Easter in Tyndale's Bible Before KJV

[Yeshua1]

It is as well-established as most things accepted to be historical facts from that period of time.

The assertion was made by reliable, trustworthy, respected believers/preachers (Thomas Hill and Henry Jessey), and they indicated that one original first-hand source for their assertion of changes being made was KJV translator Miles Smith who had told someone else about the changes. The assertion had been repeated second hand to one of them, but Thomas Hill and Henry Jessey would also have had access to first-hand evidence in that day to check out the assertion, and all that evidence may not be available today. There is the first-hand report of witnesses who claimed that they had seen the text of the KJV translators prepared for the printers and that they saw evidence of changes having been made. That text is now lost or destroyed (perhaps in the 1660 London fire), but it was available in the 1640's and 1650's so that the account in the state records could have been checked out by others.

It is also in agreement with other facts from first-hand sources such as the first-hand account of the Hampton Court conference that presents the plan for the making of the KJV. The stated plan for its making noted that bishops and the privy council would be permitted to review.

At least one of the KJV translators [Andrew Bing (1574-1652)] was still alive when Thomas Hill had the public assertion in his 1648 sermon, which was also printed. Many others who had worked with and for individual KJV translators would also have been alive. I have found no evidence that any one in 1648 and the years following disputed or questioned his assertion as not being true. In that day, when there was more first-hand evidence available, no one seems to have disputed the assertion in Thomas Hill's sermon.

Would be interesting to somehow find a copy of the Kjv before final editing happened!

 

[robycop3]

We're in a conference, so I don't have time to write much, but ISBE vol. 2 (rev. 1982) says, "The term Easter was derived from the Anglo-Saxon 'Eostre,' the name of the goddess of Spring." In the 8th century, it began to be applied to the resurrection of Christ (article by D. W. Burdick). Doesn't sound like passover at all to me.

I have also read(But I don't remember where or when) that Easter came from the German "Ostern", meaning 'Eastern'.

 

[John of Japan]

I have also read(But I don't remember where or when) that Easter came from the German "Ostern", meaning 'Eastern'.

I read that somewhere too. Hard to tell what's right on this one. It's a complicated history.

 

[robycop3]

I read that somewhere too. Hard to tell what's right on this one. It's a complicated history.

I don't concern myself much with the origin of the word 'Easter', as I know ir's been used to indicate the observance of the anniversary of Jesus' resurrection long before Tyndale or the AV 1611.

And I recall reading somewhere that Tyndale coined 'passover' to differentiate between that observance & that of Easter.

 

[Hark]

I don't concern myself much with the origin of the word 'Easter', as I know ir's been used to indicate the observance of the anniversary of Jesus' resurrection long before Tyndale or the AV 1611.

And I recall reading somewhere that Tyndale coined 'passover' to differentiate between that observance & that of Easter.

@John of Japan

Can't be true when his use of Easter in the N.T. is in the same reference to Passover in the O.T. He coined "eaterlambe" to signify the Passover Lamb sacrifice in the O.T.. Martin Luther did the same thing in German.

So Tyndale was not differentiating what you know as Easter when he was using Easter in the N.T. to mean the Passover in the O.T.

And he could not be doing it because of the RC use of Easter Sunday when he is applying it to all things concerning the Passover of the O.T. in the N.T.

There is no other reasoning to be had.

Tyndale was not leaving Easter as is, in his Bible because he did not have time to translate it as you once claimed when he was the first to coin Easter in English. Martin Luther was the first to coin Easter in German. Wycliffe left it untranslated.

 

[Conan]

Would be interesting to somehow find a copy of the Kjv before final editing happened!

The Coming of the King James Gospels
The Coming of the King James Gospels
by Ward S. Allen and Edward C. Jacobs

 

[robycop3]

@John of Japan

Can't be true when his use of Easter in the N.T. is in the same reference to Passover in the O.T. He coined "eaterlambe" to signify the Passover Lamb sacrifice in the O.T.. Martin Luther did the same thing in German.

So Tyndale was not differentiating what you know as Easter when he was using Easter in the N.T. to mean the Passover in the O.T.

And he could not be doing it because of the RC use of Easter Sunday when he is applying it to all things concerning the Passover of the O.T. in the N.T.

There is no other reasoning to be had.

