Hey all,
So I stumbled on this lovely piece of New Testament and Early Church history courtesy of the scholars over at Cracked Online entitled, "6 Famous Symbols That Don't Mean What You Think." Popped up on my Facebook feed and I couldn't help but address it.
Yeah, you read that right.
Ok, so I was being sarcastic about the whole "scholars" bit. So how correct are they? The issues really lie in the final paragraph,
"According to some researchers, Christians adopted the vagina-fish symbol simply because of how common it was, but later looked for all sorts of non-vaginal justifications for it. Even actual Christian scholars admit that their second most popular symbol has a colorful history, just not one you want to bring up during a family dinner party."
Prior to this, they identified the use of fish as a symbol for the female genitalia in the Pagan ancient world. That much at least, they're correct about. Let's point out a couple of inconsistencies though.
First, notice how they don't give names for "some researchers." So... we should just take your word for it that these "researchers" are real, credentialed scholars writing in acknowledged peer reviewed publications and not random internet warriors or people like Bart Ehrman who are known to have a chip on their shoulder against Christianity? Riiiiight. Appeal to the unthinking, unquestioning majority. Great journalistic skills there.
Secondly, the author links to an article in Christianity Today (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/2004/issue81/7.15.html) as his source for "actual Christian scholars." For one, Christianity Today isn't exactly scholarly reference, unless of course you're writing your sophomore year research paper. Sophomore year of high school, that is. For two, go look at the article. The article gives a brief history on the use of the fish in Christian history, and also briefly tells of its use in Pagan symbolism, but nowhere does the author succinctly tie the two together, or state that Christians outright took it from Pagan sources. What the author says is this:
"The fish's spawning as a Christian symbol during the first century is similarly esoteric. Using the Greek word for fish, Ichthys, the compilers of a collection of religious teachings called the Sibylline Oracles created an acrostic: Iesous Christos theou huios soter, or "Jesus Christ Son of God Savior." This acrostic is now commonly embedded in modern fish symbols."
Use of the word "similarly" does not mean, "Christians stole this from Paganism." In fact, the whole rest of the article makes it clear that Christians had their own uses and intentions about the fish, and they were entirely separate and distinct from the pagan use. The only link is that since pagans used it too, Christians wouldn't get killed if they drew it, unlike a cross. We can draw a parallel between this and people who say the Trinity is pagan in origin because pagans like to use triangles in their symbolism. Yup. Because they use triangles and we use triangles, that means that we necessarily stole it from them. Not so.
The real basis for this is the continued insistence that Christianity is or was somehow syncretistic. This falls under what scholars refer to as the "Bauer Hypothesis." What the hypothesis states is essentially that there was no such thing as "Christianity (read: Orthodoxy)", but rather "Christianities." So to people that hold to this hypothesis, in the earliest of Christian days, there was no kind of solidarity in Christian doctrine or dogma, but rather it was a rag-tag-mish-mash of beliefs. The way that Christianity is today is really formed just on the basis of whoever won certain Church councils.
There are two main arguments against this idea. The first is looking at the church fathers as well as Scripture. Gnosticism and the Judaizers were written against from the earliest of times, and are outright taught against in Scripture. Also, the Fathers were not reluctant to call Christ God. So we have historical evidence that points to there being some kind of historical acknowledgment of certain doctrines as being either "orthodox" or "heresy" from the earliest of times. Even the issue of Christ's deity, Arianism, is not tied to any kind of historical strain, but rather as a theological answer to the linguistic problems surrounding Sabellianism. So these heretical notions weren't always around, but popped up as responses to developments within Orthodox Christianity.
The second argument against the Bauer hypothesis is that the underlying idea is that Christianity just rose up out of the ashes of other religions.
Well, if you're genius scholar and arch-heretic Rob Bell, anyway.
This has been addressed and completely refuted on so many occasions that it's almost not even worth addressing. From Isis to Attis, the facts of Christ's life have been attempted to be shoehorned into about every ancient reincarnation story possible. Because we all know that Christ's death and reincarnation involved him washing up onto the shore in an egg. Just because there are certain motifs present in different stories does not mean they share origins, or even share history. Like this- think of a means of transportation that has its rating in horsepower, all leather seating, and is built for long distance travel. You thinking of a car? Wrong. How about a truck? Nope. How about an actual horse? Still wrong. I'm talking about a giraffe, because my daughter told me yesterday that she would love to ride one. These things all share certain similar ideas, but are not related. Same thing goes for religions, and in particular, Christianity.
So, in conclusion, don't worry about that Jesus fish on your car, it's not a part of female anatomy, nor is it an homage to fertility. As long as you can confess, "Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour," you're in the clear.
In Him,
Mike Senders
No comments:
Post a Comment