Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Easter is the Correct word in Acts 12:4


Recommended Posts

  • Members
 

Brother Ukulelemike, I critiqued Your statements below. If they sound like attacks on you they are not. They are mostly directed towards the soures which promted the wrong ideas about Easter. I hope my thoughts and statements can help. 

 

Wait, so you really think Herod was celebrating the resurrection of Jesus Christ? Seriously?

No Herod was not celebrating anything. He was trying to please the Jews by Holding Peter until after Easter. Remember this was almost one year after the resurrection and the church was growing rapidly and the Jews were losing their power over the people as they were all becoming Christian. Herod decided to "VEX CERTAIN OF THE CHURCH" and when he saw it pleased the Jews he took Peter also. The context is clearly to persecute the church by bringing out Peter to the people for some demonstration "after Easter". Herod wanted the people to see he had Peter "after Easter". If Easter was simply Herod's pagan day then It would not matter to the people when he had Peter. The people could care less about some pagan's day and if anything that would make them angry and would not be a benefit to Herod or the Jews. This was a "show down" between Herod and the Church to show the people which was greater. The Church had been preaching for almost a year that Christ had risen from the dead on the first day just after Passover week/days of unleavened bread. Herod wanted to show the people he could hold Jesus' greatest Apostle until after the resurrection morning, after Easter.

No, Herod celebrated the celebration of Ishtar. It was the rembrance of Tammuz and his death at the hands of a wild boar. This was a well-established Spring celebration, preceeded by 40 days of fasting for Tammuz, which the Catholic church 'christianized' and called Easter. This is where the 40 days of Lent came from, the weeping for Tammuz, one of the abominations of Israel, and why they went into captivity. And another, the worship of the sun which rises in the 'east'. Also, Easter is often held at a different time from the Passover, when Jesus died. So yes Easter WAS the correct word, it just wasn't the celebration of the resurrection of Jesus. Remember it was Herod who chose to wait until after Easter-it was in reference to Herod, not believers. There are no New Testament feasts-they have all been established by the Roman Catholics.   

I'm pretty sure you did not derive the above about Easter from any context of scripture. Its only source connecting  the above to the biblical "Easter" of Acts 12:4 is mostly if not all from "Two Babylons" by Alexander Hislop (his connecting proof for everything was essentially "because I say so")  and another book "Babylon Mystery Religion" by Ralph Woodrow (his connecting proof was "because Hislop said so) in which the above narrative of events is now "mostly disavowed"(*) in the later book "Babylon connection?" by Woodrow. (*According to AIG, I haven't compared the books lately to see exactly what had been disavowed,  Source: https://answersingenesis.org/holidays/easter/is-the-name-easter-of-pagan-origin/)

Additionally no reputable historian or etymologist would ever connect "Easter" (Saxon word meaning "East Morning/Dawn") with "Ishtar" (Babylonian word meaning "Leading one/chief") as they are completely different in origin, language and any historical context. The only connection they have is the similar sound in English, an atheist mime circulating on the internet and well meaning (but wrong) Christians who repeat the made up connection as if it were true. If you were to remove English (which did not exist at the writing of the bible) from the equation and use the Greek underlining the KJV, say Pascha and Ishatar, then connection between the two is completely lost.


Okay, having now read the article, let me make what may be a sounder argument.   First, I see the author of the article goes to some length to speak on the word in the Greek. And here I thought most of us disregarded making our primary arguments based on the Greek, since the 'original Greek' doesn't exist, hence we are assuming the Greek we have today in the various Greek New testaments, (most of which were produced by theological liberals and textual critics) is questionable, and we put our faith in the Lord preserving His word in the English. So I am going to go off the Bible, KJV, period, and make my arguments based therein.

The originals do not exist but copies do and the KJV translators compared the Greek variants and surmised the correct Greek text underlining our English Bible. So while the originals do not exist we do know what the originals did say in the Greek and Hebrew and etc. At any rate I am not aware of any Greek variant of Acts 12:4 which does not use the Greek word "Pascha", "πασχα" in Acts 12:4.

 One comment the author makes is that since the word was used by Luke, the only gentile who wrote some of the New Testament, we can assume he was not speaking of Passover, since he didn't keep Passover, not being a Jew. That would be fine, except Luke, the non-Jew, also mentions in the same context "(Then were the days of unleavened bread.)" So if there was no reference here to Passover since he was a Gentile, why is he then mentioning the days of unleavened bread, the seven-day feast the JEWS kept after the day of Passover? So this argument makes no sense.

I do not know whither Luke was a Gentile or simply a Hellenized Jew. Statements for or against are basically assumptions because the bible does not come out and tell us but I do not think it really matters because I do know Luke was a Christian and had "perfect understanding of all things from the very first"(Luke 1:1-4). 

"Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,2 even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; 3 it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed."


He also says that by Luke's writing of Acts, 'Pashcal' WAS 'Easter', ie, the Christian celebration of Jesus' resurrection, is not to be found in scripture. There is not one word anywhere that believers ever kept a special yearly feast of 'The East', to memorialize Jesus' resurrection. Context says that it was Herod who intended, after Easter, to bring Peter forth before the people. Pashcal was a term that referred to both the day of Passover and the feast of unleavened bread-here Easter is used because it was NOT Passover, but something entirely different.

Not "feast of the East" rather Easter means "East morning" East is simply reference to the location of the rising sun. Its not a feast but a word to indicate the morning event of the resurrection. Context does not say Herod was doing anything "on Easter" but rather "after Easter". 

Next, as I mentioned in my first reply but I will expand upon a bit, one of the great abominable sins the Jews committed that brought about their Babylonian captivity, was  praying to the rising sun (rising in the east, sunrise service? Eze 8:16) and weeping for Tammuz (Eze 8:14). Tammuz was closely associated with Ishtar, his consort. So it would be no surprise if some of these activities continued on.

Yes there are references to Jewish sun worshipers in the bible and Jewish pagans but so are there scriptures telling true worshipers of God "shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings" (Malachi 4:2) and that they should "let the day star arise in their hearts" (2 Peter 1:19). Just because the bible references Jewish sun and Tammuz worshipers does not make all references to the sun wrong. Additionally Easter does not mean "East Sun" or the like. It means "East Morning/dawn" as in "the dawning of that day". Again as I pointed out above, in etymology and history, English Easter, Greek Pascha and, the Hebrew pesach, are not connected at all with Ishtar so cannot at all be linked with Tammuz either. 

One problem, as seen in the article, and as well, in any article you will read on Eostre or Ishtar, or Astarte, some of the idols that have been associated with pagan Easter, is that there is little clear information on any of them. That they are actual ancient worshipped idols is pretty clear, but beyond that, their characteristics, their powers, their associations, their symbols, seem to evolve and change over time and places, to the point that to give any real clear yea or nay on whether any of them were directly or indirectly associated with Easter is difficult, if not impossible to say. Thus to say that Easter is NOT influenced by any of these things is just not possible to say. And, in fact, since Eostre WAS associated with rabbits and eggs, and part of the mythology was that Eostre turned a phoenix into a rabbit to protect it, but still by nature a bird, the phoenix laid brightly colored eggs, somehow makes some connections that are hard to ignore.

As a Christian I could care less about what the pagans happen to celebrate. Sure the Easter tradition has some added sanitized previously pagan activities associated with it. Which Christian holiday tradition to day does not? However the eggs and Bunny were not Babylonian traditions but rather later European traditions from far later dates so they do not factor in to the Acts 12:4 Easter in any way. To say that not a lot is known  about these pagan gods is true but to say that is proof that there could be a link to  the word Easter as used in Acts 12:4 is no proof at all.

AS for Easter meaning 'east', it is interesting that there is no Greek or Hebrew word that was translated Easter, rather an old Germanic or Saxon word was used instead, for which there is apparently NO Greek version. Luke did not use any form of 'Easter' here-it was replaced with something completely foreign to the word used by Luke.

