100% or 95-98%?

Benaiah: Easter is corectly translated in the King James and the King James only.

No, it's MISTRANSLATED in the KJV only. It was correct in OLDER bibles. The Geneva Bible, the KJV's immediate predecessor, correctly translated pascha as PASSOVER. For the KJV to have used that older rendering, obsolete in 1604, is as my saying, "My cough is due to CATARRH." I believe they just plain made a booboo.

Easter is correctly identified as a Pagan Holiday in the KJV

ABSOLUTELY WRONG. Please show us any Scripture saying Herod was observing a pagan holiday in Acts 4. Can't find any? Then go to secular history. Still none? Looks like you blew it.

 

I've had an ongoing discussion with Dr. Thomas Cassidy on Yahoo about just when Easter for Passover became obsolete. True, the OED's philology on Easter quotes it from the KJV. But all its other examples are a good deal older. They simply cite the example w/o saying whether it was already obsolete or not.

He also cites Random House as saying it was in use TILL THE 17TH CENTURY. Now, although there's no barrier thrown up in 1601 declaring it then-obsolete, I cannot find any other early 17th C. works using Easter for Passover.

The Anglicans of AV times placed great importance on Easter. Thus, they placed a table in the AV for finding Easter in any given year. they certainly knew the difference between Easter and Passover,and, given the veneration they had for Easter, it seems very unlikely they'd deliberately call Passover "Easter".

Gotta go ta work...I'll answer the other posts either tonight or tomorrow, GOD WILLING.

 

FWIW:

Webster's 1828 dictionary:

E'ASTER, n. A festival of the christian church observed in commemoration of our Savior's resurrection. It answers to the pascha or passover of the Hebrews, and most nations still give it this name, pascha, pask, paque.

PAS'CHAL, a. [L. pascha.] Pertaining to the passover, or to Easter.

PASCH, n. [See Paschal.] The passover; the feast of Easter. [Not used.]

 

Askjo: Did any apostles go to Egypt?

They may have, or they may not have. There were Jews in Egypt then, as Scripture proves.(Apollos, of Alexandria was a Jew.) and most of the apostles went to the scattered Jews. Also, Isaiah 19 shows us that, although God has heavily punished Egypt(but not as heavily as He has the Jews) He also has a place in His heart for Egypt. After all, Egypt was under the rule of Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, Turkey, and England successively over a 2600-year period and yet has remained a distinct nation.

According to Dr. Jack Moorman, he wrote, "This is the Gnostic perversion with its doctrine of 'intermediary gods.' It is the trademark of corruption in the early Egyptian manuscripts which unfortunately spread to some others."

Dr. Moorman has been proven wrong in many points more often than a panel of contestants on "Celebrity Jeopardy". Did not Yahweh say of Jesus,"To-day I have begotten thee" in the KJV? Is Jesus not God? Has He ever NOT been God? Does He not call Himself begotten in John 3:16? Therefore, how can "begotten God" be wrong? Hard to believe? With GOD, aren't all things possible?

The KJV has no error on this verse.(Acts 5:30) Maybe you carelessly read this passages. Nothing wrong with the KJV -- That is what the other apostles and Peter said. Not Luke's words. Luke wrote WHAT they spoke.

But the KJV translators rendered it incorrectly. He was NOT slain and then hanged.

Technically, He was not slain...after taking enough physical abuse to have killed an ordinary man ten times over, He gave up His spirit when the time came, when all had been fulfilled.

 

Natters...I believe the Greeks didn't use pascha for Easter till around the 3rd century...and Easter as we know it was not known to have been observed at all till at least around 155 AD...and it wasn't called Easter until Constantine's time in the 300s AD when "missionaries" began mixing pagan observances into Christian ceremonies to make Christianity more appealing to pagans. From what I can find, the Gauls(early French) first used the term for one of their feasts, followed closely in usage by their neighbors, some of the Teutons and Germanic tribes.

By the time of Luke and the Herod to whom he refers, the name of the pagan goddess Ishtar(the planet Venus) had been replaced with PALLAS ATHENE (or, simply Athene-Athena) by the Greeks as far back as the time of the Iliad(C. 700s BC), while the Romans called it MINERVA. There's no record of either the Greeks or the Romans ever worshipping Venus under the name Ishtar.

A translation should follow the writings of its sources, and, closely as possible, the thoughts and intents of the original author. There is no possibility that LUKE was thinking of Easter as it didn't exist then. In HIS time, "pascha" meant Passover alone, and pascha is the word he used.

The argument that Easter was still used for Passover in English in 1604-11 is a weak one. Why? First, as far back as 1534, Tyndale had begun to drop that usage as he revised his first work. He didn't get finished with the New estament. But by 1560, the Geneva Bible had completely eliminated Easter from English Bible translation, and there was no valid reason to have re-instituted it. The AV men placed a table within their work to enable one to determine Easter in any year; they placed great importance upon the Resurrection Day easter observance, while Passover is mentioned only within the text of the Scriptures themselves. Passover is NOT among the list of Holy Days in the AV, while Easter IS.


The AV men certainly knew the difference between Easter and Passover. This leaves an oversight as the best explanation of why Easter appears in Acts 12:4.

 

Wow, talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

 

TCassidy: Well, once again we see Cranston ignoring any and all evidence that mitigates against his presupposition. If Random House, the Oxford English Dictionary, and Webster's 1828 Dictionary, as well as many others, all say something that Cranston doesn't like, they must all be wrong and Cranston must be right.

Sorry, Sir: The evidence does NOT match your opinion. The OED only cites the KJV's rendering,WITHOUT expounding upon its correctness or lack thereof, while all its other examples are quite a bit older. And Random House plainly said, "TILL the 17th C.

And I've asked for some very simple evidence...Any other scholarly British literature of the early 17th C. which calls Passover Easter. There's no lack of extant works from that time. Shakespeare...Milton...John Donne...Ben Jonson...George Herbert...King James himself, to name a few. Their works are readily available. Please show us where any of them called Passover "Easter".

Can you say "obsession?"

Not in this format, but I can TYPE it...

K J V O

 

TCassidy: I have given you the information about a dozen times and you just ignore it. You don't what to read it because you know it will prove your favorite hobby horse to be a dead horse!

Sorry, but instead of sticking to the cold, hard facts, you toss in some OPINION as well. And I have yet to see any scholarly literature contemporary with the AV 1611 that calls Passover Easter.

 

I can agree with this on both sides of the "Easter" issue although I'm more inclined to Robycop's side of the issue that "Easter" is an improper choice then as now.

On the TC side, OK, TC has claimed (but not cited specifics in this thread, - but I believe him) that "Easter" was commonly accepted and proper as "Passover" in the Jacobean-Elizabethan era but not in the here and now (at least in the American English speaking culture).

However, on the Roby side: the original language word for Passover is "pascha" and is the word used in this place in Acts and on this occurrence in Acts it is the only place in the AV where it is called by the name "Easter" and the only place where the word "Easter" is used in the entire AV.

Why did the AV translators choose "Easter" only here since as has been claimed these terms were synonymous to them in their day?

But, as has been shown the KJV translators obviously knew the difference between Passover and Easter.

Is there documentation concerning this choice, as to why they made this choice here and nowhere else and if so, what "special" day did they mean to convey?

Did they intend "Easter" as:

The Jewish Passover or
The Pagan form of fertility celebration or
The Christian celebration of the resurrection of Jesus Christ?

These 3 choices have each been expressed and held here and elsewhere as to what they (AV) and/or the original language text actually intended.

Being combined as it is here with "the days of unleavened bread" from the previous verse, it seems obvious to me that Luke meant "Passover" which I think only die-hard KJVO would deny.

My guess is that they (AV) also meant "Passover" and should have said so but perhaps because of their love of the "Easter" celebration, they wanted to give Easter at least "honorable mention" though not properly according to the original language.

My opinion of course.

HankD

 

Nope, you're wrong. Herod was not a Jew. He was a pagan.

Pascha does mean Passover, so does Easter. Take a nice looooooong look in your English dictionary.

Pascha is Greek for the JEWISH Passover. Easter is English for that time of year the LORD raised Himself from the dead.

Amazing how you squabble with antiquated use of defintion. You argue the changing of words and there meaning, but then you rely on "archaic" defintions to make your point.

 

BTW, I know the difference between the Passover and Easter. So do nearly all the English population.

 

The problem is that God didn't use two words... He used one.

I respect and appreciate Doc's explanation. His is the right perspective... honor the KJV without making it something it is not. Easter isn't necessarily inaccurate... however, the KJV use of the word "Easter" doesn't make other versions that are consistent by translating the word "Passover" inaccurate, corrupt, nor perverse.

The word "Easter" is definitely NOT inspired. It was simply a choice made by scholarly translators.

 

At last, an answer which seems to have a good degree of credibility.

Thanks TC!

HankD

 

FrankBetz: Nope, you're wrong. Herod was not a Jew. He was a pagan.

Yet another misquoted assumption. Please show the world , from my post you quoted, where I say Herod was a Jew. If you cannot, please be man enuff to admit it.

Herod was of IDUMEAN(Edomite) descent. His ancestor was Antipater, a friend of Julius Caesar's. He sought to please the Jews, but moreover, to please his Roman superiors, who were expecting him to placate the rebellious Jews.

Pascha does mean Passover, so does Easter. Take a nice looooooong look in your English dictionary.

But NOT when Luke and Herod lived. And even later, when the word "Easter" came into use, it depended upon the context.

Pascha is Greek for the JEWISH Passover. Easter is English for that time of year the LORD raised Himself from the dead.

Correct...and Easter did NOT exist while Luke and Herod lived. When Luke wrote 'pascha' he meant PASSOVER & nothing else.

Amazing how you squabble with antiquated use of defintion. You argue the changing of words and there meaning, but then you rely on "archaic" defintions to make your point.

BUUZZ!

Easter and Passover, respectively, still mean what they meant long ago. Calling Passover "Easter" in a relatively modern Bible(the KJV)is equivalent to a modern medical journal calling a respiratiry infection "catarrh" or a medicated bandage a "poultice".

More KJVO hanky-panky

 

TCassidy: I believe the reason the KJV translators chose not to change the reading from 'easter' to 'passover' (remember the KJV is a revision of the Bishops' Bible) as they did every other time the word 'pasXa' is used in the NT might be that, in this instance, it is not the actual feast of Passover that is being focused on, but the time frame.

Luke is setting the time of year that the events occurred and indicating that Herod was going to wait until after passover to bring Peter before the people.

Luke didn't bother to do the same in his "Gospel" when a MUCH-more-important event occurred...Jesus' crucifixion/resurrection.

While I can't really PROVE the AV men didn't simply overlook it, no one can prove otherwise, either. The evidence before us is the actual reading from the KJV of Acts 12:4 and the non-use of Easter in the KJV any other place where 'pascha' occurs in the mss. This evidence thus leans in the direction of an oversight.

And again...If "Easter for Passover" was still the standard in the early 17th century, why isn't such usage seen in any other scholarly literature from the same time frame?