# "Easter" in Acts 12:4(AV)-is it justifiable?



## God'sElectSaint (Aug 7, 2015)

Greetings Brethren!
Dearly beloved, I am a lover and reader of the Authorized Version of God's Word and have come to trust it. That said I don't believe it's perfect by any means but nevertheless I deem it extremely reliable in my opinion one of the most reliable English translations. I have often heard the AV criticized for it's use of "Easter" in Acts 12:4 for the Greek term "pascha" which is translated "passover" the 28 other times it appears in the KJV. I don't believe those scholars just completely blew it here. There has to be a reason for using the term in this context. Or maybe not? Can anyone explain why or even offer a thesis of why they would translate pashca as Easter in Acts 12:4?


----------



## Philip (Aug 7, 2015)

God'sElectSaint said:


> Can anyone explain why or even offer a thesis of why they would translate pashca as Easter in Acts 12:4?



Because it's after the resurrection. In Greek, "Pascha" refers both to Jewish Passover and to the later Christian celebrations of passover centered around the resurrection. "Easter" is simply the Anglo-Saxon term for the Christian celebration, which is why the AV translators chose it in this instance.


----------



## TylerRay (Aug 7, 2015)

Matthew Henry writes:


> after the passover, certainly so it ought to be read, for it is the same word that is always so rendered; and to insinuate the introducing of a gospel-feast, instead of the passover, when we have nothing in the New Testament of such a thing, is to mingle Judaism with our Christianity.



Poole writes:


> After Easter; that day in which the paschal lamb was ate, on which the Jews would put none to death, that they might not eclipse the joy of that day.



Gill also considers "Easter" here to refer to the Passover:


> after Easter, or the passover



Each of these men are rightly thought of as friends of the Authorized Version, but each takes exception to the use of "Easter" for the Passover here.

I can't speak to the translators' reasons for using "Easter" here.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (Aug 7, 2015)

TylerRay said:


> Each of these men are rightly thought of as friends of the Authorized Version, but each takes exception to the use of "Easter" for the Passover here.
> 
> I can't speak to the translators' reasons for using "Easter" here.



These interpretations seem fairly reasonable to me, Tyler.Thanks! Phillip may be right as to the reason they employed "Easter" here and if he is correct then I suppose it's justifiable though Passover may be more so. Not too jump too far off topic as I know this could become it's own thread(which I am sure Moderators could do if need be) But isn't there some pagan relation to the term "Easter" or is that simply a conspiracy theory? I've heard that about Christmas too. I have a cousin that really believes this. He also holds to some 7th day adventist type of doctrine(food laws,saturday sabbath)is this simply common among them?


----------



## God'sElectSaint (Aug 7, 2015)

Guys on that is Easter/Christmas pagan question you can disregard it if you like, I found some past threads on it. Unless you feel you have something vital to advise me with.


----------



## TylerRay (Aug 8, 2015)

God'sElectSaint said:


> But isn't there some pagan relation to the term "Easter" or is that simply a conspiracy theory? I've heard that about Christmas too.



The name "Easter" is indisputably pagan in its origin. The name "Christmas" in not pagan, but is a reference to Roman Catholic idolatry (The Christ Mass).


----------



## SeanAnderson (Aug 8, 2015)

The name 'Easter' is no doubt etymologically derived from a Germanic festival (not Ishtar, however, as is commonly believed), yet after Christianization it was the most used term by the Anglo-Saxons to refer to the Jewish Passover. The borrowing 'Pascha' is only attested once, I think. The 'Easter' word itself is not inherently pagan, but in this instance, it is an inconsistency in the KJV; it would probably be better to always render the Greek word in the same way - I'm guessing it was the result of episcopal influence.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Aug 8, 2015)

SeanAnderson said:


> The name 'Easter' is no doubt etymologically derived from a Germanic festival (not Ishtar, however, as is commonly believed), yet after Christianization it was the most used term by the Anglo-Saxons to refer to the Jewish Passover. The borrowing 'Pascha' is only attested once, I think. The 'Easter' word itself is not inherently pagan, but in this instance, it is an inconsistency in the KJV; it would probably be better to always render the Greek word in the same way - I'm guessing it was the result of episcopal influence.



