That theory just doesn’t make any sense, as he is using Josephus as a primary source, but then ignoring Josephus’ description of the relative areas of the Temple and Fort Antonia.
As you can see in his drawings, his “Antonia” is at least three times as large as the Temple, while Josephus does not agree with this. Josephus puts the perimeter of the Temple complex alone at 4 furlongs around, and when Antonia was included, the entire complex was still only 6 furlongs around. If we measured the total perimeter of this author’s proposed complex, it would have to be much larger than 6 furlongs to account for his ridiculously enlarged “Antonia”.
Now, Josephus also says Antonia was directly adjacent to the Temple, not separated by a collonade as long as the Temple, which this theorist must do in order to reach a different hill to place the Temple on. Knowing this, you can use a little basic geometry and algebra to calculate the maximum area Antonia could occupy.
The combined perimeter is 6 furlongs, but we know that 3 of those furlongs are accounted for by the west, south, and east walls of the Temple complex. That leaves 3 furlongs for the north, west, and east walls of Antonia, and whatever part of the northern temple wall projected beyond Antonia. The maximum area that Antonia could possibly have occupied would be if Antonia was a square, as any rectangle with the same perimeter would enclose a smaller area.
If Antonia’s south wall did not extend across the entire north wall of the Temple, then it also would occupy a smaller area, so to calculate the maximum area, we must assume that it stretched all the way across. That leaves 3 walls, and 3 furlongs, and the walls must be equal if the area was a square, so the maximum area is 1 square furlong, the same as the area Josephus gives for the Temple complex.
Now, that is the maximum possible area, but Josephus tells us specifically that Antonia was located where the northern and western walls of the Temple complex met. If Antonia stretched all the way across the northern wall, then that description would not be sensible. So we must assume that it did not span the entire length of the Temple wall, and this would mean that the area of Antonia must have been smaller, not larger than the Temple Complex.
>>>That theory just doesn’t make any sense, as he is using Josephus as a primary source, but then ignoring Josephus’ description of the relative areas of the Temple and Fort Antonia.<<<
Three different websites disagree with you, and all seem pretty credible. Are you sure you are interpreting correctly?
No matter. I see you are not going to let go of this, and I am really not interested. Jesus said no stone would be left on another in the temple complex, and that is exactly what happened in 70 AD.
Now if you can prove what you believe, without a shadow of a doubt, then I might be interested. But there is no way you can prove it.
Philip