Talk:Easter/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Easter in May ??

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

We mix calendar systems routinely. Most Orthodox Churches (although not most Orthodox Christians) now use the New Calendar ("Revised Julian") for the fixed holidays, but retain the old reckoning for computing the date of Pascha. This is unsatisfactory in many ways, but it's what we're currently stuck with. Besides, any listing of the dates for Pascha will give it on the civil calendar, including the one in the article. Wouldn't it be more than a little strange to give a May date, and then claim that the day does not actually fall in May? TCC (talk) (contribs) 18:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
The GOARCH (Greek Orthodox Archdiocese) of the USA certainly CAN celebrate Pascha in May. This is, as has been noted, due to the use of the "Revised Julian Calendar". While the Old Calendrists would maintain that May is never used, on the Revised Julian Calendar, it is quite obvious that the date of Pascha can fall on may. Do not look only to Old Calendar rigorists for the norms of Orthodox Christianity. The Eastern Orthodox Church accepts both Old Calendar and New Calendar Orthodox.Dogface 20:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The "scholar(s)" {hereinafter 'he/him' as a generic pronoun referring to the author(s)} that authored this entry in wikipedia needs to put down the pen for good. He has bedazzled the reader with so much information; the basic falsehoods that form the foundation of his entry are completely obscured. The unwary reader is falling into a dangerous pit. I am happy to see reason, sanity, and truth written here on the discussions page. However, is saddens me to think most people looking up "Easter" on wikipedia will end their reading with his terribly misleading article.

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

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

Spring Holiday

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

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

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

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

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

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

Easter is called Passover?

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

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


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

Most Christians call it by something like "Pascha". This is Greek for "Passover". TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi, like J Lorraine, I'm also interested to hear about Easter being called "Pascha"; this is the first time I've heard of it. I hail from Australia, but have never heard about Easter being referred to as "Passover" or "Pascha" here in Roman Catholic/Protestant usage. This makes me wonder, could this be something unique to the Eastern Orthodox Church? Or have other people also heard about "Pascha" used in this way? I'm interested in your thoughts. Brisvegas 03:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
It's common usage among English-speaking Eastern Orthodox, true, but it's also the usual name in most languages other than English. It's become necessary to point this out right from the start due to the propagation of certain theories on its origin based on the word "Easter". This establishes that "Easter" as a name really has nothing to do with the origin of the holiday. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

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

That's no rush. All the hymnography and theology connected with the day in the traditional Christian churches (Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church) associate it with Passover. This is especially true among the EO where Greek is still a primary liturgical language: "Pascha" cannot be understood in any other way. Even if this has not entered the popular consciousness in some -- or even many -- places, it's known to the educated. Although it can hardly be avoided when the hymnography is so explicit. I can't speak from knowledge about Latin American usage except that Christmas may well be regarded as a "Winter Pascua" much as the EO view the Advent fast as a kind of "Winter Lent". TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • From [3] - Pascal - : From the Late Latin name Paschalis, which meant "relating to Easter" from Latin Pascha "Easter", which was in turn from Hebrew פֶסַח (pesach) "Passover". Passover was the ancient Hebrew holiday celebrating the liberation from Egypt. Because it coincided closely with the later Christian holiday of Easter, the same Latin word was used for both. The etymology is not the same as saying Easter is called Passover.--A Y Arktos\talk 22:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
This is, however, incorect. Among other things, this reference neglects to mention that it's a Greek word in origin, not Latin. (Added: By which I mean, that it came from Hebrew into Greek and thence into Latin, not directly from Hebrew into Latin.) In Christian theology, Easter is exactly Passover. I need to find the time to write that section we discussed below. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Whipping

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

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

translations - sometimes cannot be literal

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

Except, of course, where the context is not different. Read the article. For most Christians, "Easter" is the Christian Passover. The word is understood in Greek (and by the Greeks) in exactly that sense. It is not insignificant that the same word signifies both Christian and Jewish feasts; they are inextricably tied in the Christian view. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Note the Greek wiki article doesn't even put the Jewish and Christian feasts in separate articles. (Both halves of the article are badly underdeveloped.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Yes. Yes we do. That's what I've been saying. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Easter is considered to be the "Holy Passover" within Orthodox Christianity. It is the "fulfilled" Passover, just as Christ is the fulfillment of the lamb of the Jewish Temple. Thus, those Christian traditions that use "Πάσχα" will think of it as their (our) Passover. Dogface 11:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
To elaborate, the West, or at least Protestantism in the West, has long had a fixation with explicitly distancing itself from every possible connection to Judaism. There is a constant emphasis upon how "new" and "different" Christianity must be from all that has come before. In the East, the emphasis has been completely different. The ecclesiological model has been one of stressing continuity from First-Century Judaism.Dogface 11:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

"Oestre" or "Hystera" ?

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

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

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

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

No, not at all likely. It's a Germanic word, an element of a month-name before it was the name of the holiday. This is well-documented. The question is what was the ultimate origin of the month-name? A Greek connection would be very difficult to establish. Associations with the east and thus dawn are more etymologically likely.
Easter is not especially associated with small children, at least not before relatively recent times (the last 100 years or so). TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Nor is it clear that this Eostre (the more common spelling; no idea why you're swapping the first two letters) was actually a goddess. A consensus is developing that this was an error by Bede, our sole source for her existence. She doesn't appear anywhere else. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
The holiday usually occured in "Oestremonat" (Oester-month). That much can be verified. The name of the month appears to pre-date Christanization of the Germanic peoples of Britain. For whatever reason, the Greek-derived name (Pascha--also used in Latin) was replaced with a more local name. A connection with "Hystera" would require that a word NEVER used in Greek-speaking lands have magically migrated, leaving no trace AT ALL of its use outside of Germanic lands for that purpose. It's as plausible as the "Ishtar" hypothesis.Dogface 11:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
While the comment that "A consensus is developing that this was an error by Bede" might be technically accurate it isn't very informative. There is as much evidence to support Bede as evidence to refute him on this matter (which is slim to none). Discrediting Bede's statement seems more a matter of personal preference than anything else.
In Bede's defense it would seem exceptional if Eostre was a word with categorically non-religious (and unexplained) origins given the fact that for the most part ancient cultures tended to attach enormous spiritistic and astrological significance to the seasons, calendars, and dating systems. Given this fact, the burden of proof should definitely be on the shoulders of anyone arguing against this well documented trend as well as Bede's statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.52.151 (talk • contribs)

More history distorting Chritian lies. The name "Easter" originated with the names of an ancient Goddess and God. The Venerable Bede, (672-735 CE.) a Christian scholar, first asserted in his book De Ratione Temporum that Easter was named after Eostre (a.k.a. Eastre). She was the Great Mother Goddess of the Saxon people in Northern Europe. Similarly, the "Teutonic dawn goddess of fertility [was] known variously as Ostare, Ostara, Ostern, Eostra, Eostre, Eostur, Eastra, Eastur, Austron and Ausos." Despite attempts to Christianise it Easter is accepted by most serious scholars to be a pagan fertility rite in origin celebrating the rebirth of life in spring. There is more than a "passing resemblane" to here as she is the goddess of spring and rebirth and Easter is in Spring , her name is a Eastre , and both eggs and hares fertility and rebirth symbols. Please stop lying im sure your lord told you it was a sin.

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

Help figuring out when it is next on a date?

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

See Computus. You probably best use the tabular method and find it for each year until you hit the date. Tom Peters 09:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
According to the Side-by-side Easter reference external link given in the article, the next year that Easter will fall on March 26 is 2062, and occurs again in 2073 and 2084. Look under New style Catholic. — Joe Kress 05:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Baptists

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

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

Easter Act of 1928

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

The rules in the US for setting Election Day are similar: the first Tuesday after the first Monday in Novermber. This is so phrased to ensure that elections always happen after the 1st of the month. In this case, I imagine the point is to make sure Easter occurs more or less in the middle of April. As for sources, a Google search on "Easter Act of 1928" yields far too many results to be overly worried about it. The formal name of the law is 18 & 19 Geo. 5, chapter 35. To be implemented it requires an Order-in-Council, which has never been issued. TCC (talk) (contribs) 11:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
If April begins on a Sunday, then the first Sunday after the second Saturday in April would be the third Sunday in April.Dogface 17:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

removed several questionable and outright inappropriate citations

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

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

The only thing more annoying than having fact tags attached to perfectly reasonable statements that are obvious on their face (especially those that state a negative position) is having someone nitpick the cites that are placed. If nothing else, the Museum of Hoaxes link is a perfectly good cite. The relevant bits were quoted directly from the original article.
And tell me, are there any religion-based sources that you'll accept ever? The claims that are being countered here are religiously motivated and of highly dubious scholarship in the first place, as would be obvious if any of those who keeps trying to insert them provided cites. Most sources with an interest in debunking them would also be religious in nature. Bede himself was an ecclesiastical writer. Seems an inherent double-standard. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I take no position on the debate at hand, I'm only commenting on the nature of the sources. Blogs are almost never considered reliable sources because they are not fact-checked or subject to editorial control. Someone apparently wanted to cite the Tasmania Mercury News article, but found that it is no longer online. It should be easy enough to find the original article with a LexisNexis search or similar and cite it directly. (You can ask someone to do it for you if you don't have an account.) It doesn't matter that the article is no longer online. There is also no citation for the other authors mentioned, Hutton and de la Saussaye.
Any group with an agenda related to the matter at hand is rarely a reliable source. When the author or group is particularly prominent, then their work may be cited as evidence of their opinion or position, which is why the OCA link could be reasonably integrated into the article. It's not clear to me that Nick Sayers, Paul S. Taylor, David J. Meyer, or Pathlights are particularly notable or their opinions worth citing. In any event, that's not how those citations were being used.
For more information, I suggest you read the previous version of the reliable sources guideline, which is more extensive than the version that was merged with WP:A. – Þ  00:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning up Citations and Links

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

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

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

Time to protect?

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

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