Changes

Jump to: navigation, search

Paschalion

8,218 bytes added, 14:02, May 6, 2015
m
no edit summary
Initially the date of Pascha was fixed by consulting Jewish informants to learn when the Jewish month of Nisan would fall, and setting Pascha to the third Sunday in Jewish Nisan, the Sunday of Unleavened Bread. But beginning in the third century there are indications that some Christians were becoming dissatisfied with this reliance on the Jewish calendar. The chief complaint was that the third week in Jewish Nisan was sometimes placed before the spring equinox. [[Peter of Alexandria|Peter, Bishop of Alexandria]] (early 4th century A.D.), in a statement preserved in the preface to the [[Chronicon Paschale| ''Chronicon Paschale'']], expresses this view:<blockquote>On the fourteenth day of [the month], being accurately observed after the equinox, the ancients celebrated the Passover, according to the divine command. Whereas the men of the present day now celebrate it before the equinox, and that altogether through negligence and error.</blockquote>Those who held this view began to experiment with independent computations that would always place Pascha in the spring season. Traditionalists, however, felt that the old custom of consulting the Jewish community should continue, even if it sometimes placed Pascha before the equinox. [[Epiphanius]] of Salamis (''Panarion'' 3.1.10) quotes a version of the [[Apostolic Constitutions| ''Apostolic Constitutions'']] used by the sect of the Audiani which represents this school of thought: <blockquote>Do not do your own computations, but instead observe Passover when your brethren from the circumcision do. If they err [in the computation], it is no matter to you.</blockquote>
The controversy was resolved at the Council of Nicea. Although the decision was not recorded as a canon, its synodal letter to the Church in Alexandria conveys “...the good news of the agreement concerning the holy Easter, ...that all our brethren in the East who formerly followed the custom of the Jews are henceforth to celebrate the said most sacred feast of Easter at the same time with the Romans and yourselves.”[2] The Emperor Constantine confirmed this agreement in an epistle a letter to all churchesbishops that had not attended the Council, announcing two things: <blockquote>(1) "...the most holy festival of Easter should be everywhere celebrated on one and the same day. ...(So) cheerfully accept what is observed with such general unanimity of sentiment in the city of Rome, throughout Italy, Africa, all Egypt, Spain, France, Britain, Libya, the whole of Greece, and the dioceses of Asia, Pontus, and Cilicia;" and (2) "We have cast aside (the Jewish) way of calculating the date of the festival (because) ...we should never allow Easter to be kept twice in one and the same (solar) year!"[3] </blockquote>
Thus, the old Quartodeciman custom of consulting the Jewish calculation of Nisan 14 and celebrating Pascha on according to that date was formally rejected, and the independent computations long in use at the influential city of Alexandria became the emerging, if still somewhat controversial, consensus. On the other hand, the comments of canonists, preachers, and chroniclers indicate that the old Quartodecimian custom of placing Easter in the month of Nisan as computed by the Jewish community continued to have adherents for generations.
== The Nicene Formula ==
The Alexandrian and Roman methods of determining the date of Pascha were based on three principles: (1) Pascha was always after the vernal equinox, (2) it was to follow, but not coincide with, the first full moon of spring, and (3) it was always to be on a Sunday. A fourth principle – and one enunciated following Nicea I – is implicit in the first three: namely, (4) the date of Pascha was not to depend on the Jewish dates for Passover in any way. This last criterion was met by formulating the Paschalion entirely in terms of astronomical events and the weekly cycle of days.[4] One early text that gives an explicit outline of the Nicene formula for dating Pascha is in a homily from 387 that is attributed to St. John Chrysostom: "Since we keep the first of times (spring), and the equinox (''isimera''), and after this the fourteenth of the moon, and together with these the three days Friday, Saturday, and Sunday; lacking any of these at one time it is impossible to fulfill the Pascha."[5] In summarizing the Paschalion, the homily makes no reference to any named month – lunar or solar – nor to any calendrical date – Julian or Jewish. Yet there were many tables of computed Paschal dates circulating in the 4th century.
