Could Jesus have survived the crucifixion? Yes.

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.

"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

The "Others" Aren't Crazy

Our country is deeply divided because people don't take the time to fully understand those who disagree with them. Too often the perspective of the "other" side is reduced to one-liners, memes, or the personification of a stereotypical Liberal or Conservative. This is because worldview-reduction is easy and safe. It doesn't require intellectual work, it makes you popular with the "sames," and it places the blame for anything that goes wrong in the world squarely on the shoulders of the "others."

Those crazy "others."

In this post I want to show that the "others" actually aren't crazy.

The "others" have a fundamentally different way of looking at the world. Both you and the "others" look at the world through a lens, and if that lens is different, you will likely come to different conclusions on important issues, such as abortion, evolution, climate change, or immigration.

Far too often, when "sames" and "others" discuss these issues, they talk past each other. Side A makes an argument, Side B makes a different, unrelated argument, and Side A fails to respond to that argument. Or Side A makes an argument that is valid if the world is seen through the perspective of lens A, but invalid if seen through lens B, and vice versa for Side B.

Both sides are making valid arguments on the surface, but the underlying difference in lenses in not addressed. This is what makes the "others" seem crazy. An argument made by Side B, seen through lens A, appears crazy.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Let's look at an example. (it will be helpful to take a quick glance at this short post on how I structure philosophies before reading on)

Read the table from the bottom up. Under the "Lens" column, you will see the perspective of each side built from the ground up. Roots are fundamental, core beliefs (note that Roots stand independent of one another; Root 1 and Root 2 are not sequential). Trunks are core beliefs that build on Roots. Branches are philosophies that build on Trunks. Twigs are philosophies that build on Branches. Leaves are applications. Leaves are what you actually see people doing.

 

Note that both Side A and Side B share a common root: "Cares about the lives of other people."

But if Side A only acknowledges the trunk, branch, twig, and leaf-level philosophy of Side B, it would appear to Side A that Side B does not, in fact, care about the lives of other people (from the perspective of Side A, Side B thinks that the inconvenience of pregnancy is worse than murder) (from the perspective of Side B, an early-stage fetus is not a human life, and a pregnancy would have a major, negative impact on the life of the mother).

I understand that there are many sides other than A and B when it comes to the topic of abortion, these are just two I picked out as an example of how to compare.

 -------------------------------------------------------------

One more example. Again, read and compare sides starting from the bottom of the chart.



See how the difference in fundamental, core beliefs changes the way the two sides see the world? Each step along the way acts as a primer, and sways each one way or the other. Once they get out to the leaves, they completely disagree with one another.

And if the Fundamentalist cites the Bible to the atheist, the atheist will think that the Fundamentalist is crazy. If the atheist doesn't agree with the Bible, then the Fundamentalist will think that the atheist is crazy (or that the Holy Spirit is not guiding the atheist).

Once again, I'm only using these two perspectives as examples. I understand that there are many traditions of Christianity other than Fundamentalist Christianity, and that evolution is consistent with many of those traditions. I picked Fundamentalist Christianity in particular for this chart because it takes a hard line on evolution, and makes for a good contrast with atheism.

-------------------------------------------------------------

This is why it can be extraordinarily difficult for people with different fundamental worldviews to discuss incendiary issues with one another. It's not that the issues themselves are so incendiary, it's that the discussion forces each side to question their fundamental ways of looking at the world.

If they speak to one another on the level of leaves, they appear crazy to one another.

If they speak to one another on the level of twigs, branches, or trunks, they may again appear crazy to one another.

If they speak to one another on the level of roots, they will finally end up finding their real disagreement. But to do this is to open up one's most fundamental beliefs to scrutiny--it means admitting the possibility that one's most dearly held beliefs could be wrong.

