"Easter, Passover and the KJV"
By Fred Butler
Printer-friendly PDF version
There exist in
American Christianity a rather vocal group of advocates who defend the King
James Version as being the only true, infallible English translation. Their
contention is that it contains absolutely no transcribal or translational
errors and can rightly be called the pure, inerrant Word of God. Donald A.
Waite, the director of Bible For Today ministries sums up the KJV only position
when he writes:
“If we really want to know what the
Hebrew in the Old Testament says and what the Greek in the New Testament says
in the English language today, the KING JAMES BIBLE – in my studied opinion –
is the only translation that completely and accurately reflects, in
English, the original Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek.[1]
Thus, according to
the KJV defenders, the original language texts of Hebrew/ Aramaic in the Old
Testament and Greek in the New Testament, utilized by the translators of the
King James, are derived from copies containing the very words
originally written by the authors of scripture. Moreover, they believe with
certainty that the translators of the King James Bible provided the absolute
best word-for-word translation from the original, biblical languages into
English than any other language translation both before and after its
publication. Thus, they conclude that the King James translation, first
published in 1611, is the only English Bible that inerrantly, and with precise
accuracy, captures the exact meaning of the original words written down by
God’s people as the Holy Spirit moved upon them.
However, any
person with just a basic working knowledge of the history behind the
transmission of our English Bible, as well as a general understanding of
translation theory, recognizes the inherent difficulties in such a misguided
belief. This is especially true when one takes into consideration the
translation of ancient, handwritten documents like the manuscripts of the Holy
Bible. Textual critics have to first comb through myriads of variants and weigh
and compare internal and external manuscript evidence just to come to a
reasonably informed judgment as to know what to translate into another
language. Then, there is the process of determining grammar and syntax of the
original language and translating it into another language a thousand years
removed from it. Even though linguists have performed an outstanding job of
rendering a readable translation of the Bible into another receptor language, a
person is exaggerating the facts to claim any one language translation is
absolutely free from all transcribal error.
Yet, in spite of
the difficulties to their position, KJV only advocates continue to insist that
the King James translation is the only error-free, English Bible, even when
examples of translational errors can be demonstrated. One of the more
notorious translational blunders in the KJV is found at Acts 12:4. It
reads:
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 is the
account of Peter being captured and imprisoned by King Herod Aggripa and then
set loose by a divine act of God. According to the King James Version, Herod
intended to bring Peter out to the people after Easter. More than likely, it
was with the intention of having him publicly executed. The translational
problem with this verse is found in the word “Easter.” The word “Easter” is
translated from the Greek word pascha and 28 other times in the KJV it
is properly translated as “Passover.” In each of those 28 other instances, pascha
is referring to the historic, OT event as described in Exodus 12 when God
established the feast of Passover with the Jewish people, killed the first born
of the Egyptians, and brought the Children of Israel out of their captivity.
The English word
“Easter,” however, is the name of the Christian celebration of the resurrection
of the Lord Jesus Christ from His tomb three days after His death on the
cross. Though the Christian Easter is often celebrated around the same time as
the Jewish Passover, and there are spiritual connections between the Jewish
Passover with Jesus being a type of the Passover lamb (1 Corinthians 5:7), the
two celebrations are not one in the same. Easter celebrations did not develop
until a few centuries after the apostolic age. There is nothing in the
immediate context of Acts 12 that even hints at the idea that Herod had in mind
the celebration we know as the Christian Easter. Thus, the translators of the
KJV have created an historical inaccuracy by their translating the word pascha
as “Easter.” It creates an absurd anachronism, implying Herod would be
bringing Peter out after the Easter celebration, when such celebrations were
not even established at that time.
Now, how do the
KJV only advocates respond to what is obviously a mistake in this grand
translation? KJV defenders regularly publish Bible study articles supposedly
offering problem solutions to textual difficulties found in the scriptures.
