You seem to be asking me to do a lot of work to check out what you are saying to even know what you are talking about so I can't answer until I have more time to slog through it all. I have been answering according to what I remember at Will Kinney's site (all speculation except for the reference to Allen and Jacobs) and of what was posted from John Gill (nothing referring to "filtering") and what I remember seems to remain true.

I don't see why it matters that a lexicon is a favorite of "textcrits" if all they have to offer is that same strained explanation of "strain at" that isn't convincing evidence.

Perhaps you have finally given enough information for me to follow your point about Jeffrey Nachimson, but you still refer me back to a previous post you don't identify and I don't recall. You don't like to make it easy to understand you it seems.

In the last post perhaps you are now offering some real evidence that the change was deliberate, which I asked for a long time ago, which is quite amazing after this long go-round, but I will have to think about it later.

However, isn't it odd that such a long list of pre-KJB commentaries have "strain at" when the Bibles of the time had "strain out?" Nobody has even tried to explain how that might have happened either-- or have I missed that explanation too? (It could be). Early in this discussion somebody already posted two pre-KJB commentators that had "strain at" -- I haven't overlooked that fact but again, nobody has explained it as of yet that I recall.

And which one on the list was a KJ translator, why don't you identify him instead of making me look it up? -- the way you insisted that I look up John Gill without giving any reason why I should make that extra effort.

You tediously misunderstand me, you tediously require me to fill in blanks you should have filled in yourself for the sake of politeness and ease of communication, and only now are you seeming to come up with actual evidence. Fine, I'll check it out later.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by Connie

You seem to be asking me to do a lot of work to check out

Connie, I am not asking you to do anything. Nothing at all.

At this point I am posting for the forum and friends and researchers, and studying for edification. If something there is of interest to you, fine. I'll post the John Gill commentary for simplicity, without comment and with no request for discussion.

Originally Posted by Connie

Early in this discussion somebody already posted two pre-KJB commentators that had "strain at"

If anyone sees that or runs into it or remembers it and it can be copied or linked to, as an addition to the last post, it would be helpful.

The last post is meant for the dozens of web sites and writers who have falsely claimed a "printer's error" a "misprint' a "typographical error" a "definite error". Or for those who have to contend with such shenanigans.

Shalom,
Steven

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

===========================
http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/ge...=023&verse=024
http://eword.gospelcom.net/comments/.../matthew23.htm
John Gill

Matthew 23:24

Ye blind guides…
As in (Matthew 23:16)

who strain at a gnat and swallow a camel:
the Syriac and Persic versions read the words in the plural number, gnats and camels. The Jews had a law, which forbid them the eating of any creeping thing, (Leviticus 11:41) and of this they were strictly observant, and would not be guilty of the breach of it for ever so much.

``One that eats a flea, or a gnat; they say F16 is (rmwm) , "an apostate";''

one that has changed his religion, and is no more to be reckoned as one of them. Hence they very carefully strained their liquors, lest they should transgress the above command, and incur the character of an apostate; and at least, the penalty of being beaten with forty stripes, save one; for,

``whoever eats a whole fly, or a whole gnat, whether alive or dead, was to be beaten on account of a creeping flying thing F17.''

Among the accusations Haman is said to bring against them to Ahasuerus, and the instances he gives of their laws being different from the king's, this one F18; that

``if a fly falls into the cup of one of them, (whtwvw wqrwz) , "he strains it, and drinks it"; but if my lord the king should touch the cup of one of them, he would throw it to the ground, and would not drink of it.''

Maimonides says F19,

``He that strains wine, or vinegar, or strong liquor, and eats "Jabchushin" (a sort of small flies found in wine cellars F20, on account of which they strained their wine), or gnats, or worms, which he hath strained off, is to be beaten on account of the creeping things of the water, or on account of the creeping flying things, and the creeping things of the water.''

Moreover, it is said F21,

``a man might not pour his strong liquors through a strainer, by the light (of a candle or lamp), lest he should separate and leave in the top of the strainer (some creeping thing), and it should fail again into the cup, and he should transgress the law, in (Leviticus 11:41) .''

To this practice Christ alluded here; and so very strict and careful were they in this matter, that to strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel, became at length a proverb, to signify much solicitude about little things, and none about greater. These men would not, on any consideration, be guilty of such a crime, as not to pay the tithe of mint, anise, and cummin, and such like herbs and seeds; and yet made no conscience of doing justice, and showing mercy to men, or of exercising faith in God, or love to him. Just as many hypocrites, like them, make a great stir, and would appear very conscientious and scrupulous, about some little trifling things, and yet stick not, at other times, to commit the grossest enormities, and most scandalous sins in life.

FOOTNOTES:

F16 T. Bab. Avoda Zara, fol. 26. 2. & Horaiot, fol. 11. 1.
F17 Mainon. Hilch. Maacolot Asurot, c. 2. sect. 22.
F18 T. Bab. Megilla, fol, 13. 2. Vid. T. Hietos. Sota, fol. 17. 1.
F19 Ubi supra, (Mainon. Hilch. Maacolot Asurot, c. 2.) sect. 20.
F20 Gloss. in T. Bab. Cholin, fol. 67. 1.
F21 Ib.
====================================

Shalom,
Steven

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Just a few responses to Connie before seeking to continue with the studies about "strain at a gnat".

Originally Posted by Connie

Perhaps you have finally given enough information for me to follow your point about Jeffrey Nachimson, but you still refer me back to a previous post you don't identify and I don't recall. You don't like to make it easy to understand you it seems.

On post #22 on this thread I gave a URL to your own extract of Jeffrey's article from Will's article where you called it the "one piece of objective evidence" (in fact the article has lots of objective evidence). On post #23 I give a URL to Jeffrey's full, original post on Whichversion. Now on post#30 I have added an additional full quote about the same material from Ward Allen about the translator Bodleian 1602 notations by FranklinMonroe on the Baptist Board.

Originally Posted by Connie

And which one on the list was a KJ translator, why don't you identify him instead of making me look it up?

The following is actually written directly in the post #30:

George Abbot, ***KJV translator on the Oxford commitee assigned the Gospels***

================================================== ================

You had a responsibility to look up John Gill as you had severely misrepresented what he said, wrongly claiming that he was not referring to filtering. Will Kinney extracted the section about the formation of the proverb from 'this practice' of the Pharisees, and this practice was the detailed explanation of the various straining (filtering) strictures of the Pharisees. And you made your incorrect assertion on John Gill based on that one paragraph in Will's article, without even noticing 'this practice' or checknig what Gill says, repeatedly blaming others for your error. So I have now placed in post #30 the full section from John Gill on the forum.

Connie, there is no need to respond to any of the above, I only include it for completeness before continuing on to the studies.

Shalom,
Steven

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Matthew 23:24 (KJB 1611)
Ye blind guides,
which straine at a gnat,
and swallow a camel.

The two earliest sources I have found for the "misprint" canard and false accusation are Adam Clarke and Noah Webster, both writing about 1820.

Clarke's section is as follows.

Verse 24. 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.

How the Arabic proverb helps his exposition is a puzzle and I am not sure of the early Wycliffe English.

Noah Webster had many criticisms of the Authorized Version, along with a type of respect, and he ended up writing his own Bible with modifications, which version was an abject failure.

One of his major criticisms was indelicate language in the Authorized Version, and the Christian Examiner and General Review in 1835 humourously referred to this and to his attempts to discipline pronounciation :

To our author's somewhat jaundiced eye every thing, it must be confessed, is 'out of joint.'

Webster may have begun the 'misprint' canard, or been an early popularizer. from 1820 to 1835 Webster variously refers to how Tyndale, the Bishop's Bible and older English Bibles have "strain out".

One example of his writing on this issue was in A Collection of Papers given by Nesta Helen Webster (1843).

In Matthew xxiii, 24, the word at should be out : " Who strain out a gnat." Every boy in our grammar schools knows that the Greek verb used here signifies to filter. Christ did not refer to extraordinary efforts in swallowing a gnat, but to the purifying of liquor by filtering it. The use of at is evidently an oversight or misprint, for in the first version of the Bible by Tyndale, the word out is used. All the versions of the New Testament in my possession, six in number and in different languages, are correct, except the English. It is surprising that such an obvious mistake should remain uncorrected for more than two centuries.

With these two commentaries the false accusation took on a life of its own.

As a sidenote, Alexander Campbell's NT (1826) had:
"who strain your liquor, to avoid swallowing a gnat"

Clarke and Webster set the stage, and Albert Barnes, around 1860, followed in the 'misprint' path. Talking of 'earlier versions' some might have misunderstood this as a reference to earlier King James Bibles, especially considering the next sentence. Note that Barnes is the first one I have found to actually (falsely) claim in an assertive manner that the translators desired "strain out a gnat".

"Which strain at a gnat, etc. This is a proverb. There is, however, a mistranslation or misprint here, which makes the verse unmeaning. To strain AT a gnat conveys no sense. It should have been, to strain OUT a gnat; and so it is printed in some of the earlier versions; and so it was undoubtedly rendered by the translators. The common reading is a misprint, and should be corrected. The Greek means, to strain out by a cloth or sieve."

David Brown of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown (1871) a bit more guardedly referenced the misprint accusation.

24. Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat--The proper rendering--as in the older English translations, and perhaps our own as it came from the translators' hands--evidently is, "strain out." It was the custom, says TRENCH, of the stricter Jews to strain their wine, vinegar, and other potables through linen or gauze, lest unawares they should drink down some little unclean insect therein and thus transgress (@Le 11:20,23,41,42)--just as the Buddhists do now in Ceylon and Hindustan--and to this custom of theirs our Lord here refers.

Scrivener's 1873 Paragraph Edition had "strain out a gnat" as one of his

"Wrong readings of the Bible of 1611 amended in later editions".

"So all the early versions from Tyndale to the Bishop’s Bible, and even T. Baskett’s 8 vo. edition of the Authorized, London, 8 vo. 1754, Brit. Mus. 1411. f. 5" - F H A Scrivener of his "strain out a gnat" 'correction'.

Note that Scrivener was more accurate in his Greek work on the King James Bible text than he was on the English !

In 1881 Schaff used the term "typographical error".
In 1897 Easton used "mere typographical error".

Thus we have a short overview of how the false misprint/typographical/printing error accusation gained currency in the 1800's and became the standard approach of King James Bible correctors.

The continuation of this in the early 1900's by Ryrie and Bullinger and Goodspeed and others is therefore of no surprise, although some add their own twist. The interesting question is how modern writers, like Price and Wallace and Minton and Norris and others (including many lemmings in the no-pure-KJB gang) who should have been easily able to discern that this accusation had no merit, continue to write improperly about the verse. Time and energy permitting, and if the readers like, we will look at some of the modern discussion in a future post.

Shalom,
Steven

[bibleprotector]

This is interesting stuff to present. One thing we notice about those who readily reject the King James Bible view is that they will jump at anything to attack the KJB (it is like they will more quickly accept an atheist’s opinion against the KJB than anything else). It is clear that already unbelief was much advanced by Webster, and that by the time of Trench, Scrivener and others, this view was continued by the "scholars", so that the modern writers can make something "fact" because of the apparent depth of attestation.

[Diligent]

Steven, thank you for your labors in defense of the KJV reading here. I think this thread has some of the most detailed information on this verse that I have read.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by Diligent

thank you for your labors in defense of the KJV reading here. I think this thread has some of the most detailed information on this verse that I have read.

Welcome. That is likely true so far on the issue of how the false 'printer's error' accusation arose and the proof positive that 'strain at a gnat' was a deliberate and conscious translation decision by the King James Bible experts. We were able to combine various evidences, and three overwhelming evidences complement each other and combine to settle that issue, so there is no confusion. Just place a few puzzle pieces together that usually were separated, or missing. When I found the thread with the references that demonstrate usage of "strain at" in English I sat on it for awhile, then the other day I realized how that ices the cake of the translator notes and the consistency of King James Bible editions. In the face of a mountain of agreeing and corroborative and clear evidence, nobody with any sense can see those elements and claim with a straight face "printer's error" or "definite error" or "misprint". To do so would only demonstrate a stupefying animosity to the King James Bible, since the evidence clearly shows that the Greek and English experts decided that "strain at" was simply their preferred translation. A scholar may disagree with their conclusion, but the dismissal attempts of the last 200 years are now shown to be pseudo-scholarly deception.

Also we show how folks prone to confusion, like Webster and Clarke, later Bullinger and Goodspeed and others, kept the canard of an error on the warm burner of discussion about the King James Bible. To be picked up with a gnashing of teeth and a confused vengeance by the likes of Kutilek and Wallace and Price and others, egged on by the deliberately incomplete leading and misleading presentation by Norris.

As for the modern discussion, it would be nice in a few days to review the current writers of interest, and perhaps help to eliminate the canard from the public arena once and for all.

That still leaves open the issue of what is the 'best' transaltion into English, although it pretty much settles that none of the regular translations, strain at or strain out and some others, are "errors" per se, the critical accusation attempt.

So would be nice to show the issues at play, giving each one a short presentation. I've noticed that the best discussions of each of these are widely scattered. Here are the groupings, and I might be omitting a bit.

1) Bible context
2) English comparative usages and idiom/proverb issues
3) Greek grammatical issues - e.g. no Greek pronoun, tense, etc.
Greek translational usages - e.g. early church writers
Greek lexicon understanding
4) Hebraic understandings (proverb, idiom, usages, Talmud etc)

The Greek grammatical issues are possibly the least discussed of these, and apparently they give quite solid support of "strain at" over "strain out".

My problem with "strain out" is not a lack of sense, both phrases have their internal consistency, strain out allows for a simple declaration, you take care of the small things and miss (or gag on) the giants. Strain at will imply the same and some more, that you are overly concerned about the small things while missing the giants.

My concern with "strain out", why it appears to be inferior, is that, from my studies of the issues above, the actual context and sense and grammar of what was spoken by the Lord Jesus apparently fits "strain at" better. It is very easy to see how earlier translators like the Geneva would have felt satisfied with "strain out", there is nothing inconsistent with the phrasing, even though there is a redundancy and a pronoun insertion that is hard to justify. And then it is also very easy to see how the best Greek and English experts, the King James Bible translators, felt that "strain at" was a more true representation of the words of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Shalom,
Steven

[Josh]

Great information! I thank the Lord for clearing this issue up for us, as I've seen this mentioned before as well. Thanks Steven!

Josh

[Steven Avery]

preposition, not pronoun

Shalom,
Steven