The Date of Pascha

By Anastasios M. Ioannides
University Professor
Cincinnati, Ohio
<ioanniam@yahoo.com>

Every year, in the Paschal season, a question is raised by Orthodox Christians, why we do
not celebrate the resurrection of the Lord along with the other (heterodox) Christians, like
the Catholics or Protestants. Many wonder why whereas in 2010 and in 2011 the great
feast coincides throughout the world, more often the Orthodox Pascha tarries sometimes
one, sometimes four or even five weeks in relation to the Pascha of the Latins, which has
been established in the West as the common day of celebrating this major feast of
Christendom. Equally often, there are efforts by well-intentioned clerics, but also lay
people, to provide an answer to the enquirers repeating, in most cases, very well known
formulae, which, regrettably, do not appear to satisfy the audience. And so it is that the
following year we have the same questions, the same answers, yet the common Pascha
continues to remain a fleeting dream. My purpose is to explain, as best as I can, this
phenomenon, on the basis of my thesis for the degree of M.A. in Orthodox Pastoral
Theology (recently published as a book with the blessing of Patriarch Bartholomew),
hoping whole-heartedly that in a short while the Orthodox Church, under the leadership
of the Patriarch of Constantinople, as first-among-equals, will overcome her hesitations
or disagreements of any kind, and will unite again all Christians, in the East and in the
West, in a common Paschal celebration.

Let us begin, therefore, from the usual answers that are provided every year to inquiries
concerning the date of Pascha. These are essentially two: first, that Orthodox celebrate
Pascha on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the spring equinox; and secondly,
the Orthodox celebrate always after the Jewish passover. These are indeed the correct
answers; they are, that is, the definitions of the Holy Fathers on this issue. Yet, they are
also the very same definitions that the heterodox in the West observe annually. Then, one
might ask, why do the two celebrations not coincide? Well intentioned Orthodox may
immediately reply that Western Christians ignore the Jewish passover, as for example, in
2008, for which the Latin pascha was on March 23, whereas Jews worldwide celebrated
the first day of their own passover on April 20, a week before the Orthodox Pascha of
April 27. Yet, this is an inadequate answer. For example, in 2006, contemporary Jews
celebrated on April 13, Latin Christians on April 16, but even so, the Orthodox tarried
once again, until April 23. Moreover, the corresponding dates for 2013 will be 26 of
March for Jews, 31 March for Latins, yet May 5 for the Orthodox. Why?

For a general solution to the problem that will cover all years, one must comprehend not
only the verbal formulation, but also the significance of the Patristic definitions. When
the Holy Fathers refer to the Jewish passover, they have in mind not contemporary
rabbinic Jews (whose passover calculations have undergone significant changes after the
First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.) but the Biblical Hebrews in Christ’s
age. The Holy Fathers named this Biblical passover as the Nomicon Faska (Faseh, or
passover of the Mosaic Law) and understand (or even specify) its celebration to begin at
sunset before the day of the full moon following the spring equinox. Consequently, the
second explanation offered today by some well-intentioned Orthodox (“after the Jewish
Passover), is entirely synonymous to the first (“after the first full moon”), and therefore,
it is unnecessary and superfluous. For the sake of history, we mention that this second
explanation was never offered by itself, by the Holy Fathers, since the first one was
adequate. This explanation was mentioned for the first time as independent and additional
to the first one by the canonist Ioannis Zonaras in the twelfth century. In contrast, until
then, it had been considered adequate (as indeed was the case in the united Church before
the schism of 1054 A.D.) to provide the first explanation alone.

Therefore, it is within this first explanation and not in the date of the contemporary
Jewish passover, that we should look to find the causes of the difference of the Orthodox
from the Latin Pascha. Having found these causes, one will be able to understand at the
same time, the role of the paschal computation for the Biblical Nomicon Faska, as well as
of the contemporary rabbinic Jewish passover. For this reason, let us repeat the first (and
only) explanation of the determination of the date of Pascha. All Christians, in the East
and in the West, celebrate Pascha on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the
spring equinox. Thus, essential poles for this ecclesiastical computation are two
astronomical events, the spring equinox and the full moon that follows it. Yet, how is it
possible that two astronomical phenomena cause differences in the festal practices of the
Eastern and the Western Churches? To make these differences understandable, certain
additional astronomical data must be provided first.

