Very interesting. That is something I never really looked at.
It's the only thing that makes sense when you look at all the evidence.
Census:
"Golgotha" which in Greek was "Calvary" meant "place of the skull" but more accurately "place of the counting heads". It comes from a Hebrew idiom that means to take a census by counting skulls (or we'd use the term "head count"). And the Romans took the census of everyone coming into Jerusalem every Passover from this location.
Now of course if you want to make the most impact of your authority in deterrence of criminal activity; you put your execution site right next to where everyone passes through to be counted.
Crucifixions:
Allegedly too, the "Secrets of Golgotha" book stated that the Romans had a custom of executing people in the location the crime was committed; (Jesus was arrested on the Mt of Olives) yet that assertion doesn't really make a whole lot of practical sense. Crucifixions would take place in designated spots because the vertical beam of the cross stayed permanently in the ground. The condemned man (usually) carried the horizontal beam (which was alleged to range between about 70 and 100 lbs). (The Romans did not crucify women.)
Now according to archeological studies done on bones found in Jewish tombs from the 1st century; the average Jewish male was between 4ft 11in and 5 3'. 110 to 130lbs. Average Roman soldier was 5 6' and 160lbs. (You had to be at least 5ft to join the army.)
So if Jesus fell within that statistical average, he would not have been very tall or very heavy. Also if we consider that on the beginning of having just been baptized, Jesus spent 40 days where He didn't eat anything. At the point that 40 days had expired, He was on the verge of starving to death; so thus would have had very little muscle mass. Obviously post wilderness, He began eating and would have gained back some weight. Yet from that point, He was traveling around by foot preaching, and was not likely to have done much manual labor; so thus would not have looked as He did when He came to be baptized (having come off a 20 or so year span of having done carpentry work). So come crucifixion time, we are not talking someone who would have had the physique of even an athlete.
Flogging?
I'd also found some research from people who do Roman army reenactments; and they said that usually if someone was condemned to death; they were either flogged with a flagellum (cat-o-nine tails with bone, glass, or other implements that would rip the skin) or crucified. It usually was not both, because either was a death sentence and if you were flogged with a flagellum, you would not have survived long enough (do to blood loss) to be crucified.
Now who would have been flogged with a flagellum as a death sentence? That was not stated in the research. I do know the Romans did not crucify soldiers; (nor do I believe they crucified gladiators for the same reason). That was considered too demeaning for someone who was in the army, because the army was considered a noble profession (and so was being a gladiator). I do know that soldiers who did something "militarily" worthy of execution (like running away in a battle) were more likely to be "honor killed" by the men in their own legion, and that was considered to be a more humane means of death than a public execution. So my assumption is that those sentenced to death by flagellum would have been soldiers (or gladiators) convicted of criminal acts.
Now I know that view flies contrary to what is usually said about how executions were performed. Yet if you look at the records of executions and that it was not uncommon for men to be alive for days on a cross, the "one or the other / not both" does hold historical weight.
Now the Romans did use other implements for flogging people; and which instrument used was dependent on what the punishment prescribed was. Now if one was only to be "chastised" that was not suppose to be fatal and if the person executing the punishment killed someone they weren't suppose to kill, than they forfeited their own life. Both Jewish and Roman tradition was "forty" stripes (minus one in case the flogger miscounted). And though Scripture doesn't state what the whip was to be made of; Jewish tradition stated calf leather. The Romans also used a flexible reed which would have been similar to what "caining" is in Malaysia.
So, what did they really do to Jesus?
Given Pilate's command was "chastisement"; they would not have hit Him with an execution flagellum. Pilate had stated that Jesus had done nothing worthy of death. (Claiming to be God was not a crime under Roman law. LOL. The Romans, like the Greeks tended to have a tolerant view of people they deemed to be insane because they viewed the mentally ill as having been "touched by the gods".) Pilate did not think Jesus was insane either though, or he would not have executed Him.
And here's where it gets interesting regarding Pilate, the soldiers and the divergence of how things were "normally done".
John 19:24
They said therefore
among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which
saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots. These things therefore
the soldiers did.
