The Post-Apostolic, Ante-Nicene Period and the Early Middle Ages
As the Passover date cannot be determined using the New Testament references alone, but by using the Old Testament as the foundation, so the post-apostolic, ante-Nicene references bolster and are based on the Old Testament references. The 14th day of Passover being the first holy day of Unleavened Bread was also determined in the decades after the original apostles died. First, we’ll look at some witnesses from the decades soon after the apostle John died, and later, during the Middle Ages, the Synod of Whitby in 663-4 C.E. It witnessed to the 14th as the first holy day, quoting Anatolius as the authority, who is our most powerful witness.
But first, some historical context: Emperor Hadrian in 132-35 C.E., specifically targeted the Jews in Jerusalem and their “Jewish” festivals, presumably to keep the Jews from fomenting rebellion when they gathered for their feasts. He expelled the Jews from Judea, as well as the “Jewish” Christians who were keeping the same festivals. He renamed Jerusalem, “Aelia Capitolina”, intending to stamp out all “Jewishness”. This resulted in a change in the worship of the Gentile Christians from a Saturday Sabbath to a Sunday worship, to NOT follow the Jews. This caused a changing demographic in the Church…Jewish Christians tended to still keep the Sabbath, until they died out, while the Gentile Christians adapted to Sunday worship (mostly on penalty of death) as the decades went along. Also, in a different, distant part of his empire, Hadrian built a wall in northern England, that helped keep the Picts and Scots out of Roman territory. The Romanists never reached Ireland, nor Scotland with their “religion” until the later Middle Ages, after 1000 C.E. And when they did, they brought their own interpretation of foundational ecclesiastical events that, upon later investigation, differ significantly from Insular (Celtic) Christianity. By 410 C.E., the Roman legions had left Britannia, to the great relief of the Celtic Christians. We will explore some significant personalities from this time and place that indicate a different “Easter” date and what that implies.
The Quartodeciman Controversy
The Ante-Nicene (ante=before the Council of Nicea in 325) churches that were determined to keep the Passover on the 14th rather than on the following Sunday began to be persecuted by other churches with bishops that wanted to adapt to keeping Easter on Sunday.
By the time Constantine called the Council of Nicea in 325 C.E., ostensibly to bring unity from the many divisions within Christianity, the Quartodeciman question had become deadly, “Christians” killing “Christians”. This issue was addressed, then rebuked at the end of the council, by Constantine…leading to official persecution and death to Quartodecimans who continued in this practice against the emperor’s edict.
The Quartodeciman Controversy, (quartodecimani, Latin for “fourteenthers”) a dispute between the majority of churches in Asia Minor who kept the tradition of keeping the Passover on the 14th of the first month, the day Christ died, were in opposition to those throughout most of the rest of the Roman empire, centered in Rome, that kept “Easter” on the following Sunday, believing that the resurrection of Jesus from the dead was more important to Christians than the death of the Savior on the 14th, contrary to what Paul had written in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26…” you solemnly proclaim the death of the Lord until He comes”.
There are but few letters we have available to us that give indications of what the “early church fathers” were discussing about the Passover date during the decades that followed the death of John, who probably died in the late 90’s C.E.
But many in Asia Minor were still observing the Passover and still referring to it as the Passover, as opposed to the later appellations of “Easter” by the Roman church. And the true believers were observing it on the 14th of Abib/Nissan, according to the OT ( Lv 23:5).
Epiphanius….C.E. 135…:”in keeping with the apostolic traditions…you shall not change the calculation of the time…(same as the Jews)…with them you shall keep the Passover.” While it becomes clear in this quotation from Epiphanius that he believed in a 14th crucifixion, yet he believed that the 14th was on the fifth day of the week, so he believed in the abbreviated supposition of the Jews that 3 days and 3 nights could be condensed to 3 parts of a day…he didn’t believe the same as Polycarp or Polycrates. But what he showed was that the Jewish reference to the start of a day could be six hours before the day came to an end, i.e. the afternoon of the 13th could be called the 14th. He also espoused a coordination of the lunar and solar cycles, but his was a version that added 5 days every 14 years, unlike Anatolius, who understood the 19 year time cycles, as we’ll see.
Regarding when a day began and ended, in New Testament times: From “Epiphanius on the Day of the Crucifixion Passover”, Reprinted from “The Journal of Sacred and Biblical Record,” for October, 1860 by John Quarry, M.A. London, Mitchell and Son, , Printers, Wardour St, London. …//https://books.google.com/books?id=kEIHAAAAQAAJ&printsec=cover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=… from the addition of Petavius, as reprinted at Cologne in 1682, who translated Epiphanius from the Greek language… Epiphanius was one of the first after the Apostle John died, and concurrent with both Polycarp and Polycrates, who was faithful in keeping the Passover on the 14th, without changing the solemnity from the day He died, the 14th, to the Sunday He, supposedly, arose.
He was the first I’m aware of who attempted to address time-cycles, comparing Hebrew with Roman differences when addressing the Crucifixion. But more importantly for this topic, he was the first to interpret the meanings of the passages in the Gospels regarding the first day of UB as starting on what we call the afternoon of the 13th, which then became the 14th at sundown. There are quotes from Grabe, which Petavius quotes (but the quotes are interspersed with Greek words, so the interpretation is beyond my understanding). However, for our purposes here, Epiphanius was a Quartodeciman, AND he recognized the differences between the Roman day and night, and the Hebrew day and night. Quoting Petavius, translating Epiphanius…“ To understand what follows, we must have recourse to a sort of diagram or (Greek word), first observing that while the days of the week, as determined by the Sabbath, commenced at sunset, the days of the Roman calendar did not commence until the ensuing midnight; for though the Romans reckoned their hours from sunset and sunrise, they reckoned their calendar or civil day from midnight. Hence, between the commencement of the Jewish day of the week and of the corresponding Roman day of the month, there was an interval of six hours, varying in length according to the year, but now six of our hours, it being the time of the equinox. This interval, or at least the earlier part of it, might be assigned indiscriminately to either the past or the coming day in a looser way of speaking, but was appropriated to one or other according to the circumstances when there was occasion to speak more strictly. This interval was the (Greek word) of the foregoing day, the (Greek) of that which was just beginning. We may also observe preparatory to the subjoined figure, that while each day of the moon had its nightly and daily (Greek), it did not seem necessary to the author always to mention both, as either implied the other. The nightly (Greek) also, as was the case with regard to the days of the week, should regularly precede the daily; but when one evening came to be passed over in the reckoning of the moon’s age, then the daily (Greek) comes before the nightly in this enumeration by Epiphanius.:” Yet in the following paragraph, it is clear that Epiphanius, though believing in the 14th Passover sacrifice of our Lord, yet probably believed in a fifth day (modern Thurdsay) crucifixion, and a Friday evening burial…yet still believed in a 14th Passover.
