![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Can anyone put a link to this page anywhere at Wikipedia?? User 66.32.154.142
Can somebody mention that X MAS (X being a Roman number 10, 10th pronounced as "decima" in Italian) is also a fascist military group
Is it possible that the Xmas is actually result of phonetic similarity? Christ-mas sounds alike Criss-mas, and X being taken as sign for criss from the criss-cross game? I don't fint it convincing that X is taken from some old symbol. Why that symbol and, even more imnportant, why only recently? -- 17:04, 25 December 2006 83.131.199.65
"Christos, which is Greek for Christ"
Well, no. Christ is English for Christos. Perhaps that should be changed to something like "Christos, the Greek original that gives us Christ in English". Or am I being just a little too pedantic? -- Patrick T. Wynne 08:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
There are all kinds of theories and speculations about the Bible, so that is not reason enough to change a Wikipedia entry like this. Greek is the only language to be found in the original manuscripts, and Greek is the best language for understanding the Bible. And, are you sure that it is a Latin transliteration? People have known Greek in the Latin world for a long time (it was the language spoken by the common people in Rome before Latin), so isn't it possible they were simply using the Greek letters 'Chi' and 'Rho'? It is modern man who has neglected Greek (and Latin). poopsix 09:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Rather than Christ being English for Christos or Christos being Greek for Christ, isn't Christos the Greek translation of the Hebrew word that is translated as Messiah in English? Said translation having been made in the Septuagint?
Also... does anyone know modern or (anything about the pronounciation of) biblical Greek? I am suspicious that the person who wrote This apparent usage of "X" to spell the syllable "kris" (rather than the sounds "ks") is saying that based upon a knowledge of Russian rather than Greek, because in Russian the Cyrillic glyph that corresponds to Greek Chi is pronouced "ks". I always thought it made a sound like the English 'k' in Greek, but maybe I think that only because of the math classes I've taken. Struthious Bandersnatch 05:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Labarum whould be a great addition to the article. -- Abdull 19:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Could someone tell me which is most correct and most common?
Regards,
Matthew Vetrini -- 03:18, 28 January 2006
X-mas is also very common in the United States, especially as an abbreviation for signs outside of stores. I don't know about other countries. poopsix 09:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
It can be X-mas, Xmas and X'mas. But I think X-mas is the most common. DiamondDudu ( talk) 12:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I've removed the following passages from the article, and was reverted, citing a need for clarification.
"As origins of the word go largely unnoticed by the larger public, many people believe that the term is part of an effort to "take Christ out of Christmas" or to literally "cross out Christ"; it is also seen as evidence of the secularization of Christmas or a vehicle for pushing political correctness, or as a symptom of the commercialization of the holiday (as the abbreviation has long been used by retailers). This notion is greatly disputed."
I removed this because there are no citations indicating:
I've also removed:
"The occasionally seen belief that the "X" represents the cross Christ was crucified on has no basis in fact; St Andrew's Cross is X-shaped, but Christ's cross was probably shaped like a T or a †. Indeed, X-as-chi was associated with Christ long before X-as-cross could be. (The Greek letter Chi Χ stood for "Christ" in the ancient Greek acrostic ΙΧΘΥΣ ichthys.) While some see the spelling of Christmas as Xmas a threat, others see it as a way to honor the martyrs. The use of X as an abbreviation for "cross" in modern abbreviated writing (e.g. " Kings X" for " Kings Cross") may have reinforced this assumption."
Because there are no citations indicating that anyone holds the belief that the X represents the cross. Without that assertion, the information about St. Andrew's Cross becomes irrelevant. The next two sentences are pure speculation, especially the first one: "While some see the spelling of Christmas as Xmas a threat, others see it as a way to honor the martyrs"? This is a completely unverified fluff statement. JDoorj a m Talk 15:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
No, some do see it as a threat, but they don't know Greek. This is a claim that is hard to cite, because it is some peoples' opinion, and that opinion is not shared by all, and so is not often found in easily citably sources. poopsix 09:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
If you don't like this article, why don't you attempt to improve it, instead of just hacking away large chunks of it with a chainsaw? Dealing with specific points might be constructive, but just deleting whatever you don't like does nothing to improve the article in any specific way. AnonMoos 21:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
"I am attempting to improve it, by demanding we provide citations. Do you have citations for any of the points I've raised?"
Maybe he does. But by excising the entire passage, you've made it impossible for him to provide them. The proper way to "demand we provide citations" is to insert "citation needed" tags, then raise the points on the discussion page -- Unilaterally lopping off the entire section without discussion is a bit heavy-handed.
As you can see, many of the points have now been sourced.
