The controversial matter of the observation of the Christian Passover serves as a means of discerning significant differences between Judeo-Christianity and that of the East and West in the Greco-Roman Church. An important step in this analysis is comparison of population data with salient events occurring in the first three centuries of the Christian era. See Table 1 for a comparison of early Christian population projections with selected salient events. The critical points were at CE 150, 200, and 300.

The prevailing practice in the East, where seemingly the majority of Christians were of Jewish descent during the first and second centuries, was observation of the Christian Passover in the Greek assemblies at the precise time of the Jewish Passover at the beginning of Nisan 15. For some reason the time of its observation from apostolic times had shifted, among many Greco-Roman Christian communities of Asia Minor, from its celebration at the beginning of Nisan 14 to the beginning of Nisan 15.

Apparently this shift was in response to the language of the synoptic gospels indicating that just prior to his death Jesus kept the Passover with his disciples (Matthew 26:18, Mark 14:14, Luke 22:8). In this they failed to distinguish between the change in time and symbol in Passover observance for Christians as instituted by Jesus. Whether or not Judeo-Christians shifted this observance from the Nisan 14 observance to Nisan 15 is unknown. Probably not as the point of view of Judeo-Christian congregations was that of keeping true to the Testimonia (Bagatti 1971b:48) and their adherence to the Hebrew calendar and the annual Sabbaths. Karl Baus, in his treatment of the origins of Christianity, described the custom in the Greco-Roman Eastern Church:

In second-century Asia Minor and a few neighboring regions, a Christian Passover was kept which naturally placed the thought of the lord�s passion in the foreground, but also included the idea that this passion leads to the resurrection. In accordance with Jewish custom, 14 Nisan was kept as the date for this Passover, by the Quartodecimans of Asia Minor and perhaps generally at first; it was prepared for by a strict fast and included a homily on Exodus 12 (as did the Jewish Passover). It was not exclusively a day of mourning nevertheless, and had a joyous conclusion with the agape and celebration of the Eucharist early on Nisan 15. (Baus 1990:269.)

The agape was a meal. Early Nisan 15 refers to the time of the traditional Jewish Passover beginning at sunset at the end of the fourteenth. This custom of the Greco-Roman churches of the East presumably differed from the practice of Hellenistic Judeo-Christians outside of their fellowship. The latter likely continued to celebrate this event at the beginning of the fourteenth as established by Jesus of Nazareth and not the beginning of the fifteenth in the custom of the Jews. Yet, observing the event at the same time, with a full meal, as in the Jewish Passover certainly provided cultural continuity for Christians of Jewish descent and may well have arisen from Jewish tradition.

Eusebius wrote of Byzantine bishop Polycarp of Smyrna, the acknowledged leader of the Gentile Greco-Roman bishops in the east, but not of the Judeo-Christian bishops, visiting with Roman bishop Anicetus ca. CE 160. The latter sought to convince Polycarp to have the Greek churches abandon the Nisan 14 custom in favor of observing the resurrection feast, as had the Latin churches from the time of Roman bishop Sixtus I, that is ca. CE 115, but he failed in this quest. Eusebius wrote that the bishop of Rome, Anicetus (154-163), "could not persuade Polycarp not to keep it because he had always observed it with John, the Lord�s Apostle, and the other apostles" (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 5.24, Boyle 1955:210-211).

When they concluded their meeting the two bishops "communed with each other; and in the church, Anicetus yielded to Polycarp, out of respect no doubt, the office of consecrating" (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 5.24, Boyle 1955:210-211). That is, they celebrated the Eucharist in the ritual of the Mass with Byzantine bishop Polycarp presiding (see Baus 1990:281-285). The two Greco-Roman bishops parted amicably agreeing to disagree on the matter of the Nisan 14 custom (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 5.24, Boyle 1955:210-211). At this time Gentiles would have made up at least 27.3% of Christians in the Roman empire (see Population Projections).

Late in the second century the Roman bishop Victor I (bishop, CE 189-199) also sought to abolish observation of Christian Passover on Nisan 14 in favor of the Lord�s-day, i.e. Pascal Sunday, observance in its place. He caused local synods of orthodox bishops to convene throughout Christendom to consider the matter and to determine the extent of the two customs. Accordingly, in CE 196 the Council of Caesarea convened with only bishops of Gentile stock from all over Palestine present and ruled that the Lord�s-day celebration would be the exclusive Christian practice in the region. Eusebius elaborated:

The bishops indeed of Palestine, whom we have just mentioned, Narcissus and Theophilus, and Cassius with them, the bishop of the church at Tyre, and Clarus of Ptolemais, and those that came together with them, having advanced many things respecting the tradition that had been handed down to them by succession by the apostles, regarding the passover, at the close of the epistle use these words: "Endeavor to send copies of the epistle through all the church, that we may not give occasion to those whose minds are easily led astray. But we inform you also, that they observe the dame day at Alexandria, which we also do; for letters have been sent by us to them, and from them to us, so that we celebrate the holy season with one mind and at one time." (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 5.25, Boyle 1955:211.)