The computational system One early text that eventually prevailed was based on calendrical experiments made at Alexandria beginning in gives an explicit outline of the mid-3rd century.[6] According to this system, Nicene formula for dating Pascha is found in a homily from 387 that is widely attributed to St. John Chrysostom: <blockquote>Since we keep the first Sunday following the date of the Paschal Full Moon times (PFMspring) for a given year. The computational PFM is not, however, as commonly thought, and the first full moon following the vernal equinox. Rather, the PFM is the first Ecclesiastical Full Moon (EFM"isimera") date that falls on or , and after March 21 (or, what is the same thing, the first Ecclesiastical Full Moon that follows March 20). Ecclesiastical Full Moons are calendar dates that approximate astronomical full moons using a cycle that repeats every 19 years. March 21 was the date used by the Alexandrians for determining this the PFM because it was near the date fourteenth of the vernal equinox in moon, and together with these the late 3rd and early 4th century A.D.three days Friday, when Paschal tables were first being compiled. This conventionalSaturday, cyclical Paschalion and Sunday; lacking any of these at one time it is called Nicene because some commentators in later generations erroneously attributed it impossible to fulfill the Nicene Council and came to treat it as canonicalPascha.[5]</blockquote>
Nonetheless, the intention A traditional Paschalion of three elements is set forth in this homily attributed to St. Chrysostom. Its actual operation is clarified by the Nicene Fathers was to establish following passage from a simple set of rules that would allow Pascha letter traditionally attributed to be dated independently of St. Ambrose, most probably dating from the Jewish calendaryear 386 when Alexandrian and Roman dates for Pascha did not match, and ensure that St. Ambrose chose to follow the Alexandrian date.[6] <blockquote>We must keep the basic chronological sequence of Passion and Resurrection as recorded law regarding Easter in such a way that we do not observe the Gospels was imitated every year. Insisting on Sunday fourteenth as the only day suited to commemorating of the Resurrection reveals their intention ; that day or one very close to imitate it is the chronology day of the original event; passion...[and their preference for an astronomically determined vernal equinox ] it is evident from that the Eastern Church’s early adoption day of the Alexandrian Paschal computations based on March 21st rather than March 25th, Resurrection should be kept after the conventional date day of the vernal equinox Passion, [so] the former should not be on the Imperial Julian and Alexandrian calendarsfourteenth of the [lunar] month, but later.[7] </blockquote>
A thousand years laterDespite evident divergences in dating Pascha, the canonist Matthew Blastaris reaffirmed basic intention of the importance of Nicene Fathers is conveyed by these four principles in a concise way: "Firstlate fourth century texts. In summary, that it is necessary intention was to celebrate the establish a simple set of rules that would allow Pascha after to be dated independently of the spring equinox; secondJewish calendar, and to ensure that it is not the same basic chronological sequence of Passion and Resurrection as recorded in the Gospels was imitated every year. Insisting on Sunday as the only day as suited to commemorating the Resurrection reveals their intention to imitate the chronology of the Jewish festivaloriginal event; third, that it and their preference for an astronomically determined vernal equinox is not merely after evident from the Eastern Church’s early adoption of the equinoxAlexandrian Paschal computations based on March 21st rather than March 25th, but after the first full moon following conventional date of the vernal equinox; on the official Julian and fourthAlexandrian calendars.[8]  The emergence of differing tabular, computational systems intended to implement the Nicene rules was a complex historical process, that (it is) leading to the Sunday immediately after eventual dominance of a system based on calendrical experiments made at Alexandria beginning in the full moonmid-3rd century."[89] Blastaris clearly states that it According to this system, Pascha is the equinox and first Sunday following the date of the Paschal Full Moon (PFM - also called the νομικον φασκα, "nomikon faska" in Greek) for a given year. The computational PFM is not, however, the first full moon that determine following the proper Sundayvernal equinox as determined by direct observation or by accurate astronomical computations. Rather, not the computational PFM is designated as the first Ecclesiastical Full Moon (EFM) date that falls on or after March 21st Julian - or Nisan 14/15 21 on the Hebrew Julian calendar. But his second rule is open to misconstrual. The Nicene Council rejected the Quartodecimian practice of celebrating Pascha on “the same day as the Jewish festival Ecclesiastical Full Moons (of PassoverEFM)” and adopted three rules are calendar dates that prevent approximate astronomical full moons using a cycle that from happening except by coincidencerepeats every 19 years. March 21 (O.S. Yet Blastaris’ second rule is understood Julian) was the date used by some to mean that the date of Pascha must be moved Alexandrians for determining the EFM used in order to avoid coinciding with Passover.[9] This reading of Blastaris, however, compromises their Paschal tables because it was near the independence actual date of the Christian Paschalion from vernal equinox in the Jewish festal calendar late 3rd and lends the so-called “Zonaras Proviso” canonical authorityearly 4th century A.D., when Paschal tables were first being compiled.
