Page 1 of 2

The quartodeciman controversy

Posted: Wed May 27, 2015 12:17 pm
by Peter Kirby
If you're willing to flirt with 'mythicist' ideas, the whole quartodeciman controversy could be a clash that was destined to brew as soon as someone wrote the Gospel of Mark, according to which Jesus was clearly raised from the dead on the first day of the week ("the Lord's day").

Previous (pre-Markan) traditions associated Jesus' sacrifice with passover (1 Cor 5:7) and the resurrection with the 'third day' (if 1 Cor 15:4 is a guide) and knows of a [nondescript, generic, non-exclusive] meeting on the first day of the week (1 Cor 16:2).

However, the Passover changes days with the change of the calendar; it's celebrated on the "15th of the Hebrew month of Nisan." Without a fixed date for the death of Jesus, and without a fixed date for the resurrection of Jesus, and without a fixed tradition for which day of the week either occurred on, the pre-Gospel Christians would not have a fixed day of the week on which to celebrate Christ's sacrifice/resurrection (the Christian pascha) and would thus celebrate it in coordination with the date of the Jewish Passover.

Specifically, on the day of preparation (the 14th of Nisan), when the lamb (=Jesus) was slaughtered.**

But then someone goes and sticks days of the week on it all, and a few generations later, you have a big row over when to celebrate, with the upstarts wanting to pay respect to the Gospel tradition about Jesus being raised from the dead on a Sunday. Just like clockwork.

** Exodus 12:3,5-6
... on the tenth day of this month every man shall take a lamb according to their fathers' houses, a lamb for a household. ...
Your lamb shall be an unblemished male a year old***; you may take it from the sheep or from the goats
You shall keep it until the fourteenth day of the same month, then the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel is to kill it at twilight.

Incidentally this all begins on the "10th day," Exodus 12:3. An inspiration for "Holy Week," with the 10th=Palm Sunday, the 14th=Thursday, the 15th=Friday, & the 17th=Easter Sunday. The Gospel of Mark has Jesus die on the 15th of Nisan, i.e. Friday according to this same scheme where the 10th is Sunday.... while the Gospel of John has him die on the 14th of Nisan, whether that be reckoned a Thursday or a Friday (John is not completely clear). According to the quartodeciman Melito of Sardis, Jesus died on the 14th and was buried on the 15th, a 'Johannine' chronology. Apparently, then, the Gospel of John corrects the chronology of Mark to bring it closer in line with quartodeciman ideas.

The Death of Jesus in Mark vs. John
http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Jesus-Death.htm

*** This may have some relationship to the one-year ministry detected in the Synoptics (a favorite belief of gnostics, at any rate).

