An Armenian translation of what is alleged to be the Commentary of Ephraem Syrus on Tatian’s Diatessaron was published as long ago as 1836, but failed to attract critical attention.  In 1876, however, a Latin translation of this work by Aucher and Moesinger was issued, and this has now, naturally introduced new elements into the argument regarding Tatian’s use of Gospels.  Only last year, a still more important addition to critical materials was made by the publication in Rome of an alleged Arabic version of Tatian’s Diatessaron itself, with a Latin translation by Ciasca.  These works were not before Dr. Lightfoot when he wrote his Essay on Tatian in 1877, and he only refers to them in a note in his present volume.  He entertains no doubt as to the genuineness of these works, and he triumphantly claims that they establish the truth of the “ecclesiastical theory” regarding the Diatessaron of Tatian.

In order to understand the exact position of the case, however, it will be well to state again what is known regarding Tatian’s work.  Eusebius is the first writer who mentions it.  He says—­and to avoid all dispute I give Dr. Lightfoot’s rendering:—­

“Tatian composed a sort of connection and compilation, I know not how ([Greek:  ouk oid’ hopos]), of the Gospels, and called 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.