Talk:Ichthys/Archive 1

Astrology
"Within astrology, the symbol of the fish can also have the double meaning of the sign of Pisces. According to some astrological theorists, Jesus Christ represents the central figure of the Age of Pisces, which is now giving way to the Age of Aquarius. The Ages go backwards through the signs of the Zodiac. Prior to the birth of Christ there was the Age of Aries and before that Taurus and so on. Each Age lasts approximately 2,000 years. Yet this theory is flawed in the fact that the signs of the Zodiac were not formally separated until a meeting of the International Astronomical Union in the 1950's and the "Age of Pisces" theory is discredited by the vast majority of scholars." - the information here regarding the seperation of the zodiac signs is absolute nonsense (as far as I understand the situation) and even contradicts the wikipedia western astrology page. I do not suggest that the theory of the origins of the fish symbols being related to pisces are totally right or totally wrong - it is an interesting correspondence or synchronicity with at least some truth in some manner - but the information on the zodiac is most definitely in contradiction of the wikipedia astrology page and as far as I understand is also erroneous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.221.50.186 (talk) 21:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Parodies section
Why include a section that represents an insignificant fraction of the population. Darwinists = evolutionists = anti-creationism/anti-theistic evolution = anti-theism = only several percentage points of the US population (atheists and agnostics don’t even total 1% combined).

Oh wait a minute, I forgot I was on Wikipedia.

Later children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.111.36.194 (talk) 16:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I know this was an old post, but why not? The parodies are culturally significant and relate directly to the ichthys. JayKeaton (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Neither our Prophet Bobby Henderson (May His Meatballs Be Spicy) nor his flock (or should that be 'servings?') have any objections, I'm sure, to parodies of our deity being listed on the Flying Spaghetti Monster page. Parodies are relevant - followers of any faith shouldn't feel threatened to the point of demanding the removal of such items lest a follower be swerved from the True Path... That implies poor faith in one's own religion, surely. Blitterbug (talk) 12:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Uhm, this isn't usa.wikipedia.org anyway, it's en-wikipedia.org *hint hint* And you're assuming that only atheists and agnostics would make parodies of Ichthys... so you're saying that no christian would make a parody of an Islamic or Jewish or Buddhist or Pastafarianist or whatever-ist symbol? More than sombre, that doesn't sound very healthy. 195.23.115.157 (talk) 11:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Missing Information: pronunciations?
Does anyone have any information on how to corectly pronounce each of the Greek words in the acronym, and the acronym itself? Wave or MP3 files in male and female voices would be ideal. ~Sandra 3 April 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.174.202.197 (talk) 17:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Christian section
I have added the disputed section tag to the christian section, after an unnamed IP added a lot of stuff which appears, at least to me, to be at the very least highly speculative, and contradicts NPOV. If you are the author of this section, please explain and give references. HyDeckar 14:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Other Symbolism??
Just wondering if others agree with me that the `other symbolism associated with the fish' section needs a (reputable) source to establish its use quicksmart, otherwise contains info that honestly has no place in such an article. HyDeckar 14:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yoni / earth mother symbol
Thinking of expanding the article with a section on the pagan symbol of the Yoni - the symbol of the 'Great Mother' - one school of thought is that it was the origin of the Christian symbol (they are virtually identical but the Christian one is tilted 90 degrees.)  This predates Christianity by several thousand years. Possibly also mentioning the early paintings of Christ using the symbology of the yoni for depicting him inside Mary's womb. Sources, if anyone wants to check beforehand, are : The Women's encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets (B. Walker) Man and His Gods (H. Smith) Religion in Greece and Rome (H.J. Rose) Oriental religions in Roman Paganism (F. Cummon) Bible Myths and their parallels in other Religions (T. Duane) Probably mentioned in some others I'm planning to check out, so dont take this as an exhaustive list. The Rev of Bru 15:32, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I think that might be more appropriate in Vesica piscis CheeseDreams 20:01, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Well its much more like the fish symbol without the arcs,The Rev of Bru
 * The arcs should not be on the diagram, this is an error of understanding what "the flesh of the fish" (translated into latin this is "Vesica Piscis") actually is. I think I am going to have to edit the diagram. CheeseDreams 20:35, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I have, in fact, spent some time re-drawing the diagram on the Vesica piscis page, so that the identity with the fish symbol is clearer. CheeseDreams 21:36, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * and if the fish symbol was originally a pagan symbol that was simpy adapted for christianity, that should be represented on this page, surely? What does everyone think?The Rev of Bru
 * That is why I have proposed the merge, below. CheeseDreams 20:35, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps Astrological
On the sermon on the mount, Jesus only had 5 loaves of bread and two fish to feed the masses. One assertion is that he was referring to the five books of Moses and the sign of the age: pisces (two fish) Also notable is the reference to a man carrying water as the sign to go to the upper room for the last supper (aquarius). The sign of Jonah, while representing death and rebirth also is the sign of a fish. Am I stretching? perhaps. The authors of the time used a multitude of methods to convey meaning, symbols, in the age of exudus, were used as words, you have to consider that words are used as symbols thoughout the old and new testament.


