Jarek said
Look, all 3 independent “very old opinions” (French, Italin, English) cited by BM maybe are wrong. But this is a historical consensus for now. “Probable Christian work”.According to all of them. 

So, where is the problem with the Authors?

Dolphin and Anchor can represent Apollo, Selucid, Neptune, Christ and unrelated artwork.  But Authors follows current consensus.  

a ring with dolphin ON anchor with letters surrounding the image confirming a Christian nature of the piece/s

One problem with the authors is that on page 44 they write that the British Museum piece was like the image above: a symbol surrounded by letters confirming a Christian nature. That is not the case. The image at the top of the page does have the letters IXOYG, THE BRITISH MUSEUM PIECE BELOW IT DOES NOT. If the British Museum piece was so Christian, instead of ΕΠΙΤΥΝΧΑΝΟΥ it would have had the letters IXOYG, IHCOY, or ICHTHYS.

Why could a non-Christian be the original owner of the ring?

It would be a different story if the ring was owned by a bishop. I was hoping the British Museum curator had ownership information on the piece. The message on the ring is hardly a Christian/spiritual message. It was more common to have the fish on the side of the anchor with a second fish on the other side of the anchor. In neither image nor message is this ring probably Christian, it is probably not Christian.

Can the other three British Museum pieces be found? But no, that would not fix their problem because the image at the top of page 44 is NOT one of the four examples the curator describes: the three others pieces of jewelry are NOT anchor with ONE dolphin twisted around the anchor. So, what museum is that top image from? What museum has it?

Jarek said
** you do not have permission to see this link ** I would like to place some photos from disc in to the comment . What is the procedure?

[Image Can Not Be Found]

 

[Image Can Not Be Found]  

The only thing I can think of is to load them to a website and then right click image location. Let me see if I can do it by searching images of British Museum:

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

Jarek,

I did an images.google.com search on

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

but I am not finding anything that gets to the source of the image. Maybe it is not a photograph and just an illustration.

A real object needs to be tied to the image to verify that it is a real 3rd Century Christian ring.

Correction: I can see the image when I copy the URL and put it in a browser without the iframe.

Second, if I click Quote, I can see the image but I would not be able to post it because iframes are not allowed (that is the error message).

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

I am not ready to discuss this ring. Besides, it does not have letters.

Is this in a museum catalog?

Jarek said
All samples presented in CCH looks legit. IMHO Bart is wrong.

Of course he can challenge attribution of those rings, dating, etc. But for now they are defined as “probable Christian artworks”  

I disagree. #1) The British Museum ring – I have already given you the reasons for rejecting that as evidence. Besides, it does not have to be Christian, it could be Apollo, Seleucid, Neptune, or unrelated. It could easily be a non-Christian ring.

Then, the next ring I would like to consider as evidence cannot be found and that it is a copy of a drawing from an unspecified catalog printed in the 19th century.

When I was reading the book, I questioned the popularity of Dolphin ON Anchor as a commonplace Christian image. I was so unfamiliar with that image, I asked if there were dolphins in the River Jordan or the Sea/Lake of Galilee. (I thought, likely the Mediterranean Sea, but Jesus Christ and the Mediterranean Sea?)

So, the ring with Dolphin ON Anchor WITH Christian letters IXOYG/C is in no museum, there is no ring to be found, only an image from a late 19th century catalog without the weight of a museum curator making a museum collection entry.

If the catalog page for this ring is found having a description, perhaps the reputation of the dealer of this catalog can be confirmed by a museum curator.

THIS IS NOT HOW READERS ARE SUPPOSED TO READ A BOOK: THE AUTHORS SHOULD HAVE DOCUMENTED THEIR IMAGES IN A WAY THAT PEOPLE WOULD NOT HAVE TO RESEARCH MUSEUMS BECAUSE THEY WOULD HAVE ALREADY PROVIDED THE SOURCE FOR THEIR EVIDENCE–PRESENT EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THERE CAN BE TOTAL AGREEMENT.

The other 2nd, 3rd, or 4th century rings put forth as evidence, WITHOUT letters indicating Christianity might become evidence if they reside in a museum with a museum collection entry by a museum curator stating they “probably” are Christian or stating they are Christian, for what reason they are Christian, and confirming the dates of the rings. We could get what we got with the British Museum ring: a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th century ring that is not conclusively Christian (somebody’s name, I wish you success, hold on).

I do not agree with you that Bart is wrong.

The remainder of their book is built on the wrongful assumption that they have solid evidence. They do not.

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

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

It does not say it is a Christian ring.