[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Now what we have above is essentially Tymme translating John Calvin. For completeness though, here is a bit about the commentary intermediary, Marlorate, showing that his work would be highly respected in Oxford and Cambridge scholarship, even independent of the John Calvin material.

http://books.google.com/books?id=FF4QAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA223
MARLORATUS [MARLORAT] (AUGUSTINE. 1560—1562).
Exposition. Translated by Thomas Tymme. Folio. Lond., 1570.

Marlorate was an eminent French reformer, preacher, and martyr. His commentaries contain the cream of the older writers, and are in much esteem, but are very rare. He wrote on the whole New Testament, but we have in English only the Gospels and John.

And Thomas Tymme was a parish priest and translator, including Augustine and Calvin and historical and scientific works. (Print and Protestantism in Early Modern England by I. M. Green p. 310)

Remember this is on top of almost a dozen earlier evidences (that is what we have extant and available) throughout this thread of usages of "strain at a gnat" and similar from a wide variety of sources before the King James Bible translation. Apparently the evidences had never been placed together before, today we have a few extra tools at hand to help destroy strongholds and pretensions against the pure and perfect word of God.

Constatin Hopf, in the excellent scholarly paper in 1944, doesn't stop with Thomas Tymme.

Eusebius Paget (1542-1617) translated Calvin's Harmonia in 1584, leading to an independent English version:

"Therefore they doe as much, as if a man shoulde straine at a crumme of bread, and swallow downe a whole loafe. Wee know that a gnat is a small creature, and a camel a great beast: nothing therefore is more ridiculous then to straine wine or water, leaste thou shouldest hurt the iawes with swallowing vp a gnat, but carelessly suppe vp a camel." -

Paget, Eusebius. A Harmonie Vpon The Three Euangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke .translated out of Latine into English (London: 1584)

Print and Protestantism in Early Modern England by I. M. Green (p. 136) tells us that this harmony/commentary in English of Calvin from Paget was still on sale in 1595 and even reprinted in 1610, so clearly it would be readily available in Oxford and Cambridge.

Paget's Epistle Dedicatory to these editions is online at : http://www.biblestudyguide.org/comme...l31/htm/vi.htm
The translation and editorial commentary given on the web site is later.

The import of these two quotes is enormous is the final disassembling of the 'printer error' canard. Clearly, they would have been unknown to the false accusers of the King James Bible over 200 years (as well as the other quotes, such as the one from the King James Bible translator) who never show an inkling of historical knowledge. So quick to accuse the word of God. Amazingly not even the modern anti-KJB crew never seem able to find these quotes or the Hopf paper. Yet they railed and whined and continue to do so.. 'printer error. .. misprint ..etc.'.

We can summarize a bit more later, however for now it is enough to simply point out the obvious .. with the Constatin Hopf material at hand the accusation is even more busted (if you can be busted more than 100%).

And why give all this detail about Marlorate, Tymme, Paget ? Well it is interesting for one. And amazingly enough, despite the mountain of evidence of the usage 'strain at a gnat' being fully an accepted part of the English language understanding of Matthew 23:24 at the time of the King James Bible - you may still run into some folks who will try to claim :

'misprint .. printer's error .. scribal corruption .. typographical error'
-- or even:
'I think the original 1611 King James Bible actually had strain out'

The multi-level of obtuseness of those adverse to the purity of the King James Bible can be truly astounding. Thus it is appropriate to use this thread for a solid and full level of documentation, while we learn more about those men who read and translated and laboured with the scriptures, the word of God, 400 and more years ago.

Shalom,
Steven

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by Will Kinney

challenged brother Steve and me to debate this phrase.

A quick note - (barely worth talking about in the midst of such fascinating scholarly material however a response may be appropriate). The semi-obvious. Since this poster, and even the thread subject, refers to me in strange ways, my shoes will be happy to be unsoiled and thus not need to be dusted off. (Political and personal subject lines tend to indicate a puerile and petulant thread-starter and also lack of forum decorum. Remember, in contrast, how Brandon very appropriately modified one thread title on this forum that had a sense of being too harshly doctrinal or even might be seen be some as personally offensive. After the modification the thread continued quite nicely.) All this is similar to a stance that this forum very properly takes towards obnoxious posters (ie. the right boot of non-posting-fellowship). And a stance that I take here and there towards trollish posting on forums that might have some redeeming posting value.

(A quick sidenote: I am not calling one person who was on this thread earlier obnoxious, not at all, I believe there likely were other forum decorum concerns and I know the moderatorship has been excellent.)

Nonetheless that forum discussion has already led to some good scholarship leads, as per the last posts here that followed up on the leads, so I do not want my personal view to be overstated upon others. I just feel a responsibility to state the semi-obvious in repsonse. And that good sharing and discussion venues are hard to find .

