Clivedurdle

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=187053

Has anyone had a comprehensive look at fish, pythagorus and Jesus? There is something very interesting going on here!

spin

When I asked the question, I'd checked for how the genitive functioned in other related situations and it often seemed to be for the agent.


spin

ynquirer

Such a genitive standing for the agent is called a partitive - I hope the noun is also correct in English - as meaning that only a fraction of those pointed at are on focus. Thus, the question would be, “Do you love me more than (those among) these (that more love me)?” That’s the traditional interpretation of the phrase, I know, but - is it the only possible interpretation of it?

spin

That's why I asked the question. You've supplied a third approach. I was hoping for a bit more of the accusative in parallels to understand if we were dealing with "do you love me more than you love the fish?"


spin

PhilosopherJay

As I noted in "Evolution of Christs and Christianies," this is an intense farewel/love scene and is unlikely to have been originally between Jesus and Peter. The line should be seen in context with the idea from the Gospel of Philip that Jesus loved Mary more than the other disciples. In the original text, it was Mary who said to Jesus(who was Simon Zebedee posessed by the spirit of Jesus/Joshua), " Simon, Do you love me more than the these [other female disciples]. This would naturally lead to or reflect the idea in the gospel of Philip that Jesus loved Mary more than the other disciples.

Beside Raymond Brown and Ramon K. Jusino, Esther A. De Boer has written eloquently in support of the idea that the Gospel of John has turned Jesus gay to hide his pasionate sexual love for Mary. (http://www.lectio.unibe.ch/00_1/m-forum.htm) "Mary Magdalene and the Disciple Jesus Loved".

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

ynquirer

In Xenophon’s Oeconomicus 13:9 a construction like peinôsi tou epainou is used. Perhaps it is a valid parallel.

gstafleu

`When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?"' This starts what in modern literature would be a new paragraph: the fishing business is done, now we move on to what happened after the eating. I would suggest that the eating, and implied the things they were eating, is the closed referent for "these."

Jesus thus asks Peter if he loves him more than he loves eating (fishes in this case). After an affirmative response Jesus then elaborates on that by telling Peter to feed his (Jesus') lambs, as opposed to feeding him(Peter)self. Jesus then asks Peter to take care of the sheep (believers) and to, again, feed the sheep. Thus Jesus asks Peter three times to put others' interests above his own. These three times correspond to Peter's three denials of Jesus: three times where Peter put his own interests first.

All this only makes sense if Jesus asks Peter in the beginning if he is (now) prepared to put his love of Jesus above his own interests, the latter symbolized by eating fish. I don't see how a question about if Peter loves Jesus more than the other disciples love Jesus, or more than Peter loves the other disciples, contributes anything to the story.

Gerard Stafleu

gstafleu

So what happened here is that the author of John needed something to reinstate Peter. He grabbed the Pythagorean legend, and adapted it as stated above. He left in the 153, perhaps because is sounded important, perhaps because the Pythagorean legend was known as showing something miraculous, and so the 153 would impart an aura of importance.

The miraculous bit in the original legend was that Pythagoras could guess the number, and that the fishes were still alive after being released. The miraculous bit in John is that the disciples find fish where Jesus tells them to. Of course the poor fishes than get eaten, so the Pythagorean legend has undergone some modification.

But perhaps not quite as much modification as one might think. Pythagoras is seen as taking care of his "flock" (the innocent fishes about to be eaten), Jesus is doing something similar by telling Peter to take care of the flock, and by reinstating Peter after his little screw-up, thus taking care of his (Jesus') flock of disciples.

Gerard Stafleu

dzim77

Are you sure about that?

From what I can find, Pythagoras accurately predicts the number of fish, but he does not give a specific number. (it's not 153 fish)

That's a significant difference, yes?

gstafleu

Hm, I'm going by what Robert Price said here. It would be a bit strange if the Christian version added the Pythagorean number to the original legend where the original Pythagorean version lacked it. 153 is hardly coincidence, and it doesn't really mean anything in the Christian version, except to signify there were a lot of fish. So FTTB I'll keep assuming the 153 was in the original version as well, but it is an interesting question.

Gerard Stafleu