[Steven Avery]

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

[Steven Avery]

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

[Steven Avery]

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

[Steven Avery]

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

[Steven Avery]

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.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

.. 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.

Yep. Let me give a modern example.

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

[Steven Avery]

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)

[Steven Avery]

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

[Will Kinney]

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

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by Will Kinney

contributing much valuable research into the matter.

Most welcome, Will. Sometimes the objections of the 'Bible correctors' and of those confused is actually helpful since it encourages us to really look closer at the Bible text, and the commentary and language and history .. Now I can more leisurely go in and out of various issues related to "strain at a gnat". Here are a few miscellaneous notes on the early days.

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

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

[Steven Avery]

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