Golgotha

VIEW:32 DATA:01-04-2020

a heap of skulls; something skull-shaped
Hitchcock's Bible Names Dictionary


GOLGOTHA (Mat_27:33, Mar_15:22, Joh_19:17, from the Aram. [Note: Aramaic.] Gulgalta. In Luk_23:33 the place is called Kranion (RV [Note: Revised Version.] ‘the skull,’ AV [Note: Authorized Version.] ‘Calvary’)).—The situation was evidently outside the city (Heb_13:12), but near it (Joh_19:20); it was a site visible afar off (Mar_15:40, Luk_23:49), and was probably near a high road (Mat_27:29).
Four reasons have been suggested for the name. (1) That it was a place where skulls were to be found, perhaps a place of public execution. This is improbable. (2) That the ‘hill’ was skull-shaped. This is a popular modern view. Against it may be urged that there is no evidence that Golgotha was a hill at all. See also below. (3) That the name is due to an ancient, and probably pre-Christian, tradition that the skull of Adam was found there. This tradition is quoted by Origen, Athanasius, Epiphanius, etc., and its survival to-day is marked by the skull shown in the Chapel of Adam under the ‘Calvary’ in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. (4) There is the highly improbable theory that the legend of the skull of Adam, and even the name Golgotha, really have their origin in the capitolium of Ælia Capitolina, which stood on the site now covered by the Church of the Sepulchre.
Of the many proposed sites for Golgotha it may be briefly said that there is no side of the city which has not been suggested by some authority for ‘the place of a skull’; but, practically speaking, there are only two worth considering, the traditional site and the ‘green hill’ or ‘Gordon’s Calvary.’ The traditional site included in the Church of the Sepulchre and in close proximity to the tomb itself has a continuous tradition attaching to it from the days of Constantine. In favour of this site it may be argued with great plausibility that it is very unlikely that all tradition of a spot so important in the eyes of Christians should have been lost, even allowing all consideration for the vicissitudes that the city passed through between the Crucifixion and the days of Constantine. The topographical difficulties are dealt with in the discussion of the site of the second wall [see Jerusalem], but it may safely be said that investigations have certainly tended in recent years to reduce them. With regard to the ‘green hill’ outside the Damascus gate, which has secured so much support in some quarters, its claims are based upon the four presuppositions that Golgotha was shaped like a skull, that the present skull-shaped hill had such an appearance at the time of the Crucifixion, that the ancient road and wall ran as they do to-day, and that the Crucifixion was near the Jewish ‘place of stoning’ (which is said by an unreliable local Jewish tradition to be situated here). All these hypotheses are extremely doubtful.
E. W. G. Masterman.
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible
Edited by James Hastings, D.D. Published in 1909

Aramaic, Gulgaltha, Hebrew Gulgoleth. (See CALVARY, Latin) Greek (Luk_23:33) Cranion, "a skull"; "Calvary" is from Vulgate The "place" of our Lord's crucifixion and burial, not called in the Gospels a mount, as it is now commonly. "In the place where He was crucified was a garden, and in the garden a new sepulchre, ... hewn in stone wherein never man before was laid" (Luk_23:53; Joh_19:41).
The stone or rock perhaps suggested the notion of a hill. Moreover, the derivation of Golgotha (not "a place of skulls," but "of a skull," Mat_27:33) implies a bald, round, skull-like mound or hillock, not a mount literally, but spiritually entitled to the name as being that sacred elevation to which our lifted up Lord would draw all hearts (Joh_12:32).
"Without the gate" (Heb_13:12); "nigh to the city" (Joh_19:20); near a thoroughfare where "they that passed by reviled Him" (Mat_27:39), and where "Simon a Cyrenian who passed by, coming out of the country," was compelled to bear His cross (Mar_15:21). Ellicott thinks the arguments in favor of its proximity to the present traditional site preponderate; the nearness of the assumed site to that of Herod's palace is important. (But (See JERUSALEM,) The explorations of Capt. Warren favor a site N. of Jerusalem.
Fausset's Bible Dictionary
By Andrew Robert Fausset, co-Author of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown's 1888.

