Why is the word Easter in the KJV?



I think the evidence is that the KJV writers take a different view of the word Easter than that of Tyndale and Luther. Tyndale used the word a lot in his version. I cannot speak German but from the bible study below it looks like Luther did too. 


Tyndale Version - Easter

Luther's Version -  Easter


But did Tyndale and Luther use translations like "Easter Lamb" in an anachronistic way, in order to simplify the bible for the uneducated, where the KJV does not? After all in Genesis 2:3 God uses the word "sanctified" is a special way. Some say it is an example of prolepsis, "the representation of a thing as existing before it actually does or did so", that is God is saying early in Genesis, that in the future, the 7th Day was sanctified, around the time Genesis was being penned by Moses, and thus he refrains from using the word "sabbath" in this verse.    

that is in an effort to make the bible more understandable to a public with far less education than they have today, the first bible translators modernised expressions. The KJV for instance puts "candlesticks" instead of "lampstands", and "wine bottles" instead of wineskins" etc. In his version Tyndale was so convinced the uneducated would not understand Revelation 13, because they had never seen a leopard, he translated it "a cat of the mountain". What if the word "Easter" was included by some translators because it was a post resurrection reference and an indicator they suspected a new expression was invented to remember Jesus resurrection day? After all total proof to Christians exists it was, in the expression "The Lord's Day". It is food for thought - just something to consider a possibility. If you think you can discount it by research fine, but proving Luther, Tyndale or the KJV translators put "Easter" because they were convinced it is a polluted word, does not mean it actually was or is. 



"Pourge therfore the olde leven that ye maye be newe dowe as ye are swete breed. For Christ oure esterlambe is offered vp for vs." Tyndale New Testament






There is a VERY popular justification for the use of the word "Easter" appearing in the KJV bible (mostly by KJV onlyists) that has an inbuilt hidden contradictory problem to the argument. The point they make runs like this:


The theory is that the KJV writers controversially (but they say correctly) translated the Greek word used (pasca) as "Easter" and not "Passover" as they seem to feel sure the Holy Spirit intended to refer to a pagan festival that came AFTER the Jewish Passover, but around the time of Spring just like Passover was.

The difficulty is, the calendar we now use almost always identifies the same days as the Jews do for Passover and what is called Easter. So unless that year was one of the special years where the Julian Calendar (used by the Roman's then) contradicted the calendar the Jews used, an anomay in the theory occurs. The anomaly is if Easter occurs most of the time on the identical days the Jews identify, this so called "pagan festival" must be another pagan festival other than the one Easter is supposed to represent now. That is how can Easter be that pagan festival supposedly identified in Acts 12, when it is earlier in its timing. at the same time as the Jewish Passover? Yet I have never seen the KJV Onlyists recognizing this, and going back and looking at how dates match up, and trying to identify the year these rare contradictions occur. 


However not being an expert on calendars I am open to correction on this.


Personally I am not persuaded "pasca" should be called Easter, fpor a start because the origin of the word Easter is lost, and I think the far more positive root or etymology of the word may be true, that is "East" and not words like "Eostre" or Ishtar. I can say this because I personally do not consider the KJV perfect, and I say it could be improved, and is not on the same level of accuracy as the Greek and Hebrew ms it is taken from.