(avg. read time: 7–14 mins.)
Our earliest records of celebrating Jesus’s resurrection with an annual feast are also our earliest records of debate about it. Eusebius, in book 5 of his Church History, tells us about disputes in the late second century during the reign of Commodus between two ancient traditions. The one popular in Asia involved ending a fast on the fourteenth day of Nisan, consistent with the Jewish observance of Passover, regardless of which day of the week it was. In later literature, this group would be referred to as the Quartodecimans to signify their celebration of the Pascha on the fourteenth moon. The other involved ending a fast on Sunday, the day of Jesus’s resurrection (5.23). According to Eusebius, synods and assemblies in Palestine, Rome, Pontus, Gaul, Osrhoëne, and others agreed that the paschal fast should be broken on Sunday, the Lord’s day (5.23). He also quotes a letter from the bishops in Palestine (who were primarily of gentile background at this time) that states that their apostolic tradition is also observed in Alexandria (5.25). Polycrates of Ephesus (125–196) represented the Quartodecimans in his response to these decisions that he wrote to Victor (d. 199) and the church of Rome, claiming that he received this tradition from such great predecessors as Philip (one of the Twelve), his daughters, John the evangelist, Polycarp, Thraseas of Eumenia, Sagaris, Papirius, and Melito of Sardis (5.24.1–5).1 As he was the eighth member of his family to be a bishop and as he was sixty-five at the time of writing this letter, he clearly had observed this tradition for many years. He further punctuated his devotion to this tradition by quoting Acts 5:29: “we must obey God rather than humans.”
Victor responded to this letter by attempting to excommunicate Polycrates and other Asian Quartodeciman bishops, but Irenaeus (~130–202), among others, rebuked him, even though he was among those who observed Pascha on Sunday (5.23.2; 24.11). He regarded both sides as adhering to ancient traditions concerning the day on which the fast should be broken and the manner in which to keep the fast (whether for a day, two days, or even more). Since this variety is old, yet the apostles saw no need to upset the peace they maintained in this variety, their disagreement regarding the fast confirms their agreement in the faith (5.24.12–13). In fact, he reminds Victor of his predecessors, tracing them back all the way to Xystus/Sixtus I (who was bishop of Rome from 115–124), who did not observe the rituals of the Quartodecimans (i.e., both the day and the manner of the fast), but were still at peace in giving the Eucharist to those who came from Quartodeciman parishes (5.24.14–15). Particularly, he draws on the example of a man he greatly admired, Polycarp (Adv. Haer. 3.3.4; whom Polycrates referenced above), in his interaction with Victor’s second-most recent predecessor, Anicetus (92–168). These two could not persuade each other to adopt the other’s traditions (in the case of Polycarp, Irenaeus said he observed with John and other apostles), but in the end they made peace with one another (Eusebius, Church History 5.24.16).
This information from Irenaeus—especially his reference to Polycarp—raises the question of just how ancient the annual celebration of Pascha is. When Polycarp was being commanded to deny Christ, to swear by the genius of Caesar, and to renounce his faith as “atheism,” he is famously quoted in the Martyrdom of Polycarp as saying, “Eighty and six years have I served him, and he never did me any wrong; how then can I blaspheme my King and my Savior?” (9). The reference to eighty-six years could refer to Polycarp’s entire lifespan (as is the majority view) or to the span of time since his conversion. Since the time of his death was likely 155, his date of birth would be either 69 or potentially as early as the 50s. If we take the majority view for granted, he would still be in his 30s by the end of the first century. Could it be that he did actually observe this feast in a Quartodeciman fashion with the apostles around the end of the first century? And if so, does that mean that the Quartodeciman tradition is older than the Sunday observance?2
The idea that the observance of Pascha on the 14th of Nisan goes back to the apostles raises a number of problems, which Roger Beckwith summarizes well:
(a) Is it likely that Paul, who wrote so emphatically to the Galatians and Colossians, impressing upon them the purely optional character of Jewish feast-days (Gal. 4:9-11; Col. 2:16f.), was himself the origin of Quartodeciman practice? One should bear in mind that Colossae was actually in the province of Asia, and that Galatia bordered upon it.
