KJV - Strain at a gnat; Archaic?

Jerome, which of the tales is this citation from? I cannot find it. Thanks

 

Isn't the internet wonderful I googled it @

The Canterbury Tales
The Knight's Tale
"The gods quarrel but Saturn decides that Palamon shall have his lady Emily"

line 1590

Rob

 

Thanks, Rob. Here are those lines (Note: there is no dash after "at" within the words atrenne and atrede in several sources I reviewed)--

The online Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) gives the definition of atrede as "to surpass in council". So, while outwit may be an acceptable translation of the archaic English term, the "at" portion does not need to expressly, or literally, mean "out". And again, this is poetry about 200 years before the KJV.

 

With the help of a online concordance (thanks again, Rob), I just checked the other 52 occurrences of "at" in The Canterbury Tales and they all seem to mean "at" as we understand the word today. The great majority appear in phrases like "at the __", or "at his __", where "out" does not make sense. Feel free to review them for yourselves.

Therefore, there are no occurrences of "at" on its own meaning "out" in the The Canterbury Tales. There are two archaic words beginning with the letters "at-" that, in one editor's interlinear translation, are coincidentally rendered as "outrun" and "outwit". However, my opinion is that these are wholly different words and unrelated to our discussion.

 

(I was not the only one misled by your use of commonly).

OK, so you believe that "at" was frequently substituted for "out". So far, there is no evidence for this assertion.

Seven quotes of various English churchmen from about 1570 to 1610 all citing the very verse in question is interesting, but not proof (there was one other quote offered, which is unsubstantiated at present). The only offering outside the era just prior to AV's publication has been Chaucer's poem, which also has failed to support the supposition.

Currently: there is not found one instance in Chaucer's lengthy poem where "at" means "out"; there is not one instance in the KJV or other Bibles of this era where "at" means "out" (besides the disputed occurrence); and there is not one instance where "at" is listed as an archaic word in need of clarification in Middle English glossaries.

This is not the situation I would expect if this was truly a frequent event.

 

I somewhat agree, and I don't mean to imply, or even give the impression, that the KJV is wrong for having "at". It seems that Daniel Mace's 1729 translation has "strain for a gnat", which could also be acceptable to me. There is no preposition in the Greek, it is supplied by the translator. Obviously, it bothers me that some insist upon "at" being right (to the exclusion of all others).

I currently believe that "out" is better... one reason is because it doesn't allow the English reader to fall into the incorrect interpretation of "strain" having the meaning of the exertion of eyesight (as in 'squinting at a gnat'). This is a ready stumblingblock because of the preceding statement of "blind guides" (a reference to vision). However, this is the second occurrance of "blind guides" in this passage (see verse 16) and therefore does not need to necessarily direct our attention towards the action of viewing something small.

Another consideration: the Greek word konops seems to be a very specific type of flying insect. Thayer's & Strong's (#2971) agree that it was "a wine gnat or midge that is bred in fermenting and evaporating wine". This fact suggests to me that this verse does not describe a random event (a generic gnat just falling into the cup), but rather a more comprehensive filtration practice that prevents the presence of mature bugs as well as microscopic larvae that thrive in wine sources.

IOW, they could expect the presence of gnats, and did not have to wait until they were discovered to begin filtering.

 

No I wrote:

Nothing was said about substitution or out.

 

kubel originally asked: Has anyone found examples of other early modern English writings that use the word "at" in place of "out"

I never felt that the word "strain" was in dispute either, so I just left it out.

Your original post was somewhat ambiguous... so, "Strain at was commonly used" to mean what? Do you mean that "strain at" was used for "strain out"? Please tell us exactly what you intended to assert in your first post.

Jerome, you have posted three times since I wrote "If..." in #10--

You could have objected yesterday (in your posts #12, or #13) or this morning (#16), if you thought "at" without "strain" would be an issue that would affect understanding.

 

The anti-KJV crowd will believe any thing negative about the AV. Well, here is an authoritative opinion on the current question..

When we check the Oxford English Dictionary (online) we find an interesting note in the definition strain v.(1) sense 21.

(Quote)
It has been asserted that ‘straine at’ in the Bible of 1611 is a misprint for ‘straine out’, the rendering of earlier versions (see 14e). But quots. 1583 and 1594 show that the translators of 1611 simply adopted a rendering that had already obtained currency. It was not a mistranslation, the meaning intended being ‘which strain the liquor if they find a gnat in it’.

[1583 GREENE Mamillia II. B3b, Most vniustly straining at a gnat, and letting passe an elephant. 1594 J. KING On Jonas (1599) 284 They have verified the olde proverbe in strayning at gnats and swallowing downe camells. 1611 BIBLE Matt. xxiii. 24 Ye blind guides, which straine at a gnat, and swallow a camel.]
(end quote)

Be sure to read all of senses 21 and 14e.

Some of you also need to throw away your counterfeit dictionaries (Webster's) and get the real thing.

A.F.

 

Post #3 answers the post immediately above it that went on and on about a misprint. I provided citations of the use of at with strain in the same context in the years immediately preceding the translation, which suggests that its presence could be intentional and not a misprint. I did not comment about the phrase's meaning.

Yes I should have "nipped it in the bud" and saved you the time debating an assertion I did not intend to make. Sorry.

I do agree with you that

Strain out, unlike strain at, is unambiguous in meaning "filter" rather than "exert" or "squint" and thus seems preferable here.

 

AF, once again you are quick to make a false accusation. I told you yesterday that no one here is against the KJV but we are against the KJVO myth. Yet here you are again repeating the very same deliberately inflammatory falsehood. Why do you continue to do this despite the fact you have been shown the truth? Is there a comprehension problem on your part? Or do you simjply enjoy spreading falsehoods?

 

This will not become a battle personalities. Please stick to the topic at hand.

 

I understand better now, and despite all the evidence given in Post #3 I don't think it is simply a misprint either. Jerome, I think we are in agreement that "at" is not a printer's error.

It was intentionally placed, and as you have shown, it seems that "strain at" was used frequently by English churchmen of this era. I am wondering how they all came to use "at" (before the AV was even published)?

 

Jerome, I am curious that if you did not intend to promote the idea that archaically "at" meant "out", for what purpose then did you offer this post?

 

This is most interesting.

I found this note in the online American Hertitage Dictionary under "utter"-tr.v.

Also, the same dictionary had just two definitions for "uttermost"-adj.
1. Utmost.
2. Outermost.

And a similar note at "utmost"-adj.

It would seem that "at" may be an allowable translation in some archaic sense of "out".:applause:

 

I'd like to thank kubel for originally starting this discussion, and all those that have participated. And thanks C4K for not shutting us down! I have learned a lot over the past few days while 'digging' into this issue. That is the benefit of having this board.

In fact, I have to wonder why so much misinformation has been published for so long (to this very day, and I'm sure beyond today) on this notorious 'issue' because it would seem that in a few short days a handful of folks have really gotten to the 'bottom' of the debate.

 

I am not anti-KJV; but I agree that "out" is better understood by today's English reader than archaic "at". Even though "strain at" means the same as "strain out", it exemplifies a problem with older translations. Most readers would not turn to a dictionary for the word "at"; the notes on its archine meaning were quite obscure (it did not even appear in Middle English glossaries).

 

To provide data that the OP requested.
If I was promoting any idea, it was that at seems to have be used for out in this line from Chaucer.
Do any modern language updates of Chaucer give anything other than outrun?

 

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 and the best translation of the original.

At is 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!

As to the more usual translation: to say "strain out" is slightly redundant. There is no corresponding word to out in the Greek original. In English the word strain is sufficient as we never would "strain in" anything.

There is no congruence between the use of at (in the KJV) and out (in the other versions). The different words serve different functions in their respective sentence structures.

So, the KJV translation is neither incorrect nor archaic.

A.F.

 

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

Warning whistles blow! Whoo, Whoo,

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

Rob