Gol'gotha. (skull). The Hebrew name of the spot at which our Lord was crucified. Mat_27:33; Mar_15:22; Joh_19:17. By these three evangelists, it is interpreted to mean the "place of a skull". Two explanations of the name are given:
(1) that it was a spot where executions ordinarily took place, and therefore, abounded in skulls; or
(2) it may come from the look or form of the spot itself, bald, round and skull-like, and therefore, a mound or hillock, in accordance with the common phrase ? for which there is no direct authority ? "Mount Calvary." Whichever of these is the correct explanation, Golgotha seems to have been a known spot.
Smith's Bible Dictionary
By Dr. William Smith.Published in 1863

The name Golgotha, which is a transliteration of an Aramaic word meaning ‘skull’, was the name of the hill just outside Jerusalem where Jesus was crucified (Mat_27:33; Luk_23:33; Joh_19:17). (The name Calvary is not in the original New Testament, but has been taken from the Vulgate, a fourth century Latin translation. It comes from the Latin word for ‘skull’.)
There is no certainty about which of several possible sites is Golgotha or how the hill got its name. But it was on a main road not far from one of Jerusalem’s city gates, and a garden containing a tomb was nearby (Mat_27:39; Joh_19:20; Joh_19:41).
Bridgeway Bible Dictionary by Don Fleming
PRINTER 1990.

gol?gō̇-tha (Γολγοθᾶ, Golgothá, from ?a skull?): In three references (Mat_27:33; Mar_15:22; Joh_19:17) it is interpreted to mean κρανίου τόπος, kranı́ou tópos, ?the place of a skull.? In Luk_23:33 the King James Version it is called ?Calvary,? but in the Revised Version (British and American) simply ?The skull.? From the New Testament we may gather that it was outside the city (Heb_13:12), but close to it (Joh_19:20), apparently near some public thoroughfare (Mat_27:39), coming from the country (Mar_15:21). was a spot visible, from some points, from afar (Mar_15:40; Luk_23:49).
1. The Name
Four reasons have been suggested for the name Golgotha or ?skull?: (1) That it was a spot where skulls were to be found lying about and probably, therefore, a public place of execution. This tradition apparently originates with Jerome (346-420 ad), who refers to (3), to condemn it, and says that ?outside the city and without the gate there are places wherein the heads of condemned criminals are cut off and which have obtained the name of Calvary - that is, of the beheaded.? This view has been adopted by several later writers. Against it may be urged that there is no shadow of evidence that there was any special place for Jewish executions in the 1st century, and that, if there were, the corpses could have been allowed burial (Mat_27:58; Joh_19:38), in conformity with Jewish law (Deu_21:23) and with normal custom (Josephus, BJ, IV, v, 2). (2) That the name was due to the skull-like shape of the hill - a modern popular view. No early or Greek writer suggests such an idea, and there is no evidence from the Gospels that the Crucifixion occurred on a raised place at all. Indeed Epiphanius (4th century) expressly says: ?There is nothing to be seen on the place resembling this name; for it is not situated upon a height that it should be called (the place) of a skull, answering to the place of the head in the human body.? It is true that the tradition embodied in the name Mons Calvary appears as early as the 4th century, and is materialized in the traditional site of the Crucifixion in the church of the Holy Sepulcher, but that the hill was skull-like in form is quite a modern idea. Guthe combines (2) and (3) and considers that a natural skull-like elevation came to be considered, by some folklore ideas, to be the skull of the first man. One of the strangest ideas is that of the late General Gordon, who thought that the resemblance to a skull lay in the contours of the ground as laid down in the ordinance survey map of Jerusalem. (3) That the name is due to an ancient pre-Christian tradition that the skull of Adam was found there. The first mention of this is by Origen (185-253 ad), who himself lived in Jerusalem 20 years. He writes: ?I have received a tradition to the effect that the body of Adam, the first man, was buried upon the spot where Christ was crucified,? etc. This tradition was afterward referred to by Athanasius, Epiphanius, Basil of Caesarea, Chrysostom and other later writers. The tomb and skull of Adam, still pointed out in an excavated chamber below the traditional Calvary, marks the survival of this tradition on the spot. This is by far the most ancient explanation of the name Golgotha and, in spite of the absurdity of the original tradition about Adam, is probably the true one.