Now look at this passage really carefully. In the Greek text there is no break between "....whose shall it be" and "that scripture might be fulfilled..." And note the beginning of the verse. These are the soldiers talking to each other. Now who among the soldiers is part of this conversation is not stated. The centurion, who would have been their commander may have been involved. Yet note; these Roman army men, apparently know about Jewish scripture! How is that so.
Well, there may be several answers to that.
One: There were Jewish "proselytes" in the Roman army. (I think the Jews termed them as "righteous men". That's a term still used today for gentiles they approve of.)
Two: This legion had been in the Antonia fortress for at least 10 years at this point. The army rotated legions, not individual soldiers and once you joined the army, you were in the same legion, serving with the same men your entire life. Antonia was originally built as sort of a "retirement post" for soldiers who'd been in the battle of Actium (which was in 31 BC - LOL - not likely too many of those guys were still around) or had participated in the putting down of the rebellions in Judea under Herod the Great. So a good number of the soldiers in this legion would have been familiar with Judaism. And considering Antonia was right next to the temple and soldiers would have had to walk through the court of the gentiles to get out of the city. It is also possible / probable that if they'd been on guard duty or "bored" one day; they would have been "hanging around" actually listening to Jesus preach. Either way, I don't think there were too many soldiers in Antonia who didn't know who Jesus was.
Three: Some authority in their chain of command told them these specific prophecies. We know this was at least partially true with Pilate. For obvious "political reasons" he was aware of some of their customs. There's a somewhat comical (yet even ominous) exchange between Jesus and Pilate; where Pilate says to Him: "Are you the King (supreme ruler - sometimes translated emperor) of the Jews?" Jesus responds: "Do you say this of yourself or did someone tell you this?" And Pilate basically says: "Do I look like a Jew?" The interesting thing about the language Pilate uses though, is that he's playing off the Sanhedrin's jealousy. He was aware that "Messiah" did not mean just "run of the mill political leader". The Romans considered the emperor to be a god and so this is why Pilate uses that specific term "King". He does this in several places to provoke them. "What should I do with whom you call King of the Jews?" "You want me to crucify your King?". "Behold the King of the Jews." And even the charges on the cross. Jesus was not charged with "treason", "sedition" or any such attempt at political usurpation of power. He was charged as "KING of the Jews" and according to the Greek text; that is exactly how Pilate wrote it.
So it seems to me that the Romans knew more than people today often assume they did.
So when it came to the flogging. I believe Pilate had Jesus flogged specifically "according to Jewish custom". And he did that as a way to mock the leaders also. If they used a 3 stranded implement made of calf's leather; "39 lashes" would have been 13 strikes. Or if they were to go strictly by custom of 39 individual minus one, that would have required a single strand whip.
Also, if you look closely at the language used when the text talks about the soldiers "mocking" Jesus. The term "mock" there means "to play with as one would tease a child". I don't see in the text that the Romans did anything particularly sadistic to Jesus. If you look at the context of what they are mocking Him for; that too had to do with the nations' concept of kingship. It was not anything specifically personal towards Jesus Himself. When they hit Him, the language depicts an open handed slap. They are not punching Him. Spitting probably had something to do with dishonored kings, captured in battle. Note they don't do things like cut off fingers, toes, ears etc. and they don't sexually assault Him. Sodomy was very common in the ancient world; so the fact that nothing like that happened to Jesus, should tell you something was very unique about how the Romans conducted themselves in this particular case.
Now the sadistic ones were the leaders of His own country. The Sanhedrin and Herod's guard were the ones who beat Jesus.
"And he carried his cross."
Here's another interesting one. Who's really the "he" in this passage? If we compare gospels. John is the only gospel that makes this statement. All the other gospels say Simon of Cyrene carried Jesus's cross. And many assume - well Jesus fell down, so they grabbed Simon because Jesus fell down.
