'Such language, certainly, would hardly be 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 o"f obstructions from a well-known spot could hardly have been described as a miracle so stupendous. Indeed, the whole tenor
Boston, 1841, ii. 76).
The same impression is made by the accounts of the writers of the 5th century, who, however, unanimously attribute the discovery not to Con- stantine, 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 pre- sented in succession to a noble lady of Jerusalem who lay sick of an incurable disease. Two of them produced no efi'ect, but the third worked an im- mediate and perfect cure. Eusebius, though con- temporary 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 deter- mined Constantine's selection of the spot, but the
656
GOLGOTHA
GOLGOTHA
only proofs they adduce are : (a) vague allusions to visits made by early pUgiims 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 (6) 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 tne 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 (24»<'- ") that ' he led them out until they were over against Bethany, and ... he parted from them and was carried up into heaven.' Other sites sho\vn to pilgrims in that uncritical age were impossible, such as that of Rephidini 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 Sepulclire 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 Cruci- fixion, where His garments were parted, where His body was anointed, where He appeared to His mother after the Resurrection, and to Mary Mag- dalene ; the rock tombs also of Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathaja ; the place where Helena's throne stood during the ' Invention of the Cross,' — and many others. The number of these identi- fications, 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 suf- fered ' without the gate ' (He 13'=). 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 Gol- gotha 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 ^arara area ' ( Mer- rill). This difficulty arising from the present loca- tion in the heart of the city seems to have been felt as early as the 8th cent., and also in the 12tli 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 argu- ment against this site has been greatly strength- ened by the determination of the rock levels of