Is Easter Pagan? Why celebrate it?

[Augustus]

The wild rabbit is the symbol of the feast to which the origin of the Word of Easter is traced. The English historian, Saint Bede the Venerable who lived between 672 and 735 A.D., says that the Anglo-Saxon people were the slaves of the gods , which were symbolized by the rabbit, and the Easter bunny usually moved to the United States with German immigrants who settled in Pennsylvania in the 18th and 19th centuries, spreading to Virginia, then north and south of Carolita, Tennessee, New York and Canada, spreading their customs.

Bede only mentions "Eostremonath" (Eostre month) in passing and it is the only mention of Eostre anywhere. AFAIK, he doesn't mention Eostre bunnies.

In olden time the English people -- for it did not seem fitting to me that I should speak of other people's 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 Greeks and the Romans (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; February is called Solmonath; March Hrethmonath; April, Eosturmonath; May, Thrimilchi; June, Litha; July, also Litha; August, Weodmonath; September, Halegmonath; October, Winterfilleth; November, Blodmonath; December, Giuli, the same name by which January is called. ...

Nor is it irrelevant if we take the time to translate the names of the other months. ... Hrethmonath is named for their goddess Hretha, to whom they sacrificed at this time. 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. Thrimilchi was so called because in that month the cattle were milked three times a day...

There is a good chance that it is really conjecture about something of uncertain origin as was quite common in old histories, and it is not the only month that Bede notes as being named after a goddess that is not mentioned anywhere else, and have no analogues in other European paganisms (such as Norse).

The OED has its likely etymology as relating from 'Dawn' (The Eostre one is listed among 'alternative, less likely etymolgies')

Etymology: Cognate with Old Dutch ōster- (in ōstermānōth April, lit. ‘Easter-month’), Old Saxon ōstar- (in ōstarfrisking paschal lamb; Middle Low German ōsteren , ōstern , plural), Old High German ōstara (usually in plural ōstarūn ; Middle High German ōster (usually in plural ōstern ), German Ostern , singular and (now chiefly regional) plural), probably < the same Germanic base as east adv. (and hence ultimately cognate with Sanskrit uṣas , Avestan ušah- , ancient Greek (Ionic and Epic) ἠώς , (Attic) ἕως , classical Latin aurōra , all in sense ‘dawn’).

For alternative (and less likely) etymologies see the references cited below. It is noteworthy that among the Germanic languages the word (as the name for Easter) is restricted to English and German; in other Germanic languages, as indeed in most European languages, the usual word for Easter is derived from the corresponding word for the Jewish Passover; compare pasch n.

 

[Augustus]

The intent of the Council of Nicaea, convened at Constantine's summer palace, was to unify Constantine's Roman Empire. Their main subject was the controversy around the Trinity issue. Kind of like Arius against Athanasius.

The main issue was the Arian controversy

As far as inventing the bible, Constantine had his right hand man, the church historian, the Arian Eusebius, publish 50 bibles which have disappeared except for reference to one chapter which is not included in the current most commonly accepted cannon.

'twas a joke about how much nonsense gets spouted about Nicaea and Constantine and how he invented everything from Jesus himself to Jesus as God to the Bible to Easter, etc. in a devious and mendacious manner.

The First Council of Nicaea in 325 declared that Easter was always to be held on a Sunday, and was not to coincide with a particular phase of the moon, which might occur on any day of the week. However, a new dispute arose as to the determination of the Sunday itself, since Sundays can occur on any date of the month. Shortly before the Nicean Council, in 314, the Provincial Council of Arles in Gaul had maintained that the Lord's Pasch should be observed on the same day throughout the world and that each year the Bishop of Rome should send out letters setting the date of Easter.

Muslims have different ways fo calculating the dates for the end of Ramadan, but each time they invented a new one we don't say they 'established' Eid al-Fitr.

 

[Agnostisch]

Bede only mentions "Eostremonath" (Eostre month) in passing and it is the only mention of Eostre anywhere. AFAIK, he doesn't mention Eostre bunnies.

In olden time the English people -- for it did not seem fitting to me that I should speak of other people's 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 Greeks and the Romans (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; February is called Solmonath; March Hrethmonath; April, Eosturmonath; May, Thrimilchi; June, Litha; July, also Litha; August, Weodmonath; September, Halegmonath; October, Winterfilleth; November, Blodmonath; December, Giuli, the same name by which January is called. ...

