153 Fish
Why Church Fathers’ Answers Could Not Be John’s ,
part 2
A Message with Little Gain ?
A Communication Failure by John ?
Were the Father’s Wrong ?
Mixing the Metaphors : Net Not
Tearing = Unity ???
Parallels in John’s Gospel
A Message with Little Gain ?
Further, we can see another and deeper problem. If
we accept any one of the father’s various
mathematical formulas and explanations - with
Jerome’s being a slight exception - the net
evangelistic gain for John and his reader would be
zero.
For example, let us assume that John had intended
one of the various mathematical formulas that the
Fathers used
to explain the number 153.
And, let
us suppose reader knew to interject one of those
formulas he would not be able to infer from this
passage of John how many gifts there were of the
Holy Spirit, or how many Persons there are in the
God-Head, etc.
Then, still he
could only arrive at that data by some other means.
That information would then have to be read into the
text.
And the reader could extract from this text nothing
more than what he read into it. Then, the net
evangelistic gain for John and his reader for this
passage would equal Zero.
We have a slight exception with Jerome’s idea that
the “153 fish” means the Gospel is for everyone.
But that message is already pretty much obvious.
And besides Jerome’s proposal has the insurmountable
difficulties stated
previously.
Whereas, the meaning of “153 fish” as defended at
this website is a message that adds or makes a finer
point in the Gospel message and it is a
message that the Greeks
desperately needed to hear.
And hence, such an attempt to defend these
explanations by the Fathers as being John’s idea
fails to meet reasonable criteria.
A Communication Failure by John ?
To examine this issue closely we have to ask two
questions.
One:
Why did each of the Fathers explain their meaning
for the number 153?
Answer :
Because they knew that their own particular meaning
would not have been realized by their readers unless
they did explain it.
Two:
Why does St. John not explain his meaning?
Answer:
Like the Fathers, he too would have known that if he
had intended one their meanings it would have been
necessary to explain that connection like they did.
However, he does not. Why does he not explain his
meaning? This points very strongly to the
conclusion that he offers no explanation because he
knows no explanation is needed.
He knows his audience will recognize his meaning
right away. It could not have been one of the
Father's explanations that requires an explanation.
An evangelist seeks to convey a message. His
message might be slightly hidden or symbolic, but he
is not going to make it unfathomable.
We can make several reasonable deductions.
1. John states at the end of this Gospel that he
did not include many other things that Jesus did.
See John 20:30. Since John did decide to include
this very specific and unique number, 153, there
must have been a reason for it. It was not wasted
space on the sheepskin. It conveys some message.
2. John was an effective communicator. He would
have known how to make sure his meaning was apparent
to those whom he was writing.
3. John does not give an explicit explanation of
his meaning, so we can safely conclude that his
readers already had all the sufficient information
and context they needed to figure it out. They
would have known the message.
4. And John must have known that his readers, of his
time and place would have been able to figure out
any symbolic meaning, on account that he does Not
explain it. John would have known that his readers
would have recognized his meaning.
5. The message that John is giving in this passage
must have some meaning that was not already obvious
to the reader before such reader reads this Gospel.
The reference to “153 fish” and its context must
convey some idea new to the reader. The reader must
walk away from the Gospel enriched with some new
idea that he did not hold before reading it.
The Church Fathers all knew that “153” had to have
some significance. They searched very hard to find
a meaning for it. But they all offered reasons that
differed from each other as to what it meant.
See
Church Fathers’
Explanations
The answers given by the church fathers above are
certainly good orthodox and useful messages. And
they that make for good effective teaching.
However, they cannot be John’s primary reason and
they cannot be the message that he meant to convey
by including this number of 153.
Their reasons could not have been John’s because
that would violate the reasonable deductions of 2 -
5 above.
The mathematical characteristics of the number 153
that the church fathers used were read by them into
the text. It seems very difficult if not impossible
to defend the idea that John would have known that
his readers would have seen these mathematical
formulas as part of his message.
Further, even if it could be shown that John did
know that his readers would have somehow seen the
formulas and understood the correlations used by the
fathers above, then the message would not have
contained anything new.
Therefore, the explanations given by the Fathers -
St. Augustine, St. Gregory the Great, Evagrius
Ponticus, and St. Cyril of Alexandria, have to be
dismissed as not being John’s intention because that
would violate deductions #4 and #5 above.
For example, it cannot be imagined that St.
Augustine would have thought along these lines: “I,
St. Augustine, did not know that there were exactly
10 commandments, or that the gifts of the Holy
Spirit totaled the number of 7, or that the Persons
in the God-head totaled to exactly 3, until I read
this passage in John’s Gospel. But, now I see it is
so because (10 + 7) x 3 x 3 = 153.”
The data that there are a total of 10 commandments,
7 gifts of the Holy Spirit, and 3 Persons in the
Trinity, cannot be extrapolated from this passage in
John.
St. Augustine knows this data apart from this text
and reads it into John’s Gospel here. Good
preaching for St. Augustine, but it cannot be John’s
point because of the reasons and deductions stated
above.
Similar arguments could be made why the reasons
proposed by the other fathers also could not be
John’s reasons.
The fact that each father referred to above used a
different mathematical formula makes the case even
more solid that John could not have expected his
readers to see any one of these formulas as being
the correct one.
