Talk:Labarum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A couple of considerations on the translations from Latin:

• In hoc signo vinces has been translated as "In this sign you will conquer". Even if vinco -is, vici victum vincere has also the meaning of to conquer, it should be translated as you (Constantine) shall win, since it is a promise of victory in the battle of the following day. So it should be translated In this emblem/sign you shall win;
• Sol Invictis is uncorrect. The name of the god (a solar cult bound to both Apollo and Mithras) is Sol Invictus; it is probable (but I don't know the coins) that Soli Invicto was embossed on the coinage, since it means To the invincible Sun.

--Panairjdde 10:19, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Good catch on the barbarism, Sol Invictus is of course the proper form, and Soli invicto. On the translation of IHS Vinces, translations are always a matter of art: the most literal translation of the Greek is "In this you will win", and in Latin (which supplies the extra word signo) "In this sign you will win"; the traditional form in English is "By this sign you shall/will conquer". I'm in favor of the traditional form, after all it's quite clear what's being meant; but If we must explicit things, the Latin version contains an astrological reference, as is made clear by in rather than sub. Be all that as it may, it's really much simpler to leave the attractive traditional phrasing, I think? I've made no change to your translation, mind you: up to you to do it. — Bill 11:26, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If "in hoc signo" rather than "sub hoc signo" suggests an astrological allusion, notice in the two illustrations how the modern labarum is subtly adjusted to form a cross (90 degrees), whereas all the early examples suggest instead the 23.5 degree crossing of the ecliptic with the celestial equator, even though that meant squashing alpha and omega into the resulting narrow angles. The Water Newton Treasure votive tablets also illustrate this quite clearly. --Wetman 01:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Could have been my slip. A priest in this cult, referred to at Sol Invictus is referred to as "pontifex solis invictus". Shouldn't this be "pontifex solis invictis" in this particular case (a possible source of the error)?: "pontiff of the unconquered sun". --Wetman 11:43, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Another good catch, sort of. Neither one: "pontifex solis invicti". I'll make the edit. — Bill 12:46, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

On the translation: I am Italian, therefore I am not used to the traditional English form. I am just afraid of the different meaning of the traditional and of the actual translations: not by this mean, but being in this sign you shall win. However, this is the English version of Wikipedia, therefore, if you feel comfortable, change it! As regards the meaning: I am not sure about the astrological meaning. My interpretation of the IHSV sentence is: "you shall win, if being within this sign". Note that, putting the labarum on the insigna of the army, Constantine and his soldiers were within the signa! However (again), I am not sure of this, therefore feel free to change the translation. --Panairjdde 18:40, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Bogus hocus-pocus? 2 Pontification 3 Sections 4 The Chi Rho ...the Symbol Inscribed 5 Lauburu: 6 NPOV as a cover for ignorance 7 Constantine's baptism 8 name of this article 9 Ancient Greek Mispelling 10 Deleted text 11 Tav-Resh 12 The "heavenly Chi"

[edit] Bogus hocus-pocus?

"Prior to Constantine, the symbol had been used in papyri by scholars to denote prophetic passages (it stood for Chreston, which is is Greek for Auspicious). This suited Constantine perfectly, the symbol having a double meaning, suiting both Christians, and followers of earlier faiths."

"The labarum symbol was in use long before Christianity, usually in relation to the worship of the Sun deity. <--(examples supporting this statement are needed) - to whoever wrote the text in the brackets, see the paragraph two above, and the 2nd paragraph in the text, where it is explained that Pagans used it before Constantine as a symbol in text meaning prophecy, from the greek word "Chreston"" The labarum does not in fact appear in any extant manuscript as a "symbol in text" as claimed. If I am in error, a specific 4th-century or earlier manuscript needs to be adduced. Meanwhile isn't this mere smoke blown up our ass? --Wetman 09:03, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)-->

Smoke blown on your donkey?CheeseDreams 21:04, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I too have been mulling this since it was posted. I'm no expert, but do read Greek and am familiar with the usual obeloi, and it was news to me. yet it's hard to prove a negative. On balance though, until a source is included, I have a feeling this is nonsense, and probably with an agenda. — Bill 11:36, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Labarum occurs on a (pagan) tomb-stone in the rome catacombs (AD 331). In conjunction with Alpha & Omega (i.e. as Christian symbolism), the earliest evidence dates from AD 362. Note also that Constantine was NOT Christian (though many assume he was because he issued the Edict of Toleration). The official religion of Rome was NOT changed during his reign. Constantine did NOT resign his position as Pontifex Maximus of the cult of Sol Invictus. There is no particular reason to assume Constantine used the symbol in a Christian way, when he himself was not one, and did not convert (except possibly on his deathbed (though this is an unverifiable claim made by the early church)).

