Talk:Calvary

-Christian Zodiac-

Untitled

The astronomical aspects of an agnostic analysis of christian astrotheology and its' symbolism is being completely ignored here and lost in misguided literal translation attempt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.182.81.200 (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Bahat's claim

Added "In another viewpoint" at the beginning of the paragraph about Bahat claiming that the traditional site was outside the wall because he discovered some early graves, which which has no logic by the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.50.161 (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Other uses of the name

Most of this rubbish needs to be removed- maybe leaving one or two specific references to its uses. It's these kind of ridiculous lists that give wikipedia a bad name —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.174.34 (talk) 21:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

General Comments

where's the link to the article describing the hill?

Κρανιου Τοπος (Kraniou Topos) means "place of [the] skull" in Greek, not simply "skull."

I was under the impression that Golgotha was the hill where David placed Goliath's head. See 1Samuel 17:54. I would imagine a giant's head would make a profound impression on the Israelites. Enough so as to name the hill where it rested "the place of THE skull". Not just any skull, but a very large skull, the skull of a giant, Goliath. David stood in faith as God's warrior, a type of Christ. In 1Samuel 17:5, the Bible says that Goliath "had a bronze helmet on his head and he was clothed with scaled body armor..." Like the snake he represents, he is killed in the head, a type of death planned for the real serpent as predicted in Genesis 3:15. The geological, historical, and anthropological interest in the area over the centuries has surely eradicated any proof we may want to find. As you said, the real death of a real Savior and His real resurection to return soon is the most important information of all. It is a fact, however, that attacks against the Bible are increasing. Many are looking to disprove it so they can go about doing as they wish without fear of retribution. We must be ever vigilant to answer these disputes with the infalible Word of God. Proving God's Word through the sciences is indeed a high calling.

I'm not sure that I should write this comment here, so please feel free to correct me: I have concluded that Constantine and Helena worked together to deliberately misidentify the location of the tomb in question in order to preserve the site of Y'shua's crucifixion from destruction and ultimately provide another place nearby for Christians to worship. Due to the scarcity of structural wood the cross that was used to crucify Y'shua would most certainly have been re-used before Helena had the opportunity to find the "true cross", which, by the way, was a beam, according to Paul's writings, attached to a tree, not attached to a vertical pole. I do not mean to imply that Constantine or Helena intended any harm, but rather took action in a very uncertain world with uncertain power transitions to protect a priceless 'holy site' from destruction should a pagan Roman emperor succeed Constantine or should a pagan army conquer Jerusalem. Due to the aforementioned hypothetical Imperial 'holy site' preservation objective and the likelihood that the original beam used to crucify Y'shua was reused before Helena could have found it, I cannot agree with any tomb location facilitated by the leadership of the Imperium Romanum. I do agree with any good faith attempt to establish the true location of 'the place of the skull' and the true location of the tomb built for Joseph of Arimathaea, which, also, was likely re-used. At any rate, Constantine's idea worked. Centvrio8513 (talk) 01:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

General Gordon

From the page on General Gordon, he was in Palestine 1882-83, and in Khartoum from February 1884 until his death in January 1885. Searching the internet, I find dates for Gordon's theory of 1883, 1884, 1885 and 1894 (!). [I wonder if, say, his theories were published after his death ?] -- Beardo 06:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have thoughts regarding adding a little bit more detail about Gordon? I wonder if it should be made more clear that his claims, although striking the fancy of some, do not carry any academic weight whatsoever.

(E.G. “...of the BA, a decorated Major-General in the British army, with no known education or expertise in history or anthropology...”.)

LCP 15:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Outside of the Lion's Gate

The explanation recently deleted concerning why the hill outside of the Lion's Gate is Golgotha has been again restored to the article. An explanation belongs to the claim that this is an alternate site for Golgotha. --Rdusatko (talk) 20:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Authenticity

I am going to remove the "citation needed" regarding historians' belief that it is authentic, based upon this site: [1] Particularly: this quote from scholar Dan Bahat: "We may not be absolutely certain that the site of the Holy Sepulchre Church is the site of Jesus' burial, but we have no other site that can lay a claim nearly as weighty, and we really have no reason to reject the authenticity of the site." (Bahat, 1986)TheThinWhiteDuke 04:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Spammy Links Removed

I have just checked the external links for this article. The first four linked pages appear to contain useful information and/or appropriate photos. But the last two seemed to have little relevance and looked spammy, so I have removed them.

