It's "Easter is Pagan in Origin" time again - it seems to come around faster every year. Yet again, neo-pagans, anti-theistic atheists and historically illiterate evangelical Christians are uniting in a chorus that "Christians stole Easter and its pagan in origin". Except, ...
... this is complete crap.
The date of Easter is not based on any pagan festival and there is no such festival that fell on the *very* specific date in question: the first Sunday after the first full moon on or after 21 March - a fixed approximation of the March equinox. ...
... Easter falls on this date for purely Christian and Jewish reasons. The gospels say Jesus died and rose at Passover. So Christians began celebrating this at Passover, in line with the Jewish lunar calendar, which is where the full moon after the March equinox part comes ...
from. But this led to some Christians celebrating it *on* the Passover, while others celebrated it on a Sunday around Passover, since the gospels said Jesus rose on the Sunday after his death. Thus the formula above came to be established to make sure it was always celebrated...
... on a Sunday. No pagan festivals came into the calculation at all. This is also why most European languages call Easter by some name derived from he Greek form of the word for Passover: Πάσχα ("Pascha"). ...
... The two exceptions to this are German ("Ostern") and English ("Easter"). These are, *very indirectly*, connected to the Anglo-Saxon goddess Eostre. The ONE reference we have to her - Bede's *De temporum ratione*, XV - tells us the Anglo-Saxon month that corresponds to ...
... April was called "Eostremonath" (Eostre's Month) because "feasts in her honour" were held in that month. We have no more information about these "feasts" and have no idea exactly when they were held, but they were not the origin of the date of Easter (see above), which was...
... well-established centuries before the Anglo-Saxons converted to Christianity. The feast day just got its name from the month in which it usually fell and so was *indirectly* derived from the shadowy goddess. The German word "Ostern" may have a similar origins or - more ...
... likely - was imported from Anglo-Saxon England, since western Germany was converted to Christianity by Anglo-Saxon missionaries.
Again, we have precisely ONE reference anywhere to this goddess whose month gave Easter its English name and that is the sum total of ...
... information we have about her - in the passage from Bede above. That's it. Nothing about "fertility", no eggs and no bunnies. Anyone who claims they are connected to Easter because of her is making up total crap.
The origin of the eggs is the fact that Catholics ...
... couldn't couldn't eat eggs in Lent and so had lots of them to indulge in on Easter Sunday. The Easter Bunny is a very modern development from an earlier German folk tradition about the "Osterhase" (Easter Hare), which was one of a number of animals associated with Easter, ...
... including the Easter Fox, Easter Stork and Easter Goose. These are all animals that became more active in early spring and so became associated with Easter. Again, nothing pagan. I go into detail on all this here:- historyforatheists.com/2017/04/easter…
... Or in video form here:-
And I discuss this with @andrewmarkhenry of Religion for Breakfast here:-
And Andrew has his own video on it here:-
The claims that Easter derives from some pagan festival and was a pagan fertility festival involving eggs and bunnies is all total and complete garbage. Please share this thread with people who make this claim and perhapswe can fight against the tide of this fakelore nonsense.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This "the Crusades were defensive and justified" stuff gets repeated endlessly by the lunkheaded "Deus Vult" bros and has been inherited from Bush conservatives from back in the Iraq War days. As history goes, it's pure junk.
Basically, it's based on the idea that medieval ...
... Christians in Western Europe realised they had been under attack by "Muslims" for centuries and decided to "fight back". So they launched a series of attacks on "Islam", took Jerusalem and held it and this was all a great thing. [Insert triumphant meme from *Kingdom of ...
... Heaven* here]. So it's basically medieval history as taught by Pete Hegseth. Except it's bollocks. It posits a very modern understanding of regional geopolitics and even an anachronistically modern understanding of geography, to begin with. More than that, it assumes a ...
The discussion/debate between @glenscrivener and @CosmicSkeptic on @JusBrierley's "Uncommon Ground" channel is long but worth watching. Scrivener defends a stronger version of @holland_tom's thesis in *Dominion*, as expressed in Scrivener's 2022 book ...
*The Air We Breathe*: ie that our ideals of equality, compassion, freedom, consent, progress, and similar values are in fact historically and intellectually rooted in Christianity. O'Connor critques many of Scrivener's arguments and, while both gave a good account of their ...
... differing views I think, overall, O'Connor had the stronger arguments. He did, of course, concede some of what Scrivener argues and seems to be more aligned, overall, with Holland's position (and, therefore, mine), conceding at least strong influence by Christianity. ...
Here's an interesting video by The Skeptical Agnostic making several arguments I've been making for years now. Apologists like the insufferable William Lane Craig and more conservative scholars like N.T. Wright try to argue Jesus' resurrection doesn't ...
... fit the Jewish eschatological expectations of the time and so this must mean it really happened. They claim there was no expectation of a person rising from the dead before the expected general resurrection at the End Days, so the resurrection appearances of Jesus can't be...
... explained by reference to this kind of expectation, driven by the cognitive dissonance of his unexpected death and visions of him in the shock afterwards.
As the video above notes, and as I've argued for over two decades now, this is flatly contradicted by a lot of clear ...
Oh dear, Richard Carrier is trying to talk medieval history again! This never goes well. For some reason @DerekPodcast from Mythvision keeps asking anti-Christian polemicist Richard Carrier about medieval history and the idea of "the Dark Ages", rather than doing the obvious ...
... and actually asking ... a *medieval historian*. Not only has Carrier never studied medieval history, he is on the record as making it clear he hates it. In an essay in one of John Loftus' collections he expresses amazement that anyone could even "stomach" studying medieval...
... history. Apparently his attitude to Christianity means the whole 1000 year period gives him a visceral reaction of physical distaste. That's understandable for a biased polemicist I suppose, but a remarkable things for a supposed historian to say. There are periods that ...
Wow. Just when I thought I could no longer be surprised by Richard Carrier’s narcissistic self-delusion, he manages to astound yet again. His much ballyhooed follow up to the stinker that was *On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt* (2014) is about to …
… be released. This new book was also meant to be a peer-reviewed continuation of Carrier’s arguments that no historical Jesus existed. Given that his first book was an academic failure which, to Carrier’s astonishment, convinced no one, I did wonder what new material he ...
… could possibly have for the new work and which academic press would publish it this time. The answers it seems are “not much” and “none”. Carrier’s new book was rejected by peer review. But in a pyrotechnic display of characteristic chutzpah, Carrier has turned this around …
One third of the way there! Many thanks to those who’ve donated so far. Please help me get Bart Ehrman on History for Atheists to discuss Jesus Mythicism.
If you’ve read my articles, watched my videos, listened to my podcast, linked to my work or tagged me here (all for free) …
… please help me in this one and only request for donations. I am aiming to get Bart on my channel in November to have a discussion about Mythicism, why it still has some appeal, his responses to it and the historical Jesus generally. And for those of my followers who think …
… BART is wicked, feel free to donate over $50 and confront him with your tough questions. The perk for anyone contributing over that amount is they get a question I’ll put to him.
All donations, however small will help me and will be both gratefully received and acknowledged.