While this may be true, the mere fact that the KJV translates the same Greek word in different ways does not indicate inconsistency on the part of the translators. Virtually all of the Hebrew and Greek words in the Bible are translated in multiple ways depending on context. This is true of all versions and not just the KJV.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Aug 8, 2015)

This following is from a thread last year, Ishtar and Easter, and below I reproduce one of my posts in it. The AV is perfectly accurate, as may be seen.
_____*

Ishtar and Easter*

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_ 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] 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.​ 
(Caveat: I don't agree with Passantino's views below on holidays) 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?

[end post from Ishtar and Easter]


----------



## Tirian (Aug 8, 2015)

God'sElectSaint said:


> "Easter" in Acts 12:4(AV)-is it justifiable?



I think a better question might be "was it justifiable?" I don't think it is particularly useful in the culture I (we) live in - but then the translators didn't experience the culture I live in.



God'sElectSaint said:


> Can anyone explain why or even offer a thesis of why they would translate pashca as Easter in Acts 12:4?



I believe that its usage at the time of instantiation can be rationalised. As for how that impacts contemporary usage, I think that offers very little value.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 8, 2015)

Wouldn't using Pascha avoid the Ishtar connections, not to mention that much of the Christian world uses Pascha?


----------



## timmopussycat (Aug 8, 2015)

TylerRay said:


> God'sElectSaint said:
> 
> 
> > But isn't there some pagan relation to the term "Easter" or is that simply a conspiracy theory? I've heard that about Christmas too.
> ...



Not to derail the thread but calling church services "masses" came from the Latin benediction "Ite, missa est." The festival celebrating Christ's birth was known as Christmas for centuries before the RC church arrived at the idolatrous belief in transubstantiation.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 8, 2015)

timmopussycat said:


> TylerRay said:
> 
> 
> > God'sElectSaint said:
> ...



Early Lutherans also used the term "Mass," as did one of the greatest theologians of all time, J. S. Bach.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Aug 8, 2015)

Well, the secular PC language-police are having _their_ heyday, changing words and phrases to reflect their moral, sociological, and cosmological paradigms, so if their religious counterparts want to update good and sound Gospel words to accommodate the changing "Christian" zeitgeist—vapid as that may be—let it be.

Some of us will hold to the old paths (Jer 6:16 KJV).


----------



## God'sElectSaint (Aug 8, 2015)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> This following is from a thread last year, Ishtar and Easter, and below I reproduce one of my posts in it. The AV is perfectly accurate, as may be seen.
> _____*
> 
> Ishtar and Easter*
> ...



Wow! Thanks Steve! Very insightful. I'll have to offer some of this to my cousin as he is believer of the Ishtar/Easter connection.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Aug 8, 2015)

You may find this article helpful. It interacts with all of your questions pretty thoroughly. 

*“Easter” or “Passover” in Acts 12:4?*


----------



## God'sElectSaint (Aug 8, 2015)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> You may find this article helpful. It interacts with all of your questions pretty thoroughly.
> 
> *“Easter” or “Passover” in Acts 12:4?*



Thanks Pastor Sheffield! I'll check that out. I have looked at that website before and it seems to be very thorough. It has answered a lot of my questions and strengthened my faith in the AV, which I have come to trust quite a bit especially since I have very little knowledge of Hebrew and Greek.




Tirian said:


> I believe that its usage at the time of instantiation can be rationalised. As for how that impacts contemporary usage, I think that offers very little value.


Thanks for your contribution here Matt. I agree "was it justifiable" is a better question. I was seeking to understand what the reasoning behind the 1611 translators were at that time for employing "Easter" in Acts 12:4. The few commentaries I looked at simply deemed it as a blunder or an erroneous error but didn't really offer any satisfying reason why. I do not hold to any "double inspiration" doctrine or think the AV translators were "specially inspired"(BTW not at all suggesting you were applying that sort of thinking to me, Matt) but from what I have read and researched they were very competent and well-equipped for their job. They(the AV translators)correctly translate this word 28 other times as "Passover" in the NT. So I just assumed that their was probably a logical explanation for their usage of "Easter" in Acts 12:4. And from the content of this thread thus far, my conclusion would be "yes, it was a justifiable translation choice). Whether or not one believes it's the best choice or not is different.


----------



## TylerRay (Aug 8, 2015)

timmopussycat said:


> TylerRay said:
> 
> 
> > God'sElectSaint said:
> ...



Whether the name "Christmas" comes from the service in which the bread and wine are worshiped, or from the celebration of a superstitious holy day, it's rooted in idolatry.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Aug 8, 2015)

If the bronze serpent appointed by the Lord was commendably destroyed by Hezekiah for superstition and idolatry, how much more should we put away the things abused to idolatry that have their origin merely in man?


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 9, 2015)

TylerRay said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> > TylerRay said:
> ...



If the term "mass" was being used before transubstantiation was finalized, then the term isn't necessarily rooted in idolatry. In fact, it isn't. It's rooted in language. Not defending or attacking the usage of easter, per se (using Pascha is far more biblical).


----------



## God'sElectSaint (Aug 9, 2015)

NaphtaliPress said:


> If the bronze serpent appointed by the Lord was commendably destroyed by Hezekiah for superstition and idolatry, how much more should we put away the things abused to idolatry that have their origin merely in man?



Very interesting point Chris! I will certainly consider this and even study that text in Numbers while doing so. I have been studying Romans 14 and think there's wisdom to glean from there concerning this. I have been a little convicted about Christmas and Easter lately. I'll continue to pray and consider the comments on the thread and weigh them with scripture, Thanks!


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Aug 9, 2015)

Celebrating Christmas and Easter is one thing—but recognizing the legitimacy of the Biblical word "Easter" is quite another!

I do not have the old Westminster view of Rome, and the pope being _the_ antichrist, and do not perceive them today as they were certainly seen then. Yet I do not condemn those who godly celebrate the Christmas holiday as commemorating the Lord's birth (though we don't know exactly when that was), nor those who celebrate Easter as the day of the resurrection. _As a church_—in the church I planted and pastored—we did not celebrate those days as part of our worship, as I generally stayed with whatever Scripture I was going through expositorily. The illegitimate yet fairly widespread _condemnation_ of those who privately celebrate those days are a reason some switch from the WCF to the 3FU. Old Rome is too much with some modern folk.

What I argue for is simply that the word Easter is a legitimate use of the word for the day of our Lord's resurrection.


----------



## TylerRay (Aug 9, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> TylerRay said:
> 
> 
> > timmopussycat said:
> ...



Jacob,

Not to split hairs or beat a dead horse (much less to derail the thread), there are those who want to celebrate Christmas without counting it an ecclesiastical holy day. The name "Christmas," however, is a term for the idolatrous feast day. That's what I meant about the word being a reference to idolatry, even if the word "mass" had nothing to do with transubstantiation.

I'm bowing out of discussing the morality of holy days on this thread. Sorry for getting things sidetracked.


----------



## timfost (Aug 9, 2015)

If language is for the purpose of communicating, it seems helpful to not get too tied up in the semantics. The KJV is a wonderful translation, but at the end of the day a translation. If I'm trying to communicate to you all that I'm very happy on this Lord's Day, I'm not going to tell you that I'm "gay" regardless of its original usage. The knowledge of the original usage is helpful when reading from a different era, but it seems that it should all be kept within perspective so that we keep good communication in the forefront.


----------



## Ryan J. Ross (Aug 9, 2015)

The translation should reproduce the foreign (original tongue) into a vulgar language. For that reason, I'd take the KJV over modern translations. The others seem too accommodating to the reader and less so to the authors.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (Aug 10, 2015)

timfost said:


> If language is for the purpose of communicating, it seems helpful to not get too tied up in the semantics. The KJV is a wonderful translation, but at the end of the day a translation. If I'm trying to communicate to you all that I'm very happy on this Lord's Day, I'm not going to tell you that I'm "gay" regardless of its original usage. The knowledge of the original usage is helpful when reading from a different era, but it seems that it should all be kept within perspective so that we keep good communication in the forefront.



Agreed Tim. I didn't want this too get tied up in semantics at all. And I don't think anything excessive has gone on here. My original question was to get some perspective from others about how legitimate the use of "Easter" was in Acts 12:4(in 1604-1611 of course, as I can't hold those translators to a standard of what would speak most clearly in 2015.) I won't use "gay" to express that I am happy either. lol Probably won't ask my mom when she's leaving the house "whither thou goest?"(not seriously at least) But I don't think that should be the deciding factor in which translation of the Bible I choose to read. When I began reading the KJV bible, which was not necessarily by choice because it was the only copy of the scriptures I had access to in the facility I was in at the time. It was a little tough and quite awkward. But I think the mere present of archaism is what threw me because after a few weeks it became much easier. I honestly don't think it's that big a barrier in language to cross for most people of course there are exceptions. And with the links provided and Steve's very informative post I am satisfied to say that " Easter" is an acceptable translation choice in my eyes. As for Christmas and Easter I wouldn't condemn anyone for with a pure heart celebrating those holidays. Just for my own personal worship I am checking into it.


----------



## MW (Aug 10, 2015)

Ryan J. Ross said:


> The translation should reproduce the foreign (original tongue) into a vulgar language. For that reason, I'd take the KJV over modern translations. The others seem too accommodating to the reader and less so to the authors.



Good point! The aim of reading is to expand knowledge, not contract it.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (Aug 10, 2015)

Ryan J. Ross said:


> The translation should reproduce the foreign (original tongue) into a vulgar language. For that reason, I'd take the KJV over modern translations. The others seem too accommodating to the reader and less so to the authors.



Ryan this is what I have consistently found to be the case. I think a translation should be as literal as possible. I have pretty much read the KJV for a majority of my studies since coming to the bible. I started dabbling into some modern translations particularly the NASB because of it's supposed strict literalness. Ironically I started noticing that almost every marginal note in the NASB that offered a more literal translation ended up being what the text of the KJV had in it. Don't get me wrong I do enjoy the NASB and still use it as a resource but my personal conviction is that the KJV of the bible is the best choice in the English language. But if I had to choose a 20th century bible I take the NKJV.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Aug 10, 2015)

Ryan J. Ross said:


> The translation should reproduce the foreign (original tongue) into a vulgar language. For that reason, I'd take the KJV over modern translations. The others seem too accommodating to the reader and less so to the authors.



I appreciate the KJV very much for this reason as well, but isn't that the very point in question in this particular discussion? It seems as if the translation in this place may be an interpretive one rather than a bare translation considering how they translated every other occurrence of pascha. I would note that the translators of Acts in the AV were one of the Oxford companies and thus most likely (as far as I am aware) firm prelatists being sympathetic to holy day celebrations rather than men of puritan leanings. Of course it can still be read profitably understanding the meaning to be "passover" which is within the period semantic range of the term, but if we're taking translatorial intent (is that a thing?) into consideration it seems probable to me that it was in error.


----------



## TrustGzus (Aug 10, 2015)

God'sElectSaint said:


> Greetings Brethren!
> Dearly beloved, I am a lover and reader of the Authorized Version of God's Word and have come to trust it. That said I don't believe it's perfect by any means but nevertheless I deem it extremely reliable in my opinion one of the most reliable English translations. I have often heard the AV criticized for it's use of "Easter" in Acts 12:4 for the Greek term "pascha" which is translated "passover" the 28 other times it appears in the KJV. I don't believe those scholars just completely blew it here. There has to be a reason for using the term in this context. Or maybe not? Can anyone explain why or even offer a thesis of why they would translate pashca as Easter in Acts 12:4?



Edward, I think you did great reasoning through this. You realize the KJV is a great translation. Yet, you also realize it's not a perfect translation - no perfect translation exists. You noted how every other time πάσχα is translated in the KJV they translated it as _passover_. So what's the deal with Acts 12:4?

I'm assuming that no one knows of any journals by the translators that notes such things or someone would have quoted it. Here's my thoughts. I think you were headed in the right direction. _Passover_ is best.

Remember that in translating the KJV, the translators were to use the Bishops Bible as their base. Their goal was to do necessary changes. Well, the KJV isn't the first to use Easter in Acts 12:4. Several earlier versions did in English including the Bishops. It's the only time πάσχα is used in Acts so we can't look at other passages in Acts in the KJV and this word. However, in Luke, the first book the author of Acts wrote, they always translated it as _passover_. I think in keeping consistent with the author of the gospel, they should have _passover_ here. Also, look at verse 3.

Acts 12:3–4 (AV)
3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) 4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

Note the mention of the days of unleavened bread.

Now look at Luke 22:1-7

Luke 22:1–7 (AV)
1 Now the feast of *unleavened bread* drew nigh, which is called the *Passover*. 2 And the chief priests and scribes sought how they might kill him; for they feared the people. 3 Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve. 4 And he went his way, and communed with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray him unto them. 5 And they were glad, and covenanted to give him money. 6 And he promised, and sought opportunity to betray him unto them in the absence of the multitude. 
7 Then came the day of *unleavened bread*, when the *passover* must be killed.

I think comparing Acts 12:3-4 with Luke 22 is an interesting comparison.

Also, the Geneva Bible of 1560 had used _passover_ in Acts 12:4. So this isn't a KJV v. modern version dispute.

The Bishops Bible also used Easter twice in John 11:55. In both instances, the KJV changed it to _passover_.

Remember also that the translators were divided into committees. Not every member probably looked at every passage. However, the same committee that translated the gospels also translated Acts. So the men that used _passover_ in Acts and John 11:55 didn't do the same in Acts 12:4. Was this on purpose? Or oversight? Something else?

So there's some thoughts. You decide what you think might have happened.


----------



## MW (Aug 11, 2015)

The words passover, pasch, easter, all basically refer to the same thing from an historical point of view. If some take the position that a Christian festival is intended I think they bear the burden of proving it from context. Why the translators chose to retain "easter" in this one place is not obvious. I don't think it can be shown they deliberately retained it to justify an ecclesiastical custom. They may have thought that the time referent was the most important part of the text, and so they retained "easter" to enable the reader to understand when this occurred. Whatever their intention, if we know that "easter" is basically the same as "passover," we have gained an insight into the time this happened, and our understanding is the better for it. Just as with the weights and measures, or with some regional areas, a more generic term can help the reader to get his bearings where a technical term might be confusing. Translation is better than transliteration in this respect.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Aug 11, 2015)

Thank you for a clear explanation, Matthew.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (Aug 11, 2015)

TheOldCourse said:


> I appreciate the KJV very much for this reason as well, but isn't that the very point in question in this particular discussion? It seems as if the translation in this place may be an interpretive one rather than a bare translation considering how they translated every other occurrence of pascha. I would note that the translators of Acts in the AV were one of the Oxford companies and thus most likely (as far as I am aware) firm prelatists being sympathetic to holy day celebrations rather than men of puritan leanings. Of course it can still be read profitably understanding the meaning to be "passover" which is within the period semantic range of the term, but if we're taking translatorial intent (is that a thing?) into consideration it seems probable to me that it was in error.



Hi Chris! Thank you for your comments brother they are appreciated. And you make excellent point here. Easter isn't the most literal translation but I'd say acceptable given the full context. Would I personally prefer "passover" here? Yes I would. Of course I don't hold a candle,in terms of textual expertise, to these exceptional 1611 translators. I like a literal translation but yet I do understand enough to know that there are exceptions where a word for word rendering wouldn't quite capture the meaning of the original properly. For instance the KJV uses the term "God Forbid" quite frequently which is not a literal rendering but I believe the NASB's "May it never be!" is more literal(correct me if I am wrong here guys, I am by no means fluent in Greek. I rely upon commentaries and lexicons like strongs) Yet I think the NASB's rendering though literal is kind of awkward and doesn't quite capture the strong negative of the original which I believe "God forbid" does. Of course that is only the position from a laysman.



TrustGzus said:


> So there's some thoughts. You decide what you think might have happened.


Greetings Joe!I thank you as well for your comments here. I try to be reasonable with this Joe, though I admit a bias towards the KJV. And thank you for the Bishops' Bible reference, you are correct sir! I just looked at it on e-sword. That sheds a lot of light on things actually. And your right we can't know for sure the exact motives for this rendering and I'd rather not speculate too much further. Like I said I have a great trust in the Authorized Version but am not of the tribe that would consider it perfect. Of course the more I study and research the claims for and against I find it to be far from a noble relic of inferior 17th scholarship as many would have me to believe.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Aug 11, 2015)

Some more thoughts on the word _Easter_ in the AV. (Just as an aside, while it is true the 1560 Geneva Bible had Passover at Acts 12:4, the 1557 had Easter; though my 1599 has Passover also.) The issue is, is the rendering of Pascha / Passover into _Easter_ an “error” at 12:4 as some here have claimed, or just a sloppy translation? Just as Tyndale’s genius was responsible for coining the English word Passover, even so his use of _Easter_—which was already in use, and he was in Germany in 1525, and possibly saw Luther then, and likely knew of Luther’s _Oster_ at 12:4—was another mark of his genius with languages when his New Testament appeared at the end of that year. 

Here is an excerpt from Nick Sayers’ article, Why we should not Passover Easter:
*Hebrew Pesach became Greek Pascha*

In most languages the word for Easter is exactly the same as the word for Passover, so the relationship between the feast of Passover, and the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, is directly linked. A few examples are; Latin Pascha, French Pâques, Italian Pasqua, and Dutch Pasen. All these words mean both Easter and Passover, only the context formulates the difference. With the exception of English and German, all other European languages do not have separate words for Easter and Passover, but simply use a single term derived from Pesach, the Hebrew word for Passover.

In one way, this is an advantage to the believer, who immediately associates Jesus Christ as the Passover Lamb. Whether reading the New or Old Testaments, the association between Christ and the Passover is clearly seen. This was also the case in the original Greek language which uses the Greek word Pascha for both Passover and the resurrection of Christ. This has been the same for 2000 years in the Greek. Even if you look up [in] a modern Greek dictionary it will tell you that Pascha means both Easter and Passover. This was also the case in English until Tyndale coined the term Passover. But as we shall see, the English rendition of Easter and Passover in the King James Bible is superior and needs to be exalted into its rightful place in English Bible versions, dictionaries and Christian literature again. This does not conclude that the English is superior to the original Greek, which is a form of Ruckmanism [a false teaching], but in this particular instance there is a special feature in the KJV, which is made clear in the original Greek when read in context, but is made abundantly clear by the scholarship of the KJV translators. Just as most Bibles include things like capitalisation of deity or have the words of Christ in red, and other helps, so too did the KJV translators make the Old Testament Passover and New Testament Easter easier for the reader to understand in context.​ 
[End Sayers]
__________

In both the English and the German a word was coined to differentiate the old from the new Passover, and we know that the Lamb of God was resurrected from the dead. If one does not like the Easter / Oster word for the resurrection of the Lamb from His sacrificial death in your Bible, okay, but I wouldn't knock this proper rendering in the King James. Tyndale had Ester (for Easter) 14 times, and other of its cognates in the NT referring to the Passover and its activities, while the King James translators wisely used it only once, for the Easter / Oster / resurrection of Christ at 12:4.

And as far as saying that Christmas recalls the Roman Catholic’s “Christ’s Mass”, I would answer that our language has changed since the time of the Reformation, and when seculars and many Protestants use the expression it has no connection for them with a Roman Mass, just as our weekdays were names after pagan deities—such as Thursday for Thor, Friday for the goddess Frigg, Saturday after Saturn, and so on—and no one declines from using the weekday names because of ancient associations that have no such meaning for us in 2015. Some folks are fettered to Rome by their opposition to it, though that beast and Babylon is not what it was—mostly defanged—and we look for _another_ monster with our blood on its mind.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (Aug 11, 2015)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Just as Tyndale’s genius was responsible for coining the English word Passover, even so his use of Easter—which was already in use, and he was in Germany in 1525, and possibly saw Luther then, and likely knew of Luther’s Oster at 12:4—was another mark of his genius with languages when his New Testament appeared at the end of that year.


As always Steve awesome information! Steve, have you considered writing a book in defense of the KJV and or the TR and the various textual and translation issues that surround it? You seem to have done a remarkable amount of research on the topic. But anyways I wanted to offer something interesting from the "Cambridge Bible for schools and colleges". Surprising, because from what I have noticed from reading it on e-sword is that they often hammer the KJV's translation choices and side with the 1885 RV on most passages. Interestingly enough they don't do that for their note in Acts 12:4, it reads as follows: "intending after Easter (the Passover)] The rendering “Easter” is an attempt to give by an English word the notion of the whole feast. _That this meaning and not the single day of the Paschal feast is intended by the Greek seems clear_ from the elaborate preparation made, as for a longer imprisonment than was the rule among the Jews. Peter was arrested at the commencement of the Passover feast (14th of Nisan), and the king’s intention was to proceed to sentence and punish him when the feast was at an end on the 21st of Nisan."


----------

