Places Study on Golgotha

Places Study on Golgotha

Matthew 27: And when they were come unto a place called Golgotha, that is to say, a place of a skull,
Mark 15: And they bring him unto the place Golgotha, which is, being interpreted, The place of a skull.
John 19: And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha:

Chain Links

Dictionary

Easton's Bible Dictionary - Golgotha
The common name of the spot where Jesus was crucified. It is interpreted by the evangelists as meaning "the place of a skull" (Matthew 27:33 ; Mark 15:22 ; John 19:17 ). This name represents in Greek letters the Aramaic word Gulgaltha, which is the Hebrew Gulgoleth (Numbers 1:2 ; 1 Chronicles 23:3,24 ; 2 Kings 9:35 ), meaning "a skull." It is identical with the word Calvary (q.v.). It was a little knoll rounded like a bare skull. It is obvious from the evangelists that it was some well-known spot outside the gate (Compare Hebrews 13:12 ), and near the city (Luke 23:26 ), containing a "garden" (John 19:41 ), and on a thoroughfare leading into the country. Hence it is an untenable idea that it is embraced within the present "Church of the Holy Sepulchre." The hillock above Jeremiah's Grotto, to the north of the city, is in all probability the true site of Calvary. The skull-like appearance of the rock in the southern precipice of the hillock is very remarkable.
Holman Bible Dictionary - Golgotha
(gahl' guh thuh) Place name transliterated from Aramaic and or Hebrew into Greek and then into English meaning, “skull.” In Mark 15:22 , the Hebrew name for the place where Jesus was crucified. The Latin equivalent is calvaria. Both words mean “skull.” See Crucifixion; Calvary . The Hebrew term appears twice in the Old Testament in its literal sense. In Judges 9:53 it is used of the skull of Abimelech; in 2 Kings 9:35 , it refers to the skull of Jezebel. In the New Testament it appears only as a designation of the location of Christ's crucifixion. See Crucifixion; Calvary .



Hitchcock's Bible Names - Golgotha
A heap of skulls; something skull-shaped
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible - Golgotha
GOLGOTHA ( Matthew 27:33 , Mark 15:22 , John 19:17 , from the Aram. [Note: Aramaic.] Gulgalta . In Luke 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 ( Hebrews 13:12 ), but near it ( John 19:20 ); it was a site visible afar off ( Mark 15:40 , Luke 23:49 ), and was probably near a high road ( Matthew 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.

Fausset's Bible Dictionary - Golgotha
Aramaic, Gulgaltha , Hebrew Gulgoleth . (See CALVARY, Latin) Greek (Luke 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" (Luke 23:53; John 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," Matthew 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 (John 12:32).

"Without the gate" (Hebrews 13:12); "nigh to the city" (John 19:20); near a thoroughfare where "they that passed by reviled Him" (Matthew 27:39), and where "Simon a Cyrenian who passed by, coming out of the country," was compelled to bear His cross (Mark 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.

Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament - Golgotha
GOLGOTHA (Γολγοθᾶ, Aram. [Note: Aramaic.] נ֖לְנָּלְתָּא, Heb. נּ֖לְנֹּלֶח [2 Kings 9:35], ‘skull’).—The name of the place where Jesus was crucified. This name is mentioned by three of the Evangelists (Matthew 27:33 ‘a place called Golgotha, that is to say, The place of a skull’; Mark 15:22 ‘the place Golgotha, which is, being interpreted, The place of a skull’; John 19:17 ‘the place called The place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew, Golgotha’). The Greek equivalent (Κρανίον) is used by St. Luke (Luke 23:33 ‘the place which is called The skull,’ Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885). Vulgate uses here the Latin equivalent Calvaria, whence ‘Calvary’ in Authorized Version.

Three explanations of this name have been suggested: (1) Jerome (Com. in Ephesians 5:14) mentions a tradition that Adam was buried at Golgotha, and that at the Crucifixion the drops of Christ’s blood fell on his skull and restored him to life. The skull often seen in early pictures of the Crucifixion refers to this. (2) It is supposed by some to have been the place of public execution, where bodies were left unburied (Jerome, Com. in Matthew 27:33), but (a) it is most unlikely that dead men’s bones would have been left lying about so near the city, when, according to the Mosaic law, they made any one unclean who touched them; (b) there was no reason why the place should have been named from the skulls rather than from any other parts of skeletons; (c) the expression is κρανίου τόπος, not κρανίων τόπος, as we should expect it to be if this derivation were correct. (3) The most probable view of the origin of the name is suggested by the form of the expression in St. Luke, ‘the place which is called The skull.’ It was probably so called because of its skull-like contour. The use of the article by the Evangelists seems to indicate that the place was well known, but they never call it a mountain. The Bordeaux Pilgrim (a.d. 333) speaks of it as monticulus Golgotha, and the expression ‘Mount Calvary’ appears to have come into use after the 5th century.

The site cannot be identified with certainty. All that we know from the Bible is that it was outside the walls of the city (Hebrews 13:12, Matthew 27:31-32, John 19:16-17), that it was nigh to the city (John 19:20), that it was in a conspicuous position (Mark 15:40, Luke 23:49), that it was close to some thoroughfare leading from the country (Matthew 27:39, Mark 15:21; Mark 15:29, Luke 23:28), and that it was near a garden and a new tomb hewn out of the rock, belonging to Joseph, a rich man of Arimathaea (John 19:41, Matthew 27:57; Matthew 27:60, Mark 15:43; Mark 15:46, Luke 23:53). These particulars are not sufficient to justify a positive decision in favour of any one of the proposed identifications of Golgotha, but they seem to be decisive against the first of the four conjectures mentioned below, to bear against the second slightly, but against the third more heavily, and to be most nearly satisfied by the fourth.

1. The peculiar theory of Fergusson (Essay on the Anc. Topog. of Jerus. [Note: Jerusalem.] , and art. ‘Jerusalem’ in Smith’s DB [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] ), that Golgotha was on Mount Moriah, and that the mosque of Omar is the church erected by Constantine over the Holy Sepulchre, was quickly shown to be untenable (e.g. by Bonar, art. ‘Jerusalem’ in Fairbairn’s DB [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] ).

2. Barclay (City of the Great King, p. 79) and Porter (Kitto’s Cycl. of Bib. Lit. art ‘Golgotha’) maintained that the site of the Crucifixion was east of the city, between the then existing wall and the Kidron Valley. This place could have been quickly and easily reached from the palace of Pilate and the judgment-hall, which probably stood at the N.W. corner of the Haram area. According to this view, the soldiers, instead of taking their prisoner across the city towards the west, or out in the direction of the Roman road, hurried Him through the nearest gate and crucified Him near the road leading to Bethany. Two objections are urged against this: (a) that the Gospel narratives imply that the road passing Golgotha was a more frequented thoroughfare than this road to Bethany, and that the great highways of Jerusalem are all on the north and west of the city; and (b) that there is no skull-shaped site in this region.

3. That Golgotha was where the Church of the Holy Sepulchre now stands, seems to have been almost universally believed from the age of Constantine down to the 18th century. It is now agreed on all hands that the present Church of the Holy Sepulchre occupies the site of the one erected by Constantine in a.d. 335. On what grounds did he select this as the true site of the Crucifixion? Those who still believe it to be the true site generally assume not only that the early Christians at Jerusalem had a knowledge of the places where the Lord was crucified and buried, but also that this knowledge was handed down as a reliable tradition through three hundred years, notwithstanding the utter demolition of Jerusalem by Titus and again by Hadrian, and the altering of the whole aspect of the city by the latter when he rebuilt it as a Roman colony and changed its name to Aelia Capitolina. But Eusebius, in describing the discovery of the site by Constantine, says it had been ‘given over to forgetfulness and oblivion,’ and that the Emperor, ‘not without a Divine intimation, but moved in spirit by the Saviour Himself,’ ordered it to be purified and adorned with splendid buildings.

‘Such language, certainly, would hardly he appropriate in speaking of a spot well known and definitely marked by long tradition. The Emperor, too, in his letter to Macarius, regards the discovery of “the token of the Saviour’s most sacred passion, which for so long a time had been hidden under ground,” as “a miracle beyond the capacity of man sufficiently to celebrate or even to comprehend.” The mere removal of obstructions from a well-known spot could hardly have been described as a miracle so stupendous. Indeed, the whole tenor of the language both of Eusebius and Constantine goes to show that the discovery of the Holy Sepulchre was held to be the result, not of a previous knowledge derived from tradition, but of a supernatural interposition and revelation’ (Robinson, BRP [Note: RP Biblical Researches in Palestine.] , Boston, 1841, ii. 75).

