Talk:Easter

Template:Onlinesource2004 For most recent comments, see bottom of page

the Good and the bad in wikipedia

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

Anti-Easter Christians

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Symbolism section

67.etc's preferred version

The religious symbolism of Easter is explicitly Christian, with many elements adapted from the Passover celebration in Judaism—for example, the image of Jesus as the Lamb of God, which is linked to the Jewish paschal lamb. The Christian celebration of Jesus' Resurrection also paralleled pagan celebrations of nature's rebirth in the spring; the traditional customs of Easter eggs and the Easter Bunnys (originally a hare) are both tied to pre-Christian paganism. Some Christian fundamentalists reject nearly all the customs surrounding Easter, believing them to be irrevocably tainted with paganism and idolatry. The Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Easter at all, believing it to be entirely a pagan invention [1] (http://www.watchtower.org/library/rq/article_11.htm) [reference was added in the second iteration].

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

61.etc's preferred version

(diffs are highlighted)

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

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

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

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

Sorry,I'm short of explanation, I'll add my explanation. (I'm Japanese, I can't explain very well.) First, about Passover, it was celebrated on Nisan 14th in Biblical era. But now, Jewish celebrate on another day, not on Nisan 14th. Second, about Easter, I suppose that it wasn't celebrated in 1st Century, but that Lord's supper was celebrated.(1 Corinthians 20-34) Latter is different from easter, because date of both are different. For example, this year, Easter will be held on April 11, but Nisan 14th will start on April 4 evening. So, I suppose Easter has no evidence on Bible, then I wrote that it came from paganism. ja:利用者:K.M.

(67.71.79.45) Okay then. Passover and Easter happen on different days, but they're usually within a week or two of each other; this is because of differences between the Hebrew calendar and the Gregorian calendar. So the dating issues are really non-existent.

(67.71.79.45) Who holds the view that Easter was not celebrated in the 1st century? Their views should be attributed to them, not presented as fact. The facts are these: the vast majority of Christians believe that Easter -- the celebration of Jesus' resurrection -- is the most important day of Christianity. The same majority believes that it is an ancient Christian tradition, not a pagan invention (though some of its customs might be pagan in origin). They believe these things because of this, that, and the other pieces of evidence. A small minority -- is it just the Jehovah's Witnesses? -- believe otherwise; they argue that Easter is entirely a pagan celebration. Their evidence for this is (what is it? Discrepancies between dates? Lack of explicit description in the New Testament? Knee-jerk anti-Catholicism? What?) Your comments, please.

For as often as you eat this loaf and drink this cup, you keep proclaiming the death of the Lord, until he arrives. - 1 Corinthians 11:26.

This sentenses explain the death of Jesus, not the resurrection of Jesus. And Jesus own said:

"Keep doing this in rememberance of me"(Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24)

He didn't say that his resurrection should be celebrated in Bible. Added to this, 1 Corinthians 10:21 says that Christians shouldn't be takeparking of Lord's table and Demon's table. You said some of [Easter']s customs might be pagan in origin. Then Christians SHOULD avoid these customs, and shouldn't celebrate Easter. ja:利用者:K.M.

(67.69.188.80) Please understand that I am not trying to convince you, or anyone else, that my beliefs are correct: religious articles are war-prone enough without the added heat of conflicting evangelists, and Wikipedia is not the place to proselytize. That said: your argument in the paragraph above could be presented as one of group X's cases against Easter, if other members of that group have used the argument—if it is yours alone, then it would be disqualified as original research.

(67.69.188.80) With the above in mind, do you think this proposal is satisfactorily neutral? i.e. that among self-described Christians, there are two main categories for views on Easter:

Easter is a Christian celebration; Christians should celebrate it.
Easter is a pagan festival; Christians should not celebrate it.

2. is wrong. I proposed that Easter is a Christian celebration which came from pagan celebration. Readers should decide it whether Christians should celebrate it or not. ja:利用者:K.M.

(67.69.188.80) And that different numbers of self-described Christians subscribe to each belief:

A large majority of Christians believe #1.
A small minority of Christians believe #2

(67.69.188.80) Therefore the article should present #1 as the Christian perspective on Easter (as it currently does), while noting that a few self-described Christians hold belief #2, for reasons X, Y, and Z. Do you think that this formulation would satisfy the demands of NPOV? Here is a rough example of what I mean:

Draft Proposal

The Rest Of The Article As It Now Stands

snip

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

Objections to Easter

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

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

Major Rewrite proposal

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

Some points about my revision:

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

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

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

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

Moving On

I don't like the following bit, which is also on the current page:

"Fundamentalist flights of fancy about the entire holidy being named for the Babylonian goddess Ishtar cannot be reconciled with the simple fact that, in lands where she was known, the holiday was never called by any name resembling hers in the least."

It seems to be worded in a way that is intended to insult rather than to inform ('fundamentalist', 'flights of fancy'), it looks like a strawman (this sentence makes up a paragraph together with a sentence talking about the Jehova's witnesses, suggesting that they think Easter is named after Ishtar), and there is no reference to who these fundamentalists are and what they really say.

Here are some representative sites that make this claim:

[2] (http://www.origin-of-easter.com/)

[3] (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t020.html)

[4] (http://www.lasttrumpetministries.org/tracts/tract1.html)

[5] (http://www.pathlights.com/theselastdays/tracts/tract_22n.htm)

[6] (http://www.tiral.com/2004/04/the_origins_of_.html)

You can find many more, if you want to look, showing that there are many fundamentalists who fervently have the easily disprovable belief in the lie that the holiday of Holy Pascha is named for this "Ishtar". Dogface 15:40, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Your use of the word 'lie' makes it appear that you have come to this article with an agenda. If that is the case, I respectfully ask you to use caution when editing the Easter article.

Prove that the holiday is named for Ishtar. Account for the fact that NO place where Ishtar was actually worshipped uses a word that remotely sounds like "Easter" for the name of the holiday. And, if this matter is so important to you, have the courage and basic decency to sign up for an ID and sign your posts instead of hiding behind anonymity. Dogface 19:27, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

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

NPOV? (moved down from top of page)

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

I'll lay it out nice and simple:

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

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

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

"Alleged" is used when the presumption is falsehood. Thus, saying that it celebrates the "alleged resurrection" means that the article presumes that it never occurred. In general, except for the Church of the Subgenius, no religion celebrates events that its own adherents consider to be false. Indeed, it can be presumed that any religious commemoration is of events that the adherents presume to be true. Have you appointed yourself watchdog of EVERY SINGLE RELIGIOUS ARTICLE in Wikipedia to make sure that EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM is hedged, alleged, and otherwise, or are you just picking on Christianity? (unsigned)

First of all, I don't think that "alleged" naturally presumes falsehood, unless you say it in a certain tone of voice. Written, I think it's neutral. It does, however, perhaps sound a little silly and legalistic for that sentence, or even somewhat anachronistic; which is why I'm more than happy to abandon the word if we can come up with a better way. And I think (see the current revision) that I have come up with a better way, so I think the question of "alleged" is closed. As for your second question --- no, I haven't appointed myself any sort of watchdog. And I'm certainly not "picking" on Christianity itself, since this (Easter) is the only article I've cavilled with -- all the other Christian articles are free from my interference. The reason I've nitpicked Easter a little bit, though, is because I've been a major contributor to this article; I initiated its recent thorough overhaul and am proud of my work on it -- so I feel a sense of responsibility. The people devoting hours of their time to other articles are the people who presumably feel a responsibility to hold them to a high standard. Doops 19:53, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

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

People born on Easter

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

Why? Astrological reasons?

Eggs associated with Easter in non-Germanic contexts?

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

Yes, Eggs are part of Portuguese tradition. They are eaten colored by onion skin or spring flowers. It is also used to make the traditional easter cake. This is due that Eggs are usual in that time of the year. -Pedro 12:56, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Greeks have been doing it for very long, as have Christians east of them. The difference is that the color is always a very deep red, never multicolored. The practice seems to be a merging of Roman and Jewish customs. The Passover Seder includes hard-boiled eggs, for example. I'll start digging. Far too many Westerners labor under the impression that anything and everything is a direct result of northwest European tribal history. This is often not true. Case in point: The name of the holiday.

Definition

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

=== Definition ===

Easter Sunday is the Sunday following the Paschal Full Moon (PFM) date for the year.

In June 325 A.D. astronomers approximated astronomical full moon dates for the Christian church, calling them Ecclesiastical Full Moon (EFM) dates. From 326 A.D. the PFM date has always been the EFM date after March 20 (which was the equinox date in 325 A.D.).

Ecclesiastical Full Moon Dates were approximated astronimcal full moon dates and from 1583, do not differ by more than 3 days from the astronomical full moon dates

==== Common Definition Errors ====

The calculation of Easter is not related to the vernal equinox: Vernal means spring and Easter is not celebrated in September/October in the southern hemisphere.

It is not related to astronomical full moon dates: Astronomical full moons occur at one instant and therefore on two different dates (consider the dateline). Different countries do not celebrate Easter on different dates.

How Easter is determined (http://users.chariot.net.au/~gmarts/easter.htm)

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

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

Eastern Christianity

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

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

Hi Dogface. You forgot to sign.

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

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

Easter bunny

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

Eostre/Ásatrú

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

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

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

That's "NPOV" at Wikipedia. How about "...is generally accounted as one of the most important holidays..."' for equating timidity with a mainstream point-of-view! --Wetman 14:34, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is because there is no credible evidence for a pagan origin for the festival -- or if there is, no one has bothered to display any. Csernica 08:05, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

The possibility that Eostre was concocted by Bede is already mentioned in the article, isn't it? This lends further support to the idea, of course, so perhaps the point could be strengthened a bit. Csernica 22:47, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is, and the article doesn't add too much to that. But tracking down the subject of the author and her work might give us an attribution for that statement. -Ben 04:33, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ya know, this is one of those cases where the quest for NPOV has resulted in entirely too much space being devoted to what is really a fringe, minority theory (or its refutation) to the point where it detracts from the rest of the article. Sorry to be so blunt about it, but it's true. The whole idea really merits nothing more than a brief paragraph. Csernica 04:05, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the "of pagan origin" theories are fringe, and generally incorrect, but they're coming more and more into the mainstream. See [7] (http://www.religioustolerance.org/easter1.htm), for example — the first (and representative) result for a Google search on "origin of easter". In cases like this, I think wikipedia is stuck going into detail of arguments and counter-arguments. Though if your comment was in reference to the "Bede extrapolated a goddess Eostre", rather than the general "pagan origins" theory, I'm inclined to agree, despite my comment above. -Ben 03:39, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dyngus Day

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

Table of dates

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

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

Persians & Eggs

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

The article mentions a Persian egg-giving custom and has for some time. As far as I know, it never mentioned that the eggs were painted. Csernica 23:36, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually I relocated that passage rather than removing it. See below for my strenuous objection to the reversion of that and other changes. CBDunkerson 02:36, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Obviously False and Improper Page

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

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

It's no one's problem but yours if you perceive "Heathen" as pejorative. It's a very common term for pre-Christian Germanic religions in a number of contexts. A simple Google search on "heathenism" turns up primarily sympathetic uses of the word, and it's not uncommon for, say, Ásatrú to refer to themselves this way. But if you object to that one word you should feel free to change it.
No, neopagans didn't invent it, but they do tend to rely on it. Nor are neopagans the ones who use this argument most vociferously. That honor goes to certain Christian fundamentalists and Jehovah's Witnesses and anyone else who believe Christians should not celebrate this holiday and who therefore have a vested interest in imputing to it a pagan origin. All of which is neither here nor there. Grimm is not a historical source here since Deutsche Mythologie was not intended as an historical work. His goal was the same as Elias Lönnrot in composing the Kalevala and J. R. R. Tolkien in writing his mythology: to construct a national mythology for his people. (Grimm was, incidentally, not primarily a historian. He was in exactly the same line of work as Tolkien, a philologist and mythologist. This doesn't mean he didn't employ historical evidence, but rather that he applied different standards to it.) Like Lönnrot but unlike Tolkien he succeeded. Also like Lönnrot but unlike Tolkien he didn't have to make very much up out of whole cloth, but he did have to stich pieces together in a way that didn't always resemble anything historical. Easter bunnies and eggs were already current when Grimm was writing, so that he included it as part of his invented "Ostara" figure is not surprising. He clearly used Bede and cannot be cited as an independent reference. If you can find Grimm's sources for this other than Bede, cite them yourself.
You grossly misrepresent the scholarly consensus on Bede's idea about Eostremonath (and, not incidentally, Hrethmonath.) These days it is most commonly thought he was guessing. This isn't "revisionist" so much as an acknowledgement that the harder we look for some other reference to "Eostre" without finding anything, the more likely it is that she's a figment. One single solitary source is all it would take to prove Bede right, but it can't be found. There's a link elsewhere on this talk page to a newspaper article (now unfortunately bumped from its host website; it came out around Easter) where an Australian scholar was willing to state, publically and definitively, that Bede was wrong. I should have written to her and gotten a cite for the article myself, as I had thought to do but never got around to. Csernica 02:02, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

False statements in your response:

'Grimm's work was the same as Tolkien's and not intended as a historical work': Grimm collected existing myths. Tolkien wrote new ones based on existing archetypes. There is a significant difference and he clearly stated that his intent WAS documentation rather than invention; "I have undertaken to collect and set forth all that can now be known of German paganism, and that exclusively of the complete system of Norse mythology." (from Grimm's introduction).

'Grimm invented Ostara and relied on Bede without other sources':Grimm cited reference to Ostaramanoth in Einhard's Life of Charlemagne (about 100 years after Bede). Ostaramanoth means either 'Ostara month' or 'Ostara's month'. Ergo, 'Ostara' was not created by Grimm... the name predated him by about a thousand years. As to your challenge that I cite Grimm's Ostara sources other than Bede; in addition to Einhard, Grimm documented the 'Ostern hare', identification of landmarks associated with Ostara/Eostre (Osterstube, Austerkopp, Astenburg, et cetera), other related traditions (Ostara moon pastries, Easter dawn ceremonies, easter plays, the ostara-sax, et cetera), and etymological analysis of the Eostre/Ostara relationship.

'This isn't revisionism': For well over a thousand years it has been unquestioned that there was a goddess named Eostre / Ostara. In the last twenty or so Christian scholars have challenged this claim... based on no NEW evidence whatsoever. That's revisionism. The common argument that 'there are no references to Eostre independant of Bede' is incredibly disingenuous. There's a REASON the man is known as "the Father of English History".

Maybe it'll help to address the problems one at a time. It is repeatedly stated that 'the term Easter is assumed to be derived from Eostre' or 'pagans pretend it comes from Eostre' or whatever. Always stated as a speculative origin. That's just plain false. There is no speculation involved. We KNOW that the name Easter comes from 'Eostre' and Ostern (same holiday in Germany) from 'Ostara'. Whatever 'Eostre' and 'Ostara' WERE, we can trace the holiday names down through the centuries (Eostre > Eastre > Estran > Esterne > Ester > Easter) from those earlier names. People can assume that Bede and Grimm were 'making it up' and Eostre/Ostara was a washerwoman rather than a goddess (or just not try to explain who she was), but whoever/whatever... that's the origin of the holiday name. Anyone disagree? If not I'm correcting it.CBDunkerson 13:13, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I made no false statements in my repsonse. No scholar takes a single witness as authoritative, which is why there's always been something of a cloud hanging over Bede's statements about "Eostre" -- there are no other references to her whatsoever. I'm sure it was considered "revisionism" when it was proposed that the Earth orbited the Sun since for well over a thousand years it was "known" that it was the other way around. That made it no less true. Bede is not writing from a living memory, and there are no other references whatsoever for "Eostre". It is therefore becoming increasingly accepted by critical scholars (critical, not Christian) that he was just guessing and was mistaken, where earlier his word might have been accepted uncritically. There's nothing about "Eostramonath" that demands the existence of an "Eostre" any more than an "Ostramanoth" demands a goddess named Ostara. In any event, no single historian is an infallible oracle -- which is why we must always be able to corroborate what they say. There is no such corroboration here, and the etymological argument is circular. (You have to assume the existence of the goddess before you can extract them from the month names. There are other possible derivations. A dawn association is perfectly acceptable for the springtime, and "auster" is usually read as "east" -- as in, for example, Osterreich, a country you may have heard of.)

By the way, you're aware that Bede was a Christian himself, right? He's even a saint. I'm afraid that little ad hominem of yours tars with far too broad a brush for your purposes.

It's extremely disingenuous of you to misquote me when anyone can simply look at what I wrote to know what you did. I never said "Grimm's work was the same as Tolkien's". I said it was the same in intent, but made it perfectly clear he had pre-existing legends to work from. The comparison between the two is hardly original with me. Read Tom Shippey's work on Tolkien.

Yes, someone objects. Clearly, since the article is in the shape it is and I am not responsible for the vast majority of it but I'm objecting anyway. Among the reasons I give above, your proposed changes drag the article far off NPOV to be unacceptably centered on Northern Europe. As the article takes far too much space to demonstrate, this holiday did not originate there. Under its original name of Pascha it was celebrated around the Mediterranean long before any Germanic peoples had any contact with Christianity, and even before the Roman Empire was converted. Its primary association, as is preserved in its hymnography in those Christian churches with a liturgical tradition, are with the Jewish Passover, the Pesach. There are references to it from the second century onward. Too much focus on Germanic customs distorts the record. Csernica 21:03, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Alrighty then. You said, "Grimm is not a historical source here since Deutsche Mythologie was not intended as an historical work." I quoted Grimm himself saying, "I have undertaken to collect and set forth all that can now be known of German paganism...". Ergo... your statement was false. The man himself said that it WAS his intent. I made no 'ad hominem' against Christians in general - if you dispute that the 'reinterpretation' of Eostre which has gone on in recent years is NOT being driven by a handful of reactionary Christian scholars please feel free to cite some of these numerous academics you say now reject the idea. As to 'revisionism'... the difference with the Earth orbit bit is that the change was based on new information. This change on 'Eostre' isn't. There is no more information available on this subject now than there was 1200 years ago, indeed it seems inescapable that there is LESS. Even if we assume (without justification) that Bede had nothing but the month name to go on and deduced 'Eostre' from that (the BEST case scenario for the revisionists)... it would remain a very logical deduction. We've got an untranslatable word (and thus likely a name) with a feminine ending appearing as the name of a month. Now, what sort of female might the ancient pagans have named a month after? Even assuming that the respected historians Bede and Grimm made it all up and had no real evidence for the conclusions they drew... just looking at the month names alone the 'goddess' explanation still strikes me as a very viable explanation. Yet here in these pages we have people claiming it is 'discounted by most scholars' or even 'disproven' with nothing to back up those claims. CBDunkerson 23:25, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Grimm indeed collected myth, legend and fairy tale from historical sources, but the synthesis that resulted from his work is entirely his own and can't necessarily be said to reflect the state of German mythology at any particular point in history.

Your argument on Eostre may or may not hold any water, and I frankly don't care if it does. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for our personal opinions, and our job ought to be to report the consensus of qualified scholarly thought on the subject. It is my understanding that current consensus is that Eostre did not exist, and mainly for the same reason you cite in support of the idea -- that in centuries of searching, nothing has been found to corroborate Bede at all. It personally doesn't matter to me one way or the other. However, I must agree with you that there are shockingly few references here, and I intend to track a few down. That is indeed a fair criticism.

I understand why you might be sensitized on this issue, but even the "Heathen" section is not aimed primarily at neopagans. As I said earlier, there are ultra-fundamentalist Christian groups who use her to try to establish a pagan origin for the holiday to bolster their claim that Christians ought not observe it. In this they are unforgivably Anglocentric of course, since the holiday was observed for centuries before Christianity ever arrived among Germanic people and before it was ever called "Ostern" or "Easter" or anything similar. I can find no references to neopagans at all in the article as it stands, but there is a section titled "Anti-Easter Christians."

Which brings me to my main objection to your proposed changes -- or what ought to have been my main objection, but I have a bad habit of allowing others to frame the terms of a discussion. This article is about the Christian holiday. I am already on record here that it devotes far too much space to addressing the whole Eostre-origin claim, which is false on its face. (I am also on record that at least some of the material in the "Heathen" section is in need of a rewrite, for some of the same reasons you do. See "Eostre/Ásatrú" above.) It is the wrong thing to do to expand this even more, and to bring in neopagan references where none existed before. The proper name of the holiday is Pascha, and in most languages it is known by either this or a close cognate. The etymological oddities of its name peculiar to the northwest corner of Old World Christendom is, or really ought to be, a side issue. So should a hypothetical ancient pagan festival and recent neopagan celebrations that really have nothing at all in common with the Christian celebration except for the name and the approximate time of year. (And maybe -- maybe -- a few of the associated secular customs although this is utterly unproven and stands on very little foundation.) If you feel they deserve some coverage, I could hardly object to a seperate article on them. (As long as, in the case of the ancient celebration, it reports what is really known, clearly identifies guesswork, and provides a well-supported evaluation of the liklihood of that guesswork being correct.) Csernica 23:04, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

We agree on alot of this. I'm not sure that the articles need to be separated (and if so they ought to be cross-linked in any case). I'm going to make some updates along the lines of what I think we agree on. Let me know what you think or adjust as needed. CBDunkerson 16:58, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Excellent work, and highly commendable, IMO. Csernica 04:46, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Easter"