(4) The highly improbable theory that the Capitolium of AElia Capitolina (the name given by Hadrian to his new Jerusalem) stood where the Church of the Holy Sepulcher now is, and gave rise to the name Golgotha, is one which involves the idea that the site first received the name Golgotha in the 2nd century, and that all the references in the Gospels were inserted then. This is only mentioned to be dismissed as incompatible with history and common sense.
2. The Site
With regard to the position of the site of the Crucifixion (with which is bound up the site of the Tomb) the New Testament gives us no indication whatever; indeed, by those who abandon tradition, sites have been suggested on all sides of the city - and West Two views hold the field today: (1) that the site of the Crucifixion, or at any rate that of the Tomb itself, is included within the precincts of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher; and (2) that a prominent, rounded, grassy hill above the so-called ?Grotto of Jeremiah,? Northeast of the Modern Damascus Gate, has at least a very high probability of being the true site. It is impossible here to go into the whole question, which requires minute and long elaboration, but excellent review of the whole evidence may be consulted in ?Golgotha and the Holy Sepulcher,? by the late Sir Charles W. Wilson, of PEF. Here only a few points can be touched upon. (1) For the traditional view it may be said that it seems highly improbable that so sacred a spot as this, particularly the empty tomb, could have been entirely forgotten. Although it is true that Jews and Christians were driven out of Jerusalem after the second great revolt (130-33 ad), yet Gentile Christians were free to return, and there was no break long enough to account for a site like this being entirely lost. Indeed there are traditions that this site was deliberately defiled by pagan buildings to annoy the Christians. Eusebius, at the time of Constantine, writes as if it were well known that a Temple of Aphrodite lay over the tomb.
He gives an account of the discovery of the spots still venerated as the Golgotha and the Tomb, and of the erection of churches in connection with them (Life of Constantine, III, 25-40). From the time of Constantine there has been no break in the reverence paid to these places. Of the earlier evidence Sir C. Wilson admits (loc. cit.) that ?the tradition is so precarious and the evidence is undoubtedly so unsatisfactory as to raise serious doubts.?
The topographical difficulties are dealt with in the JERUSALEM. It is difficult for the visitor to Jerusalem sufficiently to realize that the center of gravity of the city has much changed; once it was on the Hill Ophel, and the southern slopes, now bare, were in Christ's time crammed with houses; in later times, from the 4th century, it was the Church of the Holy Sepulcher round which the city tended to center. There is no insurmountable difficulty in believing that the site of the Crucifixion may be where tradition points out. As Sir C. Wilson says at the end of his book, ?No objection urged against the sites (i.e. Golgotha and the Tomb) is of such a convincing nature that it need disturb the minds of those who accept, in all good faith, the authenticity of the places which are hallowed by the prayers of countless pilgrims since the days of Constantine? (loc. cit.).
