Talk:Labarum

Untitled

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)

A mistake

The article says that in Vita Constantini the vision and the dream are said to occur on the eve of the battle of Milvian Bridge. This is false, and probably the result of a conflation with Lactantius' report. Reading the relevant chapters in V.C., it is very clear that both the dream and the vision were said to occur prior to his campaign in Italy--thus he was converted fully to Christianity long before said battle. I'm probably not going to come back here again to argue the point, but suffice it to say that this has been recognised by the majority of scholars who have published commentaries on the discrepancies between Lactantius and Eusebius. For a few examples of why this is the correct reading...

1.32) "Moreover, he made the priests of God his counselors, and deemed it incumbent on him to honor the God who had appeared to him with all devotion. And after this, being fortified by well-grounded hopes in Him, he hastened to quench the threatening fire of tyranny." - i.e., he goes on campaign after he has found his god.

1.37) "Assuming therefore the Supreme God as his patron, and invoking His Christ to be his preserver and aid, and setting the victorious trophy, the salutary symbol, in front of his soldiers and body- guard, he marched with his whole forces, trying to obtain again for the Romans the freedom they had inherited from their ancestors. And whereas, Maxentius, trusting more in his magic arts than in the affection of his subjects, dared not even advance outside the city gates, (1) but had guarded every place and district and city subject to his tyranny, with large bodies of soldiers, (2) the emperor, confiding in the help of God, advanced against the first and second and third divisions of the tyrant's forces, defeated them all with ease at the first assault, (3) and made his way into the very interior of Italy." - i.e., he has converted (as per the story of the conversion in the chapters directly prior) before he campaigns into Italy - not at the end of the campaign.

Besides this, one can also deduce that it didn't occur at any time near the battle, thanks to the description of him calling together council and learning of Christ from bishops, and also getting smiths to build the labarum out of gold and jewels; and finally the fact that his deliberations on which God to ask for aid come whilst he is getting ready to campaign against Maxentius.

And while I'm here (i'm not going to edit this myself), I'll also suggest that some references be made... first to the claimed account in Eusebius' History of the Church, but also to the relevant chapters in V.C. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.66.53 (talk) 07:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually I changed my mind. I edited out the reference to a vision story in H.E., which simply does not exist. I believe this has already been mentioned by someone below. Perhaps the person who wrote that got confused with the apparent vision story in the Panegyrici Latini, which also occurs in Gaul before Constantine fights with Maxentius? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.66.53 (talk) 08:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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."

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Only the explanation of the Category:Alchemy tag, which i am removing.
--Jerzy•t 17:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

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? —Preceding unsigned comment 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)

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)

The adjusted, cross-forming chi of the labarum already appears in the Christian mosaics of the Basilica di San Vitale, Ravenna, recently illustrated in a pan-shot in the BBC documentary "The Face". --Wetman 02:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Facts

This article seems to me to have some serious factual problems:

• I haven't found anywhere in the Church History anything about a vision; it does mention (HE ix.9) a statue of Constantine in Rome with him holding a cross in his hand (I suppose this is what 'trophy of Saviour's Passion' and 'sign of the Saviour' mean), with the inscription 'By this saving sign, the true proof of courage, I saved your city from the yoke of the tyrant...'
• Labelling Vita Constantini as "hagiographical" is hardly NPOV. And that is not what VC says either. Instead, it says (VC i.27-29) that 'when the sun was beginning to decline, he saw with his eyes the trophy of a cross of light in the heavens, above the sun, and bearing the inscription, By this conquer. At this sight he himself was struck with amazement, and his whole army also, which happened to be following him on some expedition'. Eusebius had introduced the theme of Constantine's war against Maxentius, but this appears to be a separate incident. Then Constantine has a dream in which Christ advises him to make himself a standard 'made in the likeness of the sign' not for protection in a particular battle, but in any war. And Constantine needs further explanations about Christianity before he becomes a Christian himself. Perhaps the private dream enforces the public vision?

This is quite a serious confusion. And, by the way, since when do scholars agree that there is "no firm evidence either way" about Constantine being a Christian? What about AHM Jones, TD Barnes, TG Elliott, Robin Lane Fox, etc? They all think Constantine considered himself a Christian. But this discussion doesn't belong here anyway. The most important thing is that you cannot even imply that Lactantius or Eusebius were writing mythology.

-- Agreed... the vast majority of modern scholars agree that he very probably was a genuine Christian, or at least that the sources definitely suggest that he was sincere. I wont go into details why--though its very obvious if you look at the sources--and in any case this isn't the right article for such things to be said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.66.53 (talk) 08:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Trivia (moved from mainspace)

The labarum is official symbol of the Alpha Chi Rho National Fraternity.

The name and symbol of the youth movement [http://www.chiro.be/Chiro are derived from the labarum.

There is a claim that Microsoft Windows XP is named after the Chi-Rho symbol, with 'Cairo' (which is a homonym for Chi-Rho) as the predecessor.[1]

When using Microsoft IME Standard 2002 or Microsoft Natural Input 2002 Japanese input method editor, enable Microsoft IME Symbol dictionary from properties dialogue, set input mode to hiragana, katakana, or alphanumeric mode, then enter 'XP', then space key from keyboard, one of the input candidates is the labarum.

