Hello Debau,
I have agreed many times that there is no problem with "strain at" as far as the teaching we glean from it goes, although I don't think it is superior to "strain out" in that regard. The Greek means to filter, the other English Bibles reflect that meaning, and "strain at" doesn't mean to filter, it means to exert oneself against something. It nevertheless works to make the point Matthew Henry teaches: In the smaller matters of the law to be superstitious, and to be profane in the greater, is the hypocrisy here condemned but so does the other rendering make that point just as well, and more truly to the original context.

Your reference to Matthew Henry does not add anything. He does not appear to even be aware that there ever was a reading of "strain out" and simply accepts "strain at" as a given, so you cannot say rightly that "he concurs that strained AT is the common sense rendering." We have no idea from that passage you quote whether he would have thought that if he were even aware that there had ever been another rendering.

This topic is about the question whether or not "strain at" was intended by the translators since it is a departure from the earlier Bibles' use of "strain out." Doesn't it matter what Jesus actually had in mind when he gave that teaching?