S.C.Carlson

In a similar vein, Maximus the Confessor, Quaest. 56, noted that 153 is the 17th triangular number and that the 17 stands for the 10 commandments plus the 7 operations of the Holy Spirit.

While some people are fascinated by such numerological explanations, the author of John does not otherwise appear to be one of them.

Stephen

John Deere

SC

I believe that the reason the number 153 was chosen is because it refers to "the flesh of the fish" (see website below) and is a sly reference to the fact the the 'fish' - the Jewish rebels who are caught by the 'fishers of men' - are about to be eaten. This is why the group working the nets in John 21 are the same group that Jesus predicts at the begining of his ministry will become 'fishers of men'.

The NT has a chronic comic theme satirizing the fact that the Jews - who were too fastidious to eat pork ate human flesh during the seige of Jerusalem. The comedy in the NT is brutal and is uncovered in Caesar's Messiah.

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/en...sica_piscis.htm

S.C.Carlson

I'd like to investigate whether this meaning was current when John was written, but I can't figure out what the "flesh of the fish" is supposed to mean in the first place!

Stephen

spin

When people inaccurately bandy about mathematical formulas, you know that they don't have much to say.

Still bawling about inaccuracies when none have been shown.

Why shouldn't the scrolls refer to the ? This is a term quite fitting for a high priest.

Something outside the pale of the central religion, central, such as that represented by the temple.

As you added nothing to the discourse, you should go back and respond to my comment about the fact that half the scrolls date wholly before the 1st c. CE and most of the others intersect the change. Looking further at the scrolls I placed 1QS wholly before the 1st c. CE because it was scribed by the same scribe as 4QSamC which dated wholly before.

Now you have refused to say where you got your figures. I can only guess that they are not reputable. They disagree in places with those I've already cited.

You still haven't justified your attempt to change the fact that 1QpHab dates in the 1st c. BCE, though you want it to be in the next century. Your bandying about mathematical formulae hasn't helped you. The carbondating of pHab has the latest date at 2 CE and that reflects the trends of the c14 dating of the other scrolls.

Contamination is an issue with the scrolls and you have totally ignored it. All sorts of modern carbon based contaminants were used to clean the scrolls and they would all tend to date the scrolls towards younger.


spin

John Deere

Spin:

You are dancing around what any clear minded reader of our exchange can observe. For some reason you will not admit that phab could well have been written in the first century.

Your comment -

" The carbondating of pHab has the latest date at 2 CE and that reflects the trends of the c14 dating of the other scrolls"

is flatly untrue, is it not? 2CE is the younger edge of the one sigma range not the two sigma.

Please respond, if you are able, to the central point.

TedM

Pretty clever connecting of dots.

A few questions come to mind:

1. Matthew's account has the gold coin in the mouth of the fish. Why not in the belly like the Jewish men referenced by Josephus? By the way, as far as I could tell they only were suspected of swallowing coins and it wasn't clear to me that it was believed by the Syrians that they did so to avoid taxation--but I didn't read much.

2. Why did "John" have the fish caught in Galilee and not Judea, since Masada was in Judea, and why is there no reference in the story in John to taxation?

3. The 960 number, as I read it, includes men and women and children. Doesn't this mean the beginning number being used is flawed since it isn't just for men? Here's the section from Josephus 4. As I read it the 7 who escaped aren't included in the 960, so why subtract them from it?

5. As I read it the 7 are 2 women and 5 children. You say that these same 7 were Christians even though Josephus says no such thing. You also implied that the 2 women and 5 children are the same 7 that are the begnning of the Christian dynasty, in 70AD. Is that what you are saying?

6. You say "one must recognize that the seven "Christians' who survived do not need to pay the tax because, as Jesus said, the 'children of the King' - Titus - do not need to pay the tax. " What is in the story by Josephus that implies that the woman and the children were being loyal to Titus and not just saving their own lives? And, since when is loyalty to Rome a reason to not have to pay taxes? And if somehow they represent the beginning of the Christian dynasty doesn't this imply that all Christians are loyal to Titus and therefore won't have to pay any taxes too?


7. 800 Roman men were placed in Emmaus, in Judea. Why should that reduce the number of Jewish men in Masada who would have had to pay taxes? You suggest they are a replacement for Jews, and since they had already paid taxes it is as though 800 Jews from Masada had paid taxes. They aren't Jews and they weren't put in Masada. Seems a pretty loose connection to me.

Thanks,

ted

John Deere

Ted,

Sorry the analysis isn't clearer.

Flavian satire paints with a broad brush at times and sometimes the dots get far apart. As far as the '960' number Josephus specifically states that it includes the seven surviors, thus if they are 'children of the king', as I am suggesting, then the 'temple tax' units would be 953. The greater leap is in the subtracting the 800 who are given land. This is truly a leap of cognition and is simply a surmise on my part.

This analysis actually stems from discoveries presented in the 'Puzzle of the Empty Tomb', which is clearly a logic puzzle. Based upon that analysis, I believe that the Romans structured the NT and the works of Josephus as, not just their version of Hebraic typology. They also built it as a sort of intelligence test, in which the reader is expected to make 'progressions of logic' - like that I am suggesting with the subtracting of the '800' - to see the real point.

All of this is why I did not include this particular piece in the book as I felt it was too obtuse to stand next to the core analysis, which is easier to understand and easier to prove is correct.

Joe

Toto

John Deere - check out this article on bibleinterp.com -Redating the Dead Sea Scroll Deposits at Qumran: the Legacy of an error in Archaeological Interpretation.

And I would ask that you and spin provide some references for the rest of us rather than just sniping at each other.

TedM

Joe, I've bolded the parts which to me indicate that the 7 are not included in the 960. They lead me to conclude that the last part of the last sentence "the women and children being withal included in that computation" is NOT referring to the 2 woman and 5 children because they are not part of 'the rest' or 'those others' who were slaughtering each other. They would be the women and children also killed, so Josephus wasn't numbering just the men as is often done, but was numbering ALL who were killed--men, women and children.

Thanks for responding. While I think finding patterns can be fun and sometimes lead to the truth I think some people, yourself being one, are VERY GOOD at finding them but that doesn't always lead us to the truth. I feel that way about this particular puzzle. As for your main thesis, I haven't looked at it yet, and it may indeed be very compelling.

ted

John Deere

Ted:

The translation is confusing, but the author's intent is simply that the 960 include the woman and children, the 'others' are the 953 were the ones "intent upon the slaughter of one another" and the "960 nine hundred and sixty in number, the women and children being withal included in that computation" is meant to include this group and the seven.