John 21:11. 153 fish. Father George Rutler comments on the meaning of 153 fish

[EndTimes]

defendingthebride.com

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

153 fish - Why John included 153 Fish in John 21:11 , Bible ? ; 153 Large Fish ​

153 Fish - Expla

I’m not interesting in anything which shifts away from the main point of that day.

 

[JohnR77]

Hi,
I added another
image from the Gospel.
The new image does not underline the text.
Instead I colorized it to look neater.
Is that better or worse ?

I got rid of the horrible scroll left and right in web page.

Also, I started new page on image from John 21.
see

Help : Old Latin Translation into English needed Sacred Scripture

Below is an image from Holkham Bible Picture Book, about 1330 AD from John chapter 21 . https://www.defendingthebride.com/153/John_21_Holkham_Bible_1335_AD_folio_37.jpg(image larger than 4096KB) can anyone provide an English translation ? Thanks

John

 

[JohnR77]

Yes, the straight forward number is written as
קנג. The equivocation came about over time. If you add together the valuation of ani Elohim you get 61 and 92. 153 became the shorthand within the Temple for notes on which words to use in place of pronouncing the name of God. קנג
would be written in margins of scrolls to direct pronunciation of Elohim instead of Yahweh. In the time leading up to the time of Christ, the phrase ani Elohim became revered by the priestly class as it was considered a statement of identity similar to ‘I Am Who Am’.

The shorthand fell out of popularity after the destruction of the Temple since it was primarily used by the priestly class. By the time of the Babylonian Talmud, the number had lost the respect it had entertained during the Second Temple period.

.

Can you provide any reasonable proof of how we can know that a large percentage of John’s readers would have recognized that John was alluding to that ?

Or is it just speculation ?

I, as well as others, find such wide and diverse theories based on speculation to be of little value.

Eventually, I will be able to get my notes put together and show how we can know with reasonable certainty that John’s readers would have recognized that 153 was an allusion to wisdom from God that was acquired by man. I propose that this theory is based on 98% of factual evidence pointing to this theory and only less that 2% of speculation.

I’ve found the pearl of great worth… Who continues to trump useless debunked attempts at “logic”

What are you asking for ?

A geometric proof ???

Happy Father’s day,

John

 

[BartholomewB]

Is it true that, in the Herodian period, when they were reading aloud from Scripture, they were instructed to say “Elohim” where the name “Yahweh” was written? My impression was that they replaced the sacred name, not by “Elohim” or “ani Elohim,” but by “Adonai,” literally “My Lord.” If that is the case, the four Hebrew letters add up to 65:

א (alef) 1
ד (dalet) 4
נ (nun) 50
י (yud) 10

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/136.htm

 

[JohnR77]

Velislav Bible, folio 148v

Finest Picture-Bible

ca. 1340.

148v: Jesus eats before the disciples (Lk 24: 41-43),
Jesus appears to the disciples at Lake Tiberias (Jn 21: 1-3)

If you compare the following it is easy to make out some of the text

manifestavit - appears. ihesus - Jesus. mare Tiberiadis - Sea of Tiberias. Thomas Nathanaël

Second line :

filii Zebedæi -sons of Zebede … duo -two (more Apostles

Petrus: Vado piscari. Dicunt ei: Venimus et nos tecum.

Peter : I am going out fishing; and they said, We, too, will go with thee.

see more at

Velislav Bible, Finest Picture-Bible ca. 1340 Sacred Scripture

Velislav Bible : Picture-Bible of the Late Middle Ages, 1340 AD What about the argument that the Catholic Church tried to keep the Bible from the people, most of whom could not read ? Biblia depicta as Devotional, Mnemonic and Study Tool Country: Czech Republic Settlement: Prague Repository: National Library of the Czech Republic Now: XXIII.C.124 Title: Velislav Bible , Velislavova bible, (Biblia picta Velislai) Date of Origin: about 1340 The Velislav Bible plays a key role in Bohem…

John

 

[JohnR77]

The scholarly papers on the Velislav Bible state :

“ … but the final grande (is)
missing, namely the scenes with the carrying of the cross and
the crucifixion itself.”

And that

“The fact that the scenes of the Passion of Christ are missing is, however,
probably due to the reception of the Velislav Bible rather than some secret
plan; the depictions of Jesus on the cross were frequently used for meditation in
the context of personal devotion, and thus it is possible that a fervent reader
tore out from the codex the leafs with the Passion.”

Several of the Slavic Bibles I have seen on the internet have two images for John 21:1-14. But there is only one here. However, the page (of two folios) following the image of f.148v is also missing. This seems to suggest we are missing the second image for John 21:1-14.

And this suggests the reason it is missing is because they, like the crucifixion image, had revered it so much.

And later, I will argue, that for John the 153 Fish was a major argument or revelation.

John

 

[JohnR77]

I found a Arabic translation and I am working on providing an English translation for it. (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[JohnR77]

I believe I have identified the word for fish but I will have to send that Information tomorrow.
John

 

[OddBird]

My impression was that they replaced the sacred name, not by “Elohim” or “ani Elohim,” but by “Adonai,” literally “My Lord.”

That’s what I was taught too.

I actually had an Old Testament professor who upheld that rule quite strictly in his classroom – the tetragram always had to be read as “Adonai”, or else…

 

[fide]

I prefer this one:

“Do You Love Me more than … These?” - Homiletic & Pastoral Review

 

[JohnR77]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Above you can see the Arabic word for fish identified with the English below it. This was very hard to verify as this script does not conform to most Arabic versions that I find on the internet. Arabic has many different words for fish.
John

 

[JohnR77]

Is it true that, in the Herodian period, when they were reading aloud from Scripture, they were instructed to say “Elohim” where the name “Yahweh” was written? My impression was that they replaced the sacred name, not by “Elohim” or “ani Elohim,” but by “Adonai,” literally “My Lord.” If that is the case, the four Hebrew letters add up to 65:

א (alef) 1
ד (dalet) 4
נ (nun) 50
י (yud) 10

.
Thank you for your reply.

When considering arguments think of the 2 extreme positions.
The 1st position as being highly speculative and the other as being well documented, substantiated and therefore most probably true, Let us try to move your position to Being reasonably Likely, And Not being so speculative. How far back in time can we document that a person specifically associated the number 153 with that counting. Are there any ancient documents that I can see a photo of listing the number 153 in that way ?
Are there many instances showing a widespread adoption of this practice? How far back in time can a person be quoted as supporting This association with the number 153 ?

Please understand. I am asking for tangible evidence not just the theory.

Thank you,
John

 

[NevermoreLenore]

But note: Six dragged the net to the shore. Yet, as the net lay against the shore, Peter hauled it ashore by himself . He must be a very powerful man, and God’s grace was with him.

Very interesting…consistent with Peter being The Rock upon which the church is founded.

Mine is the 153rd post which I’m sure has no significance at all.

 

[BartholomewB]

Please understand. I am asking for tangible evidence not just the theory.

No, I have no tangible evidence! In synagogue worship today, whenever the tetragrammaton appears in the scroll, the lector reads it as “Adonai.” I was told by Jewish friends that that’s the way it’s always been, but they are not Biblical scholars. They are just people who were brought up in the Jewish faith and attend synagogue worship.

I had never heard of the “ani Elohim” theory until @CRM_Brother mentioned it in his post #107 on this thread. How old is that theory, do you know? What tangible evidence is there to support it?

 

[CRM_Brother]

From what I understand, the theory began when examining fragments from the beginning of Genesis were uncovered at a Levite’s house from late in the Second Temple period during the 1970s. It had the number 153 replace where we now find tetragammaton in the text of the Eloist creation story. As more Levitical households were excavated, other fragments were discovered with 153 in the margins where ever the tetragammaton was found in the text. So too, did the archaelologists find lists in which 153 was avoided and noted in a different configuration.

This phenomenon was unique to Priestly households of this period. Pharisee households did not observe this practice and instead simply left the tetragrammaton alone in the text without any special notes. This Pharisee style is what has survived due to the destruction of the Temple and the rise of the synagogue and Pharisetical teaching practices.

This is a still a theory with regard to history and archaeology due to so little evidence, but the theory has been supported as slowly more Levitical households are excavated from this period and every so often they find more of these textual notations.

 

[BartholomewB]

@CRM_Brother, do you have access to Brill? The abbreviation קנג (qng) is mentioned in a fishing connection in this paper published in 1980, apparently representing a word I don’t recognize, transliterated as qinegya.

Ἦσαν γὰρ ἁλιεῖς (Mk. I 16): Jesus’s Fishermen and the Parable of the Net
J. Duncan M. Derrett
Novum Testamentum
Vol. 22, Fasc. 2 (Apr., 1980), pp. 108-137 (30 pages)
Published By: Brill

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1560785

 

[CRM_Brother]

I"m sorry but I don’t have access. I’m not fluent in Hebrew so I don’t think I I would be much help in recognizing the word. I am only aware of the Ani Elohim theory through my Synoptics class discussions. Greek is more my wheelhouse.

 

[OddBird]

The abbreviation קנג ( qng ) is mentioned in a fishing connection in this paper published in 1980, apparently representing a word I don’t recognize, transliterated as qinegya.

I read the article and I’m puzzled. My Hebrew isn’t good, but there isn’t a קנג (or cognate) entry in my Biblical Hebrew dictionary. I tried an internet search for it, but from what little I can tell, what shows up are sentences in modern Hebrew where קנג is used as the transliteration of the name Kang, and instances where it is used as a number.

A search for qinegya doesn’t turn up much except for the article you’ve linked to.

I’m not sure what to think. I kept getting the feeling, while reading it, that the author is constantly expounding on premises which weren’t made clear – like the sentence where qinegya appears and which reads : “Or should we write out the Hebrew cipher-characters and read, for the resulting QNG, the word qinegya, which means the hunt, e.g. that by which Gabriel will catch Leviathan, on which the saints will feast at the Messiah’s banquet?”

There are quite a few inexplicit assumptions in that sentence, and I don’t know what to make of it. I think I’ll have to re-read the article !

 

[Bithynian]

but there isn’t a קנג (or cognate) entry in my Biblical Hebrew dictionary

The article phrases it very confusingly, but the author is suggesting that the Hebrew vocalisation of קנג is קנגיא qinegya, which is a transliteration of the Greek noun κυνήγια kunegia. The Greek word did mean ‘the hunt, chase’, but it often referred to the poor souls who were forced to participate in amphitheatrical blood sports, and hence also meant ‘prey’ as in the LXX Ecc 13:19:

κυνήγια λεόντων ὄναγροι ἐν ἐρήμῳ

‘Wild donkeys in the wilderness are the prey of lions.’

 

[OddBird]

The article phrases it very confusingly, but the author is suggesting that the Hebrew vocalisation of קנג is קנגיא qinegya , which is a transliteration of the Greek noun κυνήγια kunegia .

Thank you, @Bithynian! That makes sense. (Far-fetched sense, I’d say, but I get it now )