Talk:True Cross

Contents

1 Multiplied fragments 2 Travelling? 3 The passive of non-attribution and specific sources 4 Samuel J. Howard's upcoming rewrite 5 Dream of the Rood 6 Jan Willem Drijvers, U. of Groningen, "Helena Augusta"

Multiplied fragments

"From Constantinople, the True Cross was broken up, and the pieces miraculously multiplied": Sorry to ask this stupid question, but: is this irony by the contributor of the sentence, irony of contempories of the 'multiplication', or did people then actually believe that? Simon A. 11:19, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The problem seems to have been acknowledged by St Cyril, whose words seem to bespeak an awareness that demand for pieces of the True Cross exceeded supply, and that the pieces of the Cross had multiplied so much so that they filled the world. St Cyril may well have found the multiplication of the True Cross a genuine miracle; Erasmus, by contrast, treated it as a joke. Smerdis of Tlön 13:48, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

See: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04529a.htm

"We will not give in detail the history of other relics of the Cross (see the works of Gretser and the articles of Kraus and Bäumer quoted in the bibliography). The work of Rohault de Fleury, "Mémoire sur les instruments de la Passion" (Paris, 1870), deserves more prolonged attention; its author has sought out with great care and learning all the relics of the True Cross, drawn up a catalogue of them, and, thanks to this labour, he has succeeded in showing that, in spite of what various Protestant or Rationalistic authors have pretended, the fragments of the Cross brought together again would not only not "be comparable in bulk to a battleship", but would not reach one-third that of a cross which has been supposed to have been three or four metres in height, with transverse branch of two metres (see above; under I), proportions not at all abnormal (op. cit., 97-179). Here is the the calculation of this savant: Supposing the Cross to have been of pine-wood, as is believed by the savants who have made a special study of the subject, and giving it a weight of about seventy-five kilograms, we find that the volume of this cross was 178,000,000 cubic millimetres. Now the total known volume of the True Cross, according to the finding of M. Rohault de Fleury, amounts to above 4,000 000 cubic millimetres, allowing the missing part to be as big as we will, the lost parts or the parts the existence of which has been overlooked, we still find ourselves far short of 178,000,000 cubic millimetres, which should make up the True Cross."

So the bit about relics being multiplied needs to be put down as alleged, pending better evidence.--Samuel J. Howard 02:51, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

I quite agree. If what St. Cyril said was that fragments of the Cross filled the world, that does not at all have to be interpreted as the "demand exceeding the supply." It's not that unusual for relics to be very small; it wouldn't be that hard to break a wooden cross into slivers. Wesley 03:18, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Pending better evidence" indeed, for the alleging is done by Cyril. Perhaps Wesley, who has Cyril's text at hand, would simply enter Cyril's remark verbatim into the subsection "Dispersal of relics of the True Cross" in lieu of the original phrasing "From Constantinople, the True Cross was broken up, and the pieces miraculously multiplied" which so offended the Jesuits. If Cyril says the whole world has since been filled with pieces of the wood of the Cross, please enter it, and a brief explication of his remark, and that will fix that. Because there are no genuine doubts that pieces of the True Cross did multiply by the time of Cyril, who remarked upon it. Are there? Wetman 07:32, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Travelling?

may have been sold by travelling merchants in the Middle Ages.

Really? I thought that pilgrims brought them from the Holy Land. I suppose they bought them from established merchants. -- Error 00:42, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The passive of non-attribution and specific sources

"Helena is known to have brought fragments back to Constantinople for veneration in approximately 327." Whenever you read the phrase "is known to" it's wise always to doubt what follows. More accurate details of the career of the True Cross are in the entry now, but it still needs direct quotes from 4th century sources. Wetman 18:06, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What does this sentence mean: "In Constantinople the three Holy Nails from the Cross were incorporated in the Emperor's statue (see daemon for the Romano-Christian spirit that inhabits a statue]] and in the emperor's helmet and the bridle of his horse" ? Which Emperor's statue? Constantine's? or all emperors'? And "incorporated" in what way? Deposited internally? Affixed externally? Symbolically? Actually? If they were "in" the statue how could they also be "in" the helmet and bridle...--Gene_poole 23:38, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

We're only talking about one Emperor and his mother here. I've just started a stub for Nail (relic). This might go there. Or flush it. Wetman 02:07, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

For the story of the discovery of the True Cross given in the second paragraph, whose view is that? The third paragraph mentions the traditional Christian view, identifying it as such, so it would be good to identify the holders of the other view. This would be in accordance with non-POV guidelines.One-dimensional Tangent 04:38, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I second One-dimensional Tangent's query on the story of the discovery. The story given, which reads more as a piece of anti-Christian propaganda than anything else, is unsubstantiated by a reference to any history, ancient or modern; is labeled as apocryphal; and is contrasted with the traditional Christian view, which is itself well-supported by current archeology. The external link to the "skeptical Protestant view," evidently the source for this tale, has a strong anti-Catholic bias, which is fine but perhaps not the best source for an NPOV article. Perhaps we should change the second paragraph to reflect the "traditional Christian" view with its ancient sources and substantiating archeology and only include the current disputed material if someone can provide an earlier, perhaps less polemical, source. See Wetman's comment above about quotes from 4th century sources. JHCC 14:34, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Now are the sources sufficiently identified? I should find and give the actual quote about the torture of the Jews: presented without comment, it would make a good cross-reference to Persecution of the Jews don't you agree?. The "archaeology" that JHCC refers to as supportive in some way of the legend might be linked to or actually mentioned. Especially since the architectural history of the Basilica might otherwise seem to make archaeology fatuous, all trace of the original basilica having been scrupulously cleared away. Yes? Wetman 19:48, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Actually, no. See [1] (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/case_tomb/clues.html) for an overview of the work of Oxford University archaeologists supporting the authenticity of the tomb.

Wetman cites Cyril of Jerusalem's Catecheses (iv, 10; x, 14; xiii, 4) as sources. Here are the actual passages, taken from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Volume VII [2] (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-07/TOC.htm).

Catechesis iv, 10: "He was truly crucified for our sins. For if thou wouldest deny it, the place refutes thee visibly, this blessed Golgotha, in which we are now assembled for the sake of Him who was here crucified; and the whole world has since been filled with pieces of the wood of the Cross. But He was crucified not for sins of His own, but that we might be delivered from our sins. And though as Man He was at that time despised of men, and was buffeted, yet He was acknowledged by the Creation as God: for when the sun saw his Lord dis-honoured, he grew dim and trembled, not enduring the sight."

Catechesis x, 14: "For that He is Jesus the Jews allow, but not further that He is Christ. Therefore saith the Apostle, Who is the liar, but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? But Christ is a High Priest, whose priesthood passes not to another, neither having begun His Priesthood in time, nor having any successor in His High-Priesthood: as thou heardest on the Lord's day, when we were discoursing in the congregation on the phrase, After the Order of Melchizedek. He received not the High-Priesthood from bodily succession, nor was He anointed with oil prepared by man, but before all ages by the Father; and He so far excels the others as with an oath He is made Priest: For they are priests without an oath, but He with an oath by Him that said, The Lord sware, and will not repent. The mere purpose of the Father was sufficient for surety: but the mode of assurance is twofold, namely that with the purpose there follows the oath also, that by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have strong encouragement for our faith, who receive Christ Jesus as the Son of God."

Catechesis xiii, 4: "Jesus then really suffered for all men; for the Cross was no illusion, otherwise our redemption is an illusion also. His death was not a mere show, for then is our salvation also fabulous. If His death was but a show, they were true who said, We remember that that deceiver said, while He was yet alive, After three days I rise again. His Passion then was real: for He was really crucified, and we are not ashamed thereat; He was crucified, and we deny it not, nay, I rather glory to speak of it. For though I should now deny it, here is Golgotha to confute me, near which we are now assembled; the wood of the Cross confutes me, which was afterwards distributed piecemeal from hence to all the world. I confess the Cross, because I know of the Resurrection; for if, after being crucified, He had remained as He was, I had not perchance confessed it, for I might have concealed both it and my Master; but now that the Resurrection has followed the Cross, I am not ashamed to declare it."

So I would say, no, the sources are not sufficiently identified. Also, Eusebius's Life of Constantine, which gives the story of the building of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Book III, chapters xxv-xl [3] (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/Npnf2-01-29.htm#P7646_3165242) does not give the story of the locating of the actual site.

Well, as I said in June, "More accurate details of the career of the True Cross are in the entry now, but it still needs direct quotes from 4th century sources." This remains true. Wetman 07:32, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Furthermore, the use of such characterizations as "sentimental", ' "invention" as Roman Catholics correctly say', and "improves on the invalid" lend an unfortunate cynical POV to the article. Additionally, the article attacks the traditional story as apocryphal and unsubstantiated by Eusebius (as well as the cynical characterization of Eusebius himself) even before that story has been related, which is perhaps putting the cart before the horse. I would suggest that we relate the traditional story, properly sourced, (with variants, if properly sourced) and then present (perhaps as a separate section) modern critical views of that story. JHCC 14:50, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just remove the three offending words, JHCC, and that's fixed that too. I'm curious to see what verb you'll substitute for "improve" in relating how this story moved from a woman recovering from illness to a body raised from the dead? The "improved" version was written later in time. If the tale is not "improved." what, then, is it? "Given increased depth" perhaps? Or a mere "variation:" that often suffices.Wetman 07:32, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for interpolating documents here, JHCC. They show that I was mistaken to think that the detailed story of the Invention of the Cross was in Cyril's catacheses in the first place. So it appears that, as of today, no one knows where the early and circumstantial account exists of the finding of the cross by Helena and Macarius. The section "Finding the True Cross" currently attributes the details to the wrong author. Perhaps someone would fix it. So, then: the full details are likely to be in either a vita of Helena or a vita of Macrobius. Or just in the old Golden Legend. Am I the only one looking? Wetman 07:32, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You're welcome! I've updated the "Finding" section to give the three main early versions (Eusebius for the finding of the Sepulchre, Socrates for the finding of the Cross, and Sozomen for the raising of the dead person and the first reference to the presence of a Jew) as well as various little edits here and there, just for consistency. Thank you, Wetman, for the link to the Drijvers site (which was also recommended to me by the Professor of Early Church History at Union Seminary and the Professor of Byzantine Christianity at Columbia University (actually the same person)); it was a great source for references. I have not included some of the later versions (e.g., Rufinus is essentially a Latin translation of Eusebius), but it's good to have the info there. If anyone has a source for the "torture" legend, it would be good to have that, perhaps for a "Later Versions" section.

I hope that it's clear that, in my edit, I have kept to the form "X says Y" for the sake of NPOV. I will add a note to the effect that some modern historians consider these ancient versions apocryphal in either substance or detail.

I have also taken the liberty of removing the {{totallydisputed}} flag, as I believe that my edits address Samuel J. Howard's concerns. JHCC 15:03, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

PS. The 'Etymology of "Invention"' edit was mine; I didn't realize I wasn't logged in. Sorry. JHCC 16:06, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

Samuel J. Howard's upcoming rewrite

Man, I don't know when this article got so crazy. I'm gonna work on a new NPOV sourced rewrite. Pending that, I'm putting a {{totallydisputed}} flag on it. New article also needs to distinguish between various POV "legends" and myths of and historical accounts.--Samuel J. Howard 03:04, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps Samuel J. Howard would list the "crazy" statements here, and we can work on those. What specifically is not a balanced statement of what was said, claimed or done? Let's not turn this into a Shroud of Turin please. Let it be noted that this Samuel J. Howard who has slapped disputed notices concerning both the neutrality and factual accuracy of this article, has himself contributed only a single edit to this article, back on 22 July, and has not made a single contribution to this Discussion page. Wetman 06:40, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Righto, always utilize the patently false in your arguments. It makes you so much more persuasive. Take a look again at the talk page and you'll see my signature. Much of the problem is that the article is now darn near incomprehensible.--Samuel J. Howard 20:07, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

I did indeed overlook a single one-line contribution to this Discussion made by Samuel J. Howard back on June 29. To that extent I was indeed patently false as the disingenuous Samuel J. Howard says. His eager and premature hope then was expressed, "So the bit about relics being multiplied needs to be put down as alleged, pending better evidence." Oops. Not so fast, eh. Wetman 07:32, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Wetman that it would be helpful if the person adding the {{tottallydisputed}} flag would specify the areas of dispute. I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the edit history of the Shroud of Turin article, so I'm not sure what you want to avoid in that respect, Wetman. Regarding a Persecution of Jews article, I believe that's covered at Antisemitism and related articles, including one on Christian antisemitism.

I also agree with JHCC's comments regarding the cynical POV in which much of the material is presented. An encyclopedia article should present the facts without excessive editorializing, which is what I see in the article now, as of this writing. Wesley

Also, it makes no sense to start the section on the "Finding of the Cross" by going on about how Eusebius says nothing about it. That part should go at the end of the section, if it needs to be included at all. Wesley 16:51, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dream of the Rood

Helena is not mentioned in Dream of the Rood. In the text of the poem, the dreamer is the poet, dreaming that the cross (rood) is speaking to him, telling him its story. The focus is on the crucifixion, not the finding, which is treated rather summarily:

One dug us into a deep pit. However, there the Lord's servants,

friends, found me by seeking;

they adorned me with gold and with silver.

I'm going to change this to a literary reference to the veneration of the cross, but it has no historical value as an alternate version of the finding of the cross. JHCC 18:54, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dream of the Rood is based on the understanding of this tale in Anglo-Saxon England, and it records that the Rood had been dug into a deep pit. This has historical value recording the story that was circulating— which is all that any of this amounts to. Stories expand, change, travel, and are even "improved". Wetman 07

32, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Jan Willem Drijvers, U. of Groningen, "Helena Augusta"

The reader of Wikipedia may be looking for a more balanced view that we are willing to offer. Prof. Drijvers' assessment is on the web at the well-respected [http://www.roman-emperors.org/helena.htm De Imperatoribus Romanum website, http://www.roman-emperors.org/helena.htm}. His last paragraph, in its entirety:

"Her greatest fame Helena acquired by an act for which she was probably not responsible, i.e. the finding of the True Cross. Her presence in Jerusalem and the description Eusebius presented of her stay in the Holy Land led ultimately to connecting Helena with the discovery of the Cross. Remains of the Cross were already venerated in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem at the end of the 340s as is clear from sermons of Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem (Cat. 4.10, 10.19, 13.4 PG 33, 467ff, 685-687, 777). After 7 May 351, Cyril wrote the Emperor Constantius II that the Cross was discovered during the reign of Constantine I; the bishop gives no indication who discovered the rel ic (Ep. ad Const., 3 PG 33, 1168B). The Emperor Julian believed in the discovery of the relic; he rebukes Christians for worshipping the object (Contra Gal. 194C). The legend of Helena's discovery of the Cross originated in Jerusal em in the second half of the fourth century and rapidly spread over the whole empire. Three versions of the legend came into existence in Late Antiquity: the Helena legend, the Protonike legend and the Judas Kyriakos legend. The Helena legend, which was known in Greek and Latin, is found in: Rufinus (Hist. Eccl., 10.7-8), Socrates (Hist. Eccl. 1.17 PG 67, 117ff), Sozomen (Hist., Eccl. 2.1-2) Theodoretus (Hist. Eccl.. 1.18), Ambrose (De obitu Theod., 40-49), Paulinus of Nola (Epist., 31.4-5), and Sulpicius Severus (Chron. 2.22-34). The Protonike legend was only known in Syriac (and later on in Armenian) and was part of the Edessene Doctrina Addai but also circulated independently in the Syriac-speaking regions. In this version of the legend Helena's role is taken over by the fictitious first-century empress Protonike. The Judas Kyriakos legend originated in Greek, but became also known in Latin and Syriac and later on in many vernacular languages. This version relates how Helena discovered the Cross with the help of the Jew Judas, who later converted and received the name Kyriakos. It became the most popular version of the three, probably because of its anti-Judaism."

I shll take this entry off my watchlist now. User:Wetman 08:20, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who worked on this, it's looking very nice now.--Samuel J. Howard 02:01, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

I apologize for being a bit overly strident. I came to this one, which was having serious NPOV issues right off of similar battles on Catholicism and probably didn't reset the "troll meter" properly.--02:03, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)