|
Hi Folks,
More pre-1611 quotes to go with the 8 in post 30. One looks like a second quote from John King. These may be the two mentioned in this thread. We have more than enough that all the details are now less important. 1583 GREENE Mamillia II. B3b, Most vniustly straining at a gnat, and letting passe an elephant. And this is covered in some extra depth at: http://tinyurl.com/63q7dj Dictionary of Christianity by Jean C. Cooper Where Mamillia is given as evidence of established usage at the time. 1594 J. KING On Jonas (1599) 284 They have verified the olde proverbe in strayning at gnats and swallowing downe camells. To a reasoning mind, this group of quotes (now at 10) would even be by themselves (without the translator notes or the absolute consistency in KJB editions) virtual proof positive that there was no misprint or printer error, simply a translation decision that "strain at a gnat" was the superior translation. The three aspects together are proof positive. From my notes, I wasn't sure the exact source of these, however for one we have one of the few actual discussions of the phrase history: http://www.dountoothers.org/curious42507-4.html to strain at a gnat and swallow a camel TO MAKE A FUSS OVER TRIFLES BUT ACCEPT GREAT FAULTS WITHOUT COMPLAINT. This, as are many others, is a Biblical expression. It is found in Matthew xxiii, 24-26 : “Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess . Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.” But the translators of the King James Bible of 1611 were already familiar with this figure of speech. It had appeared in Lectures upon Jonas by Bishop John King, first printed in 1594, reprinted in 1599, in which the bishop himself said, “They have verified the olde proverbe in strayning at gnats and swallowing downe camells.” And we now also have: http://books.google.com/books?id=qQMfAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA102 The Literature of Roguery: Defence of Conny-Catching (1592) You "would straine a gnat, and lette passe an elephant;" And google shows more in: http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journ...3.3kumaran.pdf Robert Greene's Martinist Transformation in 1590 a Gnat, and lette passe an Elephant: that would touch small scapes, ... bert’s charge that Greene ‘‘strain[s] a Gnat and let[s] passe an Elephant’’ ... So this was clearly a regular usage at the time of the King James Bible. Shalom, Steven |
Hi Folks,
One Mamillia quote can be seen in .pdf at: www.oxford-shakespeare.com/new_files_jan_07/Mamillia%20(1593).pdf Mamillia; The Second Part of the Triumph of Pallas by Robert Greene (1593) Yea, they accuse women of wavering whenas they themselves are such weathercocks as every wind can turn their tippets and every new face make them have a new fancy, dispraising others as guilty of that crime wherewith they themselves are most infected, most unjustly straining at a gnat and letting pass an elephant, espying one dram of dross and not seeing a whole tun of ore, so injuriously descanting upon some one dame which for her wavering mind perhaps deserveth dispraise, and not attributing due honour to so many thousand ladies which merit to be canonized as saints for their incomparable constancy. Just including a bit more :). Shalom, Steven |
printer's error canard - fully busted
Hi Folks,
More ? Yes. :) We find out that the knowledge of the usage was quite well-known. It turns out that the individual quotes, while helpful and supportive, are not absolutely necessary. Here are three sources that all speak of the fact that the King James Bible "strain at a gnat" was an accepted usage and not a misprint or printers error. ================================================== ============================== http://www.dountoothers.org/curious42507-4.html Heavens to Betsy - Charles Earle Funk (1955) to strain at a gnat and swallow a camel TO MAKE A FUSS OVER TRIFLES BUT ACCEPT GREAT FAULTS WITHOUT COMPLAINT.... strain at a gnat .... the translators of the King James Bible of 1611 were already familiar with this figure of speech. It had appeared in Lectures upon Jonas by Bishop John King, first printed in 1594, reprinted in 1599, in which the bishop himself said, “They have verified the olde proverbe in strayning at gnats and swallowing downe camells.” ================================================== =============================== http://books.google.com/books?id=lriWCwsBDNwC Dictionary of Christianity - Jean C. Cooper - 1996 "The Authorized Version's rendering is strain at a gnat which was not a mistake but established usage at the time." Greene in his Maxmilla (1583) speaks of "straining at a gnat and letting pass an elephant". p. 260 ================================================== =============================== http://tinyurl.com/6bvf65 The Wordsworth Dictionary of Phrase and Fable - by Ebenezer Cobham Brewer (2000) To strain at a gnat and swallow a camel To make much fuss about little peccadilloes, but commit offenses of real magnitude .. the Authorized Version rendering (to strain at) was in use well before the date of its issue (1611), so the at is not -- as has been sometimes stated -- a misprint or mistake for out. Greene in his Maxmilla (1583) speaks of "straining at a gnat and letting pass an elephant". It means, to strain the wine at finding a gnat in it, but was early taken to stand for to swallow with considerable effort, imposing a strain on one's throat. ================================================== =============================== Shalom, Steven |
Gregory of Nyssa
Hi Folks,
Now .. perhaps the most interesting early church writer usage. Gregory of Nyssa, writing in Greek, reading the Greek, uses the phrase in our expansive sense, where there is a special effort, the careful exertion, geared towards finding our proverbial gnat, while the camel now has extra 'weights of wickedness'. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Nicene...k_I/Chapter_10 Treatises Against Eunomius Book I-Chapter 10 On these last he is certainly great, heightening the enormity of the offence, and making solemn reflections on falsehood, and seeing equal heinousness in it whether in great or very trivial matters. Like the fathers of his heresy, the scribes and Pharisees, he knows how to strain a gnat carefully and to swallow at one gulp the hump-backed camel laden with a weight of wickedness. Shalom, Steven |
one very definite error -> the modern version accusations
Hi Folks,
Matthew 23:24 (KJB 1611) Ye blind guides, which straine at a gnat, and swallow a camel. Watching the opponents of the King James Bible, in a stupor trying to swat at the gnat, you may understand a bit more the extra effort the last day or two. Quote:
Daniel Wallace, considered an evangelical scholar while defending the textual apostasy of the alexandrian text, took one of the hardest lines trying to swat the gnat. Seeming to totally buy into the false teaching about the history of the verse, he declared (as if there was a Greek preposition meaning "out" in the text .. Jack Moorman and others have made clear the grammar issues here): http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=665 Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is the Best Translation Available Today - by Daniel B. Wallace the KJV includes one very definite error in translation, which even KJV advocates would admit (sic). In Matthew 23:24 the KJV has ‘strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.’ But the Greek has ‘strain out a gnat and swallow a camel. In the least, this illustrates not only that no translation is infallible but also that scribal corruptions can and do take place-even in a volume which has been worked over by so many different hands (for the KJV was the product of a very large committee of over 50 scholars). Thus Wallace was buying into the misprint canard ! Claiming this was a scribal corruption in the King James Bible translation-printing process (he makes this even clearer below). All this as his ONE supposed very definite error !! Then Wallace puts in a footnote that proves he is wrong above. What stupidity, he likely wrote the article, found out he was wrong, and then put the footnote in (to both articles !) and left the errant articles as is ! What a lack of integrity. 7 Oxford English Dictionary.s.v. “strain [verb],” 21: “It has been asserted that ‘straine at’ in the Bible of 1611 is a misprint for ‘straine out’, the rendering of earlier versions ... But quots. 1583 and 1594 show that the translators of 1611 simply adopted a rendering that had already obtained currency.” Although this may be true, the OED adds quickly that “The phrase, however, was early misapprehended (perh. already by Shaks. in quot. 1609), the verb being supposed to mean ‘to make violent effort.’” What is this ? The first part from OED simply disproved the contention in his article. Then he switches to a strawman about 'violent effort'. We don't presume violent effort, nor does the King James Bible text, nor does the English usage history. This non-sequitur note becomes the Wallace excuse and diversion for his own blunder ! Which he now has in two versions in two articles still on the web ! Amazing. This is it, folks, this false, phoney, stupid canard for 200 years is their one supposed tangible error ! In fact, this 'scholar' even falsely thought the 1611 had 'strain out' ! (This textual expert can't even find the URL of the 1611 edition put online by the University of Pennsylvania, and even Adam Clarke almost 200 years ago knew there was no difference in the early KJB editions and his comments on this are still easily available and never contradicted. Even the Thomas Neslson reprint edition should have prevented this next blunder.) http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1197 Changes to the KJV since 1611:An Illustration - by Daniel B. Wallace Another well-known error is found in Jesus’ discourse against the religious leaders of his day, recorded in Matthew 23. In v. 24 the KJV reads, “Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.” The Greek verb diulivzw means “to strain out.” I believe that the KJV of 1611 actually had this wording, but inexplicably changed it later to “strain at.” ... This is the high level of anti-King James Bible 'scholarship' today. Virtually every fact is gotten wrong in their concern that God's word may actually be pure and perfect and majestic and readable by the ploughman... and yes, even by the seminarian. That thought, that authority, is very discomfiting to these rebels without a cause. So try agiprog, disinformation. Or, simply reject these folks whose hands are stained, and appreciate and love Gods' word, the King James Bible. Know that God's word is pure and true. Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him Shalom, Steven |
Hi Folks,
Continuing to discuss -- there are many aspects of the Greek and the grammar that appear to be fascinating and helpful, for those interested :) . One stands out, and deserves its own mention. And this is given by Thomas Strouse and Jack Moorman. As is often the case, we can see and understand this issue without being Greek experts. Often Greek issues and English issues are rather similar and if the Greek concern is properly expressed, as here by a gentleman who actually knows the language reasonably well (likely Thomas Strouse offered this thought originally) we can follow easily enough and even research further. Thomas Strouse, answering Daniel Wallace, first points out the same ludicrousness of the Wallace argument we discuss above, that this was a supposed KJB 'scribal corruption' in the translation process ! (Strouse apparently did not have the other totally false conjecture of Wallace about the 1611 edition in front of him when he wrote the article.) We can skip any more on that part for now. In addition Thomas Strouse discusses the grammar and a related interpretative aspect. We will include the interpretative part and discuss the grammar. Refutation of Dr. Daniel Wallace's Rejection of the KJV as the Best Translation - Thomas M. Strouse ... The Lord employed the participle diulizontes that means "to filter or strain." He used no preposition such as ek or apo to indicate "out" along with "strain." The English preposition "at" can mean "because of" giving the sense that they strained "because of" a gnat. The Lord's contrast seems to be one gnat versus one camel. The issue is not comprehensive filtering or consuming, because the ancients would no doubt have filtered their drinks and probably have eaten camel meat. The Lord Jesus exposed the Pharisees' glaring hypocrisy as He likened them to swallowing a single camel while at the same time they strained "at" or "because of" a single, individual gnat. The KJV does not need to be changed because it very accurately describes the Lord's specific criticism of "straining at a gnat." Jack Moorman similarly emphasizes the simple facts mentioned by Thomas Strouse. http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fbconies.htm#Strain Strain "At", or "Out" a Gnat Normally, for the word "out" we would expect to see a Greek preposition such as ek or apo, but there is none here. Further, "gnat" is singular. The Pharisees had placed all of their attention and energies upon one solitary gnat, and this at the expense of swallowing a camel! We do not have here a case of a general straining for impurities. (continues) |
Here are some examples from Matthew of a specific separate preposition or syllable used for the aspect of 'out' and 'without'. Giving the lexicon #.