(2) The so-called ?Skull Hill? or ?Green Hill? appears to have appealed first to Otto Thenius (1842), but has received its greatest support through the advocacy of the late Col. Conder and of the late Dr. Selah Merrill, U.S.A. consul at Jerusalem. The arguments for this site are mainly: (a) its conspicuous and elevated position - a position which must impress every reverent pilgrim as strikingly suitable for an imaginary reconstruction of the scene. The very greenness of the hill - it is the first green spot in the neighborhood of the city - may influence the subconsciousness of those who have been brought up from childhood to think of the ?green hill far away,? as the popular hymn puts it. When, however, we consider the question historically, there is not the slightest reason to expect that the crucifixion of Jesus, one of many hundreds, should have been dramatically located in a setting so consonant with the importance with which the world has since learned to regard the event. There is no evidence whatever that the crucifixion was on a hill, much less on such a conspicuous place. (b) The supposed resemblance to a human skull strikes many people, but it may be stated without hesitation that the most arresting points of the resemblance, the ?eyeholes? and the rounded top, are not ancient; the former are due to artificial excavations going back perhaps a couple of centuries. Probably the whole formation of the hill, the sharp scarp to the South and the 10 or more feet of earth accumulated on the summit are both entirely new conditions since New Testament times. (c) The nearness of the city walls and the great North road which make the site so appropriate today are quite different conditions from those in New Testament times. It is only if the present North wall can be proved to be on the line of the second wall that the argument holds good. On this see JERUSALEM. (d) An argument has been based upon a supposed tradition that this spot was the Jewish place of stoning. This so-called tradition is worthless, and not a trace of it can be found outside interested circles, and even if it were the ?place of stoning,? it would be no argument for its being ?Golgotha.? To the Oriental, with his great respect for traditional sites, the church of the Holy Sepulcher, covering at once the Tomb, the Calvary, and other sacred spots, will probably always appeal as the appropriate spot: to the western tourist who wishes to visualize in the environs of Jerusalem in an appropriate setting the great world's tragedy, such a site as this ?Skull Hill? must always make the greater appeal to his imagination, and both may find religious satisfaction in their ideas; but cold reason, reviewing the pro's and con's, is obliged to say ?not proven? to both, with perhaps an admission of the stronger case for the traditional spot.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
PRINTER 1915.

Gol?gotha. The original word signifies 'a skull,' as does its Latin representative, Calvaria, Calvary. Different opinions have prevailed as to why the place was so termed. Many have held that Golgotha was the place of public execution, the Tyburn of Jerusalem; and that hence it was termed the 'place of a skull.' Another opinion is that the place took its name from its shape, being a hillock of a form like a human skull. The last is the opinion to which the writer of these remarks inclines. That the place was of some such shape seems to be generally agreed, and the traditional term mount, applied to Calvary, appears to confirm this idea. And such a shape, it must be allowed, is in entire agreement with the name?that is, 'skull.' To these considerations there are added certain difficulties which arise from the second explanation. So far as we know there is no historical evidence to show that there was a place of public execution where Golgotha is commonly fixed, nor that any such place, in or near Jerusalem, bore the name Golgotha. In truth, the context seems to show that the Roman guard hurried Jesus away and put him to death at the first convenient spot; and that the rather because there was no small fear of a popular insurrection, especially as He was attended by a crowd of people. But where was the place? Not far, we may suppose from what has been said, from the judgment-hall, which was doubtless near the spot (Fort Antonia) where the Roman forces in Jerusalem were concentrated. From our plan of Jerusalem it will be seen that Fort Antonia lay on the north-west angle of the temple. Was it likely, then, that in the highly excited state of the public mind the soldiers should take Jesus southward, that is, through the whole breadth of the city? Somewhere in the north, it is clear, they would execute him, as thus they would most easily effect their object. But if they chose the north, then the road to Joppa or Damascus would be most convenient; and no spot in the vicinity would probably be so suitable as the slight rounded elevation which bore the name of Calvary. That some hillock would be preferred, it is easy to see, as thus the exposure of the criminal and the alleged cause of his crucifixion would be most effectually secured. But the particulars detailed by the sacred historians show that our Lord was not crucified on the spot, or very near the spot, where he was condemned, but was conducted some distance through the city. If so, this, as appears from our plan, must have been towards the west. Two points seem thus determined: the crucifixion was at the north-west of the city.
The account, as given in the Evangelists, touching the place of the crucifixion and burial of our Lord, is as follows:?Having been delivered by Pilate to be crucified, Jesus was led away, followed by a great company of people and women, who bewailed His fate. On the way the soldiers met one Simon, a Cyrenian, coming out of the country, who is compelled to bear Jesus' cross. When they were come to the place which is called Calvary, there they crucified Him. This place was nigh to the city; and, sitting down, they watched Him there. They that passed by reviled him, wagging their heads and scoffing. Likewise also the chief priests mocked Him, with the scribes and elders; and the people stood beholding. The soldiers too mocked Him. There stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother's sister, and Mary Magdalene. And all His acquaintance and the women that followed Him from Galilee stood afar off, beholding these things. In the place where he was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new sepulcher, hewn out in the rock; there laid they Jesus, and rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulcher. The writer of the epistle to the Hebrews adds, that Jesus suffered without the gate, subjoining, 'let us, therefore, go forth to Him without the camp (or the city) bearing His reproach' (Heb_13:12-13; Matthew 27; Mark 15; Luke 23; John 19).