 * I don't understand what you are saying - I was always taught that the whole point of the fish symbol (or at least one of its major strengths) was that it served as a kind of 'secret handshake' between Christians during times of Roman oppression. Consisting of two curves, essentially, it could be quickly sketched in the dust and rubbed out. So the firm link to Christianity is well established, surely? Blitterbug (talk) 12:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Darwin Fish
Darwin reference: I don't think that a reference to Darwin is appropriate for an article regarding the biblical and historical basis for ICHTHYS, the abbreviation for a secret code of early Christians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by G3pro (talk • contribs) 23:14, 18 July 2004 (UTC)


 * The Darwin Fish is one of the more important modern reactions to the symbol, and certainly belongs in a paragraph about modern usage. See NPOV. Meelar (talk) 23:15, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with Meelar. Discussion of modern usage is certainly appropriate.  RickK 23:19, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)


 * A mocking parody of ICHTHYS hardly belongs in an article which is exclusively about the religious connotation. I recommend making a subsection on modern uses of the fish symbol rather than interjecting it in the middle of the religious discussion.  I want to keep it, but try to make the article more unified with a whole analysis of the modern uses. --G3pro July 18 2004


 * Making it a subsection would require a lot more information about modern usage than I currently know. Given that the "modern usage" section is currently pretty short, I feel that the article as now written flows well and clearly delineates the ancient and modern usages. There's no need for a subheading at this level of coverage. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 23:23, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * How is this article exclusively about the religious connotations of ICHTHYS? The title says Icthys NOT Icthys (religious connotations) CheeseDreams 20:57, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, the article reads like it is about the religious connotations. It's first and main section is "Ichthus as a Christian symbol" and every further section is discussion the symbol in this first section. ~ 71.199.123.50 (talk) 17:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That would be the fault of the articles editors and should be rectified. Ironically keeping the darwin fish would do exactly that, by adding more diversity instead of just a onesided religious view to the symbol, as you yourself pointed out. See how that works?


 * Just because the article has, according to you, too much emphasis on a specific religions view of the symbol doesn't mean the Darwin fish doesn't belong here. The Darwin fish symbol is clearly based on the same greek symbol as the Jesus fish, as such both would belong in the article with the same validity. 213.141.89.53 (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I would be willing to elaborate on several modern uses of the fish and make it a stub. I would love to explore the reasoning and popularity behind the adaptations for the fish.  --G3pro July 18 2004


 * Well, you're welcome to create a "modern usage" heading level in the current article--more material would be interesting. Feel free to add your material, but please don't just remove material. Best wishes, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 23:27, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I added the section on adaptations of ICHTHYS. Please discuss here before making substantial edits to this section.


 * Hey, can anybody come up with universal codes to make the Greek characters display properly on all systems? I tried adding standard letters with the two non-standard Greek characters as numerical values. However, the "O" shaped letter--I am too lazy to look it up now--is still not displaying properly and then too there is no guarantee that it will display properly on other moniters. The big thing is trying to get it to display in standard ASCII rather than Unicode.


 * Shouldn't the greek letters be recognizable by all browsers and systems? Look up how to format text properly on the help menu to the side.  It's an ampersand followed by the greek letter text.  Like this (without the space): & iota;


 * Do the characters show up correctly in your browser? In mine, they're just boxes representing where letters ought to go.


 * You could try $$\iota\chi\theta\epsilon\sigma$$, which renders as $$\iota\chi\theta\epsilon\sigma$$. (Meaning that it'll come out as an image for people who know their browsers can't render HTML math.) 'Course, there are a lot of downsides to that, too. But it's an option. Greek language uses Unicode numbers, (they're there because someone pasted in Greek letters, which the edit-box converted into Unicode entities---it'll do that if you paste in Japanese or Chinese and hit 'preview' as well) which are hard to edit (who memorizes a table of numbers?!) and should be emulated by the named-entities (e.g., &amp;lambda; should print &lambda;.) grendel|khan 15:06, 2004 Aug 6 (UTC)


 * By O shaped letter do you mean omicron, omega, phi, or theta? CheeseDreams 20:38, 3 November 2004 (UTC)