apo - 575 - is often used for 'out of'. exo - 1854 - is also used for 'away' and 'out of' and 'forth' and 'without' and similar expressions and is most used in the three verses below. ek - 1537 - is used for 'out of' more than 150 times in the NT. Note that the Matthew 7:4 example is the 'ekballo' mentioned below, an embedded prepositional syllable. Matthew 8:34 has two usages - 1537 as part of the compound word meaning 'came out' and 'apo' as part of 'depart out'. The Greek is taken from the Stephen's TR, generally the same or similar to the Scrivener TR, from the John Hurt 'Parallel Greek New Testament' website. Please feel free to correct any errors in this presentation. Matthew 5:13 Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men. umeiV este to alaV thV ghV ean de to alaV mwranqh en tini alisqhsetai eiV ouden iscuei eti ei mh blhqhnai exw kai katapateisqai upo twn anqrwpwn Matthew 12:47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. eipen de tiV autw idou h mhthr sou kai oi adelfoi sou exw esthkasin zhtounteV soi lalhsai Matthew 21:39 And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him. kai labonteV auton exebalon exw tou ampelwnoV kai apekteinan Matthew 7:4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye h pwV ereiV tw adelfw sou afeV ekbalw to karfoV apo tou ofqalmou sou kai idou h dokoV en tw ofqalmw sou Matthew 8:34 And, behold, the whole city came out to meet Jesus: and when they saw him, they besought him that he would depart out of their coasts. kai idou pasa h poliV exhlqen eiV sunanthsin tw ihsou kai idonteV auton parekalesan opwV metabh apo twn oriwn autwn This argument is very supportive, albeit not probative. It is very significant since it is discusses a primary point, that if the Lord Jesus wanted to say 'strain out' Jesus had a simple way to indicate this meaning. The adverbial usage would come naturally, e.g. by adding the word 'apo'. Now a person arguing for 'strain out' could claim that 'out' is embedded in the definition of diulizonteV, however that has not been demonstrated and generally it is not even argued directly. See the examples above where this argument would work ... there is a word given for cast out that already combines cast or throw with 'ek' - into the word ekballo. Thus exballo by itself means to cast out. Or they could claim that 'out' is contextually implied. However that would be agreeing that the Greek word means more directly 'strain' with the choice of the preposition (out, at or omit) and article (a, the) being the translator's call, using all their skills and background and understanding of the Bible text. And thus being a defacto acknowledgment that 'out', much more than the other choices, either could or should have its own specified preposition. In fact the assertion that diulizontes actually defines as 'strain out' is generally seen only on articles designed to declare a 'King James Bible error'. Especially combined with the totally false misprint or typographical error or printer error claims. Since it is hard to claim it is a misprint if you are not also asserting the meaning is different ! So they wing it a bit. This assertion (that the word actually defines as 'strain out') is not an argument that I have seen referenced in lexicons or in scholarly commentary analysis. That is one reason why the Bauer-Denker lexicon reference was given earlier. We know the translators of the King James Bible were true Greek experts, who lived and read and spoke and breathed the classical languages in a way that is rare today. It is very possible that this simple grammar issue was one factor in their decision to translate Matthew 23:24 as : Matthew 23:24 (KJB 1611) Ye blind guides, which straine at a gnat, and swallow a camel. Shalom, Steven |
strain AT a gnat
Hi Steve. Just a quick note. I just started reading this thread a short while ago and you have done a wonderful job of contributing much valuable research into the matter. I will go ahead and take a lot of your references and now include them in my article on this verse:)
Really good stuff. Thank you very much. Will K |
English references in the 1500's - misprint canard even more busted
Hi Folks,
Quote:
================================================= John Wycliffe, given a bit differently. http://books.google.com/books?id=Ron9pWRhXFUC&pg=PA383 Select English Works of John Wyclif Blynde leders, syynge the gnatte and swalowe the camel. A variation on other spellings and article usage, more commonly like: http://books.google.com/books?id=XKKe55WkzKEC&pg=PA123 blynde leders, clensynge a gnatte, but swolowynge a camel ================================================== === Next, more early English references. The first one is simply "straine a gnat" a bit different yet showing the effort. The second includes an early commentary. http://books.google.com/books?id=imbObI1uCkkC&pg=PA186 Encyclopædia metropolitana; or, Universal dictionary of knowledge, Volume XVI (1845) (p. 186) Precisians and plaine plodders (such is this, and so is that) In loue do swallow cammells, whilst They nicely straine a gnat. Warner. Albion's England, book vi. (c.1600) ================================================= http://books.google.com/books?id=Rnb2nA6BZloC&pg=PA39 Letters and Exercises of the Elizabethan Schoolmaster John Conybeare (c.1590) They streigne a gnatte through their teeth, and swallowe downe a cammel An apt proverbe applied by oure saviour christ unto the Phariseis, which did aggravate small offences and mayntayne great enormities. It maye be nowe used agaynst such persons as seke out and punishe small offenders, and leat the great trespassours agaynst the la we goe quyte unpunished. Also them that are scrupulouse yn thinges of litle importaunce, and yn ambition, avarice, extorcion, advonterie, theft, murder, treason or heresie. they fynde no daunger of conscience. ================================================== ======== The Rheims-NT 1582 is given as: Blinde guides, that strain a gnat, and swallow a camel ================================================== ======== One source, an article "Strain at a Gnat' By Constantin Hopf (1944) indicates (through Google, I have not yet seen the whole article) that an early Latin commentary that was translated to English of Marlorate by Thomas Tymme in 1570 may have been one resource used by the King James Bible translators as well. I extracted these excerpts/abstracts. Constantin Hopf rejects a recent revival of the contention that the reading strain at in the Authorized Version is a misprint for strain out, and produces examples of the use of the former phrase in 1570 and 1584. Thus Tymme in 1570 and Paget in 1584 provide further evidence that 'strain at' was a usage in vogue before 1611. It is worth noting too that the English text which serves as lemma in Tymme has 'strayne out' immediately followed by 'strain at' in Tymme's rendering of Calvin. The juxtaposition was thus not regarded as a discrepancy. Should be available through JSTOR, two pages, also Oxford Journals and maybe others. JSTOR is usually easy at university libraries. Thus the 'misprint' and 'printer's error' and 'typographical error' canard had even been fully refuted in the scholarly journals over 60 years ago. Will Daniel Wallace and Doug Kutilek and Roy Beacham and Theodore Mann and William Combs and James Price and Rick Norris and Ron Minton and all the others spreading disinformation ever catch up ? Remember this is supposed to be, according to top-scholar Daniel Wallace, the ONE definite error, an uncorrected 'scribal corruption', a misprint or printer's error, etc. ! Thus we are supposed to retire our refined and pure King James Bibles and move to their favored corrupt alexandrian-cult textcrit versions. (And 'evangelical' Daniel Wallace wants to be sure to snip out the resurrection accounts of the Lord Jesus given in Mark.) Amazing. And yes, they can claim an error -- for their own shoddy research and their spirit of railing accusation against the pure and perfect Holy Bible, the King James Bible. The depths of despondency, emptiness, despair, distress of those with no pure Bible, they have to try to find 'something', anything .. Psalm 119:140 Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it. Shalom, Steven |
Shakespeare - strain at the position
Hi Folks,
A bit more on the 1500's and early 1600's. Strange as it may seem, we will see shortly that the original major accusation against 'strain at a gnat' was not really translational, nor proverbial, it was English grammatical. And out of this English stiffness developed the various false misprint accusations. Thus it is interesting to show that William Shakespeare used "strain at.." http://books.google.com/books?id=LKAXAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA88 Troilus and Cressida III. 2. 112 (1602) Ulysses: I do not strain at the position — It is familiar — but at the author's drift; Who in his circumstance expressly proves That no man is the lord of any thing, That no man is the lord of any thing, Though in and of him there be much consisting, Till he communicate his parts to others; http://books.google.com/books?id=-nYOAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA53& Theobold - "ie. I do not hesitate at it, I make no difficulty of it" Surely we see that the opponents of the purity and perfection of the King James Bible do in fact strain at the position that God's pure and perfect word can be read and embraced by the ploughman .. and even the seminarian. Shalom, Steven |
John Whitgift -
Hi Folks,
