86 siGuRD GRinDheim (e[na tw/n mikrw/n tou,twn tw/n pi,stin evco,ntwn). this reading is also unlikely to be original, but it appears to have originated as an expan- sion of the shorter reading. When all the variants are considered, there- fore, the internal evidence becomes inconclusive. a decision regarding probability must rely on the external evidence, where the weights tip slightly towards the longer reading, including the words “in me” (eivj evme,). But it must be admitted that this reading is relatively uncertain. iV. “those who believe in me” that leaves us with a single verse where we can be certain that Jesus refers to faith in himself, matt 18,6, which is almost identical to mark 9,42: “if any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were fastened around your neck and you were drowned in the depth of the sea”. even if this saying is basically authentic, can we be confident that the words “who believe in me” also go back to the historical Jesus? or could they have been added in the course of tradition, perhaps at a stage when faith had become synonymous with faith in Jesus? the millstone saying is attested in all three synoptic Gospels (mark 9,42//matt 18,6//luke 17,2) and may be reflected in Rom 14,13b (cf. below). the synoptic versions are so different that the say- ing is usually assumed to have been included in Q. if so, matthew and luke may have had access to two sources, which may explain the dif- ferences between the evangelists. the saying itself therefore stands well by the criterion of multiple attestation, but the matter is a little more complicated with respect to the phrase “who believe in me” (tw/n pisteuo,ntwn eivj evme,). luke’s version reads: “[i]t would be better for you if a millstone were hung around your neck and you were thrown into the sea than for you to cause one of these little ones to stumble” (luke 17,2). most scholars assume that the words “who believe in me” were lacking in Q, which explains why luke also omitted them 17. 17 J. schlosseR, “lk 17.2 und die logienquelle”, SNTSU 8 (1983) 70-78; J.a. FitZmYeR, The Gospel According to Luke (X–XXIV). introduction, transla- tion and notes (aB 28a; new York 1985) 1137; DaVies – allison, Matthew, ii, 753; J.m. RoBinson – p. hoFFmann – J.s. KloppenBoRG, eds., The Critical Edition of Q. synopsis including the Gospels of matthew and luke, mark and thomas With english, German, and French translations of Q and thomas (hermeneia; minneapolis, mn 2000) 474-477; u. luz, Matthew 8–20 (hermeneia; trans. W.c. linss; minneapolis, mn 2001) 431; GReGG, Final Judg- ment, 243-244.