So what are the arguments of nonauthenticity? A few people said it was fake, and Freke and Gandy colourized a black and white picture for promotional reasons...
I don't have the wherewithal to respond to every point brought up, so I'll just go over the points you mentioned, and a few others.
Starting out, all sources, including Freke and Gandy, that do grant it as authentic also state that it is from late Roman antiquity, roughly 300 ad. This means it is far too late for someone like Justin to mention.
Also, the article states that Justin actively contradicts such a belief being present. This is a ludicrous statement for many reasons...
1) Justin is not gathering and categorizing ancient religious traditions
2) Justin never mentions the Lenaia festival in which an image of Dionysus is hung on a cross
3) In Ch. 55 of his
Fist Apology, gives numerous comparisons between the cross of Christ and pagan religious symbols
Moving on, here are your comments quoted by the author of the page:
The depiction of the crucified figure is medieval rather than Late Antique.
The cross is Latin in shape + as in later depictions of crucifixion rather than the T shaped cross (and other variants) typical before 500 CE.
The depiction of the crucified figure as alone withuot crucifiers co-crucified or devotees is unparalleled in antiquity and only appears later.
The image of the moon and seven stars is very strange but may be a later development of the early symbolic use of the sun and moon in images of the crucifixion with the sun removed in response to the claim in the synoptic Gospels that the sun was darkened.
Here is a link that can address these criticisms better than myself.
http://translate.google.com/translate?u ... =&ie=UTF-8
Needless to say, these arguments are circular, presuming inauthenticity from the outset.
But where does this leave the amulet?
Here's an analogy: there is an argument that Attis was himself crucified/hung on a pine tree. There are small figurines of Attis bound to a tree trunk, dated to the second and third centuries, while there is a later depiction of Attis in a fir tree, and Ovid had recorded that Attis was sealed in a tree. Since Ovid is the earliest witness, does that make his account authentic and the other two fraudulent? No. Religion doesn't work like. The fourth century image of Attis in a fir tree is the natural progression of such mythotypes.
The amulet is the same thing. There were already traditions in which Dionysus and Bacchus were hung on stauroi. The depiction on the amulet is a natural progression of that mythotype.
The amulet is late. There's no question about it. But is it a forgery? No.