{"id":32547,"date":"2021-12-28T14:28:21","date_gmt":"2021-12-28T14:28:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.roger-pearse.com\/weblog\/?p=32547"},"modified":"2021-12-28T14:28:21","modified_gmt":"2021-12-28T14:28:21","slug":"did-theophilus-of-caesarea-in-196-ad-state-that-christmas-must-be-observed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/roger-pearse.com\/weblog\/2021\/12\/28\/did-theophilus-of-caesarea-in-196-ad-state-that-christmas-must-be-observed\/","title":{"rendered":"Did Theophilus of Caesarea in 190 AD state that Christmas must be observed?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Now here’s an interesting claim! It is rather seasonal, and was posted on Christmas Day, and is here<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

Theophilus (A.D. 115-181), bishop of Caesarea in Palestine writes: \u201cWe ought to celebrate the birthday of Our Lord on what day soever the 25th of December shall happen. – Magdeburgenses, Cent. 2. c. 6. Hospinian, De origine Festorum Christianorum.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The same words with the same references float around the web, and also in book form, but they are much older.\u00a0 It appears word-for-word in ‘Pastor Fido’s (= Allan Blayney’s) Festorum Metropolis<\/em> (1652: downloadable from 25thdec.info<\/a>, here<\/a>), p.16.[ref]A modern transcription is online here<\/a>.\u00a0 Blayney refers to a work in two volumes by “Perkins”, but I don’t know what this was.[\/ref]\u00a0 There are all sorts of fake claims that circulate.\u00a0 When a quote is only referenced to early modern sources, and no ancient source is ever mentioned, then it is usually wise to be suspicious.\u00a0 Not infrequently even the references are wrong in these things.<\/p>\n

Firstly, Theophilus of Caesarea is historical, although those dates are uncertain, and I have seen as late as 195 AD mentioned.\u00a0 He’s mentioned by Jerome (De viris illustribus<\/em> 43), who got a short quotation from Eusebius of a now lost work on Easter (HE<\/em> 5, c.23, 25).\u00a0 But we have no works of this Theophilus.\u00a0 So how can the quote be genuine?<\/p>\n

The answer is a slightly strange one.\u00a0 I’ve looked up the references, and they are real.\u00a0 But neither reference indicates where the words come from.\u00a0 With a lot of googling, I have discovered that there is an early medieval forgery, written in Ireland around 600 AD, which purports to be the record of a synod at Caesarea, led by this Theophilus, discussing how to calculate the date of Easter.\u00a0 These words come from one version of this obscure text.<\/p>\n

There is no agreed title for this work.\u00a0 \u00a0We might call it pseudo-Theophilus, De<\/em> Pascha<\/em>; or maybe De ordinatione feriarum paschalium per Theophilum episcopum Caesariensem<\/em>, (On the arrangment of Easter festivals by Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria) since that is the title under which a shorter version of it was first published, back in 1537.\u00a0 The title does not seem to correspond to anything in the manuscripts, so was presumably dreamt up by the editor.\u00a0 It’s not in the Clavis Patrum Latinorum<\/em>, because the editors gave up once they reached the spuria of the Venerable Bede, among which it is sometimes found.<\/p>\n

So that is our source.\u00a0 The quote is not genuine – Theophilus never said it -, but it is not modern either.\u00a0 This material is an abbreviated quote from a 7th century Irish text on the date of Easter.<\/p>\n

That’s the conclusion.\u00a0 So what is it based on?<\/p>\n

The references<\/span><\/p>\n

Let’s start with the references.\u00a0 They are quite genuine, and they are reputable sources, although very elderly.<\/p>\n

The first source is none other than the mighty\u00a0Centuriae Magdeburgensese,<\/em> the\u00a0Magdeburg Centuries<\/em>. This early modern history of Christianity dedicated a volume to every century of Christian history. It appeared between 1559-74.\u00a0 The work was\u00a0 rather a pioneer in the use of primary sources.\u00a0 Volume 2 (1759) covered the second century, and in chapter 6, page 126-7, we find a section De festis Christianorum, ac primum de Paschate(On Christian holidays, and first, on Easter<\/em>).\u00a0 It’s online here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The relevant section reads as follows:<\/p>\n

\n

Cum contra Galli diem vnum anniuersarium, qui fuit VIII. calend Aprilium, obseruarent, in quo pascha celebrarent dicentes, vt THEOPHILVS indicat: Quid nobis necesse est ad lunae computum cum Iudaeis pascha facere? Quin sicut Domini natalem quocunque die VIII Calendarum Ianuarii venerit: ita et VIII Calend Aprilis quando resurrectio accidit, Christi debemus pascha celebrare<\/em>.<\/p>\n

