There is hardly a point in the whole Quartodeciman question that has not, at one time or another, been vigorously contested. Since the days when the Tübingen school interpreted the struggle to support their separation of the Fourth Gospel from the Johannine Tradition, there has grown up a veritable library of controversial literature on the subject. Perhaps the most judicious statement of the problem in English appeared in Stanton's The Gospels as Historical Documents (Part I, pp. 173–197), which was dependent upon Schürer's De Controversiis Paschalibus (1869). Since that time, however, the question has been re-opened by Schmidt's learned Excursus appended to his text of the Epistola Apostolorum. Dating this work in the 60's of the second century, he claimed that in Chapter 15 there was a reference to the Paschal controversy that confirmed his view. Furthermore, he contended that this section of the Epistola had once for all settled a number of uncertain problems. Chief among these was the significance attached by the Asiatic Church to the 14th of Nisan. Schmidt concluded from the words, “But do ye commemorate my death,” that on this day the Easterners celebrated the Passion. Henceforth it would be impossible to claim that the Quartodeciman rite implied a Christian “Passover” which commemorated the Last Supper and the institution of the Eucharist (pp. 600–601). Indeed, he went so far as to urge that the whole Asiatic practice was centered in the Passion to the exclusion of the Resurrection. Contrasting the Quartodeciman with the Catholic custom he wrote, “Dort Passah, hier Ostern!” (p. 579).