Easter in Tyndale's Bible Before KJV

From Easter to Ostara: the Reinvention of a Pagan Goddess?

 

Easter is not from Ashtar. I'm currently reading Hislop's otherwise excellent book "The Two Babylons" in full, including all the footnotes.
His subjective etymological excursions are basically the only source for that claim.

Easter is basically German for "resurrection" since the sun rises in the East.

Here's an excellent article from Answers in Genesis:

Is the Name “Easter” of Pagan Origin?

 

I didn't have time to fully make the point. I have a few minutes now. My point is in historical linguistics (etymology). The word "Easter" started out as meaning a heathen goddess. It then developed into the word for the resurrection celebration of Christians. At some point it no longer meant the heathen goddess. Then, whoever it was (I'll have to look back) who started it, someone translated pasxa (πάσχα) as "Easter," since apparently there was no word in the English language for "passover." (I have my doubts about that one. Surely the speakers of Middle English were not that ignorant of Judaism.) However, I do not see any time in history where "Easter" actually meant "Passover." Therefore, the translator or translators (of whatever version) were mistaken to translate pasxa as "Easter," right down to the KJV translators.

There are several strategies for a translator to render a word in the original language when there is no equivalent word in the target language: (1) coining a word, (2) adapting an existing word, (3) using a phrase for one word. The second one fits the usage of "Easter" for pasxa, but IMO it didn't work because of the fact that "Easter" already had a strong base meaning which was not "Passover."

 

It is my understanding Tyndale tranliterated the Greek but often did translate it as Easter in the New Testament. And when he did the Hebrew translation of the word invented our word Passover.

 

How would those in Acts had seen the word as being, Passover or Easter?

 

They spoke Greek. It was πάσχα.

 

A good, scholarly essay. Thanks!

 

Not Wikipedia for a change!

 

Remember, William Tyndale had no one before him to copy in English from the original Greek. He was the very first to translate the Greek into English. He was also the very first to publish in print The whole New Testament. Guess what else he did? He was also the very first to translate from the original Hebrew into English. He was also the first to publish/print much of the Hebrew Bible into English. After he was murdered for giving the English people the word of God in English, his friend John Rodgers published the rest of Tyndales translations into English, up to half of the Old Testament from the original Hebrew. He also revised his New Testament twice. No one else in the history of the English Bible has done as much. He is the man God chose to give us the Bible in English. Virtually all bibles up until World War Two follows his including the King James Version.
He is the greatest translator to have ever lived. Remember, he did all this while being hunted by the English Church and King Henry at the time.

 

William Tyndales pioneering Translations.
John Rodger's Matthews Bible.
Miles Coverdale's Great Bible.
Geneva Bible.
Bishops Bible.
Rheims New Testament.
1611 King James Bible.
Revised Version.
American Standard Version.
Revised Standard Version.
New American Standard Bible.

 

Good post! I agree that Tyndale was an awesome translator, but I'd have to put _____ as the best in history. I'll start another thread on that and give my nominee.

 

I meant to say most effective, or influential.

 

Source?

 

The usual "the King James translators were not as informed and discerning as I am" line of reasoning.

 

That may be your biased KJV-only opinion.

Would you suggest or think that non-KJV-only believers are not as informed and discerning as you and other KJV-only advocates are?

 

According to what I have read this king Herod was not a Jew, but he is said to observe Jewish traditions.

In his commentary on Acts, Paton Gloag asserted that the Herod of Acts 12 “was strict in the observance of the Mosaic law” (I, p. 415). Gloag added: “According to the strict Jews, it was not reckoned lawful to defile their festal days with executions, and Herod Agrippa prided himself on being a strict observer of the law” (I, p. 416). In his commentary on Acts, William Humphrey reported that Josephus maintained that this Herod was “strongly attached to the Jewish law” (p. 100). In his commentary, Livermore maintained that “Herod forbore to execute Peter during the feast of Passover, out of regard to the custom of the Jews” (p. 177). In his 1645 commentary on Acts, John Lightfoot (1602-1675) noted: “Agrippa, having laid hold upon him, deferred his execution till after the Passover” (p. 322). Likewise, the 1645 Westminster Annotations have this note on “the days of unleavened bread” at Acts 12:4: “These words intimate the cause why he deferred Peter’s execution, for reverence of the Passover, which lasted eight days.” In the 1695 second edition of his Paraphrase on the New Testament, Richard Baxter has this note on Acts 12:4: “He set sixteen soldiers to keep him, that after the Passover he might sacrifice him to the people.”

Furthermore, the immediate context of Acts 12:4 demonstrated that king Herod was aware that his earlier action of vexing certain of the church “pleased the Jews” (Acts 12:3). The context also revealed that Herod “proceeded further” to take another action that he thought would please the Jews. Would Herod be continuing to please the Jews if he supposedly waited to observe a pagan holiday or festival? Would the celebrations and practices associated with a pagan festival please or offend the Jews? Does the context actually maintain that Herod in proceeding further to take Peter would then do something contradictory to this action intended to please the Jews?

It was actually Luke that used the Greek word pascha for the time for which Herod was waiting since this verse gives no indication that Herod was being directly quoted. The Bible verse or context does not directly say that Herod was keeping or observing pascha. “The people” of Acts 12:4 could be referring to or would be including the Jews mentioned in verse 3. In Acts 12:11, it refers to “the expectation of the people of the Jews.” Therefore according to the context, the Jews were clearly the people that Herod wanted to please again by his further action. Therefore, nothing in the verse and context proves that Herod could not have been waiting for the Jews to finish keeping their pascha so that he could bring Peter forth and please the Jews again. In other words, the context indicates that Herod did not want to risk displeasing the Jews by executing Peter during their Jewish pascha and may not indicate whether Herod personally had any scruples or principles against executing Peter during a festival. Herod also would have no reason to seek to displease the Jews and to honor and respect the church that he was vexing by waiting until after any claimed church celebration. Therefore, the clear evidence from the context clearly supports the understanding that the Jews would be the ones keeping the pascha [also called the feast of unleavened bread in Luke 22:1] instead of the assertion that Herod had to be the one keeping it. If Herod was also keeping it, the context indicates that it was the Jewish pascha that he would be keeping and not some pagan festival nor any Christian celebration.

 

That may be your biased "humanistic scholarship only" opinion.

 

I do not advocate "humanism" or "humanistic scholarship only" as your incorrect allegations asserts.

Perhaps it is human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning and its blind trust only in the human scholarship of one exclusive group of imperfect Church of England critics that your statement may describe.