The Saxon word Easter is our English word as well. We got it from them when we were forming English. Their is a Greek word "pascha" they got it from the Hebrew "Pesach" after the resurrection of Christ. The etymology of Easter is pretty clear. English words "Passover" and "Easter" have the same etymology. Both come from the Hebrew root word Pesach in Hebrew originally "to go over". The sun starting from the east to "go over".

It was used to show that, whatever Herod was celebrating, it had nothing to do with the Passover OR the feast of unleavened bread-if it was referencing some special celebration of Jesus' resurrection, well, he being the Passover Lamb of God, it would have been appropriate for that word to have been used, since Pashcal could refer to the entire 8 days of the two feasts, or the one day of Passover. But since Passover was over, (and thus, the time they would have celebrated Jesus' resurrection) and it was during the time of unleavened bread, it was, I believe, referring to something else, something related to Herod, and again, Herod I doubt would have been celebrating Jesus' resurrection, as I somehow doubt he believed in it.

Again Acts 12 does not say Herod was celebrating anything. Easter has always been a major Christian event and Luke is writing to Christians about the second Easter involving Peter. In the Christian mind they see the correlation between what Luke is explaining here in Acts 12 (the second Easter) and the resurrection of Christ (the first Easter). Christ was bound in the tomb with guards watching, Peter is bound in prison with guards watching, Christ rises again and an angel roles the stone away, Peter escapes with the help of the angel who opens the prison doors. Christ shows himself to the disciples, Peter shows himself to the disciples. The guards lost Christ, the guards lost Peter. Satan is cast down, Herod is cast down, etc. The people also see the resemblance to the resurrection of Christ from the year before and "the word of God grew and multiplied." The parallels are endless.

Anyways, that's all I got for now. FWIW

"So I am going to go off the Bible, KJV, period, and make my arguments based therein."

Brother, little if anything which you stated about Easter is based on the context of Scripture, history, or etymology. The sources your position comes from was based on shoddy research, questionable sources, and connections made mostly on feelings of the authors who were overzealous to find anything disparaging the Pagan Roman Catholic church that they were willing to sacrifice a Perfectly good Christian word coined by the Early Christians to describe the most important event in human history.

Edited by John Young
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
 

"So I am going to go off the Bible, KJV, period, and make my arguments based therein."

Brother, little if anything which you stated about Easter is based on the context of Scripture, history, or etymology. The sources your position comes from was based on shoddy research, questionable sources, and connections made mostly on feelings of the authors who were overzealous to find anything disparaging the Pagan Roman Catholic church that they were willing to sacrifice a Perfectly good Christian word coined by the Early Christians to describe the most important event in human history.

So then your argument is that Herod would wait til after Easter for the sake of the Jews, who didn't celebrate the resurrection of Jesus. This whole things smacks of ultimately making little sense.

Easter is a later word used by the translators. Luke used the word Pascha, based off the Hebrew Pesach, later changed to Passover to refer to the feast of Passover. So, during the feast of Unleavened bread, a seven-day Jewish feast, Herod was going to wait until after Easter, supposedly already a Christian feast that is not called for or ever seen as being celebrated, which should be only one day in the middle of Unleavened Bread, to please the Jews, who would not recognize any Easter feast, and kill Peter, a Christian, in the middle of their Feast of unleavened Bread. No, I don't buy it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Bro, John,

If the word "Easter" is a perfectly good Christian word, how could it have been used or observed by Christians before the resurrection happened if the word pertains to The Resurrection?

Easter is a Pagan word derived from the Pagan word Ishtar. It was celebrated by Pagans long before the time of Christ. The only so called Christians that ever observed it was the Roman Catholic Church that adopted all things Pagan. The Roman Catholic Church, as we know, is not Christian at all.

Personally, I think this whole thread is "straining at a gnat". The prime point of the resurrection is that He did in fact rise again as Scripture foretold and is verified by Scripture as well as history.
I personally think of every Sunday as "Resurrection Sunday"

I'm with Bro. Mike on this one, Easter is not the correct word for the resurrection day. In Acts 12:4 the Scripture is referring to the pagan holiday which Herod was waiting for.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I see no fault in Uke's use of just using the English. After all, we are English speaking folk, and as such, God knew we would be here and need his word in our own language to know how to follow him.