The same impression is made by the accounts of the writers of the 5th century, who, however, unanimously attribute the discovery not to Constantine, but to his mother Helena. Their story is that, guided by a ‘Divine intimation’ as to the place, she came to Jerusalem, inquired diligently of the inhabitants, and, after a difficult search, found the sepulchre and beside it three crosses, and also the tablet bearing the inscription of Pilate. At the suggestion of Bishop Macarius, the cross to which the inscription belonged was ascertained by a miracle of healing. The three crosses were presented in succession to a noble lady of Jerusalem who lay sick of an incurable disease. Two of them produced no effect, but the third worked an immediate and perfect cure. Eusebius, though contemporary with the alleged events, makes no mention of the discovery of the cross nor of the agency of Helena. But whether we accept the account of Eusebius or that of the writers of the 5th century, the traditional site of Calvary rests on a miracle, and, in the case of the latter, on a double miracle.

Those who now favour this site (e.g. Sanday, Sac. Sites of the Gospels, pp. 72–77) labour to show that there was a previous tradition which determined Constantine’s selection of the spot, but the only proofs they adduce are: (a) vague allusions to visits made by early pilgrims to the ‘Holy Places’ of Palestine, an expression which is used of the Holy Land at large, and not of the Holy City only; and (b) the alleged regular succession of bishops from the Apostle James to the time of Hadrian, through whom a knowledge of the place might have been handed down. This regular succession of bishops is more than doubtful. The only authority on the subject is Eusebius, who lived two centuries afterwards, and he says expressly that he had been able to find no document respecting them, and wrote only from hearsay. Moreover, even if it were possible to prove the existence of an earlier tradition, its value would be open to serious question, as is shown by the falsity of other traditions which did actually exist in the age of Constantine. For instance, Eusebius in a.d. 315 speaks of pilgrims coming from all parts of the world to behold the fulfilment of prophecy and to pay their adorations on the summit of the Mount of Olives, where Jesus gave His last charge to His disciples and then ascended into heaven. This is hardly consistent with the explicit statement of St. Luke (Luke 24:50-51) that ‘he led them out until they were over against Bethany, and … he parted from them and was carried up into heaven.’ Other sites shown to pilgrims in that uncritical age were impossible, such as that of Rephidim in Moab. The Bordeaux Pilgrim places the Transfiguration on Olivet, and the combat of David and Goliath near Jezreel. The fact that no pilgrimages were made to the site of the Holy Sepulchre before the visit of Helena, though they were made in plenty to the summit of Olivet, goes to show that there was no tradition concerning the Holy Sepulchre.

In the present Church of the Holy Sepulchre are shown not only the site of the Sepulchre and the rock of the Crucifixion, with the cleft made by the earthquake and the three holes, five feet apart, in which the three crosses were inserted, but also a great number of other traditional sites. Almost every incident of the Passion and Resurrection is definitely located. The very spots are pointed out where Christ was bound, where He was scourged, where His friends stood afar off during the Crucifixion, where His garments were parted, where His body was anointed, where He appeared to His mother after the Resurrection, and to Mary Magdalene; the rock tombs also of Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathaea; the place where Helena’s throne stood during the ‘Invention of the Cross,’—and many others. The number of these identifications, all under one roof, does not increase our confidence in ecclesiastical tradition.

