More important still is the fact that it existed in the ancient Latin version of Tertillian, who refers to the passage;(1) and it is quoted by Didymus, Chrysostom, Cyril, Ambrose, Theophylact, Euthymius, and other Fathers. Its presence in the Alexandrian Codex alone might not compensate for the omission of the passage by the Sinaitic and Vatican Codices and C, D, but when the Alexandrian MS. is supported by the version used by Tertullian, which is a couple of centuries older than any of the other authorities, as well as by the Peschito, not to mention other codices, the balance of external evidence is distinctly in its favour. The internal evidence is altogether on the side of the authenticity of the passage. It is true that there are a considerable number of [------] in the few lines: [------] and perhaps [------]; but it must be remembered that the phenomena described are exceptional, and may well explain exceptional phraseology. On the other hand, [------] is specially a Johannine word, used v. 4 and six times more in the fourth Gospel, but only five times in the rest of the New Testament; and [------] with [------] occurs in v. 4, 6, 9, 14, and with [------] in v. 11, 15, vii. 23 and nowhere else. [------] also may be indicated as employed in v. 4, 7 and five times more in other parts of the Gospel, and only eleven times in the rest of the New Testament, and the use of [------] in v. 4 is thus perhaps naturally {421} accounted for. The context, however, forbids the removal of this passage. It is in the highest degree improbable that verse 3 could have ended with "withered" [------], and although many critics wish to retain the last phrase in verse 3, in order to explain verse 7, this only shows the necessity, without justifying the arbitrary maintenance, of these words, whilst verse 4, which is still better attested, is excluded to get rid of the inconvenient angel. It is evident, however, that the expression: "when the water was troubled" [------] of the undoubted verse 7 is unintelligible without the explanation that the angel "was troubling the water," [------] of verse 4, and also that the statement of the verse 7, "but while I am coming, another goeth down before me" [------] absolutely requires the account: "he, therefore, who first went in &c." [------] of verse 4. The argument that the interpolation was made to explain the statement in verse 7 is untenable, for that statement necessarily presupposes the account in the verses under discussion, and cannot be severed from it. Even if the information that the water was "troubled" at certain seasons only could have been dispensed with, it is obvious that the explanation of the condition of healing, given in verse 4, is indispensable to the appreciation of the lame man's complaint in verse 7, for without knowing that priority was essential, the reason for the protracted waiting is inconceivable. It is also argued, that the passage about the angel may have been interpolated