Yeah. Seems like that would be the kind of thing people would avoid in peer reviewed literature, though I'm not sure how much peer review goes in in scholarly theological circles.

It certainly would help to look at comparative art, although I'm not sure how much of the more simplistic designs (jesus fish!) would be covered. I think those easily drawn shapes are actually more influential than some of the more complex symbolism, acting like ancient bumper stickers advertising whichever faith.

I don't disagree, but this completely ignores the Pagan imagry of the fish that existed long before Christians stole it. (Or rather - integrated it into their cult)  It initially was a fertility symbol which appears on some ancient Near Eastern structures and statues, (it is a horizontal fish, but vertically it is a vagina, much like the contrasting iconic images of the phallic in Egypt and Greece) but became a symbol for pythagoreanism, the fish mythology initially came from Pythagoras who pulled the same amount of fish (157 off the top of my head?) that Jesus is portrayed to pull from the water in the Gospels. 

 There is no doubt, however, that this imagrey was useful to early Christians when combining the attributes of these other mystery images into their own in order to help those converting to be better established and feel more comfortable.  Much like the Cross/Crucifix imagry is taken from the egyptian ankh (or as the eastern church calls it, the crux ansata or "Cross with a handle&quot, many of these books on christian art and imagry are too vague and do not give additional iconigrapgical information nor explain historical influence.

This is not to be taken as an insult, but that is a bit of a juvenile opinion.  We know for a fact that Jews were not only using pagan (specifically Hellenized) imagery, and reinventing traditions using Greek mythology and history, but we also have evidence of Christians doing the same things.  In catacomb art, Jesus is pictured as Orpheus-Bacchus, the original "good shephard."  He is also pictured as a Roman, wearing tunics, clean shaven, haircut, everything - specifically on sarcophigai (sp?).  Pythagoras was well known to the Essenes, who were equated by Josephus and even Philo as followers of the Pythagorean way of life.  Ironically, it was probably an Essene sect which initiated Christianity.  I find it interesting how easily some people will blow off such strong assimilation.  Especially when we have mosaics of Orpheus on Jewish Synagogues, hebrew hymns written to Orpheus, etc...  Jewish philosophers like Strabo who were hellenized... To claim that there was no direct linkage between the imagery would be to slap in the face all modern sociological and anthropological studies of the ancient Near East.

How can you say its irrelevant? The very idea that you would believe such a thing only shows your innability to weight the significance of something that's so detailed in showing why you are wrong. Your "feelings" behind what the word symbolism mean have nothing to do with the facts behind what we see.

The fact that I don't accept equivocation of symbols out of hand shows that I have critical thinking skills, something supposedly encouraged on this site.   I don't have "feelings" about it.  Its historical fact.  It meant exactly what I said.  Any related imagery is ancillary and less important than its actual KNOWN usage.  The guilt by association avenue of these types of conversations is getting really played out.

Equivocation or not, as long as the facts are still there to be investigated then investigate we shall. In my case I merely wish to produce a kind of dictionary of symbolism. Weighing either side and solving the contradictions is the important thing, and as a sidereal benefit I might aid in assembling a more complete picture of history through re-examining the evidence. We can only learn more by arguing, regardless of the cheese that sometimes grows on the forums.