KJV - Strain at a gnat; Archaic?

[AntennaFarmer]

Warning whistles blow! Whoo, Whoo,

No fair, you're going back to the original Greek. :tongue3:

Rob

....and quoted from the NIV too.

 

[Eliyahu]

I am very much impressed by what Jerome posted. Many thanks to Jerome.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Atis a preposition provided by the translator to connect the verb (action) to the following substantive (noun). Here the noun is to strain (filter). The substantive is the gnat. This is much the same sense as in: "I will shoot three arrows to the side of it, as though I were shooting at a target." 1Sa 20:20 (NIV). Someone will object that at implies direction. That is not always true. An example would be: "Let's have a go at surfing." Ask a teenager if he has any problem understanding that!

I have heard this before, and seems that the basis is that "at" following the verb implies that the action may be ineffective upon the substantive.

To clarify by example: "shooting at"(as in shooting towards) the target, but with the possibility of missing it; or having a "go at"(as in attempting) surfing, but the effort may fail to qualify or the outcome in doubt; and "strain at"(as in filtering for) a gnat, but perhaps not being successful. In fact, the suggestion has even been made that there may not actually be a gnat present to begin with.

It seems that "at" in this context defines the substantive as the goal, or an objective, to be attempted.

 

[franklinmonroe]

...There is no corresponding word to out in the Greek original...

Also true of "at". It has already been established that the preposition (whether "at", "out", "for", etc) is provided by the translator, and so this is where the dispute arises. There is also no corresponding Greek word for "which" in Matt. 23:24 either, but that does not mean it doesn't belong in the English translation.

Although, currently it would seem "out" has better foundation for its presence. In this case diulozo in Strongs includes "strain through" or "strain out" as part of the definition. A Greek word is often (necessarily or not) translated by more than one English word. Greek does not have the indefinate article at all (the "a" before the words "gnat" and "camel" in this verse); but it is correctly supplied in English to indicate that the substantive is singular and non-specific.

 

[franklinmonroe]

I am afraid that the actual answer is simpler than it appears. The KJV reading in Matthew 23:24 is neither a translation error, a misprint nor even archaic. It is good English...

Well, it seems that many individuals seem to know absolutely that "strain at" is not wrong while at the very same time there is collectively great uncertainty as to the reason it is right.

Here are some of the many different reasons offered why "strain at" has been dogmatically held up as the only possible correct translation, followed by my opinion of the theory:

1) it means to look upon intensely - completely false
2) it is an archaic meaning the same as "strain out" - some possible evidence
3) it implies an objective that may not be achieved, or does not exsist - conjecture
4) it implies a great exertion being applied during the filtering - conjecture
5) it implies the filtering only begins as a result of the discovery of a gnat - conjecture

 

[franklinmonroe]

From the 'Lamsa' Bible at Matthew 23:24--

O blind guides, who strain at gnats, and swallow camels.

Here Lamsa follows the unique translation of "strain at" from the KJV (again, as I have contended in another topic).

From the Aramaic English Standard Translation--

Blind guides! You strain the gnats, and swallow the camels.

Evidently, the "gnats" and "camels" are plural in the Peshitta version. The AEST avoids using any preposition.

From the Rheims New Testament (an English translation of the Latin Vulgate)--

Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.

The Rheims was contemporary to the AV. If this accurrately represents the Latin, then Christians worldwide using the Vulgate believed that the correct meaning was "strain out" for over 1000 years.

 

[Jerome]

From the Rheims New Testament (an English translation of the Latin Vulgate)--

Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.

The Rheims was contemporary to the AV.

The Rheims underwent a major revision in the eighteenth century.
The original Rheims that was contemporary to the KJ translation has no out, but strain a gnat.

 

[franklinmonroe]

The original Rheims that was contemporary to the KJ translation has no out, but strain a gnat.

Thank you, Jerome. Do you know which is a more accurrate translation of the Latin? (original or revised)

 

[robycop3]

Actually, I see no cause for contention here, Bros! I believe we all know what it means, whether it says "at", "out", or "strain a gnat".

