86 NOTES AND STUDIES

uniformly observed. Dr. Farrer still has to persuade me that, had the
evangelist wanted to render 'deliver the gospel into the bosom of all
nations' into Greek, he would have written icqpvcroeiv TO evayyeXiov els
•noMra. ra edvq.
Dr. Farrer recognizes that we differ in our approach to the interpreta-
tion of Mark (pp. 78 f.). Alas, I cannot agree with his statement of the
difference. Matthew's use of Mark is not central to my argument, though
I still believe that his treatment of Mark is in line with my interpreta-
tion. If there were no Matthew, I would still want to interpret Mark as I
do and would remain convinced that this interpretation is what Marcan
usage requires.
Here is a major difference between us. A large part of my argument
was philological and Professor Moule has discussed it in philological
terms. Except where Dr. Farrer seems to blur a distinction he refrains
from philology. Yet, for Mark philology is particularly important. He is
not writing literary Koine, but for all that is a careful writer. He is much
more regular than Luke, for example, and, if we neglect the rules of his
usage, we misinterpret him. I would not suggest that the exegesis of
Mark is entirely a matter for philology. Sometimes it can decide be-
tween disputed interpretations, sometimes it can set certain limits
within which the interpretation must be found, and sometimes it is of
little use at all. We cannot, however, ignore it in a passage where the
argument turns largely on linguistic considerations.
From these pages it is clear that neither Professor Moule nor Dr.
Farrer have persuaded me. If I remain firm in my main conclusion,
there are one or two points on which I modify my argument. Professor
Moule has made me think more precisely about the meaning of aradr)-
aeade els fiaprvpiov even if he finds the result of my discussion no
more acceptable.
Further, his modification of my arrangement of the line beginning
oTaOrjoeoBe must be considered. I had taken it with the two preceding
lines only: he attaches it also to what follows. This may be right. The
aradrjaeoBe line differs a little in structure from the two previous ones.
On the other hand, I still think that there is a bigger break in the sense at
Sei npanov. If this is so, my arrangement still holds good.
G. D. KILPATRICK

T H E H U N D R E D AND F I F T Y - T H R E E FISHES
I N J O H N X X I . 11
THE reference to 153 fishes in John xxi. 11 has proved a puzzle to com-
mentators. It is widely believed that there is some symbolic significance
in the number, but no interpretation has won universal acceptance. At

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-abstract/IX/1/86/1684732

by University of Tasmania Library user
on 21 April 2018
 NOTES AND STUDIES 87
least eighteen different interpretations have been offered; no doubt a
thorough investigation would discover many more. It is unnecessary to
describe and discuss every interpretation individually;' many of them do
not fit the context, which suggests some connexion with the evangelistic
mission of the church. The interpretations which have been advanced
fall into three classes.
First, some commentators seek to find 153 entities corresponding to
the number of fishes. Perhaps the most widely known is that based on
Jerome's statement that it was believed by Greek and Latin naturalists
that there were 153 varieties of fish. Unfortunately, it is very doubtful
whether Jerome's statement is 'reliable.2 Another explanation3 is that
the passage echoes 2 Chron. ii. 17 f. (16 f. in the LXX), which refers to
153,600 foreigners in Israel in the time of Solomon. This suggestion is
not very plausible. John speaks of 153, not of 153,000, and it is difficult
to explain the loss of the 600. Nor are the gentiles who were subjected
to forced labour very suitable types of the gentiles to be converted to
the liberty of the gospel.
Second, others have pointed out that the number 153 is the sum of
the numbers from 1 to 17, and that 153 dots can be arranged as an
equilateral triangle with 17 dots on the base line.4 This interpretation,
which is at least as old as Augustine, demands that some significance be
found for 17 as well as for 153. It is possible to suggest reasons why 17,
the sum of 10 and 7, is a significant number, but it is not so easy to see
what relevance it has to this context. There is justice in R. H. Lightfoot's
remark on such theories, which would apply equally well to many other
mathematical explanations, '. . . i t remains to be explained, in a form
which will carry conviction, what bearing this has upon the number of
fishes here taken'.5 There might be more probability in the view that
there is a reference to the 17 nations in Acts ii. 7 ff.6 But it is not certain
1
For lists of interpretations see T. Zahn, Einleitung in das N.T.2 (1900),
pp. 498 f.; M. Goguel, Introduction auN.T., vol. ii (1923), pp. 292 f.; W. Bauer,
Das Johannesevangelium (1925), p. 231; R. Bultmann, Das Evangelium des
Johannes (1952), p. 549-
2
R. M. Grant in Harvard Theological Review, xlii (1949), pp. 273 ff.
3
M. Pole, Synopsis Criticorum Aliorumque Scripturae Sacrae Interpretum et
Commentatorum, vol. iv (1712), col. 1311. Verse 16 in the LXX describes the
foreigners as npo<rqXvTovs.
4
See the diagram in E. C. Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel (edited F. N. Davey,
1947). P- 553-
5
R. H. Lightfoot, St. John's Gospel (edited C. F. Evans, 1956), p. 343.
6
G. A. van den Bergh van Eysinga in Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche
Wissenschaft, xiii (1912), pp. 296 f. Acts ii. 7 ff. may be intended to offer a repre-
sentative list of the nations of the world; see S. Weinstock in Journal of Roman
Studies, xxxviii (1948), pp. 43 ff. But there is, as far as I am aware, no evidence
that the number 17 was itself traditional.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-abstract/IX/1/86/1684732