We thus learn, as a positive fact, that the crucifixion and burial took place out of the city, and yet nigh to the city; and the statement of the writer to the Hebrews is confirmed by the incidental remark (Mar_15:21), that the soldiers seized Simon, as he was 'coming out of the country.' It now appears, then, that Calvary lay at the north-west, and at the outside, of the city. The reader, on perusing the abstract just given of the evangelical narrators, combined with previous remarks, will find reason to think that Calvary was only just on the outer side of the second wall. It is also clear that the place was one around which many persons could assemble, near which wayfarers were passing, and the sufferers in which could be seen or addressed by persons who were both near and remote: all which concurs in showing that the spot was one of some elevation, and equally proves that 'this thing was not done in a corner,' but at a place and under circumstances likely to make Calvary well known and well remembered alike by the foes and the friends of our Lord. Other events which took place immediately after, in connection with the resurrection, would aid (if aid were needed) in fixing the recollection of the spot deep and ineffaceably in the minds of the primitive disciples.
Was it likely that this recollection would perish? Surely of all spots Calvary would become the most sacred, the most endearing, in the primitive church. The spot where Jesus was crucified, died, was buried, and rose again, must have been bound to the heart of every disciple in the strongest and most grateful bonds. Perhaps no one spot on earth had ever so many to remember it and know its precise locality, as the place where Jesus died and rose again. First in Jerusalem, and soon in all parts of the earth, were there hearts that held the recollection among their most valued treasures.
The traditionary recollection of this remarkable spot must have been greatly strengthened by the erection of the Temple of Venus on the place, after the capture of Jerusalem by the Romans. The temple thus takes up the tradition and transmits it in stone and marble to coming ages. This continuation of the tradition is the more important, because it begins to operate at a time when the Christians were driven from Jerusalem. But the absence of the Christians from the holy city was not of long duration, and even early in the third century we find pilgrimages from distant places to the Holy Land had already begun, for the express purpose of viewing the spots which the presence and sufferings of the Savior had rendered sacred and memorable. A century later, Eusebius (A.D. 315) informs us that Christians visited Jerusalem from all regions of the earth for the same object. So early and so decided a current towards the holy city presupposes a strong, wide-spread, and long pre-eminent feeling?an established tradition in the church touching the most remarkable spots; a tradition of that nature which readily links itself with the actual record in Hebrews.
Early in the fourth century Eusebius and Jerome write down the tradition and fix the locality of Calvary in their writings. Pilgrims now streamed to Jerusalem from all parts of the world, and that site was fixed for Golgotha which has remained to the present hour. This was done not merely by the testimony of these two learned fathers, but by the acts of the Emperor Constantine and his mother Helena. This empress, when very far advanced in life, visited Jerusalem for the express purpose of erecting a church on the spot where the Lord Jesus had been crucified. 'On her arrival at Jerusalem she inquired diligently of the inhabitants. Yet the search was uncertain and difficult, in consequence of the obstructions by which the heathen had sought to render the spot unknown. These being all removed, the sacred sepulcher was discovered, and by its side three crosses, with the tablet bearing the inscription written by Pilate.' On the site thus ascertained was erected, whether by Constantine or Helena, certainly by Roman influence and treasure, a splendid and extensive Christian temple. This church was completed and dedicated A.D. 335. It was a great occasion for the Christian world. In order to give it importance and add to its splendor, a council of bishops was convened, by order of the emperor, from all the provinces of the empire, which assembled first at Tyre, and then at Jerusalem. The Church of the Holy Sepulcher was burnt by the Persians in A.D. 614. It was shortly after rebuilt by Modestus with resources supplied by John Eleemor, patriarch of Alexandria. The Basilica or Martyrion erected under Constantine remained as before. The Mohammedans next became masters of Jerusalem. At length Haruner Rashid made over to Charlemagne the jurisdiction of the holy sepulcher. Palestine again became the scene of battles ane bloodshed. Muez, of the race of the Fatimites transferred the seat of his empire to Cairo, when Jerusalem fell into the hands of new masters, and the holy sepulcher is said to have been again set on fire. It was fully destroyed at the command of the third of the Fatimite caliphs in Egypt, the building being razed to the foundations. In the reign of his successor it was rebuilt, being completed A.D. 1048; but instead of the former magnificent Basilica over the place of Golgotha, a small chapel only now graced the spot. The crusades soon began. The crusaders regarded the edifices connected with the sepulcher as too contracted, and erected a stately temple, the walls and general form of which are admitted to remain to the present day. So recently, however, as A.D. 1808 the church of the holy sepulcher was partly consumed by fire; but being rebuilt by the Greeks, it now offers no traces of its recent desolation.