Yet if we look at how the cross been was usually tied to the person who was carrying it; that doesn't quite fit either. If Jesus "fell down" with a beam tied to His arms. First off, He wouldn't have been able to get up, and they would have had to cut him free. It would not have been an "oops, I dropped my cross." moment. If He's (statically) between 110 and 130 lbs and falls face down with a 70 to 100 lb beam tied to His back - so much for the prophecy of "no broken bones". It doesn't fit.
So taking all this into consideration. Here they have a guy who does't really deserve to die. He's most likely bleeding from being flogged. He's probably not very big and not in particularly good shape after having been beaten. And they have to go from the Praetorium, which is in the middle of the Antonia fortress, across the walk way, through the court of the gentiles, passed the front of the temple, down the walkway / stairs, through the triple gate, across the red heifer bridge to the crucifixion site. The gospels do tell us that Jesus speaks to people on this path.
We get to the crucifixion. Both the thieves and Jesus are talking to people. These are fairly complex interactions obviously requiring some intellectual capacity. So I think it's safe to come to the conclusion that none of these men had arrived at the crucifixion site having been beaten within an inch of their lives.
So after 6 hours on a cross; Jesus dies at about 3 PM. and the text says that Pilate is surprised that He died so quickly. Again, indication that they weren't beaten within an inch of their lives before being crucified.
So there's the information I've garnished upon research on that.
Cemeteries:
Also, what was on the Mt. of Olives in the vicinity at that time was a cemetery. The Scripture says the ground shook and the graves split open at the point Jesus died.
Archeologically speaking the evidence of this is actually in existence today. It's hard to find today because housing has since been built in the valley over part of this ancient cemetery, but if you could walk through these peoples' back yards, you could see this. Researchers in connection to this actually took some photos of the area and prior to 1950 before all these settlements were there, it was far clearer to see.
Temple Mount:
Now the location that everyone thinks is the temple mount, where the Dome of the Rock mosque is; was not the temple mount. The temple was south of that in side the city of David. Where the Dome of the Rock is, is what's left of the Antonia fortress.
Here's an "approximation"; albeit probably not 100% "spot on" because it's "composited" by the current lay out of the land and taking into consideration that the siege changed a lot of that, my rendering of building orientation may be off. Now Antonia is accurate, that is its outline; yet I don't know if Antonia faces "dead east" or not? So my temple direction is not perpendicular (which the original may have been)?
I also believe I have the "court of the Sanhedrin" in the wrong place. It would have been same approximate location "flip" other side of temple; so the back of that structure would have been facing Antonia.
The court of the Sanhedrin had two entrances, one from the temple and the other from outside in the "court of the gentiles" which would have been the "blue" throughway to the north of the temple.
I found this out archeologically, which is interesting! There was an earthquake in 30 AD that was actually centered in Turkey which affected Jerusalem, but didn't do a whole lot of damage. One place it did damage though was the court of the Sanhedrin. That portion of the outer wall of the complex had cracked and the money changers were moved into the court of the gentiles on the other side of that wall.
Now Scripture records that the "tower of Shilom" had fallen at some point between 30 and 33 AD. A walk way had collapsed with it, which was probably part of the wall this court of the Sanhedrin was also attached to. There weren't as many people killed as could have been because the money changers had already been moved by the time this event occurred.
Now looking at your Jpeg image of the temple (which looks quite accurate to me). The court of the Sanhedrin would have been on the side your looking at, possibly even the gold dome structure, because it was also called "the hall of hewed stone".
The other structure this earthquake affected was the doors on the sanctuary. They pivoted on pins that held them in place at both the top and bottom of their hinge settings in the building's stone work. They opened in the middle of the night and according to Josephus, behind these doors was the veil curtain. They were massive bronze doors and after this happened; allegedly, they could not get them closed all the way. So anyone who was looking into the sanctuary would have been able to see the veil.
Now also, according to Josephus; the veil was 3 layers and was said to be as thick as the length of a man's hand. It was adorned with cherubim which would have looked similar to this:
Now Herod's temple was built with the same "foot print" as Solomon's, but the building was twice as tall and complex contained many more surrounding "out buildings". Also, it's said that Herod made the platform larger to accommodate more people.
Yet, I will end here right now because I've written a lot and I'm not even sure all this will fit in one post?
