So the answer seems to be; That the reason the translators of the KJB did not include this particular Greek word, when translating this verse, was because it would have be redundant.
I completely fail to see how stilllearning could draw his "redundant" conclusion based on John Gill's commentary alone. I would guess that many folks were not inclined to read it carefully earlier, so let's now take a close examination of what Gill actually did write (but to make it easier to follow I have broken the long citation into segments & enhanced some text) --
“The mill stone, in the original, is called mulov onikov, which may be rendered "the ass mill stone," ...
Gill acknowledges that a full rendering would include the adjective before "mill stone". Clearly, there is nothing said or implied about it being "redundant" in the above quote. Gill will now give one of three possible meanings of the untranslated adjective --
being either the nether mill stone, as some think, which was called "the ass," because, like an ass, it bears the chief of the weight and burden; ...
Next, Gill treats another possible understanding of this Greek word with similar examples --
or else respects such mill stones as were turned about by an ass, in distinction from those that were turned by the hand; for that it was usual with the Jews to make use of asses in grinding, as well as other nations, is certain: hence we read {a} of ayxyr armx "the ass of mills," that were employed in grinding in the mills, and of one that turned his mill with wild asses {b} : ...
So far, there has been nothing about redundancy in translation. Gill follows these two with a third alternative --
but it is further to be observed, that mention is made {c} of dy lv Myxr lv rwmx, "the ass of an handmill": which the commentators say {d} , was a beam on which an handmill was fixed, and was called "the ass." ...
Still nothing about redundancy. Gill now gives us his best speculation about the three possibilities of meaning --
Now, I should rather think that this is meant than the other. It does not seem likely that a nether mill stone, or one that required an ass to turn it, should be tied to a man’s neck, in order to drown him, when cast into the sea; for our Lord must be thought to refer to a practice somewhere in use: but rather, that such a beam, or log, of an handmill, so called, were wont to be put about the necks of malefactors, in drowning them.
So, Gill seems to prefer that the solution be the third option ("this") rather than the previous two he offered. No trace of redundancy in the above. Finally, Gill would paraphrase the meaning of the passage in this manner --
Our Lord’s sense is, that it was much better for a man to endure the severest temporal punishment, rather than by offending, and evil treating any of his disciples, expose himself to everlasting destruction. The phrase of having a mill stone about the neck, I find, is sometimes used to denote anything very troublesome and burdensome {e} .”
There was just one more paragraph in Gill (not included in stilllearning's post) which helps explain the last sentence above; plus the endnotes for this verse --
"The tradition is, a man that marries a wife, and after that learns the law, R. Jochanan says, wrawub Myxyr, "though a mill stone is about his neck," yet he must study in the law: that is, though his worldly circumstances are narrow, and his wife and family are as burdensome as if he had a mill stone about his neck, he must continue his studies."
{z} Misn. Sanhedrim. c. 7. sect. 1. {a} T. Bab. Moed Katon, fol. 1. 10. 2. Maimon. Hileh. Yom Tob, c. 8. sect. 15. {b} T Bab. Avoda Zara, fol. 16. 2. {c} Mish. Zabim. c. 4. sect. 2. {d} R. Maimon. R. Sampson. & R. Obadiah Bartenora, in. ib. {e} T. Bab. Kiddusbin, fol. 29. 2.
My gratitude goes to Gill for his excellent work. Perhaps, there are just these three possible ways to understand our Lord's word as recorded by His faithful gospel writer. Indeed, Gill may be correct that this Greek word indicates a wooden post.
Ironically, the more learned Gill believes contrary to the KJV text: Christ did NOT mean that a mill
stone would be placed upon the neck but rather a mill
log. But even if the word's exact meaning remains unknown or ambiguous to us, so be it (it would not be the only).
But Gill in his commentary says nothing at all about this inspired word being "redundant" if translated. (BTW, aren't phrases such as "
Verily, verily" and "
answered and said" redundant?) All this leaves stilllearning without a legitimate 'redundancy' reason for the word to have been excluded in English.