That said, I would like to point out my view on why "Easter" is equal to "Passover".

Just using the text.

If you read the chapter, you will notice some things - vs. 1 - Herod vexed the Church by killing James, and in vs. 3 - he saw it pleased the Jews, so he planned to kill Peter. Then way down in verse 11 - Peter points out who the Lord delivered him from - Herod - and the Jews.

I think the word "Easter" is another English word used to describe "Passover" because Herod was seeking to please the Jews. He was focusing on them, not himself nor his religion. Why would he wait to kill Peter by waiting after a so called pagan holy day if he were trying to please the Jews? He was waiting for the Jews to celebrate their 'reason for the season', and then he was gonna get in real good with them, by killing someone who preached against their Judaism religion.

The text is clear to me. I may be wrong, but I doubt it matters to the Lord which word was used, since whatever it means, Herod was waiting til it was over, to accomplish his deed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
 

Easter is a later word used by the translators. Luke used the word Pascha, based off the Hebrew Pesach, later changed to Passover to refer to the feast of Passover. 

 

I see no fault in Uke's use of just using the English. After all, we are English speaking folk, and as such, God knew we would be here and need his word in our own language to know how to follow him.

 

If the word "Easter" is a perfectly good Christian word, how could it have been used or observed by Christians before the resurrection happened if the word pertains to The Resurrection?

Easter is a Pagan word derived from the Pagan word Ishtar. It was celebrated by Pagans long before the time of Christ. The only so called Christians that ever observed it was the Roman Catholic Church that adopted all things Pagan. The Roman Catholic Church, as we know, is not Christian at all.

Pascha in no way could possibly mean a pagan holiday in Acts 12:4 or anywhere else because it is the same word used for the Passover week in the NT. So wither it was translated Passover or to Easter in the English it is connected with the Jewish and the Christian events and in no way pagan. The people who make a pagan connection to Pascha are mistaken and need to take the time to properly study the etymology and history. Contextually Easter of Acts 12:4 can only be referring to a Passover event. It cannot at all support the pagan myth. This AIG article is pretty good at showing the origins of the pagan myth and I highly recommend reading it: https://answersingenesis.org/holidays/easter/is-the-name-easter-of-pagan-origin/

Easter here was not referring to the feast itself but to the Christian observance at the end of the feast. Easter is the English word which was originally used for translating all instances of Greek and Hebrew words in the bible regardless of what it referred contextually, but after Tyndale created the specialized English word Passover, the Greek and Hebrew were changed to more accuratly translate the word into english. It was translated to Passover for the feast and Easter was retained in Acts 12:4 For the Christian observance which occurred just after the end of the Passover week. 

Matthew 26:2 Ye know that after two days is the feast of the passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified.

Mark 14:1 After two days was the feast of the passover, and of unleavened bread: and the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might take him by craft, and put him to death. 

Luke 22:1 Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover. 

Luke 22:7 Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed. 

Acts 12:3 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 [after Pascha] to bring him forth to the people.

Edited by John Young
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Brethren,

Methinks that John Young is correct. :goodpost:Again, John Young has brought a par excelence research into every aspect of this matter and, as far as I am concerned, he is correct. His scriptual exposition, his word etymolgy, and historical research is convincing to me.

I have studied Alexander Hislop's, The Two Babyons, several times. It is sitting in front of me as I speak. Except in the area of Easter, (as John Young, the KJV for Today and AIG brought out), The Two Babyons is an excellent book. Hislop tends to go to extremes in his attacks on the Roman Catholic Church at times.

I am strongly against the changing of the word Easter to Passover in Acts 12:4. In my opinion, the liberal crowd, the backslid saint, the compromising theologian, and the internet theologians amongst the brethren, will use the, "Easter is a mis-translation of the King James Version and the word should be changed to Passover," as an excuse to fault  the JKV and say it is in error. The King James translators were one hundred per cent correct.  

Yes, Easter is being 'secularized.' Yes, Easter has lost a lot of its meaning with the worldly churches. Yes, worldly politicians, and lost religious denominations use Easter for their own selfish purposes (as the politicians and lost religious crowd use anything for their own purposes). But, that is no excuse to change what we believe.

John Young's second research article, Answers in Genesis, ought to be studied in detail. Here is the link a second time https://answersingenesis.org/holidays/easter/is-the-name-easter-of-pagan-origin/

As a last thought, methinks also that we are batting heads (as in a brick wall), :bang: And we are being redundant is each others contention. 

God bless you all!

Alan

 

Edited by Alan
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

No, nobody here has claimed the word as an error in the KJB. Just some focusing on the word in other versions as being in error.

It is not an important word. Whether it be Easter or Passover. Why is it an issue at all? It doesn't change what happened. It was a day of some sort that Herod wanted to wait for to be over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
 

It is not an important word. Whether it be Easter or Passover. Why is it an issue at all? It doesn't change what happened. It was a day of some sort that Herod wanted to wait for to be over.

I suppose Easter in Acts 12:4 is important to me personally for a few reasons. Whither or not it is important to others I suppose is up to others. Below are some of my reasons for spending time on the issue. It may seem rehashed but I figured I would post anyway. (It can't hurt right?) :)

I. The word Easter shows the accuracy, precision, care and consideration of all the scriptures the translators took when they translated a word into English from the other languages. The English word Easter used to be how they always translated Pascha/Pesach into English but it was not an accurate translation because it did not mean Passover of the OT. Historically, originally the weeks events were defined by the Passover and had OT perspective on events, but by the time English people needed a bible, that same week in Christianity had a NT perspective and was defined by the resurrection and christian events and was called Easter week. Same week but with a different focus. Tyndale's creation of the English word "Passover" was more accurate and restored the focus of Pascha back to the OT event. So the translators switched to the more accurate Passover except for Acts 12:4 because the context of scripture demanded "pascha" have a more Christian meaning then OT Passover could give it.

Easter is a closely related event in the Passover week but was an event that did not exist until the resurrection. After resurrection it became part of Passover for the Christian Jew. The "People" in Acts 12 knew very well that Christ rose the first day after Passover and the context demanded that this Pascha included the resurrection event. The translators could not translate Pascha to "resurrection of Christ" because that is not what Pascha meant. Nor could they simply have the "Passover of the Jews" but they could use Easter, which is "Passover of the Christian" and which had its focus on Christ's resurrection.

II. The Pagan Myth compromises the integrity of Christian scholarship and research practices. The myth states that "Pascha is translated Easter instead of Passover in Acts 12:4 because it is a reference to Herod's worship of the pagan goddess Ishtar." This statement is wrong on many levels.

A. It uses vague connections prove its claims on the text: 

1. It links Easter to Ishtar by the way of the anglo-saxon goddess Eostre. The problem here is that there is only one source for the existence of Eostre. The 8th century historian St. Bede was researching the etymology of the April month "Ēosturmōnaþ" and stated there used to be a goddess Eostre of the dawn by which the Saxons used to worship in April but that could not be confirmed because the practice had died out before the 8th century and no one worshiped her anymore. Many scholars think Bede made her up in order to justify the name of the month. The month may not have been named after a goddess at all but simply met "dawn month" to signify the end of winter. The only link Easter has with the goddess here is the root word meaning of "dawn" which in is self has no religious meaning. By the time they started translating greek and latin into other bibles the word Easter practically had no connection in the mind of any translator or reader to a supposed goddess. 

2. It claims pascha here was pagan and did not have anything to do with Passover. The idea that Pascha can be used to refer to pagan worship is just plain wrong. Biblicly it always refers to anything dealing with the Passover time. Not once has it been used in reference to a pagan event. If the translators meant it in this way we could safely say that they were wrong and stupid about the context of scripture, or just plain lying. Practically all professonal translators today agree this Pascha must be translated in light of the Passover. 

3. It claims Herod was pagan and worshiped Ishtar. There is no evidence anywhere that Herod was pagan. This connection is made simply by the claim that "Herod was an Edomite and the Edomits worshiped Ishtar." This claim goes directly against known History. The fact is that Herod was a third generation proselyte to the Jewish faith and his ruling family always tried not to appear as foreign rulers. Herod Agrippa was actually loved by the Jews and went to great lengths to take part in all Jewish activities and particularly avoided anything that might offend them. The whole reason for his actions in Acts 12 was to please the Jews, to prove the new Christian church to be wrong, and to restore faith in the Jewish religion in the eyes of the people. There is no way he would compromise all that, particularly in the middle of Passover, in order to worship a highly unpopular pagan goddess of the hated pagan neighboring nations.

B. The main purpose of the Myth was created to cause doubt:

1. In the Roman Catholic church. The main purpose of the Babylon books was to show how Satan is perpetuating a counterfeit human religion which existed from the start of Babylon even until now in the RCC. In the process of they endeavor they touched on many things including Easter in which they linked to this Babylon religion. In order to make the link they started with the English word and automatically linked it with Eostre and the RCC without even considering its etymology or history.  (http://www.biblebelievers.com/babylon/sect32.htm). They did this to create doubt in the False practices of the RCC but what the myth actually does is create doubt in their main body of work.

2. It created doubt in the work of the KJV translators. Hislop states "Every one knows that the name "Easter," used in our translation of Acts 12:4, refers not to any Christian festival, but to the Jewish Passover. This is one of the few places in our version where the translators show an undue bias." Implying that the translators deliberately mistranslated the word and that they were trying to promote a Pagan holiday of the RCC. Today many KJV activist ignorantly repeat and modify the Myth in order to say the translators were correct in translating pascha as Easter because it actually was referring to pagan Herod's holiday! Rather then creating confidence in the KJV or the KJVO people who use this argument it actually creates doubt in their overall efforts.

3. It gives fodder to atheist and conspiracy theorist to mock Christianity. Easter is the time to focus on the resurrection and is often the only time many will darken the doors of any church. Rather then create confidence in the resurrection the Myth switched the focus every Easter onto how Christianity is deceptively causing their adherents to ignorantly worship the pagan goddess Ishtar. The Myth does not prove or create confidence in anything. Its only purpose is to doubt in the mind of the reader. as to the verasity of Easter and of the resurrection itself.


I could go on but I won't. Needless to say its important to me because I love truth and do not want to be propagating false information and bad research. Even if it seems to (at first) support my cause. Romans 6:1-2a What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

So if the word Easter used in this verse was in reference to a Christian event, why would Herod wait til after that event to kill Peter?

He wasn't trying to please Christians nor show respect to them at all.

But he was trying to please the Jews.

And to please them he chose to wait after their holy day to kill one of their enemies.

The translators used the word Easter as the term people knew meant Passover. That can be the only reason why they used it. I am not saying the KJB is in error here, but I am saying people who think it meant something other than Passover have little proof to show.

In my opinion.

Also, I have an issue with number 1 above. My Bible was translated in 1560, and the word is Passover in that verse, so you can't say it was always called or translated Easter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
 


I. The word Easter shows the accuracy, precision, care and consideration of all the scriptures the translators took when they translated a word into English from the other languages. The English word Easter used to be how they always translated Pascha/Pesach into English but it was not an accurate translation because it did not mean Passover of the OT. Historically, originally the weeks events were defined by the Passover and had OT perspective on events, but by the time English people needed a bible, that same week in Christianity had a NT perspective and was defined by the resurrection and christian events and was called Easter week. Same week but with a different focus. Tyndale's creation of the English word "Passover" was more accurate and restored the focus of Pascha back to the OT event. So the translators switched to the more accurate Passover except for Acts 12:4 because the context of scripture demanded "pascha" have a more Christian meaning then OT Passover could give it.

