![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 9 |
In Sweden and I believe also in other nordic countries easter was celebrated yesterday (the 11th April). Easter is always celebrated the day before the Easter day. I believe this is worth mentioning somewhere. -- 78.70.129.70 ( talk) 16:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Easter was also celebrated the 11th here in the United States. I was under the impression that Easter was the second sunday of april... Confusion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.84.120 ( talk) 03:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
A great deal of confusion on your part. The article is accurate regarding how Easter's date is determined. It is not always the second Sunday in April. Dogface ( talk) 14:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I think this article glosses over Easter's pagan origins as a festival celebrating renewal. It's a very christian-centric article as is. I'm proposing to bring the pagan origins up front and mention that the ealy church appropriated it as a means of streamlining conversion. -- Eamonnca1 22:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
That's pseudo-scholarship. Easter is derived from the Jewish Passover. InfernoXV 03:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
According to Bede (c. 672 - 735), writing in De temporum ratione ("On the Reckoning of Time"), Ch. xv, "The English months" [1], the word " Easter" is derived from Eostre, an Anglo-Saxon goddess of spring, to whom the month of Eosturmonath, corresponding to our April (Latin: Aprilis), was dedicated:
- "15. The English Months.
- "In olden time the English people -- for it did not seem fitting to me that I should speak of other nations' observance of the year and yet be silent about my own nation's -- calculated their months according to the course of the moon. Hence after the manner of the Hebrews and the Greeks, [the months] take their name from the moon, for the moon is called mona and the month monath.
- "The first month, which the Latins call January, is Giuli; Februrary is called Solmonath; March Hrethmonath; April, Eosturmonath; May Thrimilchi;..."
- "Eosturmonath has a name which is now translated "Paschal month", and which was once called after a goddess of theirs named Eostre, in whose honour feasts were celebrated in that month. Now they designate that Paschal season by her name, calling the joys of the new rite by the time-honoured name of the old observance."
What is secure in Bede's passage is that the lunar month around the month of April in the Julian calendar was called Eostur or similar; In Vita Karoli Magni Einhard tells, that Charlemagne gave the months names in his own language and used 'Ostarmanoth' for April. [1]
Those who question Bede's account of a goddess suggest that "the Anglo-Saxon Eostur-monath meant simply 'the month of opening' or 'the month of beginnings'." [2].
Hi. There is a proposed move regarding this (well, a hybrid solution), currently to be discussed at Talk:Easter_(disambiguation)#Requested_move. Please take the discussion there. Many thanks, -- Rebroad 10:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
In response to all of the above: this page clearly has nowhere near enough coverage of today's secular Easter holiday; it definitely needs more. On the other hand, the pagan antecedents of Easter, although real and not really open to question, can't really be called "Easter" without the benefit of hindsight -- we can't impose a definitiveness and specificity on things that, although real, are somewhat nebulous. The word "Easter" really can't be taken to refer to anything other than the modern holiday -- that that holiday is only partly religious and that it has some pagan origins (as well as Jewish ones) are important points; but where do they belong? This page. Doops | talk 19:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
agreed. easter was initally a pagan festival. we need a historian of pagan gods and relgions to add facts.
I would oppose this proposition. Easter as a Christian celebration is totally independent in nature, origin, and observance from pagan traditions. I believe it is accepted scholarship that as the Roman Empire sought conversion of pagans to Christianity following Constantine, the Church incorporated some elements of pagan vernal equinox holidays into Easter (much as Christmas Trees were incorporated into Christmas) to make Christianity more palatable. This is, however, not Easter having its origins in Pagan traditions, but Easter coopting those traditions and bending them to the overall celebration of the Resurrection of Christ. 66.57.229.78 16:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
This article should remain Christian centric as the word "easter" in its most common usage, refers to the celebration of Christian idea of the Resurrection of Christ. 66.57.229.78 16:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Eostre was a Germanic goddess. It is the root from which 'Easter' is derived. -- Easter is not exclusively a Christian holiday, and should not be treated as such. -- Wikipedia is about fact, not feelings.
Given that old (no longer celebrated) religious celebrations have Wikipedia entries, the full truth about Easter should be given. It should not be removed simply for fear of offending the religious, or God himself. 22:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Wikipedia is supposed to be informative, and leaving out a good chunk of a holiday's origin and history simply to satisfy a specific religious group should not be tolerated. All entries should be from a third party point of view, not one-sided or based on opinion. With that said, I completely agree that the Pagan history of Easter needs to be included. Whether it is offensive to the christians or not, it is truth, and we all deserve to know the truth. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Only Seeking Shade (
talk •
contribs)
17:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
You could at least read the article. Easter certainly does not derive from a Celtic celebration, and there may never have BEEN any goddess named "Eostre." Such a goddess is mentioned in ONE ancient source, at least a hundred years after any such cult allegedly existed. Carlo ( talk) 18:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I second Carlo. Check out: http://methodius.blogspot.com/2007/09/easter-christian-or-pagan.html http://methodius.blogspot.com/2009/04/eostre-making-of-myth.html A pagan weighs in - http://reallivepreacher.com/node/1422#comment-3901 Pennycake ( talk) 19:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
The whole paragraph looks misleading to me. It does NOT discuss the significance of Easter in the Christian theology but a mere aspect of the Easter tradition namely passover and the death thus the whole paragraph looks more Good Friday than Easter. As it stands it debates a side aspect and therefore should really not be in the beginning of the article. Any of the authors around who could say in a nutshell why he wanted this paragraph here? -- Kipala ( talk) 14:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think replacing one POV for a different POV is constructive. The Easter bunny is German, and for some reason, those German traditions became popular here in the United States. The rest of the world has resisted German influence, however. The replacing material has a distinct American and secular point of view. What is the basis that this POV is better? Because Easter/Pascha is celebrated world wide, should the article not reflect a worldwide perspective in accordance with Wikipedia policy? Perhaps this secular point of view would be better suited as an addition rather than a replacement of the existing material. As far as the lead image is concern, perhaps Raphael's Transfiguration or other resurrection themed masterpiece would be more appropriate. Gx872op ( talk) 15:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The theological significant content related to passover is important regarding the calendar position and also Easter's place within the time continuum of theology. What's missing is information about why the resurrection is significant. I'll see if I can add that. -- Ed Brey ( talk) 16:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I added info about the theological significance of the resurrection. I also made the following updates:
-- Ed Brey ( talk) 06:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Related to point 6 above, User:John J. Bulten summary for his 15:40, 8 June 2009 edit says, "Theological significance: Restoring (again) important nuance, lost in what looks like an unrelated reversion by Ed Brey 13 May; chronology of Jesus says "apparent inconsistencies", in support". The concrete language was intentional, and I restored it. Chronology of Jesus states generally that there are apparent inconsistencies between the gospels regarding the time of death, which is a good way to summarize the matter when dealing with all interpretations generally. However, the context in the paragraph present paragraph in Easter is dealing only with a single interpretation of the texts. For that narrower context, we don't have any reliable sources that state that the gospels are consistent given that interpretation. All indications are that there is no argument against saying that the if one assumes that interpretation, he will find the gospels inconsistent. -- Ed Brey ( talk) 17:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The POV tag was originally due to allegations of "Christian bias", which I would agree with weakly, but here's a few more issues, just from the lead, that strike me as POV:
Then we jump right in with "The Christian tradition, based on New Testament and later writings, links the Last Supper with Passover." A couple problems here are that: this first section, on significance of Easter, starts out with this linkage (as if basic to Easter) and only later throws "Easter" in as if it not only is already there in the linkage but also is named in 1 Cor., yet "Easter" does not appear in the Bible at all (except in a single KJV mistranslation of "pascha"); and there is NO source in this section for the only 2 claims made for Easter, that it commemorates either crucifixion or resurrection; and if nobody called it "Easter" for a century, we ought to say that it was something else before it was called "Easter"; so the reference to the Biblical customs itself is a bit of a diversion. Even trying to fix this sentence of its (in this case skeptical) bias would only yield something as tame and unadvancing as "Christian tradition, beginning with the New Testament and patristic writings, places great stress on Jesus's Last Supper, death, and resurrection having occurred during Passover week." Reading on, I am told that "anastase" means "upstanding", which is a real distractor, because who would ever guess from that that it means "resurrection", or (literally at least) "rising back", not "standing up" (let alone "upstanding"); or that the concept was so important to Paul that he was interpreted by idol-worshipers as promoting the worship of Anastasia? Anyway, this is just "a-start" on fixing these issues. Apologies for those points that have neat references in archives or above that you can speedily point me to. JJB 17:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I went and fixed #2 by changing "third day after" to "third day from", which allows sufficient ambiguity to cover the ground. The others I may or may not fix at convenience; some are equally simple, if the fixes stand. However, the problem is that this is a highly visible article and thus important nuances are lost in the hubbub. The problem is not heathen vs. holy, because neutral coverage of both facets of the same celebration works itself out over time (other than chronic tension about weighting). A bigger problem is that an abundance of folk religion leads people to think that certain POV statements are actually neutral because they've heard them enough times. But the regulars should take WP:LEAD (more) to heart. JJB 21:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Why is there not even a mention of the Easter Bunnyon this page!? 68.9.130.10 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC).
