Good Shepherd ring: Christian or Mithraic?

 Gettyphotos

A gold ring was discovered from an underwater wreck outside the port of Caesarea, Israel. The remains found with it included silver Roman coins of the third century. The ring has an octagonal external shape with a gemstone and an engraved figure of a boy in a tunic carrying an animal (identified as a sheep) over his shoulders. Helena Sokolov, a curator at the Israel Antiquities Authority’s (IAA) coin department who researched the Good Shepherd ring, said that while the image exists in early Christian symbolism, representing Jesus as a caring shepherd, tending to his flock and guiding those in need, finding it on a ring was rare.

Most news reports (Smithsonian, AFP  and Reuters etc.) all seem to quote the same archaeologist who made the announcement saying the 'Good Shepherd' was an early Christian symbol from the second century. 

However I have my doubts. Christians did not go in for images of Christ, except when the 'church' became mixed with the surrounding religions (syncretism).  Certainly not the Jewish Christians, the Nazarenes. 

The figure appears to be that of a young boy with short, Roman-style hair.

Gettyimages

I wondered whether it was derived from Mithraism -- which came from the East and spread as far as Britain.  The ring figure wears something at the calf or ankle. Are they boots? If so they seem to be non-Jewish.

I found the following image in Mithra, ce dieu mysterieux by Martin Vermaseren. 

Bron, 

The design dates from the second century from the Mithraeum (Temple of Mithra) at Neuenheim, near Heidelberg, Germany. The tunic and hair style seem similar. 

It would be easy for the animal to be down sized to become a sheep. That's a  bit more logical and feasible than hanging a bull around your neck. It would also open a syncretic path to confusion, then deception, of 'true believers' among the Nazarenes to submit to the central religious powers of Rome.  

For what purpose would this modification be done? In the second century a religious struggle was engaged between Mithraism and Christianity. The ring makes this ambiguous. How can anyone distinguish whether this is supposedly a Christian symbol (albeit idolatrous) or a Mithraic one?

The octagonal shape may represent the seven stages of Mithraic initiation rites leading to the gemstone. 

Mithra is usually associated with killing a heifer. That is far from a Christian symbol. He is pictured on its back and cutting its throat with a dagger. But not always. The Mithraeum at Rome contains a verse about Mithra 'carrying the young bull on his shoulders': 'qui portavit umeris invencum.' So the basic design is perfectly consonant with Mithraic theology.

Is the ring Mithraic or early Christian? Is it syncretic, meant to deceive?

Let's examine the classical figure of Mithra and the bull.

The only thing that the figure on the ring lacks is the Phrygian cap which is typical of Mithra. For any deception to take place the first thing that had to go was the Phrygian cap. Christ obviously did not wear a Phrygian cap! 

Trousers! What! A figure of "Christ" wearing trousers?

If they gem engravers meant to deceive Nazarenes and Jews they made a mistake that shows the deception. The figure on the ring is not wearing calf boots. As the statue shows Mithra was wearing trousers under his tunic. The well-defined markings at the calf do not indicate a boot but the bottom edge, the turn-ups, of a pair of trousers. 

A fatal flaw if the originators or modern religionists wanted to pass it off as 'Christian'.

Trousers were the garments of Scythians and those 'barbarians' outside the Roman Empire. They included the Arsacid Parthians and Scythians of Israelite extraction. Christ called them the 'lost sheep of the house of Israel' Matt 10:6. His brother James wrote a Letter to all twelve tribes outside the land of Israel, James 1:1.

What would the Mithraic heifer mean to the people of Caesarea and northern Israel?

The Golden Heifer (Golden Calf) was the center of Israelite idolatry out of Egypt. For the northern ten tribes their retention of heifer worship led them into the Assyrian captivity. They were then exiled for this idolatry beyond the Euphrates into what became the Persian Empire, the Greco-Macedonian and later the Parthian Empire. 

The Parthians and other Eastern countries, some of whose dynasties had kings with Israelite pedigree, often had Mithra as part of their name like Mithradates (Given or dedicated to Mithras). In the first century BCE, Mithridates VI Eupator of Pontus fought three wars with Rome, and killed tens of thousands of Romans. He claimed to be of mixed Persian and Greco-Macedonian lineage, speaking the 22 languages of his subject peoples. Then Mithraism became the most popular cult of the Roman army. The slaughter of the young bull showed Mithra was master of creation. 

In documents later released from the Roman archives, Titus made clear that his intent in destroying the Temple was to eliminate both Judaism and Christianity. The Temple was a City State to which Julius Caesar had pledged independence of religion. 

Once the Temple was destroyed in 70 CE and Jews scattered, the Romans tried by fair means or foul (mainly foul) to wipe out the Nazarene faith. While the Temple stood, vast riches in tithes and offering were sent from Phrygia, Pontus to Parthia, from Egypt to the Atlantic (Acts 2:9). 

