"Easter" in Acts 12:4, KJV, a booboo...

[Johnv]

Originally posted by robycop3:
I await any rational explanation as to why the AV translators used such a glaring inconsistency.

Tyndale et al used the word prior to the AV 1611 translation, and the KJV authors appear to have simply picked up the word and use it in like fashion. IMO, it was an honest booboo. That doesn't make it the best choice, however. Passover is the best choice.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by bryan1276:
John. Easter is in my Bible. The pascha thing doesnt amount to anything really since pascha was translated to Easter up until wycliffe created the word passover.

Then why does the KJV (as well as Wycliffe) use "Passover" for all the other places where the word "Pascha" appears?

"Easter" is NOT in your Bible. "Pascha" is in your Bible, and it apears as "Easter" is in your TRANSLATION.

 

[Debby in Philly]

I notice the NKJV "corrects" the "error."

 

[Ransom]

Sounds like a good reason to recommend the NKJV over the KJV: It doesn't unnecessarily introduce an anachronism into New Testament history.

 

[bryan1276]

BrianT... I read everything you wrote and the scriptures. I know your philosophy is not to worry about words, your concerned about thoughts being a modern version guy. Not one time in all the scriptures youve posted did the Bible contradict itself by saying the Feast of Unleavened bread equalled the days of unleavened bread. If the Bible would be right to say Passover it would have to say "then was the Feast of unleavened bread"... the days are a week long period... the passover is a one night meal. Please read the words of your own scriptures. The Bible does not contradict itself by calling the Passover the Days of Unleavened Bread.

 

[bryan1276]

This will be the last time I'll say anything about this cause its very simple. Luke in Acts 12:3 said "then were the days of unleavened bread" to let you know that the Passover on the 14th had come and gone and now they were participating in the "days of unleavened bread". That means Easter could not be swapped for Passover b/c the night of passover on the 14th was over with and "then were the days of unleavened bread."

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by bryan1276:
Not one time in all the scriptures youve posted did the Bible contradict itself by saying the Feast of Unleavened bread equalled the days of unleavened bread.

I posted several verses that said the "FEAST of unleavened bread was 7 days long". Luke said the "FEAST of unleavened bread" was called the "Passover". If you disagree, don't just tell me I'm wrong, *explain* it.

That means Easter could not be swapped for Passover b/c the night of passover on the 14th was over with and "then were the days of unleavened bread."

Pay attention. The "FEAST of the PASSOVER" is on the 14th, but "Passover" in general can refer to the "FEAST of unleavened bread" (in other words, there's a subtle difference between "Passover" and "the Feast of the Passover"), as per Luke and the rest of the verses I posted. Don't tell me I'm wrong without responding to those verses, otherwise it just looks like you're arguing with the Bible.

 

[Ransom]

Well, as they say, ignorance is bliss, and bryan has pretty much blissfully ignored the evidence presented that Luke used the terms "passover" and "days of unleavened bread" interchangeably since they were both part of the same season (much as we would use "Christmas" to refer to the period of mid-December to early January).

 

[robycop3]

Consider this verse:

John 18:28, KJV "Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover."

We know Jesus had already eaten the paschal meal the previous evening, and we must assume all the other Jews had done so also. To me, this verse indicates the Jews considered the Days of Unleavened Bread as part of the Passover observance, and the unleavened bread made especially for this observance as an item of this observance which they couldn't eat if they were ceremonially defiled. This bread is what John was here referring to as the "passover".

Dr. Thomas Cassidy has suggested that there were TWO paschal meal observances, one date being observed by the Southern Jews, & another being observed by the Northern Jews. I reject such a notion, as I've never seen one shred of evidence to support it, and I KNOW that sinless Jesus observed it at the proper time. Had He NOT observed it on the correct date, this alone would have been grounds for the Jewish leadership to have killed Him. WE KNOW they had no LEGITIMATE charges against Him, that they invented their accusations. Had He not observed the paschal meal at the correct time, they would have brought that against Him. Therefore we must assume that the Jews who arrested Him had also observed Passover at the correct time and that John 18:28 is referring to the unleavened bread made specially for the Unleavened Bread observances during Passover week.

As for the HIGH SABBATH mentioned during the crucifixion account-this was almost certainly the HOLY CONVOCATION called for in Exd.12:16. The ONLY work permitted that day was the serving and eating of their food. Therefore, the Jews COOKED it or otherwise prepared it on the previous day. Seeing as how the Jews reckoned the beginning of a new day at sunset of the previous one, its easy to see that they prepared their food in the afternoon before sunset, and ate some of it that evening after sunset while having prepared enough to last till the next sunset.

The first editions of the Geneva Bible rendered 'pascha' as 'Easter' in several verses. However, the 1599 edition had corrected all these, rendering 'pascha' as 'passover' every time. The AV translators simply dropped the ball by saying 'Easter' in Acts 12:4, especially since they included Easter in the AV 1611's List of Holy Days, but not Passover, and there was absolutely no justification by context for them to have said 'Easter'.