The Article says (correctly) "Gregorian Easter can fall on 35 possible dates - between March 22 and April 25 inclusive".
There are 36 possible Ordinal Dates : yyyy-81 to yyyy-116.
There are 6 possible Week Numbering Dates, yyyy-W12-7 to yyyy-W17-7; and if Easter were to become Fixed, yyyy-W15-7 would seem most suitable.
Those are, of course, in international ( ISO 8601) notation; they seem worth mentioning.
82.163.24.100 ( talk) 10:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Should this link be included somewhere in the easter article? http://www.easterau.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.99.144 ( talk) 08:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I couldn't find where Persian was called an Indo-European language in that article. I seems to have been used by other sources. http://www.textus-receptus.com/w/mediawiki-1.13.2/index.php/Article:_Why_We_Should_Not_Passover_Easter_%28Part_1%29_by_Nick_Sayers and http://www.christian-witness-ministries.com/newsletters/cetf43.pdf also a second part.. http://www.christian-witness-ministries.com/index.php/component/content/article/41-mar-2009/120-why-we-should-not-passover-easter-part-2.html 124.184.99.144 ( talk) 18:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
The lede of this article says that "Easter is linked to the Jewish Passover by much of its symbolism, as well as by its position in the calendar." However, the article doesn't seem to explain this connection very well, and many of the editors of Passover seem to be implying that Easter doesn't have a special connection with Passover. See Talk:Passover#What precisely is that spiel about Easter in aid of?. If Easter is really as strongly connected to Passover as the lede seems to imply, the article should explain this better and IMO, there should be a section in Passover#Influence about this very notable Christian holiday. If not, the lede should be changed. What are your thoughts? -- AFriedman (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Perhaps the information in this discussion could be added and clarified in the article. For example, as of now the easter ham is mentioned briefly but its significance is not. Baseball and Ruckabumpkus, do you have sources for the information you just gave? -- AFriedman (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I do not know all of the languages referenced in the Slavic Section, but the etymologies listed are CERTAINLY incorrect. The prefix {V#Z} in slavic languages generally means to rise. Hence even though vzem in modern Croation /resembles/ vzesti (to take) it is not genetically related to it. It literally means to 'go up' from the old-slavonic roots. This must be changed by a competent slavic lexicographer. As as start. Here is Fasmer's commentary:
Ближайшая этимология: др.-русск., ст.-слав. въскрьсениЉ ўnЈstasij (Супр., Euch. Sin.), въскрkшэниЉ -- то же (Супр.). Из "день воскресения (из мертвых)" получилось знач. "воскресный, нерабочий день". Первонач. в этом знач. употреблялось недеґля, откуда понедеґльник. Ввиду наличия вос- (а не вс-) заимств. из цслав. ( http://vasmer.narod.ru/p115.htm) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.115.194 ( talk • contribs) 02:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC) when jeues died thats the day we cebate $ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.234.229 ( talk) 20:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
A post by me to this talk page was deleted by Amatulic on March 31 2010. I was objecting to the Christian POV of this article which has to do with ARTICLE CONTENT. Perhaps this editor felt my comments were uncivil, but this is not grounds to delete talk page posts. WP:TPO states that removing harmful posts "generally does not extend to messages that are merely incivil." My comments are not directed at any individual editor and are therefore not a personal attack ( WP:RPA). WP editors should have the right to criticize the POV of an article on the talk page without fear of being censored. Consider: If I wrote this article was dominated by "heathens," would that be deleted? Or is this another example of Christian censorship. 94.222.211.17 ( talk) 19:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Calm yourself, first, then state what you want changed. NJMauthor ( talk) 21:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
It seems that some Protestant groups were originally opposed to the celebration of Easter (& Christmas) because they believed them to be "too Catholic" (and thus "too pagan"???). I am assuming that this included all or many of the Puritans, Separatists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, and other Calvinists who were the majority or plurality of the first European settlers in New England (USA); is this maybe why, even to this day, most US companies and corporations do not acknowledge Easter even as a deferred holiday (and if they are normally open for business on Sundays, remain so on Easter)? Or is there some other reason, such as it not being required by federal law or perhaps it was bargained away early on by the labor movement? I think if anyone can find information about this, it should be included in this article. Shanoman ( talk) 06:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Who says Easter is pagan. Easter simply comes from East which is German Ost. So are ALL words relating to East or Ost evil? That is not correct, because, I am sure there are 100's of words related to East, some good some bad. If I took the name ALLAH and made the same etymological fallacy, then all people called ALLan are evil, and all words like ALarm are Islamic and people need to repent of ALLigator worship and ALien demon worship when they use the word ALmighty.. Or Jesus SOUNDS like Zeus so they are connected somehow... it is a joke how these conncectiona are made..
Might sound stupid, but that is really the crux of the whole so called Pagan Easter association. Look at just one example, German Oster (which means Easter) is contained in simple words like the German name of Austria, Österreich, which derives from the Old High German word Ostarrîchi "eastern realm", and refers to Austria's position relative to other German-speaking lands. Oster in this word is simply EASTERN - i.e. Eastern Kingdom. No pagan goddess there, nor in the 100's of other words, names, places, people, names after East - including Easter. I mean 1000's of names are called so after North, East, South and west. Why throw out 2000 years of Christian practice, because of a false English. German etymology.