Not less damaging to the claims of the traditional site is the topographical evidence. Our Lord suffered ‘without the gate’ (Hebrews 13:12). The Church of the Holy Sepulchre lies far within the walls of the present city, and, as Jerusalem at the time of the Crucifixion was much larger than it is now, the fair presumption is that it included the site of that church rather than excluded it. If we place Golgotha at the traditional site, we make Jerusalem at the time of its greatest prosperity no larger than the poverty-stricken town of the present day, ‘containing not far from 200 acres, from which 36 acres must be deducted for the Haram area’ (Merrill). This difficulty arising from the present location in the heart of the city seems to have been felt as early as the 8th cent., and also in the 12th and 14th, but the first to reject the tradition openly was Korte, who visited Jerusalem in 1738, and who urged that the traditional site could not have been outside the ancient city, because of its nearness to the former area of the Jewish temple. The argument against this site has been greatly strengthened by the determination of the rock levels of Jerusalem and the probable course of the ‘second wall’ of the three mentioned by Josephus. The first wall, that of David and Solomon, encompassed the Upper City (Zion), and its north line ran eastward from the tower of Hippicus to the wall bounding the temple area. ‘The second wall had its beginning from the gate called Gennath, which belonged to the first wall, and, encircling only the northern quarter of the city, it extended as far as the Tower Antonia’ (BJ v. iv. 2). This wall, which was probably built by Hezekiah, running in a circle or curve, seems to have had no angles like the first and third, and therefore to have required no extended description. If this curve included the Pool of Hezekiah (which must surely have been within the walls), it would naturally have included also the traditional site of the Sepulchre. If, in spite of the statement of Josephus, the wall be drawn with a re-entering angle so as to exclude the traditional site, there still remain apparently insuperable difficulties in the nature of the ground, since in this case the wall must have been built in a deep valley (Tyropœon), and must have been dominated from without by the adjacent knoll on which the Church of the Holy Sepulchre now stands (Acra). But ‘fortresses stand on hills, not in deep ravines,’ ‘the wall must have stood on the high ground’ (Conder). Immediately east of the Tower of David (at or near which Hippicus must have stood) a narrow ridge runs north and south, connecting the two hills Zion and Acra and separating the head of the Tyropœon Valley from the valley west of the Jaffa gate. As this is the only place where the wall could have protected the valley on the east and commanded the valley on the west, the natural course for the engineers would have been to build the wall along this ridge. Exactly along this ridge the remains of an ancient wall were found in 1885 by Dr. Merrill. One hundred and twenty feet of it were exposed in a line running north-west and south-east, at a depth of 10 or 12 ft. below the present surface of the ground. At some points but one course of stone remained, at others two, at others three. The stones correspond in size and work to those in the base of the Tower of David, a few yards farther south. This is probably a portion of the second wall. Later, another section, 26 ft. long, of similar work, was found farther north, besides traces at several other points. In explanation of the fact that entire sections are found towards the south and only debris of walls towards the north, Dr. Merrill cites the statement of Josephus, that Titus ‘threw down the entire northern portion,’ but left the southern standing and placed garrisons in its towers. From the statement that Titus made his attack ‘against the central tower of the north wall’ he argues further, that if the wall ran from near Hippicus to Antonia in such a way as to exclude the traditional site of the Sepulchre, the two parts of the wall after it was broken in the middle should have been designated the ‘eastern’ and ‘western’; but Josephus calls them the ‘northern’ and ‘southern,’ a description which is obviously more appropriate to a wall which ran well to the west and north of the traditional site (Presb. and Ref. Rev. iii. p. 646).

Parts of an ancient ditch and remains of walls have been recently discovered east of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and Schick regards these as remains of the second wall and of the city moat. But, as Benzinger says (Hilprecht’s Explorations in Bible Lands in the 19th Cent.), his explanation ‘is not convincing in itself, and there stand opposed to it important considerations of a general nature,’ such as have been cited above, e.g. the military objection to locating a wall in a valley dominated from without by higher ground, and the fact that, had this been the course of the wall, Jerusalem could not have accommodated its great population at the time of Christ.

The existence of an undoubted Jewish tomb at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the one now called the Tomb of Joseph of Arimathaea, has been cited as evidence that the place was outside the old city wall, ‘but we know from the Talmud that ancient half-forgotten tombs were allowed by the Jews to exist within Jerusalem, and any writer will admit that, in the time of Agrippa at least, this particular tomb was within the circuit of the town.’ The third wall, which ran far to the north-west and north of the present city wall, was built by Agrippa only ten or eleven years after the Crucifixion, to enclose a large suburb that had gradually extended beyond the second wall. So that, even if it could be shown that the Sepulchre was outside the second wall, it certainly lay far within the line of the third, and in the midst of this new town which at the time of the Crucifixion must have been already growing north of the second wall. The words ‘without the gate’ and ‘nigh to the city’ could scarcely mean ‘within the suburbs’ (Schaff).

The genuineness of the traditional site has been defended by Chateaubriand (Itinéraire de Paris à Jerusalem), Williams (The Holy City), Krafft (Die Topographie Jerusalems), Tischendorf (Reise in den Orient), de Vogué (Les Églises de la Terre-Sainte), Sepp (Jerusalem), Clermont-Ganneau (L’Authenticite du Saint-Sepulcre), Sanday (Sacred Sites of the Gospels), and others. It has been attacked by Korte (Reise nach dem gelobten Lande), Robinson (BRP [Note: RP Biblical Researches in Palestine.] , and Bibliotheca Sacra for August and November 1847), Tobler (Golgotha), Wilson (The Lands of the Bible), Barclay (The City of the Great King), Schaff (Through Bible Lands), Conder (Tent Work in Palestine), and others.

