Si'.^MOUif — The Book of Adam and Eve in Ireland. 131 



that his skull was there. Yov oldei' authorities see Gretzer, Dc C'rvcc Cliristi, 

 torn, i, lib. 1, cap. 18, and Suicer, Thesaurus, s. v. Kpavlov. A good treat- 

 ment of the question, with translations of extracts from the Fathers, will be 

 found in Wilson, Golgotha and tli.c Holy Sepulchre, pp. 2-7, 159-166. The 

 Moslems characteristically put the site of his grave near Mecca (Mirkhond, 

 p. 57 ; Tabari, p. 94). Adam's body reached Golgotha as follows : — It was 

 laid in the Cave of Treasures, from which Noah took it, and placed it in the 

 ■ark. When dying he directed Shem to go with Melchizedek, and carry the 

 body to the centre of the earth, i e., Golgotha, where it was to be buried. 

 An angel guided them thither (Malan, pp. 45, 114-5, 149 ff., 242-4; Book of 

 Bolls, pp. 27-32). According to a slightly different tradition, ISToah dis- 

 tributed the bones of Adam equally among his sons. Shem, his eldest, got 

 the skull, as being the more noble portion, which he buried at Jerusalem 

 {Fabricius i, pp. 60-62, 75). He was buried in Paradise according to A and 

 V ; and one group of Jiss. of the latter identifies the spot with Calvary. 

 Sir John Maundeville in his Travels (ed. Ashton, pp. 40, 51) also combines 

 two traditions. He says that Adam was buried at Hebron, but that his 

 skull was found at Golgotha in the mortice in which the cross was set up. 

 The skull so frequently represented at the foot of the cross in sculpture and 

 art, medieval a7id modern, is that of Adam. 



So, as a result of our examination we find that, though S is based on A 

 and V, it differs from them both in form and in substance. In form : for 

 whereas these two documents only commence with the period after the 

 expulsion, S starts with the creation of Adam, and from thence traces the 

 ■events in due order. In substance : for S sometimes follows A, sometimes 

 V ; omits much of what they contain ; and inserts matter of which they 

 know nothing. 



The question of form can easily be explained. The writer of S is not 

 concerned with the construction of an apocryphon as such. His intention is 

 to give an account of sacred history from the Creation to the last Judgment. 

 But when dealing with the story of Adam and Eve, he finds that an- 

 apocryphal narrative with which he is acquainted has more attractions for 

 him than the Biblical one, and accordingly he makes full use of it. 



The question of substance is more complicated. Professor Thurneysen, 

 in an article in Bevue Celticj[uc vi, p. 104, puts forward the hypothesis that 

 the writer of S had before him a Latin document which contained not only 

 A and V, but additional matter as well. But this seems a very cumbersome 

 theory, involving as it does the exL-itence of a curiously composite document 

 •of which nothing is known. The following seems to be an easier solution of 

 the problem. The writer of S had before him both A and V, the former 



