Calendars in Antiquity. Empires, States, and Societies

(vip2019) #1

pseudo-Tertullian, and remains therefore speculative.We do not even know if
the‘schism’imputed to Blastus by Irenaeus related specifically to his call for
observing Easter on the 14th: it might have been related to his other,‘innova-
tive’teachings, or even simply to his political intrigues. But pseudo-Tertullian
does seem to imply that his call for Easter on the 14th was the main substance
of his heresy.
The second heresiology, composed shortly afterwards in the 220s–230sCE,
is the more famousRefutatio OmniumHaeresium, attributed to Hippolytus.
Reference is made there, without naming anyone, to those who observe Easter
on the 14th of the moon regardless of the day of the week. According to the
author, their motivation and error is to observe, in this respect, the Law of
Moses contrary to Paul’s teachings; but in all other matters, they agree entirely
with Church traditions.^72 The context, again, is a list of heresies; indeed the
following paragraph, on‘Phrygians’, introduces the latter as ‘even more
heretical’^73 —implying that the preceding, those who observe Easter on the
14th, are also in some measure‘heretical’.
We must question however the meaning, in both the pseudo-Tertullian and
theRefutatio,ofhairesis(adjectivehairetikos), which in this early period did
not yet have the formal, quasi-legal meaning it was to acquire in the late
Roman Empire and was still close to its earlier, pre-Christian meaning of
‘school of thought’.^74 In both accounts, indeed, observance of the 14th is
presented as a false opinion rather than as a cause of social division or schism.
Indeed, it is not calendar deviance or calendar diversity per sethat are
censured, but rather the choice of a wrong date for Easter—which does not
preclude the possibility ofseveralSunday Easter dates being allowable or right.
And whilst individuals such as Blastus are mentioned, there is no indication of
any formally named heretical groups or heresies (as stated earlier, the terms
‘Quartodeciman’andTessareskaidekatitesare not yet attested in this period).^75
It is also noteworthy that both works were composed in Rome—the strong-
hold, since the days of Victor, of Sunday observance—and make no mention
of the established observance of the 14th among the churches of Asia. The
authors of these works had clearly no intention, in these brief paragraphs, of
reigniting the conflagration ofc.190CE, let alone of calling for observance of


(^72) Refutatio OmniumHaeresium8. 18 (Marcovich 1986: 337–8). On the considerable contro-
versy surrounding the authorship of this work and its attribution to Hippolytus, see ibid. 8– 17
and more importantly Mosshammer (2008) 118–21.
(^73) Refutatio8: 19.
(^74) See Iricinschi and Zellentin (2008) 3–4, 17–18; Humfress (2008).
(^75) Although the relevant section in theRefutatiois headed, in its only manuscript source, with
the titleðåæd ôHí ôåóóÆæåóŒÆØäåŒÆôØôHí, the authenticity of this heading must be questioned
because all other sections in this book of theRefutatioare untitled; moreover, in the list of
contents at the beginning of the book this section is simply referred to as‘those who observe
Easter on the 14th’(Marcovich 1986: 322)—a description, not a name.
Sectarianism andHeresy 387

Free download pdf