Jump To ECM Entry Online Commentary Introduction
GC: Variant a is supported by a nearly coherent MT attestation, but there is only one A-related witness, 2737. The omission (d) is supported by all other A-related witnesses, but is extremely incoherent.
TP: As agreed upon in the literature, the shorter reading (c) is generally seen as smoothing.[1] Metzger rightly notes, “It is hard to imagine that a copyist would have been tempted to gloss ἐν τῇ ἀναστάσει, and the pleonasm is in accord with Mark’s style (cf. 13:19 f.).”[2] The phrase is also lacking in the synoptic parallels (Matt 22:28; Luke 20:33).
[1] Metzger, Textual Commentary, 93; Collins, Mark, 557,who refers to Turner, Taylor, and Elliott.
[2] Metzger, Textual Commentary, 93. On pleonasm and redundancy in Mark also see Turner, “Western Readings,” 8; and Turner, “The Style of Mark,” 224-25.
