Talk:Ichthys

Acronym?

Ichthys is Greek for fish; it didn't originate as an acronym. What is the source for the acronym claim?--94.6.223.15 (talk) 10:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

See Talk:Ichthys/Archive_1#.CE.99.CE.A7.CE.98.CE.A5.CE.A3_is_an_acronym

An editor who didn't fully understand the term - in my humble opinion, of course... :-) -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 10:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Obviously the basic ancient Greek word itself did not originate as an acronym, but its use by Christians was based on a kind of cryptic acronym... AnonMoos (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'd say the word for "a kind of cryptic acronym" is an acrostic, which is the word I had used. I think it is an acrostic or a mnemonic, not an acronym. I didn't feel strongly enough about it to get into an edit war, though. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not a "mnemonic", since it was not an aid to memory. You may be right that acrostic is preferable to acronym (I was not able to understand that this was the point at issue from 94.6.223.15's remarks). AnonMoos (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it's a bacronym? CrocodilesAreForWimps (talk) 02:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Can we have something in the history section that explains the actual history of the symbol, not this symbolic meaning thing?--78.146.175.69 (talk) 23:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Was pretty confused too… The translation to fish is kind of subtly tucked into brackets in the first line… Think it should be more prominent. CrocodilesAreForWimps (talk) 02:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

This is in response to Ian Dalziel reverting my edit. I changed backronym to acronym because acronym is definitely true, whereas whether it is a backronym or not is subject to debate.

I am obviously not suggesting the Greek word for fish originates from the Jesus fish concept. But let me present a hypothetical situation under which it is not a backronym, at least in the stricter sense. We know scribes shortened important words. So it is possible they at some point wanted to say "Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior", and thus shorted it to ἸΧΘΥΣ. It would obviously then be immediately noted by the reader that this is simply the word for fish capitalised. And thus the association of Jesus and fish began.

You might still argue that this is a backronym simply because the word fish already existed in Greek. But there is an undeniable suggestion of backwards engineering with the term backronym; this is actually part of the definition in most dictionaries (that is, that the words are specifically chosen to spell the word, rather than it being an accident). Since the term "Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior" makes sense and is not unnatural, to assert that this was chosen specifically to spell the word for fish, is speculation. lukeuser (talk) 09:28, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

recent removal of content

I would like to discuss this edit. I have issue with an anonymous user removing cited content their "justification" being this. The content seems valid, relating to the history of the symbol.

Thoughts? I do not want to take part in an edit war. = paul2520 (talk) 15:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think Augustine was wrong about the 27...

I've consulted the Greek version of the Sibylline Oracles and the acrostic really does contain 27 letters. https://archive.org/details/dieoraculasibyl02geffgoog/page/n217/mode/2up See line 225 (on page 155)... begins with 'Ε' so the full phrase reads "Ἰησοῦς Χρειστὸς Θεοῦ Υἱὸς Σωτήρ", not "Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς Θεοῦ Υἱὸς Σωτήρ". If somebody wants to argue that this is bad Greek then I guess that's fine, but that's how it's written in the Sibylline Oracles (which St. Augustine was citing) so his ignorance of Greek really has nothing to do with it. (I myself have never studied Greek. Are we sure that "Χρειστὸς" isn't just a genuine variant spelling? At the very least I'm thinking that what the author did may not have been that unusual in the ancient world. I know that St. Ireneaus, for numerological reasons, added an 'ε' to the spellings of "Λατῖνος" (=> Λατεινος) and "Τιτάν" (=> Τειταν) (see here)) 2601:49:C301:D810:60D6:3777:B8C0:7F2D (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Removed section

While many Christians hang a cross necklace or Rosary inside their vehicles, "the fish sticker on the car is a more conscious symbol of a witnessing Christian—significantly, unlike the former, it is on the outside of the car for everyone to see."

References

What does this mean? Apart form the Satanist-Masonic proselitism, Modernist vehicles has no concerns with the origins of the Christian symbol. Even if that sentence is sourced, it is merely stuff. And it can be hopefully posted in the right place, namely after the end of the article, in a separated seat.Theologian81sp (talk) 21:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

What on earth are you on about? I've restored it to the end of the article, where the stickers were already mentioned. Johnbod (talk) 00:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Sybilline Oracles

I modestly apologize not to have found yet an English source for the Sybilline Oracles. However, the Osservatore Romano is an auithorative source, even if it is not an academic one. As for what concerns the Catacombs of saint Priscilla and Sebastian the Martyrs, the related sources show some images pertaining the subject matter of the WP article. So, those sources have been linked in the text.

Let anyone have a good Easter of Resurrection with Jesus Christ God, unique Lord and King of Kings.Theologian81sp (talk) 22:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Secret Symbol

The claim, that the Ichthys is a secret symbol, lacks historical justification. The earliest source I am aware of for this claim dates back to the 19th century and also claims this without justification, see . I couldn't find any scholarship acknowledging the secret symbol. The German article also acknowledges that this is a historically unjustified legendary tale. EntropicPrinciple (talk)

References

Wikipedia appeals to reliable sources for its content. Branded Faith: Contextualizing the Gospel in a Post-Christian Era by Rajkumar Dixit makes it clear that, "The early Christians adopted the sign of the fish (Icthus) as a secret symbol of the faith." Wipf and Stock is a reputed publisher. The source you cited is outdated, going back to 1835, and it's not a scholarly text. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Rajkumar Dixit provides no evidence or sources of his claim. In order to assess whether the Ichthys was used as a secret symbol, we need to trace back the origin of the claim. A historian will search for early Christian evidence. I couldn't find any! There are many pages and books that make the assertion of the Ichthys's use as a secret symbol ( just like in Branded Faith), but none of them make reference to historical or scholarly literature on the issue. If this claim is not backed by evidence then it is at best legendary. EntropicPrinciple (talk) 21:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

EntropicPrinciple, you really need to stop removing content and secondary sources without proper reasoning. Drmies (talk) 14:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)