It wasn’t until we get to the writings of Anatolius (c. 260’s) that we get a three-days-and-three-nights timeline that matches with what we believe today. And, most importantly, a 14th through 20th seven days of Unleavened Bread.
Meeting in 154 C.E. in Rome…Polycarp and Anicetus:
Eusebius Ecclesiastical History, Book V, Chapter 24…Irenaeus says that Polycarp visited Rome when Anicetus was its bishop (c. 68-c. 153, d. 154 C.E.). Polycarp (c. 69- c. 155) was the bishop of Smyrna. A more heated debate occurred in 195 C.E. between Polycrates (Pa-lick-ra-tees, not Polly-craytes), the bishop of Ephesus, and Victor, the bishop of Rome, which resulted in a temporary excommunication of “all the churches of Asia” by Victor, later rescinded. [Google or Wikipaedia “Eusebius Quartodeciman Controversy]
The historian Eusebius (260-340 C.E.) is the primary source of the controversy between Polycarp and Anicetus: Polycarp knew the apostle John personally and enjoyed a reputation as the spiritual, though not apostolic, successor of John in Asia Minor. Polycarp believed and practiced the 14th of the first month of the Jewish calendar for the Passover, while Anicetus believed that the following Sunday was the better day. While none of the Quartodecimans were arguing that it was wrong to celebrate Jesus’ resurrection, they claimed their practice came from the apostle John, based on apostolic practice. Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History, chapters 23 to 25, explains that the controversy involved which day was more important- Anicetus believed the resurrection was most important, always on a Sunday, with no need to depend on the Jewish calendar, the Jews being the ones who crucified the Christ. The Asian churches were focused on the 14th as the day to commemorate the entire story of His crucifixion, burial, and resurrection… what Yeshua taught at His last meal with His disciples… “do this in remembrance of me.” (Lk and 1C)
A since-lost letter by Iranaeus, quoted by Eusebius and others, reveals what happened:
When the blessed Polycarp was at Rome in the time of Anicetus, and they disagreed a little about certain other things, they immediately made peace with one another, not caring to quarrel over this matter. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe what he had always observed with John, the disciple of our Lord, and the apostles with whom he associated…Neither could Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it.
Both decided they wouldn’t quarrel and chose to live in peace…they even took the Lord’s Supper together. It didn’t matter to them what season or day it was…it was better to show unity in Christ. After this, “they parted from each other in peace.”
A few decades later, in 195 C.E., Polycrates and Victor met to resolve the DATE of the matter, but it didn’t end nearly as well as the meeting between Polycarp and Anicetus 40 years earlier…Victor of Rome excoriated Polycrates over his obstinancy, and Polycrates replied by letter to his constituents in Asia, or maybe to Victor, it’s unclear to me…
“I, therefore brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every holy scripture, am not frightened by terrifying words. For those greater than myself have said we ought to obey God rather than man…”.
Victor excommunicated Polycrates and the Quartodeciman Asian churches. Many bishops protested, even Iranaeus, though he didn’t agree with the Quartodeciman position. Victor recanted when the outcry became too great.
Notice that the Quartodeciman controversy was NOT a debate over whether the 14th or the 15th was the first day of UB, but whether the 14th Passover (when He died) was to be memorialized instead of a post-resurrection Sunday sunrise worship service. Thus, Sunday was sanctified instead of Saturday AND the emphasis transfers from the day He died to the day He arose (contrary to Scripture). According to Eusebius, Polycrates emphatically stated that he was following the traditions that the apostles Phillip and John followed…(Eusebius, V, Ch. 24)
One of the earliest witnesses we can find, regarding this question of Passover being the first holy day, after Polycrates, is Apollinarius of Hieropolis , circa c. 177 C.E.“Concerning the Passover”
Circa 170’s C.E. Apollinaris Claudius, or Apollinaris of Hierapolis (on the Meander), in Phrygia, and, [historian] Lightfoot thinks, was probably, with Melito and Polycrates, known to Polycarp, and influenced by example and doctrine. He was a Christian leader and writer of the 2nd century. He became famous for his polemical treatises against the heretics of his day, whose errors he showed to be entirely borrowed from the pagans. In 177 C.E., he published an “Apologia” for the Christians, addressed to Marcus Aurelius, and appealing to the Emperor’s own experience with the ‘Thundering Legion’, whose prayers won him the victory over the Quadi. Nothing survives of his writings except for a few extracts, the longest of which relates to the date of Passover. Eusebius quotes a couple of surviving passages by Apollinaris, from the book, Concerning the Passover:
‘There are, then, some who through ignorance raise disputes about these things (though their conduct is pardonable: for ignorance is no subject for blame-it rather needs further instruction), and say that on the fourteenth day, the Lord ate the lamb with the disciples, and that on the great day of the feast of unleavened bread He Himself suffered; and they quote Matthew as speaking in accordance with their view. Wherefore their opinion is contrary to law, and the Gospels seem to be at variance with them.’
From the same book:
‘The fourteenth day, the true Passover of the Lord; the great sacrifice, the Son of God instead of the lamb, who was bound, who bound the strong, and who judged, though Judge of the living and the dead, and who was delivered into the hands of sinners to be crucified, who was lifted up on the horns of the unicorn, and who was pierced in His holy side, who poured forth from His side the two purifying elements, water and blood, word and spirit, and who was buried on the day of the Passover, the stone being placed upon the tomb.’
