It was only weeks ago that I became aware that there were Muslims taking to Christmas markets and social media with the claim that Christmas was an observance with pagan origins.

Looking into the matter, I found out that this was not true. And the irony of that was that I had previously believed it to be the case. All Muslims had to do was keep quiet on the matter, and I would have been among the few who continued to believe the claim that they were considering making.

Since then, I’ve decided to expand my research to include investigating claims that the celebration of Easter is a pagan observance.

Being someone who actually believed this, I’m familiar with many of the claims that are made to support the allegation. This might bring a perspective to the topic that those investigating it might not often hear.

Before getting into it, there is a little something more that I’d like to point out, which might have some irony to it. It’s the fact that it’s often stated that Easter is a pagan observance, even in academic environments, and it’s treated as a statement of fact with little inquiry, as though it’s a given that early Christianity decided to allow pagan observances to be incorporated into Christianity, so as to not discourage people from converting, or disrupting their lives too much.

Here is what we’re being asked to accept: That early Christians were okay with syncretizing pagan observances, so as to avoid undue hardship. This is supposedly the same Christianity whose early converts were killed in great numbers. If you’re up for some difficult reading, look up how the Apostles died. None of them died peacefully on their beds.

Having said that, let’s evaluate some of the claims made about Easter by those who say that it’s pagan. There are more, but I think that touching on some of the more often-repeated ones would be expedient.

1. That “Easter” is a pagan name, therefore it’s pagan

I think that this claim quickly falls apart when you realize that Easter is only called “Easter” in the English language, and nearly all other languages call it by a variation of its original name, “Pascha”, which would be “Passover” in Aramaic. The only exception would be in German, in which it’s called “Ostara”. Pascha was observed by Christians well before Christianity was introduced to England or Germany.

From what we can tell, while it’s possible that there was a British god named Eostre, her name might’ve just been used to indicate springtime, similar to how the western world has named the first month of its year after Janus, without actually honoring the deity.

I suspect that if Easter had its name changed to the Aramaic Pascha, fewer people would make this claim. However, we’re not done with Eostre yet, as she comes up in another claim.

2. That Eostre is linked to Ishtar and Semiramis

Okay, here’s the gist of this claim. That Eostre, from whom the English name of Easter comes from, is somehow linked to Ishtar, whose name sounds similar.

The same Ishtar who fell out of favor with the people of Egypt about 2500 years before Christianity was introduced to the British island, was honored by no peoples since, not even anywhere in the entire European landmass which separated Egypt from Britain.

Citation needed.

As if that wasn’t tenuous and unsupported enough, there are those who attempt to link Easter to the ancient Babylonian queen, Semiramis.

Many of the people who make such claims cite Alaxander Hislop’s “The Two Babylons”. The Two Babylons is a 19th century “work” that’s often criticized because its sources are not extant. But that’s what happens when you report hearsay as fact, or otherwise just make stuff up. Like giving Nimrod a fictitious wife in an attempt to make a tenuous connection between Catholicism and ancient Babylon.

Hislop and many of his contemporaries seemed to have a problem with Catholicism, which they believed that Easter originated from. While there are a lot of criticisms that one can have towards Catholicism, that’s not an invitation to just make stuff up.

One question that’s appropriate to ask is that if Hislop didn’t have extant historical sources for many of the claims that he made, how would he have been aware of these things, and why would he state them confidently? Considering that his book read suspiciously like a parody of some of the over-the-top religious claims which were popular at the time, The Two Babylons seems suspiciously like parody. Yet, it seems that wasn’t the case.

Exodus 23:1 tells us, “You shall not circulate a false report. Do not put your hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness.”

If Hislop were aware of this, he probably would’ve been more hesitant to write The Two Babylons.

Don’t use The Two Babylons as a serious historical source.

3. That the Easter Bunny is pagan, and linked to Eostre

Seems we’re not done with Eostre, yet. A common claim about the Easter Bunny is that it’s associated with Eostre. This isn’t true, but that doesn’t mean that the claim isn’t made.

Because Eostre keeps coming up, I get the idea that she’s significant to claims that Easter is pagan in origin. So, you know what? We’re going to go full-tilt. I’m going to present every historical mention of Eostre from every ancient historical source that we have access to.

Hope you’re ready, because by the time we’re through this, you’re going to know all the information we have access to about Eostre.