N.b. another emperor called Constantine, a bit later, was baptised by no less than Eusebius, but it is important to avoid confusing the two.

See Constantine and the Christian God by Michael Grant.

or Sun Disc to Crucifix by Ian McNeil Cooke

Very little of this is news, although scholars are usually less assertive about Constantine not being Christian, agreeing merely that there is no firm evidence either way, and that he was baptized on his deathbed; and I'm curious about the pagan tombstone with the labarum, but can imagine something like that. What I was referring to, though, is the "Chreston" obelism business. Where does this come from? — Bill 21:37, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What is obelism? CheeseDreams 00:08, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Pontification

Sol Invictus 'is Mithras. CheeseDreams 00:10, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

...in rather the same way that the Mother Goddess is the Virgin Mary, don't you know? User:CheeseDreams is so utterly sure of the perfect identity of the two that he has just finished (November 27) suppressing the entry Sol Invictus altogether: now it simply redirects to Mithraism. So, at Wikipedia, at least, "Sol Invictus 'is Mithras." --Wetman 00:07, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, in the same way that Dionysus is Bacchus and Osiris and Apollo and Aion. What I actually did to the Sol Invictus entry was seperate Elagbalus Sol Invictus, who is a completely different entity all-together (as the article actually pointed out). Sol Invictus is really just a later version of Mithras (a sun-god, whose eye is the sun itself), syncretising certain features, that it hadn't already got (quite a lot of features were already in common as they were both local versions of Osiris-Dionysus), from Apollo (another sun god). In other words, its a syncretism of Osiris-Dionysus with Osiris-Dionysus.

Oh, and Diocletian, in 307 AD, formally declared that Mithras was Sol Invictus. And there are significant amounts of roman documents referring to the god "Mithras Sol Invictus" CheeseDreams 01:02, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Sections

This page should probably be split into subsections... AnonMoos 22:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

What would the titles of the split-off pages be? (Mystified --Wetman 00:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC))

No, I meant sectioning the page with various informative sub-headers in bold font. AnonMoos 05:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh goodness! But exactly! Set it into well-defined blocks, and you'll sharpen our thinking. --Wetman 05:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

If it were a quick and easy job, I would have already done it myself -- but I don't think it is.... AnonMoos 16:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Chi Rho ...the Symbol Inscribed

Maybe the Great symbol, with the Rho symbol, in the center, can be found on a good Photo for the Wiki page? There are some great examples ( The Water Newton Hoard ). MMcAnnis

The " Water Newton Treasure."

[edit] Lauburu:

I have authoritarily removed this sentence:

The name of the Basque swastika lauburu may come from labarum.

Lauburu means literally "four heads" (lau buru). It's been speculated that labirynth could come from lauburu (Krutwig) but the oppossite is absurd because lauburu has a clear Basque ethimology.

--Sugaar 02:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I have readded it. I don't find the hypothesis of folk etymology absurd. Check labrys for labyrinth. --Error 02:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You're being POV. There could be many hypothesis but obviously lauburu means "four heads" what it patently consistent with the design of that symbol. Labarum, Labrys, Labyrinth, Lat./Eng. lava and Basque laba (and derivates such as labana) can well come for a Mediterranean pre-IE root for oven or a simmilar metalurgic term. Labrys is indeed associated with some metalurgic Bronze Age cultures of SE Europe and the West Asia, the mythological connection betwenn metalurgy and volcanoes is well known (see: Hephaistos and Vulcan and Basque laba means oven.

But all this has nothing to do with the lauburu, as the lauburu doesn't even resemble the labarum and much less the labrys: it's clearly a svastika with a neater drawing. I rather think that your theory is the "folk ethymology", even if it is a new kind of it.

Please be objectve, NPOV and document your assertions. --Sugaar 11:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV as a cover for ignorance

It is alleged that Nicolas Poussin features the Chi-Rho symbol over the subject's bed in his painting "Extreme Unction" 1644 -owned by the Duke of Sutherland and on loan to The National Gallery of Scotland

It is alleged that this is NPOV-speak for "I don't know and I don't want to bother checking": it ought to be easy to tell whether the painting does or does not include a chi-rho above the bed.