Shalom,
Steven

[Will Kinney]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

The aspect of the translator's notes was apparently a misunderstanding by Jeffrey Nachimson (Jeffrey put together a lot of fine material in an article going back to 2006) of the methodology of the Ward Allen book, corrected on one thread by Rick Norris. It was an apparently nice evidence that helped get this thread moving, scaffolding in a sense. However at this point with the mountain of evidences the removal of the notes from the above evidences is of little note. Thanks for this correction, Rick Norris.

Hi Steve. Was this information false or not stated correctly? What did Norris say about it? Any links to the discussion so we can see it? I don't want to use that "note in the Bishops' bible" info unless it's true.

Thanks

Will K

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

The translation of William Tyndale is often properly given as an example of an early translation with the major earlier phrase that was modified in the King James Bible:

Matthew 23:24
Ye blind guides,
which strain out a gnat,
and swallow a camel.

As we are seeing, the King James Bible was the one English Bible to fully convey the understanding of Matthew 23:24.

Ye blind guides,
which straine at a gnat,
and swallow a camel.

moving away from the stifled and repetitious and limited sense of 'strain out' to give the more accurate sense that was understood by Bible interpreters like Gregory of Nyssa and Desiderius Erasmus and John Calvin (seen here through Tymme and Paget courtesy of Marlorate, brought forth by Constantin Hopf) and the interpreters at the time of the skilled and most excellent King James Bible labours.

In "The Obedience of a Christian Man" in 1528, two years after his NT translation, William Tyndale spoke specifically about the gnats and camels, applying the analogy to popery, to the RCC. Tyndale points out how they emphasize the empty gnats of ritualism yet swallow the camels through whoredom and the killing of the saints.

Here is the passage.

The Obedience of a Christian Man,and how Christian Rulers ought to govern, wherein also, (if thou mark diligently) thou shalt find eyes to perceive the crafty conveyance of all Jugglers.

“Ye blind guides,” saith Christ, “ye strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.” Do not our blind guides also stumble at a straw, and leap over a block; making narrow consciences at trifles, and at matters of weight none at all? If any of them happen to swallow his spittle, or any of the water wherewith he washeth his mouth, ere he go to mass; or touch the sacrament with his nose; or if the ass forget to breathe on him, or happen to handle it with any of his fingers which are not anointed; or say ‘Alleluia’ instead of ‘Laus tibi, Domine;’ or ‘Ite, missa est’ instead of ‘Benedicamus Domino;’ or pour too much wine in the chalice; or read the gospel without light; or make not his crosses aright, how trembleth he! How feareth he ! What an horrible sin is committed ! I cry God mercy (saith he), and you, my ghostly father. But to hold an whore, or another man's wife, to buy a benefice, to set one realm at variance with another, and to cause twenty thousand men to die on a day, is but a trifle and a pastime with them.

Doctrinal Treatises and Introductions to Different Portions of the Holy Scripture, by William Tyndale, Martyr, 1536 (Henry Walter ed., The Parker Society, Cambridge, 1848), pp. 7-8.

An astounding and powerful passage.

And it is simple to see that the analogy used by William Tyndale is not simply of a benign, passive filtering and straining for purification. The stumbles, the strains, are overwrought and overdone, unnecessary efforts, with Tyndale using RCC rituals as the examples, the trifles .. to be condemned. (Contrasted with the camels of sin and murder that the blind guides consider trifles.) Thus in the William Tyndale understanding, in his deep commentary excoriating popery, the interpretative sense of the verse is that those gnats are being very much strained at.

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

"stumble at a straw, and leap over a block"

at the time of William Tyndale was already a common proverb.
Referenced as a common proverb in A C. Mery Talys (London, 1526).
And I highly recommend this full page as a helpful read to understanding the sense.

http://www.earlymodernweb.org.uk/wal...mtwelshman.htm
Wales and the Law, c.1500-1800

... Here ye may see that some have remorse of conscience of small venial sins and fear not to do great offenses without shame of the world or dread of God

And "stumble at a straw, and leap over a block" also became a ballad, licensed 1562-3.

These two books show the similarity of the Biblical phrase and the common proverb. Tyndale was using both, as an aid to his readers.

http://books.google.com/books?id=ja4YAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA543
A Hand-book of Proverbs - Bohn 1828
http://books.google.com/books?id=3t7XywRWUx4C&pg=PA144
A Compleat Collection of English Proverbs

To strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
To stumble at a straw, and leap over a block.
These two proverbs have the same sense :
the former is used by our Saviour. Matt, xxiii. 24.

Shalom,
Steven

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by Will Kinney

Was this information false or not stated correctly?

