How can Tatian have Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John
but Marcion only have a proto-Luke and not Mark, Matthew, or John?
That is exactly the historical/textual problem that needs to be separated from the usual textbook formulation. The apparent contradiction disappears only if we distinguish the texts Marcion and Tatian actually possessed from the canonical forms that later became standard.
The conventional model
The conventional reconstruction says:
Mark → Matthew and Luke → Tatian
while:
Marcion → edited Luke
So by the time of Tatian, the four-Gospel collection supposedly already existed:
Matthew + Mark + Luke + John → Tatian’s Diatessaron
Modern scholarship does indeed describe the Diatessaron as a composition from the four Gospels.
But that doesn’t establish that Marcion had access to those same four texts and simply rejected three of them.
I think your question gets to something much more fundamental.
The key question is: which came first?
There are actually three different historical models:
Model 1 — Conventional
Mark → Matthew/Luke → Marcion → Tatian
Here:
- Mark existed.
- Matthew existed.
- Luke existed.
- John existed.
- Marcion selected/revised Luke for theological reasons.
- Tatian subsequently combined all four.
This is the standard model.
Model 2 — Marcion-before-canonical-Luke
There is a significant scholarly alternative:
Marcion’s Gospel → expanded Luke
Matthias Klinghardt has argued explicitly for reversing the traditional relationship: rather than Marcion abbreviating canonical Luke, canonical Luke could represent an expanded/revised version of Marcion’s Gospel.
That changes the question dramatically.
Instead of:
“Why did Marcion possess only Luke while everyone else had Matthew, Mark and John?”
you get:
“Why did Marcion preserve an earlier Gospel tradition that later became incorporated into canonical Luke?”
And that’s a much more interesting historical question.
And there’s an even more important possibility
You used the phrase “proto-Luke.”
That is precisely where the chronology becomes complicated.
A scholarly proposal going back decades argues for something like:
Primitive Luke → Matthew + Marcion + canonical Luke
H. Philip West Jr., for example, proposed a “Primitive Luke” that preceded both Matthew and Marcion’s Gospel. His proposed primitive Gospel contains much of the material shared among the Synoptics and resembles Marcion’s Gospel in both content and arrangement.
So one possible reconstruction is:
That’s not established fact, but it demonstrates why “Marcion had only Luke” is potentially misleading.
Marcion didn’t necessarily have canonical Luke.
He had a Gospel that the church fathers called Marcion’s Gospel, and we reconstruct its contents largely from hostile witnesses.
Then what about Tatian?
This is where your question becomes especially sharp.
Tatian was active later than Marcion, and by his time Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were demonstrably circulating together in some Christian circles. The Diatessaron’s surviving evidence shows Tatian combining material from all four.
But that does not necessarily mean that the four-Gospel collection had always existed in that form.
There is a developmental possibility:
In other words, Marcion and Tatian may represent different stages in the development of Gospel literature, rather than Marcion simply being a contemporary who arbitrarily rejected Matthew, Mark and John.
And here’s the part I think you’re really getting at
If Marcion’s Gospel is earlier than canonical Luke, then saying:
“Marcion only had Luke”
is almost circular.
Because we are calling the document “Luke” based largely on its relationship to the later canonical Luke.
The historical question should instead be:
What Gospel did Marcion actually possess, and what was its relationship to the Gospel that eventually became canonical Luke?
That question is still actively debated. Dieter Roth’s recent review of the evidence notes that Marcion’s Gospel remains important for reconstructing the textual history of Luke, and that scholarship has revised even the critical apparatus of Luke in light of newer Marcion research.
And there is another problem with the simple model
If Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were already four established, independent Gospels before Marcion, why did Marcion’s movement apparently preserve one Gospel rather than simply use the four?
Irenaeus’ description is revealing: he associates different groups with particular Gospel texts—Ebionites with Matthew, Marcionites with a form of Luke, Valentinian Christians with John, and another group with Mark.
That sounds less like a world in which everybody universally possessed a fixed Matthew-Mark-Luke-John New Testament, and more like a world in which different Christian communities were using different Gospel books.
That is historically important.
So I would revise the statement from my previous answer:
It is too simplistic to say:
“Tatian had the four canonical Gospels, whereas Marcion had Luke.”