CNJECulver ( talk) 02:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
There's some additional info currently at Secularization_of_Christmas#Early_20th_century ... AnonMoos 15:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
The article uses the Anglo-Saxon chronicle as an example of early usage of "X" for "Christ", bu his can be pushed back farther. The Irish Gospel Books ( Book of Durrow, Book of Kells, etc) all used "Xp" as an abreviation when it apears as the first word in the Latin translation of Matthew 1:18. We have images of Durrow ( here) and Kells ( here). Durrow dates to the 7th century and Kells to about 800. Dsmdgold ( talk) 16:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Merry Xritos
Q: why is the word Christmas Abbreviated as Xmas A: "Because the Greek letter x is the first letter of the greek word for Christ,Xristos. The word Xmas meaning 'Christ's Mass', was commonly used in Europe by the 16th century. Itwas not an attempt to take Christ out of Christmas."(From The Book of Answers, By Barbara Berliner) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.239.76 ( talk) 23:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
My opinion on the article as a whole in to be determined, as I haven't researched it thoroughly, and it's not very important to me, personally. But the fact remains that the authenticity is highly unlikely to most readers who do background checks. Two of the references that essentially make or break the facts in this article are, unfortunately, unreliable at best.
Besides that fact that I received a 404 error each time I attempted to view this particular page, the domain itself is not reliable either. Simply from its domain (.net), any information from the site is a moot point at best.
This just makes me sick. I love Wikipedia as a whole, and I'm constantly telling off people who generalize all Wikipedia articles as false with the totally unfounded complaint of "Anyone can go on there and type in anything they want!" Quite obviously, that is incorrect. Many events and persons of historic importance are protected in one way or another. But when anything has extreme amounts of attention brought to it, most people either turn to Wikipedia or wind up here. And whether or not the readers believe this, having such a pathetic "source" only gives that complaint more room to procreate. In short, that website (1) is a wide collaboration between strangers, (2) should not ever be considered as fact, (3) is a horrific mutilation of the purpose of The Wikipedia Project, especially considering that the complaint about Wikipedia is actually correct when applied to what someone has listed as an information source. Ryojo ( talk) 20:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the previous universality of Latin and Greek is a little idealized -- even by 1917, there were already complaints that the study of ancient Greek was fast-disappearing from the curriculum of U.S. high schools (see the Preface to "First Year of Greek" by James Turney Allen), and I doubt whether even then Latin was an absolute requirement in all cases for those who wanted to attend college... Furthermore, knowledge of Latin without any knowledge of Greek would provide very little insight into "Xmas", so Latin would appear to be mostly irrelevant. And is there any evidence for "Chimas"? Also, pronunciations should generally be given in IPA, and the most accepted pronunciation of the Greek letter Chi in modern English is actually [kai]... AnonMoos ( talk) 17:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
The bit where it says:
It is possibly biased to use the word "erroneously" here, as you could argue an opposing view, that precisely because the knowledge of classical languages is now less widespread, using the term Xmas is indeed essentially removing the "Christ" part in most people's understanding, even if this would not have been so in previous times. It is therefore entirely plausible that people would indeed use the abbreviation as an intentional secularization, either because they themselves don't understand the etymology or because they think that their audience largely won't. Weedier Mickey ( talk) 10:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Some believe the use of Xmas is part of a campaign to secularize Christmas[insert references]. Others hold that such a view is erroneous[insert appropriate references]
There are a couple problems with this paragraph:
Today, with knowledge of classical languages being less widespread than formerly, some erroneously believe that the term Xmas was devised as part of an effort to "take Christ out of Christmas" or to literally "cross out Christ"; it is seen as evidence of the secularization of Christmas, as a symptom of the commercialization of the holiday (as the abbreviation has long been used by retailers).
"Today" is too vague. "Some believe" with or without the "erroneously" is too vague and ripe for someone to slap a who? tag on it.
This is, I believe, what Bratcher's point is:
The abbreviation of Christmas as "Xmas" is the source of disagreement among Christians who observe the holiday. Dennis Bratcher, writing for a website for Christians writes "there are always those who loudly decry the use of the abbreviation 'Xmas' as some kind of blasphemy against Christ and Christianity". Opposition to the use of "Xmas" is based on growing concerns of increasing commercialization and secularization of one of Christianity's highest holy day. Bratcher posits that those who dislike abbreviating the word are unfamiliar with a long history of Christians using X in place of "Christ" for various purposes.
-- Moni3 ( talk) 18:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
First, let me note in passing that the Third Opinion Request was removed because there are more than two editors involved in the dispute. (I did not remove it, but I did remove the 3O template from the article page by way of cleanup.) Second, let me just throw in my two cents: The real problem here isn't so much the "erroneously," but the lack of sources for the claim that, erroneous or not, "some ... believe that the term Xmas was devised as part of an effort to 'take Christ out of Christmas' or to literally 'cross out Christ.'" Those sources must establish:
The sources currently cited for this claim (both here and in Secularization of Christmas) claim that such a belief exists, but offer no proof of it and launch into the Chi-Rho defense with no more justification than would exist if the claim were merely a straw man. While there are a couple of idiosyncratic views (by Smith and Robnett) reported at Secularization_of_Christmas#Early_20th_century that the use of Xmas is part of a Jewish anti-Christian campaign, they do not support the existence of a widespread belief. To the extent that such a belief exists, the lack of supporting documents suggests strongly that it is a fringe belief to which WP:ONEWAY should be applied such that there should be no mention of the belief in the article at all. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 22:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Here are five reliable sources that relate the abbreviation of Xmas to "taking Christ out of Christmas", in addition to Dennis Bratcher's piece.