(b) If Paul and the other apostles taught their converts to observe Easter … and to follow Jewish dates for them, why did Quartodecimanism find no support in the Pauline churches elsewhere in Asia Minor and in Greece, or in the other churches dating from the apostolic period? It should be remembered that the province of Asia was not an area characterized by Semitic language or traditions, like Palestine or Syria, and so would not be especially apt to preserve the Jewish dates. Yet the only observance of Nisan 14 outside Asia that can be traced is in the Judaizing heresy of Ebionism and in two small schisms—that of Blastus in Rome [Pseudo-Tertullian, Against All Heresies 8.1] and that of Audius in and around Mesopotamia [see below], in both of which places the churches as a whole declared themselves against Quartodecimanism….
(c) Why was there no controversy about the Quartodeciman observance of Whitsun [Pentecost] on a weekday? Or, if the Quartodecimans did not observe it on a weekday, or not at all, why not?
(d) Why is the evidence for the existence of Whitsun later than the evidence for the existence of Easter?…
(e) Why is the evidence for Easter itself not earlier? If it had been observed on Sunday, Easter Sunday might not have been separately mentioned at first, but since ex hypothesi it was originally observed on Nisan 14, the day of the Passover, one would expect it to have left earlier traces.3
Of course, as Beckwith acknowledges, we have already seen that the Quartodeciman practice was linked (by both Irenaeus and Polycrates in our earliest testimony) to John, rather than Paul, the former of whom was known for working in Asia (specifically, Ephesus), where Quartodecimanism was popular. Still, the hypothesis that John was the origin of Quartodecimanism does not solve all the problems mentioned above, and it raises others still. First, Judaizing movements usually linked themselves to James (the brother of Jesus) or Peter, rather than John. Second:
On this hypothesis, Easter and Whitsun would originally have been observed in the province of Asia alone, and would have spread to the rest of the Christian world from there during the second century … But, even assuming that the province of Asia had then such influence, what was it freed [sic.] the other churches so rapidly from this influence, and made them so unconscious of their debt, that they could set themselves in opposition to the Quartodecimans before the end of the century?4
In the face of these problems, it is difficult to maintain that the apostles observed such an annual feast (with preceding fasts) and instituted it for successors to follow.
However, the obverse claim—that the Sunday observance of Pascha was of apostolic origin—is not likely either. Since Polycarp observed the Quartodeciman ritual, and he was in contact with some of the apostles, it is doubtful that he would have observed a different ritual from them and provided a new ritual to operate alongside it. As such, Beckwith’s conclusion seems agreeable, “It is much more likely that he knew Easter to be a recent, post-apostolic development, and therefore deemed it open to whatever change be judged suitable.”5 These traditions thus probably emerged in the early decades of the second century (especially if what Irenaeus says about Xystus/Sixtus is correct) or possibly near the end of the first century.
How then did the two traditions arise? Much like the point of origin of Easter itself, this remains a mystery, but we can make some basic points. Both traditions arise from a couple of tensions. First, how much continuity or discontinuity is there between Jews and Christ-followers? The so-called “parting of the ways” between Jews and Christians was a complex phenomenon that has no singular event or easily chartable process behind it, especially since it happened in different ways in different places. But there was clearly a tendency among Jewish Christians (and of course the more extreme Judaizers) to maintain continuity with Jewish tradition, such as by meeting at the temple (Acts 2:46; 3:1; 5:12), praying there (22:17), taking vows and observing rites of purification (21:23–26), and possibly continued observance of Jewish annual feasts (20:6, 16). On the other hand, early Jewish Christians also developed a day of worship apart from the Sabbath, which they held on the first day of the Jewish week and called the Lord’s Day. We see potential indications of this as early as the NT texts (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor 16:2; Rev 1:10) and we see confirmation of this in second-century texts (Did. 14; Barn. 15:8–9; Gos. Pet. 35 [par. 9], 50 [par. 12]; Ign. Magn. 9:1; Justin, 1 Apol. 67). This day was chosen because it was the day on which Jesus was raised from the dead.6 As such, early Christians could celebrate the Pascha consistently with the already established celebration by the same (Greek) name that all the Gospels connect the great salvific events to while proclaiming that their feast is the fulfillment of the Jewish one; or they could celebrate Pascha consistently with the distinctly Christian day of worship (while still keeping the annual feast connected to the Passover), since this day emerged from celebrating Jesus’s resurrection on the day of the week that he was raised.
Second, when the church celebrates the Pascha, what precisely is it celebrating? Prior to the development of Holy Week and the Triduum (which includes the evening of Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, Holy Saturday, and Easter/Pascha), the answer to this question was not so clear-cut. On the one hand, the name “Pascha” would seem to imply commemorating the date of Jesus’s passion/death (cf. 1 Cor 5:7–8, wherein Paul calls Jesus the Paschal lamb) and this fits with how the Quartodecimans focused on Jesus’s death. On the other hand, the distinct Pascha of the Christians could be devoted to celebrating Jesus’s resurrection, as befits the Paschal Sunday tradition. The two sides did not evenly split along these emphases in celebration, but they did generally define how the early teachers thought about the Pascha.
The second-century Epistula Apostolorum, preserved today only in Coptic and Ethiopic, assumes that Pascha is for the remembrance of Christ’s death (15). Apollinaris of Hierapolis (d. pre-180), whose On the Pascha exists only in fragments, likewise describes Pascha as the remembrance of Jesus’s death and that it is properly on the 14th moon (of Nisan).7 A certain fragment attributed to one Archaeus in the Arabic or Irenaeus in the Syriac states that Pascha should be celebrated on the Lord’s Day, since that is the day of resurrection.8 While Clement of Alexandria (150–215) does not make any definite statement on the proper time of celebration, he distinguishes between the Jewish Pascha on which Jesus died from the day of his resurrection in accord with day the priest was to offer the sheaf of the firstfruits.9 Likewise, various reflections on the Pascha illustrate diverse emphases as they interpret the directives in Exod 12 and other texts typologically and allegorically in light of Christ, his Church, the Eucharist, and so on (Meilto of Sardis, Peri Pascha; Pseudo-Hippolytus, Homily on the Holy Pascha; Origen, Peri Pascha).10
The popular Didascalia Apostolorum from the first half of the third century contains instruction in ch. 21 that distinguishes the Christian observance from the Jewish one. In addition to a fast from all but bread, salt, and water on the Monday through Thursday before Paschal Sunday, the text also instructs a complete fast on Friday and the Sabbath, so that the fast will be broken on the Sunday. The final fasts and the Easter Vigil from the night of the Sabbath to the beginning of Sunday were to involve prayers for the Jews, reading Scripture, and proclaiming the expectation of Jesus’s resurrection, which is in turn the anticipation of the resurrection of his people. The breaking of the fast was thus to be celebrated with rejoicing, cheer, and ministering to the poor and needy. Still, this text seems to imply that the Christians were to pay attention to when the fourteenth of Nisan fell in the Jewish reckoning, but they were to always celebrate on the first day of the week rather than the day of the Passover.
Although Eusebius’s history indicates that the Quartodeciman tradition was the minority at the end of the second century—and subsequent history will bear this out—it did not disappear quickly. Epiphanius of Salamis (~310–403) in his Panarion against heresies presents a critique of the Quartodecimans (50) and the later Audian movement that resembled them (70). He is easier on the Quartodecimans than many others because he acknowledges that they hold all the orthodox doctrines, but he says that they are compromised regarding proper order because they still adhere to Jewish timing (50.1.2).
