The question of whether or not Jesus actually died on the cross is central to the truth of Christianity. If Jesus died and rose again, his divine claims gain validity--if he did not, Christianity is a sham (1 Corinthians 15:19). But how much can we actually know about the medical emergency that took place ~2000 years ago when Jesus was beaten, tortured, crucified, stabbed, and buried?
For the purposes of this blog post, I will consider the documents of the New Testament to be historically accurate. I will use them to establish what physical injuries were inflicted on Jesus before, during, and after his crucifixion, and then evaluate whether or not it would have been possible for Jesus to survive. In later posts I will evaluate whether or not survival was likely.
The injuries that Jesus suffered
1. Psychogenic hematidrosis (sweating blood) (Luke 22:44)
2. Beating #1 (Matthew 27:1–2)
3. Beating #2 (John 19:1–5)
4. Scourging (John 19:1, Mark 15:15, Matthew 27:26)
5. Crown of thorns placed on his head (Matthew 27:31)
6. Carrying the crossbar of the cross, being unable to continue (Matthew 27:31-33)
7. Nails driven through both wrists (probably) (Luke 23:33)
8. Nails driven through both feet (probably) (Luke 23:33)
9. Hanging from the cross for about 6 hours (Bergeron 2012)
10. Passes out (John 19:30)
11. Spear wound to the side (John 19:31-33)
12. Removing the nails from both wrists (No citation--I assume this happened)
13. Removing the nails from both feet (No citation--I assume this happened)
Aid that Jesus received
1. Simon of Cyrene carried the crossbar of the cross for Jesus (Matthew 27:32)
2. Jesus received hydration from bystanders at least once. Notably, just before saying "it is finished" and passing out. (it is especially relevant to note that he received hydration and had enough energy to yell at this point) (John 19:28-30) (Matthew 27:48-49)
3. Taken down from the cross
4. Bound in linen with spices (relevant in that it could have stopped any bleeding) (John 19:38-42)
Would #1-8 definitely cause death? --No
No, not immediately. While beatings and scourging can cause death, Jesus was still alive after #1-8 according to the narrative. So in this case, the answer is obviously no. What we're interested in here is either how these injuries progress with time or how they influence later injury (for example, if he sustained an epidural hematoma from head trauma, he could remain conscious for some time, but later die due to pressure on his brain).
Would #9-10 definitely cause death? --No
No, not in this case. Remember, we have two control subjects who underwent the same crucifixion, and did not die.
Crucifixion certainly can cause death, but it is an extremely slow death, and one that requires "finishing blows" to ensure that the victim dies--breaking of the legs in the case of the thieves, a spear wound in the case of Jesus. Crucifixion was designed to torture over a long period of time, not to kill. Another way of putting it--it was designed to keep victims alive for as long as possible.
Further, Jesus was only on the cross for ~6 hours (Bergeron 2012), considerably shorter than most victims of crucifixion (citation.....). But even if he were on the cross for longer, the other two men were still alive. So crucifixion for this amount of time is not definitely lethal in-and-of-itself. In fact, it's probably not lethal.
It is possible that #1-8 or any underlying illnesses that Jesus may have had made him more susceptible to death by #9. I will address this further later in the post.
Would #11 definitely cause death? --No
This point depends entirely on the nature of the spear wound.Were any major blood vessels damaged? Was Jesus' atrium punctured? What about the aorta? What about the liver? Exactly what does "side" mean, and at what angle did the spear enter? How deep did it penetrate? How large was the spear tip? What about it's shape? Did the spear enter the abdomen or the thorax?
I think a plausible scenario is that the spear entered Jesus' upper abdomen, traveled up through the diaphragm, and then entered the thorax. Lets say that Jesus had a pleural effusion due to previous beatings, which would account for the "blood mixed with water" coming out of the wound.
Contrary to what I have frequently heard from Christians, "blood mixed with water" is in no way an indicator that Jesus was in fact dead. It simply means that some sort of fluid had built up, and the spear-thrust punctured whatever cavity was holding the fluid. There are numerous possible explanations for this, but for now, I offer my suggestion that a pleural effusion was responsible for the "water" component.
Another interesting point that goes contrary to popular Christian belief about the "blood mixed with water" is that the presence of blood actually lends credence to the idea that Jesus was in fact alive. When a person dies, their blood stops moving and coagulates--which means there actually wouldn't have been blood mixed with the "water". However, there are multiple ways in which blood could have been mixed with the "water" and it be the case that Jesus was dead. All I'm saying is that in general, the fact that blood came out slightly weighs in favor of the proposition that Jesus could have been alive.
