Gundulf

So, was Jesus asking if Peter loved Jesus more than he liked catching and eating fish?

Or was he asking if Peter loved Jesus more than fish love Jesus?

--(I can see the Christian bracelets now: WWFD - what would fishies do?)

Peter Kirby

Gundulf.

My bet is Jesus asking if Peter loved Jesus more or the fish more.

--
Peter Kirby

dzim77

Hi Gerard

Ok, you are assuming John was using the Pythagorean legend in the first place and, based on that assumption, you are saying it would be strange for John to add 153 if it was not there in the first place. I'm not making that assumption.

I'm wondering if the 153 was in the original legend, which would be a big clue as to how likely it is that John used it, correct?

Can you point me more specifically to your source by chance? thanks.

gstafleu

I got it from Robert Price's The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, p.158. He refers to Iamblichus Life of Pythagoras. But... Price quotes a version of the story that does not have the number 153 in it!

So now we have a story in John that looks an awful lot like the Pythagorean legend. In fact it is more Pythagorean than the legend in that it provides an actual Pythagorean number, which the legend may lack! It is hard to see how one can use the fact that John's story uses a Pythagorean number to argue that he did not borrow from the Pythagorean legend. But how that number got there is a bit of a mystery.

Gerard Stafleu

dzim77

Thanks Gerard.
Yea, the versions of the legend I am familiar with did not have P. giving a specific number (153), so I was wondering if Price was using a source I had not known of. Apparently not.

The question is whether the account in John is indeed taken from Pythagorean legend. Are there enough similarties to conclude that it is?

Given that the most significant connection between the John account and the Pythagarean legend is the number 153, and that there are other explanations for 153 (notably Jerome's), the fact that the '153 fish' are not actually in the legend is significant. In fact, other than 153, the only similarity we have is a net full of fish. (keep in mind Luke also records a miraculous catch involving Jesus and Peter in a different context).

gstafleu

True... So what is Jerome's explanation for 153?

Gerard Stafleu

dzim77

Peter Kirby summarized it well in his post above...

Since fish are a commonly used symbol for disciples/converts in the gospels, this explanation would make sense, IMO, given the context... that is, if we are to suppose a symbolic meaning for '153'.

gstafleu

Doing a search for Oppianus Cilix I found this JSTOR article, "One Hundred and Fifty-three Large Fish" by Robert M Grant. It appears that Oppianus does not mention 153. Grant concludes: "The point in question very simple. No one who did not have the number 153 already in mind could approach Oppian's work and count the species of fish, especially since Oppian himself declares them uncountable and does not list them in any systematic way."

Grant then continues to try and find some other explanation for the number, conspicuously not mentioning Pythagoras. He tries to find it in the fact that 153 is the sum of the numbers 1 through 17. I'll save you the "reasoning," it sounds like the kind of mumbo jumbo you'd expect on a new age web site.

Given we have a story about fish catching, which has a known Pythagorean precedent, and a Pythagorean number, the simplest explanation for 153 is the Pythagorean one. That 153 does not appear in the versions of the legend we have does not worry me too much. In those days the legends were often an oral tradition, and in oral traditions we expect variations (see Allen Dundes book Holy Writ as Oral Lit). Likely in one of the versions then going around the teller of the tale had added the number 153 as an extra Pythagorean touch, even if it wasn't already present. Alternatively, 153 may have been in the "original" (if there is such a thing in oral tradition) version of the legend, while our version has lost it.

All in all I conclude that the evidence for John's fish story as derived from the Pythagorean legend is still strong.

Gerard Stafleu

Peter Kirby

I tried searching the TLG for the number 153. It's a damn sight rare.

When searching on "treis kai penthkonta kai ekaton", I turn up Arrian, in his Historia Indica, saying, "From Dionysus to Sandracottus the Indians counted a hundred and fifty-three kings, over six thousand and forty-two years, and during this time thrice [Movements were made] for liberty . . . "

Searching for "ἑκατὸν πεντήκοντα τριῶν" turns up only the Gospel of John and dependent literature.

One thing I wonder is...why is the number "backwards" in the Gospel of John? It would have been normal to write it "three and fifty and one hundred", but the text of the Gospel of John has it backwards.

Do the manuscripts spell out the number or use a shorter form?

--
Peter Kirby

gstafleu

This page says that F&G mention 153 in relation to Fish (I vaguely seem to remember this...). For a graphical explanation of how 153 relates to fish, see this Dirty Greek page (search for 153, then you'll be close to an interesting picture of how to draw a fish). That certainly suggests why the Pythagorean number 153 would have been included in the legend.

Gerard Stafleu