The Jewish Wars had depleted the Roman imperial coffers. So all Jews were forced to make the same Temple tax contribution but this time to Rome. For Roman tax collectors, the Nazarenes, who also contributed to the Temple and kept the Sabbath and festivals, appeared to be Jews. If they were non-Jews they were subject to severe persecution and contempt as traitors.

How could these last, remaining, obstinate people be turned to give not only money but mind and soul to Rome? 

Syncretism was the usual path where societies modified the characteristics of the classical gods to fit local custom. That way everyone was in step to acknowledge the religious power of Rome. Deception and disinformation might blunt successive generations of Nazarenes who did not accept the Pontifex maximus and the worship of Caesar.

The question of 'Who is supreme god?' was posed when Christ was asked 'Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar?' The coin that was shown to him bore a likeness and the title Pontifex Maximus, supreme priest of all religions in the empire. (Jesus, James, Joseph and the Temple, p325)

     

   

With the Resurrection and the failure of emperor Gaius Caligula in 41 CE to refute it by setting his imperial headquarters in the Temple, Rome suffered a major religious reverse. The ancient pantheon of gods from Jupiter, Minerva, Mars, died. With the death of paganism, masses were turning to some syncretic forms of Christianity or the simpler Sun worship of Sol invictus or Helios. 

Then help for paganism came from the East, and the greatest enemies of the Jewish faith.

In the 200s the Severian Caesars, such as Elagabalus (also called Heliogabulus), were heavily influenced by Syrian Baal worship through marriage and offspring. They originated in Emesa, a center of Baal worship and were experts in syncretism. That made persecution of those who refused this disinformation and heathenism very difficult and even deadly for them. The Caesars maintained their powers over all religions through the office of Pontifex Maximus. 

On 20 November in the year 202, Caesar Septimus Severus and his Syrian wife Julia Domna erected a Mithraeum on Rome's Aventine Hill in the former private villa of Hadrian. 

The 25 December was the festival day at the Mithraeum to celebrate Mithra's birth and the coming of light. His birth was seen as a cosmic and miraculous event as the young god was ejected by a magic interior force from a rock (petra genitrix) welcomed by shepherds. Ready for action, he was completely naked except for his Phrygian cap, and armed with a flaming torch (or a globe) and a dagger. 

This Mithra with the shepherds may have been combined with the dying cult of Hermes, the shepherd god. He is most often pictured near naked, occasionally in a tunic. Certainly no trousers.

Conclusion

The combination of these events and characteristics make it likely that Mithra was a prime object of the syncretism for wiping out remnants of Christianity and subjecting them to the religious monopoly power of the Pontifex Maximus. Believers would be faced with the crucial and lethal choice of deciding whether to accept images and rites that could, on the face of it, be ambiguous symbols they could accept. Or they could face the consequences if they refused.

Mithra was associated or identified with the Sun god, Sol invictus. The struggle between Mithraism and Christianity lasted beyond the reign of Constantine in the 330s. Constantine declared himself to be a worshipper of Sol invictus. That shows there is every reason to suppose that efforts were made to combine worship and symbolism of Gentile Christianity with Mithraism.   

Review of Siege of Jerusalem video animation

Invicta animation of the Siege of Jerusalem under Vespasian and Titus
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y741QbT1YEo

Riveting and highly educational! Great artistic work with careful descriptive detail! However, the narrative makes more sense if the identity of the Roman fort Antonia -- which was central to the battle -- is not identified as the itsy-bitsy building of the Holyland Hotel model but is identified as the so-called "Temple Mount" itself, the Haram. See Dr Ernest L Martin's book 'The Temples that Jerusalem forgot" at askelm.com or nazareneproject.com . It is built in the size and shape of a Roman fort -- which was usually square or oblong if extra large as this one was. It was the size of several cities (thus residence for multiple tens of thousands) says Josephus. It dominated the Temple from a higher position, he says. It was pagan and not considered part of the City of Jerusalem because of its paganism. Roman legionary eagles and pagan priests were allowed there but not in any other part of of Jerusalem. A correct translation of Josephus shows that the fort, a pagan military occupied site, was separated from the fort of the holy Temple by 200 metre bridges. It was in these stoa that the fierce fighting you described took place. The hand to hand struggles were so close that fighters could not recognise friend from foe. Then the bridge was burned. The bridge had provided high-level defense against anyone attacking the walls below. The Romans then had access to the outer wall of the Temple fort. The Jewish defenders themselves were at odds with each other, brigands versus others and the priests. The Temple itself was located on the curved peninsula of land the you showed at first as being highly strategic. It is south of the so-called "Temple Mount" or Haram, exactly 200 metres. It contained the only perpetual spring of water for Jerusalem at the Gihon Spring. The Temple was built on a platform partly suspended over the Kidron valley and was completely destroyed because the Roman soldiers tore everything apart. In the fire the gold and silver melted between its stones. This can be proved right or wrong by excavating into the deep soil of the Kidron valley to identify Temple stonework lying there. Thanks for the other details. For example that Titus offered a pig as sacrifice at the eastern Gate of the burnt out Temple. This confirms the account probably from Tacitus about Titus's plan to destroy Christianity and Judaism as they did not conform to the Roman pantheon and escaped Caesar's control as pontifex maximus: "Titus himself, thought that the Temple ought especially to be overthrown, in order that the religion of the Jews and Christians might more thoroughly be subverted; for these religions, although contrary to each other, had nevertheless proceeded from the same authors; that the Christians had sprung up from among the Jews; and that, if the root were extirpated, the offshoot would speedily perish. "

Was there a "lost century" of Christian history after 70 CE?