These are only the ones I could find in a 20-minute search on Google News for sites I did not have to pay for. I will have access in the first week of January to a database of news stories, commentary, and opinion pieces and will be able to find others. -- Moni3 ( talk) 04:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Wikipeterproject is correct: the one reference provided does nothing more than repeat the claim that "some people believe" without providing any further support for the claim. As such, it is no better than hearsay.
However, the entire section really ought to be removed for at least two reasons: a) inadequate sourcing (the one source provided does nothing more than repeat hearsay; see point 1); b) it doesn't belong in a section entitled "History". If someone wants to create a separate section entitled "Controversy", perhaps this material (once properly sourced) might be moved there, along with the statement further down beginning with "While some see the spelling of Christmas as Xmas a threat...." CNJECulver ( talk) 08:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
In a
WP:BOLD move, I've rewritten the paragraph. I am willing to discuss it, but this conversation is confusing in the extreme. Formatting using hr lines adds to it. A mass deletion of the talk page content adds to it as well. I don't know who is talking to whom and what really is being discussed. Please do not add hr lines and make your comments as clear as possible. Internet communication is difficult enough as it is. --
Moni3 (
talk)
17:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Much of the discussion in the "erroneously" section above revolves around claims involving the belief that the use of "Xmas" is part of a concerted campaign to secularize Christmas, and whether or not that belief is in error. The disputed passages currently are part of the History section where they clearly do not belong. As a first step in settling the discussion and cleaning up the article, we need to create a "Controversy" section and move the material there. Specifically, at least the following passages should be relocated.
Today, with knowledge of classical languages being less widespread than formerly, some erroneously believe that the term Xmas was devised as part of an effort to "take Christ out of Christmas" or to literally "cross out Christ"; it is seen as evidence of the secularization of Christmas, as a symptom of the commercialization of the holiday (as the abbreviation has long been used by retailers). In the United Kingdom, The former Church of England Bishop of Blackburn, Alan Chesters, once recommended to his clergy that they avoid the spelling.
While some see the spelling of Christmas as Xmas a threat,[citation needed] others see it as a way to honor the martyrs.[citation needed] The use of X as an abbreviation for "cross" in modern abbreviated writing (e.g. "King's X" for "King's Cross") may have reinforced this assumption.
This will have at least the following advantages:
CNJECulver ( talk) 10:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm attempting to fill in some of the [citation needed] tags in this section.
1. occasionally held belief that the 'X' represents the cross on which Christ was crucified
I've just spent the last couple of hours trying to track down references to this "occasionally held belief", and I come up empty. Can anyone else supply a reference? If not, perhaps this passage should be removed.
2. X-as-chi was associated with Christ long before X-as-cross could be, since the cross as a Christian symbol developed later.
"Long before" and "developed later" are ambiguous. According to this, the cross was already associated with Christianity in the 2nd century.
In any case, viz., the "X-as-cross" hypothesis, it is only necessary for the cross to predate "Xmas", not Chi-Rho, so the above seems irrelevant. CNJECulver ( talk) 08:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
"Early manuscripts of the Greek New Testament dating to the third and fourth centuries used "X" as an abbreviation for Christ, says Greg Carey, professor of the New Testament at Lancaster Theological Seminary. The abbreviation helped manuscript writers fit more words on a page, reducing the time and cost of producing the texts, a page of which "would cost you the equivalent of a nice shirt today," he says. According to the "Christian Writer's Manual of Style," the "X" in "Xmas" is the symbol for the Greek letter "chi" and has been used since the first century for the name of Christ (Christos) . By the 15th century, "Xmas" emerged as a widely used symbol for Christmas, according to Dennis Bratcher of the Christian Resource Institute. In a 2011 column, Bratcher writes religious publishers began using the abbreviation to cut down on the cost of books and pamphlets following the invention of the printing press in 1436. "From there, the abbreviation moved into general use in newspapers and other publications, and 'Xmas' became an accepted way of printing 'Christmas' (along with the abbreviations 'Xian' and 'Xianity')," writes Bratcher, a professor of Old Testament with a doctorate in biblical studies."
Read more: http://lancasteronline.com/article/local/794883_The--X--factor.html#ixzz2FyOymlw5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archclng ( talk • contribs) 12:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
In the United Kingdom, The former Church of England Bishop of Blackburn, Alan Chesters, once recommended to his clergy that they avoid the spelling.
This sentence seems a bit problematic for a couple of reasons. First, it really belongs with the controversy discussion rather than in the "Usage in English" subsection. Second, neither the sentence itself, nor the source cited, makes clear why Chesters made the recommendation -- did he himself oppose the abbreviation, or was he merely doing so out of respect for those who did?
At the least it should be moved to the controversy discussion. But there are already several examples provided there, so it's really probably superfluous. And certainly, for the reason above, it's a weak example.
Perhaps it should just be removed. CNJECulver ( talk) 10:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
As they stand, the claims in this paragraph that χ by itself was used as an abbreviation of Χριστός either in Christian iconography or in New Testament manuscripts are incorrect. It was common scribal practice to abbreviate certain terms, such as the Nomina Sacra, using combinations of the first two letters, the first and last letters, and so forth, but never the first letter alone.
