d it
_Diatessaron_. This work is current in some quarters (with some
persons) even to the present day." [146:1]

I argued that this statement indicates that Eusebius was not personally
acquainted with the work in question, but speaks of it from mere
hearsay. Dr. Lightfoot replies--

"His inference, however, from the expression 'I know not how' is
altogether unwarranted. So far from implying that Eusebius had no
personal knowledge of the work, it is constantly used by writers in
speaking of books where they are perfectly acquainted with the
contents, but do not understand the principles, or do not approve
the method. In idiomatic English it signifies 'I cannot think what
he was about,' and is equivalent to 'unaccountably,' 'absurdly,' so
that, if anything, it implies knowledge rather than ignorance of the
contents. I have noticed at least twenty-six examples of its use in
the treatise of Origen against Celsus alone, [146:2] where it
commonly refers to Celsus' work which he had before him, and very
often to passages which he himself quotes in the context." [146:3]

If this signification be also attached to the expression, it is equally
certain that [Greek: ouk oid' hopos] is used to express ignorance,
although Dr. Lightfoot chooses, for the sake of his argument, to forget
the fact. In any case some of the best critics draw the same inference
from the phrase here that I do, more especially as Eusebius does not
speak further or more definitely of the _Diatessaron_, amongst whom
I may name Credner, Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann, Reuss and Scholten; and
should these not have weight with him I may refer Dr. Lightfoot to
Zahn, [147:1] and even to Dr. Westcott [147:2] and Professor Hemphill.
[147:3] Eusebius says nothing more of the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian
and gives us no further help towards a recognition of the work.

Dr. Lightfoot supposes that I had overlooked the testimony of the
_Doctrine of Addai_, an apocryphal Syriac work, published in 1876
by Dr. Phillips after _Supernatural Religion_ was written. I did
not overlook it, but I considered it of too little critical value
to require much notice in later editions of the work. The _Doctrine
of Addai_ is conjecturally dated by Dr. Lightfoot about the middle
of the third century, [147:4] and it might with greater certainty
be placed much later. The passage to which he points is one in which
it is said that the new converts me