeed most think your theory so absurd and your behavior so quixotic that you're probably just trolling for reactions as a prank. However even if we unanimously agreed with you, abandoning centuries worth of study and debate because we were dazzled by your insight, we still wouldn't allow it into the article, because you have provided no attribution. Show us one link we can click on and read your theory, or book we can hold in our hands and read--not just the name of a professor, but something written by that professor--and it might deserve a footnote in the article. Even garbage like "Easter < Ishtar" has more place in the article than your Original Research, because it can be attributed. -Ben (talk) 17:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

does this mean that even if you believed every proof I give, you still wouldn't adhere to it simply because the revelation dawned on me first? I have an extensive philosophy on such policy, too extensive for this page, so I continued the discussion HERE. Here is my conclusion (and I hope this ends the matter):
The word has 2 syllables: "Eas" and "ter". "ter" is Latin for three fold. This should make sense because everything in Easter revolves around 3. Why did I choose Latin? because the word "Easter" started in England some time before 725 A.D. At which time, the Church language in England was Latin. Following suit, the syllable "Eas" must also come from Latin. The most common etymology of the word is to say it came from the ancient, pagan, sexual, Anglo-Saxon goddess Eostre. This has multiple issues: 1) the Church language at the time was Latin, not Anglo-Saxon (in fact, the other half of the word is Latin). 2) the vowel sound "Eos" is a very different pronunciation than "Eas" (Which by the way, comes from the Greek goddess Eos). 3) Why would the Christian Church name a Christian Holiday after a pagan goddess? it's not just unlikely, it's impossible. 4) The celebration of Eostre is completely different from the celebration of Easter.

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

I am sorry for the whole Prof. Noble thing. I thought it was enough to say that he agreed with me, I didn't know I had to prove it. I suggested that you'd watch his lecture, NOT so that you could cite him, but just so that you would believe me.
I hope this closes the matter, either edit the article or don't, or give me positive feedback if you agree with me. But I sincerely hope that the back sliding criticism ends here. Nate5713 (talk) 14:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Here's my reference (again) on the pronunciation of Iesus Nate5713 (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
To answer your question "does this mean that even if you believed every proof I give, you still wouldn't adhere to it simply because the revelation dawned on me first", Yes. The reason for that is attribution. Let me compare Easter<Iesus-ter with Easter<Ishtar. Linguistically and historically, both theories are nonsense. As a Christian, I slightly prefer "Iesus-ter" as it's pious nonsense instead of pernicious nonsense like "Ishtar". However, the Ishtar derivation, while bogus, has 1) been advanced in print [see The Two Babylons article], 2) played an important role in both sectarian debate and in Christian discussions about whether or not to observe Easter, and 3) found its way into popular culture, and is something readers are likely to look up in Wikipedia. On the other hand, your "Iesus-ter" theory is something that only exists based on your own reasoning. If I found your reasoning persuasive, the next action to take would be to search through the literature (and indeed the web) for other people who have advanced the same theory, or one that was close. We'd then incorporate the theory into the article as an important alternative to the scholarly consensus (Eostre). That's how it normally works.
I should mention I regret my contribution the hostile tone you've received here. You're a new user, and have no idea how your theory and behavior looks to us. -Ben (talk) 12:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to address the "Iesus-ter" argument on the merits further, but first I'd like to pose a couple of questions to Nate5713:
1. How do you explain "Easter"'s cognate in German, "Ostern"? The two words clearly have the same root according to the comparative method (c.f. most obviously English "East"==German "Ost", but others as well). Ostern, however, is clearly not derived from "Iesus" in any way -- in fact the existence of the cognate indicates that the word (or its root) was in use in the proto-Germanic period, which was pre-Christian.
2. How do you explain glomming the "ter-" prefix (used in words like "tercentenary" or "tertiary") onto the end of Iesus? It's not a suffix, and is not used as a suffix anywhere else in Latin or Latin-derived English words.
The consensus derivation from Eostre explains #1 handily, and your theory should be able to provide a more convincing explanation for the cognate to persuade anyone. -Ben (talk) 12:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Ben, you're obviously a big linguistic expert, and I'm usually more of a math person. It would take me a bit to find a "cognate". However, I would like to see a reference on "Ostern", it is only mentioned in the article as being the modern German word for Easter. Thus, the Germans could have taken the English word "east" and translate it "Ost", turning "Easter" into "Oster", and later "Ostern". Nate5713 (talk) 13:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