And one of the earlier quoters, from before the time of the King James Bible translation, is more fully available. (Incidentally, more than one of those earlier quotes was connected with men involved in the King James Bible, although perhaps only one was directly a translator, as indicated.) On post 30 we had: John Whitgift A godlie sermon preched before the Queenes Maiestie... (1574) "...ye straine at a Gnat, & swallow..." These next are from around 1575-1590. http://books.google.com/books?id=a6ANAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA80 The life and acts of John Whitgift D. D the Third and Last Lord Archbishop of Canterbury in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth Vol III by John Strype (orig 1718) Ob modicas causas scindunt pacem Ecclesiae, et corpus In' Christi : e. For slight causes they break the peace of the Church, and the body of Christ; saith one, of his time. Another saith, Loquuntur pacem, fyc. i. e. Peace is in their mouth, but contention in their actions. These be they, of whom Christ speaketh, They straine at a gnat, and swallow a camel. Also in another book, we see Whitgift using the phrase both ways, and being accused of being a Pharisee who strains at gnats :). http://books.google.com/books?id=WDMJAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA522 The Works of John Whitgift and these, walking in the streets, bang down their heads, look austerely, and in company sigh much, and seldom or never laugh : the Pharisees strained out a gnat, and swallowed down a camel. Whereas M. Doctor compareth us with the Pharisees, and saith we do all to be seen of men, and that we hold down our heads in the streets, and strain at a gnat swallowing down a camel; because they are in all men's knowledge, I will leave it to them to judge of the truth of those things. Shalom, Steven |
Robert Lowth - early accuser
Hi Folks,
Earlier I indicated that Noah Webster and Adam Clarke were early accusers, around 1810-1820 and I especially discussed Webster a bit. Noah Webster wrote his own Bible version, an attempted language update and improvement that was an abject failure that quickly fell by the wayside. Although ironically you can catch it today on at least one of the net Bible sites as an historical oddity :) . Now we discuss another earlier Bible translator, upset .. straining away at our robust gnat. The original accusation (or closer to original, at least the first easily remembered) was more a strange English grammatical accusation, not a translational complaint. Given by Bishop Robert Lowth, grammatical accuser of the King James Bible, Shakespeare and the Kitchen Sink. Possibly around 1762, here is the 1775 edition of his book. http://books.google.com/books?id=xcQDAAAAQAAJ&pg=RA1-PA167 A short introduction to English grammar: with critical notes [by R. Lowth]. "Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel." Matt, xxiii. 24. (Gr.) which strain out, or take a gnat out of the liquor by straining it : the impropriety of the Preposition has wholly destroyed the meaning of the phrase. This strange view of Lowth was repeated in grammars of the 1800's including : Charles M. Ingersoll - 1825 Roswell Chamberlain Smith - 1834 Lindley Murray - 1843 Then in the mid-1800's came forth a top-rung accuser, the Rev. Dean Trench (Richard Chevenix Trench) mentioned earlier in the thread by Matthew. Dean Trench had many ideas for 'correcting' the Bible. And Trench even quoted the words above of Lowth straining at the gnat in his 1858 "On the Authorized Version of the New Testament: In Connection with Some Proposals for its Revision". Combined along with the misprint canard and other mis-attempts and confusions. ================================================== ============= Returning to Robert Lowth, here is a smidgen that helps with the picture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Lowth Robert Lowth, D. D. Lord Bishop of London FRS (27 November 1710 – 3 November 1787) was a Bishop of the Church of England, a professor of poetry at Oxford University and the author of one of the most influential textbooks of English grammar, Bishop Lowth made a translation of the Bible. ... Lowth is also remembered for his publication in 1762 of A Short Introduction to English Grammar. .... Lowth's method included criticising "false syntax"; his examples of false syntax were culled from Shakespeare, the King James Bible, John Donne, John Milton, Jonathan Swift, Alexander Pope, and other famous writers. His understanding of grammar, like that of all linguists of his period, was based largely on the study of Latin, a misapplication according to critics of a later generation (and his own stated principles; he condemned "forcing the English under the rules of a foreign Language") ... Notice how many King James Bible accusers are trying to write their own personal versions and translations and updates and corrections ? Ecclesiastes 1:9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. Shalom, Steven |
straining at the Erasmus gnat - swallow the camels of Plautus and Pogglo.
Hi Folks,
Now for a nice contrast to the stiffness and stuffiness of Bishop Robert Lowth. We move back a bit to a man who knew a bit of Latin and Greek and the Bible and ancient writings. :) Desiderius Erasmus ! Not surprisingly, Erasmus was well aware of the saying in Matthew. And Erasmus had some critics who were gnat-strainers, even straining at the gnat of the Erasmus view of religion. Remember Erasmus was quite a critic of RCC mishegas, ultimately graduating all the way to the 'Index of Forbidden Books' - the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. First, for a bit of orientation: Plautus wrote theater e.g Miles Gloriosus, Amphitryon, Menaechmi and Amphitruo, the later considered to influence Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors, an apt description for the writings of the modern version gnat-fighters. Full name - Titus Maccius Plautus (c. 254–184 BCE), commonly known as Plautus. While Pogglo Bracchiolini (1380-1459) was secretary to five popes and famous for his jests and opinions 'more studious of wit than of truth'. Pogglo's satire did not spare popes and cardinals and Facetiae was published in 1470. (Encyclopaedia Britannica 1890 and other sources) and is available online in the 1879 translation to English. Preserved Smith describes the Erasmus comment as follows. http://www.archive.org/stream/erasmusastudyofh013578mbp Erasmus A Study Of His Life Ideals And Place In History - Preserved Smith - p. 298 Meantime Erasmus was busy defending his work against other critics. ... It is nonsense to say that he has ridiculed religion. As for the charge of lasciviousness in the dialogue between the youth and the harlot, he answers that the critics who strain at his gnat swallow the camels of Plautus and Pogglo. So were those critics who strained at the gnat of the Erasmus view of religion, were they simply filtering it out, straining it away ? Or were they making a big hubbub, a lot of noise, a lot of show ? The answer, my friend, is flying with the gnat. Shalom, Steven |
Steven, with all of your wealth of research, have you found the life span of the common gnat? This one must be the Methuselah of gnats.
|
cake icing
Hi Folks,
Quote:
However I will say it surprised me this AM to see Erasmus shooing those critics gnats away just like they are shooed in the King James Bible ! That was like a triple icing on the cake. Shalom, Steven |
strain AT a gnat
Hi guys. As some of you may know, there is an ongoing discussion over at Fighting Fundamentalist Forum where a man with the screen name of freesundayschoollessons has challenged brother Steve and me to debate this phrase. In typical fashion, the guys who do not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture in any bible in any language (free has at least admitted that this is his view), these men are guilty of the very thing the verse is talking about - they strain AT gnats and swallow the camel.
In any event, brother Brent Riggs posted a link to a Jeffrey Nachimson article and it has some really good info. Here are the pertinent quotes: It is also worth noting, a fact also brought out by Jeff Nachimson, that the 3rd edition of Danker's Lexicon actually lists a new proper meaning: Quote: F. W. Danker's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 3rd edition (2000): strain at'='strain [the liquid] at [seeing]' a gnat <p> James Murray's Oxford English Dictionary, Vol. S, under "Strain," also lists the reading of "strain AT a gnat" and affirms that it was NOT a mistranslation in the King James Bible, but a legitimate and accurate translation of the Greek text. --- def. 21 (1933): " to strain at: to make a difficulty of swallowing' or accepting (something); to scruple at. Also (rarely), to strain to do something. This use is due to misunderstanding of the phrase strain at a gnat' in Matt. xxiii. 24. It has been asserted that ‘straine at' in the Bible of 1611 is a misprint for ‘straine out', the rendering of earlier versions (see 14e). But quotes. 1583 and 1594 show that the translators of 1611 simply adopted a rendering that had already obtained currency. IT WAS NOT A MISTRANSLATION, THE MEANING INTENDED BEING 'WHICH STRAIN THE LIQUOR IF THEY FIND A GNAT IN IT'. (Caps are mine) The phrase, however, was early misapprehended (perh. already by Shakes. in quot. 1609), the verb being supposed to mean to make violent effort." The King James Bible is ALWAYS right. Accepted in the Beloved (Eph. 1) Will K |
strain AT a gnat
Here is the link at the FFF is any of you are interested.
http://www.fundamentalforums.com/showthread.php?t=53531 Will K |
Thanks, Will.
