Our English words for common terms often set us apart from speakers of European languages, especially the Romance languages of Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, French and others descending from Latin. In English only one name for a day of the week (Saturday) comes to us from Latin. The others are from the ordinary English words sun and moon, or from figures in pagan Germanic mythology such as Tiw, Woden, Thor, and Freya/Frigga (spellings vary).
Most Greek and Latin church traditions name Easter from the Hebrew Pesach (Passover). But once again, English turns to pagan roots and uses the name Eostre. This is possibly a female fertility figure associated with spring rebirth, but there’s not a lot of hard evidence left to be able to draw definitive conclusions.
That doesn’t stop the neo-pagans and New Agers from coming up with all sorts of speculation, of course. They share with some extreme fundamentalists the notion that this makes the English term Easter somehow “really” pagan.
Nonsense. The early (7th century) missionaries from Rome who came to Britain to convert the heathen Angles and Saxons simply made over existing traditions to Christian concepts — baptizing the names, as it were, or causing them to be born again. An English speaker using the word Easter is not any more or less pagan than a French speaker using the term Pacques. Pagan is as pagan does.
The illustration (from Wikimedia Commons) is by Johannes Gehrts and reflects a late 19th-century German Romantic view of Eostre. With a few Italianate putti flitting around and a tidy-looking purple martin house.
cleve callison’s blog 
About all you can say is “Aleksandr may be right.” Yes, the only source we have for the presumed existence of Eostre is a couple of sentences by the Venerable Bede. Sure, he could have been making it up. I’m quite willing to grant that his historical writings don’t always meet contemporary standards of what historians should do.
Against that is the undeniable fact that much of what we know about the pagan past of the Angles and Saxons has been so thoroughly rooted out (or just carelessly lost) that many stories and names exist in only one manuscript source. So you can’t really argue from the fact that Bede is the only source. Perhaps, because of his prestige, he’s simply the only one that has survived.
And then there is the simple fact that there is such as word as Easter, and it had to come from somewhere. In his lifetime Bede saw the more-or-less total triumph of at least nominal Christianity over paganism in Britain. But there must have be old-timers (monks or others) who remembered the older ways.
I my view there’s reason to give credence to Bede’s account.
I have written extensively on this topic Eostre never existed