This page:
http://www.linguistsoftware.com/ntmss.htm#SampleWashingtonianusLS
shows examples of abbreviations commonly used in early New Testament mss. Scroll down to the WashingtonianusNS and you can find examples such as chi-nu, chi-rho-nu, chi-rho, chi-sigma, and so forth (note that in NT mss. a line was placed over the letter-combination to indicate it was an abbreviation), but never simply chi.
Encountering New Testament manuscripts;: A working introduction to textual criticism, by Jack Finegan, pp. 32-33 discuss abbreviation practices in NT mss. He lists two examples for Χριστός: Χς and Χρς. Again, no mention of Χ alone. Those two pages may be viewed at Google Books via the following link:
Similarly, the reference provided from the New Advent site, supports Chi-Rho as an early Christian icon, but not Chi alone.
I don't have access to the full OED (online access is for-pay), so I can't verify whether it supports "X-" as claimed. The Merriam-Webster reference does make the claim, but the examples it provides, all drawn apparently from the OED, are for two-letter combinations, nothing for Χ alone.
Unfortunately, this goes straight to the heart of the argument the article is trying to draw -- namely, that "X-for-Christ" is a direct descendant of ancient abbreviations -- wounding it severely. If the article is trying to draw a line from ancient practices -- Χρ, Χς, Χρς, "Xt", and so forth -- to modern, it can't just waltz right past this issue without comment. CNJECulver ( talk) 16:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
the OED definition I included in my comment of "14:01, 29 December 2009" says that "X" was used as an abbreviation for "Christ" in earlier English.
I've replaced the [citation needed] tag for the Lewis Carroll reference in the "Usage in English" subsection with the same M-W article footnote used for Oliver Wendell Holmes, as the M-W article contains the citation.
The citation comes from a letter Dodgson (Carroll) wrote in 1864. That letter is reproduced in at least the Broadview Press edition of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (Richard Kelley, ed.), p. 250.
http://www.broadviewpress.com/product.php?productid=208&cat=0&page=1
The relevant page can be viewed at Google Books:
I'd add the reference myself. Unfortunately, I haven't figured out how to do references in Wikipedia yet. Anyone want to add it? CNJECulver ( talk) 17:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
[1] What really is asking to be cited? -- Moni3 ( talk) 13:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I was always told X-mas and X-ing came from X being a turned 'cross' and cross represents christ. Therefore you get 'cross'ing and 'christ'mas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.192.190 ( talk) 14:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Xmas is NOT disrespectful. "X" was commonly used in place of "Christ" during the Middle Ages and was in fact pronounced "Christ". "Christianity" was often spelled "Xianity" -- 23:07, 2 December 2010 173.70.107.147
AnonMoos ( talk) 07:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
One comes to this article, sees 'Usage of "X" for "Christ"' in the outline and would, presumably, expect to find a discussion of examples of the usage of X for Christ. What one gets instead is a two-paragraph discussion of controversy, before the section finally gets around to it alleged topic.
Either this section needs to be renamed, or the material on the controversy needs to be removed to its own section. It certainly doesn't belong here. CNJECulver ( talk) 00:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
This is a proposal for a major restructuring and rewrite of the Xmas article. The article suffers from numerous structure and focus problems.
Its basic problem is that it forgets what it's supposed to be talking about. This is supposed to be an article specifically discussing the term "Xmas", not the more general usage of X as an abbreviation for Christ. As such, any discussion of the latter should be brief, and extend only insofar as it serves the purpose of explaining the origins of "Xmas". As it is, the article expends a great deal more energy and space discussing the general subject of X-for-Christ than is necessary for what should be only background material.
In addition, the discussion on controversy begins with the final paragraph on "Usage in English", leapfrogs over the section title, and continues in "Usage of 'X' for "Christ", despite being related to neither subject. When the controversy discussion finally winds up, we find ourselves back in the middle of the history exposition which it interrupted.
As such, then, I propose the following restructure:
Introduction
Usage in English
for us as Christians, this is one of the most holy of the holidays, the birth of our savior Jesus Christ. And for people to take Christ out of Christmas. They're happy to say merry Xmas. Let's just take Jesus out. And really, I think, a war against the name of Jesus Christ.[13]
See Also
References
External Links
CNJECulver ( talk) 11:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
"There is a common misconception that the word Xmas is a secular attempt to remove the religious tradition from Christmas[3] by taking the "Christ" out of "Christmas"."
