The Good Shepherd: Image, Meaning, and Power
Nikolas O. Hoel
The image of the Good Shepherd is nearly ubiquitous in artistic tradition Christianity, particularly as its position early Christianity and Early Middle Ages considered. In many people’s minds, denotes a message humility charity. It has been set up foil to wealth power corrupted post-Constantinian church. Jennifer Awes Freeman challenges this dichotomy head on. central argument book that by looking at history from Ancient Near East through Greco-Roman period Ages, one can actually see complex often contradictory figure Shepherd. Over time, signifies divine leadership, protection one’s people, end, powerlessness—all which then combined with reinforces Christian kingship. Just seen image, it well, successfully convincingly proves an engaging usage variety sources, placed effective structure, while relying on succinct method.After setting stage introduction, author moves first step chapter 1. Each builds last there chronological progress ingrained nature structure book. takes reader back section considers shepherd Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Hebrew cultures. impression each case, shepherding was linked kingship leadership. Mesopotamia Egypt, shepherds were looked down upon but associated protection. This allowed political philosophy society link king together. Bible paints more positive light, according Freeman, still uses convey divinely appointed leadership.Chapter 2 turns world. notes continuity use motif East. Drawing number sources ranging Homeric epic, other poetry, philosophic texts, able show bucolic romance, leisure, myth, Greeks also good ruler. They divinity, death, resurrection, would resonate later thinkers. As for Romans, not only did they copy imagery Greeks, used their own ways legendary founding city. continue, into Republican Imperial periods. Lifelike experiences differed greatly romanticized pastoralism, persisted Roman world, including context. Apostolic writers artists depicted Jesus shepherd, drew motif’s long history. too idea represented unity, faithfulness.The topic Shephard church occupies 3. paradox how centuries beyond. both sacrificial lamb leader flock; essence, here powerlessness. Referencing literary texts once again, shows ancient usages when applied Jesus, him be ruler, guide, deity all one. guide life afterlife. short order, emperors, starting Constantine, became well. Christians certainly relied earlier traditions went beyond them emperors protectors theological threats. result, cannot solely anti-imperial since part imperial iconography.Chapter 4 brings conclusion. completes noting Carolingian Europe, lost potency, or least popularity, during Ottonian eras. continue exist: emblem center humorous menacing periphery. By evoking biblical kings metaphors rule, Carolingians kept minds people due connections between ordained kingship, guidance.This suggests substantial opportunity further research. While fairly narrow scope, dealing primarily Frankish Empire, future work might consider regions, different systems leadership Ages. Part richness chapters approach material Mediterranean-wide European-wide contexts. do so great well beneficial. does take away multitude strengths work. varied appropriate give depth analysis genres, much wide space. greatest strength lies structure. leads conclusion probably nuanced context specific image.The ties loose ends. Here, provides several modern examples image. Stretching initial scope book, reinforce showing importance images we our ritual, ceremonial, daily lives. Aside skillfully demonstrating humble clearly got conflated power, may extend her chronology. begs question whether reassess using same method, model. time place are being appropriated misappropriated alarming rate, encourage us assess origins durée. most important value found Freeman’s here.
Journal of Medieval Religious Cultures