We have thus traced down to the present day the history, traditional and recorded, of the buildings erected on Golgotha, and connected these edifices with the original events by which they are rendered memorable. To affirm that the evidence is irresistible may be going too far; but few antiquarian questions rest on an equally solid basis, and few points of history would remain settled were they subject to the same skeptical, not to say unfair, scrutiny which Robinson has here applied.
The sole evidence of any weight in the opposite balance is that urged by Robinson, that the place of the crucifixion and the sepulcher are now found in the midst of the modern city. But to render this argument decisive it should be proved that the city occupies now the same ground that it occupied in the days of Christ. It is, at least, as likely that the city should have undergone changes as that the site of the crucifixion should have been mistaken. The identity of such a spot is more likely to be preserved than the site and relative proportions of a city which has undergone more violent changes than probably any other place on earth. The present walls of Jerusalem were erected so late as A.D. 1542; and Robinson himself remarks, en passant, that a part of Zion is now left out (p. 67). If then, the city has been contracted on the south, and if, also, it was after the death of Christ expanded on the north, what should we expect but to find Golgotha in the midst of the modern city?
Two or three additional facts in confirmation of the identity of the present place may, finally, be adduced. Buckingham says, 'the present rock called Calvary, and enclosed within the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, bears marks in every part that is naked, of its having been a round nodule of rock standing above the common level of the surface.' Scholz states that he traced the remains of a wall, which ran as the second wall on the plan runs, excluding Golgotha and taking in the pool of Hezekiah. At most, a very few hundred yards only can the original Golgotha have lain from the present site; and the evidence in favor of its identity, if not decisive, is far stronger than any that has been adduced against it.
The Popular Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature
by John Kitto.

Golgotha
(Γολγοθᾶ, for Aram. גֻּלִגִּלְתָּא, Gulgalta´ [comp. Heb. גֻּלְגֹּלֶת, 2Ki_9:35], the skull, as being globular; the Syr. version has gogulta), the vulgar name of the spot where Jesus emas crucified, and interpreted by the evangelists as meaning "the place of a skull," and hence interpreted by the equivalent term CALVARY (Mat_27:33; Mar_15:22; Joh_19:17).
Three explanations of this name have been given:
(1.) A tradition at one time prevailed (see Jerome in Eph_5:14; Epist. 46; De Sanct. Lodis) that Adam was buried on Golgotha, that from his skull it derived its name, and that at the crucifixion the drops of Christ's blood fell on the skull and raised Adam to life, whereby the ancient prophecy quoted lay Paul in Eph_5:14 received its fulfillment — "Awake, thou Adam that sleepest" — so the old versions appear to have run — "and arise from the dead, for Christ shalt touch thee" (ἐπιψαύσει for ἐπιφαύσει). See the quotation in Reland, Palaest. page 860; also Raewulf, in Early Travellers, p. 39. The skull commonly introduced in early pictures of the crucifixion refers to this.