Matthew 23:24 (KJB 1611) Ye blind guides, which straine at a gnat, and swallow a camel. At this time .. that anybody would actually claim a 'misprint' or a 'printer's error' against a mountain of evidence of all types would simply show that they are bound in confusion. There is no there there. History. Even when Daniel Wallace was writing such 'scribal corruption == misprint' claims (along with floating the idea that the 1611 edition had 'strain out', significant for showing how totally disheveled and faulty was his 'scholarship') claims that to his embarrassment are still on the net, Daniel Wallace actually included the refuting Oxford English Dictionary reference .. albeit in a footnote .. that destroyed both his own major assertions and conjectures to try to claim the one 'definite error' to which King James Bible proponents would agree. How weird to include his own ultra-faulty and deficient scholarship as a base for such an untrue assertion about the defenders of the pure Bible and their understanding of the verse in Matthew. The only sensible conjecture is that Wallace first wrote up the papers when he was even more ignorant of the history than today .. and did not want to change the articles to the truth when he discovered the Oxford reference. This would be pretty bad even for the run-of-the-mill anti-KJB crew, even worse for a person with a scholarship position as a teacher, researcher, etc. The leader of the anti-KJB pack and the most aggressive defender of the alexandrian corruptions among supposed 'evangelicals' even to the point of denying the resurrection accounts of the Lord Jesus, given by Mark and in virtually every text in every language and lots of early writers, as scripture. Can evangelical faith mix with textual apostasy ? Sweet and bitter. And now we know today that the refuting Oxford English Dictionary reference is only the iceberg tip of what was missed by Daniel Wallace in his 'one definite error' charade. Now we have put together a mountain of evidence of all different types : Scholarly sources, common sense, virtually absolute uniformity of King James Bible editions with one known, late, exception for 250+ years, a dozen or so previous usages of 'strain at' including usages available and involved with King James Bible translators, Erasmus giving a similar contextual usage added today, dissection of the tawdry accusation history, translator notes, the Constantin Hopf paper in 1944 and its reference to the Tymme Matthew translation of Marlorate's commentary and other evidences, the knowledge that real printer errors were often noted and fixed quickly - shewed to hewed being an example, the double-tawdry history of the added-on accusation that the original 1611 had "strain out". Rarely has a mountain of evidence been so Everest steep, and rarely have the opponents been as ill-equipped, stumbling in slippers and a night-robe up the mountain. Every evidence combines to demonstrate that 'strain at a gnat' was a deliberate translation decision by a group of men well known for their excellent level of Greek and Latin language background and expertise. The type of expertise and background that is rare today. Now if someone wants to argue that they consider 'strain out a gnat' the more viable or superior translation, or the correct translation, I believe the evidence is against them, quite strongly at this point. However it is at least a position that could be argued. And you would not expect a resolution, much like you will not expect a resolution with a cornfusenik on "God was manifest in the flesh .." or "her purification" or "only begotten Son". You might end up journeying into the ancient Greek usages, usages that were discussed in a paper about two centuries ago You might end up discussing the rabbinics, as done by John Gill and others. You might end up with a few grammar and context and proverb and idiom discussions, a bit of which have been on this thread and some of which I am hoping to add in the days ahead. My view - there really are two totally different questions One is the totally busted misprint canard, which I describe above. The other is the discussion about the superior translation, a fascinating discussion if the: a) person with a differing view is sincere, writing with honesty and respect b) misprint canard has been properly analyzed and discarded If a person cannot see the misprint canard, with all the evidences arrayed, clearly they are pretty hopeless in any discussion on any aspect of the "strain at a gnat" Matthew 23:24 issues. Shalom, Steven |
correction on translator's notes
Hi Folks,
Continuing - (while still enjoying the surprise of the Erasmus find). We are now getting some of the fine material that I mentioned we could try to get - e.g from the article from Constantin Hopf the actual quotes from Thomas Tymme, translator of Augustine Marlorate's Matthew commentary, and the material from Eusebius Paget's translation of John Calvin's Harmonia. (These are substantive Christian works that significantly pre-date the King James Bible and most assuredly would be in the arsenal of the top scholars at Oxford and Cambridge who laboured on the King James Bible translation. Although they would be unlikely to be seen by the earlier translators from Tyndale on through to the original Geneva Bible edition which began around 1560.) And more. First we have to omit one element from the mountain of evidences which we gave above. Quote:
Quote:
Shalom, Steven |
Thomas Tymme - 'strain at' translation of Marlorate / Calvin
Hi Folks,
With thanks to the Constantin Hopf's 1944 paper, Jeffrey Nachimson and a poster or two on another forum (Bill R K and Mitex). Afaik, Jeffrey's paper is currently offline; so I would like to be cautious in not quoting Jeffrey directly, while thanking him for his insightful thoughts and for making the Cosntantin Hopf source material easily available. Marlorate was quoting John Calvin's exposition here. Augustine Marlorate's Latin Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Marloratus, Augustinus. Novi Testamenti Catholica Expositio Ecclesiastica) ".Ergo perinde faciunt, ac siquis tenuem panis micam colaret, integrum voraret panem. Culicem scimus pusillum esse animal: camelum ingentem belluam, nihil ergo magis ridiculum quam vinum vel aquam colare, ne culicem glutiendo fauces laedas, secure vero sorbere camelum." - Calvin, John. Harmonia Ex Tribus Euangelisitis Composita.,1563, p. 526 And this leads to the Thomas Tymme translation of Marlorate. ".They do therefore euen as if a man shoulde straine at a small crumme of bread, and swallow a whole loafe. Wee knowe that a gnat is a small creature, and a Camell, a huge beast: there is nothinge therefore more rydiculous, than to strayne in, wyne and water, least in swallowinge a gnat thou hurte thy Jawes, but careleslye to suppe vp a Camell." We will discuss the import of this later, first we show simply the usage :). Shalom, Steven |
Hi Folks,
Now what we have above is essentially Tymme translating John Calvin. For completeness though, here is a bit about the commentary intermediary, Marlorate, showing that his work would be highly respected in Oxford and Cambridge scholarship, even independent of the John Calvin material. http://books.google.com/books?id=FF4QAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA223 MARLORATUS [MARLORAT] (AUGUSTINE. 1560—1562). Exposition. Translated by Thomas Tymme. Folio. Lond., 1570. Marlorate was an eminent French reformer, preacher, and martyr. His commentaries contain the cream of the older writers, and are in much esteem, but are very rare. He wrote on the whole New Testament, but we have in English only the Gospels and John. And Thomas Tymme was a parish priest and translator, including Augustine and Calvin and historical and scientific works. (Print and Protestantism in Early Modern England by I. M. Green p. 310) Remember this is on top of almost a dozen earlier evidences (that is what we have extant and available) throughout this thread of usages of "strain at a gnat" and similar from a wide variety of sources before the King James Bible translation. Apparently the evidences had never been placed together before, today we have a few extra tools at hand to help destroy strongholds and pretensions against the pure and perfect word of God. Constatin Hopf, in the excellent scholarly paper in 1944, doesn't stop with Thomas Tymme. Eusebius Paget (1542-1617) translated Calvin's Harmonia in 1584, leading to an independent English version: "Therefore they doe as much, as if a man shoulde straine at a crumme of bread, and swallow downe a whole loafe. Wee know that a gnat is a small creature, and a camel a great beast: nothing therefore is more ridiculous then to straine wine or water, leaste thou shouldest hurt the iawes with swallowing vp a gnat, but carelessly suppe vp a camel." - Paget, Eusebius. A Harmonie Vpon The Three Euangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke .translated out of Latine into English (London: 1584) Print and Protestantism in Early Modern England by I. M. Green (p. 136) tells us that this harmony/commentary in English of Calvin from Paget was still on sale in 1595 and even reprinted in 1610, so clearly it would be readily available in Oxford and Cambridge. Paget's Epistle Dedicatory to these editions is online at : http://www.biblestudyguide.org/comme...l31/htm/vi.htm The translation and editorial commentary given on the web site is later. The import of these two quotes is enormous is the final disassembling of the 'printer error' canard. Clearly, they would have been unknown to the false accusers of the King James Bible over 200 years (as well as the other quotes, such as the one from the King James Bible translator) who never show an inkling of historical knowledge. So quick to accuse the word of God. Amazingly not even the modern anti-KJB crew never seem able to find these quotes or the Hopf paper. Yet they railed and whined and continue to do so.. 'printer error. .. misprint ..etc.'. We can summarize a bit more later, however for now it is enough to simply point out the obvious .. with the Constatin Hopf material at hand the accusation is even more busted (if you can be busted more than 100%). And why give all this detail about Marlorate, Tymme, Paget ? Well it is interesting for one. And amazingly enough, despite the mountain of evidence of the usage 'strain at a gnat' being fully an accepted part of the English language understanding of Matthew 23:24 at the time of the King James Bible - you may still run into some folks who will try to claim : 'misprint .. printer's error .. scribal corruption .. typographical error' -- or even: 'I think the original 1611 King James Bible actually had strain out' The multi-level of obtuseness of those adverse to the purity of the King James Bible can be truly astounding. Thus it is appropriate to use this thread for a solid and full level of documentation, while we learn more about those men who read and translated and laboured with the scriptures, the word of God, 400 and more years ago. Shalom, Steven |
sidenote of little relevance to the thread
Hi Folks,
Quote:
(A quick sidenote: I am not calling one person who was on this thread earlier obnoxious, not at all, I believe there likely were other forum decorum concerns and I know the moderatorship has been excellent.) Nonetheless that forum discussion has already led to some good scholarship leads, as per the last posts here that followed up on the leads, so I do not want my personal view to be overstated upon others. I just feel a responsibility to state the semi-obvious in repsonse. And that good sharing and discussion venues are hard to find :). Shalom, Steven |
