Strain AT a gnat Matthew 23:24

"Ye blind guides, which strain AT a gnat, and swallow a camel."

There are many who criticize the KJB reading of "strain at a gnat". Some will tell us this is a printing error, yet I would ask how do they know this? It is mere assumption on their part. Others have had no difficulty at all with the rendering of strain at a gnat.

The word "to strain" (diulizo) is found only once in the New Testament. How to translate this word is a matter of perspective. There are at least two different ways to look at the verse as it stands in the King James Bible, and both make sense.

#1. The rendering of "strain at" a gnat, implies only the effort to try to strain out the gnats that might ceremoniously defile their drink and food; it does not necessarily mean they succeeded in always getting them out. The modern versions like the NKJV, NASB, NIV, and even the older English versions of Tyndale and Geneva say "strain OUT a gnat", as though they accomplished what they intended.

In 1729 Daniel Mace made a translation of the New Testament, and in Matthew 23:24 he translated as: "strain..FOR a gnat". This may well be the meaning that can be seen in the Authorized Version.

There is nothing wrong with the KJB reading of "strain at a gnat." Other commentators in the past have had no problem with the way the phrase stands in the King James Bible.

John Gill "To this practice Christ alluded here; and so very strict and careful were they in this matter, that to strain AT (caps mine) 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.

Matthew Henry "they strained AT a gnat, and swallowed a camel. In their doctrine they strained AT gnats, warned people against every the least violation of the tradition of the elders. In their practice they strained AT gnats, heaved AT them, with a seeming dread, as if they had a great abhorrence of sin, and were afraid of it in the least instance"

These two commentators do not try to change the KJB reading here, though they both do so in other parts of the Scriptures. They affirm that the Pharisees had a great outward revulsion for minor sins, yet they swallowed a camel.

How many gnats do you suppose were on that camel they swallowed?

#2 Another way to look at this verse was suggested at a Bible club I belong to. It makes a lot of sense. This brother said that since the word gnat is in the singular and not the plural, the idea is that the Pharisees would strain AT a gnat, which is among the smallest of creatures, in the sense of "at discovering a gnat" or "at finding a gnat in their drink", they would begin the process of straining.

He pointed out the following. "The KJV is speaking of the pharisitical practice of straining wine after a gnat is found in it - hence, strainging at (the discovered presence of) a gnat.

When a gnat was found in wine, of course it was removed by hand. Insects aren't kosher, though some locusts are. What, according to Jewish law, allowed the remaining wine to be kosher was straining it, just in case any more impurities might be found in it. If you couldn't strain it, ALL the wine was to be thrown away. So - they strained AT the discovery of a gnat, which may or may not strain additional gnats.

The 1983 edition of the Chambers Dictionary, which was then known as the Chambers 20th Century Dictionary, contains the following entry, under the headword 'strain' - strain at in Matt. xxiii. 24, to remove by straining, strain IN THE EVENT OF FINDING."

I understand many KJV opponents love this "error", but in my opinion, the only error here is with their understanding of English and Jewish law.

This construction in English is very clear to me and to the editors of what is arguably the utmost authority on the English language, the Oxford English Dictionary. Jews strained when an insect was found - that is, at (the discovery of) a gnat.

"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; that "if a fly falls into the cup of one of them, "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." T. Bab. Megilla, fol, 13. 2. Vid. T. Hietos. Sota, fol. 17. 1.

Notice, they strain AT the discovery of an insect, which is what Jesus alludes to. The Greek word means to filter through, strain thoroughly, or pour through a filter. A literal rendering would indicate filtering the gnat itself, or something through the gnat itself, which makes no sense, thus some interpretation is necessary. Since 'gnat' is singular and people don't generally strain to find only one individual impurity, but many, the KJV's interpretation makes the most sense as one would strain when discovering only one gnat.

Again, far from being an error in the KJV, the KJV has the best translation which fits all the facts. The King James Bible has the better translation.

At the Which Version Bible club I belong to - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/whichversion/ - brother Jeffrey Nachimson commented on this passage saying:

In the famous synthetic lexicon, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, which has of late been edited by the scholar, Frederick Danker, Mr. Danker provides "strain at" and the explanation thereto as a viable rendition of the verb "diulizo" that occurs in its present, active, nominative, masculine, plural participle form in the passage in question.

This material is taken from A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature,Third Edition (BDAG), Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker, based on Walter Bauer's Griechisch-deutches Worterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der fruhchristlichen Literatur, sixth edition, ed. Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, with Viktor Reichmann and on previous English editions by W.F.Arndt, F.W. Gingrich, and F.W. Danker; Copyright 1957; 1979; 2000; The nUniversity of Chicago Press- Chicago and London; page 252:

"diulizo (in fig. sense in Pseudo-Archytas [c. 360 BC; Stob. III/1, p.58, 7 H.]In lit. mng., of wine Plut., Mor. 692d; Diosc. 2, 86; 5, 72; Artem. 4, 48; POxy 413, 154; Am 6:6) filter out, strain out fr. a liquid (the KJV 'strain at' is widely considered a misprint [so Goodsp., Relig. in Life 12, '42/43, 205-10 and Probs. '45, 38f], but for the view that it is an archaic usage s. OED s.v. 'strain,' verb, 14e and esp. 21, and CHopf, Rev. of Engl. Studies 20, '44, 155f; 'STRAIN AT' = STRAIN [the liquid] AT [seeing] a gnat; ton konopa a gnat fr. a drink Mt 23:24.--- DELG s.v. hule."

Secondly, and more interestingly, is the work published and edited by the Greek scholar, Ward Allen. In his work, The Coming of the King James Gospels, Mr. Allen and his co-editor Edward Jacobs compiled a work of what is called a collation of the translators' work in progress. From what I have gathered from reading this work is that a 1610 copy of the 1602 Bishop's Bible was taken from the Bodleian library which contained annotations and revision notes made and used by the translators of the A.V. 1611. Hence, what Mr. Allen and Jacobs have provided for us are some of the A.V. translators thoughts on the readings in the Bishop's Bible in the Gospels that had to be changed. One of the most spectacular markings in this entire work is Matthew 23:24. Here you have the Bishop's reading, "Yee blinde guides, which straine out a gnat, and swallow a camell." Of course, the only mark left on the verse is a note altering "out" to "at." So much for a printer's error. It was a deliberate rendition.

Thank you all for your faithfulness to the most grandiloquent book in the universe. Sincerely in Jesus Christ,

Jeffrey D. Nachimson www.av1611answers.com

I find it highly inconsistent of those who promote the multiple-choice "No bible is inerrant" modern versions, that they will focus in on this single word "at" in the King James Bible, and criticize it as being wrong, all the while committing the very thing this verse is talking about, by swallowing a camel.

For the moment, this minute and debatable difference in meaning of this single two letter word "at" in the phrase "strain at a gnat" seems to have taken on great importance for the King James Bible critic. He shouts to high heaven that it is either a printing error or else a faulty translation in the KJB, but when other far more weightier textual problems are found in his favorite modern versions that don't even agree among themselves, then he goes right back to the same old argument: "Well, the General Message is the same in all versions, and it doesn't really matter which bible you use."

Here are just a few of the more significant textual inconsistencies found in this same chapter of Matthew 23.

In Matthew 23:4 we read: "For they bind heavy burdens AND GRIEVOUS TO BE BORNE, and lay them on men's shoulders."

The reading "and grievous to be borne", (kai dusbastakta) is found in the vast Majority of all manuscripts including Vaticanus. It is also the reading found in the Revised Version of 1881 and in the ASV of 1901. Even the Revised Standard Version and the NRSV continued to include this reading of "and grievous to be borne".

What is curious is how "scholarly" the guys who put together today's multiple-choice bible versions really are. When Westcott and Hort first came out with their wildly revised new Greek text in 1881, they omitted the words "and grievious to be borne" from their text. However, not even the Revised Version nor the American Standard Version followed their very own W.H. texts, but instead included these words as they had previously stood in all English Bibles.

THEN, later on when the UBS and Nestle-Aland critical Greek texts once again added these words to their critical Greek texts, THIS TIME the NASB and NIV decided not to follow their own Greek texts, but instead now omitted this reading! Go figure.

Solely on the basis of one manuscript, Sinaiticus, the NASB and the NIV chose to omit these inspired words. The ever-changing Nestle-Aland, UBS critical texts now include these words in their Greek texts, and many other modern versions still include these words which the NASB and NIV omit.

The words "and grievous to be borne" are found in the 2001 ESV, the brand new International Standard Version, the Holman Standard, NKJV, Hebrew Names Bible, the Complete Jewish Bible, and now the TNIV has gone and put these words back into their text. I guess the old NIV is now "out of date".

In Matthew 23:5 we read: "...they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders OF THEIR GARMENTS." (twn himatiwn). These words are found in the Majority of all texts and in the NIV, NKJV, Revised Version, Hebrew Names Version, Complete Jewish Bible, and the TNIV. The NASB puts them in italics, but the RSV, NRSV, ESV and Holman Standard omit these words because they are not found in Sinaiticus or Vaticanus.

Matthew 23:8 "But be ye not called Rabbi: for one is your Master, EVEN CHRIST; and all ye are brethren."

Here the word "Christ" is again found in the vast majority of all Greek texts, including the Syriac Peshitta, the Old Latin, the Spanish Reina Valera, NKJV, Hebrew Names Version and the Complete Jewish Bible.

But versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV, and Holman Standard all omit it, primarily because the word "Christ" is not found in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. But even here these two "oldest and best" manuscripts do not completely agree with each other in this single verse.

In Matthew 23:14 the ENTIRE VERSE is omitted in such versions as the RV, ASV, RSV, ESV, NIV and the TNIV.

The verse reads: "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation."

This entire verse is found in the majority of all Greek manuscripts including the Syriac Peshitta, the Old Latin, Spanish Reina Valera, the NKJV, Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops' bible, the Geneva Bible, the Modern Greek N.T. used throughout the Greek Orthodox church, the Hebrew Names Version and the Complete Jewish Bible.

The NASB, the International Standard Version and the Holman Standard all place the verse in the text but within brackets. Is it or is it not inspired Scripture? The modern versions can't seem to agree with each other even regarding a whole verse in one chapter of Matthew, and there are many more whole verses in the New Testament where they are all in disagreement - anywhere from 17 to 45 entire verses.

Two more little examples of how the modern versions treat just one single word are found in verses 19 and 38 of this same chapter. In 23:19 we read: "YE FOOLS AND blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?".

Here the words "fools and" are found in the majority of all texts INCLUDING Vaticanus, and the Spanish Reina Valera, NKJV, Geneva, Tyndale, KJB, Syriac Peshitta, Old Latin, Hebrew Names Version and the modern Complete Jewish Bible. BUT versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV and Holman all omit these words, because not found in Sinaiticus.

Then in verse Matthew 23: 38 we read: "Behold, your house is left unto you DESOLATE (ereemos). This little word "desolate" is found in the Majority of all Greek texts, including Sinaiticus, and many ancient versions of the bible.

However Vaticanus omits this word from its text and so did Wescott and Hort. Yet, in spite of the fact that WH text omitted the word, the RV and ASV continued to read as does the KJB and included the word. Lately, once again the Nestle-Aland, UBS Greek critical texts upon which most modern versions are based, have decided to put the word "desolate" back into their ever-changing Greek texts, but in [brackets], indicating doubt as to its authenticity. Versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, and Holman continue to include the word "desolate", but some, like the NASB and RSV tell us in their footnote that "some manuscripts omit 'desolate' " just so we won't get too confident that we really have the inspired words of God.

When some of these gross inconsistencies are pointed out to the X Files bible promoters (the Truth is Out There somewhere), then they retreat from their previous stand of attacking the King James Bible for one little word, and now revert to telling us that it doesn't really matter which bible versions we use because they all somehow have the same "message" even though they differ from one another in thousands of words, and the meanings of hundreds of other verses are changed.

It's a funny world, isn't it?

Shamefacedness 1 Timothy 2:9

"In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with SHAMEFACEDNESS and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array."

In one of the Bible clubs I belong to a member posts the following criticism of the King James Bible reading in this verse: " In 1 Timothy 2:9 the original KJV had "shamefastness" rather than "shamefacedness" which is what the modern KJV has.  These are two different words, the latter of which found its way in the current text by accident.  It is not a literal translation of the underlying Greek word either."

Keep in mind that this Bible critic himself doesn't believe that any Bible or any text is the inerrant word of God. He says: "I believe that God has preserved His Words perfectly in the multiplicity of manuscripts and versions that exist today.  I do not believe, however, that He has perfectly preserved it in any one text, text type, or version."

This illogical double-speak is essentially saying that God has preserved His words in much the same way they are found in Webster's Unabridged Dictionary - they are in there somewhere out of order and mixed up with a lot of words that are not inspired, but nobody knows for sure which ones are which.

Even though this man admits he has no inerrant and inspired Bible, he still thinks he is somehow qualified to criticize the King James Bible and apparently assumes we are to yield to his mere opinion on the matter.

He makes three points about the King James reading of 1 Timothy 2:9; one is correct and the other two are totally wrong. He first says the original 1611 had the word "shamefastness". In this he is correct. In its history, the King James Bible has corrected some printing errors and updated the spelling of certain words, but it has never changed its text or the meaning.

The word "shamefastness" is merely the archaic form of the word "shamefacedness" - which is simply the combination of two common English words - shame and face.

The Online One Look Dictionary

shamefastness

Shamefast \Shame"fast\, Modest; shamefaced. --adverb Shamfastly; noun Shamefastness. [Archaic] See Shamefaced.

Shamefast she was in maiden shamefastness. --Chaucer.

Conscience is a blushing shamefast spirit. --Shak.

Modest apparel with shamefastness. --1 Tim. ii. 9 (Revised Version)

The Webster's dictionary I have here in my study lists Shamefastness and then shows Shamefacedness as the synonym.

Shamefacedness

Merriam Webster Dictionary 10th edition

shame·faced

Function: adjective Etymology: ALTERATION OF SHAMEFAST (Caps are mine) 1 : showing modesty: bashful 2 : showing shame; ashamed - shamefaced·ly adverb - shame·faced·ness noun

The Bible critic is wrong on two counts. These are not two different words as such, but the same word with the same meaning but spelled in a different way. Webster's dictionary tells us this.

Secondly, he is completely wrong in saying this word "found its way in the current text by accident.  It is not a literal translation of the underlying Greek word either."

It is no accident, but a deliberate change in the spelling of the word. It is not even an archaic word, but a perfectly acceptable English word that accurately expresses the thought of the passage.

Furthermore it would be impossible to give "a literal translation" of this word (aidous) since a literal reading would be "not seen" or "not known" which makes no sense and no version renders it this way. The NKJV has "with propriety"; NASB - "with modesty", and the NIV "with decency", none of which are "literal translations" either.

This man who pontificates his mere opinion on such weighty matters is apparently unaware of the meaning of the words involved or of the work of previous Bible translators.

The previous Bible translations that have rendered this passage using the older spelling of SHAMEFASTNESS are Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible, the Revised Version and the American Standard Version of 1901.

The King James Bible merely updated the spelling of this older form of the word to now read SHAMEFACEDNESS. Hey, it was even ahead of the Revised Version and the American Standard Version! :-)

The word "shamefacedness" is not even an archaic word, as any English dictionary will tell you, and the Third Millenium Bible and the KJV 21st Century versions read: "In like manner also, that women should adorn themselves in modest apparel, with SHAMEFACEDNESS and sobermindedness, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly array." Notice that though these versions unnecessarily changed the word "sobriety" to "sobermindedness" they did not change the word "shamefacedness".

This particular Bible critic may not have an inerrant word of God or even know his own English language well enough to teach a junior Sunday school class, but there are thousands of us who believe the Book and will not trade it in for the ever-changing opinions of those who make up their individual "bible versions" as they follow their own creative instincts.

Will Kinney

geovisit();<img src="http://visit.geocities.yahoo.com/visit.gif?us1192325779" alt="setstats" border="0" width="1" height="1">

• < Prev
• Next >