Talk:Chi Rho

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Christianity: Jesus Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of the Jesus work group, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive.

Is there any reason why this should not be merged with Labarum? Also, the image given includes more than just chi rho - it includes the alpha and omega letters. -Plasticbadge 01:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a graphic simbol, while Labarum is a military flag, which MAY have the Chi-Rho superimposed. For the other issues there is a lot of information in other wiki. Pinea (talk) 09:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This cannot be a disambiguation page or it will be linked to other disambiguation pages only according to interwiki rules, while the corresponding foreign pages will have no English counterpart. Pinea (talk) 09:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paenultima paragraph of section Christian accounts of Constantine's...:

As Constantine during his last few years enjoyed what he considered direct contact with God [4], it is likely that the story should be credited to Constantine, rather than to Eusebius^{[clarification needed]}.

Why? If he is "mad"/"blessed" then this "rubbish"/"wonder" is more likely to be Constantine's talk? Or? Now, let's say instead that Eusebius was a very gifted, and possibly somewhat imaginative propagandist, that was a little, so to say, "easy" with reinterpretations of sayings and doings of Constantine. Then it would be very easy to instead attribute the story to Eusebius. Just a hypothetical, but not so far fetched, alternative interpretation. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 09:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see the connection between the vision of Constantine the Great where he sees the cross (along with "In this, win!") and the symbol of ΧΡ (Chi Ro). Aren't these two irrelevant? Why is the vision described in the article "Chi Rho" and Labarum? I think it could be omitted. Routhramiotis Ρουθραμιώτης (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did he see the cross, as opposed to the Chi Rho? -- AnonMoos (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he said he saw the cross. The Ch Rho came after the fact. So the item is relevant, as you hinted I guess. History2007 (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to merge the content of page Chrismon into this page, due to the perfect coverage. Section Chrismon#Other examples of common chrismons could be moved to article Christogram. A ntv (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge. Yes, Chrismon should be absorbed into this page. History2007 (talk) 23:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not too sure -- the de-facto definition of Chrismon on the Chrismon page seems to be "any symbol whatever which can be interpreted as referring to Jesus". The triquetra is listed on the Chrismon article, but a triquetra is not a Christogram, and I would be highly opposed to referring to triquetras on the Christogram article (or on this one, for that matter)... AnonMoos (talk) 03:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Chrismon page is mostly unsourced and also plenty incorrect. The one source it mentions (Cath encyclopedia) does not support what the page says. The triquetra is of course not a Chrismon. I did look up some more sources, and traditionally, since the middle ages, the Chrismon has referred to the Chi Rho, but in more recent colloquial usage it may refer to anything connected with Jesus, e.g. small statues of Mary and Joseph on a Christmas tree! Some art/craft people call a dove symbol a Chrismon - while a dove is well known as a symbol of the Holy Spirit. That type of statement is not supported by scholarship. I think that can just be mentioned in a subsection here as the Chrismon and the Chi Rho. But as is the Chrismon and several examples it includes are unsourced and incorrect. I do not have time to work on it, however. History2007 (talk) 08:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well perhaps AmonMoos is not wrong. Browsing internet, I saw that in the US's use the Chrismon is whichever symbols which refers to Christ, to be used for decorating stuff as Christmas tree. In this case we could simply modify the "Chrismon" article, giving a better definition which refer to Chrismon=Christ+Monogram, and moving the material about the ChiRo here, leaving only a line. A ntv (talk) 14:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the Christmas tree usage is modern colloquial usage, not scholarly. And the suggestion that a dove is a Chrismon is against all artistic traditions. Anyway, no big difference to me, but the unsourced items in Chrismon need to be deleted. History2007 (talk) 14:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History2007 -- You're effectively proposing the almost-complete deletion of the content of Chrismon, with some small salvageable nuggets to be incorporated into other articles. In that case, maybe you should nominate Chrismon for deletion... AnonMoos (talk) 07:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, Afd would get rid of the term. That should not happen, the term should exist and be explained. But I am proposing the deletion of unsourced (and often junk) content. If someone does not add sources, that material has to go. The material there sounds like a joke: "a bell is a sign of Christ"? Since when? Said who? A white rose? Said who? A Pomegranate is a sign of Christ? How many beers does someone have to have to accept that? 27? All that has to go unless it is sourced, per WP:V things people just type in mean nothing without WP:RS sources. History2007 (talk) 07:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you History2007 for the very good edits in Article Chrismon. Now I suppose we can remove the tags "merge". A ntv (talk) 13:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it can stand by itself now. I have one more thing to fix, but that can be easy. History2007 (talk) 14:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I noticed that there is Chrismon tree which means that Chrismon tree may need to be merged into Christmas tree. I suggested it on Christmas tree. History2007 (talk) 07:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the symbol is found carved into grave markers, does this indicate that the deceased (or the person who paid for the marker!) was a Christian in general or belonged to a more specific denomination, perhaps Catholicism? Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a scholarly consensus that Chi Rho is the first two letters of Christ, and not the initials of "Christus Rex" (Christ the King)? It's mentioned in the Merchant's mark article, the Dutch WP article, in many sources in google and gscholar: [1] and [2].

Does somebody have more conclusive info? Maybe some college student could ask a professor of religion? SamuelRiv (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:SamuelRiv -- Why would a Greek-letter acronym be used for a Latin phrase? Greek doesn't have any word for "king" that begins with "r", as far as I'm aware. There's actually a tradition of retrofitting Greek things with Latin explanations -- Iota-Eta-Sigma (the first three letters of Jesus in Greek) is Latinized as IHS, which is then explained as "Iesus Hominum Salvator" etc... AnonMoos (talk) 07:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In Serbian Orthodox church, this symbol is used! Why there is no mention about it? Have Vatican's agents written this article to hide the history and steal all Orthodox churches ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:171B:C9AC:1761:8C76:5380:ECDE:1C7D (talk) 05:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found use of the Chi-Rho symbol in retrograde or "inverted" in somebody's M.Sc. project for the Queens University of Ontario (Canada), citing an archeological artefact in the collection of the British Museum. I had already been searching for instances of use of this symbol in that way, facing the opposite side to the left instead of to the right, but found that this Wiki article does not mention any of it.

link: https://qspace.library.queensu.ca/server/api/core/bitstreams/1abf18e7-9459-438b-a2f8-0654dd21a00a/content

2A02:1210:1CA7:D700:99F9:DAA5:46E7:4A83 (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean a mirror-image version (left and right flipped)? "Inverted" would mean top and bottom flipped, while "retrograde" mainly refers to motions of planets. Anyway, I don't think that such a variant could be any kind of major or very significant Christian symbol... AnonMoos (talk) 12:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I downloaded and looked at the dissertation. The dissertation's author (Bennett-Flammer) does indeed use the word "retrograde", though I'm not sure Wikipedia should. However, the "gold rings from Suffolk and Brentwood engraved with retrograde chi-rhos" in figure 17 are obviously seal rings -- they're incised with a reverse pattern so that when they're pressed into warm wax (probably), the wax will have a raised design with the correct orientation. The rings are not any evidence at all for a mirror-image reversed symbol. AnonMoos (talk) 14:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]