[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by Connie

I don't see how you derive that idea from the post of mine that you referenced.

From your post.

excessive attention to small things to be useful as a proverb nevertheless. ... The Pharisees even today filter their liquid food JUST IN CASE there might be an unclean bug in it .. a worry that one MIGHT be there that they can't see.

When this occurs, no gnat is actually being strained out, but a gnat (or a supposed sought-after gnat) is being strained at ... Thus it looked like you understood one essential distinction. Straining out a gnat presupposes that there even is a gnat, and that it is significant and it is helpful (purifying) to get rid of it .. straining at a gnat puts the emphasis on the effort, which can be largely futile and unnecessary. And this distinction in sense exists even if you substitute the word filter for strain, to see how it sounds if you eliminate the wider use today of 'strain'.

In addition you should keep in mind that proverbial senses often cross languages and time, and Jesus can be speaking in an idiomatic or proverbial sense that is quite similar to the sense we have in the clearer English 'strain at' today.

Originally Posted by Connie

passage is meant to teach us...not to be myopically focused on small concerns when there are much more important ones that need our attention.

True up to a point, however that does not sufficiently cover the futile efffort of "compass sea and land to make one proselyte" or "make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess".

In those cases the incredible amount of effort for no holy purpose is also being emphasized. Everything is topsy-turvy, the efforts are totally futile. The spiritual fundamentals are missed, there is greed and darkness at play, the house is decrepit and rotting, not just priorities askew.

Originally Posted by Connie

I'm not sure I'm up to the depth of research you are suggesting, but if you happen to find a quote somewhere that would shed light on the translators' intention that would be very helpful.

Jeffrey Nachimson read that book as showing that "strain at" was a deliberate decision. That is light shed. Jeffrey has a lot of good scholarship so that sits on the table at the moment. You were mentioning the $40 of one book, I pointed out they are available at university libraries for checking. The likelihood is simply a confirmation of Jeffrey's note. To me that is super-icing on the "strain at" support. For you, I dunno.

Originally Posted by Connie

I'm not sure yet what I think, but if it can be shown for sure that the KJB translators themselves actually chose "strain at" I would concede that they must have had excellent reason for the choice, because I think of them as God-fearing honorable men of the highest scholarship, and men who consulted each other before arriving at their decisions too.

Fine. As it stands right now, Jeffrey's understanding stands undisturbed, and it essentially settles the issue for you, you indicate. A deliberate decision of warrant by the translators. So at leisure take a look at the exact words in the books he mentions, since you would like confirmation that this was a deliberate translation decision by the true language experts.

Originally Posted by Connie

...I don't see the importance you attach to this distinction. ... Futile effort holds up fine as a proverb, but so does using a strainer to get rid of a nearly microscopic unclean food while ingesting a huge unclean beast without a thought.

"strain at" has the extra sense of futility and unnecessary effort to go with the disproportionality that exists in both phrases. Thus it adds a component that is also in the words of Jesus. There is absolutely no sense and purpose in cleaning the outside of a cup with excess and extortion inside. In fact it gives a false impression, it is a futile and deceptive and negative effort. "strain at" includes that negative sense of futility and worthlessness that "strain out" omits.

Originally Posted by Connie

And the fact that three major English Bibles before the King James have "strain out", particularly the Bishop's Bible that the translators were laboring in fact to preserve to the utmost, is very convincing to me that "strain out" is a perfectly fine choice.

An excellent second-best translation. Not errant, simply inferior to "strain at".

Originally Posted by Connie

it would be wonderful to find any comment by one of the translators saying that they choose "strain at" over "strain out" and giving their reasons, because all the reasons you or I can think of just remain conjecture.

The very fact of the demonstrated deliberate nature of the change to "strain at" has refuted the old-time canard that this was a printer's error never corrected. That was the key to the anti-KJB attack position and it was fully refuted (granted we would like a little confirmation of how that material reads). That was hugely helpful in the discussion.

I expect you will have that and our conjectures and explanations and understandings, no more and no less.

Shalom,
Steven