Posted on 04/19/2003 5:47:25 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration
I see three major translations having Easter,(with the Geneva shifting back and forth).
That Pascha could be translated as Easter is thus, established based on the then current usage and the modern usage of the term in Greek today.
Okay, this is from "Adam Clarkes Commentary on the Bible" concerning Acts 12:4. It's a little tough to follow but I'll summarize afterwards:
"Perhaps there never was a more unhappy, not to say absurd, translation than that in our text. But, before I come to explain the word, it is necessary to observe that our term called Easter is not exactly the same with the Jewish passover."
"This festival is always held on the fourteenth day of the first vernal full moon; but the Easter of the Christians, never till the next Sabbath after said full moon; and, to avoid all conformity with the Jews in this matter, if the fourteenth day of the first vernal full moon happen on a Sabbath, then the festival of Easter is deferred till the Sabbath following. The first vernal moon is that whose fourteenth day is either on the day of the vernal equinox, or the next fourteenth day after it. The vernal equinox, according to a decree of the council of Nice, is fixed to the 21st day of March; and therefore the first vernal moon is that whose fourteenth day falls upon the 21st of March, or the first fourteenth day after. Hence it appears that the next Sabbath after the fourteenth day of the vernal moon, which is called the Paschal term, is always Easter day. And, therefore, the earliest Paschal term being the 21st of March, the 22d of March is the earliest Easter possible; and the 18th of April being the latest Paschal term, the seventh day after, that is the 25th of April, is the latest Easter possible."
"The term Easter, inserted here by our translators, they borrowed from the ancient Anglo-Saxon service-books, or from this version of the Gospels, which always translates the Greek by this term; e.g.
Mat_26:2 : Ye know that after two days is the feast of the passover.
Wite ye that aefter twam dagum beoth Eastro.
Mat_26:19 : And they made ready the passover.
And hig gegearwodon hym Easter thenunga (i.e. the paschal supper.) Prefixed to Mat_28:1, are these words: This part to be read on Easter even.
And, before Mat_28:8, these words:
Mar_14:12 : And the first day of unleavened bread when they killed the passover.
And tham forman daegeazimorum, tha hi Eastron offrodon.
Other examples occur in this version. Wiclif used the word paske, i.e. passover; but Tindal, Coverdale, Becke, and Cardmarden, following the old Saxon mode of translation, insert Easter: the Geneva Bible very properly renders it the passover.
The Saxon Earten, Eartne, Eartno, Eartna, and Eartnon are different modes of spelling the name of the goddess Easter, whose festival was celebrated by our pagan forefathers on the month of April; hence that month, in the Saxon calendar, is called Easter month.
Every view we can take of this subject shows the gross impropriety of retaining a name every way exceptionable, and palpably absurd."
************************************
Okay, now for the summary. What Clarke is saying is that there were Anglo-Saxon copies of the gospel floating around long before Wycliffe, Tindale and the others did their translations.
I researched this on the internet and it's certainly true. Here's good website that goes into these gospels somewhat.
The point is that these Anglo-Saxon gospels used different spellings for the Goddess Easter. "Easter" named after the Goddess, is the Anglo-Saxon equivelent of our April.
So the Anglo-Saxons used the name of the month in which they THOUGHT this occurred in the gospels.
So the bottom line is that THERE was NO month called "Easter" in Jerusalem or in Israel. It was part of the Anglo-Saxon calendar. It was not part of the Roman or the Jewish calendar. Therefore to translate "pascha" as "Easter" in the year 1611 was a mistake. It was either just plain sloppy scholarship on their part or a deliberate insertion to justify Easter. We know that the Geneva bible in 1580 tranlated it "Passover" so the correct word was certainly used and known. We also know Wycliffe's 1382 English version deliberately did not use the term "Easter", indicating that he understood the distinction.
*******************************
Anyways I'm about studied out on this topic now. It has been an interesting discussion and study and I thank you for that. :-)
The 'Protestants' did not throw out so much of the Bible, they rejected the portions that were non-Canonical.
Many Catholics themselves saw them also as non-Canonical, including Jerome.
"You are Peter..." means nothing to you I guess.
And I guess, 'upon no other foundation can no man lay then that is laid,which is Jesus Christ (1Cor.3:11) doesn't mean anything to you.
Call me a child molester again and I report your bigoted self to the moderators.
And when did I call you a child molester.
So, you do not have a child molester problem in the Priesthood?
Who thought 'Easter' was a month?
As for the 'Anglo-Saxon issue, what of Luther and his use of the word in his translation?
It was not part of the Roman or the Jewish calendar. Therefore to translate "pascha" as "Easter" in the year 1611 was a mistake. It was either just plain sloppy scholarship on their part or a deliberate insertion to justify Easter. We know that the Geneva bible in 1580 tranlated it "Passover" so the correct word was certainly used and known.
The Geneva first translated it as Easter and then in its later edition (1599) it was switched to passover.
Now, Tyndale,who coined the phrase Passover very well knew what pascha meant and used Easter throughout his translation.
We also know Wycliffe's 1382 English version deliberately did not use the term "Easter", indicating that he understood the distinction.
All Wyclif did was stay with the Latin and transliterate the word 'pascha'.
Let us consider the meaning of the word Easter. The Oxford English Dictionary gives as it first definition of Easter the following definition: "one of the great festivals of the Christian church, commemorating the resurrection of Christ and corresponding to the Jewish Passover, the name of which bears in most of the European languages. Notice that it corresponds to the Passover. But there is more. The second definition is even more telling. It simply says 'The Jewish passover Obs. Ofcourse 'obs' means obsolete; that is it is not commonly used this way today but there was a time when it was. As proof of this definition of Easter, it then gives quotes from the years 971, c.1,000,1398,1535,1563, and 1611. The 1611 quotation is taken from Acts.12:4 in the King James Bible. Even more telling is the quotation from 1535. It is taken from Coverdale's Bible in Ezekiel 45:21 "upon the 14th day of the first month ye shall keep Easter (spelling modernized). Easter was considered the correct name for the Passover in 1535. (David Regan at www.learnthebible.org)
Finally, a modern version, the King James 21 has Easter in Acts.12:4.
Thus,using 'Easter' for pascha is not a mistake when Tyndale uses it and the King James uses Passover and when the King James uses Easter and other translations use Passover (like the 1599 Geneva).
Both are acceptable translations of that Greek word.
Thank you for your discussion.
Amen!
Also, it states that in ordinary language Easter is often applied to the entire week commencing with Easter Sunday.
It would seem that the King James translators were trying to point out the fact the planned execution was to be at the end of the week of unleavened bread (also called Passover), rather then on Passover day itself.
None that threatened anywhere close to the majority of living humans on earth, let alone all but eight in a boat. That's the crucial difference.
What is 'innuendo' about it?
Just read the headlines.
As for other 'denominations' I do not see any thing like child molestation being involved in them
Nor, would any of those denominations even attempt to do what the RC did, a massive cover-up and stall to prevent conviction of those fiends.
Ofcourse, that the RC would be more concerned with its own power and money, then the welfare of its 'flock' is well to me just 'shocking'!
And the point was?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.