[My take: Apollinaris is noting those who kept the fourteenth AS THE FIRST HOLY DAY of Unleavened Bread, which he appears, in this passage, to disagree with…but he IS considered a Quartodeciman…”the Lord ate the lamb with the disciples, and that on the great day of the feast of unleavened bread He Himself suffered.”… We know that Yeshua died in the afternoon on the 14th, the day before the Jews were keeping their first holy day of UB. In the first passage above, Apollinaris is correcting “some” that “say” that the 14th Passover IS “the great day of the feast of unleavened bread…the first holy day of the seven…which we would agree with, equating it with the Last Great Day of the fall season festivals!
Earlier, Melito, bishop of Sardis, (c. 165 C.E.), in his “Homily on the Passover”,(Google search it) verses 79, 92 and 93, mentions “the time of the great feast”…v 79,…”And you killed your Lord at the time of the great feast.”…on which Pilate washed his hands,…bitter vinegar was given Him on the stake. This indicates that Melito could have believed the same as those whom Apollinaris was critiquing as ignorant, but this is not enough evidence to differentiate that day as the first holy day from the next day, which the Jews kept as the first day… Not conclusively, but it’s there, and at the very least, there were some who were keeping the Passover as the first holy day.]
************
Next, we look at a powerful witness that had implications for hundreds of years after he wrote:
Anatolius of Alexandria, and later, Laodicea…he was well-respected in Egypt, a mediator between the Romans and citizens of Alexandria, sparing many lives. He was also gifted in astronomy and mathematics. He then moved to Laodicea in Asia Minor. He gives us a very detailed exposition on the Passover, the calendar and the practices that were being kept in a book on the topic of the Passover.
This was before the Council of Nicea in 325 C.E. It is said that Eusebius knew him, and apparently changed some of Anatolius’ views to misrepresent his interpretation before the Council of Nicea to impress the Emperor. We will be quoting extensively from a modern translation.
So, BEFORE the Council in 325, Anatolius of Laodicea (died c. 282 C.E.) wrote this book that attempted to resolve the Quartodeciman controversy. He wrote it in Greek c. 265 C.E., some 55 years before Constantine put his foot down on the bickering schisms. It was later translated into Latin around 402/3 C.E. by Rufinus. It has been referred to by many throughout the centuries since, with many questioning its authenticity. Google “Anatolius of Laodicea” or “Anatolius of Alexandria”…a highly respected peacemaker and a scholar…was an authority in arithmetic, astronomy, the calendar, and the 14th Passover…This book is extraordinary in that it addresses the issues we are addressing in this study: the 14th through the 20th seven day observance of the feast of unleavened bread, the astronomically accurate 19-year time cycles, and how the beginnings and endings of days are to be correctly interpreted according to the New Testament references to “on the first day of the unleaveneds, when they were killing the Passover…” (Mk 14:12, Mt 26:17, Lk 22:7). [My apologies to the authors and publishers for probable copyright infringement, as I have been unable to secure any the proper permissions required to copy excerpts from the book. The book is no longer available on Amazon, and is no longer in print. But I feel that the critical importance of this historical analysis is necessary to prove that the 14th through the 20th observance of the Feast was properly understood approximately 235 years after the original New Testament Passover was kept, with the proper provenance maintained. A friend who also has this book, found that it is available for viewing at some universities in their Inter-Library loan system, esp. in California.]
“ANATOLIUS’ BOOK OF THE COMPUTATION OF THE PASCH”
In my opinion, the best current reference that verifies the authenticity of Anatolius’ work is this book:
The ante-Nicene Christian Pasch
De ratione paschali
The Paschal tract of Anatolius, bishop of Laodicea
by Daniel P. McCarthy & Aidan Breen
copyright 2003 Four Courts Press, Dublin, Ireland ISBN 1-85182-697-1
I will quote, or paraphrase extensively from this book, again using italics, some bolded, in my emphasis: From the Preface…
De ratione paschali (DRP hereafter) is a critical examination of all extant Latin manuscripts shown to derive from a common archetype that have survived from the Latin translation. Anatolius computed a detailed calendar to authenticate his assertion that the Passover started at the end of the 13th/beginning of the 14th, and ended at the end of the 20th.
Eight copies have survived down through the centuries, at specific libraries in the following cities: Padua (Italy), Cologne (Germany), Paris (France), Oxford (England), Paris, Geneva (Switzerland), the Vatican (Rome), and Tours (France). Down through the centuries, the most legit copies of De ratione paschali have been divided into two major groups: the Padua group, with three manuscripts, and the Sirmond group, with five… in each case identifying the group by its most characteristic manuscript.
According to McCarthy/Breen, the oldest and most likely genuine document is from the Padua group, although parts and pieces are mixed. I quote now extensively from their book…Please buy it to glean MUCH more information on this topic!…
Pg36…”In order to provide a secure foundation for the establishment of the text of De ratione paschali, the evidence of all surviving MSS (manuscripts) and patristic or later witnesses has been examined. All substantive variants, except minor orthographical ones, as well as some nonsensical reading in R, have been recorded. The text, however, has been corruptly transmitted. Neither of the manuscript groups, Padua or Sirmond, nor any of the individual MSS within either group, can be given critical preference in the restoration of the text. All the MSS contain corruptions and some deliberate scribal alterations/additions which are patently unacceptable for grammatical or internal textual or other technical reasons, such as consistency with the lunar and Paschal cycles and their termini,” (P36-37).The authors have very thoroughly analyzed ALL available copies…even supposed fake copies.
DRP contains a complete copy of the Latin, as well as the English translation, and a thorough comparison of scholars down through the centuries…(from the Preface, Pg 10)…”Clearly, the Paschal unity which came to be a feature of Western medieval Christianity, was not a characteristic shared by the ante-Nicene churches[my emphasis]. This study has been necessary because the content of De ratione paschali is technically complex, so that all of the authors who cited it, from Rufinus of Aquiliea in c. AD 402, to Bucherius, editor of the first printed edition in 1633, had difficulty in understanding its meaning, and hence in resolving the significance of its content. One consequence of these difficulties was that in 1736, Jan Van der Hagen published the hypothesis that De ratione paschali was a seventh century Insular (Celtic/Irish) forgery, and this view of the work has dominated modern scholarship ever since, in 1880 when Bruno Krusch incorporated Van der Hagen’s hypothesis in his study of the Insular Paschal tradition. As a consequence of this, the work has been generally neglected in modern times, dismissed as a late, peripheral, and worthless witness to the history of the early Christian Pasch, and no serious effort has been made to try to understand the technical content of the text…”pg 10
Page 63…What follows are parts of the English translation from “ANATOLIUS’ BOOK OF THE COMPUTATION OF THE PASCH: (Some bolded, underlined portions are my emphasis…”Pasch” = Passover. Also, when he uses “Pasch”, depending on context, he means just the 14th, and/or the whole 7 days as well.)
