Author Topic: Yielding to the temptation of resurrecting an old essay  (Read 5137 times)

Joe Carillo

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4658
  • Karma: +207/-2
    • View Profile
    • Email
Yielding to the temptation of resurrecting an old essay
« on: April 23, 2011, 11:15:29 AM »
Each year, when Holy Week comes, I’m always tempted to resurrect an essay that I wrote way back on April 15, 2003 for my English-usage column in The Manila Times. Indeed, those who have been regularly following the essays featured in this section will recall that I yielded to that temptation last year by posting that essay in the Forum on Black Saturday (which at that time fell on April 3), prefacing it with an introductory note entitled “Looking back to Easter Sunday’s earthly and celestial foundations.” Today, Easter Sunday of 2011, I yield to that temptation again.

So, once more, here’s that essay, “Matters of faith,” which I wrote eight years ago after doing some research to answer a question of my then eight-year-old son—in the process curing my own abysmal ignorance of the foundations of Holy Week as celebrated by Roman Catholics all over the world. Happy Easter! (April 24, 2011)

Matters of faith

I was making notes for a possible non-English-language topic for my column, thinking that grammar wouldn’t be right for Holy Wednesday, when my nine-year-old tapped my shoulder and asked: “Dad, why is Holy Week from April 13 to 20 this year? Last year, it was from March 24 to 31.* Why not hold it on the same date like that of Christmas Day so it doesn’t get confusing?”

Talk about deja vu! I had wanted to ask my own father that same question when I was about the same age as my son now, but never got to ask. Now I am a father myself—three times over, in fact—and yet could only give a stock answer to veil my continuing ignorance: “It’s because the days of the Holy Week are movable feasts, son. They base it on a religious calendar—you know, that kind where there are names of one or two saints for every day of the year.”

“But why, Dad? They could do the same to every other religious holiday, but they don’t. And another question: Why is Easter Sunday called ‘Easter’? This celebration came from the West, so wouldn’t it make more sense to call it ‘Wester’? And one last thing: Why is the bunny a symbol for Easter? It looks funny and doesn’t seem right.”

Those questions stumped me even more, so I told him: “I really don’t know the answers, son, but tonight I’ll get them for you. Go to sleep now and tomorrow we’ll talk again.”

My little research to answer my son’s questions, I must say, yielded more fascinating answers than I expected. To begin with, it turns out that the movable Holy Week schedules are not totally arbitrary at all. They are always exactly timed in relation to the natural, once-a-year occurrence called the vernal equinox. The equinoxes—there are only two of them—are those times in the year when day is precisely as long as night. The vernal equinox [in the Northern Hemisphere] comes in March, marking the end of winter and the beginning of spring, while the autumnal equinox comes in September, marking the end of summer and the beginning of autumn.

The advent of spring was, of course, always a cause for great celebration in the ancient world. The Anglo-Saxons welcomed it with a rousing spring festival in honor of Eoastre, their goddess of springtime and fertility. The Scandinavians called her Ostra and the Teutons, Ostern, but they honored her in much the same way. The importance of this festival to the early Europeans was not lost on the second-century Christians, who wanted to convert them to Christianity. They therefore made their own observance of Christ’s Resurrection coincide exactly with the festival. Then they gradually made it a Christian celebration, even appropriating the name “Eoastre” for it. Thus, contrary to what my son thought, the later use of the term “Easter” for the high point of the Holy Week had absolutely nothing to do with global geography.

People in those early times, however, celebrated the spring festival on different days, mostly on Sundays but often also on Fridays and Saturdays. This became a thorny issue. To resolve it, the Roman Emperor Constantine—who had by then become a supporter of the Christian faith—convened the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325. This council came up with the Easter Rule, decreeing that Easter should be celebrated on the first Sunday that occurs after the first full moon on or after the vernal equinox. The “full moon” of this rule, however, does not always occur on the same date as the full moon that we actually see; it is the full moon after the ecclesiastical “vernal equinox,” which always falls on March 21. By this reckoning, Easter will always fall on a Sunday between March 22 and April 25. This rule has withstood the test of time, remaining unchanged exactly 1,682 years later to this day.

As to the Easter Bunny, it may be natural for us to think that it is simply a modern-day contrivance to liven up Easter Sunday. It isn’t. Its provenance is even older than that of Easter itself. The prolific rabbit, whose reappearance in spring unerringly marked the end of the brutal winters of those days, actually was the earthly symbol of the goddess Eoastre. Along with the Easter Egg, itself a symbol of rebirth in many cultures, the Easter Bunny was, in fact, a powerful ancient symbol for activity after inaction, for life after death.