Primary Sources?
I would like to know what the primary sources are for such tales of people drawing this symbol on the ground — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.186.67.163 (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't have the primary sources on this, but in my search, I found that the first account of the fish was by Clement of Alexandria (c.150-c.215). Also noted was that when a Christain met face to face with someone of an unknown faith, the Christian would draw half the symbol and wait for the other to finish the rest.  --G3pro
 * Given that its virtually impossible to draw an arc of a circle freehand (one is considered a genius if it is acheived), I should like to see a demonstration of this CheeseDreams 20:59, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * If the article said "draw a geometrically perfect arc of a circle freehand," I'd say you had a point. However, for practical purposes, most people can draw an approximation of one adequate to the purpose described.
 * Septegram 14:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Nitpickery or what :) Of course two rough arcs can be scratched in the mud / dust / stony ground. Even if not much of a mark is made, the intention of the drawer would be quite obvious by following the movements of his/her stick / finger... Blitterbug (talk) 13:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge
Obvious duplication of subject matter with Ikhthus. No opinion on which spelling to use for the final title. --Michael Snow 00:19, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Whatever relevant material there is in Ikhthus should be put into this article. Ikhthus is not a correct transliteration of &Iota;&Chi;&Theta;&Upsilon;&Sigma;, and most of the material in that article is related to astrology, which should not be considered in the Chritian use of the symbol.  --G3pro August 3rd 2004
 * I merged ikhthus, but I left the astrological material in its own section. If it's incorrect, remove it, but even if most Christians now consider astrology to be a superstition, there was a long period when it was more respectable, so I think it might still be encylopedic. Gdr 15:19, 2004 Aug 5 (UTC)
 * I don't know, I just find the astrological information completely unncessecary when talking about a symbol used most famously in early Christianity. I just think that the astrology adds unwanted de-emphasis of the strong Christian meaning in the symbol.  G3pro


 * I don't mind the astrology being there, but calling that section "Other Christian symbolism..." is hardly fair -- the symbolism discussed isn't Christian at all. We could talk about the "barque of Peter" or the anchor in a section with that title, but it doesn't seem all that necessary either. Also, we should modify the title to get rid of the link within the section title. (Style guide). Mpolo 15:59, November 2, 2004 (UTC)

Intriguingly
I was not aware that intriguingly could be considered POV. It just seems a chatty style. Would you prefer "it is increadably boring to note"? CheeseDreams 21:01, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I've had such things reverted on me many a time until I learned to avoid it. The point is, the idea is only "intriguing" if you hold the point of view that is supported by this line of reasoning. Someone who didn't agree with that point of view might say "preposterously" instead of "intriguingly". Or someone who wasn't truly interested, might say "boringly". We should let the reader make up his own mind what is intriguing, boring or otherwise. Compare Avoid peacock terms. Mpolo 15:54, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * Compare it to what? CheeseDreams 19:57, 2 November 2004 (UTC)

Merge to Fish shaped religious symbol thing
I would like to propose merging this article with that of Vesica piscis. The object in question is the same, and they are really just uses of the same thing by different peoples. I think there should be a section on "Christian use of THAT SHAPE" and "Pre-Christian use of THAT SHAPE" in the surviving article, and then any other bits that are in each article as well. However, I do not know what the resulting article ought to be called, maybe Fish shaped religious symbol thing CheeseDreams 20:10, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Definitely not. Ichthus is a separate article in itself with a long history and usage.  Nobody knows what vesica piscis is but everyone knows what ichthus is.  Leave the articles as they are.
 * ( 22:27, Nov 2, 2004 User:G3pro -- sig from history, added by Mpolo)


 * I really think that the two articles are better off separate. For one thing, Vesica piscis doesn't look anything like the Ichthys... at least to my eye. That some scholars say they're related because of the name of the Vesica piscis could warrant links between the two articles, but I really think the material doesn't overlap. We don't gain anything by merging. It doesn't hurt to have two articles. In fact we lose by merging because we end up with a manufactured page title that is unintuitive for the reader. Mpolo 20:30, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * The Vesica Piscis isn't the picture in the diagram, it is the resulting fish shape. The diagram is wrong. Unfortunately I don't know how to correct it - I can't draw the appropriate diagram, overlaying the fish shape onto two much fainter overlapping circles. Pythagoras used the shape. He called it the Vesica Piscis, he wasn't referring to the circles, he was talking about the fish. Even the name of the shape (Vesica Piscis) says fish, it translates from Latin as "the flesh of the fish". The greek translation is "Sarca Ichthouca" i.e. "Sarca" of "Ichthys". Its the same thing. CheeseDreams 21:05, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please see the new diagram on Vesica piscis for explanation of the connection between the two articles. CheeseDreams 21:31, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, no, no! - The two images are quite obviously separate, and people coming here to check the origin of the Christian 'fish symbol', having perhaps been told about it at Sunday School, would be totally confused to find themselves at an (in their view) irrelevant page. Not that it is relevant but I am a raving atheist, should you wonder about my motives; I simply try to support logical categorisation where I can :) Blitterbug (talk) 13:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Spelling/transliteration variants
Just for grins, I Google'd the various versions of the spelling and came up with these results:


 * Ichthus - 71,400
 * Icthus - 32,400
 * Ikhthus - 216
 * Ikthus - 757
 * Ixthus - 1,840
 * Ichthys - 23,700
 * Icthys - 516
 * Ikhthys - 61
 * Ikthys - 218
 * Ixthys - 628
 * Ichthis - 71
 * Icthis - 44
 * Ikhthis - 12
 * Ikthis - 16
 * Ixthis - 24

Since "Ichthus" and "Icthus" are so common, I added them to the article intro para (per Wikipedia policy, which says: we try to make sure that all "inbound redirects" are mentioned in the first couple of paragraphs of the article). I will make sure all the more common ones exist as redirs, as well (although I'm not going to list them all in the intro - the "etc" I added should handle them). Noel (talk) 16:05, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Why is this page "ichthys", then, rather than the far more widely used and understood "ichthus"? Surely 'u' is the correct transliteration of upsilon, so "ichthus" is the correct way to spell the word in English. I personally have never, ever, encountered "ichthys". I propose renaming (with a redirect of course). Quaestor23 (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Diacritics?
Should the Greek in the first paragraph be changed to ἰχθύς (polytonic, as in Koine)? Perhaps ιχθύς (monotonic)? Is that different from ιχθύς? Google thinks so... Character encoding makes my head hurt. -leigh (&#966;&#952;&#8057;&#947;&#947;&#959;&#962;) 05:23, 11 January 2005 (UTC)

C'thulhu as an anti-religious icon?
I'm pretty sure that the Lovecraftian Great Old One magnets are intended more of as humorous than any sort of argument, religious or otherwise. It's fan peraphenalia, no different than a C'thulhu Plushie. Druminor 21:49, 13 February 2005 (UTC)

The whole fish thing.
I know the story, but is it fair to present it as fact. Also, the origins, should Christianity really be credited as the origin of the symbol? I've heard arguments linking the symbol to older pagan religions and even the suggestion that a pagan symbol was chosen so that the Romans would not catch on. I'm not sure about the validity of any argument, christian or otherwise, but the wording of the article presents some things as fact which may not be fact. --Lucavix 03:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've heard the same thing as well. My understanding is that aside from Greek pagans, the fish symbol was also used by worshipers of the Semitic god, Dagon - god of agriculture and ... well ... fish.  (not Lovecraft's "Dagon").  Also have heard some references to the Pope's hat being similar to the ritual priest outfits of Dagon worshipers (Its suppose to look like a fish head).  Why Christians would adopt it as a symbol, who's to knows, but the article does a good job presenting some of them. --Trippz 05:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Early Christians usurped many pagan symbols and rituals. Celebrating the birth of Jesus at around the winter equinox, for example. It was "Winter Holiday" long before it was "Christmas". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, thats pretty much a given. Afterall, the whole Christmas Tree thing is a bit of a giveaway.  In fact, some people point out passages within the Bible that express distaste with the Northern Pagan ritual of  Pine Tree Slaughter. Anyhow, the fish symbol was used by pagans long before the modern Christian adoption in the 1960's and even before Romanized Christians.  Aphrodite and Eros were often symbolized by a fish as well, from which we get Pisces.  A Christian connection could be argued as a translation to Mary and Jesus. I agree that the article doesn't really give enough significance to the pagan origins.  For example, I'd suggest the information about Origins be sectionalized and placed toward the top of the article.  As it is, the Origin information of the Ichthys is buried within a section called Early Christian Church, I think it should really be sectionalized and moved up to the front of the article and simply titled Origins of, currently the article reads more like one that should be properly titled "The Ichthys in Christianity".  Not that an article of such a nature wouldn't find a good home on WP, but if this article is really about the symbol it should have more Origin information, which inherently encompasses more then Christianity.  Maybe one of the main contributors wouldn't mind making the change.  I'd even accept a "Theories Concerning Origins of" title to the new section.  It would provide a place to elaborate more on this particular aspect of the Ichthys without muddying the current sections.  --Trippz 10:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * However, it is unlikely that the word "ichthys" was previously a pagan acronym and was then coincidentally adopted as the acronym of the Greek for "Jesus Christ, God's Son, Saviour". Speaking of saving, lest we forget: Jesus Saves. Moses Invests. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sure early germanic pagans were sitting around making just as many acronyms as the early romanised christians. I can just imagine the ancient germanic tribes sitting there making acronyms. Just as I can imagine the early christians doing the same. I.E NOT AT ALL.
 * Knock yourself out, here make some acronyms. It's super simple and you might start a cult while you're at it.
 * http://www.jasonblogs.com/acreator/index.php
 * http://www.go-quiz.com/acronym/acronym.php
 * 213.141.89.53 (talk) 21:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Image comment
There is an image of a stone with a caption that reads "Overlaying the letters in ΙΧΘΥΣ results in an ichthys wheel like this one in Ephesus." This is incorrect. That is not an "ΙΧΘΥΣ" or fish symbol at all. It is however a very common early Christian symbol, this ancient monogram is rarely seen in today's churches. It is formed of two Greek letters. The "I" is the first letter of the Greek name of Jesus (IHCOYC), and the "X" is the first letter of the Greek word for Christ (XPICTOC).