The authors, McCarthy and Breen, and the majority translator, Dr. Jennifer Mooreton, translating from the Latin, introduce each “Canon” (chapters) with a bracketed digit and title. What follows is the English translation of Anatolius’ work, originally written in Greek, translated from the Latin:
[1. Introduction-the problem of calculating the true Pasch]“We will consider the dogmas of different computists about the reckoning of the regulation of the times and seasons of the world; they computed only the lunar course, and neglected the ascent and descent of the sun, and constructed various cycles which contradict each other and are never found in the true reckoning of computation, not to mention other problems; for it is certain that no computistical reckoning is to be approved in which there is not the synchronization of both these cycles. For even in the old exemplars, that is in the Greek and Hebrew writings, we find computed not just the course of the moon, but also the sun, not only in its (daily) course, but even in the individual and most minute moments of the hours, as we will demonstrate, when necessity requires. Of these writings, Hippolytus composed a 16-year cycle, using some unknown lunar cycles. Others computed a 25-year cycle, others a 30-year, and some an 84-year, never arriving at the true method of calculating Pasch. But those of our ancestors who were most learned in the books of the Hebrews and Greeks-I speak of Melito, Irenaeus and Clement- although they perceived the months to begin differently because of the difference in language, nevertheless came to one and same most exact reckoning of the Pasch, corresponding in day and moon and time, holding the Lord’s resurrection in the highest veneration. And also Origin, the most learned of all and the most discerning in computation, so that he is called Chalcenterus, published most excellently a little book about the Pasch, in which, while declaring that in respect of the paschal day, not only the course of the moon and crossing of the equinox should be kept in mind, but also that the passage of the sun, which sweeps away the four snares and stumbling blocks of all the darkness and brings forth the advent of the light and the strength and rejuvenation of the elements of the whole world,…”[…”the four snares”…probably the 2 equinoxes and 2 solstices…Anatolius then speaks of the first through sixth hours of the day, considering their importance from the Latin/Roman perspective. pg 63-65.Anatolius was recognizing that the sun, “the equinox” MUST be used in calculating when to start the new moon. I believe he gives us an indication from his calendrical studies of how we should calculate the calendar today…more to be written on this subject in the future. To get the clearest picture of the limitations of the Jewish calendar and what I believe is the best explanation of what calendar we should be keeping, go to FrankNelte.net and read his extensive research on the calendar.]
Skipping to Canon (Section) 5…[“Luna” refers to “day of the month” in Latin] (Pg 65):[5.Anatolius rejects the later lunar term of certain Gaulish computists] “Therefore, this assertion is not contrary, as certain computists of the region of Gaul affirm, to what is read in Exodus: ‘The first month, the fourteenth day of the month in the evening, you shall eat unleavened bread until the one and twentieth day of the same month. For seven days there shall not be found any leaven in your houses’; (Exodus 12:18-19). From this day they affirm that the Pasch can be celebrated on luna 21, not understanding that if luna 21 were to be added, there will be 8 days of unleavened bread. But this cannot credibly be found in the Old Testament, where the Lord commands through Moses: ‘Seven days shall you eat unleavened bread’ (Exod. 12:15), unless perhaps day 14 is not to be reckoned by them in the time of unleavened bread with the paschal sacrifice, in contradiction of the Gospel, which says: ‘Now on the first day of (the feast of) unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus’ (Matt. 26:17). Wherefore it is not to be doubted that it was day 14 on which the disciples asked our Lord according to the custom established by them of old:’Where will you that we prepare for you the Passover?’. So those who make this assertion are deceived by this error, because they do not know that luna 13 and 14, 14 and 15, 15 and 16, 16 and 17, 17 and 18, 18 and 19, 19 and 20, 20 and 21, can demonstrably be found on one and the same day. For every day in the lunar computation does not end at evening in the same number in which it began in the morning, because the (civil) day, that in the morning , that is until the sixth and one half hour (12:30 p.m.), is counted luna 13, the same is at evening of (civil) day 21, which without doubt in the morning, that is, up to the end of the hours of which we have spoken, is held to be 20. Compute therefore from the end of luna 13, which is the beginning of 14, to the end of 20, which is the beginning of 21, and you find only 7 days of unleavened bread, in which, by the guidance of our Lord’s precept it is determined that the truest Pasch ought to be celebrated. (P66) [in Anatolius’ work, it is understood that he considers the afternoon of the 13th as the same as the 14th, when reading what he says about the segments of the days…It is clear from the synoptic Gospels-Mt, Mk, Lk…that the writers Matthew, Mark, and Luke (ethnic Jews) viewed it similarly. When read from our modern understanding, it COULD sound like “the day of the unleaveneds” could be referring to the whole seven days…but it is, in fact, referring to the 14th, which, if we are interpreting Anatolius correctly, had to be the afternoon of the 13th when this was spoken, leading up to the start of the 14th, at sunset, when they gathered for the “Last Supper”]
[6. …and their early Paschal term]“But what wonder if they erred in luna 21, when they added three days beforethe equinox, in which they hold that the Pasch can be celebrated? This is certainly to be thought absurd in every way, since it is evidently determined by the most explicit historiographers of the Jews and by the seventy elders that Pasch cannot be celebrated on the equinox.”