I propose taking this line out of the lede. There's no way one blanket statement can account for every use of "Xmas", not everyone in the English language, including those that use the phrase "Xmas", knows that X comes from the Greek work for Christ. CRRays Head90 | Get Some! 03:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the parenthetical comment " (This last usage is most probably as a space saving abbreviation.)" from the In popular culture Monopoly reference. Unless someone can find a statement from Parker Brothers that this is the case, this seems to be pure authorial conjecture. 220.143.198.161 ( talk) 01:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
See here the use of the variant "Xtmas" in a 1913 letter (authorial ephemera added to the book scanning, very good idea) by John Batchelor, a Christian missionary. (One who obviously lived for decades in Hokkaido trying to convert locals by translating the Bible to Ainu and going broke in the process only as a cover-up for his devious plan for the secularization Christmas, culminating in this letter!) Tuvalkin ( talk) 17:58, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Can anyone put a link to this page anywhere at Wikipedia?? User 66.32.154.142
Can somebody mention that X MAS (X being a Roman number 10, 10th pronounced as "decima" in Italian) is also a fascist military group
Is it possible that the Xmas is actually result of phonetic similarity? Christ-mas sounds alike Criss-mas, and X being taken as sign for criss from the criss-cross game? I don't fint it convincing that X is taken from some old symbol. Why that symbol and, even more imnportant, why only recently? -- 17:04, 25 December 2006 83.131.199.65
"Christos, which is Greek for Christ"
Well, no. Christ is English for Christos. Perhaps that should be changed to something like "Christos, the Greek original that gives us Christ in English". Or am I being just a little too pedantic? -- Patrick T. Wynne 08:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
There are all kinds of theories and speculations about the Bible, so that is not reason enough to change a Wikipedia entry like this. Greek is the only language to be found in the original manuscripts, and Greek is the best language for understanding the Bible. And, are you sure that it is a Latin transliteration? People have known Greek in the Latin world for a long time (it was the language spoken by the common people in Rome before Latin), so isn't it possible they were simply using the Greek letters 'Chi' and 'Rho'? It is modern man who has neglected Greek (and Latin). poopsix 09:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Rather than Christ being English for Christos or Christos being Greek for Christ, isn't Christos the Greek translation of the Hebrew word that is translated as Messiah in English? Said translation having been made in the Septuagint?
Also... does anyone know modern or (anything about the pronounciation of) biblical Greek? I am suspicious that the person who wrote This apparent usage of "X" to spell the syllable "kris" (rather than the sounds "ks") is saying that based upon a knowledge of Russian rather than Greek, because in Russian the Cyrillic glyph that corresponds to Greek Chi is pronouced "ks". I always thought it made a sound like the English 'k' in Greek, but maybe I think that only because of the math classes I've taken. Struthious Bandersnatch 05:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Labarum whould be a great addition to the article. -- Abdull 19:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Could someone tell me which is most correct and most common?
Regards,
Matthew Vetrini -- 03:18, 28 January 2006
X-mas is also very common in the United States, especially as an abbreviation for signs outside of stores. I don't know about other countries. poopsix 09:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
It can be X-mas, Xmas and X'mas. But I think X-mas is the most common. DiamondDudu ( talk) 12:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I've removed the following passages from the article, and was reverted, citing a need for clarification.
"As origins of the word go largely unnoticed by the larger public, many people believe that the term is part of an effort to "take Christ out of Christmas" or to literally "cross out Christ"; it is also seen as evidence of the secularization of Christmas or a vehicle for pushing political correctness, or as a symptom of the commercialization of the holiday (as the abbreviation has long been used by retailers). This notion is greatly disputed."
I removed this because there are no citations indicating:
I've also removed:
"The occasionally seen belief that the "X" represents the cross Christ was crucified on has no basis in fact; St Andrew's Cross is X-shaped, but Christ's cross was probably shaped like a T or a †. Indeed, X-as-chi was associated with Christ long before X-as-cross could be. (The Greek letter Chi Χ stood for "Christ" in the ancient Greek acrostic ΙΧΘΥΣ ichthys.) While some see the spelling of Christmas as Xmas a threat, others see it as a way to honor the martyrs. The use of X as an abbreviation for "cross" in modern abbreviated writing (e.g. " Kings X" for " Kings Cross") may have reinforced this assumption."
Because there are no citations indicating that anyone holds the belief that the X represents the cross. Without that assertion, the information about St. Andrew's Cross becomes irrelevant. The next two sentences are pure speculation, especially the first one: "While some see the spelling of Christmas as Xmas a threat, others see it as a way to honor the martyrs"? This is a completely unverified fluff statement. JDoorj a m Talk 15:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
No, some do see it as a threat, but they don't know Greek. This is a claim that is hard to cite, because it is some peoples' opinion, and that opinion is not shared by all, and so is not often found in easily citably sources. poopsix 09:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
If you don't like this article, why don't you attempt to improve it, instead of just hacking away large chunks of it with a chainsaw? Dealing with specific points might be constructive, but just deleting whatever you don't like does nothing to improve the article in any specific way. AnonMoos 21:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
"I am attempting to improve it, by demanding we provide citations. Do you have citations for any of the points I've raised?"
Maybe he does. But by excising the entire passage, you've made it impossible for him to provide them. The proper way to "demand we provide citations" is to insert "citation needed" tags, then raise the points on the discussion page -- Unilaterally lopping off the entire section without discussion is a bit heavy-handed.
As you can see, many of the points have now been sourced.
CNJECulver ( talk) 02:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
There's some additional info currently at Secularization_of_Christmas#Early_20th_century ... AnonMoos 15:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
The article uses the Anglo-Saxon chronicle as an example of early usage of "X" for "Christ", bu his can be pushed back farther. The Irish Gospel Books ( Book of Durrow, Book of Kells, etc) all used "Xp" as an abreviation when it apears as the first word in the Latin translation of Matthew 1:18. We have images of Durrow ( here) and Kells ( here). Durrow dates to the 7th century and Kells to about 800. Dsmdgold ( talk) 16:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Merry Xritos
Q: why is the word Christmas Abbreviated as Xmas A: "Because the Greek letter x is the first letter of the greek word for Christ,Xristos. The word Xmas meaning 'Christ's Mass', was commonly used in Europe by the 16th century. Itwas not an attempt to take Christ out of Christmas."(From The Book of Answers, By Barbara Berliner) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.239.76 ( talk) 23:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
My opinion on the article as a whole in to be determined, as I haven't researched it thoroughly, and it's not very important to me, personally. But the fact remains that the authenticity is highly unlikely to most readers who do background checks. Two of the references that essentially make or break the facts in this article are, unfortunately, unreliable at best.
Besides that fact that I received a 404 error each time I attempted to view this particular page, the domain itself is not reliable either. Simply from its domain (.net), any information from the site is a moot point at best.
This just makes me sick. I love Wikipedia as a whole, and I'm constantly telling off people who generalize all Wikipedia articles as false with the totally unfounded complaint of "Anyone can go on there and type in anything they want!" Quite obviously, that is incorrect. Many events and persons of historic importance are protected in one way or another. But when anything has extreme amounts of attention brought to it, most people either turn to Wikipedia or wind up here. And whether or not the readers believe this, having such a pathetic "source" only gives that complaint more room to procreate. In short, that website (1) is a wide collaboration between strangers, (2) should not ever be considered as fact, (3) is a horrific mutilation of the purpose of The Wikipedia Project, especially considering that the complaint about Wikipedia is actually correct when applied to what someone has listed as an information source. Ryojo ( talk) 20:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the previous universality of Latin and Greek is a little idealized -- even by 1917, there were already complaints that the study of ancient Greek was fast-disappearing from the curriculum of U.S. high schools (see the Preface to "First Year of Greek" by James Turney Allen), and I doubt whether even then Latin was an absolute requirement in all cases for those who wanted to attend college... Furthermore, knowledge of Latin without any knowledge of Greek would provide very little insight into "Xmas", so Latin would appear to be mostly irrelevant. And is there any evidence for "Chimas"? Also, pronunciations should generally be given in IPA, and the most accepted pronunciation of the Greek letter Chi in modern English is actually [kai]... AnonMoos ( talk) 17:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
The bit where it says:
It is possibly biased to use the word "erroneously" here, as you could argue an opposing view, that precisely because the knowledge of classical languages is now less widespread, using the term Xmas is indeed essentially removing the "Christ" part in most people's understanding, even if this would not have been so in previous times. It is therefore entirely plausible that people would indeed use the abbreviation as an intentional secularization, either because they themselves don't understand the etymology or because they think that their audience largely won't. Weedier Mickey ( talk) 10:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Some believe the use of Xmas is part of a campaign to secularize Christmas[insert references]. Others hold that such a view is erroneous[insert appropriate references]
There are a couple problems with this paragraph:
Today, with knowledge of classical languages being less widespread than formerly, some erroneously believe that the term Xmas was devised as part of an effort to "take Christ out of Christmas" or to literally "cross out Christ"; it is seen as evidence of the secularization of Christmas, as a symptom of the commercialization of the holiday (as the abbreviation has long been used by retailers).
"Today" is too vague. "Some believe" with or without the "erroneously" is too vague and ripe for someone to slap a who? tag on it.
This is, I believe, what Bratcher's point is:
The abbreviation of Christmas as "Xmas" is the source of disagreement among Christians who observe the holiday. Dennis Bratcher, writing for a website for Christians writes "there are always those who loudly decry the use of the abbreviation 'Xmas' as some kind of blasphemy against Christ and Christianity". Opposition to the use of "Xmas" is based on growing concerns of increasing commercialization and secularization of one of Christianity's highest holy day. Bratcher posits that those who dislike abbreviating the word are unfamiliar with a long history of Christians using X in place of "Christ" for various purposes.
-- Moni3 ( talk) 18:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
First, let me note in passing that the Third Opinion Request was removed because there are more than two editors involved in the dispute. (I did not remove it, but I did remove the 3O template from the article page by way of cleanup.) Second, let me just throw in my two cents: The real problem here isn't so much the "erroneously," but the lack of sources for the claim that, erroneous or not, "some ... believe that the term Xmas was devised as part of an effort to 'take Christ out of Christmas' or to literally 'cross out Christ.'" Those sources must establish:
The sources currently cited for this claim (both here and in Secularization of Christmas) claim that such a belief exists, but offer no proof of it and launch into the Chi-Rho defense with no more justification than would exist if the claim were merely a straw man. While there are a couple of idiosyncratic views (by Smith and Robnett) reported at Secularization_of_Christmas#Early_20th_century that the use of Xmas is part of a Jewish anti-Christian campaign, they do not support the existence of a widespread belief. To the extent that such a belief exists, the lack of supporting documents suggests strongly that it is a fringe belief to which WP:ONEWAY should be applied such that there should be no mention of the belief in the article at all. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 22:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Here are five reliable sources that relate the abbreviation of Xmas to "taking Christ out of Christmas", in addition to Dennis Bratcher's piece.
