[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Previously I have noted Oxford English Dictionary, Constantin Hopf, Jeffrey Nachimson and 'Jerome' on the BibleBaptistBoard as especially helpful in the history of rebutting the misprint myth-accusation. There are number of other heroes in this battle.

A few years back Jack Moorman put together a nice rebuttal that you can see at:

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fbconies.htm#Strain
Strain "At", or "Out" a Gnat

Now Jack Moorman did not mention a lot of the information that we have available today. We did discuss one grammatical point also given by Thomas Strouse earlier. Jack Moorman does adds two other points that I have not given full emphasis.

Early commentators such as Poole and Henry do not mention any problem with the passage.

Poole was top commentary, about 1670, Matthew Henry was in the same lineage of early commentaries coming from the Reformation, about 1705. And you can add John Gill similarly a bit later, his commentary is on post #33.

Matthew Henry gives a nice commentary, since it was earlier .

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/henry/mhc5.Matt.xxiv.html
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible

They avoided lesser sins, but committed greater (v. 24); Ye blind guides; so he had called them before (v. 16), for their corrupt teaching; here he calls them so for their corrupt living, for their example was leading as well as their doctrine; and in this also they were blind and partial; they strained at a gnat, and swallowed a camel. In their doctrine they strained at gnats, warned people against even 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; but they made no difficulty of those sins which, in comparison with them, were as a camel to a gnat; when they devoured widows' houses, they did indeed swallow a camel; when they gave Judas the price of innocent blood, and yet scrupled to put the returned money into the treasury (ch. xxvii. 6); when they would not go into the judgment-hall, for fear of being defiled, and yet would stand at the door, and cry out against the holy Jesus (John xviii. 28); when they quarrelled with the disciples for eating with unwashen hands, and yet, for the filling of the Corban, taught people to break the fifth commandment, they strained at gnats, or lesser things, and yet swallowed camels. It is not the scrupling of a little sin that Christ here reproves; if it be a sin, though but a gnat, it must be strained at, but the doing of that, and then swallowing a camel. In the smaller matters of the law to be superstitious, and to be profane in the greater, is the hypocrisy here condemned.

Not only does Matthew Henry not mention any problem, four times he gives specific note of how Pharisees strained at gnats ! The English to him was powerful and clear and purposeful. The later Keystone Kops of grammar were not around and his comprehension and commentary was excellent.

Matthew Poole and Matthew Henry specifically show us that in the critical period 1611 to 1750 not only was every edition of the King James Bible consistent, the commentators were skilled and aware of the text.

The second point from Jack Moorman has to do with those in the 1800s that did maintain some sense, who, even if preferring "strain out" and even if not knowing the powerful and multi-usages from 1540-1610 (ie. the OED and Hopf refutations were future) understood that the accusation was essentially without merit. Shortly I plan to give a bit of backdrop on the men who did wear a thinking cap in the 1800s. Or at least considered the history and text sensibly.

Shalom,
Steven