Shorter reading: For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. (ESV) οὔτε γὰρ περιτομή τι ἔστιν οὔτε ἀκροβυστία, ἀλλὰ καινὴ κτίσις. p46 B 33 1175 1505 1908 2005 075 and varied versional support Longer reading: For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation. (NKJV) Ἐν γὰρ χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ οὔτε περιτομήτι ἰσχύει, οὔτε ἀκροβυστία, ἀλλὰ καινὴ κτίσις. אA C D F G P 0278 6 81 104 459 1241 1739c 1881 1852 2200 Byz and varied versional support The external evidence is pretty lopsided for the longer reading. But the NA & UBS went with the shorter for internal reasons, primarily that the longer reading is verbatum from 5:6 (Checked Metzger's & Comfort's textual commentaries to confirm this as the main reason). This is indicated by the fact that the strong textual support for the longer reading is divided about whether it should follow the ἰσχύει ("avails") reading also found in 5:6 or the easier ἐστιν ("is"). However most that follow the "avails" reading has a clear bent toward the Byzantine textform. Would it follow that the longer reading then is simply a Byzantine assimilation from 5:6? You might say that this variant is so minor, and I would agree in part. However, it does affect translation and there is a strong theological emphasis on the believer's union as "in Christ". So due diligence would cause us to weigh the options. Is there a good reason for a scribe to omit the prepositional phrase "in Christ Jesus" other than for the sake of avoiding redundancy? I suppose a scribe could skip right to the oute and assume the postpositive gar should follow picking up with "circumcision" and leaving out "in Christ Jesus". Is that a viable reason or is it reaching. As always internal vs. external are pretty much set at odds. So which takes precedence?