So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood
(Hebrews 13:12)
This passage is really strange. It moves the reader to take no compromise about which gate is meant: the gate of the earthly Jerusalem or the gate of the celestial Jerusalem? Assume for a moment that the earthly Jerusalem is meant. But then the more obvious implication is that any view of an earthly Jesus has to assume that he died outside Jerusalem for the author of the epistle. But isn't that a typical Gospel item ? Is this a case where even the minimal historicity paradigm requires necessarily also the assumption that Jesus died near Jerusalem?