The quartodeciman controversy

Posted: Wed May 27, 2015 1:01 pm
by Peter Kirby
http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 0&start=30
Peter Kirby wrote:Ecclesiastical History, book 3 mentions this Theophilus of Caesarea (Maritima) along with the bishop of Jerusalem (Narcissus) and of Tyre, modern-day Lebanon (Cassius).
CHAPTER XXIII.—The Question then agitated concerning the Passover.
1. A QUESTION of no small importance arose at that time. For the parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Saviour’s passover. It was therefore necessary to end their fast on that day, whatever day of the week it should happen to be. But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this time, as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the resurrection of our Saviour. 2. Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, and all, with one consent, through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree, that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other but the Lord’s day, and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on this day only. There is still extant a writing of those who were then assembled in Palestine, over whom Theophilus, bishop of Cæsarea, and Narcissus, bishop of Jerusalem, presided. And there is also another writing extant of those who were assembled at Rome to consider the same question, which bears the name of Bishop Victor; also of the bishops in Pontus over whom Palmas, as the oldest, presided; and of the parishes in Gaul of which Irenæus was bishop, and of those in Osrhoëne and the cities there; and a personal letter of Bacchylus, bishop of the church at Corinth, and of a great many others, who uttered the same opinion and judgment, and cast the same vote. 3. And that which has been given above was their unanimous decision.
The letter "of those who were then assembled in Palestine" is quoted later (apparently, together with a bishop from Tyre and from Ptolemais in Cyrenaica).
CHAPTER XXV.—How All came to an Agreement respecting the Passover.
1. THOSE in Palestine whom we have recently mentioned, Narcissus and Theophilus, and with them Cassius, bishop of the church of Tyre, and Clarus of the church of Ptolemais, and those who met with them, having stated many things respecting the tradition concerning the passover which had come to them in succession from the apostles, at the close of their writing add these words: 2. “Endeavor to send copies of our letter to every church, that we may not furnish occasion to those who easily deceive their souls. We show you indeed that also in Alexandria they keep it on the same day that we do. For letters are carried from us to them and from them to us, so that in the same manner and at the same time we keep the sacred day.”
This entire part is a wealth of 'geographical information' for those interested in it. Here is the 24th chapter inbetween.
CHAPTER XXIV.—The Disagreement in Asia.
1. BUT the bishops of Asia, led by Polycrates, decided to hold to the old custom handed down to them. He himself, in a letter which he addressed to Victor and the church of Rome, set forth in the following words the tradition which had come down to him: 2. “We observe the exact day; neither adding, nor taking away. For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the day of the Lord’s coming, when he shall come with glory from heaven, and shall seek out all the saints. Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who fell asleep in Hierapolis; and his two aged virgin daughters, and another daughter, who lived in the Holy Spirit and now rests at Ephesus; and, moreover, John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and, being a priest, wore the sacerdotal plate. 3. He fell asleep at Ephesus. 4. And Polycarp in Smyrna, who was a bishop and martyr; and Thraseas, bishop and martyr from Eumenia, who fell asleep in Smyrna. 5. Why need I mention the bishop and martyr Sagaris who fell asleep in Laodicea, or the blessed Papirius, or Melito, the Eunuch who lived altogether in the Holy Spirit, and who lies in Sardis, awaiting the episcopate from heaven, when he shall rise from the dead? 6. All these observed the fourteenth day of the passover according to the Gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith. And I also, Polycrates, the least of you all, do according to the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have closely followed. For seven of my relatives were bishops; and I am the eighth. And my relatives always observed the day when the people put away the leaven. 7. I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words. For those greater than I have said ‘We ought to obey God rather than man.’” 8. He then writes of all the bishops who were present with him and thought as he did. His words are as follows: “I could mention the bishops who were present, whom I summoned at your desire; whose names, should I write them, would constitute a great multitude. And they, beholding my littleness, gave their consent to the letter, knowing that I did not bear my gray hairs in vain, but had always governed my life by the Lord Jesus.” 9. Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. 10. But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor. 11. Among them was Irenæus, who, sending letters in the name of the brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, maintained that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be observed only on the Lord’s day. He fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom and after many other words he proceeds as follows: 12. “For the controversy is not only concerning the day, but also concerning the very manner of the fast. For some think that they should fast one day, others two, yet others more; some, moreover, count their day as consisting of forty hours day and night. 13. And this variety in its observance has not originated in our time; but long before in that of our ancestors. It is likely that they did not hold to strict accuracy, and thus formed a custom for their posterity according to their own simplicity and peculiar mode. Yet all of these lived none the less in peace, and we also live in peace with one another; and the disagreement in regard to the fast confirms the agreement in the faith.” 14. He adds to this the following account, which I may properly insert: “Among these were the presbyters before Soter, who presided over the church which thou now rulest. We mean Anicetus, and Pius, and Hyginus, and Telesphorus, and Xystus. They neither observed it themselves, nor did they permit those after them to do so. And yet though not observing it, they were none the less at peace with those who came to them from the parishes in which it was observed; although this observance was more opposed to those who did not observe it. 15. But none were ever cast out on account of this form; but the presbyters before thee who did not observe it, sent the eucharist to those of other parishes who observed it. 16. And when the blessed Polycarp was at Rome in the time of Anicetus, and they disagreed a little about certain other things, they immediately made peace with one another, not caring to quarrel over this matter. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe what he had always observed with John the disciple of our Lord, and the other apostles with whom he had associated; neither could Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it as he said that he ought to follow the customs of the presbyters that had preceded him. 17. But though matters were in this shape, they communed together, and Anicetus conceded the administration of the eucharist in the church to Polycarp, manifestly as a mark of respect. And they parted from each other in peace, both those who observed, and those who did not, maintaining the peace of the whole church.” 18. Thus Irenæus, who truly was well named, became a peacemaker in this matter, exhorting and negotiating in this way in behalf of the peace of the churches. And he conferred by letter about this mooted question, not only with Victor, but also with most of the other rulers of the churches.
City centers and places mentioned--and people--separated by their letter/writing:

Caesarea Maritima (Palestine) -- Theophilus
Jerusalem (Palestine) -- Narcissus
Tyre -- Cassius
Ptolemais [in northern Africa] -- Clarus

Alexandria

Rome -- Victor (Xystus, Telesphorus, Hyginus, Pius, Anicetus, Soter, Victor)

Pontus -- Palmas

Gaul -- Irenaeus

Osrhoëne [a kingdom located around eastern Turkey, capital of Edessa]

Corinth -- Bacchylus

Hierapolis (Asia) -- Philip[?], two aged virgin daughters[?]
Ephesus (Asia) -- Polycrates, John[?], a third daughter of Philip[?]
Smyrna (Asia) -- Polycarp, Papirius
Eumenia (Asia) -- Thraseas
Laodicea (Asia) -- Sagaris
Sardis (Asia) -- Melito

It may be interesting to note that the churches of Asia, even in the later account of Eusebius (which cannot be claimed to be biased in favor of the opinion of Polycrates of Ephesus), were still merely just preserving "the old custom handed down to them." And that Victor was breaking with Roman tradition by refusing to recognize the validity of the practice in Asia Minor.

