Cege

Thanks for the link, and I see the number 153 there as the result of several calculations. And I understand that Pythagoras and his disciples thought of mathematics as sacred. Forgive me if I still don't see proof that Pythagoras himself (and his peers) saw 153 as a sacred number.

Would the number 153 have had any meaning to the average Hebrew of the
1st or 2nd centuries? or the average Greek or Roman?

Do you imply that the writer of GJohn included the number 153 for a sacred and/or mystical reason, or that 153 (as well as the entire chapter 21) was added later by someone who had an affinity for, and presumably some education in, math?

Clivedurdle

Because 153 is a special number that made it by definition sacred. And yes, I think this sort of stuff would be common knowledge amongst people who could read and write. I have no clue why 153 was put into John, but it looks like a direct link to Pythagoras. Maybe the Hebrew Bible is not the only source for the NT. John also uses the idea of Logos so I would say there are explicit links to Greek thinking being made.

I don't think there are any questions about it being original. Others here will know about references to Greek ideas in John.

And yes it is there for a theological reason - to connect Jesus with Pythagoras?

Do any xians write of Pythagoras as a forerunner of Jesus? All very fishy!

Clivedurdle

Clarke's_three_laws

They were doing some very impressive maths - and it would feel magical!

http://www.antikythera-mechanism.com/

Chili

There is nothing sacred about 153 but they are the most ungodly of all numbers. John knows and now also Simon Peter-son-of-John.

einniv

Cege, I hope you won't mind my amateur response.

153 is a triangular number. That is 1+2+3+...+17 =153

You can find other references by doing a google search for triangular number. That they were considered special by Pythagoreans is mentioned many times. I suppose it is possible that they all get it wrong somehow but since several of the references you'll find are from math departments I am doubtful of this being an error (I wouldn't bother with the new age sites that mention it).

The link to the Pythagoras fish story is already listed above.

In his Incredible Shrinking Son of Man (or via: amazon.co.uk) book, Robert Price puts forth one theory. Although the extant version of the Pythagoras fish story doesn't say how many fish there are, if it did, 153 would certainly have been a candidate number due to the Pythagoreans investigation of triangular numbers.

Also, he notes that the exact number of fish is totally out of place. No one says anything about counting the fish and the story already says all that needs to be said in that the net was very heavy to pull in. An exact count would be totally appropriate in the Pythagoras story though since he says he will guess the exact number. (again while it wouldn't have to be 153 it would likely be one of the figure numbers that they held important).

This causes Price to suggest that perhaps this story was a case of direct borrowing and that the number was kept because perhaps, by the time the story made it to him, the author didn't know where it had come from and so figured the 153 detail must be important. He doesn't argue for that kind of borrowing very often. He usually leaves open the possibility that similarity between ancient tales is just a sign of the time so to speak. For example, he doesn't claim direct borrowing for parallels to Apollonius of Tyana resurrection of the dead stories, leaving open the possibility that it was just a common theme used to promote revered people.

I have to admit it certainly does seem like an odd detail and even more odd that it so well matches something associated with Pythagoras to whom that detail would have a special meaning. And about whom another similar fish story was told.

Clivedurdle

Maybe a version does!

(Welcome!)

HeretiKc

R U SIRIUS?

Most of the papers I've read by Price have been riddled with speculations on obscure borrowings... i.e. suggesting elements of the Passion story were modeled after the portrayal of Cleomenes in Plutarch's Lives, or constructing questionable etymologies based merely on slight similarities in spelling, for where gospel authors got the names of certain characters and such, etc.

Certainly, there are cases where the gospel authors pull from a standard bag of common Greek literary motifs (chains falling off Peter and Paul in Lukan Acts) ... and in these cases, these are indeed a "sign of the times." But, in other cases, it's almost possible to know exactly where authors are pulling their material from.

einniv

Well, yes actually I am. I haven't read many papers of his. I am basing my statements on the two books I've read of his. Deconstructing Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk) and Incredible Shrinking Son of Man (or via: amazon.co.uk) where he is quite consistent and explicit about leaving the door open on such matters.

HeretiKc

Actually, I have Incredible Shrinking Son of Man on my Amazon wishlist, and have high hopes for it. Perhaps the irony is that Price is less speculative in his books, as opposed to the papers he sends in to academic journals. This is certainly part of the reason why the Journal of Higher Criticism isn't a very prestigious journal, and really is just...

a faux-scholarly journal created for those on the fringe not to feel rejected

Just kidding.

Nazaroo

Its incredible how people can literally miss what is under their noses.

Just as the '4000', and '5000' people fed in the gospels is just a veiled 'sign' of the 5000 people brought to Christ in Acts, similarly, the number 153 is actually a reference to the number of people praying in the room when Pentecost occurred.

How could anyone miss these simple and obvious number cues?

If there were any additional or special meaning for 153 like that of 666 in Revelation, it would be the sum of the letters in a man's name, like that of Caesar.

If you want to find this kind of meaning in John 21, start adding up the letters in 'Peter', (all its variations), 'Lazarus' (the unnamed disciple whom Jesus loved enough to resurrect), or key titles like 'pope' or bishop. The 21st chapter is again a veiled reference to Peter's later role in the church.