by University of Tasmania Library user
on 21 April 2018
 88 NOTES AND STUDIES
that these verses give a list of exactly 17 nations. It is also uncertain
whether the fourth evangelist knew Acts, and whether, if he did know it,
he would have thought ii. 7 ff. a sufficiently comprehensive list of the
nations of the world. In any case, it has to be explained why he did not
say that there were 17 varieties of fish, instead of adding the numbers
from 1 to 17.
Third, there are many explanations in terms of words which can be
derived from 153 by the principle of what the Jews called gematria.
Hebrew or Greek words are found whose letters have a numerical value
of 153. Most of these suggestions are particularly open to the objection
that such expressions as 'the age to come',1 and 'the high priest of
Judah', 2 have little or no relevance to the context. Eisler3 believed that
153 is to be interpreted as the sum of 76, which has the numerical value
of Sifjuov, and 77, which has the numerical value of ixOvs- This would,
if stated as simply as this, be open to the objection that Simon is one of
the fishermen, not one of the fish, and that it is tautologous to see in the
number of the fish itself a word for a fish. In fact, Eisler builds up an
elaborate symbolical interpretation of the whole passage which need not
be discussed here but which, it may be confidently stated, is unlikely to
find any more support in the future than it has found in the past.
As none of the above suggestions is entirely satisfactory it is not
superfluous to offer another. It has often been observed that the story
of the fishes in John xxi may be partly dependent on Ezek. xlvii, especially
on verse io. 4 The prophecy tells of the miraculous stream of waters
which will flow from Jerusalem and bring healing and life to the Dead
Sea. There will be many fish, and fishermen will stand from En-gedi to
En-eglaim, which will be a place for the spreading out of nets. If the
number 153 does represent gematria, it is not unreasonable to look for
it in the proper names in this Old Testament passage. ]'J? may not be
significant since it means 'spring' and is not necessarily to be thought
of as an essential part of the proper names. The numerical value of HI
is 17 (X = 3 , "T = 4, "* = 10), and that of D^JS? is 153 (S? = 70, 1 = 3,
\> = 30, ' = 10, D = 40).
It may, therefore, be that John observed the fact that the numerical
values of Gedi and Eglaim were 17 and 153 and that these numbers
were mathematically related. The number of fishes may thus represent
the places in Ezek. xlvii where the fishermen were to stand and spread
their nets. It would, perhaps, have been better if the number 153 could
have been more directly related to the contents of the nets, rather than
1 2
Cited by Bultmann, loc. cit. Cited by Goguel, loc. cit.
3
R. Eisler, Orpheus—the Fisher (1921), pp. noff.
4
This O.T. passage may also be one of those underlying John vii. 38.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-abstract/IX/1/86/1684732

by University of Tasmania Library user
on 21 April 2018
 NOTES AND STUDIES 89
to the place where they were spread, but the latter interpretation, never-
theless, makes sense in the context. Whether the evangelist understood
Ezek. xlvii. 8 to be a reference to Galilee is a question which need not
be discussed here.
This hypothesis is not without difficulties. The other numbers in the
fourth gospel are not, as far as I can see, to be interpreted by gematria.
This does not, however, exclude the possibility that this particular
number is to be interpreted by that principle. Similarly, the fact that in
ix. 7 the evangelist sees significance in the meaning of a Hebrew name
is reconcilable with the view that other names are not to be interpreted
in a comparable way. The evangelist is certainly aware of some signi-
ficance in some numbers. It is, for example, generally admitted that it is
not by chance that there are seven signs and seven sayings beginning
with 'I am'.
Another possible difficulty is that this hypothesis presupposes that
readers of a Greek book could be expected to refer to an O.T. passage
in Hebrew which is not explicitly cited, and to recognize in it an example
of gematria. This difficulty is eased, if not removed, if it is believed that
Rev. xiii. 18 presupposes a knowledge of the numerical value of Hebrew
letters. John ix. 7 shows that the evangelist was aware of the possible
significance of a Semitic name, though, admittedly, the meaning there
is given in Greek.
Finally, there is the difficulty that this hypothesis is too speculative
to be certain. This may be conceded; the hypothesis is advanced tenta-
tively and with a sense of its uncertainty. But if it be granted that some
explanation of the number 153 is needed, the suggestion here offered
may seem more plausible than many which have been offered. There is,
at the very least, an interesting coincidence. J. A. EMERTON

T R I N I T A R I A N T H E O L O G Y AND T H E ECONOMY1
ONE of the perplexing episodes in the history of Christian doctrine is
that of the fate of Tertullian's trinitarian theology, cast in 'economic'
terms. Broadly speaking, two views of this have been held: Harnack and
Loofs have bracketed it together with fourth-century trinitarian theo-
logies like that of Marcellus of Ancyra under the label okonomisch-
trinitarische Anschauungen; these later trinitarian theories treated the
procession of the persons from the godhead in historical terms: both
the Son and the Holy Spirit found their place alongside the Father in
1
I have to thank Mr. C. H. Roberts, Secretary to the Delegates, The Claren-
don Press, Oxford, and Professor G. W. H. Lampe, for allowing me to consult
material in the files of the forthcoming Lexicon of Patristic Greek.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-abstract/IX/1/86/1684732

by University of Tasmania Library user
on 21 April 2018