heavy obj ection to this interpretation, that the two verses, on this view, appear to come in rather abruptly, and without much connection with what goes either before or after. In short, it is not very easy to explain why they come in here at all. — More- over, it is not very easy to see the drift of the expression, " signs in presence of His disciples," considering that many of our Lord's greatest miracles were worked before people who were not disciples at all. — Furthermore, it is not very clear what St. John can mean by saying " other" signs. That word " other" seems to point to miracles just performed, yet there was no special miracle performed at this particular, beyond, of course, our Lord's miraculous appearances.
(6) Others, as Chrysostom, Theophylact, Rupertus, Beza, Bul- linger, Calovius, Musculus, Gerhard, Ferus, Toletus, Maldo- natus, Henry, Tholuck, Scott, Bloomfield, and Olshausen, think that St. John writes these two verses with a special reference to the wDndrous signs and evidences which the Lord had just given to the disciples of His own resurrection from the dead. They would paraphrase the two verses in this way : — " Many other wondrous proofs did the Lord give to the Apostles of His • own resurrection, which are not written down in this (iospel, though they are written in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. But the three appearances which I have narrated, are written down in order to convince you that Jesus is the true Messiah, the Christ of God, and that, believing this firmly, you may have eternal life through faith in His name." — According to this view the two verses refer to nothing but this twentieth chapter, and are a parenthetical comment on it. It is as though John would say, " Do not suppose that these three appearances of Christ are the only wondrous signs and proofs of His resurrection. There are others which you will iind recorded in the other three Gospels. But I have related these three in order to con- firm your faith, and to show you that in believing on a risen Saviour you are resting on solid ground."
Of the two views I prefer the second one, as involving the fewest diflBculties. It is more probable, considering John's peculiar style of writing, to suppose that he makes a short parenthetical remark about a single chapter, than to suppose that he makes it about the whole of his Gospel. Above all this second view gets over the hnavy objection that, after bringing his whole Gospel to a conclusion by a general remark on the whole of it as compared to the other three Gospels, St. John seems to begin again in the twenty-first chapter, and to write a postscript or appendix. — In short the common theory, that these two verses apply to the whole Gospel, makes St. John finish his history, lay down his pen, complete his work, and then suddenly take up his pen again, and add the twenty-first chapter as a kind of after-thought. To say the least, this is an undignified, not to say rather irreverent, view of the com- position of an inspired writer ! — The other theory, or the theory