Also, the third external link ("Location of Golgotha") contains a lot of information that isn't in the wiki article, plus a good map. This site could be a valuable reference for anyone who wants to add more content to the wiki article.

This article contains an advertisement for an Israeli (?) travel agency that organises tours to the holy places. This is inappropriate and makes the whole article appear as unreliable. 2.145.96.213 (talk) 10:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC) Eva LW

Problems with the lead

The following is passage from the lead is problematic for several reasons. Here is the problematic text:

The hill is described as outside Jerusalem, but its location is not certain. Calvariae Locus in Latin, Κρανιου Τοπος (Kraniou Topos) in Greek and Gûlgaltâ in Aramaic all mean 'place of [the] skull', referring to a hill or plateau containing a pile of skulls, or to a geographic feature resembling a skull, or, as in some traditions, the location of the skull of Adam.

(1) Antiquity is unequivocal about the location of the site. As far as I know, there are no serious grounds from which to doubt the location that has been handed down to us, especially since the ideas of Gordon have already been refuted. The statement needs to be removed or cited. (2) The statement about the meanings of the "Golgotha" in Latin and Aramaic are written as if they are etymologies, and yet the last part of the sentence has nothing to do with etymology, but instead speaks of a tradition. There is also no mention of the fact that the title might be metaphorical. To fix this, the etymologies need a citation. If it is true that the title might have been intended metaphorical, this needs to be added in addition to the etymologies along side the explanation of the tradition regarding the skull of Adam. LCP 17:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I made chages several days ago to amend the problems I list above.LCP 15:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Please, anyone, define "antiquity" for the purposes of this article. 74.130.20.255 (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources

I have again removed this: Eyewitness-reports about the location of Calvary: as an in-line source.

The link in question is to the discussion page in the German version of Wikipedia. Per WP:OR (emphasis added):

"Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources {...} Tertiary sources are publications, such as encyclopedias, that sum up other secondary sources, and sometimes primary sources. (Wikipedia itself is a tertiary source.) {...} All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources."

Using a wiki as a source for a wiki creates serious problems. What if next the de.wikipedia uses en.wikipedia as its source? A cites B which sites A, making it its own source! Mdbrownmsw 16:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I have re-removed this item. It has been returned twice by an anonymous user with a varying IP addy. One more and I'll take this to RfC.

I welcome comments on this issue. There are numerous sources hidden in the page (as comments) with similar problems.

Mdbrownmsw 14:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I support you in trying to eradicate the problem. Perhaps protection against new users, as on the Abortion pages, is the solution.LCP 14:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

For the moment, I think blocking edits by new users is a bit too blunt an instrument for this issue. While it would -- temporarily at least -- prevent returning the material, it would NOT clarify the situation for the person who keeps returning the text (who seems to be unaware that there is any problem with the material. Mdbrownmsw 13:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Cross section

An English or textless version of this would be nice. ---84.20.17.84 10:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

this article crosses the objective/subjective barrier, & as an encyclopedia article it should not. Embedded in its words is an ongoing argument attempting to sotto voce establish the "truth" of the Christian religion as a factual thing. It might be fixable with a bunch of small changes, but it doesn't pass my muster as is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.20.182 (talk) 10:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of the article is to detail a location (and later an object) specific to the religion itself. A discussion of the beliefs surrounding the object are more than appropriate given the context of the article. For example, one sentence under the location of calvary section appears to have become a minor point of contention

Inside the church is a rock, about 7 m long by 3 m wide by 4.8 m high,[4] that is believed[weasel words] to be what now remains visible of Calvary.'

In this instance these cannot be weasel words, as the statement factually represents that the object is held to be calvary by believers. The article is not making any sotto voce claim that the object in the church is factually calvary while attempting to skirt citation or confirmation. It is factually stating that the object is believed to be calvary. A similar statement occurs in the Foundation Stone article with the same aim:

'According to Islamic belief, angels visited the rock 2,000 years before Adam was created. All the prophets of God prior to Muhammad were believed to have prayed at the rock which is surrounded daily by 70,000 angels. It is here that Israfil will blow the last trumpet on the Resurrection Day when the dead rise from their graves.'Foundation_Stone#Muslim_significance

This statement, like the above statement doesn't cross an objective/subjective barrier, but does state accurately the significance of a like object in another faith. It does not make the claim that 70,000 angels or Muhammad or Israfil were actually there or will be there because someone believes this.

