Cal ́vary, a word occurring in the Auth. Vers. only in Luke 23:33, and there not as a proper name, but arising from the translators having literally adopted the word czlvaria, i.e. a bare skull, the Latin word by which the κρανίον of the evangelists is rendered in the Vulgate, κρανίον, again, being nothing but the Greek interpretation of the Hebrew GOLGOTHA SEE GOLGOTHA (q.v.).
1. Import of the Name. — 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. It is true, there is no express mention of a mount in either of the narratives. SEE CRUCIFIXION. That the place, however, was of some such shape seems to be generally agreed, and the traditional term mount, applied to Calvary, appears to confirm this idea. Such a shape, too, 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 other 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. Nor is the term Golgotha descriptive of such a place; to make it so, to any extent, the name should have been “skulls,” or “the place of skulls.” Equally unapt is the manner in which the writers of the Gospel speak of the place: Matthew calls it “a place called Golgotha; that is to say, a place of a skull;” Mark, “the place Golgotha, which is, being interpreted, the place of a skull;” Luke, “the place which is called Calvary;” John, “a place called of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew 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. This place, we may suppose, was not far from the judgment-hall, which was doubtless either near Fort Antonia or in the former palace of Herod. SEE PRAETORIUM. In either case, the crucifixion would most naturally have occurred at the north-west 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. Dr. Barclay is at great pains to show (City of the Great King, p. 78 sq.) that the vicinity of the garden of Gethsemane is the more probable location of Calvary, but his arguments are made up of a series of the most uncritical conjectures. Indeed, the very fact that of the arbitrary positions assigned by all those who (chiefly from an ultra Protestant prejudice apparently) reject the traditionary site, no two agree, while all are alike destitute of any historical basis, is an important evidence in favor of the current identification. SEE JERUSALEM.
To continue reading this Bible article, click here.
Author: McClintock and Strong Cyclopedia
Keywords: Calvary
Bible reference(s): Acts 2:29, Hebrews 13:11, Luke 23:33, Matthew 23:29
Source: John McClintock and James Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature.
Page indexed by: inWORD Bible Software.