CAF Bible Study - The Gospel of John

[Prayer_Warrior]

Is it just me or has no one questioned what the 153 fish represent?

There are lots of speculations on this.

I have read that Jerome said that at the time the Gospel was written, the ancient Greeks knew about 153 fish species in the sea of Tiberias (actually a lake, of course)— so his interpretation was that it represented the totality of nations.

I found also that St. Augustine thought the number was significant. 153 is the 17th triangular number. (Triangle of course reminds me of Trinity). So, mathematically speaking: 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11+12+13+14+15+16+17 = 153. Anyway, St. Augustine knew that 153 was the 17th triangular number and felt that was significant in light of 10 commandments (Old Law) plus the 7 gifts of the holy spirit (New Law).

I also read an interesting commentary that said "in Greek the gematria for “Sons of God” is 3212 which is 3x7x153. This suggestion links Jerome’s theory that the number of fish in the Sea of Tiberius is the ideal number of the “tribes of man”, 153 times the Trinity [3] and spiritual perfection [7]. "

One could ponder this for a long time, eh? :hypno:

 

[Huiou_Theou]

There are lots of speculations on this.

I have read that Jerome said that at the time the Gospel was written, the ancient Greeks knew about 153 fish species in the sea of Tiberias (actually a lake, of course)— so his interpretation was that it represented the totality of nations.

I found also that St. Augustine thought the number was significant. 153 is the 17th triangular number. (Triangle of course reminds me of Trinity). So, mathematically speaking: 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11+12+13+14+15+16+17 = 153. Anyway, St. Augustine knew that 153 was the 17th triangular number and felt that was significant in light of 10 commandments (Old Law) plus the 7 gifts of the holy spirit (New Law).
…

And Augustine also had the wisdom to point out that mathematical proofs based on numerology are very easily misleading, and ought not be the primary basis of interpreting scripture!

1+3+4+7+… is also a summation leading to squares, just like 12121000= 144,000 people in revelation… but that probably doesn’t apply here, although I can think of a few ways of making it fit by combining with other symbolic numbers.
I like to hear these speculations anyway, for I think when a number is used consistently in scripture that it is a clue that it really does have a special meaning.
For example the 10 commandments – 10 is a sign of Goodness to the Egyptians (a very superstitious method of determining good) – so it isn’t surprising that as they left Egypt with some Egyptians coming with them in their number, that God chose the ecumenical number 10.



The reason I focused on three, for example, is that it is used in a very repetitive way and is quite deliberate here in John. The comments about lambs, for example, has more than the meaning of betrayal and forgiveness associated with it – and John forces it to appear in triplicate. The lambs would normally be taken care of by a different shepard than the sheep – for they are not old enough to forage effectively yet.
Those which are tended are perhaps singled out for the Greek does not really differentiate between the newborns and the very young – but it still strongly suggests slightly older sheep – and then sheep of course are the fully grown.

In other words, the WHOLE flock from youngest to oldest.

(As an aside, sheep was a Greek synonym for “flock” oftentimes, whether of sheep, sheep and goats, or whatever.)

But also, and perhaps more central to this passage, is that Jesus is identifying himself with the flock yet again. Do you love me, feed my sheep.

We are the body of christ.

153 being far more obscure than 3, I accept its interpretation as possibly that given by you and others above, or perhaps something else. But “three”, “thirty”. and the like appear to be used in heroic contexts – such as the mighty three (if I remember right) who broke through to the well to draw king david a drink in the very midst of battle risking their lives for a trifle…

It certainly has a significance with respect to Jonah, though I am still probing that – perhaps it is only that three is less than four, where the fourth day is where corruption is supposed to set in to a dead body. But then, why apply it to sheep, and why – before hand did Jesus prophecy of the three denials? Is it merely Peter whom his OWN denials represent – I wonder about the sheep too.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I just reread the passages yet again, and even more details which harbor some kind of significance are bringing to mind the other scriptures.

Mary magdaline, in the last chapter, spoke the word “Teacher!”. This reminds me of the bafflement of the Jews when Jesus opened the eyes of the blind and the ears of the deaf and the paralytic – occasionally the phrase appears “What is this new teaching” in reference to the miracles themselves. Chapters being a later invention of the bible, I wonder if John speaks of the holding, eating with, and ascending of Jesus as one teaching – and I am struck by the parallel between the magdalane looking for Jesus who was taken away in her encounter – with that of the apostles on the mount of olives where the same scene repeats itself – two angels are suddenly next to the disciples – as if the ark were right there next to them. Something along the lines of, men of Galilee why are you standing here staring up at the sky… As if Jesus himself were speaking through the mouth of the angels, as if they are somehow … oh I don’t know. That’s seems silly.

I was told by one priest, don’t know if it is true or speculative, that in the feeding of the 5000, and 7000, that the fish brought were of the smaller variety – sort of like anchovies are used as seasoning on pizza – these small fish were used to moisten and season bread. (I do believe the scripture calls them small fish though, regardless) – here in this passage Jesus already has some fish on the charcoal fire even before the disciples come to him – and there is no explanation of how or why or of what kind – but the John appears to think it important that the caught fish are of the large varieties.

I am also trying to grasp if there is more meaning in the way pentecost would (the fiftieth day in celebration of harvest) come in the future with respect to the resurrection – since a few chapters back (if anyone remembers) we spoke of the relationship of Jesus going and the Holy spirit coming.

The fire of the Holy Spirit corresponds to the fire which came down for Elijah and consumed the sacrifice on mount carmel. Where God accepted the sacrifice.
In a sacrificial context, pentecost was a sacrificial day – where the fire comes upon the body of the sacrifice.

Yet also, the taking of Jesus into heaven or his going on his own power (the shades of meaning are interesting and my memory suggests that scripture speaks of it in both ways – eg: he rose himself because death could not hold him, and the father raised him up. But that this taking up into heaven is a necessity for the sacrifice to be in heaven eternally. It is also the acceptance of that same sacrificial body that the Holy Spirit comes upon, but in a different way.

hmmmm…

 

[August_AWeitzel]

When was the first: Jesus rose again from the dead?

Okay, I’ll have to tell you.
When Jesus died on the cross and desended into hell to free all the souls and open the gates of heaven, talking his dad, grandparents and cousin John with him to the father, that was the first rising from the dead and later on the third day he rose again!

 

[Michael_Francis]

Thread has been pruned:

Please remain on topic. The gospel of John, not the creeds.

Also, this is a study thread…not a debate thread so if you wish to debate something then copy it over in apologetics and do so there.
MF

 

[Red_Wolf]

I am not learned enough to post this as clearly as I would like. Hopefully someone will understand and enlighten.

Chapter 21, verses 15-17; I recall that different words are used for “love” in the “original” Greek text, each having different meanings. In Chapter 1, verse 42, some pain seems to have been taken to clarify that Jesus was speaking in Aramaic on that occasion. My impression is that Aramaic did not have the vocabulary for verses 15-17 to have gone down in Aramaic. Did Jesus teach in Greek, on occasion?

Various aspects of love; feed, tend; lambs, sheep; what exactly is being said here? I suspect the Greek is far more subtle and nuanced than the English translation. Could it have been said in anything but Greek?

 

[NotWorthy]

I am not learned enough to post this as clearly as I would like. Hopefully someone will understand and enlighten.

Chapter 21, verses 15-17; I recall that different words are used for “love” in the “original” Greek text, each having different meanings. In Chapter 1, verse 42, some pain seems to have been taken to clarify that Jesus was speaking in Aramaic on that occasion. My impression is that Aramaic did not have the vocabulary for verses 15-17 to have gone down in Aramaic. Did Jesus teach in Greek, on occasion?

I would beg to differ, Red Wolf. This is a wonderful question!!! Good insight.