C. F. Cruse in 1850 AD pointed out that "Our word EASTER is of Saxon origin and of precisely the same import with its German cognate ostern. The latter is derived from the old Teutonic form of auferstehen / auferstehung, that is - resurrection."
Also "O.E. east, from P.Gmc. *aus-to-, *austra- "east, toward the sunrise" (cf. Du. oost, Ger. Ost, O.N. austr "from the east"), from PIE *aus- "dawn" (cf. Skt. ushas "dawn," Gk. aurion "morning," O.Ir. usah, Lith. auszra "dawn," L. aurora "dawn," auster "south"), lit. "to shine." The east is the direction in which dawn breaks." (Online Etymological Dictionary)
Here are some other links concerning this topic...
http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/easter_or_passove.htm
http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/easter.asp
http://brandplucked.webs.com/easterreplenish.htm
http://www.easterau.com/
http://sites.google.com/site/kjvtoday/home/translation-issues/easter-or-passover-in-acts-124
http://www.bible.net.au/flowplayer/example/index.html
It would seem that people like Bloodofox doesn't want to let the truth get in the way of a good story. 124.184.99.144 ( talk) 21:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Let me add that we've discussed the quality of the easterau.com website before, and no editor on any side of the issue recommends using it as a source for the article. - Ben ( talk) 01:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the word Easter is etymologically related to east, which is the direction of the rising sun, which is why it's easy to connect it with the concept of resurrection. It's also true that Easter and east are probably both related to the name of a pagan deity Eostre, who may have been regarded as the goddess of dawn, or of spring, and that some of the ways she was celebrated have been incorporated into Christian observances after being reinterpreted. It is, however, completely illogical for detractors of Christianity to adduce these facts as evidence against the validity of Christian practice. The same facts could equally well be adduced as evidence that even pre-Christian pagans had a sense that "rising" and "new life" were worth celebrating, lending more credence to the Christian message. Both are weak arguments. Christians have no need to get defensive about the "pagan origins" of many Christian traditions. They've been given a Christian meaning, so when Christians do them, they're Christian traditions, not pagan ones. Ruckabumpkus ( talk) 02:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
There is a legitimate debate about the pagan origins of Easter (see above). Yet you wouldn't know it from reading this article. Rather than debate the evidence in the article body, it is deleted and relegated to the talk page.
Consider the following reliable sources:
- The BBC states, "...not all Easter customs are Christian; some, such as the Easter Bunny, are Pagan in origin."
- "Pagan festivities [in mid-March] have been included in Easter, such as Easter eggs, taken from Baltic paganism (see chapter 8), and the Easter rabbit or hare, which recalls the sacred hares of the British tribes." ( A History of Pagan Europe, Routledge, 1997, p. 122)
- "Most religious historians believe that many elements of the Christian observance of Easter were derived from earlier Pagan celebrations."( http://www.religioustolerance.org/easter.htm) See also this page citing reliable sources.
- Ronald Hutton, Professor of History at the University of Bristol, gives the best and most balanced overview of the debate I could find:
"Two facts do seem to emerge from the discussion. One is that versions of the name given by Bede were used widely among speakers of Germanic languages during or shortly after his time; thus the Christian festival was known as Ostarstuopha in the main valley during the eight and ninth centuries. The other is that the Anglo-Saxon eastre, signifying both the festival and the season of spring, is associated with a set of words in various Indo-European languages, signifying dawn and also goddesses who personified that event, such as the Greek Eos, the Roman Aurora, and the Indian Ushas. It is therefore quite possible to argue that Bede's Eostre was a Germanic dawn-deity who was venerated, appropriately, at this seasoning of opening and new beginnings. It is equally valid, however, to suggest that the Anglo-Saxon "Estor-monath" simply meant 'the month of opening' or 'the month of beginnings'..." ( The Stations of the Sun: A History of the Ritual Year in Britain, Oxford University Press, 1996, p. 180)
- Even Christians admit many of these pagan origins. The book Pagan Christianity? Exploring the Roots of Our Church Practices is written by Christians. They do not discuss Easter and Christmas because they do not feel that it hinders the faith in any way, but they explain openly on their website: "Our spiritual forefathers chose to compete with the pagans by redeeming certain days for Jesus Christ that had traditionally been kept sacred by their heathen neighbors."
I cannot edit the article, because I do not yet have an account, but I hope someone will make it more balanced with these sources. There is also no source or evidence for the claim in the introduction that the Easter egg and bunny are "relatively newer elements." 88.74.223.64 ( talk) 14:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
This may be an oversimplification, but I think it’s at least approximately true and may help in understanding why this is such a neuralgic issue. There appear to be two groups who are most eager to highlight the "pagan origins" of customs associated with Easter (as well as other Christian traditions) and one group most eager to suppress them. One group highlighting the pagan origins consists of zealous Christian sectarians who wish to adduce them as evidence that the Catholic, Orthodox and mainline Protestant churches are syncretistic or idolatrous, and therefore illegitimate (along the lines of Hislop). The other consists of atheists, neo-pagans and others who wish to discredit Christianity in general. The group most wishing to suppress the issue consists of insecure Catholic, Orthodox and mainline Protestant Christians who feel attacked and worry that the fact of pagan origins of Christian traditions might actually constitute a legitimate critique of Christianity (which I'm convinced it does not, as I've commented previously). So here's the puzzle: since there are hotheads in all of these groups, who are likely to perceive a bias no matter how the issue is presented, or if it's not presented at all, how can a NPOV section on the "pagan origins" of certain aspects of Easter be crafted? I stand by my opinion that the Wikipedia should have an article about the Christian celebration of the resurrection of Jesus Christ that's relatively uncluttered by ancillary issues such as where the Easter Bunny came from, but it should include one or more links to one or more articles about those issues. Likewise, any article about "Secular Easter" should have a link to the one about the Christian celebration. Ruckabumpkus ( talk) 03:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Why this is an issue? All of major christian holidays are in the fact pagan holiday. And paganism just predated neolithic holidays. So, for example, easter is merely a spring equinox. Nature awakens from the winter. See any parallels with resurrection celebrated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.141.133.172 ( talk) 17:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Just came across this. Interesting also that the German version of this article states in the introduction "Many Easter customs are of non-Christian ("pagan") origin" ("Viele Osterbräuche sind außerchristlicher („heidnischer“) Herkunft"). So we have language forking as well as content forking going on. 94.222.211.17 ( talk) 19:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
WHY IS THE WORD "EASTER" OR 'EOSTRE' NOT A LINK TO THE WIKI PAGE ON EOSTRE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.247.136 ( talk) 14:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. It is completely standard throughout the English-speaking world, even in secular publications, to capitalize "Son of God" when referring to the Christian belief about who Jesus is, regardless of whether the writer agrees with that belief or not. If a pedantic interpretation of Wikipedia's style manual requires "son of God" instead, even in an article about an important topic in Christianity, then it's Wikipedia's rule that's wrong. To insist on the lower-case "s" despite the standard usage and objections by Christians themselves comes across as an expression of contempt for Christian doctrine. As such it fails the NPOV test. Ruckabumpkus ( talk) 01:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
"According to Hesiod's Theogony (seventh century BC), they were daughters of Zeus, the second generation king of the gods, and the offspring of Mnemosyne, goddess of memory."