[Apparently, according to Anatolius, this form of reckoning for the counting to the Passover, cannot be counted until AFTER the equinox has occurred, since it is “to be thought absurd in every way” to start counting the 14 days either BEFORE or ON the equinox. And this by the 70 elders, circa B.C. 250, who wrote the Septuigint… and the Talmudic Jews, who kept a careful history of the Jews. It’s my understanding that the Jewish calculated calendar, in some years, can start counting day 1 of the new moon, before the equinox, which can throw the Passover too early…but I’m certainly no expert. See FrankNelte.net. Although he doesn’t agree with the outcome of this study, he is the foremost authority on the correct calendar, in my opinion.]
Now, the following passage is one which was revealed by Bede, quoted by Colman at the Synod of Whitby(664C.E.), and before him, by Columbanus (c. 610’s), in defending the keeping of Passover to the Pope, AND, because it is the main text used to defend the Passover on the 14th , WOULD have been heavily implied that they also followed what Anatolius wrote about keeping the Feast of UB from the beginning of the 14th, to the end of the 20th. Eusebius apparently didn’t give credit to Anatolius in his work.
[7. Anatolius describes the Paschal conflict between Asia (John/Passion) and Rome (Peter and Paul/Resurrection)]
But it was not at all difficult for those for whom it were lawful to celebrate Pasch on any day when luna 14 came after the equinox. Following their example, all the bishops of Asia up to the present, who have accepted without question the rule by irreproachable authority, namely of John, who leant on our Lord’s bosom (cf. John 13:23), and who was no doubt the imbiber of spiritual teachings, celebrated the Pasch without question in every year whenever it was luna 14 and when the lamb was sacrificed among the Jews, once the equinox was over, not assenting to the authority of certain men, that is Peter and Paul, and their successors, who taught all the churches in which they sowed the spiritual seeds of the Gospel, that the feast of our Lord’s resurrection could only be celebrated on Sunday. Whence a certain controversy arose among their successors, that is Victor, who at that time was bishop of the city of Rome, and Polycrates who appeared to act as primate then to the bishops of Asia, which controversy was most correctly settled in a peaceful manner by Irenaeus, who presided as bishop over a region of Gaul, each party persevering in their own rule, and not deviating from the custom they had received in antiquity. The first, indeed (the followers of John), following the Gospel, observed the paschal day on the 14 of the month, adding as they judged, nothing extra, but preserving the rule of the faith in everything. The others, however, passing over the day of the passion of our Lord as full of sadness and mourning, affirmed that it was not lawful to celebrate the mystery of our Lord’s Pasch except on Sunday, on which our Lord rose from the dead, and in which originated for the cause of eternal joy. For it is one thing, according to that which is commanded by the Apostle, indeed by our Lord, that we should be sorrowful with the sorrowful and to suffer with him who is stretched upon the cross (cf. Gal. 2:19), as He himself says: ‘My soul is sorrowful even unto death’ (Matt. 26:38). And it is another, triumphing over the ancient enemy, and rescuing the hundredth sheep from his jaws, and what is more, binding him with inescapable chains and when the adversary has with the greatest triumph been overcome (cf. Apoc. 20:1-2), He himself commanding that we should rejoice with the rejoicing, saying: ‘Rejoice with me because I have found my sheep which I had lost’ (Luke 15:6)
[8. Anatolius derogates from strict Quartodecimanism and re-affirms his own principles] “That, however, which they (John’s followers) insinuate against us, that we cannot celebrate the bright beginning of Pasch after luna 14 does not disturb or alarm us. For, although they determine that it is unlawful that the beginning of Pasch should be extended as far as luna 20, yet they cannot deny that it should be deferred as far as luna 16 and 17, which occur on the very day on which our Lord rose from the dead. But we discern that it is better for Pasch to be extended to luna 20 on account of the Lord’s day than to anticipate the Lord’s day on account of luna 14, (it being that day) on which light was shown to us in the beginning, and now in end of time, the due things of all present good and omens of the future.
For it is with no less praise that the Lord chose day 20 rather than day 14. For in Leviticus it is thus laid down: ‘In the first month on the fourteenth day of the month at evening is the Phase of the Lord. And the fifteenth day of the same month is the solemnity of the unleavened bread of the Lord. Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread. The first day shall be most solemn unto you and holy: you shall do no servile work therein. And the seventh shall be more solemn and more holy; and you shall do no servile work therein’ (Lev. 23:5-8). And therefore we affirm that those who resolved that the celebration of Pasch should be extended into this day incurred no blame before the tribunal of Christ (cf. 2 Cor. 5:10), especially since we are constrained by three necessities, that is, that we should venerate the solemnity of the Pasch on the Lord’s day, after the equinox and not exceed luna 20.”
[9. Against advice, Anatolius asserts that his principles can be accommodated within a nineteen-year cycle, and undertakes to demonstrate this] “But this deemed by other wise and most percipient men to be an impossibility, namely for the most true Pasch, that is, on the Lord’s day, after the equinox and not exceeding luna 20, to be found in that limited and very short space of a cycle of nineteen years. But we, to demonstrate more clearly that which induces incredulity in them, will set down, as we have said, that (very) cycle of the years with the courses of the moon, first computing the days in the returning courses of which the year revolves in Kalends, Nones and Ides, and in the ascent and descent of the sun.“(pg67)
[I recommend this book (by McCarthy/Breen) for those who want deeper insight into the probable true calendar…as well as Frank Nelte’s research.]
[10. Anatolius; synchronization of his lunar year of the Julian solar year and annual enumeration of the calends, nones, ides and pridie with the Hebrew calendar]
TABLE NOT REPRODUCED
[11. Anatolius constructs a nineteen-year Paschal table based on his lunar/solar synchronization and his Paschal principles.]
TABLE NOT REPRODUCED
[12. Anatolius rejects the Paschal principles espoused by certain Africans and insists that all ‘catholic men’ should follow his principles.]