=== The Zonaras Proviso ===
The decision of the Nicene council concerning Pascha was that it should be computed independently of any Rabbinic Jewish computations: hence, a Paschalion that is consistent with Nicene principles cannot have any built-in dependence on the Jewish calendar. Nevertheless, since at least possibly as early as the 12th century and certainly in recent times it has been widely believed that Christian Pascha is required always to follow, and never coincide with, the first day of Passover, which was by then being celebrated on is Nisan 15 in the rabbinic Jewish calendar (that is, on the evening of the 14th day of the lunar month). [10] By the 12th century the errors in the Julian calendar's equinoctial date and age of the moon had accumulated to the degree that Pascha did, in fact, always follow Jewish Nisan 15. This state of affairs continues to the present day, even though the Jewish calendar suffers from a slight solar drift of its own, because the Julian calendar's errors accumulate more rapidly than the Jewish calendar's. The 12th century canonist [[Joannes Zonaras]] seems to have been the first to state the principle that Pascha should always follow Jewish Passover (Nisan 15), so the principle is called the “Zonaras Proviso” after him. Zonaras is thought to have derived his new principle from his reading of Apostolic Canon 7, which states: <blockquote>If any Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon celebrate the holy day of Easter before the vernal equinox with the Jews, let him be deposed.[11]</blockquote>  Zonaras, commenting on this Canon, wrote <blockquote>Some say the Spring equinox is the 25th day of March; others, the 25th day of April. I deem that the canon refers to neither the one nor the other. For Pascha is often celebrated before the 25th of April; and there are times when it is celebrated before the 25th of March; so that, (if "Spring equinox" were so understood) Pascha is being celebrated in violation of this canon. Whence it appears that the wise apostles call something else the "Spring equinox." So the whole thrust of the canon is this, that Christians should not celebrate Pascha with the Jews (that is, on the same day). For it is fitting that their feast - which is no feast - is done first; and thus we do our Pascha. If one consecrated to God does this even once, he is removed from orders. The synod in Antioch also ordered this, in their first canon, where they stated that this was decreed concerning the feast of Pascha by the synod of Nicea, although no such canon is found in the canons of the Nicene synod. [See Greek text in footnote.][11]</blockquote> Thus, Zonaras apparently reads the force of the words "Spring equinox" out of the canon entirely, even though he does not abbreviate the text of Canon 7 the way Aristenus (prior to Zonaras) had done by omitting the words entirely.[12] So what Zonaras probably means is that the astronomical (or computational) vernal equinox is the "something else" known to the "wise Apostles" which makes both proposed calendrical dates incorrect, and the12th century practice of the Church canonical. Because Zonaras saw no reason to be worried about celebrating Pascha before the vernal equinox, he then treated the idea of not celebrating Pascha along with the Jewish Passover as a separate rule. Even so, he (or perhaps Balsamon after him) adds the proviso "that is, on the same day" in an effort to prevent anyone from taking "with the Jews" to mean celebrating Pascha as though it were part of the Jewish feast. Hence, what not being on the same day/date means in practice is not letting the date of Passover determine the date of Pascha. So Zonaras may well be saying nothing new, though his words have been widely taken in an innovative sense. The final seeming novelty of Zonaras's commentary is the idea that Pascha is supposed to follow Passover, or at least, "it is fitting" that such a sequence is observed. This, of course, is what necessarily happens whenever the Nicene paschalion is correctly followed, provided "Passover" is understood to mean the one day of 14 Nisan (or 15 Nisan in rabbinic practice) and not the entire eight-day feast of Passover which includes the Feast of Unleavened Bread. But when the dates of Pascha are derived from an inaccurate tabular computation, it could well happen that the day of Pascha would be the same day as the Passover - even though each date was independently calculated. It is this latter situation that Zonaras and his readers were apparently trying to cope with, in their different ways. For what Zonaras says can be taken to mean something like the following: "Their feast - which is no feast - is done first; and thus we do our Pascha [as the perfection of what has gone before in history and has lapsed in grace]." On this understanding, postponing Pascha to avoid its coinciding with the date of Passover would implicitly acknowledge a continuing validity for the Jewish feast, and violate Canon 7 by letting Jewish practice (in a limited, but real sense) sometimes determine the date of Pascha. Many who read this in Zonaras, however, saw only a mandated sequence of separate dates.