4. The theory that Golgotha is the skull-shaped knoll above Jeremiah’s grotto, outside the present north wall, near the Damascus gate, was first suggested by Otto Thenius in 1849. A similar view was put forward independently by Fisher Howe (The True Site of Calvary) in 1871. Since that time the theory has come rapidly into favour, and has been accepted by Gen. [Note: Geneva NT 1557, Bible 1560.] C. E. Gordon, Sir J. W. Dawson, Dr. Merrill, Dr. Schaff, Col. Conder, and others. It answers all the requirements of the Gospel narratives, being outside the walls, nigh to the city, in a conspicuous position, near a frequented thoroughfare—the main north road, and near to ancient Jewish rock-hewn tombs, one of which was discovered by Conder about 700 ft. west of the knoll. The so-called ‘Gordon’s Tomb,’ about 230 ft. from the summit of the knoll, is thought by Conder to be a Christian tomb of the Byzantine age; but Schick says it ‘was originally a rather small rock-cut Jewish tomb, but became afterwards a Christian tomb.’ The great cemetery of Jewish times lay north of the city.

Moreover, Jewish tradition regards this hill as the place of public execution, and the Jews still call it ‘the Place of Stoning.’ Christian tradition also, as old as the 5th cent., fixes this as the place of the stoning of Stephen. The fact that Christ was put to death by the Roman method of crucifixion and not by the Jewish method of stoning does not break the force of this argument, for there is no reason to suppose that Jerusalem had two places of public execution. No other place would have been so convenient to the Romans for this purpose, starting, as they probably did, from Antonia. The castle seems to have been itself a part of the outer ramparts on the north-east, with the north wall of the temple area stretching from it to the east and the second city wall to the north-west. There must have been some feasible route for the soldiers of the garrison, who were constantly going back and forth between this fortress and Caesarea. There was no such route to the east or south. To go west would have taken them through the heart of the crowded city, with its narrow streets and its perils from the mob. What more natural than that there should have been a road leading directly from Antonia to the open country northwards? Here, accordingly, only a short distance north of the city, we find the remains of a Roman road.

‘If executions were to take place near the city, I think they must have been carried out on the line of such a road, where the soldiers would have free ground to act upon in case of an emergency, without being hampered by crowded streets, and where only one gate would be between them and their stronghold, and that one entirely under their own control’ (Merrill).

Literature.—Artt. ‘Golgotha’ in Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible and Encyc. Bibl., ‘Sepulchre, The Holy,’ in Encyc. Brit.9 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] , ‘Grab, das heilige,’ in PRE [Note: RE Real-Encyklopädie fur protest. Theologic und Kirche.] 3 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] ; Conder, Tent Work in Palestine, i. 372 ff.; SWP [Note: WP Memoirs of the Survey of W. Palestine.] ‘Jerusalem,’ 429 ff.; Merrill in Andover Rev., 1885, p. 483 ff.; PEFSt [Note: EFSt Quarterly Statement of the same.] , 1892, pp. 120 ff., 177, 188, 205; Wilson, Golgotha and the Holy Sepulchre, 1906; and works cited in the article.

W. W. Moore.

1910 New Catholic Dictionary - Golgotha
(Latin: calvaria, skull; Aramaic, skull)

The place where Jesus was crucified (Luke 23), so called on account of its resemblance to a head or skull. The Mount of Calvary was near Jerusalem and was the place where criminals usually were executed.

Morrish Bible Dictionary - Golgotha
See CALVARY.

The Hawker's Poor Man's Concordance And Dictionary - Golgotha
Or perhaps better read Gulgultha, a skull. This was the memorable spot where the Lord Jesus was crucified; a mountain north-west of Jerusalem. The Romans called it Calvarea, which we translate Calvary. And the tradition in the eastern world concerning it was, that this name was given to it from Adam having been buried there. So that the men of Syria called it Cranium, the skull. But be this as it may, here it was the Lord of life and glory offered up that holy sacred oblation of himself, for the sin and transgression of his redeemed, by which he obtained eternal redemption for all them that are sanctified. Sweet and solemn the meditation, when from Gethsemane to Golgotha the believer by faith traverses the sacred ground. If Moses with such earnestness desired to see the goodly mountain, and Lebanon, as he tells us he did, (Deuteronomy 3:24-25) because, that there he knew He whose "good will he had begun to enjoy at the bush," would go through the whole of redemption work, and finish it; what may be supposed the favoured contemplations of the faithful now at Gethsemane and Golgotha where they know Jesus did, indeed, according to the most sure prophecies concerning him, complete the salvation of his people! Here would my soul delight to wander, and often review the sacred ground. From hence it was, that clear and distinct views were first taken of the city of the living God. Golgotha's mount opened the perspective of the New Jerusalem, and gave to the eye of faith not only clear and distinct prospects of the certainty of the place, but also as clear and distinct assurances of the believer's right and interest by Jesus to the possession of it. And from that period to the present hour, and so on to the end of time, these views have never since been darkened. The song of faith is still the same, and the triumphs in the cross furnish out the same soul-reviving notes. "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance, incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away." (1 Peter 1:3-4)

See Gethsemane.