strain AT a gnat
Quote:
Thanks Will K |
William Tyndale - The Obedience of a Christian Man
Hi Folks,
The translation of William Tyndale is often properly given as an example of an early translation with the major earlier phrase that was modified in the King James Bible: Matthew 23:24 Ye blind guides, which strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel. As we are seeing, the King James Bible was the one English Bible to fully convey the understanding of Matthew 23:24. Ye blind guides, which straine at a gnat, and swallow a camel. moving away from the stifled and repetitious and limited sense of 'strain out' to give the more accurate sense that was understood by Bible interpreters like Gregory of Nyssa and Desiderius Erasmus and John Calvin (seen here through Tymme and Paget courtesy of Marlorate, brought forth by Constantin Hopf) and the interpreters at the time of the skilled and most excellent King James Bible labours. In "The Obedience of a Christian Man" in 1528, two years after his NT translation, William Tyndale spoke specifically about the gnats and camels, applying the analogy to popery, to the RCC. Tyndale points out how they emphasize the empty gnats of ritualism yet swallow the camels through whoredom and the killing of the saints. Here is the passage. The Obedience of a Christian Man,and how Christian Rulers ought to govern, wherein also, (if thou mark diligently) thou shalt find eyes to perceive the crafty conveyance of all Jugglers. “Ye blind guides,” saith Christ, “ye strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.” Do not our blind guides also stumble at a straw, and leap over a block; making narrow consciences at trifles, and at matters of weight none at all? If any of them happen to swallow his spittle, or any of the water wherewith he washeth his mouth, ere he go to mass; or touch the sacrament with his nose; or if the ass forget to breathe on him, or happen to handle it with any of his fingers which are not anointed; or say ‘Alleluia’ instead of ‘Laus tibi, Domine;’ or ‘Ite, missa est’ instead of ‘Benedicamus Domino;’ or pour too much wine in the chalice; or read the gospel without light; or make not his crosses aright, how trembleth he! How feareth he ! What an horrible sin is committed ! I cry God mercy (saith he), and you, my ghostly father. But to hold an whore, or another man's wife, to buy a benefice, to set one realm at variance with another, and to cause twenty thousand men to die on a day, is but a trifle and a pastime with them. Doctrinal Treatises and Introductions to Different Portions of the Holy Scripture, by William Tyndale, Martyr, 1536 (Henry Walter ed., The Parker Society, Cambridge, 1848), pp. 7-8. An astounding and powerful passage. And it is simple to see that the analogy used by William Tyndale is not simply of a benign, passive filtering and straining for purification. The stumbles, the strains, are overwrought and overdone, unnecessary efforts, with Tyndale using RCC rituals as the examples, the trifles .. to be condemned. (Contrasted with the camels of sin and murder that the blind guides consider trifles.) Thus in the William Tyndale understanding, in his deep commentary excoriating popery, the interpretative sense of the verse is that those gnats are being very much strained at. =============================================== "stumble at a straw, and leap over a block" at the time of William Tyndale was already a common proverb. Referenced as a common proverb in A C. Mery Talys (London, 1526). And I highly recommend this full page as a helpful read to understanding the sense. http://www.earlymodernweb.org.uk/wal...mtwelshman.htm Wales and the Law, c.1500-1800 ... Here ye may see that some have remorse of conscience of small venial sins and fear not to do great offenses without shame of the world or dread of God And "stumble at a straw, and leap over a block" also became a ballad, licensed 1562-3. These two books show the similarity of the Biblical phrase and the common proverb. Tyndale was using both, as an aid to his readers. http://books.google.com/books?id=ja4YAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA543 A Hand-book of Proverbs - Bohn 1828 http://books.google.com/books?id=3t7XywRWUx4C&pg=PA144 A Compleat Collection of English Proverbs To strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. To stumble at a straw, and leap over a block. These two proverbs have the same sense : the former is used by our Saviour. Matt, xxiii. 24. Shalom, Steven |
forum discussions
Hi Folks,
Quote:
There are a number of threads that discuss 'strain at a gnat' on BaptistBoard, Bible Version Discussion Board and Fighting Fundamental Forum and SharperIron and on WhichVersion and on this forum. Maybe others. For the most part those threads mix so much chatter and dross that they can be a diversion to a study rather than a help. Without incessant baying and contra-agiprop this forum has been much more able to plough new ground and also to find, codify and study existing references. You are well aware of the various forum posting diversion techniques used by contras, Will, so I share this more for others :) . Although a post with the ten or so possibly substantive threads might be helpful, along with a post with a lot of the more substantive source reference URL's. For now I sent you this specific one, since it relates to updating your article for accuracy and I have a few questions to go with you on other topics. Shalom, Steven |
Nicholas Bernard - sadly strayne at our English gnats
Hi Folks,
And now another early reference. This text is from Dr. Nicholas Bernard, Dean of Kilmore. Although it would have been in the period after the King James Bible was brought forth, and thus more than one Bible was being read, it gives us a picture of the language usage in the 1600's. We also see a colorful phrasing. http://books.google.com/books?id=L64DAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA157 Memoir of the Life and Episcopate of Dr. William Bedell http://books.google.com/books?id=g2ULAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA164 Two Biographies of William Bedell .. Is this nothing to all you that pass by, or rather swallow downe, these Scottish camells, and sadly strayne at our English gnats ? .. This clearly shows the phrase where the straining is both unfortunate, indifferent ceremonies for political ends, and also showing the kvetch-effect (the effort to whine) that is often a part of straining at gnats. Shalom, Steven |
Constantin Hopf - 3 conclusions
Hi Folks,
We were discussing two scholarly translation sections from before the time of the King James Bible translation, yet not likely to be used for other previous English translations : Calvin --> Marlorate --> Tymme Calvin --> Paget Returning to posts #60 and 61 http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...3&postcount=60 Thomas Tymme - 'strain at' translation of Marlorate / Calvin http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...5&postcount=61 Eusebius Paget translated Calvin's Harmonia courtesy of the research of Constantin Hopf in 1944. Interestingly, Hopf was responding to the only known actual attempt to support the 'misprint' accusation in a separate section or article. Dozens of 'scholars' of sorts have repeated this accusation on a will and a wisp and a non-prayer. The one attempt seems to be from the liberal Edgar Goodspeed (yet another who made his own Bible translation ! .. of little impact or note). Goodspeed wrote 'The Misprint that Made Good' which was in Religion in Life (Spring 1943) and how Goodspeed stretched the thin material into an article will make an interesting research check. This is likely the periodical from Abingdon Press 1932-1980 listed in Worldcat. From Hopf and the efforts of Jeffrey Nachimson we now want to simply point out excellent conclusions from Constantin Hopf. "Tymme in 1570 and Paget in 1584 provide further evidence that 'strain at' was a usage in vogue before 1611." "the English text which serves as lemma in Tymme has 'strayne out' immediately followed by 'strain at' in Tymme's rendering of Calvin. The juxtaposition was thus not regarded as a discrepancy." "it is interesting to note that in light of translating the Latin words colare or excolare by the phrases "strain in," "strain at," or "strain," that the English translators didn't necessarily consider the conveyed meaning to be pouring the liquid through gauze or some other sieve-type apparatus. They were under the distinct impression that the straining consisted of the individual using their lips and teeth to serve as the strainer, thus filtering the gnats while sipping the liquid." The first quote, very true, is now supported by a large number of additional direct English language quotes, plus we now have added many significant additional historical contextual understandings. The second quote is a simple and true deduction from the translations. The third quote from Constantin Hopf is interesting and worthy of some additional discussion. (With a wider view, this also relates to some of the lexicon issues and also the related Khoo-Price writings, which we hope to address separately.) Note also that the wider usage of the phrase fits better with the historical usages from Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, Erasmus and Tyndale than does a narrow usage. To go along with the third, the following quote was given by Jeffrey from John MacArthur. "Fastidious Pharisees would drink their wine through clenched teeth in order to filter out any small insects that might have gotten into the wine." The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: Matthew 16-23 (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1988) Shalom, Steven |
Misprint ? The Accusations ! Pure Bible Text.
Hi Folks,
Dividing the questions about "strain at a gnat" into three major categories, we have : A) Evidence - misprint - printer error - typographical error - scribal corruption ? Unequivocally - No ! Busted flat. B) The history of accusation Fascinating for what it tells us about the state of scholarly rebellion, the willingness of many to vapidly speak untruths against the word of God. C) The translation and idiom and language and context issues. A good study, King James Bible does very fine, many aspects to consider, you can never 'prove' any side of the discussion. "C" itself divides up into various issues of translation, etymology, lexicon, Hebraics, Greek usages, context, semantic range, early and historic understandings, Greek and Latin words and more. ================================================= Generally I have tried to keep this research 'positive' - emphasizing and demonstrating "A" with some related discussion of "C". Only small references to the accusers. Now, however, I want to spend a little time, a post or two, reminding us of the state of the textcrit anti-KJB art, "B" .. false accusation. Why ? This is both a unique and special verse in the pure Bible discussion (remember the 'one definite error') , we also have a textbook case of the snowballing of false accusation that is based on .. nothing. Shalom, Steven |
" This is both a unique and special verse in the pure Bible discussion (remember the 'one definite error') , we also have a textbook case of the snowballing of false accusation that is based on .. nothing."
