The mission originates in captivation: ἁλιεύω, πιάζω, σύρω, ἕλκω. (Jn 21:6-11) 97 to copy all Jewish ways, the gospels expected them to manifest a spirit congruous with Judaism at its most positive. The publication of new information, as is the case here, is not always received with joy. Many, especially older scholars, immersed in imaginative uses of scripture, are allergic to new information. It devalues imaginative exegeses. There are, therefore, subjective reasons why new information about the stratum of all studies should be dismissed as embarrassing, irrelevant and super- fluous14. In this article a major piece of new information arises from a philological point which has been unaccountably neglected. S.T. Lachs pointed it out, without exploiting it15, and it has passed unnoticed. Secondly, John’s choice of vocabulary, with its frequent use of parono- masia, is easily underrated. The words of Jn 21 were carefully chosen, each having implications which have not been noticed. Indeed when did understanding of the scene vanish? How can exegesis proceed without es- sential background knowledge? Scholars can argue about hermeneutics16, but unless the implications of the words are understood John remains, here and there, a closed book. Peter, dragging the fish, looks like an ex- hibitionist clown, and John an idiot to suggest his importance with such a foolish caricature. Peter’s appointment as Jesus’ shepherd is bizarre, and its apparent absurdity is emphasized by the threefold question, “Dost thou love me?”. Exegetes ignore the fact that to appoint a proxy or agent (as opposed to a tenant of land) when one will not be available for accounting, and on an indefinite time-scale, is problematical for Jews, Greeks, and Romans. The latter, if we except the city-state, invented the deathless corporation, e.g. Senate and People of Rome, so that continuity of responsibility could be visualized - but normally the principal’s death, or even disappearance, ended the agent’s powers and liabilities. There is a precedent for Peter’s appointment; John’s hearers knew it, a parallel throwing light on the scheme itself. Entanglement in indirect questions about Peter could have stifled enquiry - or, more probably, the point was overlooked. Regarding the parable of the Treasure in the Field (Mt 13:44), clarified in 1963, 14 compare the treatment by J.D. Kingsbury, The Parables of Jesus in Matthew 13 (London, 1969), 111-112 and W.D. Davies and D.C. Allison, Gospel according to Saint Matthew II (Edinburgh, 1991), 436; and E. Linnemann, Parables of Jesus (London, 1966), 169 n.4 end. S.T. Lachs, A Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament (Hoboken, NJ, 1987), 15 58-59. H. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch I. Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (Munich, 1961), 188. Particularly on readers’ input into texts: A.C. Thiselton, New Horizons in Hermeneu- 16 tics (London, 1992), ch.1 §2; ch.4 §§1-3.