Unfortunately, historian Michael Hesemann's methodology to prove whether the relic known as "Titulus Crucis" to be part of the so-called "true cross" upon which Jesus of Nazareth was crucified has a lot of holes in its logic. While I have enjoyed most of the other Myth Hunter episodes, especially the one about the Book of Thoth, this one lacks the objectivity of several historians. It relies almost completely upon the subjective work of Hesemann. Many steps in his logic appear to be missing, and the final scientific evidence proved not to be in Hesemann's favor.
The Titulus Crucis is a piece of wood with the name of Jesus of Nazareth inscribed into it, thought to be the inscription placed above Jesus' head during his crucifixion indicating his offenses. It resides in a church in Rome where it is venerated as a silent witness to Jesus' death. However, there's little about the wood inscriptions themselves that would indicate this is necessarily the crucifixion inscription. First off, the inscriptions just say a name "Jesus of Nazareth" in three languages, Hebrew, Greek and Latin. According to the New Testament, the inscription said "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews" in Latin. I've read a lot about early Christianity, and I've never heard the inscription was in three languages, only Latin, and the present inscription doesn't say "King of the Jews". Hesemann even quotes the Gospel of St. John which says the inscription says "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews". Where is the "King of the Jews" part of the inscription?
The main thrust of the documentary is Heseman's pouring over ancient texts to determine the links between the Titulus Crucis and the true cross. The documentary recounts the story told by Eusebius in which Empress Helena, mother of the Emperor Constantine, discovers parts of the true cross in Jerusalem in the early 4th century, about 300 years after Jesus' death. She then built a church there, the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. The story has been passed down through Christian tradition, and resulted in the eventually canonization of the Empress Helena as a venerated saint. Eventually these wooden remains are discovered in the late 15th century.
While the forging of the new church is not disputed, the likelihood that these pieces of wood which were shown to Helena by a local as part of the cross of a specific crucified man from 300 years previous to her excavation is quite unbelievable. First off, the uprights of crosses remained standing as a warning in many Roman cities, which was punishment practice during a 500-year period, from circa 200 BCE to 300 CE. (Crucifixion was eventually banned by the Emperor Constantine.) The cross beams were frequently reused on many convicts. At least hundreds of people were crucified in Jerusalem between the first century CE and the excavation by St. Helena. After the Spartacus uprising circa 100 BCE, most of Spartacus' army was crucified along the long road reaching all the back to Rome. So there is absolutely not one shred of evidence outside of Christian tradition that Helena found the remains of Jesus' cross. Even if she found three crosses, given how many were crucified in Jerusalem especially during Pontius Pilate, the likelihood there was a connection to Jesus is about nil. The evidence? A local said they were.
One of the most fantastic statements has to be by John Haldane, professor of philosophy at St. Andrews. He suggests that it would be very likely that something like the Titulus Crucis would have survived for 300 years when St. Helena found it (now going on 2000 years old) because of its importance to Christians. In the ancient world, crucifixion was a humiliating punishment, and I doubt that the followers of Jesus would have run over to the uprights and grabbed the Titulus Crucis as a relic, anymore than someone would want to own the rope by which a loved-one was hung. Part of the reason many Jews did not accept Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah was because a crucified man was antithetical to their picture of the Messiah who was supposed to be a strong leader like King David or King Solomon. Only later did theologians begin to conceive the idea that the crucifixion was part of God's plan as in the Gospel of John written several generations after the death of Jesus.
Another silly assertion is that it's most likely not a forgery because a forger wouldn't have gotten it so wrong, the inscription not exactly matching the New Testament account. Forgers make crucial (no pun intended) mistakes all the time. A forger of late Antiquity or the Middle Ages are as prone to making mistakes as today, the partially faked inscription on a first century ossuary believed to be that of James the brother of Jesus is a case in point. The idea a forger would be "more careful" is ridiculous and proves nothing.
Unfortunately, the entire argument made by Hesemann is flawed. The relic is eventually carbon-dated as being from the Middle Ages. All he proved was he has a piece of wood from the Middle Ages with the inscription Jesus of Nazareth in three languages. He did not prove that the piece of wood currently in possession in a church in Rome are among those found by Helena in the 4th century, and he did not prove the pieces of wood found by Helena were in fact parts of Jesus' cross. The only inkling of real hard evidence is that the inscription is in a style dating from the first century, but that doesn't prove it was part of Jesus' cross nor does it prove it is from the first century. I think the documentary and its subject would have been better served if there had been incorporated more scholars with alternate points of view. As stated earlier in terms of the inscription itself, Hesemann appears to contradict himself.
