^{page 275 note 1} This paper in an earlier form was presented and discussed at the Griesbach Bicentennial Colloquium held at Münster, Westphalia, 16–31 July 1976. Other papers prepared for that colloquium will be published in S.N.T.S. Monograph Series, Jacob J. Grisbach: Synoptic and Text Critical Studies 1776–1976, ed. Orchard, Dom Bernard, Longstaff, T. R. W., Cambridge University Press, 1977.Google Scholar

^{page 277 note 1} La Structure des Evangiles Synoptiques (Leiden, E. J. Brill, 1970).Google Scholar

^{page 278 note 1} Jesus and Man's Hope I, 9–11.Google Scholar

^{page 278 note 2} Jesus and Man's Hope, II, 339.Google Scholar

^{page 278 note 3} ‘The Priority of Mark and the “Q” Source in Luke’, Jesus and Man's Hope, (1970), 131–70.Google Scholar

^{page 278 note 4} ‘Mark – The Abridgement of Matthew and Luke’, Jesus and Man's Hope, (1970), 51–97.Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 1} ‘The Interpretation of the Gospels Today: Some Questions about Aims and Warrants’, Jesus and Man's Hope, 45–75.Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 2} J.B.L. LXXXIV (1965), 295–7.Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 3} Talbert, C. H. and McKnight, E. V., ‘Can the Griesbach Hypothesis be Falsified?’, J.B.L. XCI (1972), 338–68Google Scholar; Buchanan, George Wesley, ‘Has the Griesbach Hypothesis Been Falsified?’, J.B.L. XCIII (1974), 550–72.Google Scholar

^{page 280 note 1} Statistische Synopse (1971), pp. 277–307.Google Scholar See Farmer, W. R., ‘A Response to Robert Morgenthaler's Statistische Synopse’, Biblica, LIV (1973), 417–33.Google Scholar See also Sanders, E. P., ‘The Argument from Order and the Relationship between Matthew and Luke’, N.T.S. XV, 2, pp. 249–61,Google Scholar cited favourably by Morgenthaler. Morgenthaler, however, does not allow for the extensive literary dependence between Matthew and Luke for which Sanders' findings call.

^{page 280 note 2} See the discussion of the argument(s) from order in the Epilogue.

^{page 281 note 1} S.B.L. Dissertation Series (Scholars Press, 1967).

^{page 281 note 2} Op. cit. pp. 252–3.Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 3} ‘Reactionary Trends in the Gospel Producing Activity of the Early Church? Marcion, Tatian, Mark’, L'évangile de Marc. Tradition et redaction (Louvain, 1975), pp, 188–94.Google Scholar See Appendix B.

^{page 282 note 1} Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot, ed. Nineham, D. E. (1955), pp. 55–88.Google Scholar

^{page 283 note 1} Towards the Rehabilitation of Q', N.T.S. XI (1964–1965), 169–81.Google Scholar

^{page 283 note 2} Matthew, Luke and Mark (Koinonia Press, Manchester, 1976).Google Scholar

^{page 283 note 3} These objections have been most comprehensively surveyed by Fitzmyer, Joseph, op. cit.Google Scholar, and they are answered here in the form they are given in that survey.

^{page 285 note 1} This does not preclude an interest in Mark in Jesus as ‘Teacher’. Cf. Oxy. p. 1389, where the miracle-working god is addressed as ‘Teacher’. Mark's ‘Teacher’, like Aesclepius, does not deliver long discourses, rather he heals the sick.

^{page 286 note 1} Farmer, W. R., The Synoptic Problem, pp. 156–8.Google Scholar

^{page 286 note 2} Horae Synopticae, second edition, pp. 114–53.Google Scholar

^{page 289 note 1} From this perspective it also becomes clear why in the arrangement of the Church's canon Mark is given a place of honour between Matthew and Luke. Mark is a bridge from the one to the other. Mark proves that Matthew and Luke, contrary to appearances, in reality are telling one and the same story. Once that reconciliation had taken place, even John could be seen as but one form of the same story. It may not be too much to say that the reason that we have the other gospels is because Mark, by showing their essential unity, paved the way for their mutual acceptance in the church and eventually their canonization as Scripture. Otherwise they might not have been any more able to survive the ravages of time than the many other members of the once popular and numerous gospel genre.

^{page 289 note 2} Refutatio omnium haeresium VII. 18Google Scholar, ANF, v, 112.Google Scholar

^{page 290 note 1} ‘The Genre to which Marcion's Antitheses Belonged’ in ‘Reactionary Trends in the Gospel-Producing Activity of the Early Church: Marcion, Tatian, Mark’, L'évangile de Marc. Tradition et redaction ‘Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 33’, Louvain, 1975, pp. 188–94.Google Scholar

^{page 291 note 1} This could be an instance of a deutero-Pauline interest in the death of Christ influencing Mark in an editorial decision to retain the martyrdom of the Baptist as a prefiguring of the death of the Christ.

^{page 292 note 1} Elliot, J. K., ‘The United Bible Societies’ Textual Commentary Evaluated', Novum Testamentum XVII, 142Google Scholar, notes and evaluates a textual variant.

^{page 292 note 2} Pp. 231–2.

^{page 293 note 1} Professor Franz Nierynck in written communications prepared for the Griesbach Colloquy and in conversations during and following the Colloquy has drawn my attention to the need for a word of clarification. What is said about the argument from order in this Epilogue is in response to this need.