The 12th 14th-century canonist [[Joannes Zonaras]] seems to have been canon lawyer Matthew Blastares also enumerated the first paschalion's principles in a way that can be taken to state require dependence on the principle that Pascha must always follow Jewish Nisan 15calendar. <blockquote>First, so the principle that it is called necessary to celebrate the “Zonaras Proviso” Pascha after him. Upon examinationthe spring equinox; second, that it appears that Zonaras derived his new rule from a misconstrual of Apostolic Canon 7, which reads is not the same day as follows: "If any Bishopthe Jewish festival; third, or Presbyterthat it is not merely after the equinox, or Deacon celebrate but after the holy day of Easter before first full moon following the vernal equinox with ; and fourth, that (it is) the Sunday immediately after the Jews, let him be deposedfull moon."[1013] Zonaras found two prohibitions in this one statement: first</blockquote> If by "the Jewish festival" Blastares simply meant the Paschal Full Moon, that Pascha must then his second principle would be celebrated after redundant - merely restating the third principle in other words - if it were not for the known divergence between the vernal equinox; astronomical Pascal Full Moon and second, that Pascha must never coincide with the Jewish feast of PassoverEcclesiastical Full Moon. Although Zonaras’ second prohibition has no foundation in If, on the 4th century historical contextother hand, or in he meant the grammatical meaning 15th of Nisan on the sentenceRabbinic Jewish calendar (which date for Passover apparently began to supplant 14 Nisan in Inter-testamental times) then, it resembles as Zonaras may have done before him, he seemingly has replaced the fourth (implicit) Nicene principle closely enough to be confused rule of independence from the Jewish calendar with a rule that the paschalion must instead depend on it- in order to shun a coincidence of dates. That However, it is, the also possible Blastares (like Zonaras before him) may have meant in his second rule that Christians are not to go along “with the Jews” in setting the date of Pascha has been confused with is not set by simply adopting the fear that if date of Passover happens , as was the practice of the Quartodeciman churches prior to coincide with an independently determined Pascha, Christians would be wrongfully praying “with and for some time after, the Jews” just because both are praying on Nicene paschalion was enunciated. If this is the same daycase, he too is saying nothing new.
== Implementation ==
== The Byzantine Proposal of 1324 ==
In the 14th century Nicephoras Gregoras calculated the current error in dating the vernal equinox to be three days, and proposed a reform of the Julian calendar to Andronicus II. The reform was not adopted, apparently from lack of popular or political support; and in fact would have corrected less than half of the seven-day error that actually existed at that time.[1114]
== The Gregorian Proposal of 1582 ==
== The Orthodox Proposal of 1923 ==
A [[Revised_Julian_Calendar|congress]] of Orthodox bishops meeting in 1923 under the presidency of Patriarch [[Meletios_IV_(Metaxakis)_of_Constantinople|Meletios IV]] agreed to set Pascha by means of precise astronomical computations referred to the meridian of Jerusalem, using a midnight to midnight day to date the full moon.[1215] This agreement was never permanently implemented in any Orthodox diocese. But the Revised Julian calendar, a more accurate version of the Gregorian calendar, which was introduced by the same congress has been adopted by some jurisdictions for celebrating the fixed feasts of the liturgical year.
