Still, there do exist some claims of pagan connection that are slightly more substantial, and I felt I should address them also, as much misinformation is propagated, even sometimes by Easter defenders.
Now, these arguments of pagan origin or influence in Easter tend to come from two sources: Non-Christians eager to disprove Christianity, and from Christians who are claiming pagan influence on Christianity (usually with a specific target on Catholicism). Some arguments here will only apply to the latter group, but anyone should get at least some benefit from this post.
I had originally planned to put this post up a month or two after the
original, but I kept delaying because I wanted to try to improve it. I'm
still not sure I'm completely satisfied, but with Easter coming up soon
it seemed proper to put this up now while it was at least somewhat relevant.
Naturally, shortly before I posted this article, I discovered another blog that detailed much of the same information, making my post feel redundant:
http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2013/04/easter-faq.html
http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2010/04/easter-history-part-ii.html
Much of the information is shared, but there is some information there not found in my blog post, and vice versa. I considered incorporating some of the additional information into this
article, but decided it would be more proper to link directly for
reference. And with that, let's get into my actual blog post!
This will be a long article, so if you want a short version in the style of Summa Theologica, see the end; I'll bold it to make it obvious where it begins.
One argument made is that the Bible never mentions any apostle as celebrating Easter. There is 1 Corinthians 5:7-8, which may be a mention of Easter replacing Passover, but unfortunately is ambiguous. There is also Jesus's command to "do this in memory of me" in establishing the Eucharist, which could be understood to mean an annual commemoration as well. But that is somewhat speculative. So we will, for the purpose of this post, not advance the argument that there is direct mention of Easter in the Bible. I suppose I should briefly note a few Bibles use "Easter" in Acts 12:4 (most notably the King James Bible), but that appears to be an error of translation.
However, using lack of direct mention in the Bible against Easter has a number of problems. One is that just because it is not mentioned does not mean it did not happen; Acts has to compress several decades of events into a relatively short amount of pages, so some things got skipped over. There is, for example, a surprising lack of description of how church services were conducted despite that being something rather important. There would have been little need to mention the celebration of Easter if it were held because that information would have been publicly known to Christians due to their celebration of it, whereas in contrast the events of the growth of the early Church, which was what Acts focused primarily on, would have been something more necessary to record for posterity. For that matter, Acts concludes before Paul's martyrdom, meaning even if there was not Easter celebrated prior to that point, there was the possibility of such a celebration developing between the end of Acts and the deaths of all the apostles.
Of course, someone can claim that under the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, it should be in the Bible if we are to celebrate it. But restricting ourselves solely to what is recorded in the Bible gives no further argument that Easter is in any way pagan or problematic, because there is no statement in the Bible to not celebrate the anniversary of the Resurrection. So while someone could argue there is no command in the Bible to celebrate Easter, there is no command not to either. One could, of course, try to argue that Easter is pagan in origin and the biblical admonitions of taking on such things applies. However, as we will see as this essay goes on, the evidence of that is quite weak. So all we can take from the Bible is we do not know if they celebrated Easter in the apostolic age, though there is data outside the Bible that suggests they did (more on that shortly). But even if they did not, that doesn't mean Easter is actually pagan or that it is in any way wrong to celebrate it.
So when did Easter celebration start? Well, the usual claim of Christianity adopting pagan practices is that it happened around the time of Constantine, and it therefore allegedly adapting pagan practices by taking on aspects of the Roman religion. I saw someone claim that the Council of Nicaea created Easter. But is that really true? Was Easter not celebrated beforehand?
A citation you will see by some who allege it was a later innovation is the following quote from the Encyclopedia Britannica:
"There is no indication of the observance of the Easter festival in the New Testament, or in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers."