While on the other hand the Gauls were observing one day annually, which was the 8 kalends of April (March 25), on which they were celebrating Easter, saying, as Theophilus indicates, “Why is it necessary for us to make an Easter calculation of the moon with the Jews?\u00a0 In fact, just as we ought to celebrate the birthday of the Lord on whatever day the 8 kalends of January\u00a0 (25 December) shall fall<\/span>, so also (we ought to celebrate) the Easter of Christ on the day of 8 kalends of April, when the resurrection happened.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The second source is Rudolf Hospinian, in his Festa Christianorum<\/em>\u00a0(1593), chapter 25, De Natali Domini ac Servatoris<\/em>.\u00a0 His account of starts on folio 109v – for the book is not paginated but foliated.\u00a0 On f.110 here<\/a> he writes:<\/p>\n

\n

Celebrata fuit \u00e0 nonnullis 25 die Decembris, iam inde ab antiqui\u00dfimis temporibus. Intelligitur hoc ex Theophilo C\u00e6sareae Palestinae Episcopo qui docet, Gallos diem vnum anniuersarium qui fuit 8 Calend Apriliam in celebratione Paschatis obseruasse idque, hac ratione defendisse: “Sicut Domini Natalem quocunque die 8 Calend. Ianuari venerit, ita & 8. Calend. Aprilis, quando resurrectio accidit, Christi debemus Pascha celebrare.” Ex Ca\u00dfiani ver\u00f2 argumento Epistolarum Theophili libris Paschalibus praefixo, apparet, \u00c6gyptios Natiuitatem Domini & Baptismum eiusdem, eodem die quem Epiphaniam appellat, celebrasse: quod etiam Hugo in cap 1 Matthaei de Armenijs testatur.<\/p>\n

It has been celebrated by some on the 25th December, indeed, from the most ancient times.\u00a0 This is understood from bishop Theophilus of Caesarea in Palestine who teaches that the Gauls observed one day annually which was the 8 kalend April in celebration of Easter, and defended it by this reason: “Just as (we ought to celebrate) the nativity of the Lord on whatever day the 8 kalends of January shall fall<\/span>, so also we ought to celebrate Easter on the 8 kalends of April, when the resurrection happened.”\u00a0 However from Cassian, from the argument of the letters of Theophilus prefixed to the Paschal Books<\/em>, it appears that the Egyptians celebrated the nativity of the Lord and also his baptism on the same day called Epiphany: as also Hugo gives as evidence in chapter 1 of Matthew to the Armenians (?).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Hospinian, then, is the immediate source of our quotation.\u00a0 Most likely he is just paraphrasing the Magdeburg Centuries<\/em>.\u00a0 But neither the Centuriators nor Hospinian give any primary source for this text.<\/p>\n

It is worth noting the mention of the customs of Gaul as if they were a source of authority.\u00a0 A bishop of Caesarea in Palestine would not tend to see things this way.\u00a0 \u00a0This is a first sign that something is not quite right with this text.<\/p>\n

My next step was to start googling for the Latin words quoted.\u00a0 This led me to the Bainton article in JSTOR – of which more below.\u00a0 But Bainton was extremely vague about just what text it was that he was quoting.\u00a0 He referenced a book by a 19th century independent scholar, Paul de Lagarde, and his too brief reference – “Mitteilungen” – was a mis-spelling of the actual printed title, “Mittheilungen”, which effectively concealed the source.\u00a0 The curse of poor referencing had struck again.\u00a0 But once I had de Lagarde, then I learned that this text belonged to a group of texts, all forged, created in Ireland around 600 AD.<\/p>\n

The Irish computistical forgeries.<\/span><\/p>\n

To understand what we are dealing with here, we have to spend a bit of time on these texts as a group, and the circumstances that created them.<\/p>\n

In early Dark Ages Ireland there was great interest in computus, the study of the calculations of Easter.\u00a0 But in the same period, a new method for calculating the date was being propagated from Rome, based on the methodology of Dionysius Exiguus.\u00a0 This caused disputes, which were resolved in the end at the Synod of Whitby, in 689.\u00a0 There the Roman method prevailed.<\/p>\n