Amen, Steve. You have brought out a lot of valuable information and historical quotes as well as modern dictionary and lexical support for our beloved Bible, and we Bible believers appreciate it very much. The bible agnostics will never see it unless God has mercy on them to open their eyes and give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth. 2 Timothy 2:25 Will K |
Jerome, Origen, Hilary, Gregory - per Thomas Aquinas
Hi Folks,
Quote:
Oh, here are more quotes from early church writers. So far on this thread we have Chrysostom on #25 and Gregory of Nyssa on #44, with Nyssa being the more significant. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/cat....html#ii.xxiii Thomas Aquinas - Catena Aurea Gospel of Matthew - Chapter 23 Jerome: The Lord had commanded, that for the maintenance of the Priests and Levites, whose portion was the Lord, tithes of every thing should be offered in the temple. Accordingly, the Pharisees (to dismiss mystical expositions) concerned themselves about this alone, that these trifling things should be paid in, but lightly esteemed other things which were weighty. He charges them then with covetousness in exacting carefully the tithes of worthless herbs, while they neglected justice in their transactions of business, mercy to the poor, and faith toward God, which are weighty things. The camel I suppose to mean the weighty precepts, judgment, mercy, and faith; the gnat, the tithing of mint, anise, and cummin, and other valueless herbs. The greater of God’s commands we “swallow” and overlook, but shew our carelessness by a religious scrupulousness in little things which bring profit with them. Jerome's commentary is well-written, and pretty much outside the interpretative issues of the thread. Origen: Or, “straining out a gnat,” that is, putting from them small sins; “swallowing a camel,” that is, committing great sins, which He calls camels, from the size and distorted shape of that animal. Morally, The Scribes are those who think nothing else contained in Scripture than the bare letter exhibits; the Pharisees are all those who esteem themselves righteous, and separate themselves from others, saying, ‘Come not nigh me, for I am clean.’ “Mint, anise, and cummin,” are the seasoning, not the substantial part of food ; as in our life and conversation there are some things necessary to justification, as judgment, mercy, and faith; and others which are like the seasoning of our actions, giving them a flavour and sweetness, as abstinence from laughter, fasting, bending the knee, and such like. How shall they not be judged blind who see not that it is of little avail to be a careful dispenser in the least things, if things of chief moment are neglected? These His present discourse overthrows; not forbidding to observe the little things, but bidding to keep more carefully the chief things. Origen's view of the gnat as putting aside 'small sins' . Hilary: And because it was much less guilt to omit the tithing of herbs than a duty of benevolence, the Lord derides them, “Ye blind guides, which strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel.” Hilary takes a similar approach. Pope Gregory - Mor. 1, 15: The gnat stings while it hums; the camel bows its back to receive its load. The Jews then “strained off the gnat,” when they prayed to have the seditious robber released to them; and they swallowed the camel, when they sought with shouts the death of Him who had voluntarily taken on Him the burden of our mortality. Notice that Gregory, per this translation, comes up with an unusual preposition ('strain off' - later proposed by William Bowyer in 1812 and used in the NEB in 1961) and an unusual interpretation. Two references do not strain at any gnats directly. Pseudo-Chrysostom has the emphasis about the reason for the Pharisee emphasis on the details of tithing, lucre. Remigius takes a nomistic view in defense of "all the commandments of the Law" and the necessity to keep oneself from sin. While this does not give super-special import to the thread discussion, this does offer in one spot a number of early church writer commentaries. And this is something you can often find of interest from Aquinas (e.g. Aquinas offers many helpful commentaries on 'her purification' - Luke 2:22). And this is rarely mentioned in discussions of Bible textual matters. Plus Aquinas is helpful in transcribing fully, not paraphrasing, even if the original may or may not be available today, almost eight centuries later. Shalom, Steven |
Steven, your excellent post on the three aspects of the issue can be used to evaluate a number of "one definite error" arguments. (e.g. Easter, love of money, etc)
My nature to use dry humor or satire is having to be aggressively stifled as the particular subject of the "gnat" ideally lends itself to metaphor. It is, however, such a clear, perfect example of the battle for the inerrancy of the KJB. It seems almost that God put the phrase there for this very reason. It would be perfect irony that the doubters would place so much effort to use this tiny phrase about a tiny animal as proof that the KJB was merely one of many human attempts. They are truly straining at the gn"at"! |
Anatomy of a False Accusation Against the Word of God
Hi Folks,
Quote:
Today I was looking to see precisely how they strained and convoluted and deceived themselves and others - ending up with the various phrases for the canard designed to cast doubt upon God's word and, at the time, help promote their various new translations or the cry and wail for the 'revision'. Some of the terms settled on for the accusation: misprint printer's error typographical error error of the press scribal corruption Wow. Looking at how this occurred was fascinating. Here is a preview of the summary of the 'scholarship' involved. ================================================= Anatomy of a False Accusation Against the Word of God How did the false accusation against the word of God develop.. essentially from nothing, to be accepted in the land of 'modern scholarship' ? ================================================== =============== The Lemming Quote Festival - Preview Robert Lowth (1762) impropriety of the preposition (grammatical accuser) William Bowyer (c 1770) false metaphor - ('strain off' is correct) John Wesley (before 1791) that glaring false print Adam Clarke (1817) likely to have been at first an error of the press Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review (1825) typographical error (Charles Hodge and others) Samuel Bloomfield (1826) mere typographical blunder Noah Webster (1833) may have been a misprint, false translation or a misprint, evidently an oversight or misprint Albert Barnes (1835) mistranslation or misprint strain out .. undoubtedly rendered by the translators misprint, and should be corrected ================================================== ================= THE ADAM CLARKE 'PROOF' Harris (1824) - Adam Clarke has proved that here is an error of the press Carpenter (1833) Dictionary of the Holy Bible - Robinson (1832) Clarke has shown that there is an error of the press Bible Cyclopædia (1841) Adam Clarke proves that " at" has been substituted for " out," by a typographical error in the edition of 1611 ================================================== ================= Shalom, Steven |
Lowth seems to be a proto-modernist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Lowth Quote:
|
Adam Clarke 'proving' the myth-cusation
Hi Folks,
Quote:
Noah Webster also wrote his own Bible update version, and in the last century perhaps the two most aggressive proponents and pushers of the myth-accusation have also been involved in new version attempts. Edgar Goodspeed and Daniel Wallace. So at least five myth-contributers share that peculiarity. Since Adam Clarke was credited with proving the myth, let us next look at what he actually wrote. ================================================== ======================= Adam Clarke (1817) (also see post #35) http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarkemat23.htm http://www.swartzentrover.com/cotor/...T/Mt/MT_23.htm http://books.google.com/books?id=I6kGAAAAQAAJ&pg=PT183 The New Testament .. with a Commentary and Critical Notes (1817) [Blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.] This clause should be thus translated: Ye strain out the gnat, but ye swallow down the camel. In the common translation, Ye strain AT a gnat, conveys no sense. Indeed, it is likely to have been at first an error of the press, AT for OUT, which, on examination, I find escaped in the edition of 1611, and has been regularly continued since. There is now before me, "The Newe Testament, (both in Englyshe and in Laten,) of Mayster Erasmus translacion, imprynted by Wyllyam Powell, dwellynge in Flete strete: the yere of our Lorde M.CCCCC.XLVII. the fyrste yere of the kynges (Edwd. VI.) moste gracious reygne." in which the verse stands thus: "Ye blinde gides, which strayne out a gnat, and swalowe a cammel." It is the same also in Edmund Becke's Bible, printed in London 1549, and in several others.-Clensynge a gnatte. - MS. Eng. Bib. So Wickliff. Similar to this is the following Arabic proverb . He eats an elephant and is choked by a gnat. ================================================== ======================= Notice that Adam Clarke, while more involved in the accusation than Wesley, still fudges the accusation - 'likely..' . And his factual backdrop is quite removed from the real issues. (A standard scholarship game of giving a bunch of facts implying to the reader that they really mean a lot, when they actually have very little bearing on the issue.) Amazingly, in the ongoing game of false accusation-lemming-telephone (to falsely accuse the word of God and encourage the 'revision') it is later claimed that Adam Clarke himself proved the myth-accusation. Quite clearly Adam Clarke did no such thing, nor did he claim to do so. (Note: the Adam Clarke writing may go back to 1810 or 1811.) Shalom, Steven |
how did this accusation rebellion arise ?
