How much wood of the True Cross was there?

[Guide To The Bible]

True, it is unique in that respect. Its dating however is debatable.

It was preserved, but it was not the cause celebre it is today. For the first 150 odd years from the mid 14th century where it is unambigiously mentioned, it is held by unimportant persons and places. By the time Turin gets it, it is basically in storage or in a side chapel. My point is that no one thought it particularly important or miraculous until recently.


In my defence, someone else brought it up.


STURP found no pigments, McCrone found substances consistent with mediaeval pigments on the Shroud. Its very debatable who to give more weight.

I confess, I am not overly familiar with the Tilma or Holy Face. Any books or studies you would recommend or cite on them?

This last comment is exactly why I you need to watch the film I posted. Your knowledge on the shroud is lacking, the scientific tests show that is dated to the time of Jesus. Your information is old data that has been proven to be incorrect.

As for the cross, even if we had any part if it and is dated to Jesus' time it still would not be known if it was the true cross.

Whereas the shroud has been prooven that the image was created by a burst of plasma energy. This has been scientifically replicated and is demonstrated in the documentary.

 

[FireDragon76]

According to Church tradition, it took a miracle for St. Helena to find the True Cross.

One thing Calvin did not consider, that it might be possible to miraculously multiply the fragments of the Cross. If that were the case, then debating the quantity of fragments is somewhat irrelevant.

If there are any authentic fragments of the True Cross, they are going to be more likely found in the hands of eastern Christians. More relics found among them have been shown to be dated to the 1st century.

 

[buzuxi02]

The basis which Helena and the early church claimed the wood was the cross of Christ was miraculous healing of sick people touching it. The tradition also says the area the wood was found had basil growing.
Anyhow we know from St Cyril of Jerusalem lecture 13 that by his time in 350 ad slivers of it had gone out everywhere. The church in Jerusalem held the largest piece in a silver reliquary another large piece was sent to Constantinople. The Sassanid empire stole the true cross as a victory trophy in 614 ad. Things get sketchy after that. The empire recaptured Jerusalem and recaptured the remnant of the true cross. Some historians say it was never found after the Sassanid's and a fake piece of wood was substituted for political reason to save face. I think by the 11th century no one mentions it again. I don't think the large pieces dispersed are that large. Crosses were made of 2 pieces, the upright stake and the crossbeam. The upright stake was huge over 12 feet tall probably weighed 400 pounds, etc. Crossbeam probably half of the above. So depending how many slivers and if we are talking about upright portion of the cross or the crossbeam makes a big difference.

 

[Edskii]

The Cross of Jesus, the very instrument upon which our Salvation was achieved. If there ever was a relic of importance, this would it.

Now there are many places claiming pieces of the True Cross: Notre Dame in Paris, Santa Croce in Rome, Pisa Cathedral, Shaftesbury Abbey in Mediaeval England etc.

This led to much scorn and derision from the Reformers, for instance:
"There is no abbey so poor as not to have a specimen. In some places there are large fragments, as at the Holy Chapel in Paris, at Poitiers, and at Rome, where a good-sized crucifix is said to have been made of it. In brief, if all the pieces that could be found were collected together, they would make a big ship-load. Yet the Gospel testifies that a single man was able to carry it." - Calvin.

So how much is there? It is true it is mostly little slivers, but there are also large pieces. Ethiopia claims to hold a whole wing; Mount Athos and Rome also have large fragments.
Robert de Clari wrote on taking Constantinople that they found pieces of the True Cross "as thick as a man's leg and a fathom accross".

Rohault de Fleury, a 19th century French Architect, tracked down fragments and tried to see how much remained and came to a figure of about 75kg for the cross. He estimated that about a third of a 3-4m cross remained.
This is often claimed to show that the Reformers' claim was wrong.

A few problems:

1. Rohault de Fleury assumed the Cross to be of Pinewood. The four surviving fragments that have been scientifically examined turns out to be Olive. Church tradition however says it was supposed to be made of Cedar, Pine and Cypress based on a passage in Isaiah.
Therefore either many fragments are fake, including most of the best verified ones with Sack of Constantinople pedigrees, or Church tradition is in error.