A more historically cautious formulation is:
Tatian produced a Gospel harmony drawing substantially on Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Marcion possessed a Gospel that was closely related to the tradition represented by canonical Luke, but whether Marcion’s Gospel was an abridgment of Luke, Luke an expansion of Marcion’s Gospel, or both descended from an earlier Gospel form remains disputed.
And that distinction is crucial to your larger Historical Accuracy question, because the chronology of the Gospel texts has to be established before we can use Marcion as evidence for what Luke looked like at an earlier stage.
that is exactly the historical/textual problem that needs to be separated from the usual textbook formulation. The apparent contradiction disappears only if we distinguish the texts Marcion and Tatian actually possessed from the canonical forms that later became standard.
The conventional model
The conventional reconstruction says:
Mark → Matthew and Luke → Tatian
while:
Marcion → edited Luke
So by the time of Tatian, the four-Gospel collection supposedly already existed:
Matthew + Mark + Luke + John → Tatian’s Diatessaron
Modern scholarship does indeed describe the Diatessaron as a composition from the four Gospels.
But that doesn’t establish that Marcion had access to those same four texts and simply rejected three of them.
I think your question gets to something much more fundamental.
The key question is: which came first?
There are actually three different historical models:
Model 1 — Conventional
Mark → Matthew/Luke → Marcion → Tatian
Here:
- Mark existed.
- Matthew existed.
- Luke existed.
- John existed.
- Marcion selected/revised Luke for theological reasons.
- Tatian subsequently combined all four.
This is the standard model.
Model 2 — Marcion-before-canonical-Luke
There is a significant scholarly alternative:
Marcion’s Gospel → expanded Luke
Matthias Klinghardt has argued explicitly for reversing the traditional relationship: rather than Marcion abbreviating canonical Luke, canonical Luke could represent an expanded/revised version of Marcion’s Gospel.
That changes the question dramatically.
Instead of:
“Why did Marcion possess only Luke while everyone else had Matthew, Mark and John?”
you get:
“Why did Marcion preserve an earlier Gospel tradition that later became incorporated into canonical Luke?”
And that’s a much more interesting historical question.
And there’s an even more important possibility
You used the phrase “proto-Luke.”
That is precisely where the chronology becomes complicated.
A scholarly proposal going back decades argues for something like:
Primitive Luke → Matthew + Marcion + canonical Luke
H. Philip West Jr., for example, proposed a “Primitive Luke” that preceded both Matthew and Marcion’s Gospel. His proposed primitive Gospel contains much of the material shared among the Synoptics and resembles Marcion’s Gospel in both content and arrangement.
So one possible reconstruction is:
That’s not established fact, but it demonstrates why “Marcion had only Luke” is potentially misleading.
Marcion didn’t necessarily have canonical Luke.
He had a Gospel that the church fathers called Marcion’s Gospel, and we reconstruct its contents largely from hostile witnesses.
Then what about Tatian?
This is where your question becomes especially sharp.
Tatian was active later than Marcion, and by his time Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were demonstrably circulating together in some Christian circles. The Diatessaron’s surviving evidence shows Tatian combining material from all four.
But that does not necessarily mean that the four-Gospel collection had always existed in that form.
There is a developmental possibility:
In other words, Marcion and Tatian may represent different stages in the development of Gospel literature, rather than Marcion simply being a contemporary who arbitrarily rejected Matthew, Mark and John.
And here’s the part I think you’re really getting at
If Marcion’s Gospel is earlier than canonical Luke, then saying:
“Marcion only had Luke”
is almost circular.
Because we are calling the document “Luke” based largely on its relationship to the later canonical Luke.
The historical question should instead be:
What Gospel did Marcion actually possess, and what was its relationship to the Gospel that eventually became canonical Luke?
That question is still actively debated. Dieter Roth’s recent review of the evidence notes that Marcion’s Gospel remains important for reconstructing the textual history of Luke, and that scholarship has revised even the critical apparatus of Luke in light of newer Marcion research.
And there is another problem with the simple model
If Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were already four established, independent Gospels before Marcion, why did Marcion’s movement apparently preserve one Gospel rather than simply use the four?