These are only the ones I could find in a 20-minute search on Google News for sites I did not have to pay for. I will have access in the first week of January to a database of news stories, commentary, and opinion pieces and will be able to find others. -- Moni3 ( talk) 04:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Wikipeterproject is correct: the one reference provided does nothing more than repeat the claim that "some people believe" without providing any further support for the claim. As such, it is no better than hearsay.
However, the entire section really ought to be removed for at least two reasons: a) inadequate sourcing (the one source provided does nothing more than repeat hearsay; see point 1); b) it doesn't belong in a section entitled "History". If someone wants to create a separate section entitled "Controversy", perhaps this material (once properly sourced) might be moved there, along with the statement further down beginning with "While some see the spelling of Christmas as Xmas a threat...." CNJECulver ( talk) 08:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
In a
WP:BOLD move, I've rewritten the paragraph. I am willing to discuss it, but this conversation is confusing in the extreme. Formatting using hr lines adds to it. A mass deletion of the talk page content adds to it as well. I don't know who is talking to whom and what really is being discussed. Please do not add hr lines and make your comments as clear as possible. Internet communication is difficult enough as it is. --
Moni3 (
talk)
17:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Much of the discussion in the "erroneously" section above revolves around claims involving the belief that the use of "Xmas" is part of a concerted campaign to secularize Christmas, and whether or not that belief is in error. The disputed passages currently are part of the History section where they clearly do not belong. As a first step in settling the discussion and cleaning up the article, we need to create a "Controversy" section and move the material there. Specifically, at least the following passages should be relocated.
Today, with knowledge of classical languages being less widespread than formerly, some erroneously believe that the term Xmas was devised as part of an effort to "take Christ out of Christmas" or to literally "cross out Christ"; it is seen as evidence of the secularization of Christmas, as a symptom of the commercialization of the holiday (as the abbreviation has long been used by retailers). In the United Kingdom, The former Church of England Bishop of Blackburn, Alan Chesters, once recommended to his clergy that they avoid the spelling.
While some see the spelling of Christmas as Xmas a threat,[citation needed] others see it as a way to honor the martyrs.[citation needed] The use of X as an abbreviation for "cross" in modern abbreviated writing (e.g. "King's X" for "King's Cross") may have reinforced this assumption.
This will have at least the following advantages:
CNJECulver ( talk) 10:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm attempting to fill in some of the [citation needed] tags in this section.
1. occasionally held belief that the 'X' represents the cross on which Christ was crucified
I've just spent the last couple of hours trying to track down references to this "occasionally held belief", and I come up empty. Can anyone else supply a reference? If not, perhaps this passage should be removed.
2. X-as-chi was associated with Christ long before X-as-cross could be, since the cross as a Christian symbol developed later.
"Long before" and "developed later" are ambiguous. According to this, the cross was already associated with Christianity in the 2nd century.
In any case, viz., the "X-as-cross" hypothesis, it is only necessary for the cross to predate "Xmas", not Chi-Rho, so the above seems irrelevant. CNJECulver ( talk) 08:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
"Early manuscripts of the Greek New Testament dating to the third and fourth centuries used "X" as an abbreviation for Christ, says Greg Carey, professor of the New Testament at Lancaster Theological Seminary. The abbreviation helped manuscript writers fit more words on a page, reducing the time and cost of producing the texts, a page of which "would cost you the equivalent of a nice shirt today," he says. According to the "Christian Writer's Manual of Style," the "X" in "Xmas" is the symbol for the Greek letter "chi" and has been used since the first century for the name of Christ (Christos) . By the 15th century, "Xmas" emerged as a widely used symbol for Christmas, according to Dennis Bratcher of the Christian Resource Institute. In a 2011 column, Bratcher writes religious publishers began using the abbreviation to cut down on the cost of books and pamphlets following the invention of the printing press in 1436. "From there, the abbreviation moved into general use in newspapers and other publications, and 'Xmas' became an accepted way of printing 'Christmas' (along with the abbreviations 'Xian' and 'Xianity')," writes Bratcher, a professor of Old Testament with a doctorate in biblical studies."
Read more: http://lancasteronline.com/article/local/794883_The--X--factor.html#ixzz2FyOymlw5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archclng ( talk • contribs) 12:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
In the United Kingdom, The former Church of England Bishop of Blackburn, Alan Chesters, once recommended to his clergy that they avoid the spelling.
This sentence seems a bit problematic for a couple of reasons. First, it really belongs with the controversy discussion rather than in the "Usage in English" subsection. Second, neither the sentence itself, nor the source cited, makes clear why Chesters made the recommendation -- did he himself oppose the abbreviation, or was he merely doing so out of respect for those who did?
At the least it should be moved to the controversy discussion. But there are already several examples provided there, so it's really probably superfluous. And certainly, for the reason above, it's a weak example.
Perhaps it should just be removed. CNJECulver ( talk) 10:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
As they stand, the claims in this paragraph that χ by itself was used as an abbreviation of Χριστός either in Christian iconography or in New Testament manuscripts are incorrect. It was common scribal practice to abbreviate certain terms, such as the Nomina Sacra, using combinations of the first two letters, the first and last letters, and so forth, but never the first letter alone.