At any rate, Jesus definitely could have survived the spear wound.
Would #12-13 definitely cause death? --No
I included this point for completeness. By the time the nails were removed, sufficient clotting would take place to stop any bleeding (leaving the nails in place for that long actually would have helped).
Would #1-13 combined together definitely cause death? --No, not in 24 hours
This isn't to say that someone definitely wouldn't die from #1-13--a person could die from any of them under certain circumstances, and combining all of them together certainly makes death more likely. Timing is also key--and I will say that death from any of the injuries on their own (except for the spear wound--again this depends on how severe the spear wound was--and did a soldier who though he was already dead put his best effort into the spear thrust? We don't know) would probably not be fatal in the time-frame of, say, half a day.
However, I think anyone who suffered as many wounds as Jesus did, if they had survived, almost certainly would have died of an overwhelming infection in the following weeks or months. But even in that sense, the answer to "if Jesus had survived a week, would an infection definitely cause death?" is still no--which illustrates the major flaw of this blog post.
The limited reach of this blog post
The major flaw of this blog post is that I set the bar very low--I only asked whether or not is was possible for Jesus to survive. If Jesus had been shot in the head, he still could have possibly survived, and that's not what we care about. We want to know how likely it is that Jesus could have survived.
Therefore, I will work on a series of blog posts over the next few months where I try to answer a better question--how likely is it that Jesus could have survived?
-------------------------------------
Thanks for reading! To discuss this blog post with me, hit me up on twitter! -@GoSearch4Truth
Citations:
1. Bergeron, Joseph W. "The crucifixion of Jesus: review of hypothesized mechanisms of death and implications of shock and trauma-induced coagulopathy." Journal of forensic and legal medicine 19.3 (2012): 113-116.
2. The New Testament, NASB version
Dear Mr. Strobel (or response team member),
My name is Joshua Willms. I am an MD/PhD student at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center. I am writing you concerning the medical accuracy of your interview with Dr. Alexander Metherell, MD/PhD. I think that Dr. Metherell made critical errors in his interpretation of the text, implanting certainty into his statements that are not supported by the evidence.
First, there is not sufficient evidence to support his statement that Jesus was in hypovolemic shock after the flogging. In order to know that, we would need to determine Jesus' hydration status and know exactly how much blood he had lost. We don't know those details, so it is impossible to know whether or not Jesus was in hypovolemic shock. Jesus being unable to carry the cross could have been due to a multitude of reasons (examples include spraining an ankle, receiving severe lacerations on his shoulders, or being emotionally exhausted). The fact that Jesus said "I thirst" simply means he was thirsty--which he definitely would have been regardless of whether or not he was in hypovolemic shock.
Second, there is not sufficient evidence to support Dr. Metherell's statement that Jesus was experiencing heart failure. We would need detailed medical information about Jesus at the time to know that. Basically, Dr. Metherell is giving a hypothetical scenario of what could possibly happen if someone remained on a cross for long enough--but we have none of the diagnostic information we would need to confirm whether or not Jesus was actually experiencing heart failure. Dr. Metherell cannot have much certainty on this point with such limited information. This is also true with regards to his claim about respiratory acidosis--was Jesus experiencing some respiratory acidosis? Probably--but enough to cause an arrhythmia? We CANNOT know based on such limited medical information.
Third, there is not sufficient evidence to support Dr. Metherell's statement that Jesus was stabbed in the heart. The New Testament only says that Jesus was stabbed in the "side" and that water and blood flowed from the wound. Yes, one explanation for this is that the spear punctured a cardial and/or pleural effusion en route to the heart. Another, simpler explanation is that the soldier stabbed Jesus in the stomach (which also would have resulted in water and blood emanating from the wound, and does not require any additional hypotheses).
I do not mean to be rude, but it appears that Dr. Metherell simply took the guard's word for it that Jesus was dead and then cooked up a scenario that would fit with his preconceived conclusion. I assume you consulted with other medical experts to corroborate Dr. Metherell's statements? He has certainty about his scenario when other scholars do not--for example, see the work of Dr. Joseph W. Bergeron (citation below).
I sincerely hope that my comments in this letter are helpful, and if I am wrong, I certainly want it to be pointed out. Right now I think the evidence supports the notion that Jesus could have survived, and because of that, I do not consider myself to be a Christian. If I am wrong, I desperately want to know.
Sincerely,
Joshua Willms
MD/PhD student, 3rd year
TTUHSC School of Medicine
5054127111
For the purposes of this blog post, I will consider the documents of the New Testament to be historically accurate. I will use them to establish what physical injuries were inflicted on Jesus before, during, and after his crucifixion, and then evaluate whether or not it would have been possible for Jesus to survive. In later posts I will evaluate whether or not survival was likely.