Specifically, this is from the 11th Edition, Volume 8, page 828. Setting aside the fact the 11th Edition was published all the way back in 1911 and lacks any information gained in the last century, this is not a particularly effective argument. The Encyclopedia Britannica simply says there is no indication in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers (for clarification, "Apostolic Fathers" refers to Christians who had met the apostles). This is technically accurate. The problem is, we don't have that many of their writings. According to Wikipedia, here is a full list of the writings of the Apostolic Fathers: The Epistle to Diognetus, First Epistle of Clement, Didache, Epistle of Barnabas, 7 epistles of Ignatius, Epistle of Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, Shepherd of Hermas, and a few scattered fragments preserved in quotations by later writers. That's it. Now I know it's Wikipedia, but it does cite sources, and in any event whether it's exact or not is besides the point; the fact is there are not many. So, the question becomes: If there was an Easter celebration, would any of these writings have a reason to mention it? Given that none of them mention Passover, so the answer seems to be "no."
This is an important thing to remember. The argument "no writer near the time period of X mentions X, so that means it's unlikely that X happened" is by itself not persuasive, particularly in regards to time periods where there have not been many surviving writings. The argument needs to be "no writer of this time period who would have mentioned X in the writings we have from them mentions X, so that means it's unlikely that X happened". It must be demonstrated that these writings would have mentioned X. For example, if we had an early handbook of Christian holy days that did not mention Easter, that would be a reason to be skeptical of claims of early Easter observance. On the other hand, the Martyrdom of Polycarp, an account of the martyrdom of Polycarp, would have little reason to mention Easter at all. (incidentally, this also applies to the skeptical claim that there were not many early non-Christian contemporary references to Jesus--we don't have many writings of that time and even fewer of them with reason to mention Jesus. For more information on that, see here)
So their lack of mentioning Easter celebration does not mean anything. All we can conclude is that we do not know if they celebrated Easter or not.
However, while we do not have writings of the Apostolic Fathers on the subject, we do retain early writings about the Apostolic Fathers, and we can find mentions of Easter in them, including an absolutely critical letter from Irenaeus. But first a little background for that letter.
Towards the end of the 2nd century, Pope Victor I got into a dispute with a group called the Quartodecimans over when to celebrate Easter; specifically, the Quartodecimans wanted to celebrate it on the 14th of the Jewish month of Nisan (the day just before the start of Passover), no matter when in the week it landed, whereas most of the rest of Christendom celebrated it the Sunday after the start of Passover, believing it should be on the same day of the week as the Resurrection. As a result, Victor wanted to excommunicate the Quartodecimans. In response to this, Irenaeus sent him a letter. This portion of it is quoted by Eusebius in his book Church History, and is also available here (#3):
"For the controversy is not merely as regards the day, but also as
regards the form itself of the fast. For some consider themselves bound
to fast one day, others two days, others still more, while others [do so
during] forty: the diurnal and the nocturnal hours they measure out
together as their [fasting] day. And this variety among the observers
[of the fasts] had not its origin in our time, but long before in that
of our predecessors, some of whom probably, being not very accurate in
their observance of it, handed down to posterity the custom as it had,
through simplicity or private fancy, been [introduced among them]. And
yet nevertheless all these lived in peace one with another, and we also
keep peace together. Thus, in fact, the difference [in observing] the
fast establishes the harmony of [our common] faith. And the presbyters
preceding Soter in the government of the Church which you now rule — I
mean, Anicetus and Pius, Hyginus and Telesphorus, and Sixtus — did
neither themselves observe it [after that fashion], nor permit those
with them to do so. Notwithstanding this, those who did not keep [the
feast in this way] were peacefully disposed towards those who came to
them from other dioceses in which it was [so] observed although such
observance was [felt] in more decided contrariety [as presented] to
those who did not fall in with it; and none were ever cast out [of the
Church] for this matter. On the contrary, those presbyters who preceded
you, and who did not observe [this custom], sent the Eucharist to those
of other dioceses who did observe it. And when the blessed Polycarp
was sojourning in Rome in the time of Anicetus, although a slight
controversy had arisen among them as to certain other points, they were
at once well inclined towards each other [with regard to the matter in
hand], not willing that any quarrel should arise between them upon this
head. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp to forego the
observance [in his own way], inasmuch as these things had been always
[so] observed by John the disciple of our Lord, and by other apostles
with whom he had been conversant; nor, on the other hand, could Polycarp
succeed in persuading Anicetus to keep [the observance in his way], for
he maintained that he was bound to adhere to the usage of the
presbyters who preceded him. And in this state of affairs they held
fellowship with each other; and Anicetus conceded to Polycarp in the
Church the celebration of the Eucharist, by way of showing him respect;
so that they parted in peace one from the other, maintaining peace with
the whole Church, both those who did observe [this custom] and those who
did not."