The nineteen year cycle is not approved by certain African Novationists, who have composed larger cycles, because it seems quite contrary to their opinions and ideas. Indeed, they compose these computations, most precise in their (own) estimate, prescribing a certain beginning and end of Pasch, that is, that Pasch may not be sacrificed before xi Kalends of April, nor after luna 21 and xi Kalends of May. We judge that these limits are not only not to be followed, but rather are to be detested and mowed down, since indeed in the Old Testament it is discerned that this only ought to be preserved: Pasch is not to be sacrificed before the vernal equinox, in which the last part of the autumnal equinox is conquered, on day 14 of the first month, which is reckoned not by the computation of the (calendar) day but by the course of the moon. Since this is sanctioned by the command of the Lord and agrees with the catholic faith, there is no doubt that it is unlawful and dangerous for any wise man to anticipate it in all years. And therefore this alone is sufficient for all holy and catholic men to preserve, that leaving aside the diverse opinions and judgments of many, they conclude the celebration of the Lord’s resurrection within the limits which we have expounded.*
*In an attempt to reconcile keeping Sunday, the Lord’s Day, as THE day to commemorate compared to the day He died (the Passion), Anatolius is showing the manipulations necessary to ignore the death day and to accentuate the day He was resurrected. But in doing so, with those who “fit” the moveable day of Easter …Later, the Roman church made sure that there would never be a mistaken celebration of Easter whereby the true Passover would ever fall on the same date, by advancing Easter past the true Passover date. See footnote on this Romanist move…He’s saying that “Easter Sunday” can be kept ONLY if it falls within the 7 days of Unleavened Bread, that begins on the 14th and ends at the end of the 20th, …and only AFTER the day of the Spring equinox, numbering from the new moon, which falls AFTER the Spring equinox…exactly the way we’ve been keeping it the past 25 years.
[13. Anatolius’ theory of the annual ascent and descent of the sun and the consequent changes in the length of the days and nights, incorporating a re-iteration of his Paschal principles.]
For the other matter, which you have added to your letter, that I should attempt to introduce into this little tract something about the ascent and descent of the sun, which brings about the shortening of days and nights, it commences and completes in this manner:
The sun ascends through 15 days and half an hour through successive moments, that is, through four in one day, and from viii Kalends of January up to viii Kalends of April the (night) hour is diminished. At which point is completed 12 hours and the one unit, that is in the first sign, and from that is begun the first particle of the 12 signs. In the evening on this day, if luna 14 occurs, the lamb was sacrificed among the Jews. But if, however, it exceeded this number, and luna 15 or 16 was found, it (Pasch) was to be celebrated towards evening of the same day, on day 14 of the second moon which occurs in the same month, eating unleavened bread for seven days until day 21 of the month at evening (cf. Exod.12:15-18). For us, therefore, in the same way, if it happens that vii Kalends of April and Sunday and luna 14 occur, Pasch should be celebrated. But if luna 15 or 16, up to 20, occur, to show reverence to the Lord’s resurrection, which happened on Sunday, we should also celebrate in such a way that the beginning of Pasch does not exceed their solemnity, that is luna 20. And therefore we have said that those who dare to anticipate or to exceed this number, implanted by sacred Scripture, have committed no trivial offence.
From viii Kalends of April up to viii Kalends of July, through 15 days and 2 hours, the (night) hour is diminished through two and a half moments and the sixth part of a moment through each day, while the sun is ascending. And from viii Kalends of July up to viii Kalends of October similarly through 15 days and 4 hours the day (hour) is diminished in each day through the same number of moments while the sun ascends.
And the space which remains, from viii Kalends of October up to viii Kalends of January, is completed in a similar number of days, hours, and moments. Thus, on viii Kalends of July the (day) hour has one and a half (equinoctial) hours, and on viii Kalends of January the (day) hour has half an (equinotal) hour. Therefore, up to that day, the night (hour) is diminished.
With the result that the 12 hours, which were established at the beginning in the vernal equinox by the Lord’s dispensation, are found together on viii Kalends of July, the night having reduced to its shortest duration, and the sun having ascended in the increments above mentioned, as 18 (day) hours in 12 (divisions) of a greater interval. And, again, the 12 (day and night) hours which complete the autumnal equinox during the descent of the sun, on viii Kalends of January are found split as 6 (day) hours divided into 12 (parts), the night holding 18 (hours) divided into 12 parts, just as the night of viii Kalends of July has 6 (hours) divided into 12 parts.
[14. Anatolius’ theory of the four seasons]
However, let you not be unaware of the fact that the four boundaries of time mentioned above, although they are close to the Kalends of the following months, each one nevertheless holds the midpoint of the season, that is, Spring, Summer, Autumn and Winter; and the beginnings do not commence from where the Kalends of the months begin. But each season is to begin in such a way that, from the first day of Spring, the equinox divides time, and similarly viii Kalends of July divides the Summer, viii Kalends of October the Autumn and viii Kalends of January the Winter.
From this point, from pg 71 forward, the technical content of DRP, and the time, place and author of DRP is confirmed. On page 142, the “Summary and conclusion” is reproduced here:
This study commenced from the observation that, when one examined all of the mss of DRP, it emerged that not only were the lunar and Paschal tables consistent with each other, but these tables were completely congruent with the ideas expressed throughout the whole text. For this reason a new edition has been undertaken, based upon the eight known mss. of DRP, together with the citations from it found in the works of Rufinus, Columbanus and Bede, in DRC and the parallel Greek text found in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History. Careful collation and analysis of all these witnesses has shown that, on the one hand, DRP is an accurate translation of the third century Paschal tract of Anatolius, bishop of Laodicea, whereas on the other hand, Eusebius’ supposed “citation” is a paraphrase in which Eusebius deliberately obscured Anatolius’ definition of the equinox and distorted many other technical details. It must be acknowledged that there is no simple “proof” of this authenticity of DRP; rather it emerges incrementally as a result of closely observing the consistency of the computistical ideas distributed throughout the text, the sources which were used, the Septuagint elements in its Biblical citations, and its perspective on the Jewish Pasch, Origin, and the Asian Quartodeciman followers of St. John, and other third-century Paschal traditions from Gaul, Rome, and Africa. It has not been possible to date the translation closely, but, since it was used by Rufinus in c.ad 402, when compiling his edition of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, this provides a terminu post quem non. It is not plausible that Rufinus himself made the translation, but it does seem likely that it was someone from his circle.