(It is not completely certain that the Roman tradition was an innovation in approximately the time of Anicetus, when Polycarp opposed him. ... But it seems to be the most likely interpretation. In the letter quoted from Irenaeus, both the attempt of Anicetus to convice Polycarp and the attempt of Polycarp to convince Anicetus are phrased in such a way that makes Polycarp's practice seem more ancient--"neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe what he had always observed with John the disciple of our Lord, and the other apostles with whom he had associated" and "neither could Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it as he said that he ought to follow the customs of the presbyters that had preceded him.")

Re: The quartodeciman controversy

Posted: Wed May 27, 2015 4:24 pm
by Secret Alias
There were already big differences when the calendar Christians used changed. Someone - I think Socrates - says that the Montantists used a 30 day x 12 calendar and had a date in April from what I remember for the crucifixion. The standard date was March 25 or 27th.

The change to a Sunday Resurrection was mandated by Rome. Whenever Rome is invoked the Imperial government is not far away. But why? Why should this matter? That Alexandria and Jerusalem agree with Rome is odd too. It is an interesting problem.

Re: The quartodeciman controversy

Posted: Wed May 27, 2015 4:25 pm
by Secret Alias
The Gospel of Peter seems to say that Jesus was resurrected on the 21st of Nisan.

Re: The quartodeciman controversy

Posted: Wed May 27, 2015 4:54 pm
by Peter Kirby
Secret Alias wrote:The Gospel of Peter seems to say that Jesus was resurrected on the 21st of Nisan.
True....

Kirsopp Lake basically speculated that the author didn't understand the Jewish calendar properly.

https://books.google.com/books?id=XBI3AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA156

Image

Image

PS --- Turns out that this little web app saves me loads of time over what I used to do with Google Books images....

http://snag.gy/

Re: The quartodeciman controversy

Posted: Wed May 27, 2015 4:55 pm
by MrMacSon
Besides the chronological issues, there are two other issues:
  • (i) the spatial relationship of the mainly two camps, and
    (ii) bishops of Asia were just preserving "the old custom handed down to them." Eusebius, Church History, Book V, Chaps 23 and 24

Re: The quartodeciman controversy

Posted: Wed May 27, 2015 5:10 pm
by MrMacSon
There's an interesting discussion here http://www.cogwriter.com/polycrates.htm

especially about *the Ramifications of Polycrates' Letter to Bishop Victor* on "the Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant acceptance of Sunday"

Re: The quartodeciman controversy

Posted: Wed May 27, 2015 6:55 pm
by Peter Kirby
The first flareup (? -ok, maybe not the first) of the quartodeciman controversy was apparently in AD 170.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250104.htm
In the books On the Passover he indicates the time at which he wrote, beginning with these words: While Servilius Paulus was proconsul of Asia, at the time when Sagaris suffered martyrdom, there arose in Laodicea a great strife concerning the Passover, which fell according to rule in those days; and these were written.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ro ... rs_of_Asia
Servilius Paulus (170)

The martyrdom of Polycarp mentions an Asiarch Philip:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... hoole.html

Lightfoot identifies him as Philip of Tralles:

https://books.google.com/books?id=B2AwAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA410

There's also a certain Statius Quadratus mentioned.

Just taken by themselves, the references in the Mart. Poly. are confusing (but nobody offers a date after AD 167):

https://books.google.com/books?id=gTMTO_9li4cC&pg=PA30

When further trying to reconcile them with the reference to the reference to AD 170 in what is very likely to be a contemporary letter, it gets very strange.

We also have whatever evidence Irenaeus provides for thinking that Polycarp had already passed by the time Irenaeus wrote (whenever, exactly, that was).

I guess this means that (1) the Polycarp incident in Rome, (2) the 170 controversy in Laodicea, and (3) the empire-wide controversy were separate events.

Think of something like the U.S. Civil War--- Congress didn't just show up to session one day and find it intolerable to remain united. There were a series of ideological skirmishes leading up to the full-scale conflict. This seems a bit like that.

Re: The quartodeciman controversy

Posted: Wed May 27, 2015 8:02 pm
by Tenorikuma
It's an interesting topic to explore, and controversies like this may reveal more than written statements of belief do. Rituals and traditions can persist even when doctrine changes and heretical texts are destroyed.

It certainly is curious that the early church could have so much trouble arriving at a consensus on when Jesus died.

Re: The quartodeciman controversy

Posted: Thu May 28, 2015 11:18 am
by andrewcriddle
Tenorikuma wrote:It's an interesting topic to explore, and controversies like this may reveal more than written statements of belief do. Rituals and traditions can persist even when doctrine changes and heretical texts are destroyed.

It certainly is curious that the early church could have so much trouble arriving at a consensus on when Jesus died.
It is as much a controversy about commemorating the death as about when the death happened.

There is a general problem as to whether one commemorates something on the right day of the month or the right day of the week. In general they will not coincide.

Andrew Criddle