 

[AntennaFarmer]

I have heard this before, and seems that the basis is that "at" following the verb implies that the action may be ineffective upon the substantive.

That isn't my argument at all. So you will pardon me for not discussing it.

The question is merely one of grammar. The King James Version reads correctly. We just aren't used to saying it that way. Furthermore, strain out is an idiom. It isn't necessary to say strain out when strain alone is sufficient.

I think strain a gnat is a pretty literal translation. In English it doesn't work so well though. The at in the King James is quite helpful in connecting things up since we normally strain a liquid rather than gnats.

I agree that some of the defenses are bad. Some of the attacks are sillier though.

BTW: I had never heard of the eyestrain theory. The more common mistaken interpretation is to "gag on a gnat."

A.F.

 

[franklinmonroe]

...BTW: I had never heard of the eyestrain theory. The more common mistaken interpretation is to "gag on a gnat."

A.F., the "eyestrain" theory was my first impression of this passage as I read it in my youth. Anyway, I am not familiar with the "gag" theory... care to elaborate? Thanks

 

[franklinmonroe]

...I agree that some of the defenses are bad. Some of the attacks are sillier though...

To be fair, there are a lot of folks (many cited) that are sure that "strain at" is wrong, but no consensus as to why it is wrong. A couple of reasons offered, and my opinion--

1) it is a misprint, a printer's error - false (there is evidence of intent)
2) it is a mistranslation - some evidence to show it was proper originally (an archaic phrase to us now, or still acceptable grammar)

 

[Ed Edwards]

AntennaFarmer: //The more common mistaken interpretation is to "gag on a gnat."//

That is true.

Franklinmonroe: //Anyway, I am not familiar with the "gag" theory... care to elaborate? Thanks//

Uh, 'more common mistake' - you should dig it.

how about this?
The more common mistaken misunderstanding is to "gag on a gnat."
I.E. you can't swollow a gnat but can swollow a camel.

More what the scripture is talking is that one who strains (filters)
their wine to avoid an unclean insect yet chugs down an
unclearn camel

 

[AntennaFarmer]

To be fair, there are a lot of folks (many cited) that are sure that "strain at" is wrong, but no consensus as to why it is wrong. A couple of reasons offered, and my opinion--

1) it is a misprint, a printer's error - false (there is evidence of intent)
2) it is a mistranslation - some evidence to show it was proper originally (an archaic phrase to us now, or still acceptable grammar)

It sounds like we aren't too far apart on the question.

A.F.

 

[franklinmonroe]

AntennaFarmer: //The more common mistaken interpretation is to "gag on a gnat."//

Oh! I think I get it now. In this theory, 'to strain' implies 'to gag' (and the words "at" or "out" aren't really the focus), right? The filtering is occurring directly within the throat!

I had heard that the Pharisees tried to filter their drink through their teeth and lips to prevent contamination, but I never heard of the gag reflex playing a part.

 

[franklinmonroe]

It sounds like we aren't too far apart on the question.

Brother A.F., if you're looking for the truth too, then we never were far apart.

 

[Jerome]

Thank you, Jerome. Do you know which is a more accurrate translation of the Latin? (original or revised)

No. For what it is worth, both seem to adequately express the meaning of excolantes.
Wycliff used clensing, which is more a paraphrase.
Thankfully, even the RCC now goes to the original languages.

 

[kubel]

I'd like to thank kubel for originally starting this discussion.

Don't thank me, thank Jerome, he provided a ton of useful info.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Don't thank me, thank Jerome, he provided a ton of useful info.

OK, special thanks to Jerome. A useful ton? I dunno about that: but he did provide a key post at #13 (which I was eventually able to verify from a second source). Thanks also to A.F. (with his key post at #29). I will say again, thanks to all.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Actually, I see no cause for contention here, Bros! I believe we all know what it means, whether it says "at", "out", or "strain a gnat".

Robycop3, I hope there hasn't been contention (just debate). Perhaps, many on this board know what it means, but clearly there have been (and still are) many unbased interpretations circulating.