Arturo Méndez (arturo.mendez@gmail.com) 201.153.16.222 20:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I noticed this too and removed the pic from the page (follows if anyone wants to fix):



--Andymussell 22:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

astrological age
From near the end:

"In astrology, an astrological age is determined by the constellation in which the Sun appears during the vernal equinox. Since each sign on the zodiac belt shifts an average of one degree in 70 years, while 360/12 = 30, each astrological age lasts 70 x 30 = 2,100 years. The astrological age of Pisces coincided with the birth of Jesus Christ — approximately 2,000 years ago."

But the article on astrological age says Pisces didn't begin until around 500CE.

I know practically nothing about astrology, unfortunately, so am not gonna even try to clear this up. Does anyone else feel up to it? --Andymussell 22:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * See Talk:498 - AnonMoos 03:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The article on astrological age contains weasel words. The article doesn't explicitly say that the Pisces didn't begin until around 500CE. It says SOME people believe so, and some don't.
 * 213.141.89.53 (talk) 21:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Genitive or Nominative?
Should the Genitive or Nominative case of the Greek word for "Savior" be used? If the Genitive Σωτῆρος is understood as an Attributive / Descriptive (rather than a Possessive) then it seems a viable option. This would fit with the subject, Χριστὸς, as well as (or better than) the Nominative case, would it not?

Ps. Regardless of the case adopted, wouldn't the Eta take a circumflex accent, not an acute? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.253.11.176 (talk • contribs) 08:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have never seen the ΙΧΘΥΣ understood with anything other than "soter", so I wouldn't belive a reading with "soteros" without sources. Regarding the acute versus circumflex accent, you can see that it is an acute in the nominative case and a circumflex in the genitive case in various online sources, for example here (PDF). (Unfortunately the online classical Greek dictionaries at don't show accents). Kusma (討論) 15:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought I had seen nom. / gen. constructions with σῶς in the NT, but now I can't seem to find any, my mistake. Regarding the accent, I see the circumflex applies with the gen. (the ultima is short and the accent falls on the long penult), but with the nom. the accent falls on a long ultima, which I think allows it to take a circumflex or an acute. However, seeing as the lexical form is acute and no other word follows it in the expression, it appears that acute would be correct here. Sorry for the confusion! - 4.253.13.130 22:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem, it's good this was sorted out. Kusma (討論) 23:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Original research
It seems that this article contains a bundle of unsourced claims and possibly speculative information, the "Pagan"-section in particular. For example: ''Ichthys was the lover-son of the ancient Babylonian sea goddess Atargatis, and was known in various mythic systems as Tirgata, Aphrodite, Pelagia or Delphine. The word also meant "womb" and "dolphin" in some tongues, and representations of this appeared in the depiction of mermaids. The fish is also a central element in other stories, including the Goddess of Ephesus (who has a fish amulet covering her genital region), as well as the tale of the fish that swallowed the penis of Osiris, and was also considered a symbol of the vulva of Isis.'' It would seem that it unscrupulously connects mostly unrelated info in a dubious way. Would anyone be interested in trying to clean it up? Satanael 18:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

More original research?
From the article:
 * Though there is no direct evidence, the ichthys may simply be an adaptation of the mystic/mathematical symbol known as the Vesica Piscis. The length-height ratio of the vesica piscis, as expressed by the mystic and mathematician Pythagoras, is 153:265, a mystical number known as "the measure of the fish." In a biblical story in which Jesus aids his disciples to catch fish, they catch exactly 153 fish (John 21:11).

The words "though there is no direct evidence" and "may", put together in a single sentence, make this a remarkably tenuous assertion. Can anyone provide verifiable mainstream sources that say this? In particular, a cite for '...known as "the measure of the fish."' would be particularly useful. -- The Anome 07:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There are lots of references to this in Tim Freke's book The Jesus Mysteries Mike0001 16:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism???
While I don't want to do it myself without any consensus, I think it would be more than appropriate to remove the claim that the Darwin parody of the Jesus fish is comparable to anti-Semitism. The Darwin fish is not an expression of hatred toward Christians. It  simply expresses an ideological difference with the Christian faith. Furthermore, the spirit of the Darwin fish, at least as I understand it, is not an evolutionist/atheistic statement so much as it is commentary on the absurdity of placing a symbol of faith on the rear bumper of an automobile. I'm not saying whether I agree with it or not, I'm simply stating that comparisons to anti-Semitism are irresponsible and myopic, and should be removed from the article. -C.B. 24.62.79.226 07:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * "on the absurdity of placing a symbol of faith on the rear bumper of an automobile"
 * How you can deduce this is pretty bizarre.


 * "myopic"
 * "near-sighted" works just as good here.