(2.) Jerome says elsewhere (in 28:33) that it was a spot where executions ordinarily took place, and therefore abounded in skulls; but, according to the Jewish law, these must have been bhuried, and therefor were so msore likely to confer a name on the spot than any other part of the skeleton. In this case, too, the Greek should be τόπος κρανίων, "of skulls," instead of κρανίου, "of a skull," still less a "skull," as in the Aramaic, and in the Greek of Luke. If this had been the usual place of execution, there is no reason why all the evangelists should have been so explicit in the name. That it was a well-known spot, however, has been inferred by many from the way in which it is mentioned in the gospels, each except Matthew having the definite article — "the place Golgotha" — "the place which is called a skull" —"the place (A.V. omits the article) called of, or after, a skull." That it was the ordinary spot for such purposes has been argued from the fact that, to those at least who carried the sentence into effect, Christ was but an ordinary criminal; and there is not a word to indicate that the soldiers in "leading him away" went to any other than the usual place for what must have been a common operation. But the act of crucifixion was so common a punishment among the Romans, especially upon Jews, that it seems to have been performed as most anywhere. SEE CRUCIFIXION.
(3.) The name has been heald to come from the look or form of the spot itself, bald, round, and skull-like, and therefore a mound or hillock, in accordance with the common phrase "Mount Calvary." It must be remembered, however, that neither Eusebius, nor Cyril, nor Jerome nor any of the earliest historical writers ever speak of Golgotha as a hill. Yet the expression must have become current at a very early period, for the Bordeauxix pilgrim describes it in A.D. 1333 as Monticulus Golgotha (Itinnerarium Hierosol., ed. Wessel., page 593). Dr. Robinson suggests that the idea of a mount originated in the fact that a mounded rock or monticule existed on the place where, in the beginning of the 4th century, tradition located the scene of the crucifixion (Bib. Res. 2:376).
All the information the Bible gives us regarding the site of Golgotha may be stated in a few words. Christ was crucified without the gate" (Heb_13:12), "nigh to the city" (Joh_19:20), at a place called Golgotha (Mat_27:33), and apparently beside some public thoroughfare (Mat_27:39) leading to the country (Mat_25:21). The tomb in which he was lain was hewn out of the rock (Mar_15:46), in a garden or orchard (κῆπος), at the place of crucifixion (Joh_19:41-42). Neither Golgotha nor the tomb is ever afterwards mentioned by any of the sacred writers. No honor seems to have been paid to them, no sanctity attached to them during the apostolic age, or that which immediately succeeded it. It is not till the beginning of the 4th century that we find any attempt made to fix the position of, or attach sanctity to Golgotha. Eusebius then informs us that the emperor Constantine, "not without divine admonition," resolved to uncover the holy tomb. He states that wicked even had covered it over with earth and rubbish, and had erected on the spot a temple of Venus. These were removed, and the tomb and Golgotha laid bare. A magnificent church was built over them, and consecrated in A.D. 335 (Vit. Constantin. 3:26-33).
There can be little doubt that the present Church of the Sepulchre occupjes the site of that built by Constantine. The only writer who seriously impugns their identity is Mr. Fergusson (Essay on the ancient Topography of Jerusalem, London, 1847), who asserts that Golgotha was on Mount Moriah, and that the building now called the Mosque of Omar, or Dome of the Rock, is the church erected by Counstantisae over the Holy Sepulchre. Beneath its dome is a projecting rock with a cave in it; this, he says, is the real tomb. The arguments on which his theory rests are mainly architectural, and are unquestionalby forcible; but his topographical and historical argument is a complete failure. He says the site was transferred at the time of the Crusaders; but for this there is not a shadow of evidence. Anyone who has examined on the spot the topography of Mount Moriah, and who has closely inspected the masonry of the massive wall which surrounds the whole of the Haramin area, must see that this theory is untenable. The only point to be settled is, whether the church of Constantine stood on the real Golgotha. Eusehius is our first witness, and he lived 300 years after the