During the 16th-century Reformation, Protestants, who were against relics and icons, often said there were enough pieces of the "true cross" to build Rome, or as Erasmus famously remarked "...if all the fragments (of the true cross) were collected together, they would appear to form a fair cargo for a merchant ship!" No question, many churches around Europe and the Near-East from the Middle Ages onwards have claimed to have pieces of the "true cross", meaning the cross upon which Jesus was crucified. (Why this is regarded as the "true cross" as opposed to the many other crosses used by the Romans to execute criminals is a question which is not addressed, but we'll leave that for a later discussion.)
This installment of CNN's "Finding Jesus" tells the legend of how Christian traditions developed in which it was believed fragments of the true cross came to reside in churches in Europe, often places of pilgrimage for the faithful. Saint Helena, mother of the Emperor Constantine, converted to Christianity in the 4th century, and went on a pilgrimage to Palestine to find relics connected to early Christianity. By this time, Christianity was about 300 years old. In Jerusalem, the city of Jesus' final ministry and death (and by tradition, the place of his resurrection), Helena was told by a local that Jesus' cross was there and he knew where it was located. After she had him tortured to reveal his knowledge, he brought her to the location. Apparently, Helena then dug up three crosses and supposedly identified them as the ones used during the execution of Jesus and two other criminals. She supposedly identified the one belonging to Jesus. She broke the cross into pieces and gave the fragments to different people to be taken to different parts of the Near-East. These fragments then became holy relics in different churches in which they were incorporated into artistic treasures to be venerated.
Now while the story itself is fine as relating Christian tradition, there are many problems with the story at face value. Firstly, the traditional tale and the CNN documentary fail to note an important aspect of crucifixion, which may have not been known to Helena during her time since crucifixion had been outlawed by Constantine. Many aspects of how the Romans carried out crucifixion is not reflected accurately in most depictions of Jesus' Passion in art, medieval and/or otherwise.
Despite Christian visual tradition, such as the images found in the "Stations of the Cross", convicts to be crucified did not actually carry entire crosses, complete with upright and crossbeam. These would have been far too heavy for any individual to bear, despite the phrase "cross to bear". The uprights were already in place at the location of execution, usually near the entrance to the city as a warning. Convicts carried the crossbeams only. When they came to the place of execution, they were affixed to the crossbeam and hoisted onto the uprights as a kind of horrific advertisement to deter any future criminals and/or rabble-rousers. Films showing the entire cross being hoisted up with Jesus upon it is now known not to be accurate. And, there were certainly more than three uprights present when Jesus was executed. In point of fact, many uprights would have been at Golgotha, not just three, even though only three many have been used when Jesus was crucified along with two other convicts. Probably the most accurate depiction of Jesus' execution is in the television miniseries "Jesus of Nazareth" which shows Jesus carrying the crossbeam through Jerusalem before being hoisted upon the uprights. Still a ghastly and horrific way to die.
Historically, it makes no sense that Helena would have found "three crosses" in Jerusalem in the 4th century which would have been crucifixion crosses. For one thing, crossbeams were reused for future crucifixions, and again, many uprights would have been present, even if none or few were actually being used at a particular time. The likelihood she found even the actual upright used for Jesus execution would be less than finding the dollar coin supposedly thrown by George Washington across the Potomac! While she may have found a long piece of wood, equivalent to a 4x4, attached to a crossbeam, it is highly unlikely if not impossible that this could be the "true cross" for the reasons just mentioned. Just like today, uprights and crossbeams were used for many structures in antiquity, not just crucifixion. My guess is she found some wooden crosses of some sort, and since they fit in with the gospel account that Jesus was executed along with two other criminals, she convinced herself this was the cross of Jesus. To commemorate the spot where she found the crosses, she commissioned a church to be built, the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. This is probably true.
During the episode, interspersed between Helena's story is the recent carbon-dating of some wood attached to a relic believed by tradition to be a fragment of the true cross residing at a European Church. The Pope at the time donated the fragment to the church circa 1200, and a special ornate cross was forged with wood of the true cross visible. The understanding of all parties involved was that the wood had been part of the "true cross" of Jesus. Unfortunately, for traditionalists, carbon-dating revealed the date of the wood to be circa 1100-1250, not old enough to be from Antiquity. The Pope had simply donated a piece of wood which had begun its decay around the same time, claiming it was part of the true cross. So far, no artifact which has traditional claims to be directly linked to Jesus has ever been proved to be true. The Shroud has not, and more recently, the supposed ossuary of James, brother of Jesus, has not. Faith and religious imagination are one thing, but using religious mythology as a way to make historical claims usually doesn't work.