Polycarp was a disciple of John the apostle, and thus counts as an Apostolic Father. In terms of timing, Polycarp and Anicetus's meeting would have occurred in the mid-2nd century, as that is when Anicetus was Bishop of Rome, meaning Easter was being celebrated then. And both of them said their practices were handed down from their predecessors, going back further.
But things get even worse. Polycarp said that his observance came from the practice of John the apostle. While this is admittedly secondhand information concerning John's observances (Irenaeus is relaying something Polycarp said), it provides some support that one of the original apostles--and the one to which a multiple biblical books are credited--celebrated Easter, which would mean it is of outright apostolic origin. It is true there were disputes as to when the celebration should be held, but there was no dispute as to the celebration itself.
(I do wish to make an aside here. As noted, Pope Victor I had planned to excommunicate the Quartodecimans, but was talked out of it by other bishops, including Irenaeus. This has been used as an argument both for and against the Catholic idea of papal primacy. Those who oppose the idea say that it showed the pope was not considered to have authority over the other bishops because his command was rejected, whereas those who support it argue that it showed he was believed to have the authority, as Irenaeus and the others only told him that he shouldn't do it, not that he couldn't do it. In truth, I do not believe we have sufficient information to make a determination as to which was the case, and that this incident cannot be used as an argument for or against papal authority.)
Of course, this does bring up a question, which is why we do not follow John's example of when to celebrate Easter, when Polycarp can appeal to him but Anicetus does not appeal to any apostle, or at least Irenaeus does not record him as doing so. This is somewhat tangential, I feel, to the overall point--even if there was a change, it can hardly be chalked up to pagan influence by Constantine, which is the focus of this essay. I may go into more depth in a subsequent post, but for now I will give it only a brief treatment.
We must remember that both John and Polycarp had unusually long lives. John is said to have lived into his 90's, and Polycarp his 80's. This allowed Polycarp to, in the mid 2nd century, appeal to John. No other apostle appears to have lived that long and thus a link to them required more people in the chain. Thus, Anicetus could only refer to the presbyters that came before him because he didn't personally know people prior to that. What of the fact that Irenaeus only traces it back to Sixtus, which I have seen some say it demonstrates it began with Sixtus? While it is possible Irenaeus only went back to Sixtus in his list means Sixtus was the originator, it could also be Irenaeus demonstrating that was as far as Anicetus appealed to, that it was as far as Irenaeus was personally sure about it going back to (leaving open the possibility that it went back further), or perhaps it was just an arbitrary cutoff date because Irenaeus didn't feel the need to go back further. Remember that Irenaeus observed Easter Sunday himself, so I expect that whatever the explanation is for where Irenaeus left off, it is not that Sixtus changed it from the "original" method of doing so on Passover.
In any event, the difference in timing was seen as an allowable difference in practice, as demonstrated by Anicetus and Polycarp keeping communion. As did Victor, once he was calmed down. Therefore, celebrating Easter the first Sunday after the start of Passover was equally valid, and it just happened to be the version that most people ended up adopting. An argument that has been made is that the celebration of Easter on Nisan 14 (Passover) was later condemned, which appears to cancel out the idea the difference was allowable in practice. However, a key difference is that the date of Easter here was decided by an ecumenical council of the whole church, not the decision of one single bishop--and that by this time, the Sunday date after Passover was overwhelmingly used anyway as far as I understand.
So did celebrating Easter on Sunday have apostolic origin? That's a bit less clear. Still, Eusebius in Church History V.23.1 (shortly before he provides the above letter from Irenaeus), says:
"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."
In any event, Irenaeus's letter gives a strong point of evidence that the celebration of Easter goes back to the apostles. And it certainly demonstrates that Easter predated Constantine by at least a century and a half.