Different people because of their own particular
tastes might prefer one formula over the other, but
none of them are implied in the text of John. The
fathers of the church read them into the text to
make a theological point of their own. These could
not have been John’s points.
Many possible meanings have been proposed for the
number 153. There are various mathematical
associations and formulas that can be used to arrive
at that number.
However, scripture scholar
Raymond Brown
points out the weakness of these arguments. There is
no reason to believe that any of the initial readers
of John’s Gospel would recognized any of those
connections :
“One cannot deny that some of these interpretations
(they are not mutually exclusive) are possible, but
they all encounter the same objection: we have no
evidence that any such complicated understating of
153 would have been intelligible to John’s readers”
(Gospel according to John XIII-XXI, 1075).
And here, I believe is the key. We must examine what
John’s initial readers would have known. And from
that
context
we will be able to understand what meaning John knew
he could attach to the number 153 that he knew would
have been recognized by his readers.
Were the Father’s Wrong ?
No. They each offered good theology. And each of
their answers were valid secondary meanings to the
reference of 153 fish.
However, the Fathers did not claim that their
explanation for “153 fish” was also John’s
meaning. And, the fact their explanations differed
from each other suggests that none of them had found
the others’ answers to be completely satisfactory.
And, we are not required to agree with the Church
Fathers when they are not in agreement with each
other.
I agree with the Church Fathers on two points.
St. Jerome, St. Augustine, St. Gregory the Great,
Evagrius Ponticus, and St. Cyril of Alexandria each
gave a different explanation as to what 153 fish
meant. Each seems to imply that each of the others
has given an incomplete if not inadequate answer,
therefore necessitating their own additional
explanation.
Not one of their answers offers a truly satisfactory
explanation as to what John the Evangelist intended
to convey by his reference to153 fish. This will be
explained below.
Second, each of these Fathers offer a secondary, or
symbolic meaning for the number 153, rather than
hold the position that this number had no special or
symbolic meaning at all.
They were all convinced that it must have had some
special meaning.
While the Fathers use mathematical formulas to
explain the reason for 153 fish, the textual
evidence and context strongly points to the
conclusion that John was just using the reference to
153 large fish as a simple metaphor.
Mixing the Metaphors : Net Not Tearing = Unity
???
In Luke 5:1-11 the word fish is used as a metaphor
for all believers. Many people have assumed John
meant the same. And some argue the net not tearing
was John’s way of teaching that the Church has
perfect unity.
As will be seen below, John already taught that
message in a much more definite manner. The idea
that this is John’s message here is self-defeating.
If the net need NOT to tear to show that there was
no schism in the Church, and if this was John’s
point, then the skeptic could easily point to the
passage in Luke to contradict his point and “show”
that there is schism because the net does tear in
that passage.
John’s Gospel cannot and does not do away with the
legitimacy of Luke’s. In this supposed scenario,
John would have chosen a metaphor that was already
corrupted in its foundation, and John’s message
would have gone off the rails before he ever
started.
This cannot be John’s message. Therefore, John must
have had a different meaning for “153 fish”
Secondly, why would John bother to state by the way
of a weak metaphor what he had already stated
explicitly and in a manner that was much more
forceful and done so with much more authority ?
See Jesus’ High Priestly prayer and how he had
already, and much more effectively taught that there
is no schism in God’s Church.
John
17:20-21 and CCC # 813 - 834.
Parallels in John’s Gospel
In his book, The Genius of John, author Peter F.
Ellis shows parallels all the way through the Gospel
of John. There is a phrase or idea that is repeated
to draw attention to the special meaning of an idea
sandwiched in the center between the two.
See several examples of
this type of Chiastic Parallel from his book.
Although not mentioned by him there is another
parallel at the end of John’s Gospel.
John 20:30 states that Jesus did many other things
not mentioned in John’s Gospel.
And John 21:25 repeats that.
(See notes
why chapter 21 had to be
written by the same author as the rest of the
Gospel.)
So, we need to ask,
“Was John creating a parallel between these two
passages to highlight a special meaning to the
passage sandwiched between them?”
Here is the exact center between John 20:30 and John
21:25
John 21:11-13
“So Simon Peter went aboard and hauled the
net ashore, full of
large fish, a hundred and fifty-three of
them; and
although there were so many,
the net was not torn. Jesus said to
them, “Come and have breakfast.” Now none of
the disciples dared ask him, “Who are you?”
They knew it was the Lord. Jesus came and
took the bread and gave it to them, and so
with the fish.”
Was John implying that there is a special meaning to
the net not being torn as well as the 153 Fish by
use of parallel text ?
Print
Free Pamphlet - -
Brief Summary
Why 153
Fish in John 21:11 ?
Sections :
Introduction
Church
Fathers : Sts. Jerome, Augustine, Gregory the Great,
Cyril A.
No
Reason ?
Why Church Fathers’ Answers Could Not Be John’s
Problems
with Square Root of 3 Answer
Context
Points to the Answer : An Explanation That Works
Archimedes
: Context of Time and Place
Greeks
and Wisdom
Fish
Calculating
the Measure of the Fish
John’s
Purpose
Why
Church Fathers Did Not (could not?) Give John’s Idea
Conclusion
|