Image what that would look like for a Christian. If Christianity is false, then that Christian would have to give up on God, lose his/her social circle, reformulate everything he/she thinks about the world, and possibly much, much more. It can be a truly terrible thing! (I know, because exactly that happened to me)

But it's not hard for only Christians to question their fundamental beliefs. It's hard for everyone. Atheists switching to Christianity also face social pressure. For some it can be directly life-threatening, as is the case for Muslims in certain countries. To question your worldview takes a tremendous amount of work and courage; the willingness to give up everything for the pursuit of truth.

There is, however, also a cost to a failure to be willing to question your own worldview. If our society fails to do this, our world will become more and more divided as people cower away from  understanding the "others." The groups of "others" will become more and more concrete, and further and further apart from the "sames." If no one is willing to question their own fundamental beliefs, we will all be fundamentally divided.

This is the real great wall, that has already been built. The wall that keeps us from understanding the "others." The wall that protects us from questioning our own fundamental beliefs. This is the wall that divides our world in a way that can't be crossed with ropes or ladders. It's the wall that truly keeps the "others" out.

I Was Wrong About Noah's Flood

Ever wondered if Noah's flood really could have happened? Could all the animals fit on the ark? How did the animals disperse back to their continents? How did Noah possibly capture so many animals? How could so many animals survive for a year on a boat without climate control? What about food?

Back in my days as a marine biologist, I wrote several posts about how Noah's flood couldn't have happened in the last 10,000 years. If it were a flood that covered "all the highest mountains" in the region, it would have definitely killed 100% of certain coral species--these coral species are around today (but wouldn't have had time to evolve), so the flood didn't happen.

http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2012/05/noahs-flood-and-coral.html
http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2012/05/noahs-flood-and-coral-planetary-flood.html

I really thought it was an example of a definite error in the Bible, and one that had major theological significance due to it's proximity to the stories of Adam and Abraham.

It turns out I was wrong.

The translation of two key words in a single verse, Genesis 7:19, makes all the difference.

Here is the translation from NET Bible:
"The waters completely inundated the earth so that even all the high mountains under the entire sky were covered."

And here is the Hebrew:
"והמים גברו מאד מאד על הארץ ויכסו כל ההרים הגבהים אשר תחת כל השמים"

 The two words I highlighted are הארץ and ההרים, pronounced  "erets" and "har", which mean "earth" and "mountain".

But what do they really mean?

Well, "erets" almost certainly doesn't mean the entire globe. It is most frequently translated "land", as in "land of Israel" (as opposed to "planet of Israel"), and it can also mean ground, country, territory, region, and a smattering of other closely related words (from Strong's Lexicon). "Entire globe" almost definitely is NOT what the author had in mind--ancient Hebrews didn't understand the planet the way we do. It was probably closer to something like this:

http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/files/2012/11/Ancient-Hebrew-view-of-universe.png

At any rate, there simply isn't a good reason to think that the author of Genesis had "entire planet" in mind. I think the best translation is "region".

As for "har", it is most frequently translated "hill", although it can also mean mountain, hill country, or mount (from Strong's Lexicon). There is no context that suggests "mountain" is a better translation, but even if it were, what exactly qualifies as a mountain? Is the cutoff at 100 meters high? or 1,000 meters? Further, the author specifies that the water covered the mountains by 30 meters. If the flood covered Everest, there would only be one mountain that could have been covered at that depth, not multiple mountains.

Because of all this, the most reasonable interpretation of the verse is as follows:

"The waters completely inundated the region so that even all the high hills were covered."

This means that Noah only needed to get the animals that were already close to him, freeing up plenty of room to stretch on the ark. There would be no extinct coral, and land animals would have no problem making a local comeback. There would be no global distribution problem. It could have just been a record-setting flood that hit a single region, but had no global impact.

What's more, the last Meltwater Pulse at the tail-end of the last ice-age was within the time range that Noah's flood could have happened. Even without divine intervention, there probably were record-setting floods going off all around the globe (think Gilgamesh and other ancient flood stories).

In conclusion, I was wrong. I thought that Noah's Flood couldn't have happened the way the Bible describes it, but it definitely could have.