Pesach...something to think about

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

For those holding Pesach at the appointed time, Chag Sameach.

https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/road...er-passover-and-other-orthodox-urban-legends/

The Date of Pascha | Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese

Moon Phases Calendar / Moon Schedule

March Equinox


Peter says

March 31, 2015 at 12:31 pm

I get really twitchy every time I see a waning crescent on the way home from Pascha. Everyone in my family thinks I’m nuts. (They’re probably right, of course.)

Reply

Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick says

March 31, 2015 at 12:32 pm

Yes, I wonder about that sometimes. Do the Orthodox who believe that we are using the “correct” equinox ever notice the moon?

 

[prodromos]

Thank you
I really appreciated the links

 

[All4Christ]

Great links! I was under the impression that before the first Nicean council, Orthodox Christians were trying to date it based on the Passover, but that there wasn't a consistent formula and different regions were celebrating at different times because of the inconsistency.

Do you know if that is correct?

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Great links! I was under the impression that before the first Nicean council, Orthodox Christians were trying to date it based on the Passover, but that there wasn't a consistent formula and different regions were celebrating at different times because of the inconsistency.

Do you know if that is correct?

Well we know that the very early Church (mostly in the East) were doing what the Apostles did and taught...they celebrated Passover on the 14th. Christianity in the early days was really a Jewish sect. Mostly all Jews that believed Yeshua was the promised Messiah of the Jews. Things got strange later, mainly between 70 and 135 AD. Jews were dispersed and thus dating/timing could have been off. Then in the West, it was changed altogether. Then in 325, Nicea developed the formula.

The controversy involved three events: the controversy between Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna, and Anicetus, the bishop of Rome, that occurred around 155AD; the more heated controversy between Polycrates, the bishop of Ephesus, and Victor, the bishop of Rome, that broke out around 195 AD; and the decree of Constantine following the Nicene Council in 325 AD.

Today we can calculate scientifically the Nicean formula exactly...yet we do not...

Celebrating Easter/Pascha Together

 

[All4Christ]

Well we know that the very early Church (mostly in the East) were doing what the Apostles did and taught...they celebrated Passover on the 14th. Christianity in the early days was really a Jewish sect. Mostly all Jews that believed Yeshua was the promised Messiah of the Jews. Things got strange later, mainly between 70 and 135 AD. Jews were dispersed and thus dating/timing could have been off. Then in the West, it was changed altogether. Then in 325, Nicea developed the formula. The controversy involved three events: the controversy between Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna, and Anicetus, the bishop of Rome, that occurred around 155AD; the more heated controversy between Polycrates, the bishop of Ephesus, and Victor, the bishop of Rome, that broke out around 195 AD; and the decree of Constantine following the Nicene Council in 325 AD. Today we can calculate scientifically the Nicean formula exactly...yet we do not... Celebrating Easter/Pascha Together

This topic is really interesting to me - with the development of Christian Traditions throughout the first few centuries, from apostolic times through the early Church. I've been debating on putting up a few questions here, but decided it would be best to wait until after Pascha. I might pull up some information soon about the contents of the subjects discussed at the first Nicean council. Thanks for the links!

 

[ArmyMatt]

thanks for the links!

and yeah, the dates of Pascha were different depending on what region you were in. most of the early Christians had a live and let live attitude, and when it became an issue they set a date for Pascha (and even then, they allowed some of the more stubborn to keep their practice).

makes you wonder about the schismatics who broke over the calendar issue in recent memory.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

For those holding Pesach at the appointed time, Chag Sameach.

https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/road...er-passover-and-other-orthodox-urban-legends/

The Date of Pascha | Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese

Moon Phases Calendar / Moon Schedule

March Equinox


Peter says

March 31, 2015 at 12:31 pm

I get really twitchy every time I see a waning crescent on the way home from Pascha. Everyone in my family thinks I’m nuts. (They’re probably right, of course.)

Reply

Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick says

March 31, 2015 at 12:32 pm

Yes, I wonder about that sometimes. Do the Orthodox who believe that we are using the “correct” equinox ever notice the moon?

Excellent study and thanks for placing it out. I always find it fascinating when seeing the way that things come together in regards to the Festival of Pescah and Pascha coming together....and for me, the timing of the event/focusing on it always goes back to establishing whether or not the Lord's Supper was really a traditional Jewish seder when seeing how it was celebrated - some of which has been discussed elsewhere more in-depth such as here (as it concerns the Apostle John and what he noted in his Gospel with what happened the night Christ was betrayed) and Messiah resurrected on Sabbath & the early church met on Sabbath
.

Other excellent scholars have spoken on the issue such as Oskar Skarsaune in his work called Jewish Believers in Jesus: The Early Centuries - and there are others like Francis M. Young of Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture

Additionally, there are other good scholars to consider such as Mark S. Kinzer and Philip F. Esler. ..as well as Daniel Boyarin in Justin Martyr Invents Judaism - Church History, Vol. 70, No. 3 (Sep., 2001), pp. 427-461 when it comes to noting the ways that Justin of Martyr did many things similar to reinventing practices in Judaism as other Jewish leaders did.