Such things, for example, as parallel accounts of the same biblical narrative
containing conflicting information about the number of soldiers fighting in a
battle, or the number of years a particular king actually reigned on the
throne, and so forth. Some of these publications can be genuinely helpful in
offering solutions to a difficult passage, however, the bulk of them are
designed to protect the English text of the KJV from any meaningful and much
needed revision. KJV advocates will insistently argue for the King James
rendering of the difficult passage under scrutiny as the best way for it to be
translated. Any change in translation of a word or phrase, they claim, will
either introduce a contradiction into the text of scripture, or a Bible believer
will miss out on uncovering a hidden “nugget” of truth that would otherwise be
lost if the passage is revised. This is the approach taken by KJV advocates
for retaining the word “Easter.” Rather than admitting that the KJV is in need
of revision at Acts 12:4, they have concocted an elaborate excuse as to why the
word “Easter” should never be properly translated “Passover.”
The case for
maintaining the word “Easter” is grounded upon two key arguments summarized as
follows:
1.
King Herod was a pagan, not a Jewish believer, so he would not have
respected the Passover of the Jews. Because of his paganism, Herod would be
involved with the worship of Isthar or Astarte, the Chaldean name
for the “Queen of Heaven.” The word “Easter” is derived from the name of this
ancient, pagan goddess.
2.
Acts 12:3 is an important key to properly understanding the reason
for retaining “Easter.” The last sentence in the verse states then were the
days of unleavened bread. The reader should note the word days.
The Passover occurred before the feast of unleavened bread on the 14th
day of the first month of the Jewish calendar. Peter was put into prison during
the days of unleavened bread, and therefore after the Passover had been
celebrated.
It is argued, then, that the Holy
Spirit divinely directed the KJV translators to correctly translate pascha
as Easter, not Passover, because Herod would have been celebrating the pagan
festival of Isthar (Easter), not Passover. Additionally, a
contradiction would be introduced into the Acts narrative, because the “Days of
Unleavened Bread” follow after the celebration of Passover, which had already
passed when Peter was placed into prison. This is the viewpoint defended by
such KJV advocates as Jack A. Moorman[2],
Sam Gipp[3],
and D.A. Waite[4].
The solution is
quite clever. I can recall as a young, enthusiastic KJV onlyist, contacting
none other than Gail Riplinger, who had recently come to fame for her big book,
New Age Bible Versions, and asking her to provide me with some help in
defending the KJV against the charge of having an error at Acts 12:4. She sent
me two articles, one from Sam Gipp’s Answer Book and another from an
unnamed author, and both of them basically outlined the KJV only defense of the
word “Easter” as I noted above. My KJV only friends and I were blessed beyond
measure when we read through the information on “Easter” and “Passover” that
Mrs. Riplinger supplied. Our faith in the King James was affirmed and we were
more convinced it was the only translation accurately representing God’s Word
from the original texts.
Since my early
days as a KJV only advocate, however, God has matured me in my faith, and I
have abandoned KJV onlyism as a system of belief.[5]
Furthermore, I have returned to re-examine the KJV only arguments for retaining
“Easter” at Acts 12:4 and have discovered that they are fundamentally and
indefensibly flawed. Let me offer a response to these arguments KJV onlyist
put forth in defense of “Easter” as it is translated in the KJV.
Argument number one: King Herod was a pagan and he
celebrated the fertility festivals surrounding the ancient worship of Astarte
or Isthar.
It is important to
mention at the outset that KJV advocates are dependent upon a 19th
century book written by amateur historian, Rev. Alexander Hislop, entitled The
Two Babylons, as a source in support of this argument. Mr. Hislop’s book
attempts to draw an historical link between the sacramental practices and
iconographic imagery of Roman Catholicism with ancient Babylonian pagan worship
ceremonies. The book, sadly, is a terrible fraud that contains an abundance of
imaginative conspiratorial nonsense, poor historical research and contrived
connections between Roman Catholicism and Babylonian paganism that are clearly
illogical. A handful of apologists have performed a fine service for the Church
by debunking Mr. Hislop’s imaginary book,[6]
but many Fundamental Christians who defend KJV onlyism still accept his work as
being truthful. As a result, when they employ Hislop’s material as evidence
for Herod celebrating in fertility festivals named after the goddess Astarte
as a reason the word “Easter” should remain in the KJV, they are guilty of
promoting at least three historical inaccuracies.
First of all,
there is absolutely no historical proof that Herod was the least bit religious,
even as a “pagan.” In fact, most historical accounts about Herod indicate that
he was non-religious and more akin to being a political secularist. Yet,
despite his a-religious tendencies, he still respected the Jewish festivals out
of necessity, because it was politically expedient for him to do so. He did
not want to stir up trouble with the Jewish establishment and in turn, incur
the wrath of Roman for not keeping the peace in his district. It would have
been foolish for him to engage in pagan worship practices and not show respect
to the Passover, because it would cause trouble with the religious Jews.
A second major
inaccuracy is the claim that the fertility goddess Astrate/Isthar was
worshipped in Israel during the time of Herod. Again, there is absolutely no
historical evidence to suggest anyone during that time participated in any
pagan worship practices, let alone those dedicated to Astrate/Isthar.
Any and all ancient pagan worship practices were abolished when the Jews
returned from exile in 535 BC. They had, in a sense, learned their lesson
about committing spiritual adultery against their covenant God. If Herod was
in the habit of overtly engaging in paganism, then he (and anyone else for that
matter) most certainly would have been under fire from the Jewish leadership
and in danger of loosing his appointment as ruler over the district of Judea.
Moreover, the English
word “Easter” is not derived from either Astrate or Isthar, or
any other near-Eastern pagan god or goddess. This fact alone absolutely
devastates the KJV onlyist’s argument defending Acts 12:4. It is true “Easter”
is named for a goddess, but it was one King Herod never knew existed. Easter
comes from an old, Anglo-Saxon word Eostre that is the name of a Saxon
goddess of fertility and sunrise whose feast was celebrated at the spring
equinox.[7]
Our modern word east is also derived from Eostre, because east is
the direction of the sunrise. According to Venerable Bede, an 8th
century, English pastor and theologian, Anglo-Saxon Christians adopted the
goddess’s name along with many of the celebratory practices for the Mass of
Christ’s Resurrection.
In an article
posted at the Trinitarian Bible Society website, William Tyndale was the first
English translator to employ the use of Easter as a translation for the word pascha:
When
Tyndale applied his talents to the translation of the New Testament from Greek
into English, he was not satisfied with the use of a completely foreign word, and
decided to take into account the fact that the season of the passover was known
generally to English people as 'Easter' … The Greek word occurs
twenty-nine times in the New Testament, and Tyndale has ester or easter
fourteen times, esterlambe eleven times, esterfest once, and paschall
lambe three times. When Tyndale began his translation of the Pentateuch he
was again faced with the problem in Exodus 12.11 and twenty-one other places,
and no doubt recognising that easter in this context would be an anachronism
he coined a new word, passover, and used it consistently in all
twenty-two places. It is therefore to Tyndale that our language is indebted for
this meaningful and appropriate word. His labours on the Old Testament left
little time for revision of the New Testament, with the result that while passover
is found in his 1530 Pentateuch, ester remained in the N.T. of 1534,
having been used in his first edition several years before he coined the new
word passover.[8]
As other English translations began
to follow after Tyndale’s initial work, the translators of the various English
editions recognized the confusion the word “Easter” caused as a translation for
pascha, so they began the process of removing references to “Easter” and
rightly translating in its place the word “Passover.” By the time the King
James was translated, all the references to “Easter” in place of “Passover” had
been corrected. The one exception was Acts 12:4. More than likely, this was
an unintentional oversight on the part of the editors for the final draft of
the KJV. Some historians speculate “Easter” may have been retained for
ecclesiastical purposes, but if that were the case, the translators would have
hardly been satisfied with just one instance.[9]
Argument number two: The word “Easter” must be
retained, because to change it to “Passover” would create a contradiction.
Peter was imprisoned during the days of unleavened bread that followed after
the celebration of Passover.