American Tract Society Bible Dictionary - Golgotha
The Hebrew name for CALVARY , which see.

Bridgeway Bible Dictionary - Golgotha
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 (Matthew 27:33; Luke 23:33; John 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 (Matthew 27:39; John 19:20; John 19:41).

Sentence search

Calvary - See Golgotha
Calvary - —See Golgotha
Skull, Place of - —See Golgotha
Mount Calvary - See Calvary--Gethsemane--and Golgotha
Skull, Place of a - See Golgotha
Calvary - See Golgotha
Sepulchre (2) - —See Tomb; and for ‘Holy Sepulchre’ see Golgotha
Golgotha - 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 (Matthew 27:33; Luke 23:33; John 19:17). )... There is no certainty about which of several possible sites is Golgotha or how the hill got its name
Calvary - Calvary was known in the New Testament as Golgotha which means "Place of the Skull" (Matthew 27:33)
Calvary - Here the meditation of the follower of Jesus should frequently take wing, and view in faith that wonderful mount, from whence redemption came!... See Gethsemane and Golgotha...
Calvary - The corresponding Aramaic word is Golgotha (Heb
Calvary - It is the adoption into English of the Latin word for "skull," answering to the Greek kranion, which is itself the translation of the Hebrew Golgotha. There is no topographical question more keenly disputed than whether the spot now venerated as the site of the holy sepulchre is really the ancient Golgotha or Calvary: the latest explorations do not support the tradition, but point to a site outside the walls of Jerusalem, near the so-called Grotto of Jeremiah
Golgotha - Golgotha ( Matthew 27:33 , Mark 15:22 , John 19:17 , from the Aram. Against it may be urged that there is no evidence that Golgotha was a hill at all. (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. 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)
Calvary - " (See Golgotha
Gol'Gotha - " Whichever of these is the correct explanation, Golgotha seems to have been a known spot
Tombs - (See Golgotha
Golgotha - Sweet and solemn the meditation, when from Gethsemane to Golgotha the believer by faith traverses the sacred ground. If Moses with such earnestness desired to see the goodly mountain, and Lebanon, as he tells us he did, (Deuteronomy 3:24-25) because, that there he knew He whose "good will he had begun to enjoy at the bush," would go through the whole of redemption work, and finish it; what may be supposed the favoured contemplations of the faithful now at Gethsemane and Golgotha where they know Jesus did, indeed, according to the most sure prophecies concerning him, complete the salvation of his people! Here would my soul delight to wander, and often review the sacred ground. Golgotha's mount opened the perspective of the New Jerusalem, and gave to the eye of faith not only clear and distinct prospects of the certainty of the place, but also as clear and distinct assurances of the believer's right and interest by Jesus to the possession of it
Golgotha - Golgotha (Γολγοθᾶ, Aram. This name is mentioned by three of the Evangelists (Matthew 27:33 ‘a place called Golgotha, that is to say, The place of a skull’; Mark 15:22 ‘the place Golgotha, which is, being interpreted, The place of a skull’; John 19:17 ‘the place called The place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew, Golgotha’). in Ephesians 5:14) mentions a tradition that Adam was buried at Golgotha, and that at the Crucifixion the drops of Christ’s blood fell on his skull and restored him to life. 333) speaks of it as monticulus Golgotha, and the expression ‘Mount Calvary’ appears to have come into use after the 5th century. These particulars are not sufficient to justify a positive decision in favour of any one of the proposed identifications of Golgotha, but they seem to be decisive against the first of the four conjectures mentioned below, to bear against the second slightly, but against the third more heavily, and to be most nearly satisfied by the fourth. ] ), that Golgotha was on Mount Moriah, and that the mosque of Omar is the church erected by Constantine over the Holy Sepulchre, was quickly shown to be untenable (e. art ‘Golgotha’) maintained that the site of the Crucifixion was east of the city, between the then existing wall and the Kidron Valley. Two objections are urged against this: (a) that the Gospel narratives imply that the road passing Golgotha was a more frequented thoroughfare than this road to