# Pascha in Acts 12:4



## Marrow Man (Apr 11, 2009)

Why does the KJV translate _pascha_ in Acts 12:4 as "Easter" instead of "Passover"?

In every other instance of the word, the KJV translates _pascha_ as "Passover." Why insert "Easter" in Acts 12:4?


----------



## LawrenceU (Apr 11, 2009)

Because the AV translators were infallible?

Just kidding.

Here is the explanation I hear most often from strict KJVO folks:

http://www.av1611.org/KJV/easter.html

I'm not impugning anyone on the PB. This is just what I hear in my neck of the woods. I think Gipp is really stretching. He seems to forget that other Scriptures refer to the entire week of Unleavened Bread as the Passover.


----------



## Marrow Man (Apr 11, 2009)

Thanks. That might just be the most confusing and convoluted thing I've ever read. But then I see that it's Samuel Gipp, and the person who posted it even referenced his appearance on the John Ankerberg show. Not exactly his finest hour.

Surely the Greek language has a word for "Easter." And surely _pascha _isn't it. The whole "Passover means something different than Passover" doesn't really ring true, In my humble opinion.


----------



## Prufrock (Apr 11, 2009)

I'm sure they at least had a _reason_ for thus translating it; we might disagree with it, but these translators were not foolish men, or given to strange translations. Someone more versed in translation history (or AV exegesis) might be able to disagree with this and point out something more accurate, but I suspect it may have something to do with Tyndale, The Bishops Bible, Coverdale and the Great Bible, all of which read "Easter." (perhaps others? Also, it should be noted this phenomenon was not limited to English translations--so Luther, "...ihn nach Ostern dem Volk vorzustellen."). The translation of "Easter" had a respectable pedigree in English Bibles, and we know that the KJ translators took previous translations into account. You might be interested in noting certain passages, such as 1 Co. 5:7, which refers to "Christ our Easter lamb" in Tyndale

I have heard some explain that many of these old translations would attempt to translate _pascha_ as Easter when it referred to its Christian signification _post-resurrection._ Someone more knowledgeable, again, can confirm or deny this.


----------



## Marrow Man (Apr 11, 2009)

Thanks, Paul. That sounds like a very reasonable explanation for why the translators did it that way.


----------



## sastark (Apr 11, 2009)

Following up to Paul's info: I checked my 1599 Geneva and Acts 12:4 reads "Passover" not "Easter".

(so does the 1560 Geneva: Passover not Easter)


----------



## SolaScriptura (Apr 11, 2009)

I'm guessing that the translators translated it that way because they weren't Puritans. Thanks to nearly 1600 years of church tradition and practice concerning the subject, they just presumed that "Easter" was what the text was referring to. After all, in Eastern Orthodoxy their "Easter" is "Pascha." 

Of course, just because we have Paschal homilies dating further back than the first explicit references to paedobaptism doesn't prove that a special Sunday commemorating the Lord's resurrection as a "holy day" was apostolic... nor biblical.

Something can be ancient in practice, but without biblical warrant... it needs to be discarded. (Though translating it as "Easter" would give the appearance of warrant to the English Bible reader, wouldn't it? That's why we must know Greek!)


----------



## Marrow Man (Apr 11, 2009)

sastark said:


> Following up to Paul's info: I checked my 1599 Geneva and Acts 12:4 reads "Passover" not "Easter".
> 
> (so does the 1560 Geneva: Passover not Easter)



Wasn't it Gipp who opined that the reprint of the Geneva Bible was somehow "misleading" its readers?


----------



## sastark (Apr 12, 2009)

Marrow Man said:


> sastark said:
> 
> 
> > Following up to Paul's info: I checked my 1599 Geneva and Acts 12:4 reads "Passover" not "Easter".
> ...



I'm not familiar with what you mean. Is Gipp someone modern commenting on the reprinting of the 1599 Geneva? If that is the case, my 1560 is a facsimile and it also reads "Passover".

Or do you mean someone made that comment regarding the 1599 reprinting of the 1560? If that is the case, the notes on Revelation differ drastically between the two editions.

But maybe you meant neither of those things and I'm just too ignorant to know better!