I should head off an objection that the Quartodecimans were simply keeping Passover, rather than a celebration distinct from it (Easter). The problem is that as we can see from Irenaeus's letter (and Eusebius's writings), the celebration was regarded as the same in both cases, even if the date was not. Since the Sunday celebration was clearly distinct from Passover, that means even the Quartodecimans' celebration, while at the same date as the start of Passover, was nevertheless distinctly Christian and was Easter. Furthermore, Irenaeus gives no indication that following the termination of the fast (the date of Easter), Christians actually followed the full Passover routine afterwards. He instead treats it as if the end of the fast is the most important point, rather than the beginning of a festival. So even the Quartodecimans were not really keeping the Jewish Passover, even if they shared the date.
Now, I have been relying considerably on the letter of Irenaeus. One objection may be that what we have is only that which is quoted by Eusebius, and not the original. That is true for a good number of historical works, which were lost and only are preserved through quotations, so that should not really be an issue. But if it is, a source from soon after the time of Irenaeus's letter is The Refutation of All Heresies. The author is disputed (it is attributed to Hippolytus of Rome), but it is dated to the early 3rd century, a century before Nicaea. It briefly discusses the Quartodecimans in Book 8 (Chapter 11). It's not as in depth and takes a harsher view of them, but nevertheless confirms the points made: While the Quartodeciman celebration may have been more closely tied to Passover in terms of the day, the celebration itself was the same as the one celebrated on the Sunday after Passover. Simply put, Easter was a Christian celebration distinct from Passover, and it was being widely celebrated prior to Constantine.
There is in fact another source that may come from before Irenaeus, the Epistula Apostolorum, which can be read here. In Chapter 15, it says:
But do ye commemorate my death. Now when the Passover (Easter, pascha) cometh, one of you shall be cast into prison for my name's sake; and he will be in grief and sorrow, because ye keep the Easter while he is in prison and separated from you, for he will be sorrowful because he keepeth not Easter with you. And I will send my power in the form of mine angel Gabriel, and the doors of the prison shall open. And he shall come forth and come unto you and keep the night-watch with you until the cock crow. And when ye have accomplished the memorial which is made of me, and the Agape (love-feast), he shall again be cast into prison for a testimony, until he shall come out thence and preach that which I have delivered unto you.
I avoided citing this until now because I feel it is weaker than Irenaeus's evidence. While it is generally dated to around 150 AD, which is before Irenaeus (though at about the same time as the Anicetus/Polycarp meeting), its dating is less fixed than that of Irenaeus's, and it exists only in translation from the original, rendering its accuracy less certain. It also largely unmentioned in early Christian literature to my understanding, raising questions of how orthodox it was. Furthermore, I am not sure if "Easter" or "Passover" is the proper translation here. The above translation writes "Passover (Easter, pascha)" which indicates Easter, but another one I found simply used Passover. But whichever it was, it clearly is referring to the fact there is a specific celebration of the death/resurrection of Jesus.
One may argue that these claims of apostolic origin are found outside the Bible and are therefore less trustworthy. But even if one disputes the specific claims of apostolic origins, two critical points remain. First, we can be absolutely certain that whether or not Easter goes back to the apostles, it was celebrated--and was different from the Jewish Passover--before Constantine was even born. Second, the Bible contains no declaration to not celebrate the anniversary of the Resurrection. Simply put, the idea that Easter began with Constantine or the Council of Nicaea does not hold up at all to the historical record.
But someone may then argue that while Easter was celebrated back then as a Christian holiday, the Council of Nicaea turned it into a pagan holiday with the redating. Indeed, the argument that Easter can be weeks away from Passover has been cited as evidence it is of pagan origin and not based on Passover (example: In 2016, Easter was March 27 while Passover was April 23). This argument, however, is incorrect.
First, some history. Prior to the Council of Nicaea, the method of choosing Easter's date for those who celebrated it on Sunday was to take whenever Passover was set, then hold it the Sunday after. There was an obvious problem with this, however: The Jews (specifically, the Sanhedrin) decided when Passover would happen. The Christian community disliked having an important celebration date decided by non-Christians, and there were also concerns (correct or incorrect) about the accuracy of the Jewish dating. As a result, the new mechanism for deciding the date of Easter was to set it on the Sunday after the first full moon after the start of Spring, specifically the Spring Equinox.
