Expository Thoughts
tendency in the passage. Our Lord pronounced no opinion on the sin of adultery but simply declined the office of a judge.
It may seem almost presumptuous to offer any opinion on this very difficult subject. But I venture to make the following remarks and to invite the reader's candid attention to them. I lean decidedly to the side of those who think the passage is genuine, for the following reasons:
1. The argument from manuscripts appears to me inconclusive. We possess comparatively few very ancient ones. Even of them some favor the genuineness of the passage. The same remark applies to the ancient versions. Testimony of this kind, to be conclusive, should be unanimous.
2. The argument from the Fathers seems to me more in favor of the passage than against it. On the one side, the reasons are simply negative. Certain Fathers say nothing about the passage but at the same time say nothing against it. On the other side, the reasons are positive. Men of such high authority as Augustine and Ambrose not only comment on the passage but defend its genuineness, and assign reasons for its omission by some mistaken transcribers.
Let me add to this that the negative evidence of the Fathers who are against the passage is not nearly so weighty as it appears at first sight. Cyril of Alexandria is one. But his commentary on the eighth chapter of John is lost, and what we have was supplied by the modern hand of Jodocus Clichtovoeus, a Persian doctor, who lived in