AV1611 and Easter

This article completely fails to explain why a person writing from a Jewish point of view about Jews celebrating Jewish festivals, would change to a pagan frame of reference just that once with no explanation.

In short: it's a post hoc rationalization of an editorial goof in the KJV.

 

I totally agree. I find all the word games that KJV-only supporters come up with for dealing with this verse hilarious - pointless, but hilarious. This issue shows me that KJV-onlyists are so intent on winning an argument, that they can't see the forest for the trees. Despite all the hoops they jump through, the core fact remains (and is ignored): Luke wrote "pascha". Basically, the KJV-Onlies are saying that Luke (and thus the Holy Spirit) made a mistake that the KJV translators fixed.

 

u didn't think that Microsoftware had any Bugs or Viruses, did u?

they're ALL Features, tada!

 

Warm Christian greetings!

As one who loves the KJV I accept that the word "Easter" is a mistake. The "KJV only" brethren do not do themselves, or their cause, any favours by trying to make the word "Easter" right.

The KJV has many fine qualities and those seeking to promote it would be better advised stressing these.

Kind regards

Robert J Hutton

 

I am not KJVO, but I also know that "easter" in 1611 had a much broader meaning than it does today. In 1611 the meaning of the word included, according to the Oxford English dictionary, the meaning "The Jewish Passover." That meaning has become archaic, but it would be incorrect, in my opinion, to say that "easter" was an error in 1611.

 

Dr. Cassidy,

What, in your opinion, was the intent of the KJV translators. Some say it was a mistake, but it seems unlikely the translators would consistently translate the word as passover everywhere else and simply blunder here.

 

Can someone put into simple english exactly what the big controversy is here?

Thanks in advance....Bill

 

The article was very informative. Their seems to be a valid editorial reason for translating the word Easter here. I'll look closer. Thanx for posting that.

 

I think every one is agreed that Luke used the same word here he used everywhere else. Exactly what are you objecting to here?

 

The aforementioned article states that English folks referred to this season as Easter prior to the KJV. Let's see if the usage reflects that.

Twenty-seven instances of pascha in the NT. Always, except in Acts 12:4, the translators chose the definite article "the" to precede it. It is not in italics, so they certainly thought it to be understood in the original language.

Everywhere they did not use "the", except in Acts 12:4, a possessive pronoun or preposition (or the Greek equivalents of our possessive pronouns and prepositions) is supplied in the original language; e.g., our passover, the Jews' passover, this passover.

In every case, except in Acts 12:4, either the sacrifice or the actual celebration is in view. But in Acts 12:4, it appears to me that the time frame of the passover, or the season takes center stage. So instead of just plain, passover, the translators chose to use Easter for the word.

When I examine the evidence, it does not appear to be an "editorial goof" in the least. It looks to be a clear caculated decision in translation.

What do you think?

Matthew 26:2: the passover
Matthew 26:17: the passover
Matthew 26:18: the passover
Matthew 26:19: the passover
Mark 14:1: the passover
Mark 14:12: the passover
Mark 14:14: the passover
Mark 14:16: the passover
Luke 2:41: the passover
Luke 22:1: the passover
Luke 22:7: the passover
Luke 22:8: the passover
Luke 22:11: the passover
Luke 22:13: the passover
Luke 22:15: this passover
John 2:13: the Jews' Passover
John 2:23: the Passover
John 6:4: the Passover
John 11:55: the Jews' Passover
John 12:1: the Passover
John 13:1: the Passover
John 18:28: the Passover
John 18:39: the Passover
John 19:14: the Passover
Acts 12:4: Easter
1 Cor. 5:7: our passover
Hebrews 11:28: the passover

[I wrote this late last night, and I see my math skills were suffering. Edited to correct the number of occurances.]

[ July 07, 2002, 10:27 AM: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

Personally I object to the premise that translators have a broad license to interpret the way you suggest the KJV translators did in your last post. Easter and passover are not exactly the same thing and there is no evidence that Luke intended to imply anything other than passover.

[ July 07, 2002, 01:58 AM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

I am not KJVO either, but may I remind everyone that at the time of this writing by Luke the first "Easter" (in the Christian meaning) had already happened. From that point on the Passover and its symbolism had a significantly different meaning for every Christian. For one thing the Passover and Easter were forever united in meaning (behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world). Perhaps the KJV translators wanted to convey that nuance since Peter had been thrown into prison for preaching the risen Christ (no doubt) as the Lamb of God.

Personally, I think we can cut the KJVO folks some slack here.

HankD

 

In other words, it is not evident that in the other occurances that the sacrifice is in view, and in Acts 12:4 that the season is in view.

I think someone well learned in the original languages and translation would be better qualified to comment upon that. One thing is certain, it is clear in the English translation.

But then, the argument is that this was a mistake or oversight on the part of the translators. You say it is a brazen wantonness upon their part. Could you provide more evidence of this wantonnes? Certainly if that was the case it is reasonable to expect the existence of other instances of this license in the KJV.

And I'm not trying to say they are, though I think HankD's comments warrant some attention. As I said above, where easter is used it appears to me that the sacrifice or cellebration does not come into view.

Thanks for your input. Anyone else?

[ July 07, 2002, 10:19 AM: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

But KJVO folks insist that it must be "Easter" in Acts 12:4, and that "Passover" is an error. I agree that the church in centuries past used "Easter" to mean "Passover", but that's not what KJVOs are saying. - they are saying they are different, that by the time of Acts 12:4 the Jewish "Passover" was already over, but the pagan "Easter" was still to come.

Technically, the *KJV* is correct if you consider that old English Bibles used Passover and Easter interchangably - but *KJVOs* are wrong for saying it MUST be "Easter". "Passover" is more correct, for it eliminates the error in interpretation if one considers Easter and Passover as two different things.

This is very similiar to the "Lucifer"/"morning star" issue of Isa 14:12. Technically, "Lucifer" is correct for it is the old word for Venus, the "morning star". But if someone (like KJVOs) understands it to have a different meaning (ie. "Satan"), it is better to have "morning star" in the verse to eliminate the error in interpretation if one considers "Lucifer" and "morning star" as two different things.

In short, it can be said that the KJV is technically right (because of archaic reasons, but could be better today), but the KJVO interpretation and line of argument is completely out to lunch.

Brian

[ July 07, 2002, 12:47 PM: Message edited by: BrianT ]

 

KJVO out to lunch...

OK, but to me its not a big deal, let 'em enjoy their lunch (what could it possibly hurt?)while you and I know better.

HankD

 

You and I may know better, but many people don't. If KJVOism spreads an untruth, causing people do doubt the word of God, should we not correct it?

 

Aaron said:

I think every one is agreed that Luke used the same word here he used everywhere else. Exactly what are you objecting to here?

The post-hockery required by the KJV-onlyists to defend this single use of "Easter" as though the KJV translators had a better idea what Luke meant by pascha here.

 

Sometimes I wonder if the spirit of some of those doing the correcting causes more harm than good.

HankD

[ July 08, 2002, 12:35 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]