The signature of Deadsy frontman P. Exeter Blue I (Elijah Blue) mimics the Chi-Rho symbol.

Etymology

The etymology of the word before Constantine's usage of it is unclear.

This sentence is not right, perhaps the author means the usage of the word other than Constantine's usage. Because a word is of a certain stem, an etymology in the sense the author writes can not be unclear before a certain period, either the stem is unknown or the entire etymology is vague. I don't know if I've put my thought correct enough in English, so correct me where necessary. Mallerd 15:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The word being labarum of course, and not the chi-rho. Mallerd 15:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Different point. How can a word used in Roman times be derived from a modern Welsh word (llafar)? That just doesn't fit timewise. Marking for ref. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I found various Celtic versions of the Welsh word, including Old Irish, online. They were referenced but only by an abbreviation, WP II 383 f, which I could not discover the full version of. However, there clearly exists a family of Celtic words, which would have had ancestral forms in Antiquity. Urselius (talk) 11:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

That's not the point. Welsh as a language has only existed from the 6th century onwards-ish. Before then, the group of languages it stems from is referred to as Brythonic. The only thing you could indiscriminately call Celtic is Common Celtic and which a) won't have had the word llafar and b) won't have existed in the right period either. IF the Romans borrowed this word, the source language would have to be a contemporary Celtic language such as Brythonic, Gaulish or Lepontic. Otherwise it's like saying that Caesar (way earlier) got his tactics from Eisenhower (way later). And if the source only states Celtic, it really doesn't sound like a reliable source. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I hate 'citation needed' flags, just delete the whole etymology - I didn't introduce it. Urselius (talk) 12:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Let me see if I can dig something up first. But I think I'll shift it out of the lead and into its own section if i do. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Two points -- the OED 1st edition and AHD 1st edition and 3rd edition don't venture any etymology beyond "late Latin". 2) Insofar as Latin was influenced by Celtic, Continental Gaulish was much more important than insular Celtic... AnonMoos (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Right, I've done "it". I've left a vague allusion to Celtic but stubbed it hard because I can't find anywhere which actually links labarum with a celtic root. Where did you find that? Akerbeltz (talk) 18:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't find anything Celtic in those dictionaries with respect to Labarum, but in general, Latin was influenced by Continental Gaulish more than by insular Celtic. For example, the Latin word carrus (which gave rise to a number of English words) is thought to have been from Gaulish. AnonMoos (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed but we're not supposed to put guesswork in the articles :) Akerbeltz (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

That Latin was influenced by Continental Gaulish more than by insular Celtic is not "guesswork", but a fact which may be relevant to evaluating some things discussed above in this susbsection... AnonMoos (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

True but just on the basis that Latin borrowed "some" words, we cannot therefore state that this one has to be one too. That would be guesswork. Akerbeltz (talk) 00:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

That would be an incorrect syllogistic inference. But I never said any such thing, did I now? AnonMoos (talk) 01:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

References

"Widely believed" eh?

"It is widely believed that after the Edict of Milan many legionnaires also were tattooed with the labarum on their right forearm." Nonsense. Furthermore, when every commonplace of cultural history is challenged at Wikipedia by those who read nothing, how is it that a statement like this, on the other hand, passes muster? Whenever generic sources are indefinitely referred to ("widely believed" where?), our doubts should always be raised. --Wetman (talk) 03:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Lay Legends

I read Lactantius and I found no "in hoc signo vinces" in his text. Then I read the ecclesiastical history of Eusebius and I didn't find it there either. Our accounts of both texts are therefore totally wrong and the comments on the "pious christian legends" are quite inappropriate. I suppose that in hoc signo vinces is simply a translation from Eusebius Life of Constantine, where legends abund but are not really supported by Eusebius. Please correct the text. Pinea (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The "in this sign you will conquer" is found in the Vita Constantini; not in H.E. or in Lactantius' DMP. The text shouldn't mention it in anything but Vit.Const. now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.66.53 (talk) 09:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Confused

The article seems somewhat confused between the 'Chi-rho', or 'Christogram', symbol and the 'labarum standard.'

The labarum was a military standard, a type of Vexillum, introduced by Constantine the Great, which incorporated a Chi-rho at the head of the stave. The name 'labarum' does not mean 'Chi-rho,' it means a military standard which incorporates a Chi-rho.

A coin of Constantine (c.337) showing a depiction of his Labarum

There is a Roman 4th century description of the labarum, this should be incorporated into the text and whole lot of stuff about the Chi-rho should be hived off to a separate section on this symbol.