But… the quote you are referencing in John 1:42 reads in part

“You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Cephas”

*Cephas *is the Greek rendering of the Aramaic Word. It would be how a Greek would call someone named “Kepha” in Aramaic. We see this in Paul’s rendering of Peter’s name in several of his epistles. So Jesus could have been speaking in Greek, or John could have translated Jesus’ words to Greek. We simply have no clue (IMO).

I know this is an issue in Matthew 16, but there is a difference. We know Jesus was teaching in Aramaic in Matthew 16, for the author specifically used the phrase, “Simon, Bar-Jonah”, a uniquely Aramaic expression.

John’s Gospel, though, was originally in Greek.

So, back to your question. Jesus could have talked in Aramaic to Peter and used a phrase that best translates to “love me completely” and “love me like a brother”, and John would have translated these Aramaic phrases into the Greek words. Or Jesus could have talked to Peter in Greek, knowing there was no Aramaic expression to convey “Agape” and “Philia”

Various aspects of love; feed, tend; lambs, sheep; what exactly is being said here? I suspect the Greek is far more subtle and nuanced than the English translation. Could it have been said in anything but Greek?

“Tend” had a sense of authority to it. “Feed” is to teach. The lambs would be the faithful and the sheep would be the church leaders.

So Jesus is telling Peter to spread the Gospel and to run the Church.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

In my last post I meant 1+3+5+7+… which goes to 1,4,9,16,…
Sorry about the butterfingers…

I am not learned enough to post this as clearly as I would like. Hopefully someone will understand and enlighten.

Chapter 21, verses 15-17; I recall that different words are used for “love” in the “original” Greek text, each having different meanings.

Chapter 21, verses 15-17 the Greek uses the following words:

αγαπας με → Agapas Me; and αρνια μου – boske ta arnia mou (feed my “little” lambs)
αγαπας με → Agapas Me; and ποιμαινε προβατα μου – poimaine ta probata mou (tend my sheep, mature or not)
φιλεις με → fileis Me; and βοσκε προβατα μου – boske probata mou (feed my sheep, mature or not)

There are two kinds of love mentioned in the passage agapas, and fileis.
The first two times Jesus asks Peter if he “agapas” him – but Peter responds I “fileis”(filial love) you.
The third and final time Jesus switches to the word Peter has used twice – “fileis” which is the exact answer Peter had been giving him twice before, the final sentence points out that Peter is not offended by the third “time” but rather by the third love (fileis).

In Chapter 1, verse 42, some pain seems to have been taken to clarify that Jesus was speaking in Aramaic on that occasion. My impression is that Aramaic did not have the vocabulary for verses 15-17 to have gone down in Aramaic. Did Jesus teach in Greek, on occasion?

A bit of supporting evidence can be found where Jesus talks to Greek (syro phonecian) woman in Mark 7:26 ( A traditional enemy foreigner) who would not likely have known Aramaic – though that’s a “probability argument”. I am not aware off the top of my head of anything else which strongly supports your question. As “vocabulary”, are you thinking that the Hebrew/Aramaic tounges held only one word for Love or something else?

Various aspects of love; feed, tend; lambs, sheep; what exactly is being said here? I suspect the Greek is far more subtle and nuanced than the English translation. Could it have been said in anything but Greek?

I don’t know, but I would think so – for in Greek expression the Hebrew’s translated the Hebrew scripture into the Greek Septuagint using various Greek words for love – So, I inferr that since the original was known to be Hebrew, that at least Hebrew had more than one way to express the idea of Love – and if not as distinct words, then at least they had an equivalent expression. Since Aramaic descends from Hebrew, I would expect it had the ability as well.

“philia” which is found in the english word “Philadelphia” means a “friendly love” – which is a generic regard, interest, attachment. The name Phil-`ip means the “friendly love of horses”

“Agapa” is often used as a synonym – look here:
perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%

But the passage in John is trying to make a distinction of some kind, and Agapa is far more formal and less often used. Perhaps Perseus is correct in saying that is used where man loves God and God loves man – (master and slave like, or otherwise) as that seems more appropriate in certain passages than the “selfless love” which is sometimes predicated of Agapa. At this time I haven’t studied it enough to be certain of its meaning as I am with other words.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I would beg to differ, Red Wolf. This is a wonderful question!!! Good insight.

But… the quote you are referencing in John 1:42 reads in part *Cephas *is the Greek rendering of the Aramaic Word. It would be how a Greek would call someone named “Kepha” in Aramaic.

I would like to clarify just a bit: the word in John 1:42 is → κηφας <—
In english sound alike letters kEfas or perhaps kAfas. I am not sure why in english it is rendered with a “C” instead of a “K”, but it is a minor point as the words sound very similar. Note: Cephas is a nonsense english word, just as it is a nonsense Greek word. The meaning of the name in Greek is explained as “rock” (Petros). So The Cephas is really a phonetic spelling in Greek of an Aramaic word.
If you know Aramaic, you ought to be able to use the individual sounds to work your way back to the original word spoken by Jesus. As to the rest of the sentence, we do not know for sure whether Jesus spoke it in Greek or Aramaic…

The rest of what NotWorthy says, isn’t confusing so I’ll leave it be.
I like the alternate reasoning for using feed and tend, as complimentary to the different shepherds who would care for animals in different stages of growth being all under Peter’s care.

 

[Church_Militant]

Okay folks, let’s begin to wrap this up because there is a need to go on to another scripture study.

Next up, The book of Romans.

 

[Odell]

Okay folks, let’s begin to wrap this up because there is a need to go on to another scripture study.

Next up, The book of Romans.

cant wait!!!

 

[Red_Wolf]

Thank you for your answers.

 

[katy]

Thank you for your answers.

I heard some discussion by some university folk from “religious studies” about the Apostle not really writing this gospel. Is it OK to ask about that here before we go?

 

[Church_Militant]

I heard some discussion by some university folk from “religious studies” about the Apostle not really writing this gospel. Is it OK to ask about that here before we go?

Certainly!

I really have never heard that.

Authorship

If we except the heretics mentioned by Irenaeus (Adv. haer., III, xi, 9) and Epiphanius (Haer., li, 3), the authenticity of the Fourth Gospel was scarcely ever seriously questioned until the end of the eighteenth century. Evanson (1792) and Bretschneider (1820) were the first to run counter to tradition in the question of the authorship, and, since David Friedrich Strauss (1834-40) adopted Bretschneider’s views and the members of the Tübingen School, in the wake of Ferdinand Christian Baur, denied the authenticity of this Gospel, the majority of the critics outside the Catholic Church have denied that the Fourth Gospel was authentic. On the admission of many critics, their chief reason lies in the fact that John has too clearly and emphatically made the true Divinity of the Redeemer, in the strict metaphysical sense, the centre of his narrative. However, even Harnack has had to admit that, though denying the authenticity of the Fourth Gospel, he has sought in vain for any satisfactory solution of the Johannine problem: “Again and again have I attempted to solve the problem with various possible theories, but they led me into still greater difficulties, and even developed into contradictions.” (“Gesch. deraltchristl. Lit.”, I, pt. ii, Leipzig, 1897, p. 678.)
A short examination of the arguments bearing on the solution of the problem of the authorship of the Fourth Gospel will enable the reader to form an independent judgment.
**
Direct historical proof**

If, as is demanded by the character of the historical question, we first consult the historical testimony of the past, we discover the universally admitted fact that, from the eighteenth century back to at least the third, the Apostle John was accepted without question as the author of the Fourth Gospel. In the examination of evidence therefore, we may begin with the third century, and thence proceed back to the time of the Apostles.

Link to New Advent.

 

[katy]

Thank you. I read the New Advent section. The people who were dubious about the authenticity of the authorship of the Gospel of John being by John the apostle were non-Catholic.

 

[maryj]

Okay folks, let’s begin to wrap this up because there is a need to go on to another scripture study.

Next up, The book of Romans.

It took us over a year, but I think it was well worth it. Thanks CM for being such a diligent militant!!!

 

[Odell]

Let us know when you start Romans

 

[Michael_Francis]

Thread unstuck and moved out into Sacred Scripture.
MF