KJV - Strain at a gnat; Archaic?

Once more, because I am curious, is there any substantive evidence behind all the citations of these men that "at" came into the text accidentally?

I intially revealed in post #9 some evidence that "at" was intentionally edited into a translator's working copy (a notation in a Bishop's Bible). Is there any to the contrary? Thanks

 

Jerome, I have not been able to verify that the original Rheims NT had no "out". The online 1582 Rheims at the University of Michigan does have "strain out". I have checked many other online sources but can't be sure that they are 1582 versions. Could you provide details about your source? Thanks

 

It seems that the Rheims online on many sites is the 1899 American edition.
Oddly, the Michigan text labeled 1582 appears identical to the 1899 edition.

Many university libraries have microfilms of old Bibles.
Here are copies of the 1582 original:
View attachment 83
And Challoner's 1749 revision:
View attachment 84

Here are some differences between the four texts(1582, 1749, 1899, Michigan):

v. 15 double-twofold-twofold-twofold
v. 16 bound-debtor-debtor-debtor
v. 23 omitted-leave undone-leave undone-leave undone
v. 24 strain-strain out-strain out-strain out
v. 25 rapine-extortion-rapine-rapine
v. 29 garnish-adorn-adorn-adorn
v. 30 felowes-partakers-partakers-partakers
v. 33 broodes-generation-generation-generation
v. 33 flee-escape-flee-flee
v. 39 our Lord-the Lord-the Lord-the Lord

Also, here is a Catholic ORO (Old Rheims Only) site that has a PDF of Matthew 24. (right side, under FREE)