The labarum just had the Chi-rho where a spear-head was on a standard vexillum, it was solid and made of metal. The cloth part of the standard, the major part, showed busts of Constantine and his two eldest sons. This seems to have been modified, possibly after Constantine executed his eldest son Crispus, and later images of the labarum often show three circles, possibly relating to the Trinity.Urselius (talk) 12:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

According to Catholic Encyclopedia, it was even more complicated than that... AnonMoos (talk) 13:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Christogram seems to be a generic name that includes several abbreviations such as IHS, ICXC,, not just the chi rho, also called Monogram of Christ.
• There are several types of labara on Costantine coins.
• I agree that Christ Monogram or chi rho and labarum should be treted separately
• The account of Costantine vision is an erroneous duplicate of what told in the Battle of Milvian Bridge

It can also be useful to see how the matter is treted in It-Wiki. Pinea (talk) 14:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I have introduced the description of the labarum by Eusebius, introduced a reference to the labarum's role in Constantine's battles, introduced some more images of labarum standards and pruned the excessive number of images of Chi-Rhos. Somewhat drastic measures, but this is an article about the labarum standard not about the Chi-Rho symbol.Urselius (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I have further trimmed the article of mentions of the Chi-Rho which have no direct relevance to the labarum standard itself. There is a very terse article on the Chi-Rho itself here: (Chi Rho). Much of the information I have deleted could be usefully moved to this page, indeed some of the 'vision' and 'celestial chi' material would also be better placed on this page .Urselius (talk) 11:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The Labarum refers to the military standard, but it also came to refer to the Christogram/Chi-Rho at the time... certainly my professor uses the term for either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.66.53 (talk) 09:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Not "at the time." Eusebius made a definite distinction between the labarum:"the STANDARD of the Cross, which the Romans now call the Labarum," and the Chi-Rho: "the SYMBOL of the Saviour’s name, two letters indicating the name of Christ by means of its initial characters, the letter P being intersected by X in its centre."

I think the confusion of the two terms is erroneous, or at best imprecise, and should be avoided.Urselius (talk) 10:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Decius coin

The quoted reference actually refers to an unreliable Gehovah witness source: it is available in the web here so it can be checked that no information about the original source is given. I believe it s better to omit such dubious and rather inconclusive information. Pinea (talk) 21:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Labarum versus Chi Rho

Could I please direct anyone wishing to add more information about the Chi-Rho symbol to the page on that symbol. The addition of more information solely relating to the symbol rather than the military standard, which is after all the subject of the labarum page, to this page is merely confusing for the reader.

The Chi-Rho page is in dire need of additional information and editing.

Please add information to the labarum page only if relates directly to the labarum standard itself. Urselius (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Duchy of Parma and Kingdom of Naples and Sicily

Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.85.2.56 (talk) 10:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Chi Rho monogram

Found this [img]http://i53.tinypic.com/2r7a71l.jpg[/img]

The labarum or better the Chi Rho or Monogram, has been used long before Christitianity. It had original nothing to do with Christ or its roots. You can find the cross thousands of years before Chr. It is the mandala or sunwheel introduced into the Chi Rho. Even the Celtic cross predates the Christian one.

On this examples you can find that on coins from Ptolemy the III, the Chi Rho is clearly visible. It belonged to the sungod and even older out of egypt. Also with Cronos the god of time (Alfa and Omega) It has to do with Ptah and Re or Ra and even Osiris or the constellation of Sirius. Before it became the monogram of Christ, the chi rho was the monogram of Chronos (whose name also begins with a Chi-rho), the god of time, and an emblem of several solar deities.

[img]http://i54.tinypic.com/4ryqyw.jpg[/img]

Greek coins, Ptolemaic kings of Egypt, Ptolemy III, 246 – 221, Bronze ca. 246-221, Æ 70.80 g. Diademed head of Zeus Ammon r. Rev. BASILEWS - PTOLEMAIOU Eagle standing l. on thunderbolt, with — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brnrds (talk • contribs) 14:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

A pre-christian use of chi-rho is covered in the Chi-Rho article, it was short for chreston, meaning "good." The above is relevant to the article on the chi-rho symbol, if you can get textual support from a reliable source, the usage on the coins you have alluded to is also mentioned in the chi-rho article. It is not particularly relevant to this article which is primarily about the labarum as a military and religious standard, not the symbol as such.Urselius (talk) 14:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Stourogram

Please reread the source for note 7. It speaks of the Chi-Rio, not the Tou-Rho.

"He did as he had been commanded, and he marked on their shields the letter X, with a perpendicular line drawn through it and turned round thus at the top, being the cipher of Christ. Having this sign (xP), his troops stood to arms." Icvigil2 (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

1. Looks like the only copy available is on Scribd and it is in French(?). Going to take me some time to get to the bottom of a single third party source. Is this a solid enough source?

2. Why reference a source that doesn't back up the claim? If your going to use this "nevertheless" source, it should be noted as the source rather than the current, incorrect source. Can we make this change at least? Icvigil2 (talk) 03:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The original editor to write this paragraph made an obvious mistake in his/her interpretation of what Lactantius was describing. I have changed the wording accordingly. If you want to add anything about the staurogram, as an alternative Christogram, please do so. Urselius (talk) 09:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Ethiopian-Eritrean cross 1.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)