Talk:True Cross

message: :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)
replies: text: As the Canterbury Tales demonstrate, the sale of bogus relics was common enough, and known to be common enough, that Chaucer could satirize it.  In the prologue, we learn that the pardoner's stock included a pillowcase sworn to be Mary's veil, cloth from a sail used by Peter when he walked on the water, and a bottle filled with pigs' bones to be sold as relics.  Medieval entrepreneurs would have had little trouble "finding" slivers of the "true cross." — OtherDave 20:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Travelling?

message: 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)
thread_title: Dream of the Rood

message: It mentions that many fragments of the true cross are probably fakes, but it fails to mention that the alleged true cross itself may well be fake - a kind of important omission which should be corrected (and sourced). Titanium Dragon 10:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Amandajm (talk) 06:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fake 

message: The article says "It is possible that many of the extant pieces of the True Cross are forgeries, created by travelling merchants in the Middle Ages, during which period a thriving trade in manufactured relics existed."   I don't understand the logic of this sentence.  If they are forgeries, they aren't pieces of the True Cross, right?  So how can many of the extant pieces of the True Cross be forgeries?  Should it be: "many of the alleged extant pieces..."?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.150.167.238 (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Amandajm (talk) 06:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forgeries? 

message: I really can't understand the second comment here, which supports the first. The introduction was completely rewritten on Jan 20 2007, (four days before the comment) and since that date it has said clearly that the article relates the records, traditions and legends pertaining to the true cross. 
It also makes it clear that the fragments of the cross and the various records/traditions are accepted by some Christians and not accepted by others. 
The article does not claim to be a "factual record" of an object the present existence of which is shrouded in time and in the mysteries and miracles of Faith. 
What this article does is attempt to present a "factual record" of the Faith, the several early records, the legends and the continuing traditions pertaining to that object, the True Cross. 
As for whether or not the "original" True Cross was a fake- 
The article presents the old records. The old records don't say "Maybe what St Helena found was a fake". So the article doesn't need to say "What St Helena found may have been a fake." What the article does say is that not everybody accepts the records as true. 
If there was a written record that suggested St Helena had been tricked, then that info could and probably would be presented here along with the rest of the info.
--Amandajm 09:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fake? 

message: This article barely mention the conflict between Bizantine and Persian Empire for the True Cross posession, and I didn't find an article of that war. I think is important someone create it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.226.217.121 (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have an article about the various Roman-Persian Wars, but it's odd that they would be fighting over possession of the cross. When was that? Adam Bishop 16:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  True Cross war 

message: The lead image is unneccessarily vague, being a closeup of Jesus and showing nothing of the actual cross. Perhaps it's a great work with historical or artistic significance, but it's not at all illustrative of the subject of this article. --Boradis 22:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and no. The reason for the fame of the True Cross and all the tradition that surrounds it is the death of Jesus. The particular pic was chosen because it is a graphic depiction of that particular aspect of the cross. The other pics all relate to the the Golden Legend, the discovery and later. --Amandajm 09:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead image 

message: It is more narrative. I hope it meets with everyone's approval! --Amandajm 10:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New lead pic

message: I reverted simplifications by an unnamed editor that had the effect of changing a very precisely worded section. The editor obviously did not understand that there are 2 separate tradition described here. The first is the tradition of the "Early Christian Chuurch". The second is the "Medieval tradition" or rather, "traditions" which differ between the Catholic and Orthodox churches. This information had been combined in a sort of blanket statement. 
With regards to the acceptance of the story of the True Cross in the Anglican Communion- St Helen is honoured in the Anglican Communion as an early saint and as one who served in faith by charitable actions. There are a number of churches and hospitals in the Anglican Communion which are dedicated to St Helen. She is said to have been British, and the daughter of King Coel of Colchester. While her symbol of the cross and nails are maintained, the story of her discovery of the "True Cross" is regarded as legend and does not have general acceptance in the Anglican Communion. 
Amandajm (talk) 10:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverted edits

message: Constantine was not Christian. He was politically helped by christians, and when he could, he recognised their rights to profess their religion, but there is no evidence that he was a christian itself. Becoming a saint for the Easthern Orthodox Church doesn't change the fact that he didn't professed the religion. He was never seen praying to God and there is no evidence of his baptism (something necessary to be a Christian). Jmgl2005 (talk) 12:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Prove it Med (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a well-referenced article which discusses this subject at Constantine I and Christianity. Perhaps Jmgl2005 can argue it out at the discussion page at that location. Amandajm (talk) 09:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constantine and Christianity

message: The article says that Charles Rohault de Fleury found that the fragments of the Cross brought together again would not reach one-third that of a of a cross.... The details of his calculations then suggest that less than two and a quarter percent of such a cross are accounted for. Clearly this is less than one third, but so much so that I suspect some mistake - or else I have misunderstood. Can somebody clarify this? Thanks --catslash (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: 2.24% << 1/3

