The Fishtales of Luke 24 and John 21
The Fishtales of Luke 24 and John 21
Jesus Ate Fish? Luke 24 and John 21
Even with explaining the context of Mark 7:19 and being given only bread to eat with the multitude, and in total defiance to all other evidence presented so far, people will still insist that Jesus ate fish. Their best example of this is Luke 24:41,42 where Jesus asks for food, receives fish and an honeycomb, and eats. But is this the case? It actually depends upon the translation. A survey of the verses on Biblehub will show which versions keep and which omit certain details. There are different categories of versions for ease of comparison:
Modern Translations omit "and of an honeycomb"
niv, nlt, esv, bsb, nasb, nasb 1995; 1977; amplified bible hcsb, cev, gnt, God's Word Translation, isv, net
Classic Translations either omit (o) or keep (k) "and of an honeycomb"
kjv (k), nkjv (k), kj 2000 (k), nheb (o), web (k), akjv (k), asv (o), afv (k), dbt (k), erv (o), wbt (k)
Early Modern Translations keep "and of an honeycomb"
Coverdale, Tyndale
Literal Translations either omit (o) or keep (k) "and of an honeycomb"
lsv (k), blb (o), ylt (k), slt (k), let (k)
Catholic Translations keep "and of an honeycomb"
Douay-Reims, Catholic Public Domain Version
Aramaic Translations keep "and of an honecomb"
Aramaic Bible in Plain English, Lamsa Bible
New Testament Translations either omit (o) or keep (k) "and of an honeycomb"
ant (k), gnt (o), hbt (k), mnt (k), wnt (o), worrell nt (o), worsley nt (k)
In every translation found on Biblehub, we see every one keeps "fish" but some omit "honeycomb." This might lead the reader to suppose the omitting versions are the more accurate. But this depends on which manuscripts are being worked from, and which of those are the most authentic. Frank L. Hoffman relates the same in his short article found on All Creatures. He says,
Concerning the phrase, "and of an honeycomb", in verse 42, which does not appear in the Revised Standard Version, the New American Standard Version, or the New International Version, note the following:
"These words are absent from the most important uncial [old Latin lettered] manuscripts; but it is difficult to account for their having found their way into the text unless we suppose them to be genuine. They are unquestionably of high antiquity, being quoted by Athanasius and the two Cyrils, and extant of many uncial and nearly all cursive manuscripts."1
Another discussion arises over the translation of verse 43, and what Jesus actually ate. Most translations say that He ate "it", thus the interpretation could be that Jesus ate the honeycomb and not the fish.
A few translations say that He ate "these". The Greek really doesn't say either "it" or "these". They have been added by translators for clarification. The Greek says: "And taking before them, He ate." What did He eat? We don't really know. It could have been either or both.
Hoffman's footnote is the following: 1. Cook, F. C. ed., The Bible Commentary, Vol. VII, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House, 1981, 469. Why wouldn't the supposition be that the words are the most ancient and authentic? It certainly appears someone has been inserting and removing words and phrases. Hoffman suggested that himself, stating, "A few translations say that He ate 'these'. The Greek really doesn't say either 'it' or 'these'. They have been added by translators for clarification. The Greek says: 'And taking before the, He ate'. What did he eat?" Hoffman asks a great question--if both are mentioned, but the Greek word(s) "it" or "they" are insertions, then which did he eat? And we see even greater ambiguity in the Greek itself because there is no "it" I sought to discover if his analysis was true, and I found it was. When I looked at the Mounce Interlinear, the words are indicated to be absent; in The Interlinear Bible: Hebrew-Greek-English by Green, the literal Greek translation is, "And taking before them, He ate."
Even more interesting are ancient references to the text in question. Here are four such references.
Justin Martyr (II Century), On the Resurrection,IX: And when they were by every kind of proof persuaded that it was Himself, and in the body, they asked Him to eat with them, that they might thus still more accurately ascertain that He had in verity risen bodily; and He did eat honeycomb and fish.
Tertullian (II century), De Corona, 14: For it was after the gall He tasted the honeycomb, and He was not greeted as King of Glory in heavenly places till He had been condemned to the cross as King of the Jews, having first been made by the Father for a time a little less than the angels, and so crowned with glory and honor.
Athanasius (IV cent.), Against the Arians, IV: For certainly he who gives food to others, and they who give him, touch hands. For ‘they gave Him,’ Scripture says, ‘a piece of a broiled fish and of an honeycomb, and’ when He had ‘eaten before them, He took the remains and gave to them
Jerome (IV cent.), Letter to Eustochium: And now do you in your turn answer me these questions... How do you explain the fact that ... Peter saw the Lord standing on the shore and eating a piece of a roasted fish and a honeycomb.
The interesting fact of these ancient witnesses is the presence of "honeycomb" in their reference. This means these writers were using texts that had "honeycomb" in them. Two of these writers are second century. Tertullian's commentary is even more interesting in that he only mentions the honeycomb and not the fish. Hoffman's question stands: which did he eat? both? just one? The variations in the text only raise suspicions, and these differences are not unnoticed by scholars.
Luke 24 is widely believed to be sharply distinct from the rest of Luke's Gospel, both thematically and structurally. In brief, scholars believe that, much like Mark 16:9-20 or John 21, Luke 24 is another example of what's called "narrative expansion"; it serves to resolve questions that the rest of the Gospel leaves open. But in our next segment, I will definitively prove that Jesus nor the disciples ate fish.
προσφάγιον, ὀψάριον, and ἰχθύς in John 21 — with Lexical and Textual Context
1) πρὸςφάγιον (prosphágion) — relish/side dish, not zoological “fish.”
Lexical grounding:
προσφάγιον is a Greek culinary term that — in both classical and Hellenistic Greek — denotes food eaten with bread, i.e., a relish or side dish rather than the basic staple itself. Scholars and lexicons (e.g., Thayer’s, Strong’s) explicitly equate προσφάγιον with ὄψον, the broader classical category of delight, condiment, or accompaniment to bread, and not inherently “fish.”
Biblical usage:
In John 21:5 Jesus asks, “Have you anything προσφάγιον to eat?” — literally anything for eating alongside bread. The term does not mean “fish” or ἰχθύς, but indicates prepared edible food in general.
The context of a seaside meal may inclines translators to render “fish,” but lexically and historically προσφάγιον refers to relish/side food, and not the biological category fish.
This reflects the original Greco-Roman dining vocabulary, where προσφάγιον is a culinary complement and not a fish taxonomy term.
2) ὀψάριον (opsárion) — originally relish/ side dish rather than a generic “fish.”
Etymology and classical usage:
ὀψάριον is a diminutive of ὄψον (opson).
ὄψον in the Septuagint and classical Greek means anything eaten with bread as a relish or side dish. Fish is a common example in seaside or Mediterranean contexts, not the defining category.
Lexicons such as BDAG and Liddell-Scott-Jones (LSJ) list ὀψάριον as “prepared food, relish, side dish,” noting that it contextually often refers to fish because fish was a typical opson in everyday meals — not because the word means “fish” by definition.
Septuagint evidence:
In the LXX (e.g., 1 Samuel, Judges, etc.), the word ὄψον routinely refers to meat or cooked dishes eaten with bread (e.g., Joseph’s “bread and onions” in Genesis LXX; Judges’ meal of meat with bread). The sense throughout the Greek Old Testament is culinary side dish, not zoological category.
This broad semantic domain persists into Greek literature of the period and into Koine Greek, in which ὀψάριον continues to designate prepared edible fare before it ever “narrowly” comes to be used of small fish in context. The shift to frequent fish reference is a usage trend, not etymology.
In John:
The disciples bring ὀψάρια to Jesus on the shore (John 21:9-10). In context, it refers to the prepared food placed on the fire, not the raw fish hauled in the net.
The next verse then switches to ἰχθύες when describing the caught fish (John 21:11). The author’s distinction supports that ὀψάριον in this context denotes prepared edible side food, not fish as such.
3) ἰχθύς (ichthús) — actual fish as animal, not the prepared meal.