This installment of CNN's "Finding Jesus" tells the legend of how Christian traditions developed in which it was believed fragments of the true cross came to reside in churches in Europe, often places of pilgrimage for the faithful. Saint Helena, mother of the Emperor Constantine, converted to Christianity in the 4th century, and went on a pilgrimage to Palestine to find relics connected to early Christianity. By this time, Christianity was about 300 years old. In Jerusalem, the city of Jesus' final ministry and death (and by tradition, the place of his resurrection), Helena was told by a local that Jesus' cross was there and he knew where it was located. After she had him tortured to reveal his knowledge, he brought her to the location. Apparently, Helena then dug up three crosses and supposedly identified them as the ones used during the execution of Jesus and two other criminals. She supposedly identified the one belonging to Jesus. She broke the cross into pieces and gave the fragments to different people to be taken to different parts of the Near-East. These fragments then became holy relics in different churches in which they were incorporated into artistic treasures to be venerated.
Now while the story itself is fine as relating Christian tradition, there are many problems with the story at face value. Firstly, the traditional tale and the CNN documentary fail to note an important aspect of crucifixion, which may have not been known to Helena during her time since crucifixion had been outlawed by Constantine. Many aspects of how the Romans carried out crucifixion is not reflected accurately in most depictions of Jesus' Passion in art, medieval and/or otherwise.
Despite Christian visual tradition, such as the images found in the "Stations of the Cross", convicts to be crucified did not actually carry entire crosses, complete with upright and crossbeam. These would have been far too heavy for any individual to bear, despite the phrase "cross to bear". The uprights were already in place at the location of execution, usually near the entrance to the city as a warning. Convicts carried the crossbeams only. When they came to the place of execution, they were affixed to the crossbeam and hoisted onto the uprights as a kind of horrific advertisement to deter any future criminals and/or rabble-rousers. Films showing the entire cross being hoisted up with Jesus upon it is now known not to be accurate. And, there were certainly more than three uprights present when Jesus was executed. In point of fact, many uprights would have been at Golgotha, not just three, even though only three many have been used when Jesus was crucified along with two other convicts. Probably the most accurate depiction of Jesus' execution is in the television miniseries "Jesus of Nazareth" which shows Jesus carrying the crossbeam through Jerusalem before being hoisted upon the uprights. Still a ghastly and horrific way to die.
Historically, it makes no sense that Helena would have found "three crosses" in Jerusalem in the 4th century which would have been crucifixion crosses. For one thing, crossbeams were reused for future crucifixions, and again, many uprights would have been present, even if none or few were actually being used at a particular time. The likelihood she found even the actual upright used for Jesus execution would be less than finding the dollar coin supposedly thrown by George Washington across the Potomac! While she may have found a long piece of wood, equivalent to a 4x4, attached to a crossbeam, it is highly unlikely if not impossible that this could be the "true cross" for the reasons just mentioned. Just like today, uprights and crossbeams were used for many structures in antiquity, not just crucifixion. My guess is she found some wooden crosses of some sort, and since they fit in with the gospel account that Jesus was executed along with two other criminals, she convinced herself this was the cross of Jesus. To commemorate the spot where she found the crosses, she commissioned a church to be built, the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. This is probably true.
During the episode, interspersed between Helena's story is the recent carbon-dating of some wood attached to a relic believed by tradition to be a fragment of the true cross residing at a European Church. The Pope at the time donated the fragment to the church circa 1200, and a special ornate cross was forged with wood of the true cross visible. The understanding of all parties involved was that the wood had been part of the "true cross" of Jesus. Unfortunately, for traditionalists, carbon-dating revealed the date of the wood to be circa 1100-1250, not old enough to be from Antiquity. The Pope had simply donated a piece of wood which had begun its decay around the same time, claiming it was part of the true cross. So far, no artifact which has traditional claims to be directly linked to Jesus has ever been proved to be true. The Shroud has not, and more recently, the supposed ossuary of James, brother of Jesus, has not. Faith and religious imagination are one thing, but using religious mythology as a way to make historical claims usually doesn't work.