Nate5713, I am no longer persuaded you are being serious. From your comments, it appears that you are deliberately trying to find ways to misconstrue statements others are making. I'm through corresponding with you. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 00:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Folks, how much more of this banter do we need to see on this talk page before it's made clear to everyone that Nat5713 (talk · contribs) is trolling? Better to not feed the troll. In fact, I vote that we delete this entire nonsensical thread. It's completely useless. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I really appreciate all (alright, most) your comments. I started out reading previous comments, confused why so much media promotes Easter as starting with some barbarian, pagan tradition. I thought little of it until, one day, I thought: Imagine that the Church commissioned me to come up with the name for the holiday, on which Christ rose from the dead. Alright, why not Jesus day? well, that would work, except that the Church would insist on using Latin. Okay, Iesus is Jesus, but what about day? I supposed (wrongly, but I corrected later) that sense festivals like Eostre have a "ter" on the end, then "ter" must have something to do with a holiday. Now we put them together: Iesus+ter, Iester, Eaister, Hey! it's Easter! Man, I was so excited, I immediately got on the discussions page and told everyone my new revelation. There was already a heated debate going on so, hilariously, the first comment was: "the above comment is clearly sarcasm". After straitening that out, we got into what already expected: Questions, concerns, suggestions, which I merrily explained, and to some I actually changed my basic idea. The most comforting comment (and some of you could learn from him or her) came from Kipala. But then the conversation diverged, challenging, not my idea, but my entire thought process! The worst came from :bloodofox:, whose comment, sense he seems obsessed with Norse mythology, I thought was a joke! So go ahead, don't comment, you're only saving me from being personally offended. I would leave this thread up, for those who might agree with me. Nate5713 (talk) 11:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Reviewing the discussion, I now think Nate5713 had been editing in good faith, not trolling as he's appeared -- he's offered references (although they do not support his conclusion), and is merely unaware of both Wikipedia's requirements for attribution and the basics of historical linguistics. I suspect that we may be able to convince him that A) his theory doesn't hold water, and B) even if it did, it doesn't belong in the article. I suggest we leave the thread up. -Ben (talk) 11:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
This is all I ask to be put in the article:

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

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

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

I once again looked over the entire policy, and never does it mention full attribution. Nate5713 (talk) 14:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Nate, may I quote your own reference regarding the pronunciation of Iesus? "pronounced [yesu]" That's not ee-isis, which should not go into the article.-Ben (talk) 17:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I see this is a continuous problem for you in my idea, and I perfectly understand. My reference actually pronounces Iesu, which is Iesus without the S. The reference reads, and I quote:

"IESU" (pronounced yesu or i-e-s-u i as in bin, e as in set, u as oo in root) is the holy name above every name.

Indeed, "I" can be pronounced as Y or i or even ee. Here is the reference for that. Nate5713 (talk) 20:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe Nate5713 is trolling, but I do believe he's engaging in inappropriate axe-grinding. There is a legitimate concern among Christians (which I share) that a certain segment of academia wishes to highlight facts or factoids that could be seen as discrediting Christianity. One of those factoids is the probable pagan origin of the word Easter. In response to such things, some Christians pursue alternate theories in order to discredit the discreditors. This is what I believe Nate57113 is doing. Such pseudo-research is just as misguided as the use of those factoids to discredit Christianity in the first place. It only hurts the cause of those who do it, because it makes Christians appear intellectually dishonest. If Christians would simply realize that the probable pagan etymology of the word Easter in no way implies a pagan origin of the festival, this whole debate could be seen as the mere academic exercise that it is. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 21:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research is a core policy for very obvious reasons, and there's no place on Wikipedia where it's appropriate to exhibit user-made attempts at etymology. In fact, such attempts should be deleted on sight, whether on the talk page or on the article itself.
Seriously, all that needs to be said here is this: either get a solid reference that gives a straightforward etymology or zip it. And by straight forward, I mean no synthesis (WP:SYNTH)—which should also be obvious enough. Dependence on iron-clad referencing is the first lesson any Wikipedia editor needs to learn. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Ruckabumpkus, if indeed there are multiple people who believe that, wouldn't it be only fair to mention them as much as popular culture?
:bloodofox:, The policy never states I require any such reference. You probably assumed it's in the policy because that makes sense to you. This is what the policy says about WP:SYNTH|SYNTH:
* A simple example of original synthesis:
The UN's stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world.
{This} implies that the UN has failed to maintain world peace. If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research.:
The UN's stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, and since its creation there have been only 160 wars throughout the world.
Thus, if worded correctly, my proposition bares no original research. Look here:

The festival of Easter bares Jesus at it's center. The Latin word for Jesus is Iesus (Pronounced: Ee-isus) 2.

Or, something like that. Nate5713 (talk) 16:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

In case anybody is interested, the word "Easter", perhaps even the celebration of Easter, is mentioned in the Apostolic age, contrary to the article. Here is Acts 12:4 (the book of Acts was written no later than 68 A.D.):