2. Rohault de Fleury ommited many fragments such as the mentioned Ethiopian one and almost all the fragments dispersed into Northern Europe were destroyed during the Reformation and later bouts of anti-clericalism. He thus severely underestimated the amounts, especcially taking into account destroyed fragments that can be historically verified. We know that Saladin captured a significant piece that has now gone missing, as an example.

3. Rohault de Fleury's book is a 19th century one, so his methods and calculations are somewhat opaque, so it is difficult to verify it as accurate.

4. Few if any have much traceable provenance and often just 'suddenly appear' in an abbey, with no record from where. The most trustworthy ones can be traced to Constantinople, but even here it is very dubious. One could counter that in wars etc. the records were lost, but often why just the records relating to the Cross?

5. The Roman authorities are unlikely to merely discard such a significant piece of timber in such a wood-poor region.

6. There was a thriving trade in relics in the middle ages, often with Charlatans preying on the pious. The Reformers chief claim was the overall 'fakeness' of the relics, which seem somewhat justifiable.

So most fragments are highly dubious and the reformers' criticism carry some weight - especcially if we consider a bit of hyperbole was common.

The work of salvation and atonement was the work of Jesus the Christ no matter how He died, no matter where He died. Jesus paid the price of our salvation and not some parts of a dead tree 2,000 years ago. Relic worshipers worship old inert relics but say so little, if anything, about the One who died for their sins. Please turn your face back to Jesus because He alone is worthy of our worship and not a few pieces of dead and decayed wood.

 

[Jonathan Mathews]

The Cross of Jesus, the very instrument upon which our Salvation was achieved. If there ever was a relic of importance, this would it.

Now there are many places claiming pieces of the True Cross: Notre Dame in Paris, Santa Croce in Rome, Pisa Cathedral, Shaftesbury Abbey in Mediaeval England etc.

This led to much scorn and derision from the Reformers, for instance:
"There is no abbey so poor as not to have a specimen. In some places there are large fragments, as at the Holy Chapel in Paris, at Poitiers, and at Rome, where a good-sized crucifix is said to have been made of it. In brief, if all the pieces that could be found were collected together, they would make a big ship-load. Yet the Gospel testifies that a single man was able to carry it." - Calvin.

So how much is there? It is true it is mostly little slivers, but there are also large pieces. Ethiopia claims to hold a whole wing; Mount Athos and Rome also have large fragments.
Robert de Clari wrote on taking Constantinople that they found pieces of the True Cross "as thick as a man's leg and a fathom accross".

Rohault de Fleury, a 19th century French Architect, tracked down fragments and tried to see how much remained and came to a figure of about 75kg for the cross. He estimated that about a third of a 3-4m cross remained.
This is often claimed to show that the Reformers' claim was wrong.

A few problems:

1. Rohault de Fleury assumed the Cross to be of Pinewood. The four surviving fragments that have been scientifically examined turns out to be Olive. Church tradition however says it was supposed to be made of Cedar, Pine and Cypress based on a passage in Isaiah.
Therefore either many fragments are fake, including most of the best verified ones with Sack of Constantinople pedigrees, or Church tradition is in error.

2. Rohault de Fleury ommited many fragments such as the mentioned Ethiopian one and almost all the fragments dispersed into Northern Europe were destroyed during the Reformation and later bouts of anti-clericalism. He thus severely underestimated the amounts, especcially taking into account destroyed fragments that can be historically verified. We know that Saladin captured a significant piece that has now gone missing, as an example.

3. Rohault de Fleury's book is a 19th century one, so his methods and calculations are somewhat opaque, so it is difficult to verify it as accurate.

4. Few if any have much traceable provenance and often just 'suddenly appear' in an abbey, with no record from where. The most trustworthy ones can be traced to Constantinople, but even here it is very dubious. One could counter that in wars etc. the records were lost, but often why just the records relating to the Cross?

5. The Roman authorities are unlikely to merely discard such a significant piece of timber in such a wood-poor region.

6. There was a thriving trade in relics in the middle ages, often with Charlatans preying on the pious. The Reformers chief claim was the overall 'fakeness' of the relics, which seem somewhat justifiable.

So most fragments are highly dubious and the reformers' criticism carry some weight - especcially if we consider a bit of hyperbole was common.

Just some food for thought....

Jesus was so ripped apart, he was hardly recognizable as human (Isaiah 52:14)

With all that bloodshed, do you think at least a few of the Roman soldiers performing the crucifixion got Jesus' blood splattered on them?

Do you think every Roman soldier who came in contact with Jesus' blood instantly was Born Again? Remember, Jesus said, "You must be born again.". He did not say, "You must touch my blood". Instead He said, "Unless you EAT of my flesh and DRINK of my blood, you have no part in Me."

So then, is it really reasonable to expect any real Virtue of God to be imparted into us by touching the wood Jesus was crucified on?

I personally would want to hold it, but that's because I'm already Born of God. In fact, usually when I take communion, I feel as if Jesus' bloody feet are in my hands, and I cry over it.

But if someone is not willing to Receive Jesus into their own heart, soul, life, etc....what good would touching His blood be to them?

As it is written,

"Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If any man hear My Voice and opens the door, I will come into him and have dinner with them, and they will dine with Me."

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

The Cross of Jesus, the very instrument upon which our Salvation was achieved. If there ever was a relic of importance, this would it.

It was the instrument of death. I would think the Shroud would be even more important...it shows the truth of the Resurrection! Again, just as the true cross, the shroud was also a relic held by the Eastern Orthodox Church before Rome stole it from sacking Constantinople.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

True, it is unique in that respect. Its dating however is debatable.

The Shroud was an Eastern relic before it was stolen by Rome during the Crusades. It was known from the 1st Century in the East. It is like everyone understands that Mary Magdaline was not a prostitute now that Rome recently changed its teaching on her, yet she was NEVER thought of as a prostitute in the East.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

The Cross of Jesus, the very instrument upon which our Salvation was achieved. If there ever was a relic of importance, this would it.

Now there are many places claiming pieces of the True Cross: Notre Dame in Paris, Santa Croce in Rome, Pisa Cathedral, Shaftesbury Abbey in Mediaeval England etc.

This led to much scorn and derision from the Reformers, for instance:
"There is no abbey so poor as not to have a specimen. In some places there are large fragments, as at the Holy Chapel in Paris, at Poitiers, and at Rome, where a good-sized crucifix is said to have been made of it. In brief, if all the pieces that could be found were collected together, they would make a big ship-load. Yet the Gospel testifies that a single man was able to carry it." - Calvin.

So how much is there? It is true it is mostly little slivers, but there are also large pieces. Ethiopia claims to hold a whole wing; Mount Athos and Rome also have large fragments.
Robert de Clari wrote on taking Constantinople that they found pieces of the True Cross "as thick as a man's leg and a fathom accross".

Rohault de Fleury, a 19th century French Architect, tracked down fragments and tried to see how much remained and came to a figure of about 75kg for the cross. He estimated that about a third of a 3-4m cross remained.
This is often claimed to show that the Reformers' claim was wrong.

A few problems:

1. Rohault de Fleury assumed the Cross to be of Pinewood. The four surviving fragments that have been scientifically examined turns out to be Olive. Church tradition however says it was supposed to be made of Cedar, Pine and Cypress based on a passage in Isaiah.
Therefore either many fragments are fake, including most of the best verified ones with Sack of Constantinople pedigrees, or Church tradition is in error.

2. Rohault de Fleury ommited many fragments such as the mentioned Ethiopian one and almost all the fragments dispersed into Northern Europe were destroyed during the Reformation and later bouts of anti-clericalism. He thus severely underestimated the amounts, especcially taking into account destroyed fragments that can be historically verified. We know that Saladin captured a significant piece that has now gone missing, as an example.

3. Rohault de Fleury's book is a 19th century one, so his methods and calculations are somewhat opaque, so it is difficult to verify it as accurate.

4. Few if any have much traceable provenance and often just 'suddenly appear' in an abbey, with no record from where. The most trustworthy ones can be traced to Constantinople, but even here it is very dubious. One could counter that in wars etc. the records were lost, but often why just the records relating to the Cross?

5. The Roman authorities are unlikely to merely discard such a significant piece of timber in such a wood-poor region.

6. There was a thriving trade in relics in the middle ages, often with Charlatans preying on the pious. The Reformers chief claim was the overall 'fakeness' of the relics, which seem somewhat justifiable.

So most fragments are highly dubious and the reformers' criticism carry some weight - especcially if we consider a bit of hyperbole was common.

It is not the wood that holds any importance but the one who hung on the cross. JESUS

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

I am well aware of the various investigations done on the Shroud of Turin. It has very much not been proven scientifically, it is a very partisan debate between adherents and opponents.

The big thing is that even if it is really the burial shroud of Jesus, historically it was an unimportant relic. It only really came into prominence in modern times, for much of its history it was basically in storage.

Maybe in the West since they have only been in possession of it recently (they stole it during the crusades). In the east it was a different story all together! All Eastern Orthodox Churches have a replica of it that they bring out on Holy Friday and put on the Altar. This was likely done with the real shroud in Constantinople before t was stolen by Rome.

http://3saints.com/uploads/3/4/0/9/34095775/6356506_orig.jpg

 

[GirdYourLoins]

In the last two millennium I am fairly sure there will have been many many fake fragments of the cross sold by people out to make a quick buck. My dad was an antiques dealer and I remember him at one time having what was claimed to be a piece of the cross. I dont believe for a minute it was genuine but if it was I have held a piece of the cross that Jesus died on.

The Shroud of Turin is far from proven to be real as well. But even if it, and pieces of the cross, are real we need to make sure we dont worship them as they are just things. Carbon dating cannot be used as an accurate means of judging the date either. there is too much uncertainty about it to be relied on. I remember reading a report in a news paper once to investigate it. They tooka piece of a tree or something like that which was known to be about 200 years old. They sent it to 3 labs to be carbon dated and they came back with results of 20,000, 2 million and 250 million years old at the three labs. The way carbon dating was formulated was that they took samples of carbon, then said they believe it is however old it was, mainly based on their theories of dinosaurs being millions of years old so the samples used were dated as 10's or 100's of millions of years old. They then said carbon in that state is that age. If their assumptions (guesses) were wrong in the first place then any dating based on those assumptions must also be wrong.

 

[JacksBratt]

The Cross of Jesus, the very instrument upon which our Salvation was achieved. If there ever was a relic of importance, this would it.

Now there are many places claiming pieces of the True Cross: Notre Dame in Paris, Santa Croce in Rome, Pisa Cathedral, Shaftesbury Abbey in Mediaeval England etc.

This led to much scorn and derision from the Reformers, for instance:
"There is no abbey so poor as not to have a specimen. In some places there are large fragments, as at the Holy Chapel in Paris, at Poitiers, and at Rome, where a good-sized crucifix is said to have been made of it. In brief, if all the pieces that could be found were collected together, they would make a big ship-load. Yet the Gospel testifies that a single man was able to carry it." - Calvin.

So how much is there? It is true it is mostly little slivers, but there are also large pieces. Ethiopia claims to hold a whole wing; Mount Athos and Rome also have large fragments.
Robert de Clari wrote on taking Constantinople that they found pieces of the True Cross "as thick as a man's leg and a fathom accross".

Rohault de Fleury, a 19th century French Architect, tracked down fragments and tried to see how much remained and came to a figure of about 75kg for the cross. He estimated that about a third of a 3-4m cross remained.
This is often claimed to show that the Reformers' claim was wrong.

A few problems:

1. Rohault de Fleury assumed the Cross to be of Pinewood. The four surviving fragments that have been scientifically examined turns out to be Olive. Church tradition however says it was supposed to be made of Cedar, Pine and Cypress based on a passage in Isaiah.
Therefore either many fragments are fake, including most of the best verified ones with Sack of Constantinople pedigrees, or Church tradition is in error.

2. Rohault de Fleury ommited many fragments such as the mentioned Ethiopian one and almost all the fragments dispersed into Northern Europe were destroyed during the Reformation and later bouts of anti-clericalism. He thus severely underestimated the amounts, especcially taking into account destroyed fragments that can be historically verified. We know that Saladin captured a significant piece that has now gone missing, as an example.

3. Rohault de Fleury's book is a 19th century one, so his methods and calculations are somewhat opaque, so it is difficult to verify it as accurate.

4. Few if any have much traceable provenance and often just 'suddenly appear' in an abbey, with no record from where. The most trustworthy ones can be traced to Constantinople, but even here it is very dubious. One could counter that in wars etc. the records were lost, but often why just the records relating to the Cross?

5. The Roman authorities are unlikely to merely discard such a significant piece of timber in such a wood-poor region.

6. There was a thriving trade in relics in the middle ages, often with Charlatans preying on the pious. The Reformers chief claim was the overall 'fakeness' of the relics, which seem somewhat justifiable.

So most fragments are highly dubious and the reformers' criticism carry some weight - especcially if we consider a bit of hyperbole was common.

I doubt that there is any of the true cross remaining. I am positive that God would of made sure of it. Cause....knowing humans, they would have made an idol out of it, fought wars over it, killed for it, hoarded it, prayed to it, and expected it to have healing powers.... the list goes on of what we stupid humans would have done with it....

People, it's not the piece of wood, it's not the nails, it's not the ground it stood in.... It was the God that died on it.... He came back... stop looking at these created things and look to the creator.

Yep, it's gone. However I'm sure there are many people out there that have "pieces of it". I was born at night, but,,,, not last night.

 

[Root of Jesse]

True, it is unique in that respect. Its dating however is debatable.

It was preserved, but it was not the cause celebre it is today. For the first 150 odd years from the mid 14th century where it is unambigiously mentioned, it is held by unimportant persons and places. By the time Turin gets it, it is basically in storage or in a side chapel. My point is that no one thought it particularly important or miraculous until recently.

Regarding the Shroud, and it's trace-ability, Eusebius mentioned a piece of cloth bearing Jesus' imprint. The citizenry of Edessa also knew about the cloth, that it came to their city during the reign of Abgar V who ruled the Kingdom of Osroene from AD 13-50. Next unearthed in 544 in the same city.
All I'm saying is that it was important at earlier times. It was kept in the Hagia Sophia for almost 400 years, until the Muslims conquered Edessa, when it was moved to Constantinople.

In my defence, someone else brought it up.

No defence needed, I love these images greatly.

STURP found no pigments, McCrone found substances consistent with mediaeval pigments on the Shroud. Its very debatable who to give more weight.

Because of the historical evidence above, McCrone's opinion is...opinion.

I confess, I am not overly familiar with the Tilma or Holy Face. Any books or studies you would recommend or cite on them?

An author, Paul Badde, has several books, two of which go into great detail about them. Another book called "Witnesses to Mystery" by Ignatius Press covers all the relics and their history.

 

[Root of Jesse]

There's nothing that states that Mary, John, and others took Him down. All four gospels tell us that Joseph came and asked Pilate for the body, and Pilate ordered it down. We are then told Joseph took the body, wrapped it, and laid it in a tomb, with no mention of a cross, crown of thorns, or nails. John even includes the detail that Nicodemus showed up to help with the hurried embalming.

We know these things from Sacred Tradition. You don't have such writings. Regarding the other, I didn't intend to say that Mary and John took Jesus physically from the cross, but when he was taken, he was certainly given to His mother.

I'm thinking if they were fanatic about such things, there would have been at least a slight mention of retaining any of it within the eyewitness accounts of the gospels. These were people who were almost immediately hold up in secret for fear of their own arrest, not wandering around securing trinkets.

No. The gospels were about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Remember that John says that not everything about the life of Jesus is recorded in the gospels. But what happened is they remembered the places these events happened and passed that knowledge on.

 

[Root of Jesse]

In the last two millennium I am fairly sure there will have been many many fake fragments of the cross sold by people out to make a quick buck. My dad was an antiques dealer and I remember him at one time having what was claimed to be a piece of the cross. I dont believe for a minute it was genuine but if it was I have held a piece of the cross that Jesus died on.

You cannot sell holy items. If someone tries to sell you something 'blessed by the pope', run. It's fake. I went on a tour in Rome which stopped at a gift shop, and they made that claim. Ignorant people bought loads from the place. Relics are given, not sold.

The Shroud of Turin is far from proven to be real as well. But even if it, and pieces of the cross, are real we need to make sure we dont worship them as they are just things. Carbon dating cannot be used as an accurate means of judging the date either. there is too much uncertainty about it to be relied on. I remember reading a report in a news paper once to investigate it. They tooka piece of a tree or something like that which was known to be about 200 years old. They sent it to 3 labs to be carbon dated and they came back with results of 20,000, 2 million and 250 million years old at the three labs. The way carbon dating was formulated was that they took samples of carbon, then said they believe it is however old it was, mainly based on their theories of dinosaurs being millions of years old so the samples used were dated as 10's or 100's of millions of years old. They then said carbon in that state is that age. If their assumptions (guesses) were wrong in the first place then any dating based on those assumptions must also be wrong.

I don't know who said it, but for those who believe, no evidence is necessary. For those who don't, no evidence is sufficient.

You're right, we shouldn't be worshiping them, we can venerate them, and that's what we do.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I doubt that there is any of the true cross remaining. I am positive that God would of made sure of it. Cause....knowing humans, they would have made an idol out of it, fought wars over it, killed for it, hoarded it, prayed to it, and expected it to have healing powers.... the list goes on of what we stupid humans would have done with it....

I don't believe anyone has fought over the cross, nails, or anything else. Revered it and held it high esteem, yes.

People, it's not the piece of wood, it's not the nails, it's not the ground it stood in.... It was the God that died on it.... He came back... stop looking at these created things and look to the creator.

All these things remind us of our Creator and the sacrifice His Son made for us.

Yep, it's gone. However I'm sure there are many people out there that have "pieces of it". I was born at night, but,,,, not last night.

I would doubt that any individual has a piece of the Cross. I believe that pieces of the Cross are held in Churches throughout the world.

 

[Aldebaran]

Now there are many places claiming pieces of the True Cross: Notre Dame in Paris, Santa Croce in Rome, Pisa Cathedral, Shaftesbury Abbey in Mediaeval England etc.

I've heard that if all the pieces of wood that people claim were from the cross were put together, you'd have enough to build a battleship. IOW, most of the claimed relics are probably not even real. Maybe none of them.

 

[SeventyOne]

We know these things from Sacred Tradition. You don't have such writings. Regarding the other, I didn't intend to say that Mary and John took Jesus physically from the cross, but when he was taken, he was certainly given to His mother.

Well, no. John explicitly tells us that Joseph and Nicodemus laid Jesus in His tomb. While the other three gospels only mention Joseph, they say he was the one who laid the body there and then rolled the stone over the tomb. Mark tells us the two Mary's came after the stone was in place and saw where He was laid. Mary did not receive the body at His death. If another writing says something else, it is incorrect.

No. The gospels were about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Remember that John says that not everything about the life of Jesus is recorded in the gospels. But what happened is they remembered the places these events happened and passed that knowledge on.

That's the famous catch-all scripture, isn't it? I could make the claim Jesus usually traveled around in an Apollo rocket and loved to eat chicken nuggets from McDonalds. As long as I say, "John says that not everything about the life of Jesus is recorded in the gospels", then that makes it ok.

 

[SolomonVII]

What kind of wood was the cross made of?

 

[stephen583]

Many of the genuine relics from the Holy Land weren't actually obtained during the Middle Ages. When the Roman Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity, his mother (whose name escapes me at the moment), made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem and is said (according to records) to have collected hundreds of artifacts associated with Christ and the Apostles.

If anything is to be said about the ancient Romans, they were among other things fastidious record keepers and historians.. This puts the initial collection of holy relics having occurred around 200 AD, not during the Middle Ages. Google it !

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

What kind of wood was the cross made of?

Church tradition says Pine, Cypress and Cedar based on Isaiah 60:13.

The 4 fragments of "True Cross" that have been scientifically investigated, with the best historical record back to the Sack of Constantinople, have turned out to be Olive.