A Google image search turns up no copies that include the chi-rho, but this thesis (PDF) seems to imply that there are two versions of the painting extant, one of which (not the one in the National Gallery) did include the symbol. Unfortunately the accompanying illustration is missing. I haven't been able to find anything else; if anyone can rewrite the sentence with a solid grounding in the facts and without the nonsensical weaselry, that would be great. —Charles P._(Mirv) 17:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Constantine's baptism

The custom of being baptised only shortly before death was usual at the time, and in itself does not prove that "he did put inclusive politics before any religious sentiment". --Aethralis 19:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The sentence "In fact, Constantine was only baptized...etc" is unrelevant to the labarum, I suggest removing it.-- Aethralis 11:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] name of this article

Hi, I am Flamarande and I have doubts about the proper name of this article. Granted, I don´t know much about this subject (I have always heard and read about "In hoc signo vinces"), but I have always heard about the "Chi-rho" and I never once heard the word "Labarum" before. Is "Labarum" really a widely known term? If it isn´t, it would be better to move this article to "Chi-rho". But, hey I won´t force this move, I am just proposing it.

2)Other proposal: Shouldn´t article at least mention the "fish"? Granted, I remember it more vividly in the movie "Quo Vadis (novel) " but I have heard and read, here and there, that in (ancient) Greek Ichthys - "fish" leads to the initialism "Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour" and because of this it was the original symbol of the christians. Henryk Sienkiewicz, the autor of "Quo Vadis?" always tried to be as "true" as possible.

3)This article must mention "the cross" the most widely known symbol of them all. Flamarande 11:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ancient Greek Mispelling

There almost certainly should be an iota subscript in the Greek under the omega in the demonstrative in the phrase "in this, win!". Hopefully this inacurate representation is not necessary due to limitations Wikipedia has in accurately displaying Greek text. Also, there is no basis for the exlamation mark.

• "labarum is also used for any ecclesiastical banner, such as those carried around in processions" Is this true? Any banner, or just those with the chi-rho? --Wetman 21:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted text

Readers should be aware the following text has been deleted:

"Constantine himself, however, continued to hold the title of Pontifex Maximus, chief priest of the classical pagan Roman religion. Many take this to mean that he was not a Christian, though he had an interest in the politics of Christianity, which has led some scholars to the conclusion that the labarum was not intended as a Christian symbol. In fact, Constantine was only baptized as a Christian on his very deathbed, which suggests that he did put inclusive politics before any religious sentiment he might have harbored. Previously the labarum was the monogram of Chronos, the god of time, and an emblem of several solar deities. In Hebrew, Chi-Rho equates to Tav-Resh. The chi rho was used in alchemical texts to denote time."

Is there anything of value lost here? --Wetman 21:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tav-Resh

"In Hebrew, Chi-Rho equates to Tav-Resh." What exactly does this mean and where is the support for this statement? If the discussion here is phonetics or transliteration, then Chi does not equal Tav. It is a Kh or H sound, better represented by Heth, although not accurately represented by any of the Hebrew constanants. If the reference is numerical, Tav-Resh is Hebrew for 600 (Tav-400 + Resh-200). Under Herodianic (or Attic) Greek numeration, Chi represented 1000 and Rho was not used as numeric symbol. With the advent of Ionic Greek numbers, Chi alone is 600, whereas Rho is 100, so Chi-Rho would be 600,100 (which makes no sense, since there was a symbol for 700 - psi). Anyone able to provide a better explanation than that written in the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.227.230.103 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 30 October 2006.

I commented out that whole paragraph... AnonMoos 01:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The "heavenly Chi"

The illustrations make it notably clear that the modern "chi" in this symbol has been adjusted in its angles to more closely approximate a cross. The ancient examples show that the lines were those instead of the ecliptic crossing the celestial equator... "reflections on Plato’s discussion in the Timaeus of the world-soul made manifest by the intersection of the two great circles of the astronomers, the “heavenly chi” formed where the ecliptic and celestial equator invisibly meet. Rahner states that these otherwise invisible lines “become for the Christian eye a heavenly cross,” and that through Justin and Irenaus’ seminal doctrine of recapitulation a long meditation on the cosmic symbolism of the cross entered Christian tradition. By the fourth century the converted astrologer Firmicus Maternus declares, “The sign of a wooden cross holds the machine of the firmament together, strengthens the foundations of the earth, and leads those that cling to it towards life." (David J. Ross , "The Bird, The Cross, And The Emperor: Investigations into The Antiquity of The Cross in Cygnus", Culture and Cosmos 4.2 (Autumn/Winter 2000) On-line text, but with the references of the original withheld Some mention needs to be made of this well-studied phenomenon, in the interests of completeness. Would this be forbidden territory? --Wetman 16:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)