 * Any way you look at it, the Darwin fish is a desperate attempt to express opposition. Yet the person in the driver seat probably preaches a universal evolutionary brotherhood, or whatever evolutionists delude over, to create a whole new level of hypocrisy.
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.111.36.194 (talk) 12:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Fables?
I ran into an eyesore on this page where the man is discussing the "fish mathmatics" and how coincidentally there are some pagan storys that are similar to the ones found in the gospels.

I find the term "Christ's fables" to be innapropriate so I changed that a bit.

2Pe 1:16 "For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty."

Rush4hire 10:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Rediculous
I'm so tired of seeing these on cars. Jesus is a character and this is his cartoon fish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngrunsfeld (talk • contribs) 02:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I find it ridiculous that somebody in the same species of me could be so unintelligent. The creditability of your statement is identical to me saying, “Darwin is just a character and the evolution fish his ‘cartoon fish’.” To each his own, but Jesus did exist. Whether you believe he did what he did is entirely up to you. I wish you well. - Darth Fury 06:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I find it ridiculous that somebody in the same species of me could think that the creditability of his statement is identical to you saying, “Darwin is just a character and the evolution fish his ‘cartoon fish’.


 * You don't worship ANY person named Jesus do you? No, you worship a specific person, god rather, named Jesus, with a set number of attributes. Being divine, son of god, able to perform "magic tricks" etc. The amount of evidence for the existance of such a "being" ends up being, pretty much the bible.


 * Whereas the evidence for a NORMAL HUMAN BEING named Charles Darwin existing...


 * "Did a person named Jesus ever exist in this world?" Sure. I'll give you that. I bet several persons named something along the lines of Yeshua lived once on this planet. Maybe thousands. Humans fuck alot you know.
 * Do you see my point? There is a clear diffrence between the evidence for theese two "personas". UNLESS, you just mean a normal human being named Jesus. Any human being named Jesus. In wich case, my apologies. You're correct in that aspect. I even know a guy named Jesus from Mexico. Is it him you mean?


 * 213.141.89.53 (talk) 21:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * How can you be so brainwashed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.111.36.194 (talk) 12:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought we weren't supposed to feed the trolls? Blitterbug (talk) 13:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect interpretation
It's a bit subtle, but the stated interpretation of the acronym is not correct => i.e. Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior. It's a common misconception dating back to early commentaries.

For one, it's not good grammatical Greek (hinging in part on whether or not the "TH" word is genitive or nominative), but most importantly, the acronym is a chiasm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiasmus) which can be demonstrated most easily in a visual depiction of the chiasm:

- Iesus                     Jesus - |                                         |   |  -Christos            Christ -   | | |                                   |   |   |  |  Theos (Theou) - God('s)  |   | | |                                   |   |   |  -hUios                  Son -   | |                                         |   - Soter                     Savior -

Because: Jesus (Yoshua) MEANS savior Christ (annointed) MEANS son (adopted - as in King) and God is whom Jesus is declared to be - as opposed to simply son of God.

If the genitive case is assumed, then the chiastic structure is broken: AABBC If the nominative case is assumed, the chiastic structure is apparent: ABCBA

mjd 24.250.112.192 01:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Visnu and the icthys symbol

 * "A symbol similar to ichthys, inclusive of the tails, is associated with the Hindu deity Vishnu, occurring twice in the written representation of his name."

Can someone explain this to me? Visnu written in Devanagari script reads as विष्णु — and I cannot find any fishes in that. —Raga 14:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Parodies of the ichthys symbol
Could you guys read that section? I changed it a bit to try to make it sound as neutral as possible. Please comment. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 06:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed the "weasel words" tag. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As long as it's there this article will remain a fine representation of the anti-religious dump known as Wikipedia.
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.111.36.194 (talk) 12:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The Jesus Fish Game section should be removed
Apparently there is a "game" that "originated in the Tampa Bay Area in Florida" which "is similar to the punch buggy and the slug bug game, as in jesus fish if you see one you get to punch another player."

Right.