Both the spring equinox and the full moon are instantaneous events, that is, they last an
infinitesimally short length of time, a mere moment. This moment is identical throughout
the world, even though that means for instance that the full moon occurs in some parts of
the earth at high noon and not during the night. The Holy Fathers, aware of this
astronomical fact, have stipulated that for the united Church the moment of these
astronomical events is defined on the basis of the geographical parallel running through
Alexandria, Egypt. A second astronomical fact that derives from the instantaneous
duration of the spring equinox and of the full moon is the following: even the most
precise astronomical calculations about such natural phenomena may be subject to a
small but finite error, say, of one second. Now if we assume that the spring equinox or
even the full moon occur precisely at midnight in Alexandria, then the astronomers will
not be able to define precisely the date of these events, and therefore, along with them,
the Church will find herself in a dilemma with regard to the celebration of Holy Pascha.
The Holy Fathers addressed this circumstance as well, stipulating that for the Church the
ecclesiastical spring equinox occurs always on March 21, even though the astronomical
spring equinox ranges between the 19th and 21st of March, on the civil calendar in use
today.

As to the full moon, the Holy Fathers compiled (or at least adopted) a table from which
one may obtain each year the date of the first ecclesiastical spring full moon, which date
the Holy Fathers, as also noted earlier, named (and defined as) the Nomikon Faska, the
passover that is, of Biblical Hebrews. Following these patristic stipulations, which began
with the First Ecumenical Council of 325 A.D., post-biblical (rabbinical) Jews,
themselves proceeded to update both the rabbinical equinox as well as the rabbinical first
spring full moon, on the basis of which they compute annually the date of the
contemporary Jewish passover. Thus, two astronomical phenomena have evolved into
ecclesiastical or rabbinical definitions. The difference between the ecclesiastical or
rabbinical stipulations is the source of the difference in the paschal celebrations of the
Western and of the Eastern Christian Churches, as well as of the contemporary rabbinic
Judaism. Let us examine each of these definitions individually.

The original definition of the Christian ecclesiastical equinox on the 21st of March in the
4th century A.D. suffered automatically from the well-known error of the Roman calendar
prevailing in that era (of the so-called Julian calendar), an error that is equivalent to
approximately one day in every one hundred and twenty eight years. Both the Eastern
and the Western Churches were aware of this error since those early days, an error that
did not affect of course, only Pascha, but all of the feast days of the year, movable and
immovable. The Byzantine polymath, Nikephoros Gregoras (who is broadly known for
his anti-Palamite positions during the hesychast controversy) was the first to suggest in
1324 A.D. as a solution to the problem of the equinox, the elimination of a number of
days from the calendar, so that the concurrence between the astronomical and the
ecclesiastical equinoxes might be restored. Unlike the emperor as well as the
ecclesiastical authorities in the East, who hesitated in implementing this calendrical
reformation, worried as they were about a possible stasis (revolution), the all-powerful
and more courageous Pope Gregory XIII undersigned the astronomical work of Western
scientists and beginning in 1582 A.D., ten days have been eliminated from the Julian
calendar. Since then, three additional days have been eliminated in accordance with the
newly-established Gregorian calendar, the most recent such elimination having occurred
in 1900 A.D. The next elimination will happen in 2100 A.D. Therefore, the Orthodox
ecclesiastical spring equinox occurs today on April 2, that is 13 days after the patristic
equinox, and beginning in 2100 A.D., it will occur 14 days after it. A commensurate
discrepancy exists between it and the astronomical equinox. Consequently, a full moon
that occurs between March 21 and April 2 is considered as a springtime event only in the
West, but not in the East. This explains the difference of four weeks in the celebration of
the Latin and Orthodox Pascha.

Why then does the Orthodox Pascha appear to occur in many years at the time of the
contemporary Jewish passover? According to the Jewish calendrical reformation that
began with rabbi Hillel II in 358 A.D., the computation of the rabbinic spring equinox is
subject to an error of approximately one day every 228 years. As a result, rabbinical
spring begins in our days between March 26 and 28. If a full moon occurs between
March 21 and 26, as was the case in 2005 and in 2008, and will occur again in 2016, this
is not considered a springtime event by rabbinical Judaism, which in such a case agrees
with the Orthodox Eastern church and disagrees with the Latin Western church. If, on the
other hand, a full moon was to occur between March 27 and April 2, as was the case in
1994 and in 2002, and will occur again in 2013, this will be considered a springtime
event both by the Western church as well as by contemporary rabbinic Judaism, both of
which will disagree in such a case with Orthodoxy. The manner of establishing the
rabbinic equinox and of the contemporary Jewish passover is, therefore, irrelevant to the
celebration of Pascha whether in the Orthodox or in the Latin church. Neither when the
Jewish passover occurs near the Orthodox, nor when this disagrees with Orthodoxy, is it
taken into consideration in the paschal computations of the Eastern church. In parallel,
neither when the Jewish passover occurs near the Latin pascha, nor when it disagrees
with it, is it taken into consideration in the paschal computations of the Western church.
This in fact was the prime motivation for the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea: the
independence of Christian Pascha from the computations of post-biblical rabbis.