He also notes that by his time there was a diversity of Quartodeciman practice, as some kept the same day according to the Jewish calendar (the 14th of Nisan) while others kept the same day according to the Roman calendar, given their belief that Jesus died on the eighth day before the Kalends of April (March 25; 50.1.3–8; cf. Pseudo-Cyril, Preface 3).11 This March 25 date had become well established as the historical date of Jesus’s crucifixion, not least because it was originally the vernal equinox according to the Julian calendar and because it was the traditional date for the first day of creation (early witnesses to this traditional date of creation, besides texts cited below, include Julius Africanus, Chronographiae F14b [23, 25]; F15 [25]; T93c–d [289]; Tertullian, Adv. Jud. 8.17–18).12 In response to the majority of this group, the ones celebrating on the 14th day of Nisan, he makes a point that has been made since the time of the NT against Christians who wanted to insist on cleaving to the Law: if they invoke the curse on those who do not observe the Passover according to the Law, they will likewise fall afoul of the other curses of the law; the one who violates part of the Law violates all of it (50.2.1–2; Gal 2:15–21; 3:10–14; 5:3; Jas 2:8–13; Hippolytus, Refutation of All the Heresies 8.18.1–2). He argues that celebrating both Jesus’s death and resurrection should involve a festival that fulfills the Jewish observance, but on a different day, namely the day on which Jesus arose (50.2.6–3.4).
The Audians followed the Quartodeciman practice concerning the Pascha, but they added a strong devotion to theological anthropomorphism (that God created humans to resemble his own physical/material form). The latter belief does not concern us here, so we can continue with how Epiphanius describes and critiques their Paschal practice and rhetoric. They insisted that the Church as a whole changed the date from the original observance of the 14th of Nisan in deference to Constantine or perhaps even to Constantine’s birthday (70.9.3–4). In this way, the Audians were the ancient precursors of the modern-day tendency in some circles to blame Constantine for everything they do not like about Church tradition. But Epiphanius argues that Constantine aimed to bring unity according to a diversity of tradition that preceded him by many years. Furthermore, he notes that they misunderstand the Apostolic Constitutions (specifically 5.17) that they attempt to cite in their favor as saying that it dictates observing the Paschal Feast when the brethren in the circumcision do, when Epiphanius insists that it says to observe it when the brethren of the circumcision do (70.10.1–2). The distinction is that the former group were non-Christian Jews while the latter group were Jewish Christians. This would be consistent with the decree of Nicea and Constantine, the broader practice of the Church, and the context of this statement in the Apostolic Constitutions.13 The rest of Epiphanius’s critique consists of considerations for how to determine the date of the Pascha, which summarizes points from the next controversy on the timing of Pascha that I address in the next part.
There is a bit of confusion at the beginning of this list. The Philip with multiple daughters well-known to Christians was not Philip the apostle, but Philip the evangelist who operated in Galilee, Samaria, and the surrounding areas, rather than in Asia (Acts 6:5; 8; 21:8–9). However, this was not an unusual conflation in the early church. According to church tradition, Philip the apostle did operate in Phrygia, among other places, and was martyred in Hierapolis (where a fourth- or fifth-century church was built around a first-century tomb claimed to be Philip’s: “Strata: Philip’s Tomb Discovered—But Not Where Expected,” BAR 38.1 (2012): 18). Another interesting point to note is that Philip the apostle is best known from the Gospel of John, the author of which is linked here to the Quartodeciman tradition. All the Synoptics list him as one of the Twelve (Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:14), but he has no individual contribution to any of their narratives, whereas he is a specific actor in John (1:43–46; 6:5, 7; 12:21–22; 14:8–9).