In order to create a dossier to support the existing local Irish traditions, around 600 AD somebody composed a number of short works, attributed to early fathers of the church.\u00a0 The texts are known as the “Irish forgeries” – although Irish scholars such as Daniel McCarthy and D\u00e1ibh\u00ed \u00d3 Cr\u00f3in\u00edn, who have done a great deal of excellent work in this area,[ref]D. \u00d3 Cr\u00f3in\u00edn, \u201cArchbishop James Ussher (1581\u20131656) and the history of the Easter controversy\u201d, in: Late Antique Calendrical Thought And Its Reception In The Early Middle Ages<\/em> (2017), p.318 f.\u00a0 Online here<\/a>.[\/ref] tend to resist the term “forgery”.[ref]See also O.M.Cullen, A question of time or a question of theology: A study of the Easter controversy in the Insular Church<\/em>, PhD: Maynooth (2007), online here<\/a>, p.135, n.75: “… see James Kenney, The Sources for the Early History<\/em> and Bartholomew MacCarthy, Annals of Ulster<\/em>, Vol. IV, for a discussion of the Acts of the Council of Caesarea<\/em>, both these writers claim that the texts are deliberate Irish falsifications. It seems likely today that these texts were never intended to be deliberate falsifications. For the purpose of this work, it is the theological ideas that they contain that are of interest. Bede obviously thought of these documents as genuine.”\u00a0 The Annals of Ulster vol 4, p.cxv, may be found online here<\/a> and provides an excellent discussion of these curious texts.[\/ref]\u00a0 The works include those known as pseudo-Anatolius, pseudo-Athanasius, the letter of pseudo-Cyril, and one referred to as pseudo-Theophilus, our own text.<\/p>\n

I can’t go into these computistical texts, not least because I don’t understand computus.\u00a0 But I notice that another of the text, pseudo-Anatolius, also refers to practices in Gaul,[ref]Daniel P. McCarthy, \u201cThe council of Nicaea…”, p.188<\/a>.[\/ref] and also was\u00a0 built around a short quotation from Jerome (using Eusebius) from the genuine but obscure Anatolius, which the forger modified for his cause.<\/p>\n

There is no reason why real ancient authors in the civilised Greek eastern Mediterranean would appeal to the customs of little backward old Gaul.\u00a0 But there is every reason why a forger in Ireland, Christian only for a short time, and outside the Roman empire, would see Gaul as the nearest point of the civilised world.\u00a0 The presence of this in both texts seems suspicious.<\/p>\n

It is only fair to add that there was recently a valiant attempt by Daniel P. McCarthy to assert that the Liber Anatoli de ratione paschalis<\/em> is genuine, and that it is Eusebius’ quotation that is corrupt.\u00a0 As a layman I cannot really evaluate this, but it seems improbable, because this text appears to link closely to other texts of precisely the same sort.[ref]Daniel P.McCarthy, \u201cThe council of Nicaea and the Celebration of the Christian Pasch\u201d in: Young R. Kim, The Cambridge Companion to the Council of Nicaea<\/em> (2021), p.177-201.Google books preview here<\/a>.[\/ref]<\/p>\n

Just to digress a moment, it is a common situation with falsifications, that the texts rely on not<\/span> being compared with other works of the same kind.\u00a0 Individually they can deceive.\u00a0 Once seen as a group, they are nothing.\u00a0 Thus Edgar Goodspeed did rightly to collect and study together the “modern apocrypha” in his book of the same name.\u00a0 Individually these modern fake gospels seemed impressive.\u00a0 Once they were lined up in a row, it became obvious that each was an example of a genre, with a common set of methods and characteristics.\u00a0 They had a certain smell about them, a certain common way of doing things, once you’d seen a few.\u00a0 Another example is modern books about “the real Jesus”.\u00a0 Back in the 90s I remember searching a CDROM of reviews in the Times for books about Jesus.\u00a0 I read a number.\u00a0 After a while, it became clear that the books reviewed were really all the same.\u00a0 The claims made in the books varied wildly, but each and every one used the same tactics to advance their cause and dodge investigation.<\/p>\n

The editor of the Annals of Ulster<\/em> vol. 4, had occasion to discuss the Irish computistical forgeries, which he did with verve.\u00a0 From him I learn that these little texts were known to, and used by\u00a0the Venerable Bede, in his De ratione temporum<\/em> (On the Reckoning of Time<\/em>) in 725 AD.\u00a0 Indeed when we look at the manuscripts, we find that these forgeries often accompany works of Bede or Isidore.\u00a0\u00a0Bede uses pseudo-Theophilus in chapter 47.\u00a0 The pseudo-Anatolius text caused some real trouble ( p.cxv f.):<\/p>\n

\n

For textual distortion, resourceful invention and vituperative scorn, the spurious Anatolius stood peerless in the field of fabrication. Nor was his triumph confined to his own time. Columbanus quoted his dicta as binding on a Pope; the defenders of rival Paschal methods appealed to him in support of their respective contentions ; Bede(5) vainly taxed his skill to reconcile the contradictions of the “holy man”….<\/p>\n

5. Bede.\u2014De temp. rat.<\/em> vi., xiv., XXX., XXXV., xlii. ; Ep.ad Wic<\/em>. PL. 90. 599sq.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

