Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.

The Historic Faith
Sign in
Question 7
The Good Shepherd imagery is described as borrowed from common pagan Roman motifs—sometimes possibly engraved or sold by pagans—because Christianity was illegal; what does that scenario suggest about the practical decisions early Christians made under pressure, and where is the line between wise adaptation and compromising with pagan symbolism?
Another way to ask: If early Christians used the “Good Shepherd” image from common Roman pagan art because Christianity was illegal, what does that say about the choices they made under pressure? When does adapting become giving in to pagan symbols?

Direct Answer The transcript suggests early Christians sometimes used culturally common images (like the Good Shepherd) as a practical, low-risk way to express Christian meaning under illegality and suspicion. Bercot implies there is a danger of inappropriate borrowing, but he also acknowledges the practical reasons and limited knowledge many believers had.

Support from Transcript:

  • He says Good Shepherd depictions “don’t purport to be a portrait” but are “symbolic representation only.”
  • He notes the Good Shepherd image was “very common in pagan Roman frescoes and engravings.”
  • Because “Christianity was illegal,” a Christian might not want to identify himself to an artisan, so he could commission a common emblem “without raising any suspicions whatsoever.”
  • He suggests a Christian sarcophagus engraving “might well have been made by a pagan.”
  • About the statue (Figure 20), he says it was likely bought from a non-Christian Roman and originally represented “a minor Greek god,” later becoming common decoration.
  • He adds a moral caution: “perhaps that wasn’t the most appropriate thing to do,” yet a Christian may not have known the origin.
Discussion Follow-ups How much should Christians investigate the origins of symbols they use, and when does adaptation become confusion or compromise?