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Apr 12, 2009)

Tim,

Thanks for bringing this up. After hearing Dr. Matthew McMahon’s, http://www.puritanboard.com/f16/easter-devils-holiday-46290/, with his use of Alexander Hislop’s book, _The Two Babylons; Or The Papal Worship: Proved To Be The Worship Of Nimrod and His Wife_ (Lorizeaux Brothers, 1990), to support his thesis, I wanted to study a little and write on this.

First of all, Ralph Woodrow, who wrote, _Babylon Mystery Religion_, influenced deeply by Hislop’s book, later retracted his view (and pulled his book off the market) after realizing Hislop badly erred. He then wrote a review (here in PDF), “THE TWO BABYLONS: A Case Study in Poor Methodology”, published in _Christian Research Journal_, 1999 Volume: 22 Number: 2.

Second, Will Kinney published a brief essay, “Is the word ‘Easter’ an error in the King James Bible?” I think this makes sense. I myself, in the past, have refused to term our celebration of the Resurrection “Easter” due to thinking it derived from Ishtar. But no longer. Check out Kinney’s point of view.

Of course, the pagan fertility symbols of eggs and rabbits _*are*_ carry-overs from ancient fertility rites and _*do*_ represent corruption in the church. But this has nothing to do with pure Easter. As a Jew, I do not like ungodly accretions to the Gospel and to the biblical Faith, be they rabbinic or pagan; as a poet and word-smith I like language that is spare and potent, and keep a sharp eye on linguistic corruptions in my native tongue (English); on either count I am not offended by the word Easter.


----------



## Marrow Man (Apr 12, 2009)

sastark said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> > sastark said:
> ...



Seth, there was a recent thread where Gipp was critical of the Geneva Bible. After going back and re-reading the thread, I see that it is the 2006 reprint of the GB that he is critical of.

However, your comments are pertinent, since this is from the back cover of Gipp's book, the subject of the linked thread:



> Bible believers know the history of their Bible and know that the Geneva Bible was one of the early English translations. It was in the line along with the Wycliff, Tyndale, Camner, Great and Bishops' Bibles which led to the most popular Bible of all time, the King James Bible.
> 
> Recently, a Bible has been promoted as the "1599 Geneva Bible" when, in fact, it is not. Unsuspecting Bible believers may be deceived into thinking it is safe to read and study from the "Grandfather" of the King James Bible. It isn't.
> 
> ...



Groan.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Apr 13, 2009)

The only time the Greek word _pascha_ (Passover) is used in the New Testament referring to a Post-Resurrection timeline is in Acts 12:4 where the King James Bible correctly has translated this Greek word as Easter.

In Greek, from which the King James New Testament was translated, Easter is the best translation for that particular Passover. Luke 22:1 and Ezekiel 45:21 both show that the entire feast of unleavened bread was called the Passover. The King James is accurate as it uses the word “Passover” *before* the death and resurrection of Christ and then “Easter” the only time the word occurs in the book of Acts *after* His resurrection.

There is an English / Anglo-Saxon usage of the word “Easter” pre-dating the King James (and Tyndale), and an etymological derivation from the German “Oster”. Until Tyndale, though, the English held in common with the European tongues (excepting German) the use of the transliterated _pascha_ for both the Jewish Passover and the post-resurrection celebration and its transformed Passover meal / Lord’s Supper. Tyndale differentiated between the two with linguistic brilliance, which was followed by the King James Bible.

For an enjoyable tour of the usage of this word – and the coining by Tyndale of the word “Passover” as well – see Nick Sayers’ article, _Why we should not Passover Easter_. Sayers explains why it is theologically and Scripturally correct to differentiate between Passover and Easter, as has been done. And it is made clear that the German "Oster" has the meaning of resurrection in its usage.

You needn’t groan, Tim, when Gipp states as he does regarding these two words – and the Geneva Bible. It’s not a “mistranslation” as he says, but Tyndale’s – the King James Bible following – is a _better_ translation.

Sayers again (after the above links to Woodrow and Kinney) shows the error of Hislop’s asserting that Easter derives from Ishtar. This is an urban legend among Biblical scholars, which should be pretty well debunked by now – but evidently is not.


----------



## DonP (Apr 13, 2009)

Well I agree there should be an NT word for the new celebration that was passover. 

But I don't think Easter was a good choice because of the pagan religions associated with it. 

Why not call it Passover or Resurrection Day if there is to be one now. 

But what the Jews celebrated was still Passover so why call it by an NT Term because we no longer do passover now.