Apparently Jeffrey misunderstood the methodology of the Ward Allen book, ie. which notes were made in the 1600s and which notes were put in by the modern collators to show the difference between the Bishop's Bible text at hand and the King James Bible 1611. (The question was about being over or under the line.) While it has been on my warm burner to visit a University library for a few sources, including this one, Rick Norris offered enough detail reference to accept his explanation. In one thread in late 2006 Rick apparently did not have the information, in one in early 2007 the detail was reviewed.

There are a number of threads that discuss 'strain at a gnat' on BaptistBoard, Bible Version Discussion Board and Fighting Fundamental Forum and SharperIron and on WhichVersion and on this forum. Maybe others. For the most part those threads mix so much chatter and dross that they can be a diversion to a study rather than a help. Without incessant baying and contra-agiprop this forum has been much more able to plough new ground and also to find, codify and study existing references. You are well aware of the various forum posting diversion techniques used by contras, Will, so I share this more for others . Although a post with the ten or so possibly substantive threads might be helpful, along with a post with a lot of the more substantive source reference URL's. For now I sent you this specific one, since it relates to updating your article for accuracy and I have a few questions to go with you on other topics.

Shalom,
Steven

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

And now another early reference. This text is from Dr. Nicholas Bernard, Dean of Kilmore. Although it would have been in the period after the King James Bible was brought forth, and thus more than one Bible was being read, it gives us a picture of the language usage in the 1600's. We also see a colorful phrasing.

http://books.google.com/books?id=L64DAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA157
Memoir of the Life and Episcopate of Dr. William Bedell
http://books.google.com/books?id=g2ULAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA164
Two Biographies of William Bedell

.. Is this nothing to all you that pass by, or rather swallow downe, these Scottish camells, and sadly strayne at our English gnats ? ..

This clearly shows the phrase where the straining is both unfortunate, indifferent ceremonies for political ends, and also showing the kvetch-effect (the effort to whine) that is often a part of straining at gnats.

Shalom,
Steven

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

We were discussing two scholarly translation sections from before the time of the King James Bible translation, yet not likely to be used for other previous English translations :

Calvin --> Marlorate --> Tymme
Calvin --> Paget

Returning to posts #60 and 61

http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...3&postcount=60
Thomas Tymme - 'strain at' translation of Marlorate / Calvin

http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...5&postcount=61
Eusebius Paget translated Calvin's Harmonia

courtesy of the research of Constantin Hopf in 1944. Interestingly, Hopf was responding to the only known actual attempt to support the 'misprint' accusation in a separate section or article. Dozens of 'scholars' of sorts have repeated this accusation on a will and a wisp and a non-prayer. The one attempt seems to be from the liberal Edgar Goodspeed (yet another who made his own Bible translation ! .. of little impact or note). Goodspeed wrote 'The Misprint that Made Good' which was in Religion in Life (Spring 1943) and how Goodspeed stretched the thin material into an article will make an interesting research check. This is likely the periodical from Abingdon Press 1932-1980 listed in Worldcat.

From Hopf and the efforts of Jeffrey Nachimson we now want to simply point out excellent conclusions from Constantin Hopf.

"Tymme in 1570 and Paget in 1584 provide further evidence that 'strain at' was a usage in vogue before 1611."

"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."

"it is interesting to note that in light of translating the Latin words colare or excolare by the phrases "strain in," "strain at," or "strain," that the English translators didn't necessarily consider the conveyed meaning to be pouring the liquid through gauze or some other sieve-type apparatus. They were under the distinct impression that the straining consisted of the individual using their lips and teeth to serve as the strainer, thus filtering the gnats while sipping the liquid."

The first quote, very true, is now supported by a large number of additional direct English language quotes, plus we now have added many significant additional historical contextual understandings. The second quote is a simple and true deduction from the translations. The third quote from Constantin Hopf is interesting and worthy of some additional discussion. (With a wider view, this also relates to some of the lexicon issues and also the related Khoo-Price writings, which we hope to address separately.) Note also that the wider usage of the phrase fits better with the historical usages from Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, Erasmus and Tyndale than does a narrow usage.

To go along with the third, the following quote was given by Jeffrey from John MacArthur.

"Fastidious Pharisees would drink their wine through clenched teeth in order to filter out any small insects that might have gotten into the wine."

The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: Matthew 16-23 (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1988)

Shalom,
Steven

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Dividing the questions about "strain at a gnat" into three major categories, we have :

A) Evidence - misprint - printer error - typographical error - scribal corruption ?

Unequivocally - No ! Busted flat.

B) The history of accusation

Fascinating for what it tells us about the state of scholarly rebellion, the willingness of many to vapidly speak untruths against the word of God.

C) The translation and idiom and language and context issues.