Close examination of the sources used by Anatolius has revealed that he drew on the Aramaic edition of the Book of Enoch, the Book of Jubilees, the works of Aristobulus of Paneas, the Jewish authors Philo and Josephus, Ptolemy’s Almagest, Ireneus’ Contra haereses, Polycrates’ ep. ad Victorem, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus of Rome and Origen’s Commentarius in Iohannem and (Greek title). From these works Anatolius sought to give expression to contrasting Alexandrian, Asian Quartodeciman, and Roman Resurrection Paschal emphases, and so to formulate a Paschal concept encompassing all of these Christian traditions, and hence appropriate for all, ‘all holy and catholic men’. He gave concrete expression to these views in the form of his nineteen-year Paschal cycle, which, while fulfilling his boast that his Pascal principles could be accommodated ‘in that limited and very short space of a cycle of nineteen years’, did so at the cost of seriously reducing the accuracy of the length of the solar year by substantial omission of bissextiles. Both this omission, and his highly schematic theory of the annual variation in solar declination, and consequent variation in day and night lengths, based principally upon the prototype he found in the Book of Enoch, show Anatolius to have been a numerically ingenious, but naïve and eclectic student of Greek, Hebrew and Roman astronomical science, with a grasp only of elementary concepts. This thereby reveals that Eusebius’ account of him in EH vii, 32.6 substantially overstated the actual level of Anatolius’ scientific ability.
The consequences for our understanding of the history of the Christian Pasch of the realization that DRP represents the genuine Paschal tract of Anatolius, and Eusebius’ citation in EH vii, 32.14-18 as merely a paraphrase, are profound. No longer can we rely on the veracity of Eusebius’ citations of documents relating to the paschal controversies of the second and third centuries, for, as an author of a nineteen-year Paschal cycle, it is apparent that Eusebius himself was actively engaged in formulating his own concept of the Pasch. Henceforth, it will be necessary to subject all of Eusebius’ material referring to the Pasch to the most intensive forensic scrutiny. [In other words, Anatolius is the source from which Eusebius got his information, not giving credit to Anatolius.]
On page 94…
McCarthy/Breen analysis: In the first month on the fourteenth day of the month at evening] Anatolius’ citation from Lev. 23:5 should be compared to Origin’s in (Greek letters), who cites the Hebrew version, ‘Dans le premier mois, le quatorze du mois, entre les deaux soirs’. The change from ‘between the two evenings’, to ‘at evening’, introduces an ambiguity of one day, which Anatolius needs, since he is proposing only a seven-day celebration, whereas Leviticus specifies {inaccurately, in this study’s view} eight days in all, i.e. Pasch (luna 14), followed by seven days of unleavened bread (luna 15-21).’
…venerate…the Pasch of the Lord’s day, after the equinox and not to exceed luna 20]… Anatolius concludes his derogation from the Asian Quartodeciman principles by reiterating his own principles in summary form.
Later, on page 116…Regarding the text’s perspective on the Christian Pasch, by far the most remarkable aspect is that it repeatedly cites Jewish Paschal principles and Jewish authors as the authorities for its own principles, in particular its insistence on the inclusion of luna 14 in its lunar term. Nearly as remarkable in this respect is its endorsement in 7.1-7 of the Asian Quartodecimans , and its warm and unequivocal identification of the Apostle John as the author of their Paschal tradition. In view of its emphasis on these two aspects, it is difficult to propose that the text was written after the Council of Nicaea in AD 325, for, as Duchesne established in 1880, this council was concerned to rid the Church of what was regarded as the Quartodeciman heresy, and it anathematized those Christians who celebrated on the Jewish Pasch.
************
Most of the 218-plus pages of de Ratione Paschali by McCarthy and Breen are spent legitimizing/verifying the authenticity of the original Greek work produced by Anatolius. They even prove that Eusebius, who knew Anatolius personally, took from Anatolius’ work and took it as his own …and presented it to Emperor Constantine at the Council of Nicea in 325. Perhaps to curry favor with the Emperor or for his own ego? What McCarthy and Breen, et al have done is prove the authenticity of DRP throughout the centuries to be legit.
Reviews from Four Courts Press website:
“McCarthy and Breen deserve great praise for bringing De ratione paschali back to our attention, and for the critical edition of the text; they bring great learning to its exposition, and also demonstrate that it is not an insular concoction intended to justify the Latercus’, Leofranc Holford-Strevens, Peritia
“Modern scholarship seems to be as divided on the history of the ecclesiastical establishment of the date of Easter as the early church officials themselves were. One point of dispute is whether a text on a nineteen-year cycles known as De ratione paschali was a sixth- or eight-century Irish forgery foisted on a third-century Syrian bishop called Anatolius or whether it was the genuine work of Bishop Anatolius. Anatolius is the authority on which the Celtic church based its eighty-four–year cycle calendar, which led to the clash with the Roman church at the Synod of Whitby in 664. Just when the mainstream of scholarship seemed to have come down on the side of the fraudulent nature of the De ratione paschali, Daniel McCarthy, a computer expert interested in the history of computers, argued that the text was, after all, authentic. He based his argument on a mathematical analysis of the astronomical tables in the text found in a late-ninth- or eary-tenth-century manuscript discovered by Daibhi O. Corinin (Padua, Biblioteca Antoniana, I 27); McCarthy published his results in 1996 in Archive for History of Exact Sciences. In this book, he has joined forces with the historian and Latinist Aidan Breen to present his arguments with a new edition, based on the eight known manuscripts, accompanied by translation, detailed commentary, and reproductions of all the early witnesses to Anatolius’ text. The placing of the De ratione paschali back in the last decades of the third century rather than three centuries or more later, and crucially, before the Council of Nicaea in 325, will necessitate a rewriting of the history of the Paschal controversy, for which Charles W. Jones’s hundred page discussion in his preface to Bede’s Opera de temporibus (Cambridge, Mass., 1943) remains the standard account…The authors deserve thanks for presenting the authentic source for the Insular computists of the early Middle Ages;
Charles Burnett, Speculum: A Journal of Medieval Studies (January 2009)
From the blurb on Four Courts Press website about DRP:
Very little evidence for the diversity of Christian paschal practice that preceded the Council of Niceae has survived….This book presents the first critical edition of the text and provides the first modern study intended to penetrate the meaning of the whole text, and to make it available to a modern reader.
