From: mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon)
Subject: Re: Calendar (NEW)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 02:51:17 GMT
Summary: oy vey, again

This thread has had layer upon layer of misconception, mostly arising
from a confusion of some local context with the larger issues.  Early
on we got a *contemporary* statement of the *version* of the (supposed)
Nicene canon on setting the date of the Christian paschal celebration.

Note that the Orthodox churches have a *different* statement of (their)
understanding of the Nicene decision (which is not extant.)  And the
Western version, for most of its history was implicitly bound to one
particular calendar (it is now *explicitly* linked to a *different*
calendar.)  There is not now and has NEVER been uniformity across the
whole of Christendom on when to celebrate Easter, though the vast major-
ity of modern Christian groups accept SOME form of the Nicene rule
(even if they don't accept the supposed Creed from the same Council :-))

In article <gapdrr.714844452@gsusgi1.gsu.edu>, gapdrr@gsusgi2.gsu.edu
(Daniel R T Rothman) writes:

> danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:

> >(Keith Bloom) writes:

> > There is no computation of the date for Easter given in the Bible.
> > That was established much later, and is independent of the Jewish
> > calendar, although the computation ensures that the date occurs during
> > the same season of the year.

This is correct -- part of the Nicene agenda was to dissociate Christian
from Jewish calendars, as one of the issues in the "Quartodeciman" contro-
versy (much of Asia Minor, the most fertile ground for early Christianity,
celebrated using the Jewish calendar's 14 Nisan date for pesach; Rome was
violently opposed to this [apparently because they couldn't understand it.]
Rome was made to agree to a complex lunar calendar & equinox calculation,
but insisted that it be done by Greek methods and not following the Jews.
Nicea also insisted on a Sunday observance (I don't recall if this was a
part of the Roman agenda or not.)

> >Interestingly enough Easter comes on the first sunday after the
> >first full moon after March 20th. Rather a complicated formula,
> >isn't it?

This is not a correct statement.  The actual rule is in fact dependent
on a fictitious lunar month, calculated from a good approximation to
the mean lunar month (29.53... days) -- and again this is the Gregorian
rule, with the Orthodox using other calendars and other rules.  It is
in fact MUCH more complicated in detail (especially as originally laid
out for Pope Gregory) than the supposed "correct" statements one keeps
seeing on the net.  For those who are interested, I have a C program
that does the actual Gregorian computation, and a set of notes explaining
this. They were posted to soc.religion.christian a year or so ago, but
I can probably make them available to those who want them.)

> >I have heard that this was originally set because of a pagan
> >holiday occurring at the same time; this would hardly be the
> >first time for that, however.
> 
> There is some truth to the observation that easter was originally set
> to intersect (more or less) with a pagan holiday. On the other hand,

Umm, not really -- or only at one remove.  Easter is wholly derivative
from Jewish pesach, and the (putative) events surrounding one particular
one of these.  That many cultures have religious festivals around the
vernal equinox may be a great point for evangelical PR (i.e., one may
"domesticate" people's favorite customs from other sources as a way
to make Christianity more attractive to the reluctant.  And one may
speculate (with a fair body of evidence) on connections between the
pesach practices of the Jews and the Mesopotamian New Year celebrations.
That could give some pagan grandparentage to the Christian festival, but
the parentage is solidly Jewish (on the paternal side :-), with a rougue
virgin on the other :-) :-))

> it was formed much more by political forces. One of the greatest bones
> of contention in early medieval england (and an issue that divided the
> church for several decades into a lot of competing factions) was the
> date of easter, and it's exact computation. I seem to recall from my
> medieval history class that the final answer was agreed upon at 
> sword-point.

This is terribly Anglo-centric (and a bit wrong on that.)  After the
Roman church lost contact with Alexandria (as it, for example, became
more and more monophysite, at least in the estimation of Rome, and as
the West became preoccupied with surviving) it tried to make do with
simplified tables in place of the astronomers' calculations that were
once published as catholic letters by the partriarch of Alexandria.
The Irish Church, before *it* lost contact with the Mediterranean, used
one of the more primitive methods.  When St. Gregory sent the minor
Augustine to evangelize the pagan tribes that had mostly wiped out
(in the areas that became England) the earlier British Christians
(as he he was told on seeing some of these Germans for sale in the
slave market, "they're not angels, the're Anglicans." :-)), he brought
a more competent effort at doing the job that the Nicene rule charged
be done.  The English tribes were being evangelized then from two
directions, Ireland and Rome.  The Synod of Whitby pitted the competing
groups against each other, but essentially the Irish were shown as not
able to do as good a job at meeting the Nicene requirements as Rome's
newer effort.  (This then remained in place for the rest of the time
till the adoption of the Gregorian calendar; the method was explained
by Bede -- an heir of the winners in the Whitby thing, but also an heir
to the Irish re-evangelizing of Britain.  Basically, the traditions
merged, but the result was establishing Roman ascendancy in the islands
as far as episcopal authority went.  This method was known as _computus_
and was the centerpiece of mathematical and astronomical "basic education"
in the medieval liberal arts curriculum.)

The King (I forget which, at the moment) went along with the Roman side
at Whitby, and allied himself with the Roman side of the missionary
process.  That certainly gave it backing from the royal "sword" -- but
the conversion was not a forced conversion, as Karl der Grosses was a
bit later against their continental Saxon cousins.  (The English and
the Irish were both instrumental in missions to darkest Germany in those
days.)
-- 
Michael L. Siemon		The Son of Man has come eating and drinking;
				and you say "Behold, a glutton and a drunkard,
mls@usl.com			a friend of tax collectors and sinners."  And
standard disclaimer		yet, Wisdom is justified by all her children.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism