Article: Why We Should Not Passover Easter (Part 2) by Nick Sayers
From Textus Receptus
Why we should not Passover Easter 2
By Nick Sayers
In Part 1 we traced the history of the English Bible and discovered that the etymology of Easter is not from pagan origins but is of an entirely Christian derivation.
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. [1]
Most claims that "Easter", in Acts 12:4 was a mistake or a mistranslation in the King James Bible, stem from the "pagan origins" myth. However there is also another reason why some reject Easter being inserted here. The phrase, "Everyone knows that Pascha means Passover and not Easter" is often claimed with pulpit thumping assertion in many anti Easter articles on the Internet. Yet, modern Greek dictionaries define 'Pascha' as 'Easter', and if you asked any modern Greek what Pascha means every one of them will say that Pascha means Easter, the very opposite to what some "Greek experts" within the assembly of textual critics will assert. Many of God's people repeat what these "experts" affirm, as I myself once did, either claiming Easter to be Pagan or citing the "inaccuracy" of Acts 12:4. But as we shall see, Easter in Acts 12:4 in the KJV was not a mistake, but merely a cue for readers to consider the timing of Herod's captivity of Peter and his desire to bring him before the people, just as what happened to Jesus not many years prior, also at Passover - though the use of Easter would make them consider Christ our Passover and the resurrection.
The Greek Pascha appears 29 times, 28 as Passover and once as Easter1:
Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to veX certain of the church. And he killed James the brother of John with the sword. And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)
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." (Acts 12:4 KJV)
Luke formulated Pashas' semantic domain
With our current western way of thinking, we sometimes separate Pascha into two distinct time periods, one being Passover and the other Easter. It helps to know that in NT times, Jews were celebrating the Passover and the Christians were celebrating the Resurrection (Easter) at the same period of time. It would appear that the rationale of the KJV translators in using the word "Easter" not "Passover" was that Herod would have thought in terms of the Jewish designation and was waiting until after the festival to bring Peter before the Jews, as his desire was to please the Jews, while Luke the writer of Acts, made it perfectly clear by stating "then were the days of unleavened bread" that he was speaking of the Christians' Pascha, and was making mention that the Passover feast day had already taken place and the feast of unleavened bread was taking place. Luke forced the semantic domain of Pascha by making this statement, and wasn't referring to the Passover feast day which was on the first day of the feast, but stated that Peter was taken during the days of unleavened bread which was the seven-day period after the feast.
Even the liberal Bible translator and scholar Philip Schaff said,
Easter is the resurrection festival which follows the Passover proper, but is included in the same festive week. [2]
Luke didn't have separate words in Greek to specify the difference between the Passover proper and the Resurrection celebration (Easter), so he used "Pascha" and added "then were the days of unleavened bread" emphasizing the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. He followed this pattern throughout the book of Acts. Luke would not have added it for some trivial re
