seemed to relinquish the position and privileges of sonship to God (v. 26), and therefore, to preclude such an inference from his act, and to show that he merely waived in one respect the exercise of his prerogatives, it was suitable for him to assert his rank by a miracle of sovereign control. This view may be supported by an appeal to analagous events in the life of Christ. Hence it is no valid objection to this miracle, that Jesus or Peter could certainly have obtained so small a sum by natural means, and especially in Capernaum. This mighty act was performed, we may be sure, not for the sake of the money, but for a higher and spiritual end. Only Christ himself could determine, in view of all the circumstances, when a miracle was necessary for the revelation of his character and the fulfilment of his mission. We have therefore very little respect for that "omniscient criticism" which, in the person of a Paulus or a Strauss, declares that there was in the present instance no occasion whatever for a miracle.

(b) Paulus holds that Peter was directed by Jesus to catch some fish, and sell them in the market for a stater, the sum re

quired. Accordingly, evpnoes, thou shalt find, must denote a mediate finding of the money.

This interpretation requires ixiv, fish, to be a collective noun, which is inconsistent with the adjective рŵтоν, first, and with the apparently intentional use of a hook instead of a net. It also fails to explain the words, “having opened its mouth," which imply that the money was in "the mouth," and not in "the market"; for it is surely trifling to say that "having opened its mouth" may refer to a removal of the hook, or, by a slight change in the text, which a friend suggested to Paulus, to Peter's opening his own mouth to cry up his fish in the market. When Meyer remarks, that "the whole interpretation of Paulus is an exegetical portentum!" his words are sober and just.

(c) Strauss unites with Paulus in pronouncing this miracle "strange, needless, and therefore incredible; hence nothing remains but to assume a legendary element" in the narrative. Moreover, the current theme of Peter's fish-taking, and the well-known reports of jewels in the bodies of fishes, may sufficiently

1 II. p. 658, sq.

account, he thinks, for the origin of the story preserved by Matthew.1

In reply, we ask, How does this man know that such a miracle would have been useless? That it would not have vindicated in good time a great truth, the Saviour's sonship to God? Is he acquainted with all the circumstances of the case? Does he know that such a work may not have been at that very time needful to strengthen the disciples and keep them from error? And how were the stories of Peter's fish-taking and of gems found in fishes to make the early Christians believe that the Messiah had wrought such a miracle as the one before us? The mythical interpretation seems to us, not only without foundation, but without plausibility.

§ IV. The stilling of the tempest. Matt. viii. 23-27, Mark iv. 36-41, and Luke viii. 22-25.

(a) These narratives differ without contradiction. E. g., Matthew says, that "as he entered into the ship his disciples followed him"; Luke, that "he entered into a ship and his disciples"; and Mark, that "having sent away the multitude, they (the disciples)

1 II. p. 211.

take him as he was in the ship." Jesus enters the ship, his disciples dismiss the crowd, and, following him on board, without delay launch out into the deep. Exhausted by severe labor, he had, it seems, already sought a place of rest in the boat, and so the disciples, observing his weariness, were careful not to disturb him, but put out into the sea, "taking him as he was."

Again, Matthew says, "There arose a great tempest in the sea, so that the ship was covered by the waves"; Luke, "There came down a storm of wind on the lake, and they were becoming filled and in danger"; and Mark, "There arose a great storm of wind, and the waves were beating into the ship, so that it was already becoming full." Here is variety of expression with unity of idea.

Again, Matthew makes the terrified disciples say to Jesus, "Lord, save us: we perish"; Luke, "Master, Master, we perish”; and Mark, "Teacher, carest thou not that we perish?" Here the word rendered "we perish," is the same in all the accounts; but the title applied to Christ is different in every one of them. Yet the three words have so much in common that they may well be supposed to

represent the single Aramaic term, Rabbi. Probably the title was actually repeated by some of them, as in Luke. As to the clause in Mark, "Carest thou not?" it was doubtless expressed by one or more of the disciples, though most of them used other language, not implying reproach.

Again, Matthew says that Jesus reproved his disciples for their want of proper faith before the miracle; Mark and Luke say that he did so after it; and we see no reason to call in question the correctness of either statement. Why should not the Saviour twice remind them of their little faith? Other points might be noticed, but with the same result; the accounts differ without contradiction.

(b) They agree without dependence. For they all affirm: (1.) That Jesus proposed to pass over the lake with his disciples; (2.) that he entered into a ship with them; (3.) that he fell asleep in the ship during the passage; (4.) that a sudden and fierce storm arose; (5.) that the waves swept over the ship, and (6.) were in danger of filling and sinking it; (7.) that the disciples then awoke Jesus, and (8.) prayed him to save them from