The claim that the Quartodeciman tradition is more ancient is argued by Paul F. Bradshaw, “The Origins of Easter,” in Passover and Easter: Origin and History to Modern Times, ed. Paul F. Bradshaw and Lawrence A. Hoffman, Two Liturgical Traditions 5 (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame, 1999), 81–97; Thomas J. Talley, The Origins of the Liturgical Year, 2nd ed. (New York: Pueblo; Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1991), 4–13.
Roger T. Beckwith, Calendar and Chronology, Jewish and Christian: Biblical, Intertestamental and Patristic Studies (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 56–58.
Ibid., 59.
Ibid., 60.
For more on Sunday as the weekly day of worship in the early church, see ibid., 35–50.
Raniero Cantalamessa, Easter in the Early Church: An Anthology of Jewish and Early Christian Texts (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1993), 46–47. Aphraates (270–345), a later Syrian father seems to agree regarding the Pascha, although his observance was primarily on Friday (Demonstration 12.8, 12). For more on this subject, see G. A. M. Rouwhorst, “The Date of Easter in the Twelfth Demonstration of Aphraates,” in Studia Patristica, vol. 17, part 3, ed. Elizabeth A. Livingstone (Oxford: Pergamon, 1982), 1374–80.
Cantalamessa, Easter, 51.
Ibid., 53. Some scholars today make a similar connection between the resurrection and the firstfruits imagery via Paul’s language in 1 Cor 15:20. For more on this logic, see Jacob Thiessen, “Firstfruits and the Day of Christ’s Resurrection: An Examination of the Relationship Between the ‘Third Day’ in 1 Cor 15:4 and the ‘Firstfruit’ in 1 Cor 15:20,” Neot 46 (2012): 379–93; Joel White, “‘He Was Raised on the Third Day According to the Scriptures,’ (1 Corinthians 15:4): A Typological Interpretation Based on the Cultic Calendar in Leviticus 23,” TynBul 66 (2015): 103–19.
Melito’s text is available online and in critical editions, such as Alistair Stewart-Sykes, ed., On Pascha: With the Fragments of Melito and Other Material Related to the Quartodecimans (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2001). For Pseudo-Hippolytus, see A. Hamman, ed., The Paschal Mystery: Ancient Liturgies and Patristic Texts, trans. Thomas Halton (Staten Island, NY: Alba House, 1969), 50–68. For Origen, see Origen: Treatise on the Passover and Dialogue of Origen with Heraclides and His Fellow Bishops on the Father, the Son, and the Soul, ed. and trans. Robert J. Daly, ACW 54 (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1992). Also see Justin, Dial. 40.1–3; 111.3; Irenaeus, Haer. 4.10.1; Origen, Comm. Jo. 10.18.108–111; Hom. Exod. 5.2; 7.4; Eusebius of Caesarea, On the Paschal Solemnity.
Cf. Pseudo-Cyril, Preface 3 (Alden A. Mosshammer, ed. The Prologues on Easter of Theophilus of Alexandria and [Cyril], OECT, [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017]).
Iulius Africanus, Chronographiae: The Extant Fragments, ed. Martin Wallraff, Umberto Roberto and Karl Pinggéra, trans. William Adler, GCS 15 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007). The discrepancy in the last two fragments of identifying Jesus’s death and resurrection as being 5,531 or 5,532 years after Adam is perhaps explicable if he placed the resurrection on March 25 as the mark of a new year in his chronology (Carl Philipp Emanuel Nothaft, “Early Christian Chronology and the Origins of the Christmas Date: In Defense of the Calculation Theory,” QL 94 [2013]: 263–64).
In citing a common criticism we will see later on why Jewish computation should not be followed: “It is therefore your duty, brethren, who are redeemed by the precious blood of Christ, to observe the days of the passover exactly, with all care, after the vernal equinox, lest ye be obliged to keep the memorial of the one passion twice in a year. Keep it once only in a year for Him that died but once” (5.17; ANF 7:446).