Does the "Lost Century" of Church history exist?
NO
This so-called missing century goes from just before the destruction of the Temple in 70 to 150 or 170 CE. What happened to the Church?
1. The first mistake is to use the term 'church' . It is not in the Bible! Early believers were called an ekklesia. As a Greek term, it means congregation, an official assembly. The later "Church" is a pagan term, reflecting pagan organization and pagan structure. The ekklesia translates the Hebrew qahal or tribal or national Congregation or assembly. It is a very specific term. The qahal were Israelites and composed the Congregation of Israel that met in the Temple for specific rituals.
Ever wonder why the book of Acts speaks of 120 'names' witnessing the Ascension of Christ? Names means that they were nominated. They were ambassadors from the twelve scattered tribes of Israel. Jesus visited all the tribal capital cities -- as is clear from the NT. Shechem was Joseph and other patriarchs were and are buried. 120 = 12 x 10. They came from Parthia -- Rome's superpower rival to the East -- and from wherever the Israelites were scattered.
2. Part of the confusion about the early ekklesia in the period 50 to 150 is due to the popular history sources people use. Many books quote Gibbon who was a skeptic. He discounts the Resurrection as a real event, ignores important witnesses, and downplays Philo and Josephus. They record that Sejanus, who had practically the power of emperor while Tiberius was semi-retired in Capri, acted much like Hitler or Islamic State against the Jews. He led many of the senate who wanted to exterminate all the Jews. Why? This was in the early 30s, even before Caligula took power. Sejanus had Tiberius's son Drusus poisoned and wanted to take over the Empire. Tiberius was alerted and had him removed and executed. Gibbon omits these major events of the first century and then talks about a 'thick mist'! That's hardly surprising: remove some facts and claim a mystery.

Gaius Caligula Caesar

What was going on? The Resurrection threatened Rome. In his chapter 15 he hardly deals with Caligula -- except calling him mad. It is hardly a coincidence that Gaius Caligula emperor 37 to 41 CE decided to call himself 'God' and Jupiter. Rome balked at this, so Caligula said he would go to Egypt who were experts in making emperors gods. 

Then he said he would set up his headquarters in the Temple in Jerusalem. Why the Temple? He would challenged Almighty God and all the prophecies of Christ about the Abomination of Desolation! 

Read Tertullian and it is easy to understand. He lived in a time a century later when he was freer to tell the story without being attacked.

He said that in 30 CE the emperor Tiberius agreed to call Jesus 'God' because he was convinced by the reports from Pilate about the Resurrection. Why did not the whole Empire proclaim the resurrected Jesus as God? Tertullian says that the Senate refused. Why? Because they knew a resurrected Christ, officially recognized by the State, would undermine the whole pantheon of Rome -- Jupiter, Venus, Mars, Minerva etc. They said the Senate (at odds with Tiberius) had powers to define who was a god. 

Jesus proved this was crazy! It was a nonsense because everyone knew Christ was God. He had multiple witnesses.  High priests and worshipers, Pilate, the legions and the whole of the population of Jerusalem had seen him rise from the dead and ascend to heaven. This knowledge is confirmed in many early writings of the centuries.
3. The Temple was the center of Christian worship. The ekklesia met in the Temple. The ekklesia also met in areas outside the Roman Empire, where the number of representatives was always a multiple of 12. The early writings tell how the apostles visited some of these Israelite areas.
In the Empire Christians giving public speeches about the resurrection of Jewish Christ and his coming again to the Temple to judge them would be worse than doing the same thing in the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany! The Roman Empire was a military dictatorship. It then destroyed the Temple! That did not change the resurrection as a fact! But it's when the extirpation of Jews and Christians began. They were made slaves, thrown underground to work in the mines, never to see sunlight again.
4. What the historians do not deal with -- the immediate destruction of much paganism because of the Resurrection. It showed paganism was false. The result of destroying the Temple? Not what the Romans expected. The Roman pantheon was DESTROYED. No one spoke much of Mars and Jupiter, Venus again. Nor do they have worshipers today! In the second century even the emperors recognized that Jesus was God! See Justin Martyr. The pagan priests (pontiffs) turned the people to sun worship and then to Mithraism.
You will find all the details in the book : Jesus, James, Joseph and the past and future Temple. It is available as a free electronic version on academia.edu at
http://www.academia.edu/…/Jesus_James_Joseph_and_the_past_a…
The mists and mystery of a 'lost century' only exist for those who do not believe in the Resurrection!