To understand why this was done, a quick explanation of the Jewish Calendar must be given. Each month is the length of a lunar month, which is the amount of time it takes for a new moon to become a full moon and then turn into a new moon again. So each month (which is either 29 or 30 days) begins with a new moon and has a full moon midway through. However, as you might have realized, 12 months of 29-30 days fall short of being an actual solar year (the amount of time it takes for the Earth to rotate around the sun). As a result, some years would be a "leap year" in that they would add an additional month at the start of the year to it to make up the difference. This is especially important as Passover is supposed to occur in the spring, and thus without the requisite leap years it would fall behind into the winter. Indeed, the way they decided when to put a leap year back then was any year where not doing so would cause Passover to not occur after the start of Spring. This Jewish site goes into some detail about it:
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/3210355/jewish/How-Does-the-Spring-Equinox-Relate-to-the-Timing-of-Passover.htm
So, the requirements for when Passover occurs is that it occurs on the first full moon after the start of Spring. And the rules for Easter were to set it on the Sunday after the first full moon after the start of Spring. In other words, it's the exact same thing, just without having to worry about the complexities of the rest of the Jewish Calendar, such as when to add that extra month.
With all of this in mind, various tenuous claims against Easter no longer hold up. Does the fact it occurs in the spring mean it is of pagan origin? Of course not; Passover also occurred in the spring. Is the fact it is based on the moon mean it is of pagan origin? Of course not; Passover is also based on that. Is Easter pagan because there are various pagan festivals that occur around the world near it? Of course not; the same is true for Passover. Granted, I know some have suggested that Passover is of pagan origin
also, but discussing that is beyond the scope of this article. The important thing is, Easter's date is no more pagan than Passover's date.
This, of course, brings us to the earlier objection some raise: If Easter is so based on Passover, why is it sometimes so far away from Passover? In 2016, Easter was on March 27 but Passover on April 23. Doesn't that prove it's unrelated to Passover? Actually, the problem here is not the date of Easter, but the Date of Passover.
The Gregorian Calendar has (on average) 365.2425 days, whereas the Jewish calendar has (on average) 365.2468 days. This means they drift apart 0.0043 days each year, or about 6 minutes. That may not seem like much, but it adds up over the centuries, so that every 232 years they diverge by one day. They've already drifted apart by several days at this point, and (unless a fix is implemented) they'll drift further apart, and eventually we will see Passover occurring in May and even later June. Now it's true that it won't be that extreme for a long time (it will reach May in 3639 A.D. and June in 10517 A.D.), but the point is it's happening and has already happened, albeit not to that extent yet. This site also discusses the problem.
You might ask why a difference of just a few days could put them weeks apart. It is because of the Jewish leap years, where Passover gets pushed forward a month. However, due to the drift, this means in some years in which Passover already is after the Spring equinox and thus there isn't a need for a leap year to push it after, a leap year happens anyway. This is what causes the occasional big difference between the dates of Easter and Passover.
There have been suggestions on how to fix the Jewish Calendar so Passover reverts back to its correct date each year (indeed, the first link in the above paragraph refers to one--note that it mentions that in this fixed version, Passover and Easter are always in alignment), but at present they have yet to be implemented. In any event, the argument "Easter doesn't always fall near the date of Passover!" is fallacious because the problem is in the current Jewish calculation of Passover.
Indeed, as noted above, this was one of the reasons the church decided to devise its own method for calculating Easter in the first place rather than rely on where the Jews put Passover: They were concerned that the Jewish Calendar wasn't getting the dates right. It is not clear if this was accurate, as I don't think we have any Jewish records that tell us on exactly what dates in the Julian calendar they celebrated Passover on. The Sardica paschal table (a Latin translation of a document from the 343 AD Council of Sardica) gives dates of the Jewish Passover from 328 to 343 AD, and some of them do fall prior to the spring equinox. However, this cannot be considered definite proof, as this is not directly from a Jewish source, but rather a translation of a Christian source about the Jewish dates. In any event it is hard to really fault the computation they did come up for Easter as it does avoid any potential errors in the Jewish calendar.