Lexical sense:
ἰχθύς is the standard Greek term for fish as animal. It appears across Greek literature and in the New Testament wherever the biological creature is in view.
In John 21:11 the term used for the catch — ἰχθύες — refers clearly to the living fish hauled in the net. This is the biological category and is lexically distinct from ὀψάριον or προσφάγιον.
Narrative sequence in John 21:
The narrative sequence moves from caught fish (ἰχθύες) to prepared food (προσφάγιον / ὀψάριον) eaten with bread.
This shift reflects a difference in function and semantic category, not synonymous labeling:
ἰχθύες — fish animals caught in the net
ὀψάριον / προσφάγιον — prepared edible food by the shore
This underscores the point that what is eaten is not raw fish caught (ἰχθύες), but prepared beforehand (προσφάγιον / ὀψάριον). The author’s wording separates catch from meal, a distinction consistent with lexicon semantics.
Might I suggest that the "side dish" Jesus ate instead of the fish was, in fact, "an honeycomb"? I believe we have a breadtrail we can follow that leads us to this logical conclusion. Remember Tertullian's observation, emphasis added: Tertullian (II century), De Corona, 14 said, "For it was after the gall He tasted the honeycomb, and He was not greeted as King of Glory in heavenly places till He had been condemned to the cross as King of the Jews, having first been made by the Father for a time a little less than the angels, and so crowned with glory and honor." This reminded me of an interesting Proverb, 27:7, which reads, “The full soul loatheth an honeycomb; but to the hungry soul every bitter thing is sweet.” When Jesus was dying, he was "full of the Spirit of God" until "he gave up the ghost." Prior to this moment of bitter death, he was given the bitter drink of gall. Having been resurrected after tasting the bitter taste of death/ gall, Jesus invites them to eat honeycomb not fish--not more death. For Jesus to be participating in death is to contradict his very own mission and philosophy. Proverb 27:7 also echoes Matthew 5:6, which says, “Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.” It's an interesting and beautiful reference. It emphasizes the sweetness of the resurrection life that awaits in contrast to the bitterness that one must go through to access it--hunger, thirst...gall...death. Honeycomb therefore stands as the fruit of dedication to justice, mercy, true wisdom, freely to all who hunger and thirst for such a thing, as we see in other Proverbs:
“My son, eat thou honey, because it is good; and the honeycomb, which is sweet to thy taste: So shall the knowledge of wisdom be unto thy soul: when thou hast found it, then there shall be a reward, and thy expectation shall not be cut off" (Proverbs 24:13, 14, KJV).
“Hast thou found honey? eat so much as is sufficient for thee, lest thou be filled therewith, and vomit it" (Proverbs 25:16, KJV).
“It is not good to eat much honey: so for men to search their own glory is not glory.”
(Proverbs 25:27, KJV)“The full soul loatheth an honeycomb; but to the hungry soul every bitter thing is sweet" (Proverbs 27:7, KJV).
Loving and pursuing wisdom is often rewarded with "honeycomb." In these Proverbs, these Wisdom sayings that Jesus is said to embody, perfectly. The victory is not without some pursuit, effort, and desire. Jesus demonstrated that after the bitter taste of the cup, there is a honeycomb side dish--sweetness, life...not more death.
John 21 as Appendix / Epilogue — Scholarly Discussion
All of this assumes that John 21 is authentic. Many modern commentators note that John 20:30-31 serves as a natural conclusion to the Gospel, with its statements about why the signs are written and what belief yields. This suggests that an earlier form of the Gospel may have ended at 20:31, and that chapter 21 was then added as an epilogue or appendix.
Some scholars describe John 21 as an appendix or epilogue, arguing that the Gospel could naturally conclude at 20:30-31, and the post-resurrection appearance at the Sea of Tiberias represents additional traditional material attached afterward. Critics of the chapter’s originality point to differences in narrative focus, abrupt transition, and unique material (e.g., the fishing story and Peter’s reinstatement) that seem distinct from the flow of 1-20. At the same time, no extant early manuscript lacks John 21, and church tradition uniformly attests a 21-chapter Gospel from the second century onward, which suggests that if it was “added,” it was done very early and became fixed in the text tradition.