Easter is a closely related event in the Passover week but was an event that did not exist until the resurrection. After resurrection it became part of Passover for the Christian Jew. The "People" in Acts 12 knew very well that Christ rose the first day after Passover and the context demanded that this Pascha included the resurrection event. The translators could not translate Pascha to "resurrection of Christ" because that is not what Pascha meant. Nor could they simply have the "Passover of the Jews" but they could use Easter, which is "Passover of the Christian" and which had its focus on Christ's resurrection.

 

Brethren,

John Young is entirely correct. The word, "Easter," is correct. The King James Version translators were correct. The King James translators knew that the Geneva 1560 bible said, "Passover," and they knew that was not correct, so the they changed to, "Easter."

 

Also, I have an issue with number 1 above. My Bible was translated in 1560, and the word is Passover in that verse, so you can't say it was always called or translated Easter.

Genevanpreacher,

You need to get a correct Bible. In this instance, the Geneva 1560 bible is in error and the King James Version is correct.

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
 

So if the word Easter used in this verse was in reference to a Christian event, why would Herod wait til after that event to kill Peter? I have already stated the answer to this question several times. Wither you use Passover (the Jewish perspective of the week) or Easter (the Christian perspective of the week with emphasis on the resurrection) Herod waited until after because the allusion of Acts 12 was all about Herod reenacting the resurrection event (but with a different outcome) which happens AFTER the Passover week is over. In the Christian mind Passover week is about when our Passover lamb is sacrificed. Easter is part of that Passover week because Christ Is raised the day after the week. The the Roman guards could not keep Jesus in the tomb but Herod planed on keeping Peter until after the week and the resurrection morning event to show that he could have the power to keep Peter.

He wasn't trying to please Christians nor show respect to them at all.  But he was trying to please the Jews.

I do not recall ever saying that. He wanted to mock the Christians and convert the people back to the Jews. 

And to please them he chose to wait after their holy day to kill one of their enemies.
Right. This same holy days in which Rome and the Jews crucified Jesus and then the Church claimed that same Jesus had risen just after and was now both Lord and Christ. Remember it was Peter who was the face of the Church in Jerusalem and it was he who was first to make the claims of Christ rising just after Passover. (Acts 2)

The translators used the word Easter as the term people knew meant Passover. That can be the only reason why they used it. I am not saying the KJB is in error here, but I am saying people who think it meant something other than Passover have little proof to show. I agree. It can only be a word which relates to Pascha. It can't be pagan. Easter is the Christian perspective of the Passover week, Instead of the Passover supper we have the lord's supper, Instead of a lamb we have Christ and ect. The use of Easter preserves the integrity of Acts 12 and shows a transition point from THE PEOPLE observing the OT/ Jewish Passover to now observing the NT/Christian Passover which is Easter. Acts 12 is a transition chapter and battle over WHO the people were going to follow. The Jews who denied God's Passover lamb and wished to continue observing the OT Passover, or would they instead observe the NT Passover (Lord's supper, Christ's sacrifice and resurrection, etc) which we call Easter.

In my opinion.

Also, I have an issue with number 1 above. My Bible was translated in 1560, and the word is Passover in that verse, so you can't say it was always called or translated Easter. What I said was that before Tyndall (c. 1494–1536) the word Passover did not exist until he created it and even then he only used "passeover" in the OT and left it "Ester" the NT. So before Tyndall, early bibles either translated it Easter in both Old and New testament or left it in some variant of the Greek or Latin Pascha. Luther also use the German variant of Easter (Ostern) for his bible (1545) as well.

 

Edited by John Young
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

In Greek, Pascha refers to all the events which surround the holiday, regardless of wither the events are OT or NT, Jewish or Christian. However, in English we make a distinction between the OT events, calling those "Passover events" and the NT events calling those "Easter events". This is why the book of John, the oldest gospel, would sometimes say "the Jew's Pascha" (in reference to Passover) to make sure the readers did not confuse it with the Christian's Pascha, which we in English now call Easter.