So the idea that Easter got created as some kind of fusion with Roman paganism after Constantine doesn't add up, as Easter was celebrated well before that. Nor does the claim that its date not always matching the week of Passover show it's unrelated to Passover work either, as the problem is actually on the Passover date for those years.
Another argument that is used is that the practices or symbols of Easter are pagan, with Lent, Easter eggs, and the Easter bunny being the ones most commonly pointed to. Even if true, that is only a condemnation of those particular practices; one can simply celebrate Easter while abstaining from them. So this is not an argument against the celebration of Easter. But are even these of pagan origin?
First, we will examine Lent, specifically the act of fasting during it. Once again, examine the quote from Irenaeus. Specifically, this portion:
"For the controversy is not merely as regards the day, but also as
regards the form itself of the fast. For some consider themselves bound
to fast one day, others two days, others still more, while others [do so
during] forty: the diurnal and the nocturnal hours they measure out
together as their [fasting] day. And this variety among the observers
[of the fasts] had not its origin in our time, but long before in that
of our predecessors, some of whom probably, being not very accurate in
their observance of it, handed down to posterity the custom as it had,
through simplicity or private fancy, been [introduced among them]."
Finally we come to the frequent symbols of Easter, namely Easter eggs and the Easter bunny. First, even if these are pagan in origin, that is not a slam on Easter itself. One can easily celebrate Easter without the usage of them. In fact, some countries have essentially no connection with these and Easter. For example, as noted here, Easter eggs and the Easter bunny are barely present in Mexico. I actually believe it would be a good idea to dispense or at least de-emphasize them. In the present day, they seem to distract from the religious meaning of Easter more than anything else, though I admit that things could be different in other countries that utilize them. So even if they are not pagan, there are at least some reasons to utilize them less.
But are they pagan to begin with? Well, I've seen a few people try to ascribe some connection to pagan practices, most commonly (but not solely) the Babylonian religion by pointing to some supposed usage of rabbits or eggs in those pagan religions. But I've noted that such people simply make the assertion without pointing to actual sources for proof. Instead, if any source is given at all, they simply point to someone who themselves do not give any kind of primary source or points to sources of highly questionable accuracy. But even if there was some pagan usage of a rabbit that far in the past, evidence indicates that the Easter bunny emerged originally in the 17th century in Germany. From my understanding, the first reference to the Easter bunny is in a work called "Disputatio ordinaria disquiriens de ovis paschalibus." It can be viewed here:
https://archive.org/details/b30766515/
If this is the first mention, which appears to be the case, then this means the first mention of the Easter bunny is from a 17th century work. So even if there was some major pagan usage of a rabbit way back when, the usage of a rabbit in Easter celebration comes far too late to be a strike against the holiday itself, and the similarity is thus almost certainly coincidental. It is true that this being the first mention does not mean it cannot go back further, but it is difficult to believe that this would have gone all the way back to the foundation of Easter, let alone be a notable part of the holiday, without any references to be found in the interim. (and as a minor note for those who claim this was innovation of the Catholic Church, the Easter bunny originated from Protestant areas)
Given that prior editions of the Encyclopedia Britannica are sometimes cited to attack Easter, it seems correct to quote what the current version has to say on the subject:
The custom of associating a rabbit or bunny with Easter arose in Protestant areas in Europe in the 17th century but did not become common until the 19th century. The Easter rabbit is said to lay the eggs as well as decorate and hide them. In the United States the Easter rabbit also leaves children baskets with toys and candies on Easter morning. In a way, this was a manifestation of the Protestant rejection of Catholic Easter customs. In some European countries, however, other animals—in Switzerland the cuckoo, in Westphalia the fox—brought the Easter eggs.
(Encyclopedia Britannica article for Easter--note it is possible it was changed since this post was created)
One other citation that people will try to bring up is something from the Catholic Encyclopedia's entry on Easter, which says:
The Easter Rabbit lays the eggs, for which reason they are hidden in a nest or in the garden. The rabbit is a pagan symbol and has always been an emblem of fertility (Simrock, Mythologie, 551).
I can't do much to verify its citation of Simrock's Mythologie, unfortunately. It's in German, a language I barely understand. Ordinarily I might be able to just use an automated translator to figure it out, but we run into the problem that I looked up multiple versions of this work on archive.org and they have different things on page 551, so I have no idea what edition is being used. Furthermore, they use an odd German font that makes it harder to figure out what the letters are.
So we'll set its source aside and look at the Catholic Encyclopedia itself. Now, the argument is to point out this is the Catholic Encyclopedia, and thus having an obvious Catholic bias, meaning that its admission that the Easter Bunny is pagan is all the more powerful. We run into a number of problems, however. The first problem is that the Catholic Encyclopedia, while having some useful information, is out of date, having been published in the early 20th century.
Second, note that it does not say that the Easter Bunny comes from paganism. It merely says that rabbits have been used as a pagan symbol of fertility. It does not mean that the Easter Bunny was derived from that pagan source--indeed, as has been noted above, it would have made little sense if it did considering the timeline.
Third and perhaps most importantly, we must look at larger context. As noted above, the Easter Bunny was first used in Protestant countries. Indeed, we see it used very infrequently, if at all, in Easter celebrations in countries with strong Catholic traditions. I noted that in Latin America, the Easter Bunny is not used much at all. Those are all countries with strong Catholic backgrounds. Similarly, Italy and Spain, from what I can tell, make no real use of it. See here, here, here, or here for descriptions of Italian Easter celebrations, and for Spain, see here or here. While the Easter Bunny does have more of a presence in the traditionally catholic France, this appears to be a relatively recent phenomenon, and is more heavy in the eastern areas (i.e. those next to and influenced by the much more Protestant-based Germany); see here or here. Now it is true I'm relying on anecdotal evidence for this, but everything I find lines up with this assertion. Ireland does seem to use the Easter Bunny, but remember that it for a long time it was controlled by the Protestant English, whose customs could have easily spread there.
Currently in the United States, the Easter Bunny is used by both Catholics and Protestants. However, with what has been noted about how the Easter Bunny is a Protestant invention that was only adopted by Catholics later on in countries with a very strong Protestant presence, it is quite likely that the writers of the Catholic Encyclopedia intended this note as a small attack on Protestantism, to assert that this part of their Easter custom may have been of pagan origin. Thus, far from being stronger due to being in the Catholic Encyclopedia, this would actually be weaker, as it would be something useful for its Catholic bias in criticizing a primarily Protestant practice.
But even disregarding all of that, we still have the rather obvious problem, as mentioned before, that the Easter Bunny comes so late that it cannot be considered the result of some early pagan influence. I noted the above only because the Catholic Encyclopedia reference gets trotted out frequently enough that I wished to address it.
Easter eggs are more confusing. I have found conflicting information, with some sources saying they arose in the middle ages, but others saying they were probably used by early Christians. For example, the aforementioned Encyclopedia Britannica also states in its Easter article:
The use of painted and decorated Easter eggs was first recorded in the 13th century. The church prohibited the eating of eggs during Holy Week, but chickens continued to lay eggs during that week, and the notion of specially identifying those as “Holy Week” eggs brought about their decoration. The egg itself became a symbol of the Resurrection. Just as Jesus rose from the tomb, the egg symbolizes new life emerging from the eggshell. In the Orthodox tradition eggs are painted red to symbolize the blood Jesus shed on the cross.
From what I can tell, on balance the later date has more evidence, which then falls into a similar problem as the Easter bunny; the practice simply arose too late to ascribe to pagan practice. But even if Easter eggs were invented early enough that it being inspired by pagan practice was plausible, does that mean it is a problem to use them? Well, do you know what pagans also did? They prayed. Should Christians not pray? Of course not. Praying to a pagan god may be pagan, but not prayer itself; similarly, decorating eggs for a pagan deity is pagan, but not decorating eggs for something else, such as a non-pagan religion, or simply for entertainment. Christians nowadays do not use Easter Eggs to celebrate pagan gods or goddesses. So even if they were pagan in the past, which as noted is far from clear, that is not an indictment of the current practice any more than pagans exercising prayer is an indictment of a Christian doing so.
It is also worth pointing out that there were legends that Easter Eggs were the result of Mary Magdalene. Now, it is unlikely that this legend was true, but the question isn't whether the legend is true--it's whether it was the source for Easter eggs, and that seems possible (admittedly, I am unsure of the date of the legend). Of course, it's also possible the legend came later as an after-the-fact explanation. But who knows?
One final thing should be noted, which is that some claim that Easter "hot cross buns" are taken from the pagan practices described in Jeremiah 7:18. The problem, however, is that Jeremiah gives no description of the items other than that they are "cakes," so it seems a stretch indeed to compare it to the buns. More importantly, no one has been able to demonstrate any actual pagan connection; claims invariably just point to Jeremiah 7:18 and assume that's the origin, perhaps throwing in some kind of analysis claiming that the cross in the buns actually has some secret pagan meaning. The problem is that no one has been able to demonstrate that "hot cross buns" were in fact made and consumed around the early Christian period at all. They appear to have instead mostly come into vogue in the last few centuries, obviously far too late for this pagan origin thesis to have any merit. There are claims that they can be traced back to a 14th-century monk named Thomas Roc(k)liffe. Even if that is the case, and it is not clear that this is true, that would still be too late for any kind of plausible pagan origin of the kind described in Jeremiah 7:18. But in any event, the onus is not on me to prove it; it is on those who allege a connection. And they have, at least in what I have seen from them, failed to do so.
So, the conclusions seem obvious. Easter most certainly was not created by Constantine or the Council of Nicaea, and there is at least reasonable evidence of outright apostolic origin. The date is Easter is also not pagan. Attempts to link up Easter eggs or the Easter bunny with ancient pagan practices seems to always be without an actual source to back it up, and these seem to have emerged far too late to be a case of being pagan influence on the holidays--and in any event, many countries have Easter without utilizing those at all.
Claims that Easter is pagan in origin are spread by people who have simply not bothered to do actual research on the subject. Ironically, the Christians who make such claims fall into the same trap that those who claim Jesus was copied from pagan myths (refutations of such claims available here) have in taking sourceless claims without research or relying on badly outdated books from the 19th century.
And now for our summary:
Article 1. Where the Easter holiday is of pagan origin?
Objection 1: It seems that the Easter holiday is of pagan origin. For there is no explicit suggestion to do so found in the Bible.
Objection 2: Further, had it been based on the timing of Passover, as it is claimed, it should be within a week, but some years it is several weeks away.
Objection 3: Further, the Council of Nicaea set the date of Easter to be based on the phase of the moon rather than Passover.
Objection 4: Further, the hare or rabbit was a symbol of spring fertility rites, which are of pagan origin. Eggs have often been used for pagan festivities, and Easter eggs are simply an example of this.
On the contrary, Irenaeus notes that, according to Polycarp, the apostle John and presumably other apostles celebrated Easter. Eusebius also records that Easter celebration is apostolic according to his Church History.
I answer that, as noted, there is evidence that the celebration of Easter is of apostolic origin. Even if one wishes to dismiss the claim of apostolic origin as secondhand information, the controversies concerning its date in the second century certainly show it was a well established celebration long before Constantine was even born and the alleged paganizing occurred.
Reply to Objection 1: There are some Bible passages that may indicate Easter observance. But even if they do not, lack of explicit biblical basis at most would be an argument that Easter celebration is not required, not that it is pagan or wrong to do so.
Reply to Objection 2: The difference between Passover and Easter in some years is the fault of an error in the calculation of Passover, not Easter.
Reply to Objection 3: Passover's starting date is set by the moon (and season) as well. Easter's dating is simply following the same formula; Passover is supposed to be the first full moon after the start of Spring, and thus Easter is the first Sunday after the first full moon after the start of Spring.
Reply to Objection 4: There is evidence, particularly for the Easter bunny, that these arose quite some time after the celebration of Easter was widespread, meaning even if they were of pagan origin, they cannot impugn the holiday itself. Even if they were of pagan origin, their modern usage is not pagan. If someone still finds them problematic, one can easily celebrate Easter without Easter bunnies or Easter eggs, as various countries in the world already do.
[Updated 8-8-20]