----------



## SolaGratia (Apr 13, 2009)

Adam Clarke in his commentary on Acts 12:4, has this to say:


Verse 4. Four quaternions of soldiers] That is, sixteen, or four companies of four men each, who had the care of the prison, each company taking in turn one of the four watches of the night.

Intending after Easter to bring him forth] meta to tasca, After the passover. Perhaps there never was a more unhappy, not to say absurd, translation than that in our text. But, before I come to explain the word, it is necessary to observe that our term called Easter is not exactly the same with the Jewish passover. This festival is always held on the fourteenth day of the first vernal full moon; but the Easter of the Christians, never till the next Sabbath after said full moon; and, to avoid all conformity with the Jews in this matter, if the fourteenth day of the first vernal full moon happen on a Sabbath, then the festival of Easter is deferred till the Sabbath following. The first vernal moon is that whose fourteenth day is either on the day of the vernal equinox, or the next fourteenth day after it. The vernal equinox, according to a decree of the council of Nice, is fixed to the 21st day of March; and therefore the first vernal moon is that whose fourteenth day falls upon the 21st of March, or the first fourteenth day after. Hence it appears that the next Sabbath after the fourteenth day of the vernal moon, which is called the Paschal term, is always Easter day.

And, therefore, the earliest Paschal term being the 21st of March, the 22d of March is the earliest Easter possible; and the 18th of April being the latest Paschal term, the seventh day after, that is the 25th of April, is the latest Easter possible.

The term Easter, inserted here by our translators, they borrowed from the ancient Anglo-Saxon service-books, or from the version of the Gospels, which always translates the to pasca of the Greek by this term; e.g. Matt. xxvi. 2: Ye know that after two days is the feast of the passover.

(Anglo-Saxon) Wite ye that aefter twam dagum beoth Eastro. Matt. xvi. 19: And they made ready the passover. (Anglo- Saxon) And hig gegearwodon hym Easter thenunga (i.e. the paschal supper.) Prefixed to Matt. xxviii. 1, are these words: (Anglo-Saxon) This part to be read on Easter even. And, before Matt. xxviii. 8, these words: (Anglo-Saxon) Mark xiv. 12: And the first day of unleavened bread when they killed the passover. (Anglo-Saxon) And tham forman daegeazimorum, tha hi Eastron offrodon. Other examples occur in this version. Wiclif used the word paske, i.e. passover; but Tindal, Coverdale, Becke, and Cardmarden, following the old Saxon mode of translation, insert Easter: the Geneva Bible very properly renders it the passover. The Saxon (Anglo-Saxon) are different modes of spelling the name of the goddess Easter, whose festival was celebrated by our pagan forefathers on the month of April; hence that month, in the Saxon calendar, is called (Anglo-Saxon) Easter month. Every view we can take of this subject shows the gross impropriety of retaining a name every way exceptionable, and palpably absurd.


----------



## Marrow Man (Apr 13, 2009)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> You needn’t groan, Tim, when Gipp states as he does regarding these two words – and the Geneva Bible. It’s not a “mistranslation” as he says, but Tyndale’s – the King James Bible following – is a _better_ translation.



No offense, but I groaned because I find almost everything Gipp says to be unconvincing and unpersuasive. His attack upon the Geneva Bible is no exception.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Apr 14, 2009)

Please pardon me if I seem to belabor this matter; I pursue it for the sake of linguistic accuracy and comprehension, and also for the edification of those King James Bible users – to defend our Scriptures – and all others interested in this business. I repeat a saying of J. Gresham Machen I am fond of: I will not be held under “the tyranny of experts”.

Thus, Gil, I would take exception to Adam Clarke’s assertion:



> The Saxon (Anglo-Saxon) are different modes of spelling the name of the goddess Easter, whose festival was celebrated by our pagan forefathers on the month of April; hence that month, in the Saxon calendar, is called (Anglo-Saxon) Easter month. Every view we can take of this subject shows the gross impropriety of retaining a name every way exceptionable, and palpably absurd.



The Indo-European roots of our languages have the prefix _*aus-*_, which means _to shine_, important derivatives of which are the words east, Easter, aurora. It has the idea, “the direction of the sunrise.” The Old High German _ostan_ – east – derives from this root. That the dawn-goddess _Eastre_ or _Oestar_ derives from the same root does not mean they are the same word with the same meaning. The Indo-European _ausos-_ refers to the dawn, and also to the Indo-European goddess of the dawn. [Taken from _The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language_ 3rd Ed, the section, “Indo-European Roots”, p. 2095.]