The injuries that Jesus suffered
1. Psychogenic hematidrosis (sweating blood) (Luke 22:44)
2. Beating #1 (Matthew 27:1–2)
3. Beating #2 (John 19:1–5)
4. Scourging (John 19:1, Mark 15:15, Matthew 27:26)
5. Crown of thorns placed on his head (Matthew 27:31)
6. Carrying the crossbar of the cross, being unable to continue (Matthew 27:31-33)
7. Nails driven through both wrists (probably) (Luke 23:33)
8. Nails driven through both feet (probably) (Luke 23:33)
9. Hanging from the cross for about 6 hours (Bergeron 2012)
10. Passes out (John 19:30)
11. Spear wound to the side (John 19:31-33)
12. Removing the nails from both wrists (No citation--I assume this happened)
13. Removing the nails from both feet (No citation--I assume this happened)
Aid that Jesus received
1. Simon of Cyrene carried the crossbar of the cross for Jesus (Matthew 27:32)
2. Jesus received hydration from bystanders at least once. Notably, just before saying "it is finished" and passing out. (it is especially relevant to note that he received hydration and had enough energy to yell at this point) (John 19:28-30) (Matthew 27:48-49)
3. Taken down from the cross
4. Bound in linen with spices (relevant in that it could have stopped any bleeding) (John 19:38-42)
Would #1-8 definitely cause death? --No
No, not immediately. While beatings and scourging can cause death, Jesus was still alive after #1-8 according to the narrative. So in this case, the answer is obviously no. What we're interested in here is either how these injuries progress with time or how they influence later injury (for example, if he sustained an epidural hematoma from head trauma, he could remain conscious for some time, but later die due to pressure on his brain).
Would #9-10 definitely cause death? --No
No, not in this case. Remember, we have two control subjects who underwent the same crucifixion, and did not die.
"31 Then the Jews, because it was the day of preparation, so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. 32 So the soldiers came, and broke the legs of the first man and of the other who was crucified with Him; 33 but coming to Jesus, when they saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs." (John 19:31-33)
Crucifixion certainly can cause death, but it is an extremely slow death, and one that requires "finishing blows" to ensure that the victim dies--breaking of the legs in the case of the thieves, a spear wound in the case of Jesus. Crucifixion was designed to torture over a long period of time, not to kill. Another way of putting it--it was designed to keep victims alive for as long as possible.
Further, Jesus was only on the cross for ~6 hours (Bergeron 2012), considerably shorter than most victims of crucifixion (citation.....). But even if he were on the cross for longer, the other two men were still alive. So crucifixion for this amount of time is not definitely lethal in-and-of-itself. In fact, it's probably not lethal.
It is possible that #1-8 or any underlying illnesses that Jesus may have had made him more susceptible to death by #9. I will address this further later in the post.
Would #11 definitely cause death? --No
This point depends entirely on the nature of the spear wound.Were any major blood vessels damaged? Was Jesus' atrium punctured? What about the aorta? What about the liver? Exactly what does "side" mean, and at what angle did the spear enter? How deep did it penetrate? How large was the spear tip? What about it's shape? Did the spear enter the abdomen or the thorax?
I think a plausible scenario is that the spear entered Jesus' upper abdomen, traveled up through the diaphragm, and then entered the thorax. Lets say that Jesus had a pleural effusion due to previous beatings, which would account for the "blood mixed with water" coming out of the wound.
Contrary to what I have frequently heard from Christians, "blood mixed with water" is in no way an indicator that Jesus was in fact dead. It simply means that some sort of fluid had built up, and the spear-thrust punctured whatever cavity was holding the fluid. There are numerous possible explanations for this, but for now, I offer my suggestion that a pleural effusion was responsible for the "water" component.
Another interesting point that goes contrary to popular Christian belief about the "blood mixed with water" is that the presence of blood actually lends credence to the idea that Jesus was in fact alive. When a person dies, their blood stops moving and coagulates--which means there actually wouldn't have been blood mixed with the "water". However, there are multiple ways in which blood could have been mixed with the "water" and it be the case that Jesus was dead. All I'm saying is that in general, the fact that blood came out slightly weighs in favor of the proposition that Jesus could have been alive.
At any rate, Jesus definitely could have survived the spear wound.
Would #12-13 definitely cause death? --No
I included this point for completeness. By the time the nails were removed, sufficient clotting would take place to stop any bleeding (leaving the nails in place for that long actually would have helped).