I'd be willing to bet that this section also originated in "the Tampa Bay Area". It's obviously original research. Plus, I'm sure there are tons of variations of this "game" that originated elsewhere and probably quite a few that were made up before the "Tampa Bay Area" version, so, it's most likely a false claim as well.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.235.168.63 (talk) 21:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Sigma
The "C" is a variant of upper case sigma; see {http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/03f9/index.htm). I haven't used the correct unicode because my browser doesm't support it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EdwardLockhart (talk • contribs) 12:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Sydney University in 1960s? I have my doubts
The article says that the symbol was used at Sydney Uni in the 1960s. I doubt it (I don't think Ichthus emerged until the early 1970s in Australia, but I might be wrong) and would like to see a citation. The university newspaper 'Honi Soit' is cited -- can anyone give a reference to this 1960s use of the Ichthus symbol, in 'Honi Soit' or anywhere in Australia? If not, I think that in good time this reference should be removed. Alpheus (talk) 07:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No concensus to move, no show of primary topic to change page, Pages not moved  Ron h jones (Talk) 23:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Ichthys → Ichthus - Ichthus is by far the more common spelling (twice as many hits on Google) and u is the correct transliteration of upsilon, not y. There is currently a disambiguation page at Ichthus but I think this article should be the default, with a "for other uses" link to the disambig at the top. Obviously the article will have to be edited when moved to reflect the new title. I suggested this move some time ago on this talk page and no-one objected. - Relisting  Ron h jones (Talk) 21:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Quaestor23 (talk) 03:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Greek upsilon was pronounced 'u' in come Greek dialects (e.g. Boeotian and Homeric), and it became the Roman letter U, but in classical-period Attic Greek upsilon was pronounced 'ü', and thus was taken into the Roman alphabet when transcribing Greek words that contain upsilon, as there was no previous Roman letter for 'ü'. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I came by to close - however you cannot just overrun an existing dab page, you need to show, and agree that this page is significantly more important than the other three pages in order to become the primary topic, as there has been no discussion about that aspect, I will relist it. You may wish to add a link on the other three talk pages to encourage more discussion about this aspect. If this page cannot be called the primary topic then the only way to change it would be to change to something like Ichthus (Christian Symbol)  Ron h jones (Talk) 21:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. See WP:GREEK. There are several methods of transliterating Greek, useful for different purposes, but the ancient and canonical method represented by Ichthys is most common for ancient Greek, and the one Wikipedia prefers. We should no more use Ichthus than we should use Aiskhulos for Aeschylus, even though English speakers have done both.


 * Indeed, there is less reason; by Imperial times, when this sign came into use, upsilon had already shifted to /i/.


 * Anthony's learned discourse is off topic; this is neither Boeotian nor Homeric Greek, both scholarly recreations at the time of this phrase, and if it were, we would still transliterate with the same y as in Hyperion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Messianic Seal
Mention the fish tail is part of the star of david on the Messianic Seal  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.186.215 (talk) 02:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Secret symbol myth?
I had always thought that the use of the symbol as an early Christian secret handshake was a myth. Are there better sources than a broken link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.56.37.219 (talk) 03:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It wasn't a handshake -- one person apparently idly drew an arc in the dust or dirt with one foot, and the other (if he was a Christian who wished to be recognized to the first individual) completed the Ichthys... AnonMoos (talk) 13:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

ΙΧΘΥΣ is an acronym

 * The below dialog I copied from User_talk:Ian_Dalziel before commencing to revert the last change Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 22:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on "acronym" sites this as an example and I've always heard this referred to as an acronym, so please tell me how or why you'd reckon it as “a poem or other form of writing in which the first letter, syllable or word of each line, paragraph or other recurring feature in the text spells out a word or a message”, to quote the opening line of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acrostic

I’m inclined to change it back, but I don’t want to start an editing war, so I’ll wait at least a day before doing anything.

Regards,

Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The phrase is writing in which the first letter of each word (a "recurring feature") forms a word - exactly as it says. What it is not is a word formed from the initial letters of the word. It is a pre-existing word, unlike "radar", for instance. The phrase was tailored to fit the word. It is wrongly given as an example in the acronym article. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 17:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The difference between an acronym and an acrostic consists not in whether it be an existing word, but rather whether it be a word scanned from the initials of a phase as opposed to a sentence or phrase scanned from the initial letters of paragraphs or phrases or sentences or whatnot.
 * Many contemporary English language acronyms are tailored to fit words that already exist; see
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backronym
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acronym#Contrived_acronyms


 * Contrastἰχθύς to common Greek language acrostics (common in Byzantine hymnography) or those in Hebrew in the Old Testament or the English language examples given at:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acrostic#Examples


 * Methinks it is clear the ἰχθύς is an acronym.


 * Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 15:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No, an acronym is formed from the initial letters of a phrase. The terms "backronym" and "false acronym" which you quote have been coined precisely because these are NOT true acronyms. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 23:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The history of the graphic symbol is missing
There is no information in this article showing the history and origin of the graphic symbol (the drawing of the fish). The history of ΙΧΘΥΣ is provided but not the graphical symbol. This seems to be a major oversight... Sbwoodside (talk) 20:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Unicode
No Unicode character? Really? Rich Farmbrough, 14:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC).


 * There's no Unicode encoding for the Initial Teaching Alphabet. I just now grepped the Unicode 5 text file case-insensitively for strings such as "fish", "icht", "ixt", and "ikht", and didn't turn up anything (don't know about Unicode 6). AnonMoos (talk) 16:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it (ichthys) could be encoded? – Kaihsu (talk) 05:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Does anybody watch this page?
Back in October last year, an unnamed vandal deleted an entire section, which then showed up with a "section blanking" note in the History of the article, which sat there, masked by all the other meaningful edits, until it was about to slip off the page and be lost forever.

