I have read Joel Finck's article on the translation of "pascha" as Easter in Acts 12:4 and others that agree with him that it should be translated "passover" as it is in every other place pascha is used.
I have also read and listen to those on the other side of the argument that say "Easter" is correct because it was the "Days of Unleavened Bread" and therefore "Passover" was over. But was it really? Here is an excerpt of Joel's article referenced above:
"That these two feasts were observed as one is confirmed in
Ezekiel's prophecy concerning their future observance in the
kingdom: "In the first month, in the fourteenth day of the month,
ye shall have the passover, A FEAST OF SEVEN DAYS; unleavened
bread shall be eaten" (Ezek. 45:21). It's obvious from this text
that the entire week was considered the "passover" even though
the seven days of unleavened bread are also mentioned. This is
why Luke 22:1 says "the feast of unleavened bread...is called
the passover." Luke 22:7 goes on to say, "Then came the day of
unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed." To say that
"where both the terms passover and `days (or day) of unleavened
bread' are found in the same passage refer to the two as distinct
entities" is forced at best; untrue at worst."
I am a KJVo guy but for the life of me I can't understand why the translators translated "pascha" Easter. I think the burden of proof must surely lie on those who say Easter is correct. The only answer I've heard is the one I've already stated and that does not hold up to scrutiny in light of internal scriptural evidence, let alone textual criticism.
I believe God has perfectly preserved His words, but does that mean that the translators perfectly translated them? The issue that we KJVo people have argued is one of proper textual criticism, which in no way affects the issue here in my opinion. Yes, God did perfectly preserve his words but isn't it incumbent upon the ones doing the translating to correctly transfer the words into that receptor language? I believe it is.
Let me be clear here, there is no other translation in English on the planet that has been translated from God's perfectly preserved Word other than the KJV, so therefore, does not that make me and others who would say that pascha was an interpretation rather than a translation, still KJV only people?
I know some will say it is opening a "Pandora's Box" because once you say there is a mistake then where will it end!!! But I don't think that is really the case here. Acknowledging such an obvious mistake only shows that the translators were human and that they were not inspired as those from my camp already believe so where is the fowl? I am not saying God did not perfectly preserve His words but only that someone made a mistake in translating those perfectly preserved words.
I am still undecided at this point and I don't want to be a "double minded man" so if someone wants to offer a compelling argument on either side I would like to here it.
Consider the context of the whole passage. Starting in verse 1 we see that we are being told about king Herod. King Herod was abhorrent to the Israelites for four reasons: 1) He was half Gentile; 2) he was totally Gentile in his thinking, having been brought up in the household of the Roman Emperor, and was a complete moral servant of Rome; 3) he tried to impose Roman culture (and even religion) on the people of Israel; 4) he had rebuilt the Temple in Jerusalem in a completely Roman style, violating the symbolic pattern given to Moses. In short, Herod was the enemy within, attempting to destroy the civil and moral character of Israel.
Consider that being a gentile, he was probably a pagan as well. As we know, Easter is not a Christian or Jewish holdiay, but a pagan one. It celebrates the fertility of the earth, during the vernal equinox, or spring, about the same time as the Jewish festival of passover. In light of who the passage is referring to, and probably celebrated the pagan vernal festival, Easter is probably an appropriate translation.
Keep in mind not merely the first verse of context, but the entire three verses that lead into the mention of Easter.
"Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth [his] hands to vex certain of the church. And he killed James the brother of John with the sword. And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) 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 12:1-4
Note the comment at the end of verse 3 in which the Word states, "These were the days of unleavened bread." Reflection on the context indicates that this could, honestly, go either way. Certainly it could and should be understood as a reference to the passover TIME. But one could easily make the argument in your favor that the REASON KJV translators would have gone with Easter is because Luke was a Gentile author with an understanding of the change in celebration.
The reason that latter argument doesn't hold a tremendous amount of weight is because Pascha does indeed get translated as Passover everywhere else. The first time we really GENUINELY begin to see Easter celebrated is in a post world where Christians have become blended with the political landscape and government of Rome. In Acts 12, the Christians have not even been named as Christians.
As we study out Easter's history (aside from this single use of it in the King James), we come to find out that Easter had its founding in the combination of Christian and pagan celebrations. If, in Acts 12, the Christians do not even exist yet, Easter most certainly cannot have weight as a blended holiday. For in that day, Easter was not a celebration of anyone. Thus, when Herod chose to apprehend Peter in chains, he opted to wait until after this day to bring about the charges.
Why? Why wait? Because Herod had a big celebration to attend? Not at all.
He waited out of respect for the Jews and THEIR holiday. Thus, it is indeed the Passover.
So to what end would we make the argument that Easter is an equally perfect word for this time? Only that Easter had its roots in the Passover period of Jewish tradition. It evolved into many things over the years, but in this particular time, one should absolutely understand that Easter, in Acts 12:4, is a reference to the Jewish Passover... not a pagan festival.
Whether one agrees that Easter is the best word to say that... we'd have to have a separate argument. :)