Facts

Why they aren't all the same

In my article A Calendar, I talked about the association between Easter and Eoster. I mentioned individuals that had the opinion that a single monk’s book was not enough justification to say if their was a connection. I had an idea that this opinion was of someone with a historian’s viewpoint. In my very first anthropology course, the professor was handing back our midterm papers. When she handed one back to another of my classmates. She asked the question, “ are you a history major”. His response back was “yes”. She replied, “it shows'“. There is a difference between historians and anthropologists; we just look at things differently, with emphasis on different kinds of facts.

I knew there was a clue in the language. I wasn’t sure if I wanted to deep dive into this, I felt I didn’t need to be convinced. I had then watched another social media video where this dude in dreadlocks was saying that no one had any idea where the English Language came from. I knew this was untrue from another experience I had in my late-life college career. While I was in Introduction to Archaeology, the university was looking for a new anthropology professor. The prospective professors were giving lectures at the university, and anyone could attend. My professor assigned us to write an assignment about several of the prospective professor’s lectures. One of the ones I picked was an anthropology professor whose expertise was in language. She talked about how migration patterns could be traced by how groups spoke certain words. It also allowed for language to be put in certain language groups. What later influences on that group were also indicated by the words they used. I then had to take the dive.

There are only two languages that use a word for Easter that is not based on the word for Passover. English has Easter and German has Ostern. The Anglo-Saxons had come from the Germanic tribes. The early English and early Germans had a lot in common, along with similar spiritual beliefs.

This next part is where I ran into trouble with refuting a historical viewpoint. The early church adapted many local celebrations into Christian celebrations. Here is the problem: historians believe there is only limited evidence of that happening. So much for convincing the historians. There is something else that anthropologists look at, and that is culture. One aspect of culture that nearly all humans have is the dislike of change. I spend many hours in the military doing training on how to manage change. Humans can be forced to change, but if that change is too much or too fast, they will reject it. Change has to be in small chunks if you don’t want a revolt. Adapting a local celebration with a new Christian meaning is the optimal way to make change gradually. In the beginning, not much changed in the way that the farmers and other workers celebrate. The guy who lives in the stone house changes the story and over time, that story gets adopted into the local culture.

Historians are correct, there is no written explanation of these changes that happened gradually over time through many generations. Many times, with writing, there is nothing on one side, so the only evidence is from a biased viewpoint. Julius Caesar’s historical writings of the Druids is one example. Irenaeus of Lyons, a Christian writer, was the only source of the philosophies of the Gnostics for the longest time. When other writings were discovered in the twentieth century. His writings proved invaluable in identifying who the writings had come from, even though his writings were derogatory. Only accepting ideas and beliefs when it comes from a narrow band limits our intellect. It also makes it far too easy for us to be manipulated.

Peace and Love