GOLGOTHA (Pokyo9a ; Heb. and v Chaldee a skull.') In considering the import of this 'name, and the situation of the place, it is necessary to distinguish very clearly be tween what is purely historical and what is legen dary and hypothetical. The Hebrew or Aramman name Golgotha is mentioned by three of the evan gelists, and the Greek equivalent given ; thus in Matt. XXVii. 33, 0.9-6vres Els Tbtrov ArybAevav -yo9.ei, 4crriv Kpavlov Toros Xeybacvos, Having come to the place called Golgotha, which is called the place of a skull.' John (xix. 17) gives it somewhat differently ; Jesus, bearing his cross, went forth into a place called of a skull—els rta, Aey6aeriov Kpavitni -r6rov; which is called in He brew Golgotha, 8 Xetyerat 'EgpaYart Pokyo9-61.1 Luke gives the Greek name only, And when they were come—irl rbv r6rov KaXobaEvov Kpavfov (xxiii. 33)—to the place called .Kranion,' or Calvary, as it is rendered in the A. V. and in the Vulgate. It seems, therefore, that the place was commonly known by both its Hebrew name Golgotha, and its Greek name Kranion. Why this name was given to it none of the sacred writers state. Three etymologies have since been sug,gested—r. Jerome mentions a tradition which he had heard, that Adam was buried in Golgotha, and that the name was given to the place because the skull of Adam was there preserved (Coninzent. in Efihes. v. t4; Epist. xlvi.; De SanC. 10C/S). 2.
Jerome says in another place, Outside the city and the gates are the places in which those that have been condemned are beheaded, et Calvarirs, id est, decollatorum sumpsere nomen ' (Comment. in Matt. xxvii. 33). Against this it has been argued, that if this derivation were correct, Gol gotha would have been called KpavItov sbrot, and not Kpavlov, or Kpaviov, as Luke has it. 3. It has been maintained by Reland, De Wette, and others, that the name arose from the skull-shaped hill or, the spot (Reland, Pal. p. 860). It must be re membered, however, that neither Eusebius, nor Cyril, nor Jerome, nor any of the earliest histori cal writers ever speak of Golgotha as a hill. Yet the expression must have become current at a very early period, for the Bordeaux pilgrim describes it in A.D. 333 as Moniicu Golgotha (Itinerarium Hierosol., ed. Wessel. p. 593). Dr. Robinson suggests that the idea of a mount originated in the fact that a rounded rock or monticule existed on the place where, in the beginning of the 4th cen tury, tradition located the scene of the crucifixion (Bib. Res. ii. 376). Golgotha was probably the place of the public execution of criminals.
The situation of Golgotha and the holy sepul chre, which must be connected with it, has formed a subject of keen and even bitter controversy.
Some confidently affirm that the spot is now marked by the Church of the Sepulchre ; others as confidently deny it. The former was the almost universally accredited tradition down to last cen tury ; for though many were struck by the singu lar position of the church, yet they got over that difficulty by various means (Robinson, Bib. Res.
408)• The first who openly opposed the tradi tion w-as Korte, a German traveller who visited Jerusalem in 173S. He was followed by Dr. Clarke (Travels), Scholz (Reise, and De Golgotha Situ), Robinson, Tobler (Golgotha), and others. The identity of Golgotha has been maintained by Von Raumer (Palastina), Krafft (die Topographie yerosalems), and especially Williams in his Holy City. This is not the place for considering the subject at length. All the information the Bible gives us regarding the site of Golgotha may be stated in a few words. Christ was crucified with out the gate ' (Heb. xiii. 12), nigh to the city ' (John xix. 20), at a place called Golgotha (Matt. xxvit. 33), and apparently beside some public thoroughfare (xxvii. 39) leading to the country (Mark xv. 21). The tomb in which he was laid was hewn out of the rock (Mark xv. 46), in a garden or orchard (epros), at the place of crucifixion (John xi.x. 41, 42). Neither Golgotha nor the tomb is ever afterwards mentioned by any of the sacred writers. No honour seems to have been paid to them, no sanctity attached to them during the apostolic age, or that which immediately suc ceeded 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. Euse bius then informs us that the Emperor Constan tine, 'not without divine admonition,' resolved to uncover the holy tomb. He states that wicked men 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. Constan tin. iii. 26-33). There can be little doubt that the present church of the sepulchre occupies the site of that built by Constantine (See, however, Fer g,usson, Ancient Topography of yerusalem). The only point to be settled is, whether the church of Constantine stood on the real Golgotha. Euse bius is our first witness, and he lived 30o yeam after the crucifixion. His story is repeated with some changes, and numerous embellishments, by subsequent writers (Socrates, H. E., i. ; So zom, H. E., ii. ; Theodoret, II. i. IS). it must be confessed that a critical examination of the narratives does not impress us with any very deep sense of their historic accuracy.