Dr. Aidan Breen comes well qualified to collate the eight known manuscripts and construct the critical text, while Dr. Dan McCarthy’s unique background in paschal and chronological studies provides powerful insight into its significance. Three appendices, a bibliography and index complete the work.
7 Malpas Street, Dublin 8, Ireland
+353 1 453 4668 info@fourcourtspress.ie
************
A Tale of Two Columbas
From the time of the early Middle (Dark) Ages, Ireland and Scotland, peopled by the Celts, Scots and Picts, had maintained a completely separate version of Christianity than that of Rome. In Ireland, they were later called the “Celtic” (Kel-tick) Church. They were ruled by tribal chieftans, spoke Gaelic, and were fiercely independent. Much of their biblical knowledge came to them in the form of Latin texts.
The Roman empire had invaded Britannia in the centuries before Christ, and by the time of the early 400’s, had about given up ruling there. By 410, they had left. The western Roman empire “fell” in 476. Ireland, on the other hand, had become the center of learning for all of Europe, developing monasteries where Latin was used to transmit knowledge that had been, and was being, suppressed by the Catholic Church. This “Golden Age of Ireland” allowed the Irish, Scots and Picts to withstand Roman influence in their religious belief systems.
Middle Ages…so-called Dark Ages of Europe…these same years are called the Golden Age of Ireland, when knowledge, especially of the Truth, was expanding.
Mt 16:18 And I say also to you, that you are Peter; but upon this Rock I will build My church, and the gates of the grave shall not prevail against it.
The Golden Age of Ireland
Patrick, Druids, monastaries, Columba, Columbanus “Father of Europe”, date of Easter.
Middle ages…Ireland, never conquored by Rome, Golden age…Patrick, Columba, Columbanus, the “Father of Irish Monasticism”b. circa 543 C.E. in Leinser, Ireland …died 597 C.E. at Iona, Scotland.
“Saint” Patrick of Ireland…captured, released after 6 years, (OT instructions=after 6 years of servitude, was released, according to Lv) came back to Ireland to preach…Columba (d. 597 C.E)….1200 monks (possibly Levites, killed in Bangor-on-the-Dee,Wales);…Columbanus, considered today as “the father of Europe” (d. 615 C.E.), who kept an “Easter” (Passover) date different than the majority believed.,
Passover referenced in 664 C.E. by Bede in his …
The Synod of Whitby
Wickapedia: “The Synod of Whitby was a Christian administrative gathering held in Northumbria in 664, wherein King Oswiu ruled that his kingdom would calculate Easter and observe the monastic tonsure (haircut) according to the customs of Rome rather than to the customs practiced by Irish monks at Iona and its satellite institutions. The synod was summoned at Hilda’s double monastery of Streonshalh, later called Whitby Abbey.
The principle source for the historicity of the synod comes from Historia Ecclesiasticagentis Anglorum (The Ecclesiastical History of the English People) by the Venerable Bede, written between 725 and 731. He had access to people who knew participants in the synod, and it’s also probable that he was born in the area and, as a child, was aware of this famous meeting. Bede was later also a Catholic, so this Easter calculation meeting was of special interest to him.
In c. 540’s?, Columba left Ireland with 12 disciples, crossed the Irish Sea to northwest Scotland and established a monastery on the tiny island of Iona. From there, he set out to convert the Scots and Picts. He died 597…into the 600’’s, his disciples had made a major impact in Scotland and northern England. Aidan, a prominent disciple of Columba, was able to establish a church at Lindesfarne, just south of the present day border with Scotland, in Northumbria, on the northeast coast of what later became England. King Oswiu had been exiled to Iona as a youth, so he had been taught the Celtic Church practices, including the 14th Passover. But he had married Queen Eanfled from Bernicia, a Roman province in central England that was Catholic. When one faction was celebrating Passover, the other would still be fasting during Lent. The disunity did not result in problems as long as the well-respected Aidan was still alive. Also, (lady Abbess) was a steadying influence on both the royals. After Aidan’s death, his successor Finian found himself challenged by a monk named Ronan, an Irishman who had been trained in Rome and who wished to see the Roman Easter established. It was in the time of Colman, the third Ionian monk elected Bishop of Northumbria, that the conflict required royal attention and resolution.
The description of the proceedings are explained by Bede: King Oswiu of Northumbria (northern England) presided over and ruled, but did not engage in the ecclesiastical debate himself. [I will jump to the part that concerns this study: Colman used Anatolius’ work, described above, as his main reference to counter the Roman Catholic representative, Wilfrid. Ronan had gotten too old and wasn’t the debater that Wilfrid was. What follows is the pertinent parts of the debate. From Bede, the Ecclesiastical ….]
YT The Monk who saved the Middle Ages from Crisis Chronicle-Medieval History 58:30
22:00 forward….. !!!!29:30 : ”Columbanus brought other Irish practices and customs that would have been strange to the French. … including a different date for celebrating the major Christian festival of Easter” …!!! 32:00 annoyed bishops, his scruples..unity one body, …36:00 a united Europe…49:30 the Pope 11/23/615 54;00 kids 5 words
From yahoranger.com…though I don’t recognize several of the views expressing at this website, the info re: the Sadducees rings true…14. Passover-Aristocratic Practice 1
Astounding historic facts revealed: Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon describes the Aristocratic interpretation of when the day (and night) began: “between the two evenings” Ex 16.12, 30.8, Ex 12.6, Lv 23.5, Nu 9.3, and evening sacrifice was offered. Ex 29.39, 41, Nu 28.4, according to the opinion of the Sadducees (modern Karaites) and Samaritans (modern …? In Israel)…looking to Dt 16.6, the time between sunset and dark…”at the going down of the sun”. The Pharisees and Talmudists took this to mean from the hour of the sun’s decline (after Noon) until its setting; and this was the later temple practice (Pesach. V 1; Jubilees, 49; Jos.,BJ vi.ix.3)
More could be written concerning the modern day practices of the Samaritans in Israel today…The National Geographic Magazine, Vol 1, 1920…
Conclusion: Non-salvational; More than theoretical; Clear interpretations, versus unclear or absent references