84 siGuRD GRinDheim in hellenistic Greek, but it may be explained as the result of semitic influence 11. mark’s use of the positive kalo,n for the comparative may be another semitism 12. What seems to argue against the authenticity of the saying is the fact that it fits very well into the setting of early christianity. Warning against deceptions is a well-known theme in the early church. on the other hand, the saying appears to be known by paul (Rom 14,13b) and holds up well by the criterion of multiple attestation 13. the concern for the little ones is a well-attested concern of Jesus (mark 10,14 par.; luke 6,20 par.; 14,16-23 par.). What is more, the “little ones” terminology, evidently important to matthew (cf. 10,42; 11,11; 18,6.10.14), only occurs on the lips of Jesus and is not in evi- dence as early christian nomenclature. there are good reasons to conclude in favor of the authenticity of the saying, therefore, but that conclusion does not suffice for this in- vestigation. our question does not concern the saying in general but the precise wording, specifically the words “the little ones who believe in me”. these words are included in matthew’s version (matt 18,6), but not in luke’s (luke 17,2). as for mark’s Gospel, it comes down to a question of textual criticism. iii. textual criticism in na28, the two words “in me” (eivj evme,) in mark 9,42 are placed in brackets, indicating that their inclusion in the text cannot be deter- mined with confidence. several important manuscripts do not read these two words, including codex sinaiticus, codex Bezae canta- brigiensis, uncial no. 37, and the old latin. the shorter text also appears to be the original reading of codex ephraemi, whereas the second corrector changed it to include the two words. however, the evidence for inclusion is stronger, as the longer reading is found in codex Vaticanus, codex alexandrinus, codex Washingtonianus, the sinaitic syriac version, the sahidic version, and the majority text 14. 11 e.c. maloneY, Semitic Interference in Marcan Syntax (sBlDs 51; chico, ca 1981) 86-90. 12 R.h. GunDRY, Mark. a commentary on his apology for the cross (Grand Rapids, mi 1993) 523. 13 if matt 18,6 and luke 17,2 are dependent on Q, we would have three independent sources. cf. note 17. 14 the longer reading is favored by V. taYloR, The Gospel According to St. Mark (new York 21966) 410; c.e.B. cRanFielD, The Gospel According to St.