In the suffering and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Roman Catholics and the rest of the Christian faithful have similarly found such an enduring symbol. They have thus consecrated the Lenten Season in His Name as their holiest of days, ending it on Easter Sunday in a feast where church tradition and ancient belief find joyful convergence.

These are the things I’ll tell my nine-year-old when he wakes up today and reminds me of what I promised him. (April 15, 2003)
-------------
From the weekly column “English Plain and Simple” by Jose A. Carillo in The Manila Times, April 15, 2003 © 2003 by the Manila Times Publishing Corp. All rights reserved.

*This year of 2011, of course, we are celebrating Easter on Sunday, April 24—the first Sunday after the full moon that follows the ecclesiastical “vernal equinox,” which in turn always falls on March 21. This really sounds complicated and rather arbitrary, but there it is.

bance33

  • Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 9
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Yielding to the temptation of resurrecting an old essay
« Reply #1 on: April 25, 2011, 12:01:03 AM »
Hi Joe, thanks a lot for the interesting matter-of-fact backgrounder on the celebration of Lent as a matter of faith. Your son is truly fortunate (and blessed) that he learned such facts at a very young age. I have a question though - not in matters of faith, but in computation. You said you wrote it in 2003 but in the article you said the Christian world has always celebrated Lent according to the decree of 325 A.D. from that time on till today, exactly 1,682 years later. If you add up the years, you'd come up with 2007. Was the figure updated when it was republished in 2007? Not that it really matters.

Joe Carillo

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4658
  • Karma: +207/-2
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Yielding to the temptation of resurrecting an old essay
« Reply #2 on: April 25, 2011, 01:18:49 PM »
You’re welcome, bance33!

Regarding the figure 2,007 that you came up with, let’s do some serious arithmetic here to clarify matters.

To begin with, that figure of yours is actually the number of years from the year 2003 (the year when I wrote the essay) back to the canonical year of Christ’s birth, which is estimated by some Biblical scholars to be around 6-4 BC based on the current Gregorian calendar. In short, that figure—2,007—would be the approximate number of Christ’s birth anniversaries counted up to the year 2003. (Today, seven years later, that number would be 2,014, give or take a year or two.)

Now, I’d like to point out that the number of years I came up with in my essay—“exactly 1,682 years later to this day” way back in 2003 when that essay was written—doesn’t refer to the estimated number of Christ’s birth anniversaries. Check it out by rereading the essay. You’ll find that I used the figure 1,682 to refer to the number of times that Easter has been celebrated since the Roman Emperor Constantine decreed in 325 AD that “that Easter should be celebrated on the first Sunday that occurs after the first full moon on or after the vernal equinox.” That figure, reckoned from the year 2003 when I wrote the essay, can be computed by simple arithmetic: 2,003 minus 325 = 1,678 years. This number, I must repeat, shouldn’t be confused with the count of Christ’s birth anniversaries.

But here’s the rub: When I posted my essay in the Forum in April 3, 2010, the figure that appeared in the essay was 1,682 years—“this rule has withstood the test of time, remaining unchanged exactly 1,682 years later to this day.” It’s evident that I had actually updated the number of years when I posted that essay in the Forum four years after its first publication in The Manila Times; I had added four years to 1,678 to yield the figure 1,682. But then, since I indicated the original dateline of that essay at the end of that posting—“April 15, 2003”—I can see now that I shouldn’t have made that update at all in the essay proper. Indeed, I should have retained every word in the essay as originally written to avoid confusing readers.

So, bance33, thanks for your feedback about the datelines in that old essay of mine. It has serendipitously raised my alert level over the handling of timelines and datelines in my writings, and for this I’m indebted to you.

Happy Easter Week! 

bance33

  • Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 9
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Yielding to the temptation of resurrecting an old essay
« Reply #3 on: April 25, 2011, 11:37:55 PM »
Actually, it is quite clear that the "ruling" started only in 325 A.D. I don't know why I added up the years instead of subtracting 325 from the year the article was written. I guess math isn't exactly my cup of tea, I'm just glad the not-so-smart question worked in some "serendipitous" way for you.
Thanks a lot for giving us a website that is both scholarly and entertaining.