== The World Council of Churches Proposal of 1997 ==
A consultation of Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant delegates met in Aleppo, Syria and issued an agreed statement recommending that all member churches work toward a common method of dating Pascha based on the three original Nicene principles, but employing astronomical observations from the meridian of Jerusalem instead of any cyclical tabular computation.[1316] This was essentially the same proposal as that of 1923, and was not implemented in the proposed year of 2001 when Eastern and Western dates for Pascha coincided. Resistance to such a reform by Orthodox jurisdictions is apparently rooted in respect for a widespread belief that March 21st Julian was designated by the Nicene Fathers to be the only true vernal equinox, and nourished by persistent fears that changing the received tradition for dating Pascha would endanger the integrity Orthodoxy’s witness to the Patristic Tradition by creating a purely “cosmetic” unity with other Churches.[1417]And so it is that the Nicene paschalion continues to be differently implemented in practice, despite its original simplicity.
== East and West Today ==
3. Eusebius, Vita Constantine III:18-20, ''Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers'', Vol. 14, pp. 54-55. Also available at http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/urkunde-26.
4. James Campbell, “The Paschalion: An Icon of Time,” ''St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly'', Vol. 28 No. 4 (1984) pp. 245-262. Also available at https://www.academia.edu/8246608/The_Paschalion_An_Icon_of_Time.
5. Chrysostom, Paschal Homily VII, Migne, ''Patrologiae graecae'' Vol. 59, col. 747A.
6. Hefele, History of the Councils, Vol. I., pp. 328ff. 7. Ambrose, Letter to the Bishop of Amelia, Fathers of the Church Vol. 26, pp. 193-194 and 199. Latin text: Migne PL 16, 1073B and 1078A. 8. Until the 6th century the Paschal tables used in Rome were based on the conventional date of March 25th for the vernal equinox. See Jones, “The Development of the Latin Ecclesiastical Calendar” in Bedae, Opera de Temporibus (1943) pp.1-104 for an English overview, or a more detailed account in French s.v. “Paques. les controverses pascales” in Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique (1931) Tome 11.2,1948-70; also available at http://jesusmarie.free.fr/dictionnaire_de_theologie_catholique_lettre_P.html.<br>Please note that Hefele (note 5 above) differs from my more recent sources in saying that in 387 the Romans took March 18 as the vernal equinox in order to arrive at Pascha on March 21. It seems possible that the discrepancy involved the Romans having relied on their tabular EFM date regardless the equinox. This, of course, would have been a very serious breach of the Nicene principles. 9. The basic system can be found in the “Paschal Canon” of the Alexandrian scholar Anatolius, Bishop of Laodicea, which was composed c. 277 A.D. See http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf06.vi.iii.ii.i.html and following pages.
10. ''The Rudder'', Apostolic Canon 7, available at http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/cannons_apostles_rudder.htm . Also ''The Rudder'', Cummings ed. Until (Chicago: The Orthodox Christian Education Society, 1957). The Rudder's words "after the Passover of the 6th century Jews" may simply refer to the astronomical Paschal tables used Full Moon, not to any date in Rome were based on the conventional Jewish calendar. In practice, it is often understood to mean the 15th of Nisan in the Rabbinic Jewish calendar. <br>See for example http://orthodoxwitness.org/over-the-rooftops/how-the-date -of March 25th for -pascha-is-determined/2/ (Last visited April 15, 2015) where the author states that Pascha in 2015 is set to April 12 2015 to avoid coinciding with "the Jewish Passover" which he dates (incorrectly) to April 5, and that Pascha 2016 is set to May 1 to avoid coinciding with the Jewish Passover which he dates to April 22. This last date corresponds to 14 (not 15) Nisan 5776 and so is the vernal equinoxJewish Passover in a strict sense, but April 22, 2015 is a Friday, not a Sunday. Jones In any case, “The Development of the Latin Ecclesiastical Calendar” author clearly uses "Jewish Passover" to refer to a date on the Jewish calendar, and not to the paschalion's Paschal Full Moon, which falls on Tuesday, April 7 in Bedae2015 and on Tuesday, ''Opera de Temporibus'' (Cambridge: Medieval Academy of AmericaApril 26 in 2016. <br>James Campbell, cited in Reference 4 above, 1943)says that the Gregorian paschalion violates the Nicene rule "that Pascha is not to coincide with the full moon, ppbut to follow it" and that it is a mistake to treat this error as a violation of Apostolic Canon 7. 1-104 (See reference 4 above, text at footnote 14.)