This page:
http://www.linguistsoftware.com/ntmss.htm#SampleWashingtonianusLS
shows examples of abbreviations commonly used in early New Testament mss. Scroll down to the WashingtonianusNS and you can find examples such as chi-nu, chi-rho-nu, chi-rho, chi-sigma, and so forth (note that in NT mss. a line was placed over the letter-combination to indicate it was an abbreviation), but never simply chi.
Encountering New Testament manuscripts;: A working introduction to textual criticism, by Jack Finegan, pp. 32-33 discuss abbreviation practices in NT mss. He lists two examples for Χριστός: Χς and Χρς. Again, no mention of Χ alone. Those two pages may be viewed at Google Books via the following link:
Similarly, the reference provided from the New Advent site, supports Chi-Rho as an early Christian icon, but not Chi alone.
I don't have access to the full OED (online access is for-pay), so I can't verify whether it supports "X-" as claimed. The Merriam-Webster reference does make the claim, but the examples it provides, all drawn apparently from the OED, are for two-letter combinations, nothing for Χ alone.
Unfortunately, this goes straight to the heart of the argument the article is trying to draw -- namely, that "X-for-Christ" is a direct descendant of ancient abbreviations -- wounding it severely. If the article is trying to draw a line from ancient practices -- Χρ, Χς, Χρς, "Xt", and so forth -- to modern, it can't just waltz right past this issue without comment. CNJECulver ( talk) 16:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
the OED definition I included in my comment of "14:01, 29 December 2009" says that "X" was used as an abbreviation for "Christ" in earlier English.
I've replaced the [citation needed] tag for the Lewis Carroll reference in the "Usage in English" subsection with the same M-W article footnote used for Oliver Wendell Holmes, as the M-W article contains the citation.
The citation comes from a letter Dodgson (Carroll) wrote in 1864. That letter is reproduced in at least the Broadview Press edition of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (Richard Kelley, ed.), p. 250.
http://www.broadviewpress.com/product.php?productid=208&cat=0&page=1
The relevant page can be viewed at Google Books:
I'd add the reference myself. Unfortunately, I haven't figured out how to do references in Wikipedia yet. Anyone want to add it? CNJECulver ( talk) 17:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
[1] What really is asking to be cited? -- Moni3 ( talk) 13:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I was always told X-mas and X-ing came from X being a turned 'cross' and cross represents christ. Therefore you get 'cross'ing and 'christ'mas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.192.190 ( talk) 14:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Xmas is NOT disrespectful. "X" was commonly used in place of "Christ" during the Middle Ages and was in fact pronounced "Christ". "Christianity" was often spelled "Xianity" -- 23:07, 2 December 2010 173.70.107.147
AnonMoos ( talk) 07:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
One comes to this article, sees 'Usage of "X" for "Christ"' in the outline and would, presumably, expect to find a discussion of examples of the usage of X for Christ. What one gets instead is a two-paragraph discussion of controversy, before the section finally gets around to it alleged topic.
Either this section needs to be renamed, or the material on the controversy needs to be removed to its own section. It certainly doesn't belong here. CNJECulver ( talk) 00:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
This is a proposal for a major restructuring and rewrite of the Xmas article. The article suffers from numerous structure and focus problems.
Its basic problem is that it forgets what it's supposed to be talking about. This is supposed to be an article specifically discussing the term "Xmas", not the more general usage of X as an abbreviation for Christ. As such, any discussion of the latter should be brief, and extend only insofar as it serves the purpose of explaining the origins of "Xmas". As it is, the article expends a great deal more energy and space discussing the general subject of X-for-Christ than is necessary for what should be only background material.
In addition, the discussion on controversy begins with the final paragraph on "Usage in English", leapfrogs over the section title, and continues in "Usage of 'X' for "Christ", despite being related to neither subject. When the controversy discussion finally winds up, we find ourselves back in the middle of the history exposition which it interrupted.
As such, then, I propose the following restructure:
Introduction
Usage in English
for us as Christians, this is one of the most holy of the holidays, the birth of our savior Jesus Christ. And for people to take Christ out of Christmas. They're happy to say merry Xmas. Let's just take Jesus out. And really, I think, a war against the name of Jesus Christ.[13]
See Also
References
External Links
CNJECulver ( talk) 11:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
"There is a common misconception that the word Xmas is a secular attempt to remove the religious tradition from Christmas[3] by taking the "Christ" out of "Christmas"."
I propose taking this line out of the lede. There's no way one blanket statement can account for every use of "Xmas", not everyone in the English language, including those that use the phrase "Xmas", knows that X comes from the Greek work for Christ. CRRays Head90 | Get Some! 03:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the parenthetical comment " (This last usage is most probably as a space saving abbreviation.)" from the In popular culture Monopoly reference. Unless someone can find a statement from Parker Brothers that this is the case, this seems to be pure authorial conjecture. 220.143.198.161 ( talk) 01:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
See here the use of the variant "Xtmas" in a 1913 letter (authorial ephemera added to the book scanning, very good idea) by John Batchelor, a Christian missionary. (One who obviously lived for decades in Hokkaido trying to convert locals by translating the Bible to Ainu and going broke in the process only as a cover-up for his devious plan for the secularization Christmas, culminating in this letter!) Tuvalkin ( talk) 17:58, 6 December 2022 (UTC)