Hi Folks,
Clearly, the misprint myth should never had arisen. And the bold-faced assertion, the impudent untruth, is still kicking around today. Yet it developed out of a comedy of errors, to the extent that rebellion against the word of God can be a comedy. First, Robert Lowth, a Keystone Kop of English grammar (let's make English into Latin) ranted against traditional and excellent English, King James Bible, Shakespeare and the Kitchen Sink. Yet even Lowth made no intimation of a misprint. Then supposedly learned men, in a fog, actually said they could not comprehend 'strain at a gnat'. Amazing. Then the misprint theories were developed that had no evidence, and against evidence. Theories that we see pushed by men who wanted to peddle their own new versions. And finally, the wild and weird misprint and 'typographical error' and 'printer's error' theories were brazenly claimed to be 'proved' - a total fabrication. ============================================ Three elements doomed the theory from the beginning. First there was no evidence, no smoking gun, not even a wisp of smoke. And such a theory (inadvertent error, never corrected) will have a high bar of evidence. Second, despite many King James Bible corrections being made, usually quickly (shewed to hewed, a similar type of small distinction, similarly of some note, apparently was corrected immediately after the 1st edition) every Bible edition for over a century was exactly the same .. 'strain at a gnat'. And for over a century plus, no known voices of concern, protest, change, update or correction. The Authorised Version was all over the world, edition upon edition, England, USA and elsewhere, and every version simply had the sensible and accurate and commonly spoken 'strain at a gnat'. These two would essentially disprove the theory. A theory of misprint or printer's error will have a reasonably high bar of evidence, even as only a conjecture. As an assertion, the evidence must be truly compelling. And here all the primary evidences are against. The phrase 'strain at a gnat and swallow a camel' was commonly used and understood English and was printed consistently without any known concern or opposition or correction. However one more point arises. The misprint theory absolutely requires that 'strain at a gnat' be, at the time of first publication, a new and unusual text, thus a 'misprint'. If the phrase was truly unknown and unused, the theory could possibly have a bit of consideration, some traction. You might then wonder if the preposition 'at' came from the printer rather than from the translators intent, since the proposed vector of origination from the translators is questioned. "How and why did they translate 'strain at a gnat' an unknown phrase ?" might be a good and reasonable conjectural question. You might puzzle if an unknown phrase really came from the translators with deliberate intent. On the other hand, if the phrase was used, the theory is gone, finito. Even more so if the phrase is used in Biblical and textual circles. Even more so if it arises in top scholarly Bible circles. Even more so if the phrase is used by King James Bible translators before the translation ! The conjectural possibility is then quadruple extra-busted. In the 1800's and the early 1900s' a few pointed out that the 'printer's error' theory made little or no sense. Likely, but not necessarily since the theory was far-fetched from the get-go, some early usage supporting 'strain at a gnat' was pointed out, perhaps the two early examples that made it into the Oxford English Dictionary, John King on Jonah and Mamilla. These men of sense saying 'hmm.. wait a minute here' were mostly ignored in the pseudo-scholarship circles that have taken over much of Bible text discussion. And then the last possibility of traction for the misprint accusation was decimated by the 1944 Constantin Hopf paper. Totally destroyed. (The inability of 'scholars' like Daniel Wallace to recognize this is truly astounding.) Two separate English translations of Calvin significantly before the King James Bible using the same phrase for the Biblical passage at issue ! And in the perfect timing of translation that would explain why the phrase made the King James Bible and yet did not appear in the earlier English versions. (e.g. the Geneva Bible had already been translated). How anyone with any position or savvy or smarts could still talk today about assertions of 'scribal corruption' and 'definite error' and 'misprint' is the remaining question. What type of deception and rebellion comes to play to think so illogically ? And all to attack the pure word of God. Now, today, we have much more even than Constantin Hopf presented. My next post, by God's grace, will show forum readers the summary of English usage from before 1611 that we can find in an easy search today. (Some is on the thread above, however a bit scattered, some is new.) Please note : none of this is necessary to bust the accusation that Constantin Hopf already destroyed in 1944. It is, however, interesting to see the truth about the common and accepted and excellent usages of the phrase 'strain at a gnat' - the usage and understanding that was brought into the King James Bible by the learned men labouring to bring forth the pure word of God into English. My thanks to the brethren considering this fascinating history with the forum and myself, and to the many who have contributed so much to defending the pure word of God. Shalom, Steven |
Every word of God is pure
Hi Folks,
One point to add about the myth-accusation There is a slogan (often misused) that applies well here. 'Extraordinary Events Require Extraordinary Evidence'. We have the Bible carefully put together and read and edited and proofed, over many years with many capable hands. Printer errors were made, this was the early years of printing, and were quickly corrected. So, out of many 10s of thousands of words, there is no case that a misprint is supposed to have passed through unnoticed. None at all, except, per the accusers, a century later (without evidence) ... one case. One little word, one 'definite error' (Wallace). A truly extraordinary event. Not only that, the one word is in the New Testament on a oft-considered section and verse, very difficult to overlook, a passage and section and verse oft-read and oft-spoken. Thus such a case of the one and only misprint uncorrected - for consideration in a sensible and sane Bible discussion - would require extraordinary evidences. People raising their voices, a 1613 edition with 'strain out', a preaching by a translator bemoaning what occurred, etc. None of this exists. There is no there there. In fact, as we see on researching, there are infallible proofs in the other direction ! Powerful and multi-corroborative. Totally missed or overlook or even hid by the false accusers of the word of God. One other point. The pernicious nature of this false accusation over 200 years is hard to express. I only touch on it a bit on this thread, and I may be too involved in the details to give the fine overview explanation. This has been truly a centerpiece of the anti-King-James-Bible movements, from the revisionists to the alexandrian-corruption-proponents to the modern cornfuseniks who simply want to reject the authority of God's word in the King James Bible. (btw, when this history and verse and false accusation is brought forth to these men you truly can see straining at multi-gnats. And swallowing the camel of the lack integrity and ethics and the lack of truth of the deceivers about the pure word of God.) Others here may want to address this overall deception of the cornfuseniks and deceivers, how they used this nonsense-attack-foil and how sweet it is to see our pure and perfect Bible fully vindicated from the phoney and baseless assault. Thank you Lord Jesus ! Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Every word. :) Shalom, Steven |
'Misprint' Quote Festival - prior to 1611
Hi Folks,
Matthew 23:24 (KJB-1611) Ye blind guides, which straine at a gnat, and swallow a camel. Here is the summary of some other quotes that, by the revisionist theory, would really need to be 'misprints'. Else there is a clear and sensible explanation and understanding of the King James Bible verse, even by the pure Bible skeptic view of the doubting Doug and Rick and Daniel (Wallace). This is only what is before 1611 and goes back to 1539 ! Later I plan a longer post of the same basic info, however I hope it is easy to read as follows. 'Misprint' Quote Festival Thomas Tymme - translation of Marlorate - quotation of John Calvin (1570) ".They do therefore euen as if a man shoulde straine at a small crumme of bread, and swallow a whole loafe. Wee knowe that a gnat is a small creature, and a Camell, a huge beast: there is nothinge therefore more rydiculous, than to strayne in, wyne and water, least in swallowinge a gnat thou hurte thy Jawes, but careleslye to suppe vp a Camell." Eusebius Paget - translation of Calvin's Harmonia (1584) "Therefore they doe as much, as if a man shoulde straine at a crumme of bread, and swallow downe a whole loafe. Wee know that a gnat is a small creature, and a camel a great beast: nothing therefore is more ridiculous then to straine wine or water, leaste thou shouldest hurt the iawes with swallowing vp a gnat, but carelessly suppe vp a camel." George Abbot (1562–1633) - translator Second Oxford committee - assigned the Gospels An exposition vpon the prophet Ionah... (1600) "...to make a strayning at a gnat, and to swallow vp a whole Camel." Roger Fenton - (translator - 2nd Westminster company) An ansvvere to VVilliam Alablaster... (1599) "...Let vs then leaue to straine at gnattes, and ingenuously acknowledge..." John King Lectures upon Jonas (1599) "They have verified the olde proverbe in strayning at gnats and swallowing downe camells." ".we straine at gnats..." Group arrested in Oxford 1539 for breaking Lenten fast to Thomas Cromwell They pleaded that their case should not be judged by those "as will streyne a gnat and devo[ur] a Camele" John Whitgift (c. 1530–1604) Archbishop of Canterbury 1583-1604 (Works of John Whitgift) "...ye straine at a Gnat, & swallow up a camel" (p. 581) Sermon 1574 " and strain at a gnat swallowing down a camel" (p. 523) Sermon 1583 - "..of whom Christ speaketh : ' They strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.' "(p. 595) Arthur Golding (1536-1606) translation of John Calvin (The sermons of M. Iohn Caluin)... (1577) "...play the hipocrytes, who will streyne at a gnat, and swallowe..." Henry Barrow and John Greenwood to Puritan compromisers (1587) "strain at a gnat and swallow a camel; and are close hypocrites, and walk in a left-handed policy" Rudolf Gwalther An hundred, threescore and fiftene homelyes or sermons...(1572) "...Gospel, where he sayth they strayne at a Gnat..." Edward Topsell The house-holder: or, Perfect man. Preached in three sermons... (1610) "...will leaue these Fooles, Which straine at Gnats, and swallow Camels ... " Robert Greene Mamillia; The Second Part of the Triumph of Pallas (1593) "most unjustly straining at a gnat and letting pass an elephant" Thomas Gainsford The vision and discourse of Henry the seuenth... (1610) "...and seeke extremities, They straine at Gnats..." And William Shakespeare used "strain at.." Troilus and Cressida III. 2. 112 (1602) Ulysses: I do not strain at the position * My thanks to a number of sources and resources in helping create this compilation. Special thanks to 'Jerome' on BaptistBoard who had information on eight of these in one thread in late 2006. It was an excellent jump-start and really helped show that the more commonly-given references (John King & Mamillia) strong as they were, were essentially iceberg tips. Keep in mind also that the top two, from Constantin Hopf, must receive special note, and thanks that he took the time and effort to really help with the fundamental research even back in 1944. And other references, such as the King James Bible translators, are similarly conclusive. To a sensible and reasoning mind, if there even was an issue one or two of these would firmly close shut the misprint door. The fact that we have such a wealth of available references after 500 years I believe is simply God's design to really help people see and understand the truth. Also it can be an encouragement to study the environment and times leading up to the King James Bible. (Recommended start : William Grady, Final Authority). Shalom, Steven |
'Misprint' Quote Festival - prior to 1611 - (continued)
Hi Folks,
And to increase to 15 references (other than Shakespeare's limited reference). Fovre Letters and Certeine Sonnets - by Gabriel Harvey "to straine at a Gnatt, as it were at a Camell" (c. 1592) And here is a bit more on the three less complete references above. =================================================== ================ Rudolf Gwalther translated by John Bridges An hundred, threescore and fiftene homelyes or sermones, vppon the Actes of the Apostles, written by Saint Luke: made by Rudolpe Gualthere Tigurine, and translated out of Latine into our Tongue, for the commodite of the Englishe reader [by John Bridges, Vicar of Herne] London, H. Denham, 1572 "...Gospel, where he sayth they strayne at a Gnat..." Rudolf Gwalther. (Rodolphus-Rodolph Gualter) (Rudolpe Gualthere) (1519–1586), theologian Bishop of the Reformed Church of Zurich, following Bullinger and Zwingli in that office. ================================================== ======================= Edward Topsell (1572-1625) - Church of England clergyman, Author of "The History of Four-Footed Beasts and Serpents" (with unicorn section) The house-holder: or, Perfect man. Preached in three sermons lately at Hartfield in Sussex ... (1610) "...will leaue these Fooles, Which straine at Gnats, and swallow Camels ... " ================================================== ========================= Thomas Gainsford (1566-1624) The vision and discourse of Henry the seuenth.Concerning the vnitie of Great Brittaine. . (1610) "...and seeke extremities, They straine at Gnats..." ================================================== ============================ Note that a careful check of EEBO - Early English Books Online - might find additional references. Shalom, Steven |
'Misprint' Quote Festival - prior to 1611 - and 1600s
Hi Folks,
And to round out for now the section on early usages. One more clear usage. Richard Jugge - the Queen's printer (1570) A briefe examination for the tyme, of a certaine declaration, lately put in print in the name and defence of certaine Ministers in London, refusyng to weare the apparell prescribed by the lawes and orders of the Realme It were to be wyshed .. that none of them which pretend herein a straytness of conscience, dyd strayne a Gnat and swallowe a Camell. ====================== AFTER 1611 - SOME REFERENCES OF NOTE Post #66 - Dr. Nicholas Bernard, Dean of Kilmore swallow downe, these Scottish camells, and sadly strayne at our English gnats (colorful phrasing) Algernon Sidney (1660) the titles that are given me of fierce, violent, seditious, mutinous, turbulent ... I knowe people will say, I straine at knats, and swallowe camels; that it is a strange conscience, that lets a man runne violently on, till he is deepe in civill blood, and then stays at a fewe words and complements ======== The next is especially insightful, even today ! John Winthrop (1587/8 –1649) led a group of English Puritans to the New World, joined the Massachusetts Bay Company in 1629 and was elected their governor on October 1629. USA Puritan Usage - When usage was Geneva and King James Bible Apparently the same spiritual confusion and malaise situation existed in the 1600's as today. John Winthrop, Reasons for Emigrating to New England (1631). The fountains of Learning & Religion are so corrupted as (besides the unsupportable charge of there education) most children (even the best wits & of fairest hopes) are perverted, corrupted, & utterly overthrowne by the multitude of evill examples & the licentious government of those seminaries, where men straine at gnats & swallow camels Amen ! ========================= BEFORE 1611 - 3 REFERENCES OF "STRAIN A GNAT" "straine a gnat" - different yet indicating the effort. The second includes an early commentary. Encyclopædia metropolitana; or, Universal dictionary of knowledge, Volume XVI (1845) (p. 186) Precisians and plaine plodders (such is this, and so is that) In loue do swallow cammells, whilst They nicely straine a gnat. Warner. Albion's England, book vi. (c.1600) Letters and Exercises of the Elizabethan Schoolmaster John Conybeare (c.1590) They streigne a gnatte through their teeth, and swallowe downe a cammel An apt proverbe applied by oure saviour christ unto the Phariseis, which did aggravate small offences and mayntayne great enormities. It maye be nowe used agaynst such persons as seke out and punishe small offenders, and leat the great trespassours agaynst the la we goe quyte unpunished. Also them that are scrupulouse yn thinges of litle importaunce, and yn ambition, avarice, extorcion, advonterie, theft, murder, treason or heresie. they fynde no daunger of conscience. The Literature of Roguery: Defence of Conny-Catching (1592) You "would straine a gnat, and lette passe an elephant" ======================================= What would round out this survey would be the places with 'strain out' before 1611 in the literature. And I think that may actually be less common than 'strain at' despite the Bible versions, which generally had 'strain out' (Wycliffe being different, an earlier dialect). We saw 'strain out' in the Tyndale's 'Obedience of the Christian Man' (noting the sense was fuller) and it is in Udall's translation of Erasmus. And I remember that one of the references in the 1500s also had a 'strain out' in the same section as 'strain at'. Perhaps some more has been referenced or could be found. However overall it seems reasonable to conclude that 'strain at a gnat' was even the more common and accepted usage before the King James Bible. One brother on a forum was writing, a bit humorously yet earnestly, that he really had hoped to see 'strain at a gnat' to be a kind of providential update and enhancement of the English language from the King James Bible 1611 - even as the claimed misprint ! :) . Right or wrong in concept he presented an interesting view. Alas, there is no possibility of consideration of 'strain at a gnat' being any type of 'misprint', neither providential or simply accidental. Remember, the Oxford English Dictionary gives support to the truth, which we have attempted to share more fully on this thread: "It has been asserted that ‘straine at’ in the Bible of 1611 is a misprint for ‘straine out,’ the rendering of the earlier versions. But the quotations [from] 1583 and 1594 show that the translators of 1611 simply adopted a rendering that had already obtained currency. It was not a mistranslation..’" This definitely precedes the Constantin Hopf paper in 1944, an interesting question how far back goes the O.E.D. reference. Note that true English language scholarship had accepted the full validity of 'strain at a gnat' quite long ago, discarding the weak and feeble attempts to taint this phrase in the King James Bible as a misprint or a mistranslation. The curious question is how the even the pseudo-scholars like Daniel Wallace who know the truth as above would simply ignore it their attempt to claim 'one definite error', a 'scribal corruption' in the King James Bible. An interesting new discovery is that Daniel Wallace, while he ended up putting the O.E.D. reference in a footnote (my conjecture is that he first wrote his articles and then added the footnote when he discovered it contradicted his position) actually omitted the most salient phrase (in the context of his 'one definite error' assertion) from O.E.D. "It was not a mistranslation..’". Daniel Wallace actually had the chutzpah to stop the quote at "obtained currency" and then make a flying jump to a straw-man attempt to weaken the effect (covered in post #45). In the earlier post I did not notice the additional aspect of the transparently dishonest (snipping). Shalom, Steven |
Hi Folks,
One additional note on the astoundingly deficient Daniel Wallace presentations. In the article where Daniel Wallace claims about 'strain out a gnat': http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1197 Changes to the KJV since 1611:An Illustration - Daniel B. Wallace , Th.M., Ph.D. (Bio) "I believe that the KJV of 1611 actually had this wording" Daniel Wallace, in addition to demonstrating incredibly shoddy 'scholarship' skills, since the facts of the matter are well-known and easy to check (post #45) - Wallace actually omits the O.E.D. footnote ! (Of which he is fully aware, since in the other article he has the footnote. And Internet Archives shows these two articles being initially posted at the same time.) Amazing. When Wallace includes O.E.D. he does so duplicitously, with both blatant snipping and the non sequitur diversion attempt. When he cannot include it at all since there is no way to even come up with a phoney counter attempt, he simply omits the reference. And Wallace omits the additional refutation of his attempts to claim 'scribal corruption' etc. given 60+ years ago by Constantin Hopf (referenced in the BDAG lexicon). In these presentations 'Daniel Wallace Th.M., Ph.D' achieves such a height of subtiley dishonest scholarship that he threatens to give garden-variety run-of-the-mill dishonest scholarship a bad name. Daniel Wallace owes the Bible community and the scholastic world not simply a withdrawal of these blunders and deceptions, errors that he has used to try to undermine the faith of brothers and sisters in the pure word of God. Daniel Wallace owes the Bible believers a separate web page article, prominent and publicly-maintained (for a year or more, the deceptions have been up for almost two years), a correction and full apology and without diversionary reservations and excuses. Shalom, Steven |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:47 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Website © AV1611.Com.
Posts represent only the opinions of users of this forum and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the webmaster.
