My mother has a framed poem about how the dogwood tree used to be big and busty. Its timbers used to crucify Christ… t’was promised the Dogwood tree would grow hence forth as a small tree, such as it could never be used in this way again. Well, is there any science behind this at all? Could there be proof that this tree was a monster then and now almost a bush? And if so what does that mean scientifically? Are there any other instances of this type?
Well, we have two 80 year old dogwoods in the back yard. They are 60 feet tall and 18" in diameter.
Dogwood is not a single tree, but a family of 2-4 dozen related plants. Some are bushy shrubs, some are full-sized trees. They are widely spread over the earth, ranging from the Himalayas to British Columbia.
But even the largest of these trees has twisted, bent wood, that would be inappropriate for constructing the cross-beam of a Roman cross. (The vertical beam was generally not constructed for each execution, but semi-permanently imbedded in the ground at an execution site.) There is no evidence that this characteristic of the tree has changed any in the last few thousand years.
As Wikipedia says: “Since there is no Biblical, historical, archaeological or scientific evidence of the contents of this story, it is likely to be historically inaccurate.” (Note that there is a similar legend about the cherry tree extending it’s branches down so Mary could pick cherries.)
Since the only account we have of Jesus’ crucifixion is from the Bible, and the Bible does not say what kind of wood the cross was made of, there is no basis for the story.
I have also heard that the red spots on the white blooms (which are in a cross shape) represent the blood of Christ’s head, hands and feet.