"According to Hesiod's Theogony (seventh century BC), they were Daughters of Zeus, the second generation King of the gods, and the Offspring of Mnemosyne, Goddess of memory."
That's the last I have to say about this and I've unwatched the page. Gr8white ( talk) 15:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, just one more comment. I want to point out the MOS section cited above is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand, as it deals only with whether an entire phrase or just the first word should be capitalized, given an initial assumption that the phrase itself should be. It doesn't address this question at all.
The only argument I've heard in favor of capitalization is that from a Christian believer's standpoint it should be. But WP guidelines make it abundantly clear that articles aren't written from a believer's standpoint, but a neutral POV. A believer in Greek mythology might think "Daughter of Zeus" should be capitalized, but it isn't because that would be POV. Just because the article is on a Christian topic doesn't mean it should be written from a believer's POV. Gr8white ( talk) 17:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
If Son of God is a name or title, then it's capitalized. If son of God is a description, then it is not capitalized. If it's a description, though, then using the phrase "son of God" would be POV since most people do not believe Jesus to be the son of God and using that phrase without qualification would make it sound like Wikipedia was endorsing Christianity. Personally, I suspect that Son of God is a name or title and so capitalizing it is OK. Rklawton ( talk) 15:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
As Chappell alluded to, the citation for the statement that the resurrection established Jesus as the powerful Son of God was incorrect. I fixed it. Regarding the capitalization question, while not definitive, one helpful point of reference is to look at existing practice of reputable publishers. Taking a quick look at the translations I have loaded on my installation of e-Sword (ESV, HCSB, KJV, and YLT), all of them capitalize "Son", even though ESV and KJV do not capitalize personal pronouns with divine antecedents. -- Ed Brey ( talk) 05:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm a little confused as to why the Descent Into Hell icon image on the article page is labeled with "he anastasis" ("the Resurrection" in Greek). Does anybody know more about the image, and are we sure the caption is accurate? Ben ( talk) 16:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
The following sentence is incorrect considering Finland, where there is no traditional meal for Holy Saturday: "For lunch/dinner on Holy Saturday, families traditionally feast on a smörgåsbord of herring, salmon, potatoes, eggs and other kinds of food."
The following sentence is inaccurate in that pasha is also eaten by the Lutheran majority in Finland. Pasha and mämmi are both generally available in grocery stores near Easter. "In Finland, the Lutheran majority enjoys mämmi as another traditional Easter treat, while the Orthodox minority's traditions include eating pasha (also spelled paskha) instead." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.201.190 ( talk) 09:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Whoever wrote this about Finland is right. There is no traditional dinner for Holy Saturday. Finland is not Scandinavia - I wish Americans would learn this and start to recognize the individuality of our country. Life in Finland and life in the other three Scandinavian countries is extremely dissimilar - why everyone seems to bunch us together I will never understand. We have a different culture to the other three Scandinavians, different habits, different morality issues, a very different psychology, and an extremely different language. Oh, and we do not eat smörgåsbord. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.243.234.19 ( talk) 07:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Scandinavia is the Roman name for the geographic area where Norway, Sweden and Finland is situated today. Denmark is not part of Scandinavia, however Norway, Sweden and Denmark are Nordic (speaking) countries, Finland is not. Why is this so difficult to remember? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avlokiteshvara ( talk • contribs) 00:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
A discussion on the word Scandinavia is out of place here. Unsure readers should consult Scandinavia. However, the article explicitly claims a traditional smörgåsbord dinner in Finland, which is incorrect, as smörgåsbord is not a tradition in Finland, not even on Holy Saturday. No sources for this false claim are mentioned either. 88.114.201.190 ( talk) 15:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
[[Template:-- Kipala ( talk) 09:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)editsemiprotected|{{-- Kipala ( talk) 09:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)editsemiprotected}}]]
Please change:
"...established the date of Easter as the first Sunday after the full moon (the Paschal Full Moon) following the vernal equinox.[3]"
To:
"...established the date of Easter as the first Sunday after the full moon (the Paschal Full Moon) following the northern hemisphere vernal equinox.[3]"
Because:
The reference to "the vernal equinox" is ambiguous. The vernal equinox occurs at 2 different times of year, separated by 6 months, depending on whether you are referring to the northern hemisphere vernal equinox or the southern hemisphere vernal equinox. For clarity, the article should state the timing of Easter as being relative to the northern hemisphere vernal equinox and not the southern hemisphere vernal equinox.
122.148.240.48 ( talk) 00:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Done
There is a lot of controversy on the talk page, and it seems to relate to various original-research-type issues that center around the "Origins and Etymology" section. Here are two suggestions: First, move that section to the end. It is really the least important section in the article, and putting it up front probably discourages people from reading the entire article -- thus detracting from the whole. (It is also too long for an etymology section, but that's another issue entirely.) Second, change the name of the section to "Etymology and Names in Other Languages" because the section does not discuss the origins of Easter but instead discusses the origins of the word "Easter" and a few other words for the holiday in other languages. Indeed, though there may not be any takers, I would also suggest editing this "Origins and Etymology" section down to a paragraph, mentioning that most languages use a term ultimately derived from the Hebrew Pskh but that English uses a term that was apparently originally applied to a non-Christian Anglo-Saxon holiday that apparently occurred at approximately the same time. The other information could be moved to a separate article entitled something like "Name for Easter in Different Languages." Bob99 ( talk) 22:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Is there in fact any first-hand documentary evidence about what pre-Christian pagans believed about Eostre or Ostara? As I understand it, by the time Bede wrote, Britain had already been largely Christianized, and the former pagan beliefs had ceased being living traditions. Over a thousand years after Bede, Grimm, lacking documentary evidence and using only linguistic clues, inferred "Ostara" as the name of a pagan goddess. Even if both Bede and Grimm are correct, there is zero credible evidence that those pagan beliefs were maintained with any continuity through the middle ages into the modern era. Any other conclusion from the facts would seem to be neo-pagan revisionism. The connection of the Christian celebration of Easter and the pagan goddess Eostre is etymological only. Ruckabumpkus ( talk) 22:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Folks, if you're both so certain, I have no doubt that you can avoid Original Research by attributing your claims about the abundance/paucity of sources for Ostara to published works. :bloodofox:, perhaps you could set an example by quoting a couple of paragraphs from Simek? - Ben ( talk) 03:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- Ēostre (or perhaps *Ēastre; Anglo-Saxon). A goddess mentioned by Bede, from whom the Ēostur-monath (= April) takes its name according to Bede (De temporibus ratione 15). Grimm concluded from this reference and also from the name of the OHG [Old High German] Easter festival Ôstarûn (pl. of *Ôstara) a West Germanic goddess of sunrise and of spring-time, Proto-Germanic *Austrō, OHG *Ôstara (cf. Latin Aurora). Despite repeatedly expressing doubt one should not disregard Bede's information totally. However, a spring-like fertility goddess will have to be assumed instead of a goddess of sunrise, despite the name, seeing that otherwise the Germanic goddesses (and matrons) are mostly connected with prosperity and growth. Cf. Hreda.
