I'll just shoot this short comment that I found interesting. The Gospel of Mark at 15:22 says: Then they brought Him to the place Golgotha, which is translated, Place of a/the Skull (singular noun).
It might be surprising to learn there is no ancient record of any topographical location called "place of the skull". So, is that because of loss of information or is it suggestive that the 'place of the skull' had more Christological meaning?
Interestingly the decades later writer of Luke (23:33) seems to assume "The Skull" was a geographical toponym, not that the location was the place OF the Skull as it reads in his sources Mark and Matthew. The difference might seem subtle, but the change follows a certain logic I'll mention later.
Many modern attempts to interpret the Gospels have resulted in a couple basic theories, one is that the skulls of executed people lay about the site (this ignores Jewish prohibitions and the singular noun 'skull'). The most popular idea is that the site (assumed to be a mount/hill) had some resemblance to a skull (nothing in Gospels suggest a hill or a formation looking like a skull). This inspired 19th century folks to look at the eroding and actively quarried limestone rocks until they found one that to some from a certain angle kind of looks like a skull to sell souvenirs at.
A more interesting answer comes from ancient sources Origen, Basil of Seleucia, Justin, Eusebius, and others. The skull was Adam's, and it was in Origen's day believed buried beneath the very location Jesus was crucified. Origen cites "Hebraic" tradition that Adam or at least his head was buried by Jerusalem and this was the reason it was called the place of the skull (Golgotha). The 'garden' allusion introduced by the writer of John to the story (and a new tomb never used), carry similar Christological meaning in reference to Adam the first man who left the garden being redeemed by the second Adam. Note that the site of the Temple to Venus by Hadrian at the present site of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher/was in an effort to eradicate anything Jewish. Later 4th century Christians assumed Hadrian's motive to the temple was to conceal the site of the crucifixion. This seems quite unlikely, Christianity was not in any way a threat to Hadrian whereas the Bar Kochba rebellion cost hundreds of thousands of lives. If there was any motivation for the location of the Temple, apart from practical logistical ones, the desire to destroy all things Jewish had to be greater.
Most modern historical Jesus scholarship today assumes the enigmatic "Place of the Skull" in Mark inspired Christological explanations not intended by the author. For many the idea appears too fictional/legendary. This demonstrates a naive historicity bias IMO. They correctly argue that no pre-Christian Jewish written version of the legend is extant today and therefore it is best to assume Origen and others were making up the existence of Jewish legends about the skull for Christian reasons. While that is certainly possible, as it was common, that ought not be assumed. It is very relevant that there are later written Jewish mentions of such legends (and many others) that apparently were unfortunately only oral traditions for centuries. Also, Justin, as it now reads (has contradictory responses), but in one location he denies Adam's skull was in Jerusalem as many believed, preferring another (also nonextant) Hebrew tradition that he was buried in Hebron. Why assume the legend Justin prefers, to be truly ancient Jewish, but not the legend Origen and others said was?
The popularity of the link between Adam's skull and Jesus' crucifixion endured through the centuries even today Orthodox Christian's place importance upon it. The next time you see an example of the countless depictions of the crucifixion with a skull placed at the base of the cross, you now know the skull was Adam's.
Back to Luke, notice the writer adjusted his source in changing 'place of the skull to 'Skull' altering the possible meaning.
Why might this have happened? The writer of Luke is seen repeatedly, by his omissions and rewrites of his sources, to have not been comfortable with the death of Jesus having ransom value but rather as a great tragedy inspiring repentance and hence forgiveness. Did Luke Have a Doctrine of the Atonement? Mailbag September 24, 2017 - The Bart Ehrman Blog This would suggest to me that a possible explanation for his adjusting the name of the site of the crucifixion is that he did not share the Jesus=Adam Christology.
