Simon of Cyrene seems to have been a Hellenist Jew who either had journeyed to Jerusalem for the Passover, or had resettled there. Evidently, he became a believer, since his two sons were named by Mark, implying the church at Rome knew them. Each of the Synoptics testify that Simon was seized almost immediately by the Roman military near Jerusalem and compelled him to bear Jesus’ cross for him (Mark 15:21), evidently mocking the idea that Jesus was “King of the Jews” and was in need of a servant to carry his burden. Both Mark and Luke tell us Simon was coming out of the country (cp. Luke 23:26), implying he was entering Jerusalem from the fields or farmlands, so the fact that Simon was used to carry Jesus’ cross did not imply the Romans thought Jesus might die on the way to the crucifixion site, as is presumed by some.
They brought Jesus to a place called Golgotha in Hebrew (H1538 – gulgolet), meaning the place of the skull (Mark 15:22). The Hebrew word gulgolet means “skull” (Judges 9:53) or the place where a census or poll was taken. That is, it was the place where heads were counted (see Numbers 1:2, 18, 20, 22). It has absolutely nothing to do with a “place that looked like a skull,” which is the prevailing thought today in Protestant Christianity, and which idea is behind a popular ‘crucifixion site’ just outside the north wall of modern Jerusalem. The fact is, the decay of the limestone (having the appearance of two eyes and a nose), which contributed to naming it as the site of Jesus’ crucifixion, does not appear in a drawing[1] of Jerusalem and its surrounding hills in 1610 AD. If the hill didn’t have the appearance of a ‘skull’ in 1610. Therefore, the erosion of the limestone had to have begun later.
So, where, exactly, was Jesus crucified? Well, John tells us that the site (Golgotha) where Jesus was crucified was near the city! What a surprise, do the Synoptics imply he was taken to Rome? Wouldn’t near the city be too obvious to take up space on a scroll with precious little room to tell one’s story? Let’s first look at how the verse is translated, and then see what John actually said in the Greek, preserving the syntax:[2]
Then many of the Jews read this title, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and it was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. (MKJV – emphasis mine)
This then the title many read the Jews seeing that near was the place of the city where was crucified the Jesus and it was written Hebrew Roman (Latin) Greek
My emphasis is on the word, place. Should the word add meaning to the city or does it go with where Jesus was crucified? I have over forty translations of the Greek scriptures on my Bible suite. Most translate the verse as the MKJV does above. Notice, however, how the Diaglott puts it:
This therefore the title many read of the Jews, because near was the place of the city, where was crucified the Jesus; and it was having been written in Hebrew, in Greek, in Latin. (John 19:20 Diaglott-NT; emphasis mine)[3]
What possible difference would this make, if it were true? The Place of the city was a particular place, known by every Jew in the first century AD. It refers to the Temple (Matthew 24:14; John 4:20; 11:48; Acts 6:13-14; 7:49; 21:28).[4] The city lay south, west and north of the Temple, so Jesus couldn’t have been crucified in any of these directions. The Temple actually butted up against the eastern wall of the city, and east of the Temple was the Mount of Olives, which is the only place where Jesus could have been crucified and still be near the Temple.
There are several traditions that would support this idea. Criminals were executed before the Lord, that is, east of the Temple where the Lord faced east. Moreover, the important sacrifice of the red heifer took place to the east of the Temple. It was led from the Temple, across a causeway, to what was known as a third altar. There it was slain and burned. Its ashes were used to purify the people. Jesus was crucified not far from that site. He was crucified in full view of both the Temple and every Jew who brought his lamb to be sacrificed for the Passover that evening.
___________________________________________________________
[1] The site was identified as the place where Jesus was crucified in 1842 by Otto Thesnius, a German Theologian, and later by General Charles Gordon (1883), and the site bears his name: Gordon’s Calvary. One has to wonder, if the hill always had this appearance, why it took over 1800 years for Christians to recognize and describe it as the site of Jesus’ crucifixion. More recently, however, the “nose” of the skull fell off in a rainstorm (February 20, 2015) causing the “eye” sockets to merge into one long cavity. No one who didn’t see formation that stood in 1842 or 1883 would recognize it as resembling a skull today, and one has to wonder if such a site could have lasted 2000 years and more. If the site was named for its appearance in the first century AD, how long must it have stood before the ancients began calling it the place of the skull, i.e. if, indeed, its name pointed to its appearance? The whole idea seems preposterous. For the drawing, see George Sandy’s “Map of Jerusalem” 1610 AD, and the hill is identified in Ernest L. Martin’s book “Secrets of Golgotha” see: chapter one under heading Could the Garden Tomb Area Be Golgotha?
[2] Syntax refers to the order of the words of a given language. My state, Pennsylvania, had made fun and a lot of money by poking fun at the Pennsylvania Dutch way of saying things, such as: “Throw the horse over the fence some hay.” They preserved the syntax of their original language (German), while speaking American English. It sounded odd (and funny) to a native’s ear.
[3] I have two other translations that support this one: Darby and the Accurate New Testament (first edition).
[4] The late Ernest L. Martin makes this point in the first nine chapters of his book: The Secrets of Golgotha. See also my study in the Gospel of Luke Where Is Golgotha?
Smoodock's Blog 