The mission originates in captivation: ἁλιεύω, πιάζω, σύρω, ἕλκω. (Jn 21:6-11) 101 for traditional dialectic with anyone who gave credence to the Jewish educational system as it then stood (cf. Lk 2:47)39, and is represented by its descendent, the yeshivah education. Stephen (Acts 7) was certainly an intellectual of formidable ability; 7:52-54 being an ἔλεγξις. It is reasonable to ask whether the other six members of the crew were qualified similarly to Peter? Andrew is missing. However, the sons of Zebedee are there (Mk 1:19-20), also “fishers of people”, we presume. Thomas the Twin was qualified by his peculiarly demonstrated faith (Jn 20:28-29); Nathanael by his and Jesus’ mutual recognitions (Jn 1:47-51), whether or not he came from Kana; and there was the disciple whom Jesus loved - his role remains to be discussed -, for he is to survive (and render his account?) until Jesus “returns” (21:22,23). There remains one fisherman whose only qualification is that he is a disciple. He will have seen Jesus’ dialectic in action. That completes the Johannine image of confuters and converters in Jesus’ mission. Harvesters had a right to a share in the crop40, while working on it or as nearly thereto as circumstances permit. This applies to Jesus himself as fishing-expert41. Having indicated where the shoal would be (cf. Lk. 5:5) he is entitled to a share. The question of a meal arises even at the outset of the dawn meeting with the risen Christ. Klein (p.30) takes the connection between the meal and fishing to be artificial - maybe it did not appear in the earliest form of the story (p. 32)? But the crew have not caught any fish (visualized as a snack) all night. It is well known that προσφάγιον (v. 5) and ὀψάριον (v.9), though implying edibles qualifying as a “snack”, actually mean “fish”42. So when they do produce a catch their breakfast awaits them, as if from someone with an interest (as broker?) in the catch itself. There is no suggestion that they are miraculously fed with a single A case arose before Thomas Card. Wolsey of suspected heresy. The suspect began to 39 argue in scholastic terms. Wolsey dismissed him as he was evidently “one of us” (George Cavendish, Life of Wolsey). See also E.A. Judge, “The early Christians as a scholastic com- munity”, J. Relig. Hist. 1 (1960/61), 4-15, 57-65. E. Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript (Lund & Copenhagen, 1964), 280-288. Davies & Allison (Matthew, I. 398) say, “In any event, in being called by Jesus, the disciples were not being invited to study Torah and practice it”! Dt 25:4; Mishnah, B.M. 7:2-7; Sifre Dt §266 (trans. Hammer, 261-262; J. Bonsirven, 40 Textes rabbiniques §334); Bab. Talm. Yev 4a. Ginzberg, Jewish Law, 147; 1 Cor 9:9-10; 1 Tim 5:18. J.D.M. Derrett, “Workers in the Vineyard. . .” in B.S. Jackson, ed., Studies in Jewish Legal History. Essays. . . David Daube (London, 1974), 64-91 at p. 74 n. 39. A functionary known to ethnography; references at Derrett, “ἨΣΑΝ” 122-124 (Stud- 41 ies III,15-17). Also A. Hultkrantz, in H.C. Puech, Histoire des Religions III (Paris, 1976), 777-778. Dictionaries show no doubt. Jn 6:9; Mt 14:17,19; LXX Num 11:22. Lat. obsonium. 42