The Titulus Crucis is a piece of wood with the name of Jesus of Nazareth inscribed into it, thought to be the inscription placed above Jesus' head during his crucifixion indicating his offenses. It resides in a church in Rome where it is venerated as a silent witness to Jesus' death. However, there's little about the wood inscriptions themselves that would indicate this is necessarily the crucifixion inscription. First off, the inscriptions just say a name "Jesus of Nazareth" in three languages, Hebrew, Greek and Latin. According to the New Testament, the inscription said "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews" in Latin. I've read a lot about early Christianity, and I've never heard the inscription was in three languages, only Latin, and the present inscription doesn't say "King of the Jews". Hesemann even quotes the Gospel of St. John which says the inscription says "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews". Where is the "King of the Jews" part of the inscription?
The main thrust of the documentary is Heseman's pouring over ancient texts to determine the links between the Titulus Crucis and the true cross. The documentary recounts the story told by Eusebius in which Empress Helena, mother of the Emperor Constantine, discovers parts of the true cross in Jerusalem in the early 4th century, about 300 years after Jesus' death. She then built a church there, the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. The story has been passed down through Christian tradition, and resulted in the eventually canonization of the Empress Helena as a venerated saint. Eventually these wooden remains are discovered in the late 15th century.
While the forging of the new church is not disputed, the likelihood that these pieces of wood which were shown to Helena by a local as part of the cross of a specific crucified man from 300 years previous to her excavation is quite unbelievable. First off, the uprights of crosses remained standing as a warning in many Roman cities, which was punishment practice during a 500-year period, from circa 200 BCE to 300 CE. (Crucifixion was eventually banned by the Emperor Constantine.) The cross beams were frequently reused on many convicts. At least hundreds of people were crucified in Jerusalem between the first century CE and the excavation by St. Helena. After the Spartacus uprising circa 100 BCE, most of Spartacus' army was crucified along the long road reaching all the back to Rome. So there is absolutely not one shred of evidence outside of Christian tradition that Helena found the remains of Jesus' cross. Even if she found three crosses, given how many were crucified in Jerusalem especially during Pontius Pilate, the likelihood there was a connection to Jesus is about nil. The evidence? A local said they were.
One of the most fantastic statements has to be by John Haldane, professor of philosophy at St. Andrews. He suggests that it would be very likely that something like the Titulus Crucis would have survived for 300 years when St. Helena found it (now going on 2000 years old) because of its importance to Christians. In the ancient world, crucifixion was a humiliating punishment, and I doubt that the followers of Jesus would have run over to the uprights and grabbed the Titulus Crucis as a relic, anymore than someone would want to own the rope by which a loved-one was hung. Part of the reason many Jews did not accept Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah was because a crucified man was antithetical to their picture of the Messiah who was supposed to be a strong leader like King David or King Solomon. Only later did theologians begin to conceive the idea that the crucifixion was part of God's plan as in the Gospel of John written several generations after the death of Jesus.
Another silly assertion is that it's most likely not a forgery because a forger wouldn't have gotten it so wrong, the inscription not exactly matching the New Testament account. Forgers make crucial (no pun intended) mistakes all the time. A forger of late Antiquity or the Middle Ages are as prone to making mistakes as today, the partially faked inscription on a first century ossuary believed to be that of James the brother of Jesus is a case in point. The idea a forger would be "more careful" is ridiculous and proves nothing.
Unfortunately, the entire argument made by Hesemann is flawed. The relic is eventually carbon-dated as being from the Middle Ages. All he proved was he has a piece of wood from the Middle Ages with the inscription Jesus of Nazareth in three languages. He did not prove that the piece of wood currently in possession in a church in Rome are among those found by Helena in the 4th century, and he did not prove the pieces of wood found by Helena were in fact parts of Jesus' cross. The only inkling of real hard evidence is that the inscription is in a style dating from the first century, but that doesn't prove it was part of Jesus' cross nor does it prove it is from the first century. I think the documentary and its subject would have been better served if there had been incorporated more scholars with alternate points of view. As stated earlier in terms of the inscription itself, Hesemann appears to contradict himself.