Thread: Astarte, I mean Ishatar, I mean Easter...

Here is some historical information on where Easter came from, and its propagation (Eggs, Candy, Bunnies, and other things).


The Wild Boar News Podcast - Easter Edition 2008 WBNP#48
By Dr. C. Matthew McMahon (3-17-08)

Easter: The Devil's Holiday
By Dr. C. Matthew McMahon (3-17-08)

Thank you very much Dr. McMahon for this podcast, it is very informative.

You almost had me going there. Then I saw the citation of Hislop & realised you were joking.

I am going to remember this one for the next time we have a late Easter & I can use it as a April Fool joke.

(you were kidding, right?)

Wow - I learned something new. I had not known before that the 4 BC date of the birth of Christ was in any way connected to the "christianizing" of pagan rites. So we're really living in 2012, huh?

The podcast listed above (Small Groups) was excellent also.

The pre-millennialists will have to recalculate everything.

Sir, is that printable? I could just copy and paste, but I would like permission first.

No, I do not think Matthew was kidding.

Excellent piece brother Matt!

I find your quote from the "5th century" "pagan philosopher" Socrates to be pretty incredible. "...the celebration of the feast of Easter began everywhere more of custom than by any commandment either by Christ or any apostle." Yes, Socrates lived in the 5th centrury...BC! Was he a prophet as well as a philosopher?

I'm sure the rest of the podcast is equally well researched.

Originally Posted by SRoper

I find your quote from the "5th century" "pagan philosopher" Socrates to be pretty incredible. "...the celebration of the feast of Easter began everywhere more of custom than by any commandment either by Christ or any apostle." Yes, Socrates lived in the 5th centrury...BC! Was he a prophet as well as a philosopher?

I'm sure the rest of the podcast is equally well researched.

Scott, there were others who went by the name Socrates, including an early church historian:

Socrates of Constantinople - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'll fix the typo on Socrates. That was my fault. Yes, should be "BC."

No, I wasn't kidding. Easter, or Ishtar, or Astarte is definitely not Christian.

Yes, you can copy it.

Your welcome!

Originally Posted by C. Matthew McMahon

I'll fix the typo on Socrates. That was my fault. Yes, should be "BC."

No, I wasn't kidding. Easter, or Ishtar, or Astarte is definitely not Christian.

Yes, you can copy it.

Your welcome!

Wait Matt! That quote was from the 5th century AD Socrates! The church historian referenced above.

Sorry, I just don't buy it.

To make a historical arguement with Hislop as the sole footnoted (!) source is just not credible IMO.

It is on the same level as a dispensationalist claiming to have *refuted* covenant theology and then citing Larkin as the sole source.

Do any credible church historians at all support Hislop?

Originally Posted by Kevin

Do any credible church historians at all support Hislop?

I don't know about that, Kevin. I gather Hislop was more of a polemicist than a historian.

My only concern was with the early church historian Socrates, who chronicled that the Easter celebration was something that just sprang up:

"The aim of the apostles was not to appoint festival days, but to teach a righteous life and piety. And it seems to me that just as many other customs have been established in individual localities according to usage. So also the feast of Easter came to be observed in each place according to the individual peculiarities of the peoples inasmuch as none of the apostles legislated on the matter."

Ecclesastical History of Socrates Scholasticus (Schaff edition)

Book V, Chapter XXII

Another anathaema I will have to live with.

True enough, Vic. Local "celebrations' took on much local flavour that has no warrant is scripture. That some local observances have similarities to other folk celebrations common to that people is to be expected. However that is a long way from proving that there is a direct causation.

An analogous situation would be to assert a deep symbolism to the use of candles in medieval churches. At the same time to ignore other more plausable explanations, such as a need for light prior to electricity. Then make the observation (true as it is) that modern north American families often celebrate b-days with candles on a cake.

Then you have (in Hislops world) *proof* that modern families are crypto-catholics who secretly use the candles for the mystical purposes previously asserted.

He has almost zero credibility. To cite him as a source reduces what ever point was being made to the same level. IMO.

Originally Posted by victorbravo

Originally Posted by C. Matthew McMahon

I'll fix the typo on Socrates. That was my fault. Yes, should be "BC."

No, I wasn't kidding. Easter, or Ishtar, or Astarte is definitely not Christian.

Yes, you can copy it.

Your welcome!

Wait Matt! That quote was from the 5th century AD Socrates! The church historian referenced above.

Matt, I have had enough problems keeping my sources straight (particularly when they have the same name), that your mental hiccup is quite understandable and pardonable (particularly after all of the good stuff you have researched and provided on your web site). Victor is correct. Socrates Scholasticus (aka Socrates of Constantinople), a fifth century A.D. person, wrote The Ecclesiastical History, in seven books. His work is contained in Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series Vol. II. Socrates, Sozomenus: Church Histories.