For our first source, the 8th century Bede, who was present as the British were introduced to Christianity:

…and ‘Easter-month’, which is now interpreted as the Paschal month, since it had the name from a goddess of theirs who was called Eostre, and they celebrated her festival in that (month); now they give the Paschal season a nickname after her name, referring to the joys of the new solemnity with a word customary for the old observance.

Bede, De temporum ratione

And that’s it. That was the last source. Exhausted?

Now, in that long expose, notice where it says anything about rabbits? Me neither. In fact, it would seem like Eostre wasn’t associated with any animal in particular.

It’s said that rabbits were seen as fertility symbols. And while that’s plausible, there doesn’t seem to be any link to the use of rabbits as fertility symbols with their use in Easter.

We’ve been dancing around it; let’s get to the heart of the matter. We know where the idea for Easter Bunnies came from.

In Germany, there were actually many critters associated with Easter which delivered eggs (we’ll get into why eggs in a little bit). These basically acted like judges of children who were well-behaved, which got more eggs. Among the animals were a fox, a stork, and a hare.

The hare won out, because it was more popular. But eventually, the hare was replaced with the bunny, which is softer and fluffier.

So, no, the Easter Bunny is not pagan. It originated within Christianity, even if it’s not a central part of it.

4. That Easter eggs are an adapted pagan custom

In some cases, the imaginations of people are far darker than the reality of the matter. Skip the next paragraph, if you’re squeamish.

For example, I’ve heard the claim that pagans once colored eggs red using the blood of sacrificed children. If it were someone’s job to make Easter look as bad as they possibly could, that’s the kind of thing that they would make up.

This was possibly intended to be reminiscent of the fact that Christians used to dye eggs red to remind them of the blood of the sacrifice of Christ. Which sounds less grizzly, and wouldn’t be pagan.

But the reason why eggs is because it was on Easter that eggs were back on the menu.

Many Christians observed Lent. Sure, it’s not in the Bible, but some Christians did observe it. During those 40 days, eggs were among the prohibited food items. But hens continued laying them. So, some people would hard-boil them, so they’d last longer. Then, because Lent was timed to end when Easter began, people feasted on eggs, since they tended to have many, at that point.

When you’re aware of this, it’s easy to see how eggs became associated with Easter.

5. That hot cross buns are adopted from ancient Greece

It’s been accurately pointed out that ancient Greeks carved “crosses” into the tops of loaves. And supposedly, this was the reason for the cross shape in the icing of hot cross buns.

As someone who makes Irish soda bread, I can point out that there’s practical reason to cut a plus sign into the top of a loaf before baking. Some Irishmen say that it’s to let the fairies out, which sounds cute. But there is practical reason for the plus sign.

There’s actually two reasons. One is to control how the loaf expands, so it doesn’t split along the side, or otherwise expand unevenly. The other is to make the loaf easy to pull apart, for those who might want to do so.

So, when I hear that the Greeks sometimes cut a cross into the tops of some of their loaves, it makes intuitive sense to me why they would do that. And in some cases, they carved in an 8-pointed asterisk.

I know that some people would see a “cross” and think a religious symbol was what was intended. But sometimes, it’s not. There are people out there who think that a cross is a pagan symbol, just because it was once used by pagans as a religious symbol.

However, the crucifix could have easily been in the shape of an upright pole, with no intersecting beam. Or it could have resembled an uppercase “T”. These were also shapes of crucifix that Romans used. I’ve heard it said that an upright pole was once used as a pagan symbol. Does that mean that every instance of a pole is a pagan symbol?

A coincidental resemblance to a pagan symbol doesn’t make it one.

About 2 millennia after the ancient Greeks carved crosses into bread, a British baker decides to put crosses on his buns using icing. Different actions done for different reasons.

There’s a reason why an ancient practice is still used in baked goods to this day. It works.

But if you look at mundane baked goods, and think you see ancient Greek or Assyrian religious symbols, you might need to seek help.

So, no, hot cross buns are not pagan. Neither are Easter bunnies, or Easter eggs. Or Easter itself, for that matter, even if it might benefit from a name change.

While that might not be everything, that addresses the more significant claims. While it’s possible that there are dubious folk customs that made it’s way into Easter, if that’s so, then the problem would be with those customs, which wouldn’t make Easter as a whole pagan.

And as far as we can tell, Easter is not pagan.