9: Minimal Fact 1: Jesus’s Death

9: Minimal Fact 1: Jesus’s Death

9

Minimal Fact 1: Jesus’s Death

We have mentioned how contemporary critical scholars usually consider Jesus’s death by Roman crucifixion to be the most evidenced and best known historical fact from Jesus’s life. As atheist New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman sums it up, “The most certain element of the tradition about Jesus is that he was crucified on the orders of the Roman prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate. The crucifixion is independently attested in a wide array of sources and is not the sort of thing that believers would want to make up about the person proclaimed to be the powerful Son of God.”1 It is noteworthy in terms of our previous study that Ehrman also refers here to two of the authenticity criteria to help make his case: multiple independent attestation and embarrassment.2 Many scholars have also commented on some of the specific political, medical, and other details regarding Jesus’s death.

Our purpose in this chapter is to explore in detail Jesus’s death by crucifixion through a number of different lenses. As our initial minimal fact, especially given Ehrman’s statement above, how much historical and other evidence do we need to establish this event? Does it warrant the assurance that critical scholars virtually always have regarding it? Among the many historical, medical, and other reasons that are helpful in establishing the historicity of the crucifixion, do examples from the criteria of authenticity assist further, such as those that were just enumerated? Do we know the date of this occurrence? Do we have indications that it occupied the center of the Christian faith and preaching? Where do contemporary critical scholars line up on these issues in terms of allowing their historicity? These are relevant features for this chapter and the next.

The Death of Jesus by Crucifixion: The Historical Evidence

Many comments have been made by critical scholars regarding the unquestioned evidence that establishes the historicity of Jesus’s death by crucifixion. So Ehrman’s robust claim that Jesus’s death by crucifixion is the most certain event from Jesus’s life, and even stronger statements still, are far from rare. Ehrman even contends, “That Jesus died by crucifixion is almost universally attested in our sources, early and late.”3 But initially, what is the evidence that would establish this sort of assertion?4 Why is Jesus’s death by Roman crucifixion so seldom questioned, even among the skeptical critical scholars?

Multiple Attestation of Independent Sources

To start, few scholars have answered this initial question more succinctly than Ehrman himself. He lists over twenty independent sources for the historical Jesus,5 at least fifteen of which corroborate the crucifixion of Jesus,6 and all of which he dates to within 100 years after the crucifixion.7 Ten of these sources are drawn from the New Testament,8 while five others are extrabiblical.9 Altogether, they combine for quite an impressive collection of works.10

Even if Ehrman’s very same time limit of one century after Jesus’s death were kept for available data (hence, from approximately AD 30 until 130), the lineup of sources could potentially be expanded further beyond Ehrman’s fifteen. More than one avenue is possible here.

For example, Ehrman regularly mentions the oral creeds and traditions that are embedded within the New Testament Epistles, with other traditions that lie behind some of the Gospel traditions.11 It is held virtually unanimously by scholars that these confessions were not composed by the authors themselves and actually date much earlier than the writings in which they appear.12 Roughly the same could be remarked regarding the Acts sermon summaries, which Ehrman counts in his list of crucifixion sources, though they are not quite as widely recognized by the same majority of scholars. It is rather noteworthy that most of these creeds and preaching summaries center precisely on the death and resurrection of Jesus, though they are chiefly brief reports without many details.13 However, they are still exceptionally early and remain vital witnesses to the Christians’ earliest beliefs.14

A brief corollary may be helpful here. Oscar Cullmann in his classical work on the early creeds differentiates the circumstances for the appearance and usefulness of these traditions in the early church. He suggested that the most common practices involved (1) baptism and catechetical purposes; (2) worship, liturgy, and preaching; (3) exorcism; (4) persecution; and (5) polemics and apologetic applications.15 Cullmann is not the only scholar to make suggestions such as these, as will be observed later. But grouping them in a similar manner, even if necessarily in a very preliminary way, could indicate that such a categorization of these creedal sources might produce a hint of the additional sources that may have played a role in the teaching concerning the historical Jesus and for his death and resurrection in particular.

In other words, since these creedal traditions are cited by more than one New Testament author, writing from various locations and at different times and utilizing different traditions, plus being somewhat different in their length, purpose, application, and so on (say, the briefer references in Paul’s Epistles as contrasted with the Acts sermon summaries), might they also reflect more than a single source? True, this would be difficult to determine more exactly but it certainly remains a potential option.

Clement of Rome and Ignatius appear in Ehrman’s list above, as do a few other authors from outside the New Testament who comment briefly on both Jesus’s death and resurrection and are well within his time range. Not only 1 Clement (7, 12, 21, 42, 49) as well as Ignatius’s epistles such as Trall. 9 and Smyrn. 1 but Polycarp’s To the Philippians (1–2, 7–8, 12) are from approximately the same time. This trio of authors and their nine works, all dated within a decade of the traditional close of the New Testament canon, are indeed important.16 These suggestions concerning Polycarp and the creeds would add at least a few additional sources to Ehrman’s list of fifteen, depending especially on how the latter are demarcated.17

Further, if we were also to increase the distance to about 150 years after the crucifixion (or until about AD 180), we could also add other possibly helpful writings by both non-Christian and gnostic writers. Beyond the five noncanonical works listed by Ehrman (Josephus, Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Tacitus, and the Gospel of Peter), we can add eight noncanonical texts reporting at least the death of Jesus, although differing widely as to their potential scholarly value, each having reported at least the death of Jesus. Among the non-Christian writings, we have already mentioned Tacitus (Ann. 15.44) and the disputed though generally accepted passage in Josephus (Ant. 18.3).18 Additional works include at least the possibility of a few earlier references originating before the Talmud (b. Sanhedrin 43a; cf. 106b), Lucian of Samosata’s The Death of Peregrine (11–13), and possibly even the first-century historian Thallus (from a Julius Africanus fragment). The possibly nonexistent Acts of Pilate and the much later Jewish text Toledot Yeshu are of little historical value.

Gnostic works of some potential value include the Gospel of Truth (especially 20:11–14, 25–29) and, while later, the Treatise on the Resurrection (such as 46:14–21). Toward the end of the 150 years after the crucifixion are the works of Justin Martyr (see 1 Apol. 32, 35, 50; Dial. 47, 108). Precisely at the end of this time frame are the writings by the skeptical philosopher Celsus (On the True Doctrine, as reconstructed from Origen’s critique, Contra Celsus) and the major Christian author Irenaeus (especially Against Heresies).19 Admittedly, although the works in this paragraph may be useful in some ways, they are also too late for our purposes.20 If someone were inclined to accept all of these works, this would add significantly to the total sources regarding at least the death of Jesus, often with additional details, by about the year 180.21

When considering this exceptionally large number of sources, recall historian Paul Maier’s assertion that “many facts from antiquity rest on just one ancient source, while two or three sources in agreement generally render the fact unimpeachable.”22 When we take Maier’s comment in tandem with the highly skeptical Jesus Seminar’s report that two or more independent reports are often sufficient to trace an ancient saying to the person in question,23 it might even be concluded that Ehrman’s fifteen independent sources almost amounts to overkill! If one is allowed to read between the lines, Ehrman himself seems to treat this large number as a knockout blow,24 and although very impressive, it is quite far from the only evidence for this event.

In sum, concluding the matter of multiple attestation, even by remaining within Ehrman’s 100-year window after the crucifixion and possibly adding only a few major creeds and Polycarp will increase the total ancient sources that mention the death of Jesus. To add an extra fifty years to the time frame and include the other gnostic, secular, and orthodox sources would then bring the total to well over twenty different, independent texts.25 Especially for historical persons in the ancient world, this very compact time frame is simply exemplary, perhaps even unparalleled.26

Early Testimony

The period from AD 30 to 50, extending from the likely years in between Jesus’s crucifixion and the writing of 1 Thessalonians (probably the earliest New Testament book), has been singled out as a well-recognized time frame where the earliest sources for the historical Jesus would be very valuable, as noted by the Jesus Seminar and others.27 Atheist New Testament scholar Gerd Lüdemann argues that Paul probably brought to Thessalonica “a tradition roughly corresponding” to the creed in 1 Cor 15:3–4. In fact, the apostle “probably used a somewhat similar tradition in every community founded by him.”28

While highlighting individually a number of these creedal texts, Ehrman often groups them together, acknowledging that these “oral traditions” are the “most significant of all” and stating regularly that they “must have originated in Aramaic-speaking communities of Palestine, probably in the 30s C.E., within several years at least of the traditional date of the death of Jesus.”29 There are some exceptionally vital issues involved here, such as why these reports are so respected by critical scholars and thought to be so authoritative, and these are among the most crucial items to investigate in our later chapters on this subject.

Such insights and conclusions could help provide a glimpse of what the earliest Christian teaching looked like before a single New Testament volume had been written. Within this range, all things being considered carefully, the earlier sources would tend to be the stronger ones, especially when drawn from solid foundations. These early creeds and probably some of the sermon summaries, in that order, would be among the strongest candidates here. It is precisely during this time that most of these traditions are dated.

Often termed the pre-Pauline traditions, the best known of these creeds (such as 1 Cor 11:23–26 and 15:3–7) are often dated by critical scholars to AD 30–40.30 We will develop the actual case for the creedal traditions and sermon summaries later in our research,31 but for now it will simply be pointed out that Ehrman does not hesitate to repeat on many occasions that some of these sources date to a mere one or two years after the crucifixion of Jesus!32 We will observe that many other scholars agree with this early dating on these Christian essentials as mentioned by Ehrman, Lüdemann, and others.

Eyewitness Testimony

Eyewitness testimony regarding Jesus’s death could most likely have come primarily from the female disciples who were present at both the crucifixion and the burial of Jesus according to each of the Gospel accounts.33 These observations will figure separately in the discussion directly below, but for now, more than one dose of embarrassment plus the multiple attestations here are difficult to miss. Not only are the female disciples the heroes and the ones who can best relate what happened on these occasions, but most of the men were largely either in hiding or at least were nowhere to be seen!

But the possibility cannot be ruled out that a few male disciples at least potentially could have witnessed at least some of the burial proceedings as well. The Gospel of John states that the apostle John was directly present at the crucifixion, standing there with Jesus’s mother, Mary (John 19:26–27, 35). Luke explains that Peter remained in the vicinity during at least some of the events (Luke 22:54, 61–62). Further, we are told both Peter and John visited the tomb personally and verified its emptiness, so they also were witnesses to its whereabouts and knew where to locate it along with a few of the other circumstances, such as the presence of the graveclothes (John 20:2–9; Luke 24:12, 22–24). So it is at least possible that male disciples had witnessed relevant events too.

Moreover, another crucial sequence of events is often likewise forgotten. All four Gospels affirm that Joseph of Arimathea,34 identified as a secret disciple who was looking for God’s kingdom, and Nicodemus (added in John’s Gospel as having assisted Joseph, especially in John 19:39) performed Jesus’s burial and could certainly have been present at the crucifixion. After all, at least Joseph knew when Jesus had died as well as how to approach Pilate to request Jesus’s dead body. In addition to the burial itself, at the very least it appears possible that Joseph was present when the Roman centurion who presided over Jesus’s crucifixion was called in before Pilate to assure him that Jesus had already died (Mark 15:44–45). For our purposes, that would have been an important meeting to witness. Tom Wright translates the passage like this: “When he [Pilate] learned the facts from the centurion, he conceded the body to Joseph” (15:45).35

Regardless of what is concluded concerning the amount and quality of the information that the male disciples may have contributed,36 the women undoubtedly had a unique and distinct viewpoint on all these events. After Jesus’s resurrection and ascension, we are told that the women were among the disciples who had gathered together (Acts 1:14). So it would be almost unfathomable that the details of the crucifixion and burial accounts would not have been shared with the male disciples, not to mention whatever specifics may have been contributed from the males to the women, or from other witnesses such as Joseph of Arimathea or Nicodemus. Simple testimonies at public worship or other discussions from those who were spectators at whatever level would also have spread the eyewitness knowledge of the facts.

Granted, it is often difficult to tell precisely how much eyewitness data can be drawn from the Gospels. Still, it is also known that informational sharing of various sorts took place in the early church. Paul’s first trip to Jerusalem to talk with Peter and James, the brother of Jesus, for a period of two weeks is certainly a wonderful example (Gal 1:18–20). His second trip to Jerusalem included these same three leaders plus the apostle John, meaning that the four most influential Christians in the early church were present (Gal 2:1–10). The upshot of this and other such discussions resulted in Paul’s report that the other apostles were preaching the same message that he was regarding the death and resurrection appearances of Jesus (1 Cor 15:11).

Few if any authors have done more to explore the potential role of eyewitness testimony in the Gospels and elsewhere than has Richard Bauckham. He argues that the likely consensus position of critical scholars is that Paul probably received the pre-Pauline creedal material in 1 Cor 15:3–7 just shortly after the crucifixion.37 Scholars are divided on whether the so-called Jerusalem Council narrated in Acts 15 is the same event as one of these earlier meetings that Paul discusses—probably the one in Galatians 2—or may indicate still another such conversation.38 The many other possible avenues involve how Gospel authors appear to utilize eyewitness testimony, as with the question of the pre-Markan Passion Narrative, among other possibilities.39

Dissimilarity

Once again, Bart Ehrman is helpful in another historical matter.40 He makes the point forcefully that the tradition regarding Jesus’s death by crucifixion passes perhaps the most rigorous of the criteria of authenticity—the test of dissimilarity—and actually does so “with flying colors.” The Jews did not expect a crucified messiah.41 Since the early disciples of Jesus were shocked, dejected, and disheartened by the occurrence of the crucifixion, it is clear that this event caught them by surprise as well. Under such circumstances, it cannot be claimed that either Jewish or Christian teachings caused or gave rise to such a tradition. It is for that reason actually far more likely that the crucifixion actually happened.

So clearly Jesus’s death at the hands of the Romans was a shocking occurrence from a variety of circumstances. Ehrman explains the situation clearly and well: “When we encounter a story about Jesus that does not support an early Christian agenda or that seems to run contrary to what the early Christians would have wanted to say about Jesus, as we saw, the story is more likely to be historically reliable since it is less likely to have been made up.”42 It was precisely because the Jews did not recognize the concept of a crucified messiah that this entire scenario “created enormous headaches for the Christian mission.” Therefore, it may be concluded, “This tradition clearly passes the criterion of dissimilarity.”43

Embarrassment

Further, we do not want to miss the forest for the trees here: Jesus’s death by crucifixion was one huge example of the criterion of embarrassment all by itself! The Old Testament law pronounced a curse on anyone who was hung on a tree (Deut 21:22–23). Add to this that Jesus supposedly presented himself as the messiah of Israel. Then, not only did he fail to defeat the Romans, as many if not most Jews of that time believed that the Messiah would accomplish, but in a real snafu, he was ignominiously killed by them instead, hanging alongside two common criminals in the process! There is hardly any way to save face here!

What kind of a messiah, or even a prophet for that matter, could have miscalculated so badly and been so clearly mistaken, especially when virtually no Jews even expected the Messiah to die in the first place? And how could he have set up his kingdom if he was dead and buried? This picture is far from the common notion that an average first-century Jew would have entertained. That is simply not the kind of leader that they thought they needed—or desired, either. It is hardly a wonder that Paul called the crucifixion a stumbling block to the Jews (1 Cor 1:23)!44 He and other preachers had their hands full in attempting to make this portrait look presentable!

But let us be clear here that this event was not an easy one for the early disciples to understand and swallow either. How could they combine “Son of God” and “Son of Man” with “beaten up badly and killed by the hated Romans”? Perhaps we see a little glimpse of this even earlier when we are told that Peter and the others failed to understand Jesus’s words (Mark 9:31–32) and that they reacted so strongly (Mark 8:31–33; 14:27–31) when Jesus told them that he was going up to Jerusalem to die. It apparently did not help even when Jesus also included the message of his resurrection in the same context (as he did in each of these venues, including Mark 10:33–34).

In our preceding material above, we introduced two additional embarrassing situations. Initially, another well-known example is that the women were present at the crucifixion and served as the chief witnesses to Jesus’s death, a situation that was multiply attested as well. Further, the women were also present during Jesus’s burial process, when their testimony in the first-century Mediterranean world was also rather severely limited.45 That the very heart of the Christian message should rest to a large extent on female testimony is simply amazing, unless of course it is the truth. In other words, it is almost inconceivable to think that any concocted story would make the women the prime witnesses to those events, given that such testimony would be ignored regularly and even castigated by many hearers.

Another argument from embarrassment concerns the absence of the majority of the male disciples, who had scattered or disappeared for fear of their lives (as in Mark 14:50; Matt 26:56; John 20:19) while the women appeared to be stronger and remained with Jesus through all this suffering. It is difficult to imagine that these awkward and humiliating incidents would have been preached loudly regarding the apostles, who were later among the emboldened church leaders when this material was disseminated but were almost nowhere to be found here when the going was so tough.

Enemy Attestation

More than one species of enemy attestation can be found in these texts as well. The Jewish leaders who were present during the process of the crucifixion also witnessed Jesus’s death. And while we do not have their direct testimony, their very presence and their actions serve as a rough parallel to their responses to Jesus’s miracles. Marcus Borg states that the Jewish leaders’ attribution of Jesus’s miracles to Satan serves as an implicit agreement that these events had actually occurred. It is one reason why Borg concludes that Jesus was a miracle worker.46 Similarly, the Jewish leaders’ repeated taunting of Jesus before their eventual trek away from the crucifixion scene before or perhaps even during the time when the body was removed from the cross is a clear indication that they were utterly convinced and more than satisfied that Jesus was indeed dead.47 Given their presence there, it would seem that their recognition of Jesus’s death would have to be the conclusion of their finally leaving the scene, given such a long, agonizing process of attempting to silence Jesus.

Further and almost needless to say, the presence of the Roman soldiers, also followed later by their disbanding and leaving the area when their job was finished, is probably even a stronger indication of enemy attestation.48 As much as the Jewish leaders wanted Jesus to be dead, the consequences were far more dire if the Romans had left the scene of the crucifixion before the job was entirely completed. In fact, though it concerned King Herod rather than Pilate, Acts 12:19 reports that when Peter disappeared from his jail cell, even by supernatural means, the guards were interviewed. The result was that the order was then given by Herod that the guards should be put to death. This is what might be called enemy attestation with a real vengeance!

Perhaps more significantly as well as also being multiply attested, Mark explains that Joseph of Arimathea approached Pilate and requested Jesus’s dead body for burial (15:42–43). Pilate was surprised that it had all ended so quickly, so he called the centurion to be absolutely sure, and Jesus’s death was confirmed. Only then did Pilate allow Jesus’s body to be buried by Joseph (15:44–45).49 This process of careful confirmation is significant.

A last example of the criterion of enemy attestation concerns Matthew’s report that the chief priests and Pharisees visited Pilate after the crucifixion and requested that a guard be granted to keep watch at Jesus’s tomb, with Pilate approving their wish.50 This matter is usually taken by critical scholars to be a clear example of an unhistorical apologetic gloss by Matthew, so its use here would depend on the researcher’s assessment. A fairly recent doctoral dissertation in Finland argued that there were signs that Matthew had actually employed an early tradition that predated this account.51

It is certainly significant to note at this juncture that the string of reported actions or words by the Jewish leaders, the Roman soldiers, the Roman centurion himself, and even Pilate provide clear indications that are sometimes multiply attested as well. At each of these points, an array of data is more than clear that each person or group was absolutely certain that Jesus had been crucified, was assuredly dead, and could then be buried. This is a weighty number of witnesses who had their own reasons for being sure that Jesus had not survived the crucifixion.

Another crucial consideration is raised by Michael Licona. The probability of a person having survived crucifixion in the ancient world was exceptionally low, and there are only a couple of known examples of it happening. Josephus explains that among the Jews who had been crucified in the conflict with Rome, he found three of his acquaintances who had already been hoisted up on crosses. He quickly sought out his friend, the Roman commander Titus, who ordered that the three men be taken down immediately. The men avoided the completion of the crucifixion process, but only because they had been rescued purposely before the conclusion. Still, in spite of getting the best medical care available, Josephus tells us that two of the three men died anyway.52 So from all we know concerning crucifixion, Jesus’s odds of surviving the cross were very bleak. It is even possible that no one had survived the full process of this gruesome execution procedure.53

To summarize even briefly the historical evidence for the crucifixion and death of Jesus will reveal that the amount of data available is much more than might be expected.54 To begin by saying that this material is multiply and independently attested might even be called a huge understatement. Easily more than a dozen in-dependent sources from within 100 years (with the majority of these texts dating from the first century, with all but a handful of them within the first 70 years) is almost an unbelievably rich case of multiple attestation, especially for an ancient event. These sources encompass orthodox Christian, Jewish, gnostic, and pagan texts, both canonical as well as noncanonical. This number grows to close to two dozen if we proceed a little beyond the 100 years.

Some of these sources contain a good amount of exceptionally early material as even recognized by skeptical scholars. Other reports strongly appear to have been either gathered from eyewitnesses themselves or else based on eyewitness reports. This characterizes these data even more positively. Besides the multiple attestation, earliness, and eyewitness nature of some reports that these texts likewise pass the criteria of dissimilarity, several species of embarrassment and examples of enemy attestation just deepen the richness of the foundation here. Scholars have noted that the key markers for historical authenticity are multiple attestation, early and eyewitness testimony, along with discontinuity, with each being well represented in this case. Lastly, the historical sources indicate that the chances of Jesus getting down off the cross alive were virtually nil.

It is no wonder that so many critical researchers never question the existence of Jesus, for if he died then he obviously must have lived. Moreover, the evidence indicates clearly that Jesus’s death by crucifixion is probably the most firmly established event in his life. Perhaps this is why so very few scholars today challenge this fact. Even skeptical academic John Dominic Crossan declares: “That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be.”55 Marcus Borg agrees with Ehrman’s statement in concluding that Jesus’s execution is “the most certain fact about the historical Jesus.”56 New Testament skeptic Gerd Lüdemann asserts equally strongly that “the fact of Jesus’ death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable.”57 This matter could hardly be affirmed much more succinctly or firmly. This is quite impressive approval from scholars who are not compelled to arrive at such conclusions unless they are clearly warranted by the data at hand, and they think that the known facts here warrant this firm conclusion.

The Death of Jesus by Crucifixion: The Medical Evidence

We have seen that ancient historical sources that proclaim the death of Jesus by crucifixion are quite plentiful, including Christian, Jewish, and pagan sources, and are impressively detailed in their information. The canonical Gospels are the most detailed of the crucifixion accounts in the ancient world.58 This is especially the case when the sources are present in the large numbers and quality seen in this chapter. Still, how do we know that Jesus actually died on the cross? In other words, we have no shortage of reports from friends, foes, and in between that this was Jesus’s fate. But do we know that such a demise is actually the consequence of crucifixion?

In this chapter we will not be directing our comments toward the various advocates of the old swoon or apparent death hypotheses, mostly from their eighteenth- and nineteenth-century heydays.59 So there will be no effort to entertain, evaluate, or refute any of these views here, though that remains for a lengthy discussