The origin of Easter seems an easy enough subject as at least one Bible translation uses the word Easter in Acts 12:4, that being the King James Version originally published in 1611 (KJV) But the KJV is not alone in translating the original Greek word as Easter. The Tyndale 1525, Bishop’s Bible 1568, Coverdale 1535, Matthew’s, Cranmer, the Great Bible (which preceeded the KJV), Mace's New Testament 1729, and Martin Luther also translated this word as Easter. The Geneva New Testament was first published in 1557 and read "Easter" in Acts 12:4. I would like to give reference to these translations.  Please take a moment to compare the various English translations of Acts 12:4....

Tyndale Translation
And when he had caught him he put him in preson and delyvered him to .iiii. quaternios of soudiers to be kepte entendynge after ester to brynge him forth to the people. (source)

Bishop's Bible
And when he had caught hym, he put hym in pryson also, and delyuered hym to foure quaternions of souldiers to be kept, intendyng after Easter to bryng hym foorth to the people. (source)

Coverdale Bible
Now whan he had taken him, he put him in preson, and delyuered him vnto foure quaternions of soudyers, to kepe him: and thought after Easter to bringe him forth to the people. (source) Note: This translation also translations Acts 12:3 as "Easter" whereas the other translations typically uses "feast or festival of loaves", unleavend or sweet bread.

Matthew's Bible
This was simply a revision of Tyndale's (source)

Cranmer Bible
This was simply a revision of Tyndale's (source)

The Great Bible
This was simply a revision of Tyndale's (source)

Mace's Translation
having apprehended Peter, he put him into prison, appointing a detachment of sixteen soldiers to guard him, intending to have him brought to publick execution, after Easter. (source)

Luther's Translation
Da er ihn nun griff, legte er ihn ins Gefängnis und überantwortete ihn vier Rotten, je von vier Kriegsknechten, ihn zu bewahren, und gedachte, ihn nach Ostern dem Volk vorzustellen. (source)

Actually, except for Luther's almost all if not all of these English translations took their cue from Tyndale's so it is expected that they would so translate the word as Easter. It is interesting because we know that Luther, like many of these fellows relied heavily on the Textus Receptus which was a Greek translation by the humanist, pro-Roman Catholic, Desiderius Erasmus (source) & even Erasmus' Greek showed the word, πασxα (source).

All of these translations were merely adaptations of the KJV or almost word-for-word copy cats & even the KJV more or less copied from the Tyndale translation.

So how do we get away from this cycle of Tyndale copycats?  Let's look at John Wycliffe who's English translation came before all those other English translations, even before Tyndale's. (Wycliffe's translation = 1388, Tyndale's = 1525)  Granted, Wycliffe's translation was based on the Latin Vulgate. See below:

Wycliffe (English NT before all listed)
And when he had caught Peter, he sent him into prison; and betook him to four quaternions of knights, to keep him, and would after pask bring him forth to the people [willing after pask to bring him forth to the people].  (source)

Now, we are getting to the meat of this article, noting that the Wycliffe translation uses the word "pask" & not Easter -- but why?  All of these other English translations have translated it as Easter.  The key is looking at the original Greek word of Acts 12:4.  The Greek word literally means passover & indeed many English translations use the word "passover" in Acts 12:4 instead of the word Easter.

The Tyndale translation appears to be the first English translation to use the word Easter

At first, it seems likely, by the time William Tyndale started his English translation, the Roman Catholics had been calling that day "Easter" for so long, that Tyndale just left that word so his contemporary readers would see the connection.  Also there was a Jewish backlash at the time & to use "Passover" could have sounded too Jewish.  Thus the KJV translators simply kept it.  That is NOT a "literal" translation.

As a matter of fact, here is a link to the Textus Receptus on Acts 12:4 compared to several other texts:
http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B44C012.htm#V4

Notice the Greek word πασxα is used in all of the texts & never Ishtar/Easter or any derivitive of it.  The fact is, the KJV simply copied Tyndale most of the time, ignoring the Textus Receptus even.

Now, I'm NOT saying the KJV should be outright rejected, but only that we are careful NOT to rely in it as if it were somehow better than all other translations.

So, the next question is why was the Roman Catholic Church referring to the day as Easter, if even the Latin translation (Vulgate) didn't use any derivitive of the word "Easter".  What is often espoused is that as was the custom of the Roman Catholic Church to assimilate some of the pagan practices of converted cultures, the word Easter was merely a leftover from the conversion of cultures who worshipped the fertility goddess "Ishtar".  Another theory is that King Herod was celebrating a pagan feast to Ishtar.  This seems highly unlikely, not only because we still have the problem that the original Greek text does NOT contain any variation of the word Easter, but more so because Acts 12:1-4 shows that the Jews were pleased at the actions of Herod against the Christians, but the Jews would have certainly found it even more repugnant if Herod was participating in a pagan feast. There is no historical evidence that Herod or anyone else in Jerusalem celebrated Ishtar at this time.

So are we still stumped as to why the word Easter has supplanted the original Greek word? Here is a plausible explanation of why some translators have ignored the literal Greek & instead substituted a new word.

Our word EASTER is of Saxon origin and of precisely the same import with its German cognate OSTERN. The German word for Easter (Ostern) is derived from the old Teutonic form of auferstehen / auferstehung, that is - RESURRECTION." This is quoted from "Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History," translated in 1850 by C. F. Cruse, Hendrickson Publishers, p 437.

If this is true, it is certainly consistent with Luther's use of the word, Ostern.  But this doesn't change the fact that we then do NOT really have a literal translation in the KJV, but rather a Christian revision.  It seems, Christians seeking to differentiate themselves from the Jews, began to create unique holidays, even revising the original text.  I do not disagree that eventually people would have a need to distinguish the Jewish day of passover from the Christian day of Christ's Resurrection, but was that what was actually being addressed in Act 12:4?  I mean, are we to believe Christians were already aggressively celebrating the day of Christ's Resurrection at this early date & that Herod was worried about this?  To what "people" was Herod going to bring Peter out?  The same people whom were celebrating the "pascha", the passover.  It was these people he desired not to rile up -- the Jews.

I still do not think the Easter translation is warranted.  It is like us going back & distinguishing dates in the past by current events -- like calling the date July 4th 1352, "Independence Day".  It is revisionism.

So, to conclude -- the word Easter seems to be a bit of Christian revisionism, but not to the extent that someone can now question the credibility of the Bible, since the original text is intact.  It seems some of the early Christians were simply in a hurry to distance themselves from the Jewish culture & wanted to develop a unique religion with its own holidays & this unfortunately has been superimposed onto the original text.  The Christian "Easter" doesn't appear to be a sinister connection to a fertility goddess but rather a reference to "rising" as the sun rises in the EASTern sky, this rising of a new day was a perfect metaphor for the rising/resurrection of Christ & the rising of a new eternal age.

In Christ alone,
Roderick