Let us now turn our attention to the first ecclesiastical spring full moon. The table that
was sanctioned by the Holy Fathers (with the contributions of the most prominent
astronomers of the time in Alexandria) is based on the so-called Metonic cycle, which is
assumed to be repeated every 19 years. The cycle, however, is subject to an error of one
day every some 318 years, a shortcoming about which Nikephoros Gregoras also alerted
the emperor and the ecclesiastical authorities in Byzantium in 1324 A.D. The Western
church comprehended the implications of this discrepancy more fully only some decades
after the Gregorian reformation of 1582 A.D. and since then she has been revising her
tables of the ecclesiastical spring full moon approximately every 100 years, on the basis
always of new astronomical facts. In contrast, the Orthodox church continues to employ
the original table, which in our days includes an error of three, four or even five days.
This discrepancy explains the difference of one week between the Latin and the Orthodox
Pascha. In this manner, we have a total difference of one, four, or five weeks in the
Christian celebration of the resurrection in the East and in the West. The contemporary
Jewish computations regarding the full moon are exceptionally precise, and consequently
they agree both with the corresponding determinations in the West, as well as
astronomical data.

It is now very clear that from an exclusively astronomical viewpoint, the Western paschal
computation is more precise than the Orthodox, while at the same time continuing on the
basis of patristic tradition. Why then is the Orthodox church not revising her
calculations? The most important reason for this conservative behavior, I believe, can be
traced to the fall of Constantinople in 1453 A.D., a disaster which many Orthodox
blamed, at least in a moral sense, on the Pope. During the 400 years of slavery that
followed, the “Romean” people of the Ottoman empire were engaged in a cruel struggle
to survive, with few if any concerns about calendrical reform. In contrast, the West
galloped unmolested down the path of the Renaissance, and of the Enlightenment, not
always, of course, with exclusively healthy consequences. The wounds from the fall of
the Vasilevousa (Queen City) were far too raw and painful to allow Patriarch Jeremiah II
Tranos to concur with the reformation plan of the Pope, which he might have even
considered devious. Slavery, however, eventually came to an end and with the
declaration of the Hellenic Republic, came also the founding of the University of Athens.
And so began to blow in the Eastern church of the “Romeans” as well, the wind of
national, intellectual and ecclesiastical regeneration. A fruit of this optimism was the
decision of the Patriarch of Constantinople Meletios Metaxakis, to tackle again the
calendrical problem in general, and more specifically, the problem of harmonizing the
Orthodox paschal computation both with modern astronomical facts as well as with the
pertinent patristic definitions. One barely needs to stare at the sky on the night of
Orthodox Resurrection, to realize how far contemporary Orthodox Pascha, for example,
has strayed from the full moon.

The most prominent astronomers of Orthodox jurisdictions submitted an unprecedented

and well documented proposal for calendrical reform in 1923 A.D., which the West—
ecclesiastical, political, and scientific—not only praised, but also promised to accept.
Instead of this, however, discord intervened, “holding a scepter, cunning as she is,” and
who plagues from time to time the autocephalous Orthodox churches. Thus, instead of
universal Christian unity, Metaxakis’ attempt precipitated the beginning of the intra-
Orthodox schism of the Old Calendarists (the very stasis that had been the concern of the
Byzantine authorities in the age of Gregoras) and the creation of the current hybrid
ecclesiastical calendar, according to which movable feasts are defined on the basis of the
ancient Roman calendar, whereas the immovable on the basis of the prevailing political
calendar.

It is particularly disheartening that, even in the “Romean” Churches such as those of

Cyprus and of Greece, one often hears dogmatic praises for the current hybrid Paschal
computation. It would have been much preferable if we all supported the Patriarch of
Constantinople in a new effort, so that Orthodoxy would regain the leadership relative to
the West that was hers concerning calendrical and Paschal issues up until the fall of 1453
A.D. Regrettably, however, fraternal envy, indeed, “does not know to opt for the
beneficial.”

2,581 words