to bring out^the presence of supernatural agency, but it is much more reasonable to believe that attempts have been made to omit these verses, of which there is such ancient attestation, in order to eliminate an embarrassing excess of {422} supernatural agency, and get rid of the difficulty presented by the fact, for which even Tertullian(1) endeavoured to account, that the supposed pool had ceased to exhibit any miraculous phenomena. This natural explanation is illustrated by the alacrity with which apologists at the present day abandon the obnoxious passage.(2) The combined force of the external and internal evidence, however, cannot, we think, be fairly resisted.(3) Now, not only is the pool of Bethesda totally unknown at the present day, but although possessed of such miraculous properties, it was not known even to Josephus, or any other writer of that time. It is inconceivable that, were the narrative genuine, the phenomena could have been unknown and unmentioned by the Jewish historian.(4) There is here evidently neither the narrative of an Apostle nor of an eye-witness. Another very significant mistake occurs in the account of the conversation with the Samaritan woman, which is said to have taken place (iv. 5) near "a city of Samaria 2 "The Biblical critic is glad that he can remove these words from the record, and cannot be called upon to explain them."--Rev. H. W. Watkins, M.A., in "A New Test. Commentary for English Readers," edited by Charles John Ellicott, D.D., Lord Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, i. p. 416. {423}