Bethany, and that the great highways of Jerusalem are all on the north and west of the city; and (b) that there is no skull-shaped site in this region. That Golgotha was where the Church of the Holy Sepulchre now stands, seems to have been almost universally believed from the age of Constantine down to the 18th century. If we place Golgotha at the traditional site, we make Jerusalem at the time of its greatest prosperity no larger than the poverty-stricken town of the present day, ‘containing not far from 200 acres, from which 36 acres must be deducted for the Haram area’ (Merrill). ] , and Bibliotheca Sacra for August and November 1847), Tobler (Golgotha), Wilson (The Lands of the Bible), Barclay (The City of the Great King), Schaff (Through Bible Lands), Conder (Tent Work in Palestine), and others. The theory that Golgotha is the skull-shaped knoll above Jeremiah’s grotto, outside the present north wall, near the Damascus gate, was first suggested by Otto Thenius in 1849. ‘Golgotha’ in Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible and Encyc. , 177, 188, 205; Wilson, Golgotha and the Holy Sepulchre, 1906; and works cited in the article
Simon - A native of Cyrene who was forced to carry Jesus' cross to Golgotha (Mark 15:21 )
Golgotha - Moreover, the derivation of Golgotha (not "a place of skulls," but "of a skull," Matthew 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 (John 12:32)
Thieves, the Two - (Luke 22:62 ) Of the previous history of the two who suffered on Golgotha we know nothing
Calvary - ' The word 'Calvary' is from the Latin Calvaria, having a like signification; agreeing also with the Hebrew Golgotha, which has the same meaning
Grave-Clothes - Gospel of Peter, 6), was ‘wrapped’ (ἐνετύλιξεν, Matthew 27:59, Luke 23:53) or ‘swathed’ (ἐνείλησεν, Mark 15:46) in the shroud of linen cloth (σινδόνι) which Joseph of Arimathaea had procured on his way back to Golgotha, and which is described as ‘fresh’ or ‘unused’ (καθαρᾷ, Matthew 27:59), in accordance with the sacred use to which it was put (cf
Calvary - The expression, "Mount Calvary," has no evidence to support it beyond what is implied in the name Golgotha which might well be given to a slight elevation shaped like the top of a skull, and the probability that such a place would be chosen for the crucifixion
Interpret, Interpretation, Interpreter - 1), to interpret," is always used in the Passive Voice in the NT, "being interpreted," of interpreting the names, Immanuel, Matthew 1:23 ; Golgotha, Mark 15:22 ; Barnabas, Acts 4:36 ; in Acts 13:8 , of Elymas, the verb is rendered "is
Jerusalem - side over the summit of the hill reduced the area to about 48½ acres, only a little short of the normal dimensions of a ‘Camp’ (Golgotha and the Holy Sepulchre, p. There is much discussion as to its actual line in view of the importance of this for the determination of the site of Golgotha and the Holy Sepulchre. Wilson also leaves the question open (Golgotha, p. The military requirements of the Roman garrison necessitated some demolition; but there is no evidence that a plough was passed over the ruins, or that Titus ever intended that the city should never be rebuilt’ (Golgotha, p. Wilson, Golgotha, p. Wilson is more favourable, and thinks that here ‘amidst soldiers and civilians drawn from all parts of the known world, the Christians may have settled down on their return from Pella, making many converts and worshipping in a small building [see Epiphanius, as above] which in happier times was to become the “Mother Church of Sion,” the “mother of all the churches” ’ (Golgotha, p. 8, 9; see Wilson, Golgotha, p. Wilson, Golgotha, p
Directions (Geographical) - ” Christians in the first centuries after Christ took over this type of geographical description and made Golgotha, considered the grave of Adam and of Christ, the middle point of the world
si'Mon - ) Meeting the procession that conducted Jesus to Golgotha, as he was returning from the country, he was pressed into the service to bear the cross, (Matthew 27:32 ; Mark 15:21 ; Luke 23:26 ) when Jesus himself was unable to carry it any longer
Calvary - or, as it is called in Hebrew, Golgotha, "a skull," or "place of skulls," supposed to be thus denominated from the similitude it bore to the figure of a skull or man's head, or from its being a place of burial
