"I would agree if it was the only thing I said."
The fullness of what you said was that the tradition was based on a legend. By this, any reasonable person would assmue what Bohemund did, namely that you were stating, or at least implying, that it was a made-up story.
On this thread, we have been making the point to our Protestant friends that oral tradition is important and reliable and precedes written tradition -- that the Gospels and Epistles, for instance, were written after the Church had been in existence for some time.
What is the difference between legend and oral tradition?
Why would it be surprising that the oldest written record that *we* have available regarding the account of the finding of the True Cross dates from 100 years after the event? That's not much more than St. Luke writing about the events of St. John the Baptist's conception and birth.
I would also point out that in traditional Orthodox Lives of Saints, it is not at all uncommon for the writers to point out that this or that part of a story is something we really aren't sure about. Sometimes the writer will point out that there are two different accounts given of a given event, and relate both, sometimes indicating which he feels is the most reliable tradition, sometimes remaining silent on that point.
As far as I remember, I don't recall that any of the accounts of the finding of the True Cross cast any doubt on the truth of the basic story. The exact details of the miraculous healing that confirmed that a particular cross was the True Cross vary from account to account, so that is something we don't know. But a miraculous healing is found in all the accounts. This shouldn't surprise us, since as Orthodox, we believe that holy relics pour forth grace and work miracles.
You stated: "If we believe they are, then they represent the icon of the True Cross. As all icons it takes ut spiritually to the True Cross, and that is what matters. In either case, the pilgrims venerated the True Cross, whether it was physically true or not..."
The belief in holy relics goes far beyond iconography. Holy relics work miracles and are venerated by us because they were touched by God Himself (in the case of the True Cross), or are the remains of or something touched by a saint who had achieved theosis, and whose very body had been transformed by the fullness of the energies of God.
Yes I did, and I do state that it is a legend and not a fact; its importance nonetheless not being diminished. There is no way to know if the relics were really those of the True Cross. I explained the confusion a post preceeding this one. I thank both of you for correcting me.