Irenaeus’ description is revealing: he associates different groups with particular Gospel texts—Ebionites with Matthew, Marcionites with a form of Luke, Valentinian Christians with John, and another group with Mark.
That sounds less like a world in which everybody universally possessed a fixed Matthew-Mark-Luke-John New Testament, and more like a world in which different Christian communities were using different Gospel books.
That is historically important.
So I would revise the statement from my previous answer:
It is too simplistic to say:
“Tatian had the four canonical Gospels, whereas Marcion had Luke.”
A more historically cautious formulation is:
Tatian produced a Gospel harmony drawing substantially on Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Marcion possessed a Gospel that was closely related to the tradition represented by canonical Luke, but whether Marcion’s Gospel was an abridgment of Luke, Luke an expansion of Marcion’s Gospel, or both descended from an earlier Gospel form remains disputed.
And that distinction is crucial to your larger Historical Accuracy question, because the chronology of the Gospel texts has to be established before we can use Marcion as evidence for what Luke looked like at an earlier stage.
Well, let’s go back, then, to what Tatian’s instructor Justin Martyr knew about the four gospels.
Justin Martyr is not as straightforward as “Justin knew the four canonical Gospels.” This is directly relevant to the question you were asking about Tatian.
Justin wrote around 150–160 CE, and his writings show very strong dependence on Matthew and Luke, clear knowledge of John, and probable knowledge of Mark. But he does not name Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as four separate books.
What can we actually establish?
| Gospel | Evidence in Justin |
|---|---|
| Matthew | Very strong |
| Luke | Very strong |
| John | Strong |
| Mark | Probable, but much less clear |
Justin calls his sources the “memoirs of the apostles” or “memoirs”, which he says were read in Christian worship alongside the prophets. He does not call them “Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.”
There is particularly strong evidence for Matthew and Luke. For example, Justin explicitly reproduces material corresponding to Matthew 5:20 and Luke 23:46 and identifies these as coming from the “memoirs.”
John is important
Justin also knows material characteristic of John. For example, his discussion of being born again and the baptismal/new-birth language is closely related to John 3, and he uses Johannine concepts and vocabulary. The dependence on John is considered strong by many scholars.
So John was circulating in Justin’s Christian environment by approximately 150 CE.
That’s important for your previous question about Tatian.
But Mark is the odd one
Justin does not give us a clean quotation introduced as “Mark says…” In fact, some scholars have suggested that Justin may have used a Gospel harmony containing Synoptic material rather than possessing Matthew, Mark and Luke as three physically separate books.
One traditional scholarly reconstruction is that Justin used a harmony of the Synoptics, while also knowing John separately.
And another modern summary puts it more cautiously:
Papias knew Matthew and Mark; Justin knew Matthew and Luke and probably Mark; only later in the second century do Matthew, Mark, Luke and John appear together as a four-Gospel collection in many places.
So this changes the picture we were discussing
The chronological sequence should not be represented as:
Matthew + Mark + Luke + John → Justin → Tatian
as though Justin and Tatian simply inherited a universally established four-book New Testament.
A more historically cautious picture is:
c. 150 CE — Justin
-
Matthew: strong evidence
-
Luke: strong evidence
-
John: strong evidence
-
Mark: probable/uncertain as a distinct source
-
“Memoirs of the Apostles” rather than an explicit four-Gospel canon
c. 170–180 CE — Tatian
-
produces a Gospel harmony incorporating material from Matthew, Mark, Luke and John
late 2nd century — Irenaeus
-
explicitly argues that there must be four and only four Gospels.
And that last step is extremely important.
Irenaeus is the first major surviving Christian writer who very explicitly gives us the four-Gospel framework as a theological principle. So if we’re investigating the historical development rather than simply accepting the later canonical arrangement, Justin → Tatian → Irenaeus is a much more interesting progression than the conventional “the four Gospels were already sitting there unchanged” model.
And it brings us right back to your Marcion question: Justin explicitly knows Marcion exists, because he mentions Marcion by name in First Apology 26, yet his “memoirs” terminology does not give us an explicit four-Gospel list.
That makes Justin’s actual Gospel texts and Tatian’s sources worth comparing very carefully with Marcion’s Evangelion, rather than assuming the later four-Gospel arrangement from the outset.
Steefen:
So Justin Martyr knew the gospel of John but Marcion didn’t? That’s odd.
= = = = = = = = = =
Yes — if we state it that way, it is odd. But I need to correct something from my previous answer: it is too strong to say simply that Justin Martyr “knew the Gospel of John” while Marcion did not. The evidence for both propositions needs qualification.
Justin and John
There is a genuine scholarly dispute over whether Justin actually used the written Gospel of John.
One influential modern study by Charles Hill argues that Justin did use the Fourth Gospel and included it among the “apostolic memoirs.”
But other scholars argue that Justin’s apparent Johannine parallels can instead derive from earlier Christian traditions that John also used, rather than demonstrating that Justin had John’s written Gospel in front of him.
So the careful statement is:
Justin probably knew Johannine tradition; whether he demonstrably possessed/used the canonical Gospel of John is disputed.
Marcion and John
This is even more interesting.
We have no surviving passage from Marcion’s Gospel containing Johannine material, and the reconstructed Marcionite Gospel is overwhelmingly related to the Luke/Marcion Gospel tradition. Modern scholarship emphasizes that relationship while also warning that reconstructing Marcion’s text is difficult.
But saying:
“Marcion didn’t know John”
goes beyond the evidence.
Tertullian’s later polemic indicates that Marcion rejected the Gospel of John, according to the traditional interpretation. That would actually mean something quite different from not knowing it: Marcion may have known John and rejected it.
And that distinction is crucial.
So your observation exposes a real chronological question
If we establish:
Justin (~150) → knows/uses John
while:
Marcion (~140–160) → does not use John
then we have to explain why two roughly contemporary Christian teachers in the Roman world had different Gospel collections.
That is not impossible at all. It may actually tell us something important about the second century:
There was not yet one universally standardized Gospel collection.
Different Christian communities could have different texts and textual collections.
And there is an even more provocative possibility: perhaps Marcion’s Gospel was not simply “Luke with things removed.” Modern scholarship continues to debate whether canonical Luke preceded Marcion’s Gospel, whether Marcion’s Gospel represents an earlier form of the tradition, and how both texts relate to earlier Gospel material.
So I would not start with:
“Marcion had Luke, whereas Justin had John.”
I’d start with the historical evidence:
| Person | Gospel evidence |
|---|---|
| Marcion | A single Evangelion, closely related to Luke; exact relationship to canonical Luke is disputed |
| Justin | Strong Matthew/Luke evidence; Johannine dependence is debated |
| Tatian | His Diatessaron demonstrably incorporates material from all four canonical Gospel traditions |
| Irenaeus | Explicitly promotes the four-Gospel framework |
That progression is much more defensible.
And yes, your instinct is right: if someone tells you as an established fact that “Justin had all four Gospels, Marcion only had Luke, and then Tatian had all four,” that is far too neat a picture of the second-century evidence. The actual textual history is considerably messier.
Robert said
Nonfiction can and is absolutely considered literature when it is written with artistic craft, style, and thematic depth. While I agree, as does Stephen, that Jesus is a composite character of historical fiction, nonetheless the elements that are historical about Jesus of Nazareth being crucified under the authority of Pontius Pilate is the crucial element about which most everyone, perhaps most especially historians and other scholars, disagree with you.
What Robert said. I will only add that these genre boundaries were porous or non-existent in the ancient world. The fact that John is willing to change the day of Jesus’ Crucifixion to make a theological point should illustrate clearly the difference between their approach and that of a modern historian.
John is willing to change the day of Jesus’ Crucifixion to make a theological point…
Sorry but I am unable to resist chasing my own rabbits.
We admit that John uses the narrative to support his own agenda. Even by the end of the first century or the beginning of the second the author still feels able to adapt the traditional narrative to his own use. But we know this because we have the synoptics to compare it to. We don’t know Mark’s sources but why assume he wasn’t also willing to adapt his sources to fit his agenda as well?
I ask that to ask this. Perhaps the historical memory here was not so specific? Perhaps the actual surviving historical memory both these writers had was only that Jesus was arrested and executed sometime during or around the Passover. Mark made it the day he did to fit his agenda and John made it the day he did to fit his agenda.
Marcion – Both parts of this scriptural compilation were finalized around c. 130–140 A.D. and presented together to the Roman church around 144 A.D.
Justin had memoirs of the apostles.
Justin explicitly mentions Marcion in his First Apology (chapter 26). So Justin was unquestionably aware of Marcion and his movement while operating in Rome.
Tatian’s Diatessaron, with most modern biblical scholars narrowing the date of composition, is around 160–175 A.D.
Marcion died around 160.
Justin Martyr died in 165.
Tatian died around 180.
= = = =
Steefen:
Bart and scholars before Historical Accuracy was published in 2021 held to the four gospels existing before 100 CE.
Then there would be Marcion’s Gospel, 130-149 CE, with some version of Luke.
Then there would be the Diatessaron, 160-175 because, apparently, Marcion’s Evangelion was not satisfying to Tatian.
= = = =
Marcion knew that other Gospels existed, but he chose the one Gospel that he believed could be reconciled with Paul’s Gospel and his theology.
= = = = =
Robert:
the elements that are historical about Jesus of Nazareth being
crucified under the authority of Pontius Pilate
is the crucial element about which
most everyone, perhaps most especially historians
and other scholars,
disagree with you.
Steefen:
Jesus was crucified under the authority of Pontius Pilate?
Everyone, historians, scholars.
disagree with me?
Does Richard Carrier, PhD hold Jesus was crucified on Calvary by Pilate?
No, Richard Carrier does not hold that Jesus was crucified on Calvary by Pontius Pilate. Because Carrier is a prominent proponent of the Christ myth theory, he argues that Jesus of Nazareth never existed as a historical person.
ROFL
You’re gaslighting and cherry picking what you would have people believe. Crucified under the authority of Pontius Pilate is not even historical Robert. Even Bart Ehrman will tell you that.
- Extrabiblical Evidence: There are no surviving Roman legal codes or independent historical records explicitly detailing a formal privilegium paschale (a legal right to a Passover pardon).
** you do not have permission to see this link **
- Local Goodwill Gestures: Historians note that Roman and Herodian rulers in Judea occasionally pardoned prisoners or made political concessions during volatile festivals to appease local populations and prevent riots. Examples of similar releases are recorded by Josephus regarding other Judean leaders and procurators like Herod Archelaus and Albinus. [** you do not have permission to see this link **]
- Scholarly Skepticism: Many modern historians and scholars debate the historical plausibility of a Roman governor routinely freeing dangerous insurrectionists or murderers condemned to death, viewing the gospel accounts primarily through a theological and traditional lens rather than standard Roman judicial practice. [** you do not have permission to see this link **]
#1 Tell it to PhD Richard Carrier.
#2 Under the authority of Pontius Pilate? That charade starts off phoney as explained above.
#3 God gets Romans to kill Jesus who says, Pay your taxes?
#4 Pontius Pilate was removed from office because he used excessive, violent force to suppress a peaceful Samaritan religious gathering at Mount Gerizim.
No, @Robert, most everyone, most especially historians and scholars do NOT agree with you, disagreeing with me.
A character of historical fiction who didn’t have a biological father–and wasn’t an emperor was a false prophet whose death was not as consequential as a Samaritan leader is not a real person because he was given capital punishment in a questionable account by a person who was historical. Your historians and scholars have not published that.
The problem with the historical Jesus is that he has been almost completely absorbed into the legend that formed around his death. In the gospels we get glimpses, but only glimpses, of the pre-Easter Jesus. The dichotomy between the pre- & post-Easter Jesus is actually telling against Mythicist interpretations. If you’re making it all up why would this internal narrative tension even exist? But if you were an itinerant apocalyptic prophet whose followers reinterpreted your life and ministry in light of your death, it makes perfect sense!
He’s using REAL ESTATE and CONTRACTUAL language. The Romans allowed private assembly, ecclestia, for the purpose of burial cooperatives. Something the chirch still makes money in
Heaven = the region of the Lord of Heaven, Baal Shamin. Hegra its why it has so many Roman military retirees there
it’s funny
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)