![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 9 |
In Sweden and I believe also in other nordic countries easter was celebrated yesterday (the 11th April). Easter is always celebrated the day before the Easter day. I believe this is worth mentioning somewhere. -- 78.70.129.70 ( talk) 16:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Easter was also celebrated the 11th here in the United States. I was under the impression that Easter was the second sunday of april... Confusion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.84.120 ( talk) 03:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
A great deal of confusion on your part. The article is accurate regarding how Easter's date is determined. It is not always the second Sunday in April. Dogface ( talk) 14:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I think this article glosses over Easter's pagan origins as a festival celebrating renewal. It's a very christian-centric article as is. I'm proposing to bring the pagan origins up front and mention that the ealy church appropriated it as a means of streamlining conversion. -- Eamonnca1 22:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
That's pseudo-scholarship. Easter is derived from the Jewish Passover. InfernoXV 03:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
According to Bede (c. 672 - 735), writing in De temporum ratione ("On the Reckoning of Time"), Ch. xv, "The English months" [1], the word " Easter" is derived from Eostre, an Anglo-Saxon goddess of spring, to whom the month of Eosturmonath, corresponding to our April (Latin: Aprilis), was dedicated:
- "15. The English Months.
- "In olden time the English people -- for it did not seem fitting to me that I should speak of other nations' observance of the year and yet be silent about my own nation's -- calculated their months according to the course of the moon. Hence after the manner of the Hebrews and the Greeks, [the months] take their name from the moon, for the moon is called mona and the month monath.
- "The first month, which the Latins call January, is Giuli; Februrary is called Solmonath; March Hrethmonath; April, Eosturmonath; May Thrimilchi;..."
- "Eosturmonath has a name which is now translated "Paschal month", and which was once called after a goddess of theirs named Eostre, in whose honour feasts were celebrated in that month. Now they designate that Paschal season by her name, calling the joys of the new rite by the time-honoured name of the old observance."
What is secure in Bede's passage is that the lunar month around the month of April in the Julian calendar was called Eostur or similar; In Vita Karoli Magni Einhard tells, that Charlemagne gave the months names in his own language and used 'Ostarmanoth' for April. [1]
Those who question Bede's account of a goddess suggest that "the Anglo-Saxon Eostur-monath meant simply 'the month of opening' or 'the month of beginnings'." [2].
Hi. There is a proposed move regarding this (well, a hybrid solution), currently to be discussed at Talk:Easter_(disambiguation)#Requested_move. Please take the discussion there. Many thanks, -- Rebroad 10:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
In response to all of the above: this page clearly has nowhere near enough coverage of today's secular Easter holiday; it definitely needs more. On the other hand, the pagan antecedents of Easter, although real and not really open to question, can't really be called "Easter" without the benefit of hindsight -- we can't impose a definitiveness and specificity on things that, although real, are somewhat nebulous. The word "Easter" really can't be taken to refer to anything other than the modern holiday -- that that holiday is only partly religious and that it has some pagan origins (as well as Jewish ones) are important points; but where do they belong? This page. Doops | talk 19:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
agreed. easter was initally a pagan festival. we need a historian of pagan gods and relgions to add facts.
I would oppose this proposition. Easter as a Christian celebration is totally independent in nature, origin, and observance from pagan traditions. I believe it is accepted scholarship that as the Roman Empire sought conversion of pagans to Christianity following Constantine, the Church incorporated some elements of pagan vernal equinox holidays into Easter (much as Christmas Trees were incorporated into Christmas) to make Christianity more palatable. This is, however, not Easter having its origins in Pagan traditions, but Easter coopting those traditions and bending them to the overall celebration of the Resurrection of Christ. 66.57.229.78 16:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
This article should remain Christian centric as the word "easter" in its most common usage, refers to the celebration of Christian idea of the Resurrection of Christ. 66.57.229.78 16:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Eostre was a Germanic goddess. It is the root from which 'Easter' is derived. -- Easter is not exclusively a Christian holiday, and should not be treated as such. -- Wikipedia is about fact, not feelings.
Given that old (no longer celebrated) religious celebrations have Wikipedia entries, the full truth about Easter should be given. It should not be removed simply for fear of offending the religious, or God himself. 22:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Wikipedia is supposed to be informative, and leaving out a good chunk of a holiday's origin and history simply to satisfy a specific religious group should not be tolerated. All entries should be from a third party point of view, not one-sided or based on opinion. With that said, I completely agree that the Pagan history of Easter needs to be included. Whether it is offensive to the christians or not, it is truth, and we all deserve to know the truth. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Only Seeking Shade (
talk •
contribs)
17:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
You could at least read the article. Easter certainly does not derive from a Celtic celebration, and there may never have BEEN any goddess named "Eostre." Such a goddess is mentioned in ONE ancient source, at least a hundred years after any such cult allegedly existed. Carlo ( talk) 18:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I second Carlo. Check out: http://methodius.blogspot.com/2007/09/easter-christian-or-pagan.html http://methodius.blogspot.com/2009/04/eostre-making-of-myth.html A pagan weighs in - http://reallivepreacher.com/node/1422#comment-3901 Pennycake ( talk) 19:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
The whole paragraph looks misleading to me. It does NOT discuss the significance of Easter in the Christian theology but a mere aspect of the Easter tradition namely passover and the death thus the whole paragraph looks more Good Friday than Easter. As it stands it debates a side aspect and therefore should really not be in the beginning of the article. Any of the authors around who could say in a nutshell why he wanted this paragraph here? -- Kipala ( talk) 14:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think replacing one POV for a different POV is constructive. The Easter bunny is German, and for some reason, those German traditions became popular here in the United States. The rest of the world has resisted German influence, however. The replacing material has a distinct American and secular point of view. What is the basis that this POV is better? Because Easter/Pascha is celebrated world wide, should the article not reflect a worldwide perspective in accordance with Wikipedia policy? Perhaps this secular point of view would be better suited as an addition rather than a replacement of the existing material. As far as the lead image is concern, perhaps Raphael's Transfiguration or other resurrection themed masterpiece would be more appropriate. Gx872op ( talk) 15:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The theological significant content related to passover is important regarding the calendar position and also Easter's place within the time continuum of theology. What's missing is information about why the resurrection is significant. I'll see if I can add that. -- Ed Brey ( talk) 16:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I added info about the theological significance of the resurrection. I also made the following updates:
-- Ed Brey ( talk) 06:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Related to point 6 above, User:John J. Bulten summary for his 15:40, 8 June 2009 edit says, "Theological significance: Restoring (again) important nuance, lost in what looks like an unrelated reversion by Ed Brey 13 May; chronology of Jesus says "apparent inconsistencies", in support". The concrete language was intentional, and I restored it. Chronology of Jesus states generally that there are apparent inconsistencies between the gospels regarding the time of death, which is a good way to summarize the matter when dealing with all interpretations generally. However, the context in the paragraph present paragraph in Easter is dealing only with a single interpretation of the texts. For that narrower context, we don't have any reliable sources that state that the gospels are consistent given that interpretation. All indications are that there is no argument against saying that the if one assumes that interpretation, he will find the gospels inconsistent. -- Ed Brey ( talk) 17:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The POV tag was originally due to allegations of "Christian bias", which I would agree with weakly, but here's a few more issues, just from the lead, that strike me as POV:
Then we jump right in with "The Christian tradition, based on New Testament and later writings, links the Last Supper with Passover." A couple problems here are that: this first section, on significance of Easter, starts out with this linkage (as if basic to Easter) and only later throws "Easter" in as if it not only is already there in the linkage but also is named in 1 Cor., yet "Easter" does not appear in the Bible at all (except in a single KJV mistranslation of "pascha"); and there is NO source in this section for the only 2 claims made for Easter, that it commemorates either crucifixion or resurrection; and if nobody called it "Easter" for a century, we ought to say that it was something else before it was called "Easter"; so the reference to the Biblical customs itself is a bit of a diversion. Even trying to fix this sentence of its (in this case skeptical) bias would only yield something as tame and unadvancing as "Christian tradition, beginning with the New Testament and patristic writings, places great stress on Jesus's Last Supper, death, and resurrection having occurred during Passover week." Reading on, I am told that "anastase" means "upstanding", which is a real distractor, because who would ever guess from that that it means "resurrection", or (literally at least) "rising back", not "standing up" (let alone "upstanding"); or that the concept was so important to Paul that he was interpreted by idol-worshipers as promoting the worship of Anastasia? Anyway, this is just "a-start" on fixing these issues. Apologies for those points that have neat references in archives or above that you can speedily point me to. JJB 17:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I went and fixed #2 by changing "third day after" to "third day from", which allows sufficient ambiguity to cover the ground. The others I may or may not fix at convenience; some are equally simple, if the fixes stand. However, the problem is that this is a highly visible article and thus important nuances are lost in the hubbub. The problem is not heathen vs. holy, because neutral coverage of both facets of the same celebration works itself out over time (other than chronic tension about weighting). A bigger problem is that an abundance of folk religion leads people to think that certain POV statements are actually neutral because they've heard them enough times. But the regulars should take WP:LEAD (more) to heart. JJB 21:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Why is there not even a mention of the Easter Bunnyon this page!? 68.9.130.10 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC).
