Steefen
Well, I and everyone else reading the book or discussing the book will need to know about the dolphin wrapped around an anchor symbol. There were no dolphins in the river Jordan or the Sea/Lake of Galilee, I and a whole lot of other people would surmise.

James S. Valliant & Warren Fahy
There is no doubt it was a Christian symbol, and one with little Jewish rationale or precedent.

As I thought earlier the catacombs could be pointing to allegiance to Titus Pontifex Maximus. How does a Pope provide spiritual guidance during the “apocalypse” of Pompeii and Herculaneum? How does a Pope guide his people through that apocalypse and not be beloved for the rest of one’s life?

Creating Christ / James S. Valliant & Warren Fahy
What would this pagan symbol, this graven image, associated with Titus be doing in early Christian sites, at all?

Steefen
Early Christians must have known Titus’ sponsorship. I do not know yet how you two answer that question in the book. At this point in time, this reader, me, thinks early Christians knew Titus’ responsibility for the majority of [the New Testament, excluding Revelation].

** you do not have permission to see this link **

Steefen
Professor, did Christians in the first three centuries C.E. ever use a dolphin and anchor symbol for Christ?
Someone has made this claim and will provide evidence later in his presentation, but in our lack of familiarity and surprise, we are immediately asking you. Thank you very much. (Independent of your reply, it might take a week or more before we know the full evidence being presented for the claim.)

Thank you, very much.

Bart
No, I don’t believe so. But I’m open to learning!

Steefen
I believe you have been to the catacombs in Rome. I also believe you have visited the British Museum. I also believe you have read St. Clement of Alexandria, Christ, the Instructor, Book III, Chapter XI.

“And let our seals be either a dove, or a fish, or a ship scudding before the wind, or a musical lyre, which Polycrates used, or ~ ~ ~ a ship’s anchor ~ ~ ~, which Seleucus got engraved as a device; and if there be one fishing, he will remember the apostle and the children drawn out of the water.”

The Catholic Encyclopedia says of the dolphin [on the anchor]

The use of the dolphin as a Christian symbol is connected with the general ideas underlying the more general use of the fish. The particular idea is that of swiftness and celerity symbolizing the desire with which Christians, who are thus represented as being sharers in the nature of Christ the true Fish, should seek after the knowledge of Christ. Hence the representation is generally of two dolphins tending towards the sacred monogram or some other emblem of Christ. In other cases the particular idea is that of love and tenderness. Aringhi (Roma Subterr., II, 327) gives an example of a dolphin with a heart, and other instances have some such motto as PIGNUS AMORIS HABES (i.e. thou hast a pledge of love). It is sometimes used as an emblem of merely conjugal love on funeral monuments. With an anchor the dolphin occurs frequently on early Christian rings, representing the attachment of the Christian to Christ crucified. Speaking generally, the dolphin is the symbol of the individual Christian, rather than of Christ Himself, though in some instances the dolphin with the anchor seems to be intended as a representation of Christ upon the Cross.

** you do not have permission to see this link **..05100a.htm

The archaeological evidence:

** you do not have permission to see this link **

I searched the ehrmanblog for Ichthys, but you did not inform in your reply that the anchor and fish appeared in the catacombs and did not inform in your reply that there were 2nd century Christian rings with Ichthys, anchor, and fish.

Finally, the Anchor and Dolphin was a popular symbol when the gospels were being written because they were on the back of coins for Titus and on the back of the denarius of Domitian.

The dolphin is also a symbol of resurrection.

You have not or will you include this information in Intro to Early Christianity textbooks?

Jarek said
Steefen,

Good job. Still we need third party opinion about Anchor Dolphin from ancient art professional.

Mike Aquilina? ** you do not have permission to see this link **

Barbara Mazzei?  