At first glance, this
argument seems to hold some weight. The Days of Unleavened Bread appear to
follow after Passover and the narrative of Acts indicates it was during this
time following Passover that Peter was imprisoned. KJV only advocates appeal
to Leviticus 23:5 that states Passover is celebrated on the 14th day
of the first month, whereas the 15th day of the month (the next day)
begins the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Does this mean, then, there are two,
clearly distinct celebrations?
A closer study of
scripture reveals the actual Passover day was not separated from the entire
week of Unleavened Bread as KJV only proponents wish to suggest, but was the first
day of the entire week of Unleavened Bread and because of that fact,
the week can also be correctly termed Passover. The King James Version itself
affirms this. Beginning with the historical narrative of Exodus 12 where the
Passover is instituted, the scriptures record,
15 Seven days shall ye eat
unleavened bread; even the first day [Passover] ye shall put away leaven out of
your houses…
16
And in the first day [Passover] there shall be a holy convocation, and
in the seventh day there shall be a holy convocation to you …
17
And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this selfsame
day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt: therefore shall ye
observe this day in your generations by an ordinance for ever.
18
In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall
eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even.
Throughout this passage, the words leaven
and unleavened have a special emphasis. If other biblical references to
the Passover are to be checked, such as Exodus 13:6,7; Leviticus 23:5,6; and
Numbers 28:16-25, they too place a similar emphasis on the word unleavened.
The entire week is known as the Feast of Unleavened Bread. In Exodus
23:15, the Lord commanded all the adult males from the Children of Israel to
keep three annual feasts. The first one is the Feast of Unleavened Bread,
when Passover would be celebrated.
Yet, because the
actual Passover meal was eaten on the 1st day of Unleavened Bread,
the week came to be known as the Passover Week, or shortened to the Passover.
The Passover is synonymous with the Days of Unleavened Bread. This is further
affirmed in the New Testament by Luke himself in his gospel. Luke 22:1 reads
in the KJV, Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is
called the passover. Exodus 23:15 establishes the fact that the first
feast to be celebrated by the Jews is the Feast of Unleavened Bread.
Luke 22:1 then states the feast, which encompassed the entire week or Days
of Unleavened Bread, is also know as the Passover. Hence, the Feast,
or the Days, of Unleavened Bread are the same as the Passover,
and KJV advocates are severely mistaken to think Luke is distinguishing between
two specific celebrations with his narrative in Acts 12:3,4. There is no
hidden “nugget” of truth waiting to be uncovered in the KJV by a genuine
Bible-believer if the word “Easter” is kept in favor of “Passover.” Luke is
simply stating the same thing in two different ways. First, Luke points out
that when Peter was taken prisoner, it was during the Passover feast, or the
Days of Unleavened Bread, and Herod determined to deal with Peter after the Passover,
or when the Jewish holy week came to an end. The text could not be any
clearer.
Before drawing
some conclusion, it is worth noting that a minority of KJV only advocates
recognize the inherent difficulties with these two arguments, especially the first
one concerning Herod’s supposed worship of Isthar or Astrate.
They understand Herod was not religious in any fashion, nor would he even know
the Saxon goddess, Eostre, from where the word “Easter” is derived.
However, this minority will still insist Easter should be retained as the
correct translation of pascha, because Easter is considered a
post-Resurrection word tied to Jesus Christ being the type of the Passover
lamb.[10]
All other NT uses of the word pascha are pre-Resurrection
and are rightly translated as Passover.
This line of
argumentation is also fraught with at least two problems. First, the
proponents of this viewpoint begin with the unproven assumption that God
intended the King James translation to be the final, English Bible forever representing
His written Word. For example, KJV advocate, Scott Jones, argues the
translators were under a spiritual unction from the Holy Ghost, implying there
was a supernatural move of God upon them to accurately choose the rendering of
Easter over Passover at Acts 12:4.[11]
Though many KJV proponents are cautious to suggest the King James translation
itself is directly inspired by God, this assertion by Mr. Jones of some special
unction upon the translators can only lead such a conclusion. Obviously, a special,
providential move by God upon the translators could only suggest their entire
work bears this mark of spiritual unction. Thus, any revision in the form of
updating spelling, language usage, or translational correction would be
tampering with something directly given by God through an alleged “unction.”
This conclusion is pure subjectivism and overstates the true spiritual
abilities of any translator, let alone those who translated the King James
Bible. It ascribes to God something He never promised to do: preserve His word
in one specific translation in only one specific language, English.
Moreover, Acts
12:4 is not the only post-Resurrection use of pascha recorded in
the New Testament. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 5:7 that Christ is our Passover.
If these KJV advocates are correct and pascha is to now be understood in
connection with the Resurrection of Jesus Christ so that any post-Resurrection
use of pascha in the NT is to be translated as Easter, then why was
there no unction from the Spirit to render pascha as Easter in this
verse? The theological aim of Paul’s teaching in this passage is showing
Christ’s sacrificial relationship with His people. If Christ’s Resurrection so
impacts pascha that it is to be rendered as Easter, then God should have
providentially guided the translators with translating Easter instead of
Passover in this instance. Apparently, God saw no need to guide the
translators, so the pre/post-Resurrection argument is just as contrived for the
sake of maintaining an unrevised King James text as the traditional KJV
argument we have examined in full.
Now, some may ask,
“Why is this so important?” It is important because of the simple fact of a
Christian’s duty to the truth. Ephesians 4:25 states that Christians must put
away lying and speak the truth. A Christian believer must be committed to
truth in all things, including the accuracy of Bible translations. Furthermore,
when KJV advocates are shown the truth about the word “Easter,” they must have
the humble fortitude to admit error exists in their favored Bible version and
conform it to the correct translation. Donald Waite has written,
“I think that the KING JAMES
translators, when they took the Hebrew or Aramaic … and the Greek, putting it
into English, that they matched up one of the Hebrew meanings, or one of the
Greek meanings, as they translated the English language. There are many other
choices in English they could have used, but what they did pick was within the
rules of both the Hebrew and Greek grammar and English grammar. Therefore,
I have not found any translation errors in the KING JAMES BIBLE.”[12]
Can Mr. Waite honestly say, after
offering such a bold declaration, the KJV translators provided the best word-for-word
translation of pascha with their choice of “Easter” that fits the rules
of both Greek and English grammar? If Mr. Waite is an honorable man, and I am
sure his comments express the sentiments of many other honorable KJV defenders,
then he must recognize the utter silliness of adhering to such an obvious
mistake all for the sake of promoting an unsubstantiated belief in the total
accuracy of a 17th century English translation.
Bible-believers
cannot make a habit of inventing fantastic excuses for what they may perceive
as helping out God by defending His written Word. Granted, KJV advocates
believe they are speaking the truth with their explanation for retaining the
word “Easter” at the text of Acts 12:4, but when placed under the tests of
genuine historical and biblical scholarship, their explanation is severely
flawed to the point of embarrassment. To further cling to this argumentation,
even after it has been shown to be bankrupt, does not serve God, but
scandalizes the gospel and hinders the work of the Church.
End Notes
[1]
D.A. Waite, Defending the King James Bible, (Collinswood: The
Bible for Today Press, 1995), p. 1. [emphasis his].
[4]
Waite, Defending the King James Bible, p. 247.
[6]
See for instance Ralph Woodrow’s refutation entitled, The Babylon Connection? A brief testimony by Mr. Woodrow explaining his involvement
promoting Hislop’s work and his subsequent refutation can be viewed here: http://users.clarkston.com/rcorson/2babylons.htm
[accessed February, 2005]. It is my contention that Alexander Hislop was a 19th
century fore-runner to such modern day Fundamentalist conspiratorial
propagandists and quack researchers as Texe Marrs, Gail Riplinger, Jack Chick
and Larry Vance.
[11]
Scott Jones, Easter or Passover?
[12]
Waite, Defending the King James Bible, p. 246.[emphasis in
original]. Ironically, this statement comes almost immediately before his
comments insisting upon the reading of “Easter” over “Passover” for the Greek
word pascha.
|