The section, although without reference, explains the revival of the symbol. It is a very significant piece of 20th century Evangelical history.

Basically, whoever has an interest in the page needs to do a thorough check for things that have been missed, on a regular basis.

Amandajm (talk) 02:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Deleted 20th century history of the symbol
These two sections, which are the history of the revival of the symbol have been deleted as "unreferenced".

Can anyone provide references?

Revival and adaptations of the symbol

The Fish Mission
The 20th-century popular revival of the ichthys symbol dates from 1965. At this time the Evangelical Union at Sydney University, a branch of the Australian Fellowship of Evangelical Students, confronted by the disenchantment of students brought on by the Vietnam War and a perceived anti-Christian sentiment within the university, held a mission to students. The committee in charge of the promotions of the activity looked for a symbol which was distinctly Christian and which might excite curiosity by its apparent novelty and decided upon this ancient sign, which was drawn simply with two arcs, and no inscription.

Traditionally, up-coming events at the university were advertised in chalk on the bitumen paths. The campaign for the Fish Mission began by drawing the ichthys symbol on pavements all around the university. Silk-screen prints in bright colors on a white background were stuck with flour glue to the rises of walkway stairs throughout the campus. The unexplained early campaign provoked much speculation and interest. Querulous cartoons appeared in the student newspaper Honi Soit. As the advertising campaign progressed, more information was revealed.

Following the success of the Fish Mission publicity campaign, the Australian Fellowship of Evangelical Students used the symbol more widely on campuses around Australia. From Christian Unions of students it quickly spread to the churches.

Bumper sticker
Members of the University of Queensland Evangelical Union used the ichthys symbol when they formed a temporary Christian commune to be a witnessing presence at the Aquarius Rock Festival at Nimbin in May, 1973. From this time the display of the ichthys symbol, sometimes in combination with an Aquarius Festival sticker in the rear window of Kombi vans became common. The car bumper sticker followed quickly.

The symbol was rapidly adopted for use by other Christian bodies within Australia such as the Church Mission Society from whose shop near St. Andrew's Cathedral, Sydney could be purchased small items of jewelry with the ichthys motif. From Sydney the use of the motif was taken to Asia by university students who had been resident at International House which had close ties with the A.F.E.S.. The ichthys symbol was soon in use among Christians across the world.

Numerous parody bumper stickers and badges have also appeared (see below).

Amandajm (talk) 02:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Vimala reference removed
Earlier in 2012, 166.250.33.225 added a reference to the "Vimala Alphabet" using the symbol, which was not cited nor could I substantiate it. The only reference to the alphabet is here: http://www.iihs.com/vimala-alphabet.html and the symbol cannot be found. Therefore it has been removed.

Iæfai (talk) 02:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Removal/restoration of "Pre-Christian History" segment
While I agree that the sources in this paragraph could be better, stronger, and more academic, they are on par with other Wikipedia sources for reliability and sourcing of their own material. If you would like, I could track down stronger references to shore this up, and maybe some free graphics showing what would become the Ichthys in use in pre-Christian goddess-worship.

As well, I noted that the editor who removed the section complained that the references in question discussed fish symbols, and not the Ichthys itself. If that is the case, the "early church" segment should likewise be removed, as those rudimentary fish symbols bear less resemblance to the present Ichthys than any of the pre-Christian examples. I am not arguing for this, merely making a comparison. 142.167.241.185 (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of <><
I've seen the ASCII version <>< used, for example here. Is there a use for adding this to the article? - Paul2520 (talk) 16:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, but probably you'd need some source supporting that (I mean like an academic type source). Google "ASCII Ichthys"? Pandeist (talk) 23:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This WikiHow's got some other creations of it. Pandeist (talk) 23:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Good point. I also just found the Wikihow site. A variation <')))>< is depicted at Yahoo! Answers. Similar to the Wikihow <*))) <(((°>.
 * Is the Wikihow enough of a source? - Paul2520 (talk) 13:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably no, as it as well is itself a wiki. But a good source may yet be findable. Blessings!! Pandeist (talk) 17:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ichthys. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090525075317/http://www.usask.ca/antiquities/coins/augustus.html to http://www.usask.ca/antiquities/coins/augustus.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Kudos
I very much enjoyed this discussion of ich-theology.74.64.104.99 (talk) 12:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

"Not an acronym" is a ridiculous assertion
The word "RAM" existed with a meaning long before RAM appeared in computers. This doesn't mean that "RAM" isn't an acronym. It certainly is. It stands for "Random-access memory". Saying that words that were words BEFORE they were acronyms are, for that reason, prohibited from later becoming acronyms marks you as an AIRHEAD ("Absolutely Impossibly Ridiculous Hubristic Extremely Arrogant Dunce").74.64.104.99 (talk) 13:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson