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 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
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.
which is called Sychar." It is evident that there was no such place—and apologetic ingenuity is severely taxed to explain the difficulty. The common conjecture has been that the town of Sichem is intended, but this is rightly rejected by Delitzsch,(1) and Ewald.(2) Credner,(3) not unsupported by others, and borne out in particular by the theory of Ewald, conjectures that Sychar is a corruption of Sichem, introduced into the Gospel by a Greek secretary to whom this part of the Gospel was dictated, and who mistook the Apostle's pronunciation of the final syllable. We constantly meet with this elastic explanation of difficulties in the Gospel, but its mere enunciation displays at once the reality of the difficulties and the imaginary nature of the explanation. Hengstenberg adopts the view, and presses it with pious earnestness, that the term is a mere nickname for the city of Sichem, and that, by so slight a change in the pronunciation, the Apostle called the place a city of Lies [———] a lie), a play upon words which he does not consider unworthy.(4) The only support which this latter theory can secure from internal evidence is to be derived from the fact that the whole discourse with the woman is ideal. Hengstenberg(5) conjectures that the five husbands of the woman are typical of the Gods of the five nations with which the King of Assyria peopled Samaria, II. Kings, xvii. 24—41, and which they worshipped instead of the God of Israel, and as the actual God of the Samaritans was not recognized as the true God by the Jews, nor their