4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

That is according to the King James version, the oldest official English translation, published 1604. Nate5713 (talk) 16:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The KJV has a number of mistakes. Every other version I've checked says passover, including Young's Literal translation, although the NEB says 'festival of unleavened bread'. So you've provided evidence for a mistake in the KJV, but not for its use in the 'Apostolic Age'. Dougweller (talk) 14:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Haha, sorry, but you're going to have to troll harder to get that one by. I'm not going to waste my time on this thread any further. Enjoy, everyone! :bloodofox: (talk) 18:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Balderdash, Nate. Your KJV example is cute -- almost as precious as your line about Grimm. Learn to indent properly the next time you go trolling. I'm going to proceed on the assumption that :bloodofox: is correct and you're just doing this as a prank until you bother reading your own sources, learn what a cognate is, and answer the questions I posed in the discussion above. -Ben (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Could you please try to explain what I am doing wrong? I'm looking around myself, trying to figure out what everyone's pointing and laughing at. The article cites Jacob Grimm. "Okay", I think, he's must be some 19th century linguistic expert. BUT NO, when I click on the link, I get the brothers Grimm. This article Needs to be more clear. I check and double check my hyperlinks, and my last one clearly sends you to Acts 12:4 in the KJV. Easter is clearly seen, I clearly quoted it, do I have to shove a Bible into your hands? it's there. Nate5713 (talk) 11:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I really don't understand what's wrong. I give references, and through them, I am proving I'm right. I give a proposal to Edit, not to forward my Idea, but to make the article more fair and clear. Nate5713 (talk) 11:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Nate, you obviously have difficulty in reading Wikipedia articles. Let me give you the exact reference for Grimm. Try going to Jacob Grimm#Linguistic work and actually READ that section. Now, while the KJV was an "official" translation it didn't always give an accurate translation and the Greek word translated "Easter" in this verse is actually πάσχα - the transliteration of which is pascha - which is the word for Passover. This brings us back full circle to the beginning of this discussion and leaves your proposed edit to the article at nothing. Give it up. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Light in hive, you misunderstand. I'm not saying E-a-s-t-e-r is as old as 68 A.D., the original text uses the Greek word for Easter, namely πάσχα, and is translated as Easter by this reference. All I'm saying is that any word Easter predates Eostre, Bede, the "Christianized Anglo-Saxons", the fall of Rome, the council of Nicea, into the time of the Bible. The article never mentions this , implying that the festival was made up later. I propose to remove such POV. Nate5713 (talk) 22:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, this debate has gone on quite a while, and no one has given me a reliable, verifiable proof against it. Oddly though, with every Pseudo-proof, it is accompanied with the words, "Give up". Listen guys, just because some annoying people keeps giving the same old unreliable, unverifiable argument, it doesn't mean I'm any closer to losing. Nate5713 (talk) 22:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the article very closely, I can see that Nate has a point. Section 2, "Origins and Etymology," appears to be entirely about etymology and not origins. Section 3 makes clear that the festival goes back quite far, possibly even to the apostolic age, but a cursory reading of the article might leave a reader confused, since the first date mentioned, apart from the resurrection itself, is 899 A.D. Maybe it would answer Nate's concerns if, instead of launching straight into Section 2.1, "Anglo-Saxon and German," there were a lead paragraph for Section 2 that mentioned the history of the festival going back to quite shortly after the event being celebrated. Alternatively, Section 2 could be retitled simply as "Etymology." Ruckabumpkus (talk) 01:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Ruckabumpkus, thank you so much for being the first person to comment who does not follow up with criticism. I completely agree on the lead-in to Section 2, if Easter goes back to the mid-2nd century, then what word did they use, and what etymology?. However, I would disagree with your assessment on Section 3. It strings together references (WP:SYNTH?) as well as drawing the conclusion, that Easter came about in the mid-second century, post-dating the Apostolic age. The section also never gives the other side of the argument, that Easter is mentioned in Acts 12:4, a clear POV. Nate5713 (talk) 11:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I happen to live near Liberty christian school, so I talked with someone who teaches around there, Nicholas Hathaway. Nick, as he is called, hold degrees in Hebrew, Latin, and Theology. So I talked with him about our discussion, and when I mentioned your side of the argument, he seemed surprised. But when I mentioned that "The other side claims that Easter is derived from the Latin word for Jesus", he nodded his head and said, "yes, Ee-isoos". Nate5713 (talk) 11:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Here's the bottom line, and I paraphrase Blood o'fox here: either give me One good reason to not Edit my way or Zip it. Nate5713 (talk) 12:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Nate, it does not surprise me that a teacher at a fundamentalist Christian K-12 school might not be aware of the probable pagan etymology of the word, Easter. I'm fairly well educated about Christianity and church history but was unaware of this untill relatively recently. From the way you describe your encounter with Nick, it sounds like he hadn't thought about the issue at all and that your idea was just as new to him as the Eostre etymology. As to the name by which Easter was known in the early church, it's what we've been trying to explain to you all along: Pascha. I thought that was clear in the article, but maybe you could suggest how it might be clarified further. But please don't put your original research into the article. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 13:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Just because someone has studied Latin, Hebrew, and Theology doesn't mean they know anything about Historical Linguistics. However, I'd challenge you to ask your friend how many syllables are in "Iesus". I'll bet he answers "2". -Ben (talk) 13:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
The fundamental problem with this discussion is that Nate5713--like many other otherwise-educated people--seems either unaware of or indifferent to the entire field of Comparative philology. When discussing the origin (etymon) of a word, linguists do not sit around and brainstorm "what does this sound like?" or "what do you think is reasonable?" any more than mathematicians just guess what the logarithm of 50 is. There is an actual methodology which involves tracing the word back to its earliest written form, looking for cognates in the earliest form in sister languages, then applying sound change rules like Grimm's Law to identify cognates in more distantly related languages. From these--not idle speculation--they reconstruct a root.
This system 1) works, 2) is an entire field of study no different from Theology or Physics--learnable, but requiring study--and 3) is what the term Etymology has meant for the last two centuries. It also concerns itself with words in the language, not with meanings -- after all, words may stay the same while meanings change. E.g. PIE cara (dear), which Latin inherited unchanged and we borrowed into English as "care", underwent two sound shifts: in the proto-Germanic period the initial "k" sound changed to "h" according to Grimm's law, and then in later Old English/early Middle English the long "a" changed to an "o" in accordance with similar changes ("stone"<"stan"). At some point in the history of the word in English the semantics drifted, giving us the modern word "whore". Despite the semantic drift (which occurs quite often: see "nice" or "silly" for other examples), it's undeniable that "whore" has the same root as Italian cara. Etymology is independent of modern meaning, which is why speculation like "Easter must come from Iesus, because it's about Jesus!" sounds to philologists much like New Age ravings about quantum physics sound to the sorts of physicists who actually do math.
Nate, I encourage you to return to the word itself, but this time within its historical context. First, you must understand how the modern word "Easter" derives from the Old English word "Eostre" via changes of pronunciation and spelling within English. I recommend consulting the entry (including both the etymology and the attestation sentences) in the Oxford English Dictionary, which you may be able to access from your public library's website. Then I'd encourage you to learn about the sound shifts within English and German that explain the correspondence between "ea" in English and "o" in German, so that you may grasp why English "Easter" is cognate with German Ostern, not a loan-word. By the end of this, you should be able to demonstrate why Easter is related to the word east but not--say--Ishtar.
Separate out all this stuff about "Greek sex goddesses" from the word itself if you want to track the history of the word. (Indeed, as I wrote above but you never responded to [2], the Church Fathers adapted all sorts of native words--some with prior Pagan use--for Christian purposes.) I believe that you'll conclude that the consensus of scholars, editors, and medieval sources is correct, but that that holds no implications for modern celebrants of Easter. -Ben (talk) 13:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
A bit long-winded, but I see your problem. Grimm's Law, and other such etymology you barely cited, apply only to Proto-Indo-European (PIE) languages, which run at absolute latest to the early 1st Millennia B.C.. The derivation of Easter, on the other hand, happened no earlier than 500 A.D.. So much for historical context if you're a thousand years off. So how do we derive words from 500 A.D.? That was the fall of the Roman Empire, so just like the Hellenistic era brought Greek to the world by Alexander's death, so too went Latin by the death of Romulus Augustus. Here are some examples of English words derived from the Church language:
  • Chorus is the Latin word for the English Chorus.
  • Misere is the Latin word for the English Misery.
  • Orient is the Latin word for east (that is, the Orient in English).
  • Statum is the Latin word for "at ounce" (that is, Stat in English).
  • Bio is the Latin word for life, and Logos is Greek for study, so Biology is the study of Life in English.
  • Circum is the Latin word for around, so we get the English Circumnavigate.
  • Canis is the Latin word for the English Canine.
  • Cupido is the Latin word for the English Cupid.
  • Fabulosus is the Latin word for the English Fabulous.
  • Familia is the Latin word for the English Family.
  • Fama is the Latin word for the English Fame.
  • Et is the Latin word for and, so we get the English & and Et cetera.
  • Primus is the Latin word for first, so we get the English Primal.
  • Talent is a Greek coin used in the Bible to refer figuratively to the English Talent.
  • Pascha is the Greek word for passover, a completely Biblical term, which all languages except English use for Easter (another completely biblical term).
  • John, Ichabod, Thomas, Thaddeus, David, Samuel, Elisabeth, Mary... and countless others, which are always considered British names, actually come directly from the Bible.
I find several key points in this list. 1) words from this period never change the vowels. So is "Eo" to "Ea" an exception? 2) The meaning never changes, even the farthest change, "circum" to "circumnavigate", still maintains the meaning "around". So is Eostre to Easter, which is not only different but contradictory meaning, also an exception? 3) All these roots are either Latin, or otherwise Christian in origin. Now, I know there are just as many words in English from Anglo-Saxon origin. "Good" from "guten" and "what" from "hwat" for example. But never, ever will you mix up a pagan goddess with a Chistian holiday, that's going too far. Nate5713 (talk) 19:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Sigh. Please consider, arguendo, the possiblity that other editors may know things about philology that you don't while you are reading and responding -- it would lighten up the debate far more than your provocative attempts at humor.
It was long-winded because I'm trying to explain something patiently, rather than responding out of well-founded exasperation. Please re-read it and respond with something other than a non-sequitur list of Latin loan-words. Perhaps you'd like to explain (or invent some Latinate derivation for) "hell", "Lord", "heaven", "God", and other native Anglo-Saxon words adapted for Christian use?
I await your explanation of "ter-" used as a suffix, as well as your response to my question about why on earth missionaries to the English would invent a nonsense Latin word, rather than adapting an English one or loaning the Latin one they actually used. -Ben (talk) 21:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Ben, you're beating around the bush, you're not giving me a clear reference. Rather, you're asking me to look things up for you. "God" comes from the German "gott" and "Heaven" comes from the Anglish "heven", but this has nothing to do with our discussion. "gott" doesn't have anything to do with Anglo-saxon mythology as Eostre does. "gott" simply means, "some Omnipotent being", so the Christian God fit the bill. but to say that the festival of Easter fits the bill of Eostre makes no sense. "Heaven" has even less to do than "God" in our discussion. "heven" is the Anglo-Saxon word for "sky", which is OK for the Christians, because in the Bible, Heaven is first mentioned, not as the afterlife, but as the sky, same meaning. Finally, "Lord" has even less to do with our discussion than "Heaven". The original Greek for Lord was άρχοντας, which basically means "sovereign". So using the Anglo-Saxon word for sovereign doesn't make a difference. (Interestingly, the word "Lord" does owe its etymology to Latin).
Now, about my list. It is not meant to be a list of exceptions, but a demonstration of the rule. You give me four not-so-good examples of Christian terms coming from Anglo-Saxon, but there are many more from Latin. Check out Deity, Divine, Immortal, Eternal, Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Redemption, Revelation, "Gloria in excelsis deo". Nate5713 (talk) 01:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
My List demonstrates this pattern: Chorus, Chorus; Misere, Misery; Orient, the Orient; Iesus, Easter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nate5713 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Nate, it's obvious that you have studied neither Latin nor Greek but are looking up references and frequently misunderstanding them. For instance, Lord, according to the reference you cite, is not of Latin origin but a translation of the Latin word, dominus. And the Greek word that's usually translated lord in the New Testament is κυριος, not αρχων. You're debating with people who have studied these topics in much more depth than you evidently have. This probably sounds elitist to you, but you're out of your league here. Give it up. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 02:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Nate, I think that we are well aware of the quantity of Latin loan-words for Christian concepts, including those you mentioned and others borrowed earlier, like "minster" from monasterium. I apologize for not linking to the etymologies of those four Anglo-Saxon words. However, I suggest you look at them again.