The Article says (correctly) "Gregorian Easter can fall on 35 possible dates - between March 22 and April 25 inclusive".
There are 36 possible Ordinal Dates : yyyy-81 to yyyy-116.
There are 6 possible Week Numbering Dates, yyyy-W12-7 to yyyy-W17-7; and if Easter were to become Fixed, yyyy-W15-7 would seem most suitable.
Those are, of course, in international ( ISO 8601) notation; they seem worth mentioning.
82.163.24.100 ( talk) 10:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Should this link be included somewhere in the easter article? http://www.easterau.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.99.144 ( talk) 08:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I couldn't find where Persian was called an Indo-European language in that article. I seems to have been used by other sources. http://www.textus-receptus.com/w/mediawiki-1.13.2/index.php/Article:_Why_We_Should_Not_Passover_Easter_%28Part_1%29_by_Nick_Sayers and http://www.christian-witness-ministries.com/newsletters/cetf43.pdf also a second part.. http://www.christian-witness-ministries.com/index.php/component/content/article/41-mar-2009/120-why-we-should-not-passover-easter-part-2.html 124.184.99.144 ( talk) 18:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
The lede of this article says that "Easter is linked to the Jewish Passover by much of its symbolism, as well as by its position in the calendar." However, the article doesn't seem to explain this connection very well, and many of the editors of Passover seem to be implying that Easter doesn't have a special connection with Passover. See Talk:Passover#What precisely is that spiel about Easter in aid of?. If Easter is really as strongly connected to Passover as the lede seems to imply, the article should explain this better and IMO, there should be a section in Passover#Influence about this very notable Christian holiday. If not, the lede should be changed. What are your thoughts? -- AFriedman (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Perhaps the information in this discussion could be added and clarified in the article. For example, as of now the easter ham is mentioned briefly but its significance is not. Baseball and Ruckabumpkus, do you have sources for the information you just gave? -- AFriedman (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I do not know all of the languages referenced in the Slavic Section, but the etymologies listed are CERTAINLY incorrect. The prefix {V#Z} in slavic languages generally means to rise. Hence even though vzem in modern Croation /resembles/ vzesti (to take) it is not genetically related to it. It literally means to 'go up' from the old-slavonic roots. This must be changed by a competent slavic lexicographer. As as start. Here is Fasmer's commentary:
Ближайшая этимология: др.-русск., ст.-слав. въскрьсениЉ ўnЈstasij (Супр., Euch. Sin.), въскрkшэниЉ -- то же (Супр.). Из "день воскресения (из мертвых)" получилось знач. "воскресный, нерабочий день". Первонач. в этом знач. употреблялось недеґля, откуда понедеґльник. Ввиду наличия вос- (а не вс-) заимств. из цслав. ( http://vasmer.narod.ru/p115.htm) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.115.194 ( talk • contribs) 02:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC) when jeues died thats the day we cebate $ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.234.229 ( talk) 20:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
A post by me to this talk page was deleted by Amatulic on March 31 2010. I was objecting to the Christian POV of this article which has to do with ARTICLE CONTENT. Perhaps this editor felt my comments were uncivil, but this is not grounds to delete talk page posts. WP:TPO states that removing harmful posts "generally does not extend to messages that are merely incivil." My comments are not directed at any individual editor and are therefore not a personal attack ( WP:RPA). WP editors should have the right to criticize the POV of an article on the talk page without fear of being censored. Consider: If I wrote this article was dominated by "heathens," would that be deleted? Or is this another example of Christian censorship. 94.222.211.17 ( talk) 19:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Calm yourself, first, then state what you want changed. NJMauthor ( talk) 21:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
It seems that some Protestant groups were originally opposed to the celebration of Easter (& Christmas) because they believed them to be "too Catholic" (and thus "too pagan"???). I am assuming that this included all or many of the Puritans, Separatists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, and other Calvinists who were the majority or plurality of the first European settlers in New England (USA); is this maybe why, even to this day, most US companies and corporations do not acknowledge Easter even as a deferred holiday (and if they are normally open for business on Sundays, remain so on Easter)? Or is there some other reason, such as it not being required by federal law or perhaps it was bargained away early on by the labor movement? I think if anyone can find information about this, it should be included in this article. Shanoman ( talk) 06:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Who says Easter is pagan. Easter simply comes from East which is German Ost. So are ALL words relating to East or Ost evil? That is not correct, because, I am sure there are 100's of words related to East, some good some bad. If I took the name ALLAH and made the same etymological fallacy, then all people called ALLan are evil, and all words like ALarm are Islamic and people need to repent of ALLigator worship and ALien demon worship when they use the word ALmighty.. Or Jesus SOUNDS like Zeus so they are connected somehow... it is a joke how these conncectiona are made..
Might sound stupid, but that is really the crux of the whole so called Pagan Easter association. Look at just one example, German Oster (which means Easter) is contained in simple words like the German name of Austria, Österreich, which derives from the Old High German word Ostarrîchi "eastern realm", and refers to Austria's position relative to other German-speaking lands. Oster in this word is simply EASTERN - i.e. Eastern Kingdom. No pagan goddess there, nor in the 100's of other words, names, places, people, names after East - including Easter. I mean 1000's of names are called so after North, East, South and west. Why throw out 2000 years of Christian practice, because of a false English. German etymology.
