Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-23-2004, 08:27 PM
yBeayf yBeayf is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: A mud puddle
Posts: 2,370
Total volume of relics of the True Cross

In this thread, I posted a brief response to the oft-heard claim that if all the relics of the True Cross were collected together, one would have enough wood for a giant cross/dozens of crosses/a forest of crosses, or whatever superlative amount of wood you desire. I've never seen any positive evidence in favor of this claim, but on the contrary, in 1870 a man named Rohault de Fleury sat down and calculated all known existing pieces of the True Cross, as well as pieces whose existence was recorded but were no longer around, and published his results under the title Memoire sur les instruments de la Passion. The Catholic Encyclopedia's article on the subject has this to say on his conclusions:
Quote:
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.
Has anybody ever been able to debunk de Fleury's research, or is this bit about the magically multiplying Cross wood just another anti-Catholic legend?
  #2  
Old 08-23-2004, 08:41 PM
carnivorousplant carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 57,133
I am curious how M. Rohault de Fleury determined the volume of the cross.
  #3  
Old 08-23-2004, 08:51 PM
yBeayf yBeayf is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: A mud puddle
Posts: 2,370
According to the article, he assumed a cross of 3 - 4 metres in height and 2 metres across. The vertical portion may have been shorter, but this would necessitate putting Christ nearly at ground level, instead of raising Him up for display. Assuming Christ had normally proportioned arms, 2 metres for the crossbeam is a reasonable guess, especially considering that the cross probably would have been ready-made rather than custom-fitted. The wood would have had to have been a certain thickness in order to support the weight of an adult man. From there it's just a matter of figuring out what volume of wood would have been necessary for a cross like that.
  #4  
Old 08-23-2004, 08:58 PM
carnivorousplant carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 57,133
Thanks. Fr. Debosier had a relic of a Saint, seal in wax and certified by an office of the Catholic Church. I presume that certified relics were counted in calculating the volume, rather than pieces such as those sold by the Pardoner in the Canterbury Tales.
  #5  
Old 08-23-2004, 09:02 PM
UDS UDS is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 8,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by carnivorousplant
I am curious how M. Rohault de Fleury determined the volume of the cross.
Well, the quote from the Catholic Encycopedia suggests that he assumed a weight for the cross and assumed that it was made of pine. From these two assumptions, and given information about the typical density of pine, it is not difficult to compute the approximate volume of the cross.

You could criticise the assumptions. Perhaps Roman crosses are known to have been made from some wood other than pine, at any rate in Palestine, or there is good reason to think they were? Perhaps 75kg is absurdly large for a cross? I have no idea. But in principle it seems to me that it shouldn't be difficult to make reasonable assumptions or guesses about the dimensions of a cross used in a Roman crucifixion in first-century Palestine. On Rohault's figures, even if his assumptions were out by a factor of 10, the total volume of the relics is still significantly less than the estimated volume of the cross.
  #6  
Old 08-23-2004, 09:10 PM
Cunctator Cunctator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Posts: 11,386
Quote:
Originally Posted by carnivorousplant
Fr. Debosier had a relic of a Saint, seal in wax and certified by an office of the Catholic Church.
One of the Catholic churches here in Sydney has a relic of the True Cross, similarly sealed in wax and certified. It is venerated each year on Good Friday and 14 September (the feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross).
  #7  
Old 08-23-2004, 09:12 PM
Polycarp Polycarp is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: A better place to be
Posts: 26,718
If we assume the cross recovered by St. Helena to have been the original Cross of Christ (and I have no idea how reasonable the claim that it was may be or not be), it doesn't sound too difficult to trace the transmission of relics removed from it, allowing a little more tolerance of "My grandfather told me" claims than would be permissible in a more stringent study.
  #8  
Old 08-23-2004, 09:26 PM
spingears spingears is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: KNOXTN
Posts: 4,334
Does the Cross of Jesus Exist Today???

It is my firm belief that if Jehovah God wanted for man to have the true cross and/or the fragments of it in the hands of men today He would have made sure that they would have more than adequate authentication.

Since there is no such authentication, such parts are nothing more nor less than peices of wood. Even the location of the tomb is in doubt for the same reason.

A very good reson for no authentication of the cross, holy grail, the ark, etc. is that men would worship that which they can see and touch than the Infinite God which must be worshiped in faith.
  #9  
Old 08-23-2004, 09:38 PM
carnivorousplant carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 57,133
Abraham seems to have felt that way, spingears.
I'm curious what your religious background is.
  #10  
Old 08-23-2004, 09:44 PM
Josh_dePlume Josh_dePlume is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by carnivorousplant
I am curious how M. Rohault de Fleury determined the volume of the cross.
To put this in some perspective, 4,000,000 cubic millimeters corresponds to a cube of about six inches on each side. So there can be little doubt that this is much smaller than the volume of the cross.
  #11  
Old 08-23-2004, 10:22 PM
carnivorousplant carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 57,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh_dePlume
So there can be little doubt that this is much smaller than the volume of the cross.
Where do they get the number? Are only certified relics counted, or do they include the Pardoner from Chaucer?

It seems to answer the question to me.
Certified relics are real, and those sold by the Pardoner are fake.


...we need a tongue in cheek smiley...
  #12  
Old 08-23-2004, 11:11 PM
UDS UDS is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 8,279
I can’t find a definitive answer on the web, but my very strong guess would be that the count extended only to certified relics, and possibly also (if they exist) to prominent and long-established relics which are widely venerated but have never been certified. I think this for two reasons:

- There would be no reliable way of identifying all the “Pardoner’s relics” ever circulated, still less of measuring their volume.

- It would have been common ground among everyone that a very large proportion of “Pardoner’s relics” were completely bogus, regardless of whether their volume exceeded the likely volume of a first-century cross.

As I understand it, the public display or reservation for public veneration of uncertified relics is now forbidden by the Catholic Church, and would have been in Rohault’s time. But the comment about “enough wood for a ship” is attributed to Erasmus, and in the much more decentralised Catholic Church of this time I doubt if the display or veneration of relics was so controlled. It’s very possible that the comment would have been true (or, at least, justifiable hyperbole) in the time of Erasmus, but not in Rohault’s time or our own.

Carnivorousplant, I know you’re speaking tongue in cheek, but the object of Rohault’s study was not to demonstrate that the relics were, indeed, fragments of the original cross, but merely to refute the assertion, still being made in Rohault’s time, that they were so numerous that the bulk of them could not possibly be relics of the original cross.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:06 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017