Nor is it irrelevant if we take the time to translate the names of the other months. ... Hrethmonath is named for their goddess Hretha, to whom they sacrificed at this time. 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. Thrimilchi was so called because in that month the cattle were milked three times a day...

There is a good chance that it is really conjecture about something of uncertain origin as was quite common in old histories, and it is not the only month that Bede notes as being named after a goddess that is not mentioned anywhere else, and have no analogues in other European paganisms (such as Norse).

The OED has it's likely etymology as relating from 'Dawn' (The Eostre one is listed among 'alternative, less likely etymolgies)

Etymology: Cognate with Old Dutch ōster- (in ōstermānōth April, lit. ‘Easter-month’), Old Saxon ōstar- (in ōstarfrisking paschal lamb; Middle Low German ōsteren , ōstern , plural), Old High German ōstara (usually in plural ōstarūn ; Middle High German ōster (usually in plural ōstern ), German Ostern , singular and (now chiefly regional) plural), probably < the same Germanic base as east adv. (and hence ultimately cognate with Sanskrit uṣas , Avestan ušah- , ancient Greek (Ionic and Epic) ἠώς , (Attic) ἕως , classical Latin aurōra , all in sense ‘dawn’).

For alternative (and less likely) etymologies see the references cited below. It is noteworthy that among the Germanic languages the word (as the name for Easter) is restricted to English and German; in other Germanic languages, as indeed in most European languages, the usual word for Easter is derived from the corresponding word for the Jewish Passover; compare pasch n.

The rabbit symbol is a relic of the pagan feast EOSTRE, the pagan gods of the North:

Ēostre - Wikipedia

Passover - Wikipedia

Yes In many of the "translations of the languages of Christian societies", non-English, German and Slavic, the Easter derives from the word " pasch ", the Hebrew name for The Jewish Passover, since the Christian Easter depends on the Jewish Passover, not only in some of its symbolic meanings but also in its location in the calendar. "There is no evidence of the preservation of the Great Feast of Easter in the New Testament," says the British Knowledge Service in English. So what's its origin?

The History of Easter and the Easter Bunny

Check this

The True Origin of Easter

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

So y'all knew I could not get through Easter without putting it up. What are all the similarities about Easter and the Pagan Holiday? Where did we get our Petercotton tale and Easter egg celebrations and why do Christians celebrate it?

Easter itself isn't Pagan. It just contains folk trappings and the name of the holiday is from a Germanic goddess in Germanic languages, which is a linguistic peculiarity. But the name of it is usually some variation of Pascha in other languages.

 

[metis]

Well, if the "law" was made obsolete, and came to and end, then you wouldn't have to die. But as it is, heaven and earth have not passed away, therefore the angel of death still has you on his calendar. (Mt 5:17-18) As for the writings of the false prophet Paul, they would be considered a foundation of sand (Mt 7:28)

Non-sequitur.

 

[Milton Platt]

Yipes, it was 'so-called Christians' (Christendom) that killed.
Jesus as a Jew could never approve of human sacrifice just as his Father did Not approve - see Jeremiah 32:35.
Jesus willingly laid down his life as a ransom giving up of his life for us - Matthew 20:28.

It would probably be more accurate to say that Easter as we know it is not a pagan holiday, but that it incorporates pagan things.

 

[Riders]

There is also a practical reason to eat eggs on Easter, Easter breaks lent, when eggs are forbidden.

I suppose that goes for the yummy candied eggs I love so much!

 

[2ndpillar]

Non-sequitur.

Well, maybe I didn't make myself clear. You sinned, and therefore you will die. (Jeremiah 31:30) There has been no termination of the law. (Mt 5:18)

 

[2ndpillar]

The main issue was the Arian controversy

The "Arian" controversy was the Trinity controversy. Arius and Athanasius were the main combatants. The final verdict was the Trinity multiple god theology, which of course is in keeping with Constantine's multiple god, pagan religion of his army. The Arian writings were introduced to fire, and their holders subjected to death by a decree of Constantine. Probably what happened to the Arian Eusibius's bible edition.

 

[Augustus]

The "Arian" controversy was the Trinity controversy. Arius and Athanasius were the main combatants.

Yes, but it is sometimes painted as Constantine 'inventing' the divinity of Jesus or some other nonsense.