Tyndale was not leaving Easter as is, in his Bible because he did not have time to translate it as you once claimed when he was the first to coin Easter in English. Martin Luther was the first to coin Easter in German. Wycliffe left it untranslated.

None of thic changes the fact that "Easter" in the KJV is a goof, same as if I called a refrigerator an "icebox", despite that term's being used im my lifetime. Luke was referring to passover, not Easter; simple as THAT!

 

[rlvaughn]

Refusing to understand that the word Easter can and did mean Passover in English does not make your point valid. Choosing to define Easter only in the way you want to mean it does not make your point valid. When Tyndale used esterlambe in 1526 he was not talking about some lamb that modern Americans might use in their plays, but the lamb that was offered according to the law of Moses.

As to your "icebox" comment, you have that all balled up. Look in some dictionaries once in awhile. You will find that one of the definitions of icebox is "refrigerator." We have an old icebox -- a real old-timey one that belonged to my grandparents, then aunt & uncle. It has shelves and you put a block of ice in the bottom. We have a new icebox. It is electric and plugs in the wall and cools with freon. It has a box on top and we have ice in it. It would make its own ice if we hooked it to a water source. You can't just make up what you want things to mean and have them be that just because you want it to be that way. Some people play music by ear, but they don't slam the sides of their heads against the piano keys.

Los Angeles Illustrated Daily News, Wednesday, May 25, 1932
​

What you call an icebox was also commonly called a refrigerator. We can't even trust your modern language arguments. How can we trust you on something from the 1500s?

The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, Wednesday, May 8, 1895​

 

[Hark]

None of thic changes the fact that "Easter" in the KJV is a goof, same as if I called a refrigerator an "icebox", despite that term's being used im my lifetime. Luke was referring to passover, not Easter; simple as THAT!

@John of Japan

To say it is a goof in the KJV is to say it is a goof in Tyndale's Bible & a goof in Martin Luthor's German Bible & they were both before the KJV.

Since Easter existed in the entire N.T. and not just Acts 12:4 before the KJV, it cannot be considered a goof when it represented the Jewish festivity in the Old Testament that we know now as Passover as the Jewish festivity was known in the entire N.T. as Easter back then

Since Passover in English was not known to Luke but pascha in the Greek, then neither was Easter in English or German from pascha was known to Luke.

It's kind of like saying that false charge against the KJV as if KJVers were saying God's words is preserved only in English which the KJVers never said. Indeed, by saying that false charge, you condemn all modern bibles because they are in English too.

So to call Easter a goof in the KJV when it wasn't in the first place is you attacking Tyndale's Bible in English & Martin Luther's bible in German for back then Easter in the N.T. represented what was translated then as Passover in the O.T. back then.

You are just stuck in the modern day usage of it, denying the other usage for Easter as referring to that Jewish festivity back then. And you'd be remiss if you believed that back then, the people did not see Tyndale's Bible nor Martin Luther's Bible as a goof when they knew what they meant too & understood Easter to represent that Jewish festivity in the O.T. .

 

[Jerome]

The "goof" false charge is just ridiculous.

We've already seen a 1610 Geneva Bible where Easter and Passover were used as synonyms.

William Fulke's 1589 critique of the Roman Catholic Rhemes NT, in arguing against their using Latin "Pasca" (untranslated) throughout, he says there are two words used in English for that: "Easter", or "Passover".
Fulke explains that Easter is "usual English term for that feast", while Passover is a way to express the meaning of the Hebrew word.


(also, besides using Pasca instead of Easter/Passover, Rhemes, instead of unleavened bread used Azyma [?!] )

 

[robycop3]

@John of Japan

To say it is a goof in the KJV is to say it is a goof in Tyndale's Bible & a goof in Martin Luthor's German Bible & they were both before the KJV.

Since Easter existed in the entire N.T. and not just Acts 12:4 before the KJV, it cannot be considered a goof when it represented the Jewish festivity in the Old Testament that we know now as Passover as the Jewish festivity was known in the entire N.T. as Easter back then

Since Passover in English was not known to Luke but pascha in the Greek, then neither was Easter in English or German from pascha was known to Luke.

It's kind of like saying that false charge against the KJV as if KJVers were saying God's words is preserved only in English which the KJVers never said. Indeed, by saying that false charge, you condemn all modern bibles because they are in English too.

So to call Easter a goof in the KJV when it wasn't in the first place is you attacking Tyndale's Bible in English & Martin Luther's bible in German for back then Easter in the N.T. represented what was translated then as Passover in the O.T. back then.

You are just stuck in the modern day usage of it, denying the other usage for Easter as referring to that Jewish festivity back then. And you'd be remiss if you believed that back then, the people did not see Tyndale's Bible nor Martin Luther's Bible as a goof when they knew what they meant too & understood Easter to represent that Jewish festivity in the O.T. .

Still, no getting by the FACT that Luke was referring to passover, not Easter.

 

[rlvaughn]

We've already seen a 1610 Geneva Bible where Easter and Passover were used as synonyms.

William Fulke's 1589 critique of the Roman Catholic Rhemes NT, in arguing against their using Latin "Pasca" (untranslated) throughout, he says there are two words used in English for that: "Easter", or "Passover".
Fulke explains that Easter is "usual English term for that feast", while Passover is a way to express the meaning of the Hebrew word.

Still, no getting by the FACT that Luke was referring to passover, not Easter.

Just keep repeating it without any facts to back it up. Perhaps someone will eventually bow to your claim just because you said so, in spite of the evidence that has been given (see above, for example).

 

[Yeshua1]

The Coming of the King James Gospels
The Coming of the King James Gospels
by Ward S. Allen and Edward C. Jacobs

Interesting! Wonder how many changes and revisions to the entire kjv were made before 1611 final edition?

 

[Yeshua1]

None of thic changes the fact that "Easter" in the KJV is a goof, same as if I called a refrigerator an "icebox", despite that term's being used im my lifetime. Luke was referring to passover, not Easter; simple as THAT!

NONE in Acts ever had heard there was an easter!

 

[Yeshua1]

The "goof" false charge is just ridiculous.

We've already seen a 1610 Geneva Bible where Easter and Passover were used as synonyms.

William Fulke's 1589 critique of the Roman Catholic Rhemes NT, in arguing against their using Latin "Pasca" (untranslated) throughout, he says there are two words used in English for that: "Easter", or "Passover".
Fulke explains that Easter is "usual English term for that feast", while Passover is a way to express the meaning of the Hebrew word.

View attachment 4736
(also, besides using Pasca instead of Easter/Passover, Rhemes, instead of unleavened bread used Azyma [?!] )
View attachment 4737

Does NOT matter if they held Easter and Passover to be the same, for the duty of translator is to get back to what those hearing and reading it back then saw it as meaning!

 

[Jerome]

Still, no getting by the FACT that Luke was referring to passover, not Easter.

Just keep repeating it without any facts to back it up. Perhaps someone will eventually bow to your claim just because you said so, in spite of the evidence that has been given (see above, for example).

Ditto for Yeshua1, as seen in above posts, and the one below.

Sorry, the "I read it somewhere"-(non)citations, adding "caps" or exclamation marks to substanceless pronouncements, don't cut it.

 

[Yeshua1]

Ditto for Yeshua1, as seen in above posts.

We must translate this term as they would have heard it as being in Acts!

 

[robycop3]

Just keep repeating it without any facts to back it up. Perhaps someone will eventually bow to your claim just because you said so, in spite of the evidence that has been given (see above, for example).

Let's say yours & Hark's claims are true. That's all the more reason NOT to preach from the KJV, as not 1 in 1000 English users associates Easter with passover except for the timing. Past-time to move on from the KJV's archaic language.

 

[Yeshua1]

Let's say yours & Hark's claims are true. That's all the more reason NOT to preach from the KJV, as not 1 in 1000 English users associates Easter with passover except for the timing. Past-time to move on from the KJV's archaic language.

Just amazing to me how some will do handstands to not admit that the Kjv had ANY mistake!

 

[rlvaughn]

Let's say yours & Hark's claims are true.

Yes, let's. [Note: the specific reference in the post you quoted was to Jerome's # 70.]

That's all the more reason NOT to preach from the KJV, as not 1 in 1000 English users associates Easter with passover except for the timing. Past-time to move on from the KJV's archaic language.

At least you're making progress toward a more cogent argument about archaic language. I hope you are beginning to see archaic language is a different discussion than a so-called "goof".