crucifixion. His story is repeated with some changes, and numerous embellishments, by subsequent writers (Socrates, H.E. 1:17; Sozom. H.E. 2:1; Theodoret, Hist. Ecc_1:18). That the spot is now marked by the Church of the Sepulchre was the almost universally accredited tradition down to the last century; for though many were struck by the singular position of the church, yet they got over that difficulty by various means Robinson, Bib. Res. 1:408). The first who openly opposed the tradition was Korte, a German traveler who visited Jerusalem in 1738. He was followed by Dr. Clarke — (Travels), Scholz (Reise, and De Golgathae Situ), Robinson, Tobler (Golgatha), and others. The identity of Golgotha has been maintained by Von Raumer (Palästina), Krafft (die Topographie Jerusalems), Tischendorf (Reise, 2:17 sq.), Schulz (Jerusalem, page 59 sq., 96 sq.), and especially Williams in his Holy City. The tradition that fixes the site of Golgotha upon that of the present Church of the Holy Sepulchre is not older than the 4th century, being first mentioned by Eusebius, and attributed to the miraculous discovery of the holy cross by the empress Helena. Yet, in the absence of any other tradition respecting a site which could not well have been forgotten, and in the difficulty of finding any other position answering to the requirements of the case, we may well coincide in the belief that it represents the true locality (see Strong's Harm. and Expos. of the Gosp. Append, 1, page 4, etc.). The question mostly depends upon the course of Josephus's second wall, and the position of Acra as determined by that of the valley of the Tyropoeon. Dr. Robinson's views of the relative position of these leading portions of Jerusalem seems to be unnatural and untenable, being apparently influenced by an excessive jealousy of all traditionary evidence. He therefore decides against the identity of the site of Calvary and the Holy Sepulchre (Bib. Researches, 1:408-516).
His arguments, however, are vehemently combated by Mr. Williams (Holy City, 2:13-64), and a long and bitter controversy has ensued (see the Bibliotheca Sacra for 1843, pages 154- 202; 1846, pages 413-460, 605-652; 1848, pages 92-96). Dr. Robinson to the last maintained his former opinion (new ed. of Researches, 1:407-418; 3:254-263). Other travelers are equally divided as respects the identity of these places, but it may be remarked that Dr. Robinson's reasoning has failed to satisfy even German scholars of the impossibility of this position of Golgotha. The evidence of locality to be gathered from the Gospel statements as to the scene of the tomb of our Lord is as follows: The palace of Pilate and "the judgment hall stood at the north-west angle of the Haram area, where the house of the pasha still stands. There Jesus was condemned, scourged, and mocked. Thence the soldiers "led him out" (Mar_15:20) to crucify him. They met a man called Simon "coming out of the country," and compelled him to bear the cross. They brought him unto Golgotha, and there they crucified him. The passers by reviled him. His mother and some others stood by the cross (Joh_19:25). "All his acquaintance stood afar off beholding these things" (Luk_23:49). A combination of these statements of the evangelists shows that it lay just outside the walls of the city, opposite the tower of Antonia, and therefore probably at the northwest. SEE JERUSALEM. The traditional Golgotha is now a little chapel in the side of the Church of the Sepulchre, gorgeously decorated with marble, and gold, and silver. The monks profess to show the hole in which the cross was planted, and a rent in the rock made by the earthquake! (Porter, Handbook for Syr. and Pal. page 166; Williams, Holy City, 2:226 sq.) See Plessing, Ueb. Golgatha u. Christi Grab (Hal. 1789); Scholz, De Golgathae et J.C. sepulcri situ (Bonn, 1825); Schultze, De vera causa nominis Golgatha (Nurnb. 1732); Themis, Golgatha et sanctum sepulcrum (in Illgen's Zeitschr. f. hist. Theol. 1842, 4:3-34) Zorin, De Christi extra portam supplicio (in his Opusc. 2:193-7); Finlay, Site of the Holy Sepulchre (Lond. 1847); Berggren, Bibel und Josephus ü. Jerusalem u. das Heilege Grab, wider Robinson und neuer Zionspilger (Lund, 1862); Tobler, Golgatha, seiner Kirchen u. Klöster (Berl. 1850). SEE CALVARY.

CYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL, THEOLOGICAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL
press 1895.

FACEBOOK

Participe de nossa rede facebook.com/osreformadoresdasaude

Novidades, e respostas das perguntas de nossos colaboradores