Jordan Kurecki: Not in Luke's time. The nearest thing to it was the "Lord's Supper". But of course. However, that fact isn't germane to THIS discussion. What matters is what it meant to LUKE, and that certainly wasn't Easter. No, he WASN'T! Remember, Herod was trying to please the "Orthodox" Jewish religious leadership in Jerusalem, who were observing PASSOVER at that time, as Acts 12:3 sez. Herod was waiting for passover to end so he could turn Peter over to those Jews. Fine-n-dandy. However, Luke wrote "Acts" between 54-68 AD, and Easter didn't exist then. But if they did, it certainly wasn't called either Easter or passover, and Herod was working AGAINST the Christians, and certainly would NOT have been honoring any Christian observance! And the Christians were a small minority in that time/place, with NO political power. OTOH, it's a BIG stretch, past the breaking point! easter came about in the 300s AD, when Constantine's catholic missionaries to the Germans saw a German spring rite called "Ostern", complete with legendary egg-laying bunnies, hot-cross buns, & new headgear for the ladies. The missionaries worked the story of Jesus' resurrection into this rite & brought it back to the Holy Roman Empire and into the Roman Catholic Church, where it evolved into what it is today. It's a simple FACT that after Herod busted Peter, he was NOT waiting for anything called Easter to pass. He was waiting for the Jewish religious leaders he was trying to please to finish with PASSOVER, plain-n-simple! Were he waiting for any other observance to be over, Luke woulda used that observance's name. However, he used 'pascha', the SAME WORD he CONSISTENTLY used for PASSOVER in all his known writings.