Question XIX. Whether, by the probatic [sheep-] pool and the fountain of the temple, the water-servitude of the same Gabaonites was taken away?

[That] πρόβατον [probaton] is “a sheep” or “a beast” is agreed by all; and therefore προβατικὸν [probatikon is] “of sheep,” “of cattle,” or “pastoral.” But as to what [is said] of the probatic pool (John 5:1): it is read in two ways in the Greek [texts]. For either it is “in [the probatic pool],” or — as more manuscript codices have — “upon,” or “at the probatic,” that is, “the cattle-pool”; or it is “the probatic pool,” or “cattle-pool.” In the former way read nearly all the Greek codices, and chiefly the Vatican [codex], most ancient and most correct; in the latter, Theophylact (in the text and commentary). If the former reading be held, the pool will here scarcely produce any difficulty. For “probatic” [there] will be called not the pool itself, but the gate itself, which is called the “cattle[-gate]” (Neh. 3:2). If the latter reading please someone more, he will be able to say [that] the pool is called “probatic” because it was beside the probatic or cattle gate; and so it will again give no difficulty. But because Ammonius, Theodotus of Mopsuestia, St. Jerome, Theophylact, [and] Euthymius hold [it] called “probatic” because to it the sheep to be slaughtered were led, and in it the intestines of the slain victims were washed — it seems [that] there was no need for the Gabaonites to draw water and carry [it] into the temple. Then Aristeas narrates, in his embassy [account], and Tacitus (bk. 5), [that] there was in the temple of Jerusalem “a fountain of perennial water.” To what end, then, the Gabaonite sutlers [water-carriers]? I answer, [that] to dispute more accurately about that probatic reading is not [the business] of this place. On it, Nebrissensis [Nebrija] may be seen (in the Quinquagena, ch. 5), Brugensis [in his] notes, [and] Maldonatus on John. But, however it be read and explained, I say [that] neither by it [the pool] nor by that fountain is the servitude of the Gabaonites taken away — although there might be some diminution and alleviation of their labor. For to the lavers [luteres] and basins of the temple much water still had to be carried; likewise, to wash the pavements, and the shambles [macella], or the places of the slaying of victims, [there was] much [to carry]. So that this was only a convenience — that not so much water had to be brought, nor from so far. In Tacitus, however, the “fountain of perennial water” is not clearly said to be in the temple; but, since he is enumerating the ornaments of Jerusalem, he seems to place it in the city only.