Greek philosophers gave the word _logos_ certain meanings, while the apostle John imbued it with an entirely different (though related) significance. Because Easter has etymological roots in common with a dawn goddess, does not negate its own peculiar etymology and associations, among which are east, shining, rising, resurrection, as noted below.

The English word _Easter_ is of German/Saxon origin and not Babylonian as Alexander Hislop falsely claimed. The German equivalent is _Oster. Oster_ (Ostern being the modern day equivalent) is related to _Ost_ which means the rising of the sun, or simply in English, _east. Oster_ comes from the old Teutonic form of _auferstehen / auferstehung_, which means _resurrection_, which in the older Teutonic form comes from two words, _Ester_ meaning _first_, and _stehen_ meaning _to stand_. These two words combine to form _erstehen_ which is an old German form of _auferstehen_, the modern day German word for _resurrection_.

In English etymology the word _Ester_ coming from the German _Oster_, morphed into the modern day term _Easter_. Similarily in German the word _Oster_ in Luther’s Day has now become _Ostern_, which are the same words but with different spelling. Tyndale with his expertise in the German language knew of the _Ester - Oster_ association. Luther obviously considered Oster as both a synonym for the _Jewish Passover_ and a phrase used for the _resurrection of Christ_. In Luther’s German New Testament we find Ostern, Osterlamm, Osterfest, Fest, and only once das Passa (Heb. 11.28). In His Old Testament he used the German word _Passaopffer, Osterfest, Ostern_, and _Osterlamm_ once each.

In Exodus 12.11 Luther rendered Passah with a marginal note referring to the 'Osterlamm'. Even in contemporary German the phrase "_das jüdische Osterfest_" (the Jewish Passover) demonstrates that the German _Oster_ can mean both the Jewish and Christian festivals. In fact the meaning of the German word _Ostern_ is today just as the English word _Easter_ was until the KJV translators skillfully put it in it’s correct semantic range, thus separating forever the _Old Easter_ and the _New Easter_. After 1611 the Old Testament Easter became _Passover_, a trend Tyndale had begun to accomplish. 

–Excerpted from Nick Sayers article linked in previous post​
Apologist Gretchen Passantino remarks,

*Easter* is an English corruption from the proto-Germanic root word meaning "to rise." (We see this in the contemporary German cognate "öst-" and the English cognate "east," the direction from which the sun rises in the morning.) It refers not only to Christ rising from the dead, but also to his ascension to heaven and to our future rising with him at his Second Coming for final judgment. It is not true that it derives from the pagan Germanic goddess Oestar or from the Babylonian goddess Ishtar -- both fertility symbols signifying the coming of spring images of fertility, new life, and renewal.

From the article, _Ash Wednesday, Lent, and Easter_,  1999 by Gretchen Passantino, Answers In Action website​

C. F. Cruse remarked, "Our word _EASTER_ is of Saxon origin and of precisely the same import with its German cognate _OSTERN_. The latter is derived from the old Teutonic form of auferstehen / auferstehung, that is - _RESURRECTION_." (_Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History_, Translated by C. F. Cruse, Hendrickson Publishers, p 437)

Most likely I won’t convince those whose see an Ishtar / Oestar goddess connection with the word Easter (and there _is_ an etymologic but not a meaning-equivalent connection with the Germanic Oestar) – I am posting this for the sake of those who hold to the King James Bible, to confirm them in the warranted confidence they hold in that sacred Book.

A thought: was Luther, with his thorough knowledge of German, Tyndale with not only his knowledge of German and genius for English, but highly accomplished in many languages, and later John Owen (to name but a few), all ignorant in that they would either not know of or purposely insert / accept a pagan goddess festival as a word for the resurrection of our Lord?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Apr 14, 2009)

P.S. Tim (and Lawrence),

I just read Gipp's piece that was linked to above, and Tim, you may groan without my objecting, for Gipp is off on this. I hadn't read it carefully before.

My view — as well those I quoted and gave links to — are quite other than Gipp's. He does not do justice at all to the matter. As a matter of fact, I groan too!


----------