811. Matthew BlastarisJoannes Zonaras, ''Syntagma Alphabeticum''Commentary on Apostolic Canon 7, Migne, PG 145137, 96D49-97A50.<br> Ἐαρινὴν ἰσημερίαν τινὲς τὴν κε᾽ φασὶ τοῦ Μαρτίου· τινὲς δἐ τὴν κε᾽ τοῦ Ἀπριλλίου. Οῖμαι δὲ μήτ᾽ ἐκείνην μήτε ταυτην τὸν κανόνα λέγειν· ὡς ὲπι τὸ πολὺ γὰρ τὸ Πάσχα πρὸ τῆς κε᾽ τοῦ Ἀπριλλίου ἑορτάζεσθαι είωθεν· ἔστι δὲ ὅτε καὶ πρὸ τῆσ κε᾽ τοῦ Μαρτίου, ὡς συμβαίνειν (εἰ οὔτως νοοϊτο ἡ ἐαρινὴ ἰσημερία) παρὰ τὸν κανόνα τοῦτον τὸ Πάσχα ἑορτάζεσθαι. Ἔοικεν οὐν ἄλλο τι ἐαρινὴν ἰσεμερίαν τοὺς συνετοὺς ἀποστόλους ὀνομάζειν. Ἡ δὲ πᾶσα τοῦ κανόνα, διαταγὴ τοῦτό ὲστι, τὸ μὴ μετὰ Ἰουδαίων (ἤγουν κατ᾽ αὐτὴν τὴν ἡμέραν) ἑορτάζειν τὀ Πάσχα Χριστιανούς. Χρὴ γὰρ προηγεϊσθαι τὴν ανέορτον ἐκείνων ἑορτὴν, καὶ οὕτω τὸ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς τελεϊσθαι Πάσχα. Ὁ δὲ μὴ τοῦτο ποιῶν ἱερομένο, καθαιρεθήσεται. Τοὺτο δὲ καὶ ἡ ἐν Ἀντιοχείᾳ σύνοδος ἐν πρώτῳ κανόνι διετάξατο, λέγουσα τῆς ἐν Νικαίᾳ πρώτης συνόδου ὄρον εὶναι περὶ τῆς ἑορτῆς τοῦ Πάσχα· εἰ καὶ μὴ εὑρισκεται ὲν τοῖς κανόσι τῆσ ἐν Νικαίᾳ συνόδου τοιοῦτος κανών.<br>Please note, this text has been translated into English from the Latin parallel translation found in Migne, PG 137.
912. See Agapios and NicodemusAristenus, ''The Rudder (Pedalion)'', Masterjohn (tr.) 2006 “Apostolic Commentary on Apostolic Canon 7,” p. 115; available at http://orthodoxbahamas.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/THE_RUDDER_Copyright__Ralph_J._Masterjohn_2006.pdfMigne, PG 137, 50.
1013. Matthew Blastaris, ''The RudderSyntagma Alphabeticum'', Cummings ed. (Chicago: The Orthodox Christian Education Society, 1957), p. 9. Also, Agapios & NicodemusMigne, ''The Rudder''PG 145, p. 11396D-97A.
1114. See Guiland, ''Essai sur Nicephore Gregoras'' (Paris: P. Geuthner, 1926), pp. 282-284. Also, ''Dictionnaire de Théogogie Catholique'' (Paris, 1911) Tome 11, col. 455; and Welborn, "Calendar Reform in the 13th Century" (Chicago: University of Chicago Dissertation, 1935), p. 31.
1215. M. Milankovitch, "Das Ende des julianischen Kalenders und der neue Kalender der orientalischen Kirchen", ''Astronomische Nachrichten'' 220, 379-384(1924).
1316. See World Council of Churches / Middle East Council of Churches Consultation, “Towards a Common Date for Easter” (1997); available at http://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/wcc-commissions/faith-and-order-commission/i-unity-the-church-and-its-mission/towards-a-common-date-for-easter/index?set_language=en.
1417. For an example of this, see Fr. Luke Luhl, “The Proposal for a Common Date to Celebrate Pascha and Easter,” ''Orthodox Christian Information Center'' (1997); available at http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/common_luhl.aspx.
==See also==
10
edits

Navigation menu