As non-participants in the Council of Caesarea, whether by their own choice or by deliberate exclusion, Judeo-Christians in the Levant resisted attempts of the orthodox to enforce the Council�s decree upon them. Bagatti explained that:

A half a century after Hadrian�s war we meet in the community an open dispute between the Hellenistic hierarchy and the Judeo-Christian faithful, especially under bishop Narcissus and his successor Alexander. The first was present at the Council of Caesarea (196), at which it was established that Easter should be celebrated on Sunday instead of the 14th of Nisan, and it can be supposed that when the bishop wished to implement the decision of the Council, he met with opposition. In fact the Judaeo-Christians were convinced that the traditional day of Nisan the 14th was not capable of change. (Bagatti 1971a:10.)

The stand taken by the Judeo-Christians was that the decisions of the orthodox bishops and their synods lacked the authority from God to outlaw the Nisan 14 Christian Passover. To do so was not scriptural. Compelling a Lord�s-day Pascal celebration, or Easter as Bagatti refers to it, were ultra vires acts. Judeo-Christians, in a primitive Protestant way, held that the Scriptures were the standards in such matters, rather than the opinions of Gentile bishops. 

As Bagatti stated it: "The fact is that the Judaeo-Christians did not accept the conciliar decisions for two reasons: first, because they deprived them of a preponderance of authority; secondly, because they considered the date of Easter unchangeable. The various facts relative to the observing of the new moon in which the Minim also in the beginning were taken as witnesses by the Jews, shows us that the Judaeo-Christians also observed the neomenia and fixed accordingly Easter and the feasts that depended on it" (Bagatti 1971a:81).

Moreover, he concluded that a much "deeper reason prompted the Judaeo-Christians not to accept the decisions of the gentile churches, and it was this, the common belief among the Jews that the date had been fixed by the Lord and was, therefore, unchangeable. Many believed that this date was superior even to the sabbath itself" (Bagatti 1971a:81).

The situation in the Greco-Roman orthodox churches of Asia Minor also became quite ominous. The Greek churches, led by Byzantine bishop Polycrates rejected Victor�s arrogance and refused to follow the Latin custom. Polycrates rejected the threats and intimidation he received from the Latin Greco-Roman hierarchy and wrote Roman bishop Victor I that the churches of Asia Minor would not change their practice.

An angered Victor I then sought to excommunicate, or disfellowship, all the Greek churches in Asia Minor, and other churches that neighbored them, for not abandoning the Nisan 14 Christian Passover custom. He was not able to declare these orthodox Asian churches heterodox for he lacked sufficient support among the other Latin bishops particularly Irenaeus (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 5.24, Boyle 1955:209). At this time Gentiles would have made up at least 37.1% (Growth Projection 1, Table 5) of all Christians in the Roman empire. There would have been about 7,000 Gentile Christians in Rome at that time (Grant 1978:6; Stark 1996:9).

The upshot of the matter is that there was not yet the overwhelming Gentile majority in the West needed to compel a Pascal Sunday resurrection feast observance, known today as Easter, upon Christendom. That occurred about CE 300 when Gentiles were in the clear majority. At that time Gentiles accounted for 52.9% of the Christians in the Roman empire (see Growth Projection 1, Table 5) to perhaps as many as 63.5% (see Growth Projection 2, Table 6) of the world�s Christians. With the rise of the Nicenes in the Constantinian period, declaring themselves orthodox and catholic, the gentilization of Christianity went forward successfully. Greco-Roman theology now replaced Judeo-Christian theology as the dominant force in Christendom. This resolved the Nisan 14 Christian Passover issue once and for all for Greco-Roman Christianity through adoption of a binding uniform policy for all orthodox congregations. Karl Baus explained that even the bishops of Palestine, the Gentile Greco-Roman bishops like Eusebius, not the Judeo-Christian bishops, strove:

...for a uniform manner of celebrating Easter in accordance with the majority decision. The Quartodeciman minority remained faithful to their previous practice throughout the whole of the third century, and the Novatians in Asia Minor followed them in this. The first cannon of the Synod of Arles in 314 imposed the Sunday Easter, and the Council of Nicea expelled the Quartodecimans from the ecclesiastical community. Thereafter, their numbers continually declined, though even into the fifth century the great Church had to deal with them on occasion. (Baus 1990:271-272.)

As Greco-Roman Christianity emerged, and differed doctrinally, it swamped Judeo-Christianity. Judeo-Christians, whether the Hebrew Nazarenes or the Hellenist branch, were not equipped to withstand the onslaught of the powerful state-supported Greco-Roman Christianity of the Byzantines.

Page last edited: 01/26/06 07:13 PM

Thank you for visiting BIBARCH�
Please Visit Our Site Often