C. F. Cruse in 1850 AD pointed out that "Our word EASTER is of Saxon origin and of precisely the same import with its German cognate ostern. The latter is derived from the old Teutonic form of auferstehen / auferstehung, that is - resurrection."
Also "O.E. east, from P.Gmc. *aus-to-, *austra- "east, toward the sunrise" (cf. Du. oost, Ger. Ost, O.N. austr "from the east"), from PIE *aus- "dawn" (cf. Skt. ushas "dawn," Gk. aurion "morning," O.Ir. usah, Lith. auszra "dawn," L. aurora "dawn," auster "south"), lit. "to shine." The east is the direction in which dawn breaks." (Online Etymological Dictionary)
Here are some other links concerning this topic...
http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/easter_or_passove.htm
http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/easter.asp
http://brandplucked.webs.com/easterreplenish.htm
http://www.easterau.com/
http://sites.google.com/site/kjvtoday/home/translation-issues/easter-or-passover-in-acts-124
http://www.bible.net.au/flowplayer/example/index.html
It would seem that people like Bloodofox doesn't want to let the truth get in the way of a good story. 124.184.99.144 ( talk) 21:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Let me add that we've discussed the quality of the easterau.com website before, and no editor on any side of the issue recommends using it as a source for the article. - Ben ( talk) 01:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the word Easter is etymologically related to east, which is the direction of the rising sun, which is why it's easy to connect it with the concept of resurrection. It's also true that Easter and east are probably both related to the name of a pagan deity Eostre, who may have been regarded as the goddess of dawn, or of spring, and that some of the ways she was celebrated have been incorporated into Christian observances after being reinterpreted. It is, however, completely illogical for detractors of Christianity to adduce these facts as evidence against the validity of Christian practice. The same facts could equally well be adduced as evidence that even pre-Christian pagans had a sense that "rising" and "new life" were worth celebrating, lending more credence to the Christian message. Both are weak arguments. Christians have no need to get defensive about the "pagan origins" of many Christian traditions. They've been given a Christian meaning, so when Christians do them, they're Christian traditions, not pagan ones. Ruckabumpkus ( talk) 02:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
There is a legitimate debate about the pagan origins of Easter (see above). Yet you wouldn't know it from reading this article. Rather than debate the evidence in the article body, it is deleted and relegated to the talk page.
Consider the following reliable sources:
- The BBC states, "...not all Easter customs are Christian; some, such as the Easter Bunny, are Pagan in origin."
- "Pagan festivities [in mid-March] have been included in Easter, such as Easter eggs, taken from Baltic paganism (see chapter 8), and the Easter rabbit or hare, which recalls the sacred hares of the British tribes." ( A History of Pagan Europe, Routledge, 1997, p. 122)
- "Most religious historians believe that many elements of the Christian observance of Easter were derived from earlier Pagan celebrations."( http://www.religioustolerance.org/easter.htm) See also this page citing reliable sources.
- Ronald Hutton, Professor of History at the University of Bristol, gives the best and most balanced overview of the debate I could find:
"Two facts do seem to emerge from the discussion. One is that versions of the name given by Bede were used widely among speakers of Germanic languages during or shortly after his time; thus the Christian festival was known as Ostarstuopha in the main valley during the eight and ninth centuries. The other is that the Anglo-Saxon eastre, signifying both the festival and the season of spring, is associated with a set of words in various Indo-European languages, signifying dawn and also goddesses who personified that event, such as the Greek Eos, the Roman Aurora, and the Indian Ushas. It is therefore quite possible to argue that Bede's Eostre was a Germanic dawn-deity who was venerated, appropriately, at this seasoning of opening and new beginnings. It is equally valid, however, to suggest that the Anglo-Saxon "Estor-monath" simply meant 'the month of opening' or 'the month of beginnings'..." ( The Stations of the Sun: A History of the Ritual Year in Britain, Oxford University Press, 1996, p. 180)
- Even Christians admit many of these pagan origins. The book Pagan Christianity? Exploring the Roots of Our Church Practices is written by Christians. They do not discuss Easter and Christmas because they do not feel that it hinders the faith in any way, but they explain openly on their website: "Our spiritual forefathers chose to compete with the pagans by redeeming certain days for Jesus Christ that had traditionally been kept sacred by their heathen neighbors."
I cannot edit the article, because I do not yet have an account, but I hope someone will make it more balanced with these sources. There is also no source or evidence for the claim in the introduction that the Easter egg and bunny are "relatively newer elements." 88.74.223.64 ( talk) 14:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
This may be an oversimplification, but I think it’s at least approximately true and may help in understanding why this is such a neuralgic issue. There appear to be two groups who are most eager to highlight the "pagan origins" of customs associated with Easter (as well as other Christian traditions) and one group most eager to suppress them. One group highlighting the pagan origins consists of zealous Christian sectarians who wish to adduce them as evidence that the Catholic, Orthodox and mainline Protestant churches are syncretistic or idolatrous, and therefore illegitimate (along the lines of Hislop). The other consists of atheists, neo-pagans and others who wish to discredit Christianity in general. The group most wishing to suppress the issue consists of insecure Catholic, Orthodox and mainline Protestant Christians who feel attacked and worry that the fact of pagan origins of Christian traditions might actually constitute a legitimate critique of Christianity (which I'm convinced it does not, as I've commented previously). So here's the puzzle: since there are hotheads in all of these groups, who are likely to perceive a bias no matter how the issue is presented, or if it's not presented at all, how can a NPOV section on the "pagan origins" of certain aspects of Easter be crafted? I stand by my opinion that the Wikipedia should have an article about the Christian celebration of the resurrection of Jesus Christ that's relatively uncluttered by ancillary issues such as where the Easter Bunny came from, but it should include one or more links to one or more articles about those issues. Likewise, any article about "Secular Easter" should have a link to the one about the Christian celebration. Ruckabumpkus ( talk) 03:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Why this is an issue? All of major christian holidays are in the fact pagan holiday. And paganism just predated neolithic holidays. So, for example, easter is merely a spring equinox. Nature awakens from the winter. See any parallels with resurrection celebrated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.141.133.172 ( talk) 17:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Just came across this. Interesting also that the German version of this article states in the introduction "Many Easter customs are of non-Christian ("pagan") origin" ("Viele Osterbräuche sind außerchristlicher („heidnischer“) Herkunft"). So we have language forking as well as content forking going on. 94.222.211.17 ( talk) 19:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
WHY IS THE WORD "EASTER" OR 'EOSTRE' NOT A LINK TO THE WIKI PAGE ON EOSTRE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.247.136 ( talk) 14:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. It is completely standard throughout the English-speaking world, even in secular publications, to capitalize "Son of God" when referring to the Christian belief about who Jesus is, regardless of whether the writer agrees with that belief or not. If a pedantic interpretation of Wikipedia's style manual requires "son of God" instead, even in an article about an important topic in Christianity, then it's Wikipedia's rule that's wrong. To insist on the lower-case "s" despite the standard usage and objections by Christians themselves comes across as an expression of contempt for Christian doctrine. As such it fails the NPOV test. Ruckabumpkus ( talk) 01:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
"According to Hesiod's Theogony (seventh century BC), they were daughters of Zeus, the second generation king of the gods, and the offspring of Mnemosyne, goddess of memory."
