Tatian, Titus and Justin

The name Titianus could be a diminutive of Titus, but it could mean “belonging to Titus’s retinue” or “owing allegiance to Titus”.

This absence of use of the Fourfold Gospel outside Greek-speaking areas has never been explained --- though this might be because the realisation itself is recent. What do you think?

It seems that Justin used a long single Gospel which Boismard has given the siglum P (for Pepys), the same as the text of the Pepys ms. and the same as (or very close to) the source of the quotations in Efrem (or pseudo-Efrem) that are not from the Diatessaron. Wherever I have been able to compare the two, it agrees with what is known of the Gospel of the Hebrews. If the “Gospel of John known to Polycarp” was used by Justin, then it was not the Gospel of John that we have as one of the four, as you have correctly remarked more than once. I can see how the Diatessaron could be called a “Gospel of John”. Once it had been forgotten how close the Diatessaron was to Justin’s text, it would be easy for someone simple-minded enough to look at the canonical John and assume it must be the book used by Polycarp and observe that they were not at all the same and conclude that the Diatessaron was a false Gospel of John. Ecclesiastics are not on the whole blessed with critical sense. But Justin didn’t use the Diatessaron: he used something that resembled it but was different.