EPHESIANS 2:5 tw|/ Cristw|/ {B} The reading evn tw|/ Cristw|/ (î46 B 33 _al_) seems to have arisen from either accidental dittography of the previous &en, or from deliberate assimilation to evn Cristw|/ VIhsou/ in ver. Ephesians 2:6.... [ Continue Reading ]
EPHESIANS 2:17 eivrh,nhn (2) The Textus Receptus, following several later witnesses (K L many minuscules syrp, h _al_), omits the second instance of eivrh,nhn, probably because it seemed redundant and therefore superfluous. Its presence, however, not only is strongly attested by good witnesses (î4... [ Continue Reading ]
EPHESIANS 2:21 pa/sa oivkodomh, {B} Although it is possible that, through itacism, h` was accidentally omitted before oivkodomh,, the anarthrous reading was preferred because of the weight of external evidence (a* B D G K Y 33 614 1739* _Byz Lect_ Clement _al_) and because copyists would have been... [ Continue Reading ]