However a later citation in the location section does indicate that 'prominent historians' hold the Church of the Holy Sepulchre to be the tomb of Jesus without adding any source or which historian has held such a belief. This certainly should be researched and if nothing can be found the sentence ought to be removed. --204.86.38.219 (talk) 01:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Diagram done

its svg, so its fully vector editable, based on the one provided in french by Guilhem D. Guilhem, removed the subjective/controversial statements leaving historical facts

im removing the diagram request

cheers

in fully ecumenical brotherhood your buddhist wikipedian Yupi666 (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

contact me if there is anything wrong.

• I've renamed Image:Goglgotha.svg as Image:Golgotha cross-section.svg since it was tagged {{ifr}} JGHowes ^talk - 13:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The actual rock is lost!

After the basilica burned down in 1802 or 1803, the orthodox church had the 2 x 2 x 2 meter top rock (having the actual hole in it for the Holy Cross) cut out from the main rock mass. The relic was loaded onto a sailing ship to have it moved to Istanbul, but the ship sunk halfway into the trip.

The incident is properly documented in the Lloyd's archives and Mr. Ballard has considered trying to locate the relic, but did not act on it so far. It would be pretty neat if this was not forgotten, there is plenty of time to find and salvage it until 2033, so it could be present during the 2000th year celebrations of the Redemption. 91.83.19.148 (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

"Other uses of the name"

This section is becoming a "Calvary in popular culture"-type trivia section of fan cruft. If we start listing every non-notable song written about Calvary and instances of Calvary as a name, it will soon need to fork to a separate list due to size! This is not really useful to an encyclopedia article about the topic and I propose deletion of this subsection entirely. We already have a hatnote referring to other uses and a disambig. page, after all.  JGHowes  ^talk 17:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe someone should mention the use of the name Golgotha in the old PC game Sacrifice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.242.60 (talk) 03:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

pronunciation

I wasn't sure about the (English) pronunciation, so I looked it up in my Columbia Encyclopedia-5th ed. My simplified transcription is just to show that the accent is on the first syllable ( a short "o" as in "golly!" ). I entered it as Arial Unicode MS, which I hope can be seen on others' systems. Jakob37 (talk) 09:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

My issue with the Semitic references is the text. I know that Hebrew at this point didn’t have a text of their own, neither did Arabic. Aramaic was indeed a spoken language but I am not entirely certain about its text more it’s depth and complexity as a writing form. This is puzzling and needs obvious investigation. Just because we have a language doesn’t mean we have a corresponding text. Konradbertam (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Hatnotes

The beginning of this article is overwhelmed with hatnotes. Is it really necessary to have so many? Is it at all believable that people confuse Calgary, Alberta with Calvary? Surely, there is some way this can be edited so as not to be so overwhelming. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I removed Calgary, but left cavalry, surely the more likely mistake. Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Alternative theories

Are extensive links to Rodger Dusatko's website and his theories appropriate for this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.6.228.229 (talk) 09:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

No. _R_ (talk) 19:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

No, the links should be removed. However this is a valid alternate location. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KonradBird (talk • contribs) 19:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I added a map of Jerusalem showing the alternate locations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdusatko (talk • contribs) 20:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC) I also added a validation link for the citation of my claim that Golgotha is located just outside the Lion's Gate. Rdusatko (talk) 11:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
The quote concerning the skull-pan of a head: Although I am of the opinion that this was not from Tertulian, but from Origines, still it cannot be proven. For this reason I have removed the reference to Origines and replaced it with a reference only to the Ante-Nicene Fathers - Vol 4, Five Books in Reply to Marcion.
To this quote concerning the skull-pan, I also added information that all of the four gospels used the word 'Kranion' (top part of the skull) and not 'Skufion' (skull) when referring to Golgotha.

It is a valid alternate site as sourced to Dusatko, but per WP:COI and notability, he should not be giving his own research undue prominence. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Alt names in lead

All of the etymological information and sources need to be pulled down into the appropriate section (WP:LEADSENTENCE, WP:LEADCITE). There's no reason at all to have Arabic: جلجثة if it has nothing to do with the etymology of the English term, although both the Hebrew and Arabic names should be kept in the lead alongside the usual English forms if they are commonly used in present-day Jerusalem to point people to particular places. — LlywelynII 02:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)