Faith in Jesus 85 the case for omission is based on internal criteria. one of the canons of textual criticism has been that the shorter reading is most likely to be original, but this rule has been challenged by recent schol- arship, as empirical research shows that scribes are just as likely to abbreviate as they are to add 15. in this particular case, however, the inclusion of the words “in me” (eivj evme,) may have been added as a re- sult of harmonization with the matthean version 16. on the other hand, as i will show below, unqualified references to faith without an object are more characteristic of early christian habits. the shorter reading may therefore have originated as an abbreviation of the longer one, if a scribe were influenced by the more common style of expression. But the matter is more complicated still. a hypothesis regarding the original reading must also be able to account for the other surviv- ing variants. codex Washingtonianus reads: “one of my little ones who believe in me” (e[na tw/n mikrw/n mou/ tw/n pisteuo,ntwn eivj evme,). there is no reason to believe that this reading is the original, but it is an important witness, because it can only be explained as originating on the basis of the longer reading, with the substitution of the pronoun “my” (mou) for the pronoun “these” (tou,twn). the reason for the sub- stitution may have been stylistic, in order to avoid the five sequential words ending in -wn. on the other hand, codex Bezae cantabrigiensis and two latin versions read: “one of these little ones who have faith” Mark (cntc; cambridge 1977) 319; GunDRY, Mark, 523; a. YaRBRo collins, Mark. a commentary (hermeneia; minneapolis, mn 2007) 442; R.h. stein, Mark (Becnt; Grand Rapids, mi 2008) 451. 15 e. toV, “criteria for evaluating textual Readings. the limitations of tex- tual Rules”, HTR 75 (1982) 441; J.D. milleR, “the long and short of Lectio Brevior Potior”, BT 57 (2006) 11-16; e.J. epp, “traditional ‘canons’ of new testament textual criticism. their Value, Validity, and Viability — or lack thereof”, The Textual History of the Greek New Testament (society of Biblical literature text-critical studies 8; eds. K. Wachtel – m.W. holmes; atlanta, Ga 2011) 106-116; J.B. RoYse, “scribal tendencies in the transmission of the text of the new testament”, The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research. essays on the Status Quaestionis (sD 46; eds. B.D. ehRman – m.W. holmes; leiden 22013) 465-475. 16 cf. B.m. metZGeR, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (new York 41994) 86. the shorter reading is also preferred by R. pesch, Das Markusevangelium (htKnt ii/2; Freiburg 1977) ii, 113; J. GnilKa, Das Markus- evangelium (eKK 2/2; Zurich 1979) ii, 64; c.D. maRshall, Faith as a Theme in Mark’s Narrative (sntsms 64; cambridge 1989) 158-159; R.t. FRance, The Gospel of Mark (niGtc; Grand Rapids, mi 2002) 379; J. maRcus, Mark 8–16. a new translation with introduction and commentary (aB 27a; new haven, ct 2009) 689.