Would #1-13 combined together definitely cause death? --No, not in 24 hours
This isn't to say that someone definitely wouldn't die from #1-13--a person could die from any of them under certain circumstances, and combining all of them together certainly makes death more likely. Timing is also key--and I will say that death from any of the injuries on their own (except for the spear wound--again this depends on how severe the spear wound was--and did a soldier who though he was already dead put his best effort into the spear thrust? We don't know) would probably not be fatal in the time-frame of, say, half a day.
However, I think anyone who suffered as many wounds as Jesus did, if they had survived, almost certainly would have died of an overwhelming infection in the following weeks or months. But even in that sense, the answer to "if Jesus had survived a week, would an infection definitely cause death?" is still no--which illustrates the major flaw of this blog post.
The limited reach of this blog post
The major flaw of this blog post is that I set the bar very low--I only asked whether or not is was possible for Jesus to survive. If Jesus had been shot in the head, he still could have possibly survived, and that's not what we care about. We want to know how likely it is that Jesus could have survived.
Therefore, I will work on a series of blog posts over the next few months where I try to answer a better question--how likely is it that Jesus could have survived?
-------------------------------------
Thanks for reading! To discuss this blog post with me, hit me up on twitter! -@GoSearch4Truth
Citations:
1. Bergeron, Joseph W. "The crucifixion of Jesus: review of hypothesized mechanisms of death and implications of shock and trauma-induced coagulopathy." Journal of forensic and legal medicine 19.3 (2012): 113-116.
2. The New Testament, NASB version
Dear Mr. Strobel (or response team member),
My name is Joshua Willms. I am an MD/PhD student at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center. I am writing you concerning the medical accuracy of your interview with Dr. Alexander Metherell, MD/PhD. I think that Dr. Metherell made critical errors in his interpretation of the text, implanting certainty into his statements that are not supported by the evidence.
First, there is not sufficient evidence to support his statement that Jesus was in hypovolemic shock after the flogging. In order to know that, we would need to determine Jesus' hydration status and know exactly how much blood he had lost. We don't know those details, so it is impossible to know whether or not Jesus was in hypovolemic shock. Jesus being unable to carry the cross could have been due to a multitude of reasons (examples include spraining an ankle, receiving severe lacerations on his shoulders, or being emotionally exhausted). The fact that Jesus said "I thirst" simply means he was thirsty--which he definitely would have been regardless of whether or not he was in hypovolemic shock.
Second, there is not sufficient evidence to support Dr. Metherell's statement that Jesus was experiencing heart failure. We would need detailed medical information about Jesus at the time to know that. Basically, Dr. Metherell is giving a hypothetical scenario of what could possibly happen if someone remained on a cross for long enough--but we have none of the diagnostic information we would need to confirm whether or not Jesus was actually experiencing heart failure. Dr. Metherell cannot have much certainty on this point with such limited information. This is also true with regards to his claim about respiratory acidosis--was Jesus experiencing some respiratory acidosis? Probably--but enough to cause an arrhythmia? We CANNOT know based on such limited medical information.
Third, there is not sufficient evidence to support Dr. Metherell's statement that Jesus was stabbed in the heart. The New Testament only says that Jesus was stabbed in the "side" and that water and blood flowed from the wound. Yes, one explanation for this is that the spear punctured a cardial and/or pleural effusion en route to the heart. Another, simpler explanation is that the soldier stabbed Jesus in the stomach (which also would have resulted in water and blood emanating from the wound, and does not require any additional hypotheses).
I do not mean to be rude, but it appears that Dr. Metherell simply took the guard's word for it that Jesus was dead and then cooked up a scenario that would fit with his preconceived conclusion. I assume you consulted with other medical experts to corroborate Dr. Metherell's statements? He has certainty about his scenario when other scholars do not--for example, see the work of Dr. Joseph W. Bergeron (citation below).
I sincerely hope that my comments in this letter are helpful, and if I am wrong, I certainly want it to be pointed out. Right now I think the evidence supports the notion that Jesus could have survived, and because of that, I do not consider myself to be a Christian. If I am wrong, I desperately want to know.
Sincerely,
Joshua Willms
MD/PhD student, 3rd year
TTUHSC School of Medicine
5054127111
Good to see you blogging again. Your medical training shines through in this post. I've never given much consideration to the prospect that Jesus might have survived the crucifixion, so I'm interested to see how the rest of the series progresses.
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for saying that! It really means the world to me.
DeleteI'm also excited to get to the bottom of this question. I only have two years of medical school under my belt, but I'm already seeing the narrative in a completely different light. Things I thought to irrelevant before are essential now. I only wish I had 20 years of experience as an MD. Until then, I'll just keep doing the best I can.