Dr.Skarsaune noted, in the East, closer to the Rabbis, the death and resurrection of Yeshua was celebrated on the date of Passover according to the Jewish calendar, for the Rabbis taught that First Fruits was the day following Passover; this was known as the quartodeciman position....but in the West, the decision was to work back from the Resurrection which was always on a Sunday, the day after the Sabbath of Passover week. Historically, it seems those with the Eastern Church followed the Pharisaic practice of First Fruits and the resurrection being together while the Western part of the Church kept First Fruits on the Sunday of Passover week as the Sadducees - echoing the controversy itself as rooted in Judaism (and Skarsaune argues that the celebration of First Fruits is behind the Western tradition...for from Resurrection Day, the Church calculated back to their celebration of the crucifixion, rather than strictly keeping Nisan 14 and 15 - and this interesting as well as unintentional since this coincides in most years with the Sadducean Temple date for First Fruits.


Beyond that, what fascinates me is seeing the differing groups within the early Church. In example, whereas the Church at Rome observed a day now called Easter on the first Sunday After the spring Equinox, the churches in Asia, led by Polycarp, observed the “Quartodeciman” Passover and this was observed at the very time and date That the Jews observed Passover.

According to Irenaeus,

Anicetus could not persuade Polycarp to forgo the [Quartodeciman] observance inasmuch as these things had been always observed by John the disciple of the Lord, and by other apostles with whom he had been conversant; nor did Polycarp persuade Anicetus to keep it: Anicetus said that he must hold to the way of the elders before him.​

• FROM SABBATH TO SUNDAY: A HISTORICAL INVESTIGATION OF THE RISE OF SUNDAY OBSERVANCE IN EARLY CHRISTIANITY - Chapter 6 - ROME AND THE ORIGIN OF SUNDAY - Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph. D., Andrews University

• Sunday Easter and Quartodecimanism in the Early Christian Church - Andrews University

• NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
  
  
• NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
  
• NPNF2-02. Socrates and Sozomenus Ecclesiastical Histories - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
  
• Eusebius - The Quartodeciman Controversy
  
  
• Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna and Martyr, 156 - For All the Saints
  [*]
  
• Calendar and Chronology, Jewish and Christian: Biblical, Intertestamental and Patristic Studies

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ep6oOeujK2I

And for one of my favorite reads on the subject:

• Was Jesus’ Last Supper a Seder? – Biblical Archaeology Society

As said there:

Within a few years after Jesus’ death, Christian communities (which at first consisted primarily of Jews) began to ask when, how and even whether they should celebrate or commemorate the Jewish Passover.16 This was a question not only early on, but throughout the time of the so-called Quartodeciman controversy. The Quartodecimans (the 14-ers) were Christians who believed that the date of Easter should be calculated so as to coincide with the Jewish celebration of Passover, whether or not that date fell on a Sunday. The Jewish calendar was (and is) lunar, and therefore there is always a full moon on the night of the Passover Seder, that is, the night following the 14th of Nisan. But that night is not always a Saturday night. The Quartodeciman custom of celebrating Easter beginning on the evening following the 14th day apparently began relatively early in Christian history and persisted at least into the fifth century C.E. The alternate view—that Easter must be on a Sunday, regardless of the day on which the Jewish Passover falls—ultimately prevailed. Possibly the Gospels’ disagreements about the timing of the Last Supper were the result of these early Christian disputes about when Easter should be celebrated. After all, if you wanted to encourage Christians to celebrate Easter on Passover, would it not make sense to emphasize the fact that Jesus celebrated Passover with his disciples just before he died?

Related to the question of when Christians should recall Jesus’ last days was a question of how they should be recalled. Early on, a number of Christians—Quartodecimans and others—felt that the appropriate way to mark the Jewish Passover was not with celebration, but with fasting. . On the one hand, this custom reflected an ancient Jewish tradition of fasting during the time immediately preceding the Passover meal (as related in Mishnah Pesachim 10:1). On the other hand, distinctively Christian motives for this fast can also be identified, from recalling Jesus’ suffering on the cross to praying for the eventual conversion of the Jews. The German New Testament scholar Karl Georg Kuhn has argued that the Gospel of Luke places the Last Supper in a Passover context in order to convince Christians not to celebrate Passover. He notes that the synoptic Last Supper tradition attributes to Jesus a rather curious statement of abstinence: “I have earnestly desired to eat this Paschal lamb with you before I suffer, for I tell you that I shall not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God…[and] I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes” (Luke 22:15–18; cf. Mark 14:25 [“I shall not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God”]=Matthew 26:29). The synoptics’ placement of the Last Supper in a Passover context should be read along with Jesus’ statement on abstinence; in this view, the tradition that the Last Supper was a Passover meal argues that Christians should mark the Passover not by celebrating, but by fasting, because Jesus has already celebrated his last Passover.18 Thus, until Jesus’ kingdom is fulfilled, Christians should not celebrate at all during Passover.

New Testament scholar Bruce Chilton recently presented an alternate theory. He argues that the identification of the Last Supper with a Passover Seder originated among Jewish Christians who were attempting to maintain the Jewish character of early Easter celebrations.19 By calling the Last Supper a Passover meal, these Jewish-Christians were trying to limit Christian practice in three ways. Like the Passover sacrifice, the recollection of the Last Supper could only be celebrated in Jerusalem, at Passover time, and by Jews.c

Without deciding between these two contradictory alternatives (though Kuhn’s is in my mind more convincing), we can at least agree that there are various reasons why the early church would have tried to “Passoverize” the Last Supper tradition.20 Placing the Last Supper in the context of Passover was a literary tool in early Christian debates about whether or not and how Christians should celebrate Passover.​

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Without deciding between these two contradictory alternatives (though Kuhn’s is in my mind more convincing), we can at least agree that there are various reasons why the early church would have tried to “Passoverize” the Last Supper tradition.20 Placing the Last Supper in the context of Passover was a literary tool in early Christian debates about whether or not and how Christians should celebrate Passover.[/INDENT][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

I would totally disagree with Kuhn. I would say that Yeshua said when we celebrate Passover, we do this as a memorial of his death as He commanded us. Regarding Yeshua saying that He would not partake of the fruit of the vine again until new in the Kingdom, to me, it was very obviously a Nazarite vow to his bride, the Church, until He comes back for us for the marriage supper of the Lamb. He goes to prepare a place for us. His father's house has many mansions. Yeshua gave us a covenant, a contract written in His Blood. The engagement was done at the groom's table.

The betrothal was binding and could only be undone by a divorce with proper grounds, such as the bride being found not to be a virgin. The young man prepared a Ketubah, or marriage contract (or covenant) which he presented to the intended bride and her father. Included in this was the "Bride Price", which was appropriate in that society to compensate the young woman's parents for the cost of raising her, as well as being an expression of his love for her.

To see if the proposal was accepted, the young man would pour a cup of wine for his beloved and wait to see if she drank it. This cup represents a blood covenant. If she drank the cup she would have accepted the proposal and they would be betrothed. The young man would then give gifts to his beloved, and then take his leave. The young woman would have to wait for him to return and collect her.

Before leaving, the man would announce that he is going to prepare a place for her and that he will return for her when it is ready. The usual practice was for the man to return to his father's house and build a honeymoon room there. This is what is symbolized by the chuppah or canopy which is characteristic of Jewish weddings. He was not allowed to skimp on the work and had to get his father's approval before he could consider it ready for his bride. If asked the date of his wedding he would have to reply, "Only my father knows."

Meanwhile the bride would be making herself ready so that she would be pure and beautiful for her bridegroom. During this time she would wear a veil when she went out to show she was spoken for (she has been bought with a price)

When the wedding chamber was ready the bridegroom could collect his bride. He could do this at any time so the bride would make special arrangements. It was the custom for a bride to keep a lamp, her veil and her other things beside her bed. Her bridesmaids were also waiting and had to have oil ready for their lamps.

When the groom and his friends got close to the bride's house they would give a shout and blow a shofar to let her know to be ready.

After the marriage their would be 7 days of celebration while the couple "honeymoon" and when they are done, there is a marriage supper.

Does all of this sound VERY familiar? Great video BTW...hope everyone listens to it

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I would totally disagree with Kuhn. I would say that Yeshua said when we celebrate Passover, we do this as a memorial of his death as He commanded us. Regarding Yeshua saying that He would not partake of the fruit of the vine again until new in the Kingdom, to me, it was very obviously a Nazarite vow to his bride, the Church, until He comes back for us for the marriage supper of the Lamb. He goes to prepare a place for us. His father's house has many mansions. Yeshua gave us a covenant, a contract written in His Blood. The engagement was done at the groom's table.

The betrothal was binding and could only be undone by a divorce with proper grounds, such as the bride being found not to be a virgin. The young man prepared a Ketubah, or marriage contract (or covenant) which he presented to the intended bride and her father. Included in this was the "Bride Price", which was appropriate in that society to compensate the young woman's parents for the cost of raising her, as well as being an expression of his love for her.

To see if the proposal was accepted, the young man would pour a cup of wine for his beloved and wait to see if she drank it. This cup represents a blood covenant. If she drank the cup she would have accepted the proposal and they would be betrothed. The young man would then give gifts to his beloved, and then take his leave. The young woman would have to wait for him to return and collect her.

Before leaving, the man would announce that he is going to prepare a place for her and that he will return for her when it is ready. The usual practice was for the man to return to his father's house and build a honeymoon room there. This is what is symbolized by the chuppah or canopy which is characteristic of Jewish weddings. He was not allowed to skimp on the work and had to get his father's approval before he could consider it ready for his bride. If asked the date of his wedding he would have to reply, "Only my father knows."

Meanwhile the bride would be making herself ready so that she would be pure and beautiful for her bridegroom. During this time she would wear a veil when she went out to show she was spoken for (she has been bought with a price)

When the wedding chamber was ready the bridegroom could collect his bride. He could do this at any time so the bride would make special arrangements. It was the custom for a bride to keep a lamp, her veil and her other things beside her bed. Her bridesmaids were also waiting and had to have oil ready for their lamps.

When the groom and his friends got close to the bride's house they would give a shout and blow a shofar to let her know to be ready.

After the marriage their would be 7 days of celebration while the couple "honeymoon" and when they are done, there is a marriage supper.

Does all of this sound VERY familiar? =

I more than understand what it is you were saying - and to be clear, besides the fact that I do not support Kuhn (as I stand with Polycarp in his actions/mindset), I have spoken on the issue elsewhere in the past - as seen here:

I really don't think one should mix up the practice of the Pesach Seder (which remembers the exodus) with the eucharistic ceremony (which remembers the Cross and anticipates the second advent).

Whether or not the eucharistic celebration was insituted on Pesach or not, it is not intended to remember the exodus in the way a Pesach seder does. It has another function. They may have some common form, but they have different functions and are instituted for different purposes. This is why I think both should be done at their own appointed times.

A lot of people get stuck in the either/or paradigm. Either it's all about Pesach or it's all about communion. I say it's both/and.

The scriptures tell us we "proclaim the Lord's death until He comes" in the Thanksgiving meal. The passover is to remember the deliverance from Pharoah etc. The events converge on Golgotha, but one remembers the early redepemption, the other the redemption of all mankind. One is tied to a time of the year, the other is not. One is tied to a certain nation, the other is tied to all who believe in the Cross. One has spiritual promise and power (and curse if abused 1 Cor 11:27-31) and the other is pretty much more ritual and religion these days. The two are related, but different. Why not have both if you are Jewish?

Many people, from what I understand, don't really care to do things like Communion/the Last SUpper due to the belief that anything/everything from the Torah itself is the only thing that should be celebrated. Moreover, in their minds, most of what they see with Communion is not to be tolerated since the think it is not truly "Jewish."

.........There was an excellent read you may be interested in, called "The Blessing of Bread: The Many Rich Traditions of Jewish Bread Baking Around the World " which described one type of bread in Israel that was a precursor to waffers (as it discussed here). The example of Manna comes immediately to mind since Exodus 16:30-32 says it was "white like coriander seed and tasted like wafers made with honey." As manna was given in the wilderness to provide for God's people ( Numbers 11, Deuteronomy 8, Nehemiah 9:19-21 Psalm 78:23-25 ) and the Lord described Himself as the Manna--the BRead--that came from Heaven to feed the people ( John 6:57-59 / John 6, Revelation 2:16-18, etc )..and as the Last Supper incorporated the same theme of believers partaking of the Lord symbolically, it's why waffer's are utilized in remembrance when it comes to celebrating. It is indeed apart of a Jewish heritage..and something to take seriously as with other things connected to Yeshua (as I Corinthians 11:17 notes).


As it concerns seeing things differently than before, Yeshua had the same dynamic go down when he instituted the Last Supper and did it DIFFERENTLY than a traditional passover was done with the drinking of wine/the cup he used. Christ did not eat matzah at the Last Supper, which was not the Passover Meal. He was crucified on the eve of Passover, before the Passover Meal. The afikomen and cups of wine WERE added to the Passover feast. The fact that Jesus used the cups of wine shows that He had no heartburn with them, but incorporated the wine into His Communion Supper with His disciples--which we remember to this day, every time we partake of the bread and wine in Holy Communion. It was a new ritual 'the cup of the new covenant'. Mosaic Torah does NOT command drinking the fruit of the vine at a Pesach Seder commemorating the Egyptian Exodus -- BUT Messiah DOES command drinking the fruit of the vine during the L-RD'S Supper at His Table commemorating Yeshua's death according to Matthew 26:26-32 and 1st Corinthians 11:23-29


To be clear, Yeshua's usage of wine was not fully disconnected from all aspects of the Hebrew traditions, as the betrothal period is spent in the parents' home preparing and being prepared for life as a wife or husband. When remembering that and seeing what occurred in the Last Supper in places like John 13 and John 14.2-3, one can see aspects of betrothal language.

The bridegroom would go to his father's house and prepare a place for his bride to live and work to provide for her needs, and he was only allowed to go and get his Bride when his father said he was ready to take care of her. Yeshua cannot return for his Bride, for whom he is preparing a place, until his Father says, "Go and bring your Bride."

The 'cup after supper' that Yeshua passed was a part of the betrothal tradition, as the potential groom would bring a cup of wine and sip it. He would then hand it to the potential bride. If she sipped it, she was accepting his proposal of marriage and from that moment they were legally hitched. Combined with Jn.14.2-3, and the probability that the disciples understood all this tradition, every one of the disciples who drank of that cup knew what it was - including Judas.


As one of my brothers in Christ said best:

To start with, the Passover meal has always been a meal consumed in the home with family.

The institution of the 4 cups predates Jesus time.

Exodus 6:6
Say, therefore, to the sons of Israel, ‘I am the LORD, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will deliver you from their bondage. I will also redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great judgments. 7 Then I will take you for My people,

​

The symbolism of the cups is based on Exodus 6:6-7.

First cup - Bring you out from Egypt
Second cup - Delivery from bondage
Third cup - Redemption
Fourth cup- Take you for My people

​

In the scriptural depiction of Jesus last supper Passover seder, the timing shows that the cup which represents Jesus blood is the cup of redemption. The third cup is consumed right after the meal.

Luke 22:20 And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.


1 Cor 11:25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”

​

This is one of those times, I say be cautious about taking away from what was occurring and what it meant to the Jewish disciples, to separate the NT from the Tenakh and the Jewish people.

There are a few things which are priestly, but singing is not a concern.

But, I do agree that Jesus established a NT Passover. While the Passover of Egypt can not be truly celebrated as commanded without the Temple, neither can it be celebrated outside of Jerusalem by Gentiles. By altering the meaning, being about Jesus, and including the Gentiles where they were previously forbidden, the Passover becomes a new NT Holy Day.



​

I've heard that Yeshua's use of bread and wine at Pesach signified a change in the priesthood. Malki-Tzedek, a cohen of El'Elyon, had served bread and wine to Avram when he blessed him (Genesis 14:18-20). Now Yeshua served the same to his talmidim (Matthew 26:26-29), and he has been made cohen forever, a different kind of cohen, like Malki-Tzedek (Hebrews 7-8). Cool to consider, of course. But all of that is to say how certain aspects of Jewish tradition were never meant to occur the same in all cases.






For some good resources to review:

• Unleavened Bread for Communion?
• The Last Supper - Rational Christianity
• Was Jesus' Last Supper a Seder? - Biblical Archaeology Review
• VanguardChurch.com: Jesus and the Four Cups of Passover, part 1
• VanguardChurch.com: Jesus and the Four Cups of Passover, part 2

The concept of what's known as Sheva brachot comes immediately to mind...

For more information, one can go here:

• Banish the Honeymoon? | Boundless Line

​

​

Hope that makes sense...

Great video BTW...hope everyone listens to it

It was a very well done presentation, I thought.

 

[Mockingbird0]

Great links! I was under the impression that before the first Nicean council, Orthodox Christians were trying to date it based on the Passover, but that there wasn't a consistent formula and different regions were celebrating at different times because of the inconsistency.

Do you know if that is correct?

The best sources presently available for the history of the Jewish calendar are books by Sacha Stern: Calendar and Community and Calendars in Antiquity. They aren't exactly cheap, so Interlibrary Loan might come in handy. Both books also discuss some of the history of the Christian Easter cycle.

Another useful source is Alden A. Mosshammer's The Easter Computus and the Origins of the Christian Era.

As I read the primary sources, the picture that emerges is this:

1) The earliest Christians cannot be said with certainty to have had annual festivals of any kind, but

2) by the end of the 2nd century, annual martyrs' festivals and Easter were established customs.

3) Most Christians held their Easter on the Sunday that fell within the seven scriptural days of Unleavened Bread (Nisan 15-21). Which days were to be called the days of Unleavened Bread were determined by consulting one's Jewish neighbors, or by using lunar dating techniques similar to what one's Jewish neighbors used. (In antiquity some folk used simple gadgets called parapegmata to keep track of the moon's age.) This would have led to diversity, since there was no commonly-recognized authority with effective power to enforce a unified Jewish calendar. The Rabbis may have imagined they had this power, but they didn't.

4) A few Christians in Asia minor held their Easter on the 14th of Nisan, without regard to the day of the week. Which day this was would have been determined the same way as the days of Unleavened Bread were determined, by consulting one's Jewish neighbors. This custom might have been as old as the Sunday custom, or it might have been made up later. One scholar, Paul Bradshaw, tries to argue that this 14-Nisan custom was more widespread and not confined to Asia Minor, but he does not convince me. Anyhow

5) By the late 3rd century some of the Christians' Jewish neighbors had a tendency to set the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread so that they began before the Spring equinox. Some Christians had no problem with this--they continued to set their Easter according to the Jewish calendar. But some Christians felt that in celebrating before the equinox, their Jewish neighbors were failing to "Observe the month of 'Abib"--they were calling "Nisan" the month should have been called "Adar". These latter Christians began to devise computational techniques that would correctly identify the month of Nisan as the first month whose latter half fell after the Spring equinox. They then would celebrate Easter in this, independently computed, month of Nisan (on the 14th or on the Sunday), without regard to whether their Christian Nisan was identical to Jewish Nisan, or whether instead Christian Nisan was Jewish Iyar. So there was a diversity in Easter dates due to the diversity in the Jewish calendar, and now there was more diversity due to the independent Christian lunar calendars. Then

6) In the 4th century, some Christians got tired of diversity and wanted uniformity, so the diversity that had been accepted in the past was now viewed with suspicion. The Council of Nicea decided that the new, independent lunar calendars would be used henceforward. The old custom of relying on one's Jewish neighbors's lunar calendar was deprecated. But

7) Some Christians resented this new imposition of uniformity, and continued to uphold the older use of Jewish lunar calendars.

Some will dispute points of my synthesis, but the basic history--that some Christians synchronized their Easter to their Jewish neighbors's Matzoth, while others used independent lunar calendars to set their Easter, the two approaches eventually coming into conflict--seems secure.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

As I read the primary sources, the picture that emerges is this:

1) The earliest Christians cannot be said with certainty to have had annual festivals of any kind, but

2) by the end of the 2nd century, annual martyrs' festivals and Easter were established customs.

3) Most Christians held their Easter on the Sunday that fell within the seven scriptural days of Unleavened Bread (Nisan 15-21). Which days were to be called the days of Unleavened Bread were determined by consulting one's Jewish neighbors, or by using lunar dating techniques similar to what one's Jewish neighbors used. (In antiquity some folk used simple gadgets called parapegmata to keep track of the moon's age.) This would have led to diversity, since there was no commonly-recognized authority with effective power to enforce a unified Jewish calendar. The Rabbis may have imagined they had this power, but they didn't.

4) A few Christians in Asia minor held their Easter on the 14th of Nisan, without regard to the day of the week. Which day this was would have been determined the same way as the days of Unleavened Bread were determined, by consulting one's Jewish neighbors. This custom might have been as old as the Sunday custom, or it might have been made up later. One scholar, Paul Bradshaw, tries to argue that this 14-Nisan custom was more widespread and not confined to Asia Minor, but he does not convince me. Anyhow

5) By the late 3rd century some of the Christians' Jewish neighbors had a tendency to set the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread so that they began before the Spring equinox. Some Christians had no problem with this--they continued to set their Easter according to the Jewish calendar. But some Christians felt that in celebrating before the equinox, their Jewish neighbors were failing to "Observe the month of 'Abib"--they were calling "Nisan" the month should have been called "Adar". These latter Christians began to devise computational techniques that would correctly identify the month of Nisan as the first month whose latter half fell after the Spring equinox. They then would celebrate Easter in this, independently computed, month of Nisan (on the 14th or on the Sunday), without regard to whether their Christian Nisan was identical to Jewish Nisan, or whether instead Christian Nisan was Jewish Iyar. So there was a diversity in Easter dates due to the diversity in the Jewish calendar, and now there was more diversity due to the independent Christian lunar calendars. Then

6) In the 4th century, some Christians got tired of diversity and wanted uniformity, so the diversity that had been accepted in the past was now viewed with suspicion. The Council of Nicea decided that the new, independent lunar calendars would be used henceforward. The old custom of relying on one's Jewish neighbors's lunar calendar was deprecated. But

7) Some Christians resented this new imposition of uniformity, and continued to uphold the older use of Jewish lunar calendars.

Some will dispute points of my synthesis, but the basic history--that some Christians synchronized their Easter to their Jewish neighbors's Matzoth, while others used independent lunar calendars to set their Easter, the two approaches eventually coming into conflict--seems secure.

Early Christians were mostly Jews (with some gentile converts), so they absolutely would have followed the appointed annual feasts. All the Apostles did as well as Paul. Even Polycarp, who was a direct disciple of John, held them. These are well known facts. Your point #4 is actually in reverse.

Much of what you wrote may have held for the west, but not for the east. "Easter" was not held in the east. It was called Pascha or Passover, which it is still called to this day.

I think some may get confused regarding the 14th. This was PASSOVER. The Passover meal was held then (the last supper ritual that was commanded by Yeshua to be held as a memorial of His death).

 

[ArmyMatt]

1) The earliest Christians cannot be said with certainty to have had annual festivals of any kind, but

actually this is not true. St. Paul in the book of Acts speaks about celebrating Pentecost.

 

[Mockingbird0]

actually this is not true. St. Paul in the book of Acts speaks about celebrating Pentecost.

Did you note the words "with certainty" ? I did not say there was no plausibility argument; just no certainty.

The citation you have in mind is probably 1 Corinthians 16.8:

I will stay in Ephesus until Pentecost for a wide door for effective work has opened to me, and there are many adversaries.

Here "Pentecost" is a date on a calendar. There is nothing about celebration. The references to the Jewish calendar in Acts are all of the same kind:

The day of Pentecost had come

[Herod] proceeded to arrest Peter also. This was during the days of Unleavened Bread

We sailed away from Philippi after the days of Unleavened Bread

The voyage was already dangerous beause the fast [Yom Kippur] had already gone by

All these references are on their face purely calendrical. They prove nothing with certainty. One can argue, why would these authors, writing for gentile readers, make these references to the Jewish calendar unless they expected their readers to understand them? And why would gentile Christians be using the Jewish calendar except for Jewish festivals? And if they sailed from Philippi "after" the days of Unleavened Bread, might that not imply that they had some reason to stay there for all the days of Unleavened Bread? Together with how the Easter festival, when it clearly emerges from the mist, is computed on the Jewish calendar, these passages support a plausibility argument that the Easter festival has apostolic roots. But they don't prove it.

 

[Mockingbird0]

Early Christians were mostly Jews (with some gentile converts), so they absolutely would have followed the appointed annual feasts. All the Apostles did as well as Paul. Even Polycarp, who was a direct disciple of John, held them. These are well known facts.

No, they aren't. "Absolutely" is not an appropriate word here. "Probably" will fit for the first apostles, "sometimes" for Paul after he became Christian. In the case of Polycarp the evidence need not be so interpreted at all.

"Easter" was not held in the east. It was called Pascha or Passover, which it is still called to this day.

Please do not lecture me on how to write my own language. "Easter" is the English translation of the Greek word "Pascha". It is the name in the English language for the festival, just as "Whitsunday" is a translation of "Pentecost" in a Christian context.

I think some may get confused regarding the 14th. This was PASSOVER. The Passover meal was held then (the last supper ritual that was commanded by Yeshua to be held as a memorial of His death).

As you well know, the passover meal is NOT held on the 14th. It is held after sunset, when it is no longer the 14th, but the 15th. Yet Polycrates, in the letter quoted by Eusebius, clearly indicates the 14th, NOT the 15th, for he says:

My family have always kept the they when the people put away the leaven.

He writes "the day when the people put away the leaven"--that is, the 13th/14th, not "the day when the people eat the Passover" which would mean the 14th/15th. Some scholars agree with you that he nevertheless meant the 14th/15th, but I find their reasoning circular.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Did you note the words "with certainty" ? I did not say there was no plausibility argument; just no certainty.

The citation you have in mind is probably 1 Corinthians 16.8:



Here "Pentecost" is a date on a calendar. There is nothing about celebration. The references to the Jewish calendar in Acts are all of the same kind:









All these references are on their face purely calendrical. They prove nothing with certainty. One can argue, why would these authors, writing for gentile readers, make these references to the Jewish calendar unless they expected their readers to understand them? And why would gentile Christians be using the Jewish calendar except for Jewish festivals? And if they sailed from Philippi "after" the days of Unleavened Bread, might that not imply that they had some reason to stay there for all the days of Unleavened Bread? Together with how the Easter festival, when it clearly emerges from the mist, is computed on the Jewish calendar, these passages support a plausibility argument that the Easter festival has apostolic roots. But they don't prove it.

if you can show any evidence from Scripture that Pentecost does not come with a feast, I would love to see it

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

No, they aren't. "Absolutely" is not an appropriate word here. "Probably" will fit for the first apostles, "sometimes" for Paul after he became Christian. In the case of Polycarp the evidence need not be so interpreted at all.

Please do not lecture me on how to write my own language. "Easter" is the English translation of the Greek word "Pascha". It is the name in the English language for the festival, just as "Whitsunday" is a translation of "Pentecost" in a Christian context.

As you well know, the passover meal is NOT held on the 14th. It is held after sunset, when it is no longer the 14th, but the 15th. Yet Polycrates, in the letter quoted by Eusebius, clearly indicates the 14th, NOT the 15th, for he says:


He writes "the day when the people put away the leaven"--that is, the 13th/14th, not "the day when the people eat the Passover" which would mean the 14th/15th. Some scholars agree with you that he nevertheless meant the 14th/15th, but I find their reasoning circular.

Yeshua celebrated the annual appointed feasts, the apostles did likewise, ALL being Jews. There is no evidence that early Jewish believers did not either. A Jew does not "become" a Christian. Yeshua was the promised JEWISH Messiah. Implying belief in their own promised Messiah somehow converted them to a new religion is ridiculous.

Regarding the term "Easter"...it is in no way any kind of translation of either the term Passover, Pesach, Pesakh or Pascha. That may be the way it is being used but it is not originally the definition of that word. The origin was the pagan goddess of spring Oestre.

It IS Pascha not Easter!

The day that Chametz is put away is historically the 14th, the preparation day. The seder is held on the night of the 14th which is actually the beginning of the 15th, Passover. Both Pascha and Pentecost are JEWISH words. Pentecost or Shavuot, was held 50 days after the counting of the omer began.

Historically, it was on the 14th the lambs were killed. Yeshua likely held His seder the night before if He was to die on the day the lambs were killed. Either way, John, Polycarp and the east held Passover as a memorial of the death of Yeshua as He commanded them. It says, In the first month, on the 14th day of the month at twilight is the Lords Passover. Then on the 15th day of the same month there is the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

 

[prodromos]

Regarding the term "Easter"...it is in no way any kind of translation of either the term Passover, Pesach, Pesakh or Pascha. That may be the way it is being used but it is not originally the definition of that word. The origin was the pagan goddess of spring Oestre.

Actually, "Easter" is from the Old Teutonic German for "resurrection". It just happens to share the same root word as the pagan goddess, since they are both derived from the word describing the rising, or 'easting' of the sun

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Actually, "Easter" is from the Old Teutonic German for "resurrection". It just happens to share the same root word as the pagan goddess, since they are both derived from the word describing the rising, or 'easting' of the sun

Understand Prodromos, but it still has a pagan origin and has nothing to do with the words Passover or Pascha.

?ostre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[rusmeister]

There are legitimate words and conventions in any given language; in English, the agreed-upon conventions of Orthodox Christians DO insist on the use of "the Theotokos", "Pascha", and so on. Terms like "metanoia" are acceptable when their context is made clear to those with less erudition.

The thing that is alien to the spirit of Orthodoxy is an insistence on foreign words and phrases which are not conventional to what the Church expresses in a given tongue. It is one thing when one cries "Khristos anesti!" or "Axios!", or even, as in my parish, during the Trisagion the choir sings in Greek the second repetition of "Holy God" - the context has been made clear. It is not the first or the last line; it is in the middle of a repeated thing (and this seems to me to be the extreme of what is legitimate in a church that is in no way Greek and has not a single native-Greek-speaking member.

I think it's great that you know Hebrew, Yeshua, and I know enough to know that your user name borrows the name of our Savior. But it really rubs me, a thoroughly multicultural and multi-lingual adult, the wrong way when you throw Hebrew terms out as if we all should already know them. I actually appreciate it when someone says, "... Pascha, or, as we say in Hebrew, "Pesach", or "...Moses, or, in the original Hebrew, "Moshe", or whatever. I think foreign languages are cool. But it seems really wrong to write or speak as if everybody already knew them. It comes across, no doubt unintentionally, as a kind of cultural arrogance, when it is probably only enthusiasm. I again encourage you to speak English, according to the conventions of Orthodoxy in English, to English speakers, as you no doubt can speak Hebrew quite well to Hebrew speakers.
(Oh, and I think you are actually more right on the term "Easter".)

 

[All4Christ]

There are legitimate words and conventions in any given language; in English, the agreed-upon conventions of Orthodox Christians DO insist on the use of "the Theotokos", "Pascha", and so on. Terms like "metanoia" are acceptable when their context is made clear to those with less erudition.

The thing that is alien to the spirit of Orthodoxy is an insistence on foreign words and phrases which are not conventional to what the Church expresses in a given tongue. It is one thing when one cries "Khristos anesti!" or "Axios!", or even, as in my parish, during the Trisagion the choir sings in Greek the second repetition of "Holy God" - the context has been made clear. It is not the first or the last line; it is in the middle of a repeated thing (and this seems to me to be the extreme of what is legitimate in a church that is in no way Greek and has not a single native-Greek-speaking member.

I think it's great that you know Hebrew, Yeshua, and I know enough to know that your user name borrows the name of our Savior. But it really rubs me, a thoroughly multicultural and multi-lingual adult, the wrong way when you throw Hebrew terms out as if we all should already know them. I actually appreciate it when someone says, "... Pascha, or, as we say in Hebrew, "Pesach", or "...Moses, or, in the original Hebrew, "Moshe", or whatever. I think foreign languages are cool. But it seems really wrong to write or speak as if everybody already knew them. It comes across, no doubt unintentionally, as a kind of cultural arrogance, when it is probably only enthusiasm. I again encourage you to speak English, according to the conventions of Orthodoxy in English, to English speakers, as you no doubt can speak Hebrew quite well to Hebrew speakers.
(Oh, and I think you are actually more right on the term "Easter".)

I have always wondered why we have so many languages when we sing Christ is Risen (everything from African languages, to the Aleut, to the Celtic language, and a myriad of ones I can't even place the language), yet we never have anything related to Hebrew or Aramaic, despite the relationship to it with Jesus, etc. I always wished that when we read 1 John - or have all the languages for Christ is Risen, that we would at least include Hebrew. I don't know of any Orthodox Churches that do that though. I have family members that live in Israel and are Jewish, so it does have some significance to me with that connection.

It's almost as if - in the efforts to differentiate the Orthodox Christian Church from Judaism, that we completely avoid anything related to that, despite our connection to Slavic, Greek, Serbian, etc. Even the church in Jerusalem uses Arabic mostly (I think) rather than Hebrew.

Any thoughts or insight?