J.J. Blunt's Undesigned Scriptural Coincidences
AN ARGUMENT FOR THE VERACITY OF THE HOLY BIBLE
Introduction
Part One:
The Books of Moses
Part Two:
The Historical Scriptures
Part Three:
The Prophetical Scripture
Part Four:
The Gospels and Acts
Appendix:
The Gospels, Acts
and Josephus

IV. CAPERNOUM AND THE TRIBUTE MONEY

Matth. 17:24.—“And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute-money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes.”

The word which is translated tribute-money is in the original “the didrachma, ” of which indeed notice is given in the margin of our version; and it is worthy of remark, that this tax seems not to have been designated by any general name, such for instance as tribute, custom, &c.;, but actually had the specific appellation of “the didrachma.” Thus Josephus writes: “Nisibis, too, is a city surrounded by the same river (the Euphrates); wherefore the Jews, trusting to the nature of its position, deposited there the didrachma, which it is customary for each individual to pay to God, as well as their other offerings.”—(Antiq. xviii. 10. § 1.)

There is something which indicates veracity in the Evangelist, to be correct in a trifle like this. He makes no mistake in the sum paid to the temple, nor does he express himself by a general term, such as would have concealed his ignorance, but hits upon the exact payment that was made, and the name that was given it.

It may be added, that St. Matthew uses the word didrachma without the smallest explanation, which is not the case, as we have seen, with Josephus; yet the argument of Jesus which follows would be quite unintelligible to those who did not know for whose service this tribute-money was paid. It is evident, therefore, that the Evangelist thought there could be no obscurity in the term; that it was much too familiar with his readers to need a comment. Now the use of it probably ceased with the destruction of the temple; after which but few years would elapse before some interpretation would be necessary, more especially as the term itself does not in the least imply the nature of the tax, but only its individual amount. The undesigned omission of everything of this kind, on the part of St. Matthew, pretty clearly proves the Gospel to have been written before the temple was destroyed.