Actually, Socrates mentioned Easter 56 times in his history. His bottom line on the subject is as follows:

Neither the apostles, therefore, nor the Gospels, have anywhere imposed the ‘yoke of servitude’ on those who have embraced the truth; but have left Easter and every other feast to be honored by the gratitude of the recipients of grace. Wherefore, inasmuch as men love festivals, because they afford them cessation from labor: each individual in every place, according to his own pleasure, has by a prevalent custom celebrated the memory of the saving passion. The Saviour and his apostles have enjoined us by no law to keep this feast: nor do the Gospels and apostles threaten us with any penalty, punishment, or curse for the neglect of it, as the Mosaic law does the Jews. It is merely for the sake of historical accuracy, and for the reproach of the Jews, because they polluted themselves with blood on their very feasts, that it is recorded in the Gospels that our Saviour suffered in the days of ‘unleavened bread.’ The aim of the apostles was not to appoint festival days, but to teach a righteous life and piety. And it seems to me that just as many other customs have been established in individual localities according to usage. So also the feast of Easter came to be observed in each place according to the individual peculiarities of the peoples inasmuch as none of the apostles legislated on the matter. And that the observance originated not by legislation, but as a custom the facts themselves indicate.
Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series Vol. II. Socrates, Sozomenus: Church Histories. (130).

Originally Posted by victorbravo

Originally Posted by SRoper

I find your quote from the "5th century" "pagan philosopher" Socrates to be pretty incredible. "...the celebration of the feast of Easter began everywhere more of custom than by any commandment either by Christ or any apostle." Yes, Socrates lived in the 5th centrury...BC! Was he a prophet as well as a philosopher?

I'm sure the rest of the podcast is equally well researched.

Scott, there were others who went by the name Socrates, including an early church historian:

Socrates of Constantinople - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know, but that Socrates was not a pagan philosopher as Matt said.

I don't pay attention to the church calendar, so I don't really care about Easter. However, I find the argument against Easter because of its pagan name to be rather poor. It really only works for Germanic languages. In the Romance languages and other languages like Russian, the word they use for Easter is based on the word for Passover.

I know, but that Socrates was not a pagan philosopher as Matt said.

That's why I called it a mental hiccup. You start your research, take cryptic notes, come back to it later, and under a load of preoccupation, your brain "hiccups." After all the good Matt has done, I'm willing to cut him some slack on a name that, like Madonna, tends to have one predominate association (i.e., I don't mean the mother of Jesus) and one secondary one. After all, let's be honest, Scott, when you caught the "goof," you assumed it was a 5th century B.C. figure instead of the author of Historia Ecclesiastica too.

Thanks for the correction on the correction.

Yes, mental hiccups are part of the fall.

I'll add a few more things to the article so there are "plenty of footnotes" just so that isn't an "exception" to the realities that lie behind Easter's Romanism.

The Post Reformation pastors and theologians of the day, following the Reformers, abolished Easter, among other things. In June 1647, England Parliament, headed by the Puritans at Westminster, passed legislation abolishing Christmas and other holidays: “Forasmuch as the feast of the nativity of Christ, Easter, Whitsuntide, and other festivals, commonly called holy-days, have been heretofore superstitiously used and observed; be it ordained, that the said feasts, and all other festivals, commonly called holy-days, be no longer observed as festivals; any law, statute, custom, constitution, or canon, to the contrary in anywise not withstanding.” (Daniel Neal, The History of the Puritans (London, 1837; rpt. Minneapolis: Klock , p. 45).

Does anyone know if this work was ever translated out of Latin? I know at least one of his works has been translated into Dutch but I'm not sure if this was it. This is a work agains "holy days."

HOSPINIAN, RUDOLPH. Festa Christianorum, hoc est, De origins, progressu, ceremoniis et ritibusfestorum dierwm Christianorum Liber unus (folio). Tiguri, 1593. [This is a work of considerable learning for its day, written from the standpoint of a Swiss Protestant. A second edition, in which replies are made to the criticisms of Cardinal Bellarmine and Gretser, appeared, also at Zurich, and in folio, in 1612.]

The work is listed at the link in the bibliography; the author commending the work's scholarship was an Anglican.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Sorry, I just don't buy it.

To make a historical arguement with Hislop as the sole footnoted (!) source is just not credible IMO.

It is on the same level as a dispensationalist claiming to have *refuted* covenant theology and then citing Larkin as the sole source.

Do any credible church historians at all support Hislop?

I was curious why you object to Hislop's Two Bablyons? Matthew was also using arguments from other sources. Hislop was a minister in the Free Church of Scotland in the 1800's, so he was Reformed not dispensational. His view of the Roman church would be consistent with Knox & Calvin. I read the book years ago, so I do not remember some of his points, but I am not sure why you would discredit his work.