Luke is writing to Theophilus about the Christian events of Pascha in Acts 12 so the English word Easter has to be used to make that distinction clear in English. Herod and the Jews wanted to destroy the people's faith in the Christian events of Pasha. That is why they wanted to wait until "after Easter" because of the main event of the Christian Pascha, the resurrection, occurred the first day after the week and was considered the main part of pascha by the church. So if Herod (and by default, the Jewish leadership) still had Peter "after Easter" then it would be a sever blow to the people's faith in the Christian church. If Herod was simply waiting until "after Passover" (only after the Jewish feast events) there would really be no real reason to show Peter to the people.

Edited by John Young
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Thank you Alan for your keen insight.

Yet you cannot claim your accuracy in this instance. If, as I stated, that Easter meant the same thing as Passover in 1611, what difference does it make which word you use? Obviously when previous Men of God, who translated from Greek into English in previous Bibles to the KJB, used words like Pascha, or Pask, or, as Tyndale did multiple times Ester/ester, I question your type of thinking on being so predisposed to 'jots and tittles' in this instance.

How about a little reversing on this thoughtline?

Let's say we translate from the English into Greek for witnessing purposes around the world. What Greek word would you use to tell them about Easter in this verse? There are over 13 million people on our little planet that speak Greek. What would we say when quoting Acts 12:4?

Curious.

Edited by Genevanpreacher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

John, I don't know why you state this as if there is proof that Herod was re-enacting the resurrection, but that sounds like someone making it up to prove accuracy without using their head. The term Passover and Easter being the same word makes much more sense according to the text of the scriptures. The only time people celebrated the resurrection was by the gathering together on the day the Lord arose - the first day of the week known in centuries past as Sonday.

We still do - as we gather together on our day called Sunday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This argument simply should not exist at all.......ever.....

"Easter" in the KJV is perfectly accurate, but it isn't or wouldn't be better or superior to say simply "pascha" or something else.  The KJV translators were neither more correct nor more incorrect to say "Easter" here or to render it "pascha" or even "passover", those words all meant the same thing.  

This is an argument that exists only in the minds of Americans (not any other native English speakers).

"Easter" in1611 when the KJV was translated, could have meant either the Jewish "passover" or the Christian celebration of the Ressurrection.

Liner notes in an original KJV  refer to the "Easter of the Jews".  Also, the common book of prayer as late as 1640 refers to the "Easter of the Jews".-------"pascha of the Jews" 

The word translated is 'pascha' and it can refer either to the Christian celebration of Christ's resurrection, or it can refer to what we often call the "passover" for Judaism....neither one is either more or less correct.  As usual, contextual usage was the key.

Here in the United States, no one uses the root term "pascha" to mean the Christian celebration of the Resurrection.....nor do we use it to refer to the Jewish celebration of the "passover"..........OUTSIDE of the U.S. the term is STILL used to refer to Christ's death burial and resurrection.

I just read last week, an article in my Theology coursework by the Swiss Theologian Hans Urs Von Balthasar called "The Trinity and Jesus' Paschal Mystery".  An article in a Journal published in......................... 1990...........yes, in the modern age "Pascha" actually still means "pascha"......or "Easter"....or...."Resurrection Sunday"....or whatever.

In Theology journals and Christian writings in the United Kingdom, Germany, Switzerland and throughout the Western World, the term "pascha" is still meant to mean the the passion or the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, it's called the "paschal mystery".  

The translators of the KJV were Englishmen.............not Americans.

There's no secret to the whole thing.  The original Greek term "pascha" hasn't actually changed in about 3,000 years.

The KJV is neither right nor wrong to translate it as "Easter" or "Passover" or simply leave it as the Greek term "Pascha".

No, Herod wasn't celebrating some pagan holiday.....(he'd have lost his crown if he'd tried)....he was just waiting for the Jewish "pascha"....or "passover" to pass, because Jews didn't execute anyone on passover................like Jesus.....they didn't execute on "pascha"...or "easter"...or "passover". (all same word).

There's just nothing to this issue.  It's a non-issue.  It doesn't exist.

Edited by Heir of Salvation
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...