The final verdict was the Trinity multiple god theology, which of course is in keeping with Constantine's multiple god, pagan religion of his army.

Which was also, of course, the majority view among Christians prior to Nicaea too. So framing it as being 'in keeping with Constantine's multiple god, pagan religion of his army" is misleading as that wasn't the concern of the council.

 

[2ndpillar]

Yes, but it is sometimes painted as Constantine 'inventing' the divinity of Jesus or some other nonsense.



Which was also, of course, the majority view among Christians prior to Nicaea too. So framing it as being 'in keeping with Constantine's multiple god, pagan religion of his army" is misleading as that wasn't the concern of the council.

The verdict of the Nicene Council was not stable and changed several times, with either Arius or Athanasius being excommunicated due to their stances. What is "misleading" is to say there was a "majority view" of the Trinity prior to the Nicene Council. What is clear, in the end, is that the "many" are the ones deceived and going down the path of "destruction" (Mt 7:13), led by the "false prophets" (Mathew 7:13-15), specifically the false prophet of the Roman church, Paul.

As for Constantine, his goal was the unification of his empire. Religion was a tool, not a conviction. It was doubtful he was baptized on his death bed, especially by the Arian Eusebius, even if that is what Eusebius wants everyone to think. The written history of the Roman Church, such as that written by Eusebius, and actual events are two different realities, which was acknowledged by Eusebius himself in one of his discourses.

 

[Augustus]

The verdict of the Nicene Council was not stable and changed several times, with either Arius or Athanasius being excommunicated due to their stances. What is "misleading" is to say there was a "majority view" of the Trinity prior to the Nicene Council. What is clear, in the end, is that the "many" are the ones deceived and going down the path of "destruction" (Mt 7:13), led by the "false prophets" (Mathew 7:13-15), specifically the false prophet of the Roman church, Paul.

Seeing as it's very doubtful that anyone actually changed their minds at Nicaea, its fair to assume this was the majority view before also.

As for Constantine, his goal was the unification of his empire. Religion was a tool, not a conviction. It was doubtful he was baptized on his death bed, especially by the Arian Eusebius, even if that is what Eusebius wants everyone to think. The written history of the Roman Church, such as that written by Eusebius, and actual events are two different realities, which was acknowledged by Eusebius himself in one of his discourses.

That's just an assumption though. There is no evidence it was cynical, rather than genuine.

A goal to unify his empire by adopting a religion that wasn't followed by over 90% of the population, his army, etc. is far from self-evident, especially without the benefit of hindsight telling us that Christianity would triumph over Paganism. We might even see it as supporting a view that he adopted Christianity despite its problems, rather than because of its 'obvious' benefits.

(Almost) no ancient history was an attempt at conveying an objective historical record anyway, history always served a purpose. This isn't something that applied to Eusebius alone, or stands out as something particularly noteworthy.

So we take what he said with a healthy pinch of salt, but we don't assume it is evidence of the opposite.

 

[Augustus]

Ēostre - Wikipedia

Passover - Wikipedia

Yes In many of the "translations of the languages of Christian societies", non-English, German and Slavic, the Easter derives from the word " pasch ", the Hebrew name for The Jewish Passover, since the Christian Easter depends on the Jewish Passover, not only in some of its symbolic meanings but also in its location in the calendar. "There is no evidence of the preservation of the Great Feast of Easter in the New Testament," says the British Knowledge Service in English. So what's its origin?

The History of Easter and the Easter Bunny

Check this

The True Origin of Easter

Much like the "Christmas is Pagan" narratives, such views assume a great deal more than is demonstrated by the evidence. There are plenty of claims that Eostre was linked with rabbits, but Bede didn't mention this and he's our only source for her even existing (and even her existence is debated).

Neither are Biblical in the narrow sense, but Christianity wasn't simply the Bible but a living, and fast evolving, tradition.

At the time Easter began being celebrated, Christians were distancing themselves from Pagans to the extent that they were sometimes persecuted for refusing to complete Pagan rituals. In light of this, it seems a bit strange to also see them as desperate to 'steal' Pagan rituals and make them their own.

Things like the Easter bunny are later European inventions unconnected to the origins of the festival itself in the Mediterranean in classical antiquity.

When Easter spread to Northern Europe, it may well have absorbed some pre-existing traditions, although these may not be specifically 'pagan' but cultural (so Christians associated hares with spring and thus Easter for the same reason Pagans did: they were highly visible during spring. This doesn't necessarily mean they were adopting them because they were pagan symbols).