"According to Hesiod's Theogony (seventh century BC), they were Daughters of Zeus, the second generation King of the gods, and the Offspring of Mnemosyne, Goddess of memory."
That's the last I have to say about this and I've unwatched the page. Gr8white ( talk) 15:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, just one more comment. I want to point out the MOS section cited above is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand, as it deals only with whether an entire phrase or just the first word should be capitalized, given an initial assumption that the phrase itself should be. It doesn't address this question at all.
The only argument I've heard in favor of capitalization is that from a Christian believer's standpoint it should be. But WP guidelines make it abundantly clear that articles aren't written from a believer's standpoint, but a neutral POV. A believer in Greek mythology might think "Daughter of Zeus" should be capitalized, but it isn't because that would be POV. Just because the article is on a Christian topic doesn't mean it should be written from a believer's POV. Gr8white ( talk) 17:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
If Son of God is a name or title, then it's capitalized. If son of God is a description, then it is not capitalized. If it's a description, though, then using the phrase "son of God" would be POV since most people do not believe Jesus to be the son of God and using that phrase without qualification would make it sound like Wikipedia was endorsing Christianity. Personally, I suspect that Son of God is a name or title and so capitalizing it is OK. Rklawton ( talk) 15:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
As Chappell alluded to, the citation for the statement that the resurrection established Jesus as the powerful Son of God was incorrect. I fixed it. Regarding the capitalization question, while not definitive, one helpful point of reference is to look at existing practice of reputable publishers. Taking a quick look at the translations I have loaded on my installation of e-Sword (ESV, HCSB, KJV, and YLT), all of them capitalize "Son", even though ESV and KJV do not capitalize personal pronouns with divine antecedents. -- Ed Brey ( talk) 05:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm a little confused as to why the Descent Into Hell icon image on the article page is labeled with "he anastasis" ("the Resurrection" in Greek). Does anybody know more about the image, and are we sure the caption is accurate? Ben ( talk) 16:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
The following sentence is incorrect considering Finland, where there is no traditional meal for Holy Saturday: "For lunch/dinner on Holy Saturday, families traditionally feast on a smörgåsbord of herring, salmon, potatoes, eggs and other kinds of food."
The following sentence is inaccurate in that pasha is also eaten by the Lutheran majority in Finland. Pasha and mämmi are both generally available in grocery stores near Easter. "In Finland, the Lutheran majority enjoys mämmi as another traditional Easter treat, while the Orthodox minority's traditions include eating pasha (also spelled paskha) instead." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.201.190 ( talk) 09:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Whoever wrote this about Finland is right. There is no traditional dinner for Holy Saturday. Finland is not Scandinavia - I wish Americans would learn this and start to recognize the individuality of our country. Life in Finland and life in the other three Scandinavian countries is extremely dissimilar - why everyone seems to bunch us together I will never understand. We have a different culture to the other three Scandinavians, different habits, different morality issues, a very different psychology, and an extremely different language. Oh, and we do not eat smörgåsbord. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.243.234.19 ( talk) 07:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Scandinavia is the Roman name for the geographic area where Norway, Sweden and Finland is situated today. Denmark is not part of Scandinavia, however Norway, Sweden and Denmark are Nordic (speaking) countries, Finland is not. Why is this so difficult to remember? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avlokiteshvara ( talk • contribs) 00:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
A discussion on the word Scandinavia is out of place here. Unsure readers should consult Scandinavia. However, the article explicitly claims a traditional smörgåsbord dinner in Finland, which is incorrect, as smörgåsbord is not a tradition in Finland, not even on Holy Saturday. No sources for this false claim are mentioned either. 88.114.201.190 ( talk) 15:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
[[Template:-- Kipala ( talk) 09:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)editsemiprotected|{{-- Kipala ( talk) 09:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)editsemiprotected}}]]
Please change:
"...established the date of Easter as the first Sunday after the full moon (the Paschal Full Moon) following the vernal equinox.[3]"
To:
"...established the date of Easter as the first Sunday after the full moon (the Paschal Full Moon) following the northern hemisphere vernal equinox.[3]"
Because:
The reference to "the vernal equinox" is ambiguous. The vernal equinox occurs at 2 different times of year, separated by 6 months, depending on whether you are referring to the northern hemisphere vernal equinox or the southern hemisphere vernal equinox. For clarity, the article should state the timing of Easter as being relative to the northern hemisphere vernal equinox and not the southern hemisphere vernal equinox.
122.148.240.48 ( talk) 00:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Done
There is a lot of controversy on the talk page, and it seems to relate to various original-research-type issues that center around the "Origins and Etymology" section. Here are two suggestions: First, move that section to the end. It is really the least important section in the article, and putting it up front probably discourages people from reading the entire article -- thus detracting from the whole. (It is also too long for an etymology section, but that's another issue entirely.) Second, change the name of the section to "Etymology and Names in Other Languages" because the section does not discuss the origins of Easter but instead discusses the origins of the word "Easter" and a few other words for the holiday in other languages. Indeed, though there may not be any takers, I would also suggest editing this "Origins and Etymology" section down to a paragraph, mentioning that most languages use a term ultimately derived from the Hebrew Pskh but that English uses a term that was apparently originally applied to a non-Christian Anglo-Saxon holiday that apparently occurred at approximately the same time. The other information could be moved to a separate article entitled something like "Name for Easter in Different Languages." Bob99 ( talk) 22:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Is there in fact any first-hand documentary evidence about what pre-Christian pagans believed about Eostre or Ostara? As I understand it, by the time Bede wrote, Britain had already been largely Christianized, and the former pagan beliefs had ceased being living traditions. Over a thousand years after Bede, Grimm, lacking documentary evidence and using only linguistic clues, inferred "Ostara" as the name of a pagan goddess. Even if both Bede and Grimm are correct, there is zero credible evidence that those pagan beliefs were maintained with any continuity through the middle ages into the modern era. Any other conclusion from the facts would seem to be neo-pagan revisionism. The connection of the Christian celebration of Easter and the pagan goddess Eostre is etymological only. Ruckabumpkus ( talk) 22:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Folks, if you're both so certain, I have no doubt that you can avoid Original Research by attributing your claims about the abundance/paucity of sources for Ostara to published works. :bloodofox:, perhaps you could set an example by quoting a couple of paragraphs from Simek? - Ben ( talk) 03:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- Ēostre (or perhaps *Ēastre; Anglo-Saxon). A goddess mentioned by Bede, from whom the Ēostur-monath (= April) takes its name according to Bede (De temporibus ratione 15). Grimm concluded from this reference and also from the name of the OHG [Old High German] Easter festival Ôstarûn (pl. of *Ôstara) a West Germanic goddess of sunrise and of spring-time, Proto-Germanic *Austrō, OHG *Ôstara (cf. Latin Aurora). Despite repeatedly expressing doubt one should not disregard Bede's information totally. However, a spring-like fertility goddess will have to be assumed instead of a goddess of sunrise, despite the name, seeing that otherwise the Germanic goddesses (and matrons) are mostly connected with prosperity and growth. Cf. Hreda.