"In hoc Signo Vinces" - Another Eusebius Tampering?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Charles Wilson
Posts: 1545
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

"In hoc Signo Vinces" - Another Eusebius Tampering?

Post by Charles Wilson » Mon Aug 31, 2020 6:05 pm

Splitting off another Thread for a reason...

As stated in another Thread, it has appeared to me that there is an awkwardness surrounding 1 Corinthians 1: 14 - 18 (RSV):

[14] I am thankful that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Ga'ius;
[15] lest any one should say that you were baptized in my name.
[16] (I did baptize also the household of Steph'anas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any one else.)
[17] For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
[18] For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

I have 14 - 16 as a "Level 1" rewrite of a Tacitus Passage built around Mucianus, Procurator of Syria:

Tacitus, Histories, Book 4 (Emphasis added):

"The murder of Calpurnius Galerianus caused the utmost consternation. He was a son of Caius Piso, and had done nothing, but a noble name and his own youthful beauty made him the theme of common talk; and while the country was still unquiet and delighted in novel topics, there were persons who associated him with idle rumours of Imperial honours. By order of Mucianus he was surrounded with a guard of soldiers. Lest his execution in the capital should excite too much notice, they conducted him to the fortieth milestone from Rome on the Appian Road, and there put him to death by opening his veins. Julius Priscus, who had been prefect of the Praetorian Guard under Vitellius, killed himself rather out of shame than by compulsion..."

You can't know the players without a scorecard but here, Frugi Piso, the "Four Day Emperor" morphs into the above "Calpunius Galerianus" - Stephen Martyr, "Who had the face on angel..." in Acts. This explains the "Household of Stephanas" in verse 16.

Verse 17 sticks out like a sore thumb and has always been as if it were glowing florescent green to me. It turns out that "Baptism" is a Code-Word for War and Battle and the cold "Message from God" to the "Household of Stephanas" - the Piso Family - is: "No More".

Preaching the Gospel without "Eloquent Wisdom" is advocating stupidity at best. This leads to the a very awkward moment:

"...lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power."

I have always believed that this is a meaningless phrase, designed to allow the Believer to assign his own meaning to the words to provide a "personal" meaning and relate to the Christian Community. As stated earlier, this has the appearance of one person who was editing for effect.

Today, that changed a bit. I still believe that the phrase in itself is meaningless but I have a Container that may explain why the phrase is there.

[18] For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

I have always left out that verse but today I see its value. As I was mulling over the comments, I remembered, "In hoc Signo Vinces". I quote again:

"The historian bishop Eusebius of Caesaria states that Constantine was marching with his army (Eusebius does not specify the actual location of the event, but it is clearly not in the camp at Rome), when he looked up to the sun and saw a cross of light above it, and with it the Greek words "(ἐν) τούτῳ νίκα" ("In this, conquer"), a phrase often rendered into Latin as in hoc signo vinces ("in this sign, you will conquer").

"At first, Constantine did not know the meaning of the apparition, but on the following night, he had a dream in which Christ explained to him that he should use the sign of the cross against his enemies. Eusebius then continues to describe the Labarum, the military standard used by Constantine in his later wars against Licinius, showing the Chi-Rho sign. The accounts by Lactantius and Eusebius, though not entirely consistent, have been connected to the Battle of the Milvian Bridge (312 AD), having merged into a popular notion of Constantine seeing the Chi-Rho sign on the evening before the battle..."

If we assume that some Tale like this was indeed passed around as true, we may (again) lay this at the feet of Eusebius:

1. Constantine, seen as a "Divine" Emperor to Eusebius, has stated that he had a vision that the Standards carried by the Legions shall Conquer under this "Sign" under the Command of this Constantine.

2. Since this was seen as Manifestly True, there must be Witness to this Divine Sign in the History of the Church, which was conveniently being written by Eusebius at the time.

3. "Paul" could not "Baptize" (Ohhh, yes he could...) and here there is something else to add. Eloquence was not given to Paul, lest he eclipse the Emperor. If he could, the Absurdity of the "Emptying of the Power of the Cross" would have been made Manifest and that could not be allowed to happen.

4. "The "Power of the Cross" is now Pre-Figured in the Christian History but also gives a Divine Recognition to any particular Chosen Emperor you might happen to have around...OHH!!! Here's Constantine!!! He's the perfect size for this Robe!

5. As a bit of clean-up we see GakuseiDon's Galatian's verse:

Galatians 5: 11, then 6: 12 (RSV):

[11] But if I, brethren, still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted? In that case the stumbling block of the cross has been removed.

The Jews are replaced with New Signs and the New Church will conquer not only the Jews but anyone else who gets in the way.

[12] It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh that would compel you to be circumcised, and only in order that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ.

So: Who could have accomplished this Pre-Figuring by altering and rewriting texts?


Post Reply