message: There's no mention *at all* of carbon dating in this article.  Wood is almost the perfect material for this so I'm somewhat surprised nobody has written about these attempts given the controversial nature of these artifacts.  108.200.234.93 (talk) 10:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carbon dating 

message: I am open to discussion as to why you want to remove references to Helena being a saint. --SleeplessNight12 (talk) 01:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Helena Augusta was the mother of the emperor. This is how she is universally recognised. Some religious groups - catholics and orthodox Christians - believe she is in heaven and so call her a saint. The article on Helena includes this fact and this article links to that. This is sufficient in my view. I don’t know why you reverted the remainder of my edits though Contaldo80 (talk) 09:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Helena is primarily known for being a Saint. Her being a saint is not just a small trivia about her. This is revisionist history, editorializing etc. Helena is primarily known for Christianity. I do not know who Helena Augusta is? This idea that you can just relegate her sainthood to a mere trivia is nonsense. And do not forget, this article is religious. True Cross is NOT a secular subject. In other words, I do not agree with removing the term "Saint" from names of people who are primarily known as saints. Saint Helena is primarily known for her Catholicism, not much else. So, you trying to relegate her sainthood to trivia is something I do not agree with. But let others decide. --SleeplessNight12 (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: "Helena is primarily known for her Catholicism, not much else". Oh dear, where do begin. To be clear, YOU may know her primarily for being a saint; but she was the Roman empress. I agree she is important in the history of Christianity but she should not be viewed only through that narrow prism. If you don't know that her title was Helena Augusta then I suggest you conduct further research before jumping in to revert article edits. This article deals with a religious topic, but that does not mean that we suspend the basics of empirical conduct. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that this article is not a Christian article. But still, it feels like on an article dealing with Christianity, purging the words like "Saint" and relegating Saint Helena's Christian significance to a mere trivia is a bit too much. --SleeplessNight12 (talk) 04:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: How many times do I have to say this, she wasn't a "saint" when she found the cross she is said to have found. In what way has the issue been reduced to trivia?Contaldo80 (talk) 05:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Once again.... 

message: Hello, and thanks to each of you for curating this page.
I noticed in the section "Syriac Traditions" a parenthetical phrase that was probably meant for a background comment: "(]chicken nugget stexts)". The person who entered this might want to consider a better location for it.
Again, thanks for all you do. 
Bobanello (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Extraneous Parenthetical Phrase in Body of Page 

message: There is a "Literature" entry (2.7) in the "Finding the True Cross" section. It cites one recent book, Eagle Ascending by Dan Whitfield, published June 14th, 2021. Not only would this be better suited to a "Popular Culture" entry later in the page, it also seems a little suspicious - this is a book with 27 Goodreads ratings. I usually just fix grammar anonymously, so I'm not exactly qualified for these sorts of edits - maybe someone with more experience can advise.
70.167.89.2 (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Literature" entry (2.7) 

message: "Cyril of Jerusalem who preached to this
church’s congregation records circa AD 350 the discovery of a great Cross in situ. Pieces of the Cross
were disseminated and a portentuous cruciform apparition of light was seen in the sky overhead. By
the end of the fourth century a tradition, the Invention of the True Cross, became more widespread;
the discovery of the True Cross was ascribed to Helena, Constantine’s mother, and the occasion to her
visit to the Holy Land in AD 326.4
According to the legend of Helena, the Gospel triad of crosses, the superscription whose words
spurned Christ and the iron nails with which He was crucified were exhumed. A curative miracle
established this to be the True Cross. Helena had a pair of its nails dispatched to Constantine, one
enshrined in a crown, the other in a bridle; the other pair was said to have been forged to make a
sword, or alternatively, a spear for the Emperor. The titled inscription came to be preserved at the
Basilica of St. Croce, within Helena’s own palace in Rome. A dispersal of fragments, relics of the
True Cross, ensued and continued for many centuries afterwards throughout Christendom." (Stone, Skin, and Silver: A Translation of" The Dream of the Rood"
RJ Kelly, CL Quinn - 1999)  --2001:14BB:69F:A713:9C63:64F4:1FA6:583A (talk) 12:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sword 

message: The Bible verse quote and link in the section on provenance of the cross as taught in Eastern Christianity need work. The quote and linked verse differ in how they translate the species of wood, and neither matches the tradition they're meant to substantiate. The tradition is however substatiated in the Septuagint and Brenton's English translation. Will fix this issue after deciding whether to  touch the Bible verse link or just the inline quote. The link goes to a bilingual Masoretic + JPS 1917 text at Mechon Mamre, which in this instance doesn't seem apt for the context. Ps8v9 (talk) 15:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A cedar is not a fir