To me, it seems far more plausible that Easter was celebrated for Christian reasons, Easter eggs were likely adopted due to lent, and the Easter bunny may or may not have connections to Pagan symbolism but we don't really have enough to be definitive either way.

 

[2ndpillar]

Seeing as it's very doubtful that anyone actually changed their minds at Nicaea, its fair to assume this was the majority view before also.



That's just an assumption though. There is no evidence it was cynical, rather than genuine.

A goal to unify his empire by adopting a religion that wasn't followed by over 90% of the population, his army, etc. is far from self-evident, especially without the benefit of hindsight telling us that Christianity would triumph over Paganism. We might even see it as supporting a view that he adopted Christianity despite its problems, rather than because of its 'obvious' benefits.

(Almost) no ancient history was an attempt at conveying an objective historical record anyway, history always served a purpose. This isn't something that applied to Eusebius alone, or stands out as something particularly noteworthy.

So we take what he said with a healthy pinch of salt, but we don't assume it is evidence of the opposite.

Evidence that Eusebius was a liar was his alternate story at the battle of Milvian Bridge in 312 AD. The vision of Constantine was from his god Sol Invictus, who was glorified in 313 AD when Constantine minted a coin with the image of him and Sol Invictus in 313 AD.

As for Constantine's army, their god was Sol Invictus, who has the same image the church uses for Christ, and the Roman Christian church has the same festivals and rituals. There was no change for them. Plus, to them Constantine was a god, and as Pontifex Maximus, a role inherited from Julius Caesar, he was head of the pagan church. Who argues with god? Sol Invictus Sun God - Bing images

 

[metis]

Well, maybe I didn't make myself clear. You sinned, and therefore you will die. (Jeremiah 31:30) There has been no termination of the law. (Mt 5:18)

So, what's clearly stated in the Gospel accounts are wrong, IYO. OK, since that's what you believe, let me just say that I disagree with you on that.

 

[Augustus]

Evidence that Eusebius was a liar was his alternate story at the battle of Milvian Bridge in 312 AD. The vision of Constantine was from his god Sol Invictus, who was glorified in 313 AD when Constantine minted a coin with the image of him and Sol Invictus in 313 AD.

As for Constantine's army, their god was Sol Invictus, who has the same image the church uses for Christ, and the Roman Christian church has the same festivals and rituals. There was no change for them. Plus, to them Constantine was a god, and as Pontifex Maximus, a role inherited from Julius Caesar, he was head of the pagan church. Who argues with god? Sol Invictus Sun God - Bing images

What's the evidence he had a vision of Sol Invictus?

"Sol Invictus" likely wasn't even a god. It was just the old Sol/Helios, the invictus part is an epithet (like Jesus Christ) that was also applied to other gods . The idea that he was some new henotheistic chief god is very dubious given recent scholarship.

Also, you assume a lot based on a coin, early Muslims minted coins with Sassanian fire temples on them, that doesn't mean they were really Zoroastrians.

 

[2ndpillar]

What's the evidence he had a vision of Sol Invictus?

"Sol Invictus" likely wasn't even a god. It was just the old Sol/Helios, the invictus part is an epithet (like Jesus Christ) that was also applied to other gods . The idea that he was some new henotheistic chief god is very dubious given recent scholarship.

Also, you assume a lot based on a coin, early Muslims minted coins with Sassanian fire temples on them, that doesn't mean they were really Zoroastrians.

The vision, which occurred in 312 AD, as passed down in history, was that Constantine was to go out and conquer under the sign of the cross, which was done by Constantine when on the march under Constantine's Labrum, and passed on down to the Roman empire's Spain, who conquered following the monks carrying their crosses, or the Christians by marching into Jerusalem under the sign of the cross during the Jerusalem wars. Even Christians believe that they can conquer vampires using the symbol of the cross. If that were true, then the pope should try using the cross to conquer the bat/vampire virus using his supposed powers. No, the pope is a mockery, and the cross, made of gold, silver, or wood, can not speak, hear, or walk, and is a false god, and its proponents are looking at bad times (Revelation 9:20-21). As is, the bat virus probably took a ride on the new silk road from China, and took its due from the pope's Italy, as well as leading to a probably worse economic deflation, leading to the printing of excess amounts of money, leading to staggering inflation, and many more deaths than from the result of this lowly bat virus. Of course the instability will probably lead to a war from the pressure on the Chinese leadership, who can only use over printed RMB money to purchase energy from Russia and Iran, of which now are all harassing US naval vessels. Hong Kong, which is the source of US dollars for China, is rebelling, and are not now eligible for favored nation status as they have lost their autonomy, and can loose their free trade status. China is building for war, and now has 270 destroyers versus 27 destroyers for the US in the South China Sea. Now is not the time to hide behind your cross, for those with the image of the beast will have to suffer the wrath of God (Revelation 14:10-11). That image of the cross which represents the false dogma of the Trinity. As for Sol Invictus, the theologian Augustus was fighting Sol Invictus of the Roman Empire well into the 5th Century. It appears your brother Augustus, didn't agree with your assessment. And yes, Sol Invictus was just another name for Helios, Apollo, the serpent, the dragon, the devil, etc.

 

[Hildeburh]

Eostre was a pagan spring festival, like all christian festivals Easter is no different, adapted from earlier non christian festivals.

No it wasn't. Eostre was a goddess not a spring festival. There is only one mention of Eostre in medieval literature and that is in the Old English corpus; the Northumbrian monk the Venerable Bede in Temporum Ratione states:

"Eosturmonath has a name which is now translated "Paschal month", and which was once called after a goddess of theirs named Eostre, in whose honor feasts were celebrated in that month."

So Eostre (according to the Christian monk Bede) was a goddess after which a month was named and during this month feasts were held in her honour a month that Christians now call Pascal Month and that is all that can be assumed from that passage.

There are five problems with assuming Eostre/ Eostremonath represents a spring festival, let alone a pan Germanic phenomena, that the Christians later named Easter:

1. Bede's evidence is not widely accepted or trusted,

2. Recent academic research (Shaw) suggests that Eostre was most likely local Kentish tribal goddess,

3. Grimm's etymology of Eostre and his generalising of Eostre as a pan Germanic goddess connected to spring has no academic support; despite still being widely disseminated as a neopaganism truth,

4. The Anglo Saxon calander was lunar/solar; the start of a month fell on a new moon it was not a set date . So Eostremonath may have fallen in either our March or April which may not have coincided with either the spring equinox or the agricultural start of spring.

5. Anglo Saxons recognised two months winter and summer, the assertion that the Anglo Saxons celebrated spring and/or autumn cannot be substantiated.

Did Christians borrow and rename pagan festivals, of course, it was a conversion tactic. However caution needs to be used and evidence assessed when making statements about a connection between Easter and Eostre.

 

[ChristineM]

No it wasn't. Eostre was a goddess not a spring festival. There is only one mention of Eostre in medieval literature and that is in the Old English corpus; the Northumbrian monk the Venerable Bede in Temporum Ratione states:

"Eosturmonath has a name which is now translated "Paschal month", and which was once called after a goddess of theirs named Eostre, in whose honor feasts were celebrated in that month."

So Eostre (according to the Christian monk Bede) was a goddess after which a month was named and during this month feasts were held in her honour a month that Christians now call Pascal Month and that is all that can be assumed from that passage.

There are five problems with assuming Eostre/ Eostremonath represents a spring festival, let alone a pan Germanic phenomena, that the Christians later named Easter:

1. Bede's evidence is not widely accepted or trusted,

2. Recent academic research (Shaw) suggests that Eostre was most likely local Kentish tribal goddess,

3. Grimm's etymology of Eostre and his generalising of Eostre as a pan Germanic goddess connected to spring has no academic support; despite still being widely disseminated as a neopaganism truth,

4. The Anglo Saxon calander was lunar/solar; the start of a month fell on a new moon it was not a set date . So Eostremonath may have fallen in either our March or April which may not have coincided with either the spring equinox or the agricultural start of spring.

5. Anglo Saxons recognised two months winter and summer, the assertion that the Anglo Saxons celebrated spring and/or autumn cannot be substantiated.

Did Christians borrow and rename pagan festivals, of course, it was a conversion tactic. However caution needs to be used and evidence assessed when making statements about a connection between Easter and Eostre.

The name and celebration Easter is taken from Eostra.

Ēostre - Wikipedia

 

[Muffled]

I believe there is nothing pagan about the Christian celebration of Easter. We celebrate because we expect to be resurrected ourselves in the future.