HOLY SEPULCHER.
I. The Site.
The Name Golgotha, its Origin and Implications (§ 1). Eusebius concerning the Site (§ 2). Modern Identifications (§ 3). II. The Structures Erected There.
1. By Constantine.
The Rotunda of the Resurrection (§1). The Basilica, Atrium, and Propylseum (§ 2).
2. Later Structures.
I. The Site : The tomb of Jesus was located in a garden belonging to the Jewish councilor Joseph of Arimathsea (q.v.), near or at the place of crucifixion, which was called in Aramaic gulgulta or gulgalta (Matt, xxvii. 60; John xix. 41), corresponding to the Hebrew haggulgoleth, " the skull." The name in Greek was written golgotha, which appears in Matthew (xxvii. 33), Mark (xv. 22), and John (xix. 17), with the explanation "the place of a skull," while Luke (xxiii. 33) has " the place
RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Holy Roman Empire Holy Sepulcher
called skull" (Gk. kranion; A. V "Calvary" from the Lat. calvaria). The location was evidently well known by the current 1 The designation. There was doubtless Name originally in the Aramaic a limiting Golgotha, addition, as there are traces in the its Origin Pseudepigrapha (particularly in the andlm- Ethiopic Book of Adam) and in plications. tne Church Fathers (Epiphanius, Hcer., xlvi. ; Basil, of Seleucia, Oratio, xxxviii.) that it was connected with the name of Adam. For the story in its Jewish form consult J A. Fabricius, Codex pseudepigraphuset Veris Testamenti, i. 60, 75, 267-268, Hamburg, 1722. The form and content of the tradition imply that there was a round knoll, by its shape suggesting the form of a skull, and near it a sharp depression which was associated in legend with the name of Adam, whose skull was said to have been deposited there by Shem in the center of the earth (cf. Ezek. v. 5). The New Testament locates Golgotha outside the city (Heb. xiii. 12; Matt, xxvii. 32; Mark xv. 20; John xix. 17), but near the city (John xix. 20) and by the road (Matt, xxvii. 39). The marks of identification require that the place be sought to the north of Jerusalem, since only there do the exits from the city debouch upon a plain, as was remarked as early as the time of Eusebius (Onomasticon, ed. Lagarde, Gottingen, 1870, p. 229, cf. 99 and 248, also 130). The place Eusebius had in mind was certainly the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher built by Constantine, but that this is the true site has in modern times been questioned.
Eusebius, in telling of the command of Constantine to erect a stately structure over the tomb of Jesus (Life of Constantine, iii. 25-40), 2. Eusebius says nothing of any official order to concerning' make search for the true site of the the Site, death and resurrection of Jesus. He narrates that the place had been buried deep in rubbish, over this a pavement had been laid, and on this a temple to Venus erected. By command of the emperor this temple was destroyed and the rubbish carried away, when the tomb of Jesus was disclosed, to the great joy of the emperor (Life of Constantine, iii. 30). The story of Eusebius shows that in Jerusalem, at least among Christians, not the slightest doubt existed concerning the site of the tomb. Yet Edward Robinson and other scholars who could not feel sure of the site called attention to the fact that, according to the words of Eusebius, the place had remained forgotten, and that the words of Constantine were that the rediscovery was a miracle. On the other hand, it is to be noted that no words of Eusebius affirm that knowledge of the place had been lost, as in that case it would have been expected that Constantine would have ordered careful search for the true site. Eusebius has raised doubts in another direction by the fact that his list of the bishops of Jerusalem is not altogether trustworthy (Hist, eccl., iv. 5-6, v. 12). Still it is to be presumed that the short break (between 70 and 135 a.d.) in the continuity of the Christian community had not resulted in the total loss of knowledge of the notable site of the death and resurrection of Jesus. And, though the first
generation of Christians might place no special emphasis upon knowledge of the sacred sites, it does not follow that they forgot the location, especially since Golgotha is shown by the way the word is used in the Gospels to have been a well-known place. The covering and defiling of the site Eusebius traces to ungodly men (whom he does not name) and to the whole horde of demons. Jerome states that for 180 years, from Hadrian's time to that of Constantine, a statue of Jupiter stood on the place of the resurrection and one of Venus on the place of the crucifixion, placed there with the design of casting scorn upon the faith. So far as Jerome controverts Eusebius, he may not receive the preference. In general, the attribution of design in the placing of rubbish on the spot and the erection of the heathen objects there may be wrong, and the results may have been brought about simply by the location just outside the walls. While Eusebius's identification may be correct, he mentions no mark by which the identification was assured. So long as other graves in the vicinity were unknown, his location would be unchallenged. That is no longer the case, since the graves assigned to Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathsea are now known and supposed to have been connected with that known as the Holy Sepulcher. Indeed, the discovery of still others has made questionable the assertion that the site of Constantine's church covered that of the tomb of Jesus.
The objections of Jonas Korte, who first questioned the identification, were based upon the relation of the site to the walls, consid- 3. Modern erations which are vitiated by remem- Iden tinea- bering that the present north wall dates tions. from 41 to 70 a.d., and that the "second " wall was in the time of Jesus the northern limit .of the city. Recent investigations by tracing the course of the "second" wall have made it very likely that Golgotha lay outside. O. Thenius decided for the Grotto of Jeremiah northeast from the Damascus Gate and the hill near it. James Fergusson hit upon the strange identification with Mount Moriah, that is, the site of the present Mosque of Omar. Still more recently a small hill outside the Damascus Gate and to the left of the road to Nablus has been claimed as the site — so General Gordon in 1883. E. M. Clos selected a spot for the tomb about 200 yards south of the present church. These identifications are without value.
It was the followers of Eusebius — Rufinus, Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret — not Eusebius himself, who brought Helena, the mother of Constantine, into connection with the finding of the grave and of the three crosses and the inscription of Pilate and with the building of the church on the site (see Cross, Invention of the). Eusebius places her church on the Mount of Olives, and he is to be followed. It is to be remembered that it was the custom in Christian circles to honor the sites of the burial of martyrs. Eusebius relates (Demonstratio evangelica, vi. 18) that Christian pilgrims came from all parts to Jerusalem to assure themselves by sight of the ruined state of Jerusalem of the fulfilment of prophecy and to pray in the cave of Bethlehem or on the Mount of Olives. It was in connection with
Holy Sepulcher Holy Spirit