  1. God does not "come from" the German gott -- it is cognate with German gott. Both words share the same proto-Germanic root, having been in use before the Anglo-Saxons moved to England -- just like "Easter" and Ostern. It may have meant "one who is invoked", or "one who is sacrificed to", according to this etymology.
  2. You wrote "heven is the Anglo-Saxon word for 'sky'", but in fact heofon [is the Anglo-Saxon word for "sky". Please note the sound and spelling change from "eo" to "ea" in heofon/heaven -- the same that applied to Eostre/Easter.
  3. You wrote "Interestingly, the word "Lord" does owe its etymology to Latin", but to quote your reference, "from O.E. hlaford 'master of a household, ruler, superior,' also 'God' (translating L. Dominus...)". It is a serious misreading to say that an Anglo-Saxon word used to translate a Latin word "owes its etymology to Latin".
  4. Finally, you neglected to address "hell". Hell is actually the name of a Pagan goddess: Loki's daughter, the ruler of the Pagan netherworld. To quote the etymological dictionary: "Transfer of a pagan concept and word to a Christian idiom, used in the KJV for O.T. Heb. Sheol and N.T. Gk. Hades, Gehenna. "
Here are four examples of Anglo-Saxon words adapted for Christian use, one of which adapts or converts the name of a Pagan goddess (a process you deny for "Easter"), and another of which demonstrates the /eo/->/ea/ sound change which you also deny for "Easter". I hope that I've demonstrated that the the things you find implausible about the consensus etymology for "Easter" also occurred with other words, and that you'll grant that they may also have happened with "Easter". I wish you'd address the holes in your own theory, however, by 1) finding any example of "ter-" used as a suffix, 2) addressing the historical documents showing the early Christian missionaries to the English allowing the retention of outward forms of Pagan culture, and 3) presenting an argument based in valid historical linguistics rather than modern-day speculation. -Ben (talk) 10:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
If you agree that almost all christian terms in English come from Latin or else the Bible, then I don't see the point in your List.
1) I think "come from" and "cognate" have little difference. If gott means "one who is invoked", then it still fits the Christian God, who is invoked by prayer, (among other things) and still has nothing to do with Pagan gods.
2) "Heaven" comes from the O.E. word "heven" which means sky. (c. 500 A.D.) "heven" comes from the PIE word "heofon" (c. 1000 B.C.). You simply cannot use Ancient Etymology for a Medieval word, it doesn't work.
3) I will not argue the Etymology of lord. Any idea that the English "lord" implies a pagan origin of the Biblical Lord is Stupid.
4) And finally, Hell. You are correct in its etymology, that's 1 good example for you. I, on the other hand, have given over a dozen examples which you have not even begun to refute.
Well, you have given me 4 not-so-good examples, and I have given you over 35 irrefutable examples. So by track record, it seems reasonable to assume that the Church would use a Christian title for a Christian Holiday.
About Ostern. I still have yet to see a reference that Ostern predates Easter. If Easter comes from Ostern, as you say, then the article is wrong when it states, "The name refers to Eostur-monath,".
Now about "ter". I don't mean the prefix, per-say, but the Latin root "ter". Any root can be used as a prefix or a suffix. "-ology" for instance, is always a suffix, but the root "logos" can be used as a prefix, as befits "logic". Nate5713 (talk) 14:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
While most Christian terms may come from Latin, Greek, or Hebrew, not all do. We are discussing a specific word, which you claim is composed of Latin loan-words, and the consensus claims is native to English. You further claim that it is impossible for this modern English word to descend from the native Anglo-Saxon word, and I'm demonstrating that on the contrary it happened in other examples, which is sufficient to demonstrate that the processes you claim impossible actually do obtain. The four words are just ones I pulled off my head, but they are sufficient: Easter does not become Latin-derived merely because many different Christian terms are Latin-derived.
1) If you think "come from" and "cognate" have little difference, you do not understand what a cognate is. Please read the article cognate before continuing to waste our time.
2) Without references, you date "heven" to 500AD and "heofon" to 1000 BC. Here's what the OED attests, however:
  • ca 760 AD: heofenas
  • ca 1000 AD: heofonan
  • 1106 AD: heofonan
  • ca 1200 AD: Heoffness
  • ca 1275 AD: heouene
  • ca 1300 AD: heauene
Thus the eo->ea change happened around 1300 AD. A similar timeline may be observed in eorth->earth. So much for /eo/ not occurring in the medieval period.
3) You agree, then, that Lord is a Christian adaptation of a native Anglo-saxon word?
4) You agree, then, that even some native Anglo-saxon Pagan terminology was adapted for Christian use?
You're asserting that "ter-" may be used as a suffix. The way to prove this is by providing airtight examples of words in which this happens, as I have done above by providing examples of the processes you found implausible.
And you still haven't addressed why Latin-speaking missionaries to the English would invent a new Latin word, rather than adapting an English one or choosing the Latin one they actually used. -Ben (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
While I had my nose in the OED, I looked up "ter-". Turns out that the earliest attestation of "ter-" as a root used for composing English words was 1600. -Ben (talk) 15:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Mr. Brum, I have a hard believing that you're serious. You glorify over these four words, clamming that all British-Christian words should follow this pattern. I literally give you 10 times as many English words that come from Latin or otherwise the Bible. If the OED says that, I don't have a copy, then it does not deny, but affirm by theorem. According to your own reference, "eo" changes to "ea" in 1300 A.D. Therefore, Eostre would still be EOstre when Bede mentions Easter in 725 A.D. Now, about Lord. No one is challenging you on this Etymology, back off. "lord" as in "m'lord", as in "lord of Mann" as in "the lords of order" as in "House of lords" do derive from Anglo-Saxon origin. BUT, this doesn't mean the church plucked the word specifically for Christian use. The Church in the time in question strictly used Latin in their Bible, so they used "Dominus" instead of lord. In other words, until Wycliffe's Bible, the pastors would preach on behalf of "Dominus Christus Iesus", and not "Lord Jesus Christ". So in the end, I am not saying that some native Anglo-saxon Pagan terminology was adapted for Christian use, I am saying that at most one native Anglo-saxon Pagan terminology was adapted for Christian use. Even so, Even so, Hel in Norse mythology (the place, not the person) bares similarities to the Hell in the Bible]. Therefore, are you saying that Eostre bares similarities to Easter? if so, you are a sad, sad, soul indeed.
Now about ter. If you actually read my reference, you would find it states "from Latin 'ter', which is from Latin 'tres' which bares similarities to Greek 'tris'" unless you're saying that Latin-speakers came up with the word in 1600, which is impossible. Nate5713 (talk) 18:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You're wasting your time and ours. Without an academic source to back up your own ideas, it will never, and I repeat NEVER be allowed here. So the question at this point - since Nate seems undaunted and unwilling to conform to our standards, should I take this to AN/I with a request for having him blocked from editing? If he hasn't worn out our patience yet, then the answer should be "no". Rklawton (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

My answer: No. Blocking would serve no purpose, since Nate has not been disruptive in this article, preferring instead to advocate for a change on this talk page. That's the proper way to do it, although I will agree that Nate's arguments appear to contain more original research than references to academic sources. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
While Nate seems incapable of discussing the merits of his idea or comprehending the Wikipedia rules on attribution, he hasn't actually edited the article. Someone more familiar with current Wikipedia policy than I am might weigh in on whether persisting in unreasonable argument in a talk page deserves blocking, but so far as I can see he's not vandalizing the actual article. -Ben (talk) 19:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Since I draw no conclusion in my proposed Edit, then to say that my proposition has SYNTH is to say that any article that cites multiple sources in the same sentence is SYNTH. Which, of coarse, is not true. Nate5713 (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Ben, could you give me an actual quote from the Policy that requires full attribution? thanks. Nate5713 (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, Nate. I don't have time to explain why a conclusion contradicting a century and a half of scholarship and admitted to be novel by its author isn't Original Research -- you see, I'm too busy discussing etymology with someone who doesn't know what a cognate is. ;) -Ben (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

ENOUGH!!!! ENOUGH!!! I've had enough, I am wasting all my time trying to convince y'all of the truth. I say good day to all you stuck-in-the-muds as I leave this thread forever with a graceful bow, having amassed ter bits of knowledge: 1, I am convinced more than ever that Easter->Iesus. 2, the innate fallibility of Wikipedia, and 3, the innate inamiability of linguistics. Iesus be with you all, and good luck! Nate5713 (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

As I'm sure we've said before - Wikipedia does not have a mechanism for certifying experts. As a result, we can not accept your work for publication. However, you might want to consider writing up a scholarly paper, submit it to a topical peer reviewed academic journal for publication, and see if they accept it. Once it's published, we'll be happy to include it here along with the appropriate citation. You see, while we don't have a mechanism for separating bunk from fact, peer reviewed journals do - and that's why we rely on them. Rklawton (talk) 22:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Certifying experts? Dunno about that, but Nate appears to be certifiable, in a British sense! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Engelsepiet (talk • contribs) 19:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Whole article disambiguation

Latest comment: 13 years ago18 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

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

There already is a disambiguation page, which lists this article as covering the "Christian festival," so what you propose is already half done. All it will take is to start a page about generic spring festivals, add it to the disambiguation page, and cross-link the two. It might also help if the title of this article were changed to "Easter_(Christian festival)". Ruckabumpkus (talk) 14:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Well ok, I've been 'bold' and started that process on the disambiguation page.If people can tidy that up and make it a more correct article that would be good - and then when that's fully working much of the debate on this page can probably disappear. Sorry if I've offended anyone, hope my rough beginings are useful. Otherwise I guess they will be reverted eventually. EdwardLane (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
The way you phrased the intro on the disambiguation page doesn't work, because Easter doesn't mean those things. In particular, I suspect most Jews would object to saying that Easter includes Passover. I don't think many lexicographers would agree, either, that Easter is a generic name for various spring festivals. Well over a billion Christians worldwide celebrate something that English-speakers call Easter, while only a relative handful of neo-pagans celebrate anything about Eostre. Let's think about the phraseology some more. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


Sorry, I do agree I wrote in haste. I began tidying the disambiguation page and then suddenly discovered that time was pressing. I think that Easter in English as the month around the northern vernal equinox - based on Bede is probably more acceptable. With that that time period coinciding with various spring celebrations. I'll go have a look at that page and if it has not been tidied since I was last there I'll see if I can patch it up somewhat. EdwardLane (talk) 22:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah it's been reverted - which is fair enough, it was a bit of a botch job, sorry about that.
Ruckabumpkus, you look like you're more competant than I in this matter. Would you care to make an attempt at that disambiguation? Is it best to do that here or on the disambiguation page (for the content that is not contentious - sorry for my earlier gaffe) or on the talk page for the disambiguation (if some of the content is contentious)? EdwardLane (talk) 22:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
On the talk page of Easter_(disambiguation) is a record of how a similar question was answered some time ago. Does stare decisis apply to Wikipedia? Ruckabumpkus (talk) 01:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


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

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

Understood, I think I'd be happiest with Easter being the 'month' which contains the celebrations Easter, Eostre, Passover, etc. EdwardLane (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Except that I don't think Easter means anything like a month in contemporary English. In the church calendar it's 50 days (ending on Pentecost), but I think most folks would understand the word as referring to the day, and perhaps a short period of time around the day (as with Christmas), but not a month. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree , that's why I put month in inverted commas in the previous comment. Perhaps something more like this might satisfy?

'In contemporary English usage Easter has come to mean the period centered around the Christian festival of Easter which is celebrated during the early spring (around the time of the vernal equinox in the northern hemisphere). Several other celebrations fall within these dates, various religions and groups observe similar (and perhaps related) celebrations. These include Easter, Passover, Eostre, etc' EdwardLane (talk) 15:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I still don't know. That doesn't seem to give any information that isn't also given by the list of things "Easter may refer to," which looks fairly complete. Perhaps another section could be added to Easter_(disambiguation) that lists other spring festivals, although the only one you've mentioned that isn't already on the list is Passover. So maybe it would be sufficient to put Passover in a "See also" line. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 23:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
When I first casually searched for 'Easter' - I was not looking for 'just' the Christian meaning of Easter I was expecting something broader (I assume everyone looking for what I was looking for would search for 'Easter' and hit this page)- I expected/hoped to find a neat article on all aspects of Easter, or at least a general discussion in the preamble about various aspects of Easter before going into predominantly Christian interpretation detail. Leading to various 'main articles' - perhaps following this sort of pattern (which is in order of how I saw Easter as a kid): Easter eggs (chocolate), Easter holiday (schools), Christianity celebrating Jesus back from the dead, Hot cross buns, Equinox, Easter bunny/hare traditions (and non chocolate egg painting), Fertility celebrations and Pagans, Easter bonnets.
Then in the detail on the Christian aspects of Easter (after all the references to Bible stories) I was hoping for (but not really expecting except perhaps on the talk page) speculation about how Christian priests (presumably in the middle ages) might have incorporated aspects from various sources (in an effort to influence the worshiper of other 'heathen' faiths toward Christianity). Coupled with etymological mention that in non english speaking (Latin and not German language influenced) countries the same 'christian Easter' was not called by a name that sounded like 'easter' but sounding more like the welsh 'Pasg' and the french 'Pâques'. And then finally given there is a calendar corrolation to the jewish passover and an etymological likeness (and the reason I actually first visited the page) whether there was a scholastic reference showing the timeline when the two celebrations became distinct.
Before I get shot by anyone of a strong religious persuasion I'll just point this out - as this is what spawned the question in my mind.
In google if you translate Easter from English into French you get Pâques
In google if you translate Passover from English into French you get Pâque (no S)
I don't mind what eventual outcome but the current Easter page just needs lots of work, and much of the debate on this talk page seemed to be about what Easter was (with Trolling and Christian/Pagan bias) so I made the suggestion, if you can take anything from this and do something useful please do so as I don't have the wiki skills. EdwardLane (talk) 12:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, that's a different perspective. I see it entirely the other way around--i.e., the fact that it's a Christian celebration is the primary thing, and the secular accretions (bunnies, chocolate eggs, etc) are peripheral. For Christians, Easter (the festival of the Resurrection) is traditionally the most important date on the calendar. For non-Christians who like to do the bunnies-and-chocolate-eggs stuff, Easter is a minor celebration, on par with Valentines Day and Halloween. That being the case, I would argue that the current emphasis of the article is appropriate.
It often happens that I look up something on Wikipedia with a fairly clear idea in my mind what I'm going to find, looking mainly to fill in the details, only to find that I've greatly misunderstood the topic itself. Recently, for instance, I put "Soccer" into the search box (and was redirected to Association football, of course), because I'd run across a legend that the game was not originally English but was in fact being played by the Wampanoag people when the English colonists arrived aboard the Mayflower in 1620. Being surprised to find the earliest date in the history section of that article was 1848, I learned something I hadn't understood before: because the rules of Association Football were officially defined in 1863, it has no history before that, strictly speaking. Instead, I learned from the Football article that people of various cultures throughout history (not only the Wampanoag, but also the ancient Greeks, etc.) have invented games that involved kicking things around, so that there is no linear history of the development of the modern game. A similar thing appears to be happening for folks who go to the Easter page looking for info on bunnies and chocolate eggs: they find that it's a much bigger topic than they thought. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 04:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Not wanting to derail this thread too far I'll not comment here on Valentines day or Halloween. But if you agree with the current emphasis of the article, and I now (after much thought) mostly think its just lacking an introduction saying 'hey this page is all about the Christian aspects of easter there is a subsection Easter#Religious_and_secular_Easter_traditions which might eventually form its own page, or if you're after Pagan aspects try Eostre then perhaps the 'it's all a big dispute sign at the top of the page could go?' EdwardLane (talk) 02:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
the Liturgical_year#Easter_season interestingly shows Easter as a season lasting 50 days so just under one sixth of the year (from the end of Lent until Pentecost) EdwardLane (talk) 02:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I would agree with that proposal. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 04:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Lead section

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The lead section of this article, which should be one of main articles about Christianity, is simply below standard. I am not enough knowledgeable, both with English terminology and the topic to edit it myself, but someone please address the issues:

  • Some[who?] Christians celebrate this resurrection on Easter Day or Easter Sunday (also Resurrection Day or Resurrection Sunday), two days after Good Friday and three days after Maundy Thursday.
    Which Christians do not celebrate Easter on this day? Most do, and the "some" is highly misleading. We should state the global facts first, and exceptions only later, depending on significance.
The plain truth is that the vast majority of Christians celebrate Easter on this day. "Some" is flat-out dishonest. This should be fixed. One can consult every Christian group in the world, and those that represent well over 90% of Christians will agree that Easter Sunday is the day in which the Resurrection of Christ is celebrated.ZabiggyZoo (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Why are Good Friday and, worse still, Maundy Thursday, relevant for the date of Easter? If anything, the Friday and Thursdays are ones which by definition come before the Easter, not the other way round? The whole sentence is upside down.
  • Easter also refers to the season of the church year called Eastertide or the Easter Season. Traditionally the Easter Season lasted for the forty days from Easter Day until Ascension Day. The first week of the Easter Season is known as Easter Week or the Octave of Easter. The week from Palm Sunday to Easter is known as Holy Week. Easter also marks the end of Lent, a season of fasting, prayer, and penance.
    I am not aware that anyone refers to Eastertide as the Easter. Why is so relevant for the lead how the two weeks surrounding it are called? Why is it not in chronological order:
    Easter marks the end of Lent, a forty-day period of fasting, prayer, and penance. The last week of the Lent is called "Holy week", and it contains Good Friday, observed before the Easter Sunday. Easter is followed by fifty-day period called Eastertide or the Easter Season, which lasts until the Pentecost Sunday.
  • Secular customs, such as the Easter Bunny and Easter egg hunts, have become part of the holiday's modern celebrations and are often observed by Christians and non-Christians alike. There are also some Christian denominations who do not celebrate Easter. (See section below.)
    Apples and oranges. Both facts are worth mentioning, but not in the same paragraph.

No such user (talk) 07:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/holydays/easter.shtml
  2. ^ http://www.religioustolerance.org/easter.htm
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Easter/Archive_5&oldid=1089886871"