Bart Ehrman is rejecting the Creating Christ evidence on page 43 – 2nd Century Christian ring and the 2nd-4th Century Christian ringstone. We cannot verify them. We also cannot verify top of page 44 symbol surrounded by letters confirming Christian nature. This image is on the Creating Christ – Evidence website but it does not have a citation. After much online searching British Museum and Christian insignia, we cannot verify the bottom image on page 44. On the Creating Christ – Evidence website, the silver ring with blue stone does not have a citation, the 3rd or 4th century dating cannot be verified from what appears on the website. The next ring, silver with rose stone of anchor and dolphin with letters does not have a citation. The 3rd or 4th century dating cannot be verified from what appears on the website. The words formed from the letters is not translated. It does not appear to be ichthys or itchthus. This is exactly what I was trying to avoid: sharing this information with others and not having documentation/citation and translation for the images. As for the catacombs and the St. Clemens quote, he says that is a general mention of fish, a general mention of anchor (dolphin is not ON anchor like the Titus and/or Domitian coins) and the St. Clemens quote is a general mention of fish and anchor.

To the authors of Creating Christ
I cannot even reply to Ehrman promising him citation of dolphin ON anchor with translation until you provide it. It’s one thing to have fish and anchor on the catacombs but to claim not fish but dolphin specifically on anchor like Titus and Domitian coins is a more advanced claim.

Conclusion:
The authors over-stated their claim. They are unable to verify that the British Museum has a 3rd or 4th century insignia, ringstone, or ring of Dolphin on Anchor with Christian writing or anything to identify the piece as Christian.

Their book cannot receive a 5-star review from me.

Furthermore, the likely fraud evidence on pages 43 and 44 of their book needs to be investigated. The metal of the ring needs to be verified to the centuries claimed. The stone with the image of Dolphin on Anchor needs to verified to the centuries they claim. On the top of page 44 “Sometimes this symbol is surrounded by the letters that confirm its Christian nature: ” needs to be translated and that image needs an explanation including the dating of the object in the image. (These images also appear on their “evidence” website.)

What a waste of my time, except to be aware of what poor quality product can be put into the marketplace of ideas.

Steefen to Bart
Thank you for prompting me to question the evidence and question the authors themselves about their “evidence”. The authors were unable to give me verification that the British Museum had an insignia, a ringstone, or a ring with dolphin ON anchor with letters surrounding the image confirming a Christian nature of the piece/s.

Jarek said
** you do not have permission to see this link **  

Jarek,

Thank you for the museum number of the piece: 1856,0425.16

The curator at the British Museum who entered this object (intaglio:The term refers to stone or glass (or other materials) into which an image or text has been cut or incised. These texts or images are sometimes cut in reverse in order to produce a positive impression for use as a stamp or seal) into the museum’s catalog says it is from the 3rd or 4th century and provides reference information for the piece. The curator references a dictionary entry with illustration from

“A Dictionary of Christian antiquities : comprising the history, institutions, and antiquities of the Christian Church, from the time of the apostles to the age of Charlemagne.” URL:

** you do not have permission to see this link **

So, before looking at the curator’s notes on this intaglio, let’s look at that dictionary entry which matches the museum piece.

Note, page 714 tells us the letters used to Christianize heather jewelry are the letters: IXOYG. These letters do NOT appear on the museum piece in question. Reading further to the part (iii) Anchor, let’s see what we find.

The British Museum contains four examples “probably of Christian work”:
1) Anchor between two fish [we know that from the catacombs]
2) Another with dolphin twisted around the anchor with letters translatable to “Lay hold” [intaglio in question]
3) a different anchor between two fish
4) an anchor between two fish and two branches with a dove on each branch [but I would have to see it to be sure]

The following is more important and unquestionably Christian:
5) Anchor with two fish and the legend IHCOY

The museum piece does not have the letters IXOYG and it does not have the letters IHCOY. The Dictionary is saying Example 2 [intaglio in question]: Lay hold is “probably” of Christian work.

Inscription Content

ΕΠΙΤΥΝΧΑΝΟΥ

The curator states that the text may not mean lay hold or take hold: it may be translated as “May you be successful;” but it may be the name of the owner Epitynchanus in the genitive.

Lay hold, take hold, may you be successful, Epitynchanus is Christian in what way?

The dictionary entry ties the symbol back to Seleucid Jewish coinage NOT imperial coinage. The Seleucids tried to Hellenize the Jews. Titus wanted to Hellenize the Jews to the extent of ending violent messianism. Did Titus see himself as continuing the efforts of the Seleucids? And which Christians would have wanted that but the Pauline Christians?

This is Seleucid Provenance as much as it is Roman Provenance.

[cc: Bart Ehrman]