A good study, King James Bible does very fine, many aspects to consider, you can never 'prove' any side of the discussion. "C" itself divides up into various issues of translation, etymology, lexicon, Hebraics, Greek usages, context, semantic range, early and historic understandings, Greek and Latin words and more.

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

Generally I have tried to keep this research 'positive' - emphasizing and demonstrating "A" with some related discussion of "C". Only small references to the accusers. Now, however, I want to spend a little time, a post or two, reminding us of the state of the textcrit anti-KJB art, "B" .. false accusation.

Why ? This is both a unique and special verse in the pure Bible discussion (remember the 'one definite error') , we also have a textbook case of the snowballing of false accusation that is based on .. nothing.

Shalom,
Steven

[Will Kinney]

" This is both a unique and special verse in the pure Bible discussion (remember the 'one definite error') , we also have a textbook case of the snowballing of false accusation that is based on .. nothing."

Amen, Steve. You have brought out a lot of valuable information and historical quotes as well as modern dictionary and lexical support for our beloved Bible, and we Bible believers appreciate it very much.

The bible agnostics will never see it unless God has mercy on them to open their eyes and give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth. 2 Timothy 2:25

Will K

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by Will Kinney

You have brought out a lot of valuable information and historical quotes as well as modern dictionary and lexical support for our beloved Bible, and we Bible believers appreciate it very much.

Thanks, Will.

Oh, here are more quotes from early church writers. So far on this thread we have Chrysostom on #25 and Gregory of Nyssa on #44, with Nyssa being the more significant.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/cat....html#ii.xxiii
Thomas Aquinas - Catena Aurea
Gospel of Matthew - Chapter 23

Jerome:
The Lord had commanded, that for the maintenance of the Priests and Levites, whose portion was the Lord, tithes of every thing should be offered in the temple. Accordingly, the Pharisees (to dismiss mystical expositions) concerned themselves about this alone, that these trifling things should be paid in, but lightly esteemed other things which were weighty.

He charges them then with covetousness in exacting carefully the tithes of worthless herbs, while they neglected justice in their transactions of business, mercy to the poor, and faith toward God, which are weighty things.

The camel I suppose to mean the weighty precepts, judgment, mercy, and faith; the gnat, the tithing of mint, anise, and cummin, and other valueless herbs. The greater of God’s commands we “swallow” and overlook, but shew our carelessness by a religious scrupulousness in little things which bring profit with them.

Jerome's commentary is well-written, and pretty much outside the interpretative issues of the thread.

Origen:
Or, “straining out a gnat,” that is, putting from them small sins; “swallowing a camel,” that is, committing great sins, which He calls camels, from the size and distorted shape of that animal. Morally, The Scribes are those who think nothing else contained in Scripture than the bare letter exhibits; the Pharisees are all those who esteem themselves righteous, and separate themselves from others, saying, ‘Come not nigh me, for I am clean.’ “Mint, anise, and cummin,” are the seasoning, not the substantial part of food ; as in our life and conversation there are some things necessary to justification, as judgment, mercy, and faith; and others which are like the seasoning of our actions, giving them a flavour and sweetness, as abstinence from laughter, fasting, bending the knee, and such like.

How shall they not be judged blind who see not that it is of little avail to be a careful dispenser in the least things, if things of chief moment are neglected? These His present discourse overthrows; not forbidding to observe the little things, but bidding to keep more carefully the chief things.

Origen's view of the gnat as putting aside 'small sins' .

Hilary:
And because it was much less guilt to omit the tithing of herbs than a duty of benevolence, the Lord derides them, “Ye blind guides, which strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel.”

Hilary takes a similar approach.

Pope Gregory - Mor. 1, 15:
The gnat stings while it hums; the camel bows its back to receive its load. The Jews then “strained off the gnat,” when they prayed to have the seditious robber released to them; and they swallowed the camel, when they sought with shouts the death of Him who had voluntarily taken on Him the burden of our mortality.

Notice that Gregory, per this translation, comes up with an unusual preposition ('strain off' - later proposed by William Bowyer in 1812 and used in the NEB in 1961) and an unusual interpretation.

Two references do not strain at any gnats directly.

Pseudo-Chrysostom has the emphasis about the reason for the Pharisee emphasis on the details of tithing, lucre. Remigius takes a nomistic view in defense of "all the commandments of the Law" and the necessity to keep oneself from sin.

While this does not give super-special import to the thread discussion, this does offer in one spot a number of early church writer commentaries. And this is something you can often find of interest from Aquinas (e.g. Aquinas offers many helpful commentaries on 'her purification' - Luke 2:22). And this is rarely mentioned in discussions of Bible textual matters. Plus Aquinas is helpful in transcribing fully, not paraphrasing, even if the original may or may not be available today, almost eight centuries later.

Shalom,
Steven