I won’t go further into the other texts, but that editor notes:<\/p>\n

\n

As the Acts of the Caesarean Council, convened at the instance of Victor by Theophilus, in the matter of the\u00a0Quartadecimans, are lost, the fabricator may have known\u00a0that his work was not likely to be detected by collation\u00a0with the original. Be that as it may, he fatally betrayed\u00a0himself in one particular: March 25 was the\u00a0Roman, not the Eastern, equinoctial date.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

What does Pseudo-Theophilus say?<\/span><\/p>\n

The pseudo-Theophilus text is extant, we are told, in four different versions, and at least 36 manuscripts.\u00a0 I’ll look at these in a moment. They do not all include the words in which we are interested.\u00a0 In fact these words come from recension A, the long version<\/p>\n

Here is the start of the A-text, as reprinted by wild-boy independent scholar Paul de Lagarde who printed both the A-text and the B-text on facing pages:[ref]Paul de Lagarde, Mittheilungen<\/em>\u00a0(1889), vol. 4, p.274.\u00a0 Online here<\/a>.[\/ref]<\/p>\n

\n

Cum omnes apostoli ex hoc mundo transissent, per universum orbem diversa erant ieiunia. nam omnes Galli unum diem anniversarium VIII. Kal. April. Pascha celebrabant dicentes: Quid nobis est ad lunae computum cum Iudaeis facere Pascha? sed sicut domini natalem, quocunque die venerit, VIII. Kal. Ianuarii<\/span>, ita et VIII. Kal. Aprilis, quando resurrectio traditur Christi, debemus Pascha tenere, orientales vero, sicut historia Eusebii Caesariensis narrat, quocunque die mense Martio quartadecima luna evenisset, Pascha celebrabant. In Italia autem alii plenos quadraginta dies ieiunabant, alii triginta: alii dicebant, septem diebus, in quibus mundus concluditur, sibi sufficere ieiunare: alii, quia dominus quadraginta diebus ieiunasset, illi horas quadraginta deberent, cum haec ergo talis diversa esset observatio, maeror erat sacerdotum, quod ubi erat una fides, dissonarent ieiunia. Tunc papa Victor Romanae urbis episcopus direxit, ut daret auctoritatem ad Theophilum Caesariensem Palaestinae provinciae episcopum, quia tunc non Hierosolyma metropolis videbatur, ut inde paschalis ordinatio proveniret ubi Christus fuisset in corpore versatus.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

English translation of this by Roland H. Bainton from 1923, who also translated the start of the B-text:[ref]Roland H. Bainton, \u201cBasilidian Chronology and New Testament Interpretation\u201d, Journal of Biblical Literature<\/em> Vol. 42, No. 1\/2 (1923), pp. 81-134. See p.112.\u00a0 JSTOR<\/a>.[\/ref]<\/p>\n

\n

When all the apostles had gone from this life, fasts were differently observed throughout the world, for all the Gauls kept the Pascha on one day, March 25th, saying: \u201cWhy should we keep the Pascha with the Jews according to the moon? But as the birth of the Lord on whatever day it falls is kept on December 25th<\/span>, so we ought to keep the Pascha on March 25th, when Christ is said to have risen.\u201d The Orientals indeed, as the history of Eusebius relates, keep the Pascha on the fourteenth day of the moon on whatever day of March it might fall. But some in Italy fasted full forty days, some thirty; others said that seven days in which the world was made would do; others because the Lord fasted forty days kept forty hours. Since there was such variety of observance, the clergy were astonished that where there was a unity of faith there should be such diversity of practice in fasting. So Papa Victor, bishop of Rome, ordered that authority should be given to Theophilus of Caesarea, bishop of the province of Palestine, because Jerusalem was not then the metropolis, that the paschal rule might come from that region in which Christ lived.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The text continues, as the Acts of the Council of Caesarea, around 190 AD.\u00a0 Indeed some of the literature refers to the text as such.<\/p>\n

This, clearly, is where the Centuriators got their text, even though they did not say so.<\/p>\n

Mind you, they were clearly hot stuff.\u00a0 At the time of the\u00a0Centuries<\/em>, the A-text was unpublished.\u00a0 One of the Centuriators must have been aware of a manuscript of the A-text, probably in Switzerland, and used that.\u00a0 It is hard not to be impressed by this.<\/p>\n

The other common version, the B-text, does not contain this remark about the nativity.<\/p>\n

The versions of the text and where they may be found<\/span><\/p>\n

It’s now time to talk about the various versions of the text.\u00a0 In our internet-enabled age, much may be found online.<\/p>\n

The classic study is that of B. Kursch, Studien zur christlich-mittelalterlichen Chronologie: der 84j\u00e4hrige Ostercyclus und seine Quellen<\/em>, Leipzig (1880), p.303 f. (Online here<\/a>)\u00a0 In his time three versions of the text were known.\u00a0 I will summarise what he says, and add a few bits of my own.\u00a0 Here are the recensions that he gives.<\/p>\n