Cross - Jesus bore His own cross toward Golgotha outside the city (Hebrews 13:12; so Stephen, Acts 7:58), but sinking exhausted probably He was relieved, and it was transferred to Simon of Cyrene; prefigured in Isaac carrying the wood (Genesis 22:6; contrast Isaiah 9:6, "the government shall be upon His shoulder"
the Penitent Thief - " Till, by that time, the terrible procession had got to Golgotha. And all the way, as already in the high priest's palace, and in the Prætorium, and now at Golgotha, all hell was let loose as never before nor since
Upper Room (2) - And truly it is most fitting that, as we speak of Christ and Golgotha here in Golgotha, so also we should speak of the Holy Ghost in the upper church
Crucifixion - Golgotha), the condemned was stripped of his clothing by the soldiers detailed to carry out the sentence, who immediately appropriated it as their lawful booty (Matthew 27:35 ||)
Baptism - They are united with Christ in his baptism at Golgotha, as the Israelites were united with Moses in their redemption from Egypt (1 Corinthians 10:1-2)
Body - The continuing power of the sacrifice of Golgotha leads humans to join together in a church community, which in a real sense is joined together with the exalted Lord
Helena, Saint, Mother of Constantine the Great - Among these are the house of Caiaphas with the pillar at which our Lord was scourged, the praetorium of Pontius Pilate, the little hill ( monticulus ) of Golgotha, and, a stone's throw from it, the cave of the resurrection. 430) claims good authority for his account, and states that Constantine, in gratitude for the council of Nicaea, wished to build a church on Golgotha; that Helena about the same time went to Palestine to pray and to look for the sacred sites
Joseph - " Pilate having ascertained from the centurion that the death had really taken place, granted Joseph's request, who immediately, having purchased fine linen (Mark 15:46 ), proceeded to Golgotha to take the body down from the cross
Tomb, Grave, Sepulchre - On the Holy Sepulchre see Golgotha
Mark, the Gospel According to - Hebrew (Aramaic) words are used, but explained for Gentile readers: Mark 3:17; Mark 3:22; Mark 5:41, Τalitha kumi ; Mark 7:11, korban ; Mark 9:43, gehenna ; Mark 10:46, Βar-timaeus ; Mark 14:36, Αbba ; Mark 15:22, Golgotha
Simeon - Of Cyrene; attending the Passover "from the country, father of Alexander and Rufus" (known to Roman Christians, Romans 16:13, for whom Mark wrote); impressed to bear after Christ the cross to Golgotha, when the Lord Himself had sunk under it (John 19:17; Mark 15:21; Luke 23:26)
Adam - Paul between Adam and Christ may have been the origin of the tradition that Adam was buried under Golgotha
Constantius ii, Son of Constantius - Cyril of Jerusalem, describing a cross of light which appeared "on May 7, about the third hour," "above the holy Golgotha and stretching as far as the holy mount of Olives," and seen by the whole city
Adam - Paul between Adam and Christ may have been the origin of the tradition that Adam was buried under Golgotha
Luke, the Gospel According to - He omits Hosanna, Eli Eli lama sabacthani, Rabbi, Golgotha (for which he substitutes the Greek kranios , "calvary:' or "place of a skull"
Sepulchre - Mommert, Golgotha und das heilige Grab zu Jerusalem, 1900; Baedeker-Benzinger, Palestine and Syria, 1912; Zeitschrift des deutschen Palaestina-Vereins, 1878 ff
the Angel of the Church in Smyrna - Have we not seen that in the second death the soul is forsaken of God? And was He not forsaken till Golgotha for the time was like Gehenna itself to Him? He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the Churches: He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death
Crucifixion - ... On arrival at the place of execution (See Golgotha), four soldiers were told off by the centurion in charge to do the work (cf
Luke, Gospel According to - He explains Jewish customs ( Luke 22:1 ), substitutes Greek names for Hebrew (‘Zelotes’ for ‘Cananæan’ Luke 6:15 , Acts 1:13 , ‘the Skull’ for Golgotha’ Luke 23:33 , ‘Master’ for ‘Rabbi’ often), is sparing of OT quotations and of references to prophecy, uses ‘Judæa’ for the whole of Palestine ( Luke 1:5 , Luke 7:17 , Luke 23:5 , Acts 2:9 ; Acts 10:37 ; Acts 11:29 ; but in Luke 4:44 RVm [Note: Revised Version margin
Mark, Gospel According to - Eli ); and several Aramaic proper names are noticeable: Bartimæus Mark 10:48 (a patronymic), Cananæan Mark 3:18 , Iscariot Mark 3:19 , Beelzebub Mark 3:22 , Golgotha Mark 15:22
Gregorius Nyssenus, Bishop of Nyssa - He visited Bethlehem, Golgotha, the Mount of Olives, and the Anastasis