his‘predecessors’, in whichluna XIVwas allowed to occur two days too
early.^81 But although this scheme is referred to as an error, the passage reads
as a disagreement rather than a polemic. Indeed, the‘predecessors’are intro-
duced in the text asaliqui ex nobis(‘some from among us’)—which could not
express more clearly that the pseudo-Cyprian does not assume on their part
any estrangement or schism.
To conclude, the writings of heresiologists and computists in early-third-
century Rome do not suggest that much had changed from the 190sCE. The
date of Easter could be the object of controversies, which is why the deviant
practice of Easter on the 14th was included, for thefirst time, in several
heresiologies. But differences of opinion regarding the date of Easter were
not considered a source of social schism. The purpose of these works was to
refute false opinions regarding Easter, rather than to marginalize or excom-
municate certain groups of Christians as heretical; what bothered them was
not diversity of practice, but rather practices that they considered wrong.
Likewise, the design of Easter cycles, the earliest of which was possibly
authored by one of these heresiologists (Hippolytus), may have been intended
to enforce the observance of Easter on Sunday, and certainly (at least for
pseudo-Cyprian) had much to do with‘parting ways’from the Jews; but there
is little or no suggestion at this stage that their purpose was to standardize the
date of Easter, eliminate diversity, and establish uniformity of practice within
Christianity, which in this period was certainly not achieved.
Thefirst computists in the East: Anatolius’cycleEaster cycles also emerged in the East, though slightly later in the third
century. The earliest mentioned by Eusebius is an eight-year cycle instituted
by Dionysius of Alexandria around 253CE.^82 Whether it was ever used in
practice, and if so for how long, is completely unknown.
The next cycle, much better known, was that of Anatolius bishop of
Laodicea (in Syria—although he was himself of Alexandrian origin) whose
treatise, from about 270CE, is partially cited by Eusebius (HE7. 32) and has
been preserved, seemingly in full, in Latin translation under the title
DeRatione Paschali(Mc Carthy and Breen 2003).^83 Anatolius constructed a
(^81) De Pascha Computus4, 6:PL4. 1028, Ogg (1955) 3–4; Strobel (1984) 45; see Mosshammer
(2008) 126–7. The anonymous termantecessoresmay be intended as a double entendre: they are
pseudo-Cyprian’s predecessors, but also those who make Easter too early.
(^82) EusebiusHE7. 20. On the medieval tradition that Demetrius, an earlier bishop of
Alexandria, had instituted afixed Easter cycle at the beginning of the 3rd c., see Ch. 6 n. 89.
(^83) For a brief description of this cycle, see Lejbowicz (2006) 24–9; on the authenticity and
accuracy of the Latin translation, see above, n. 67. Mosshammer (2008) 144–5, 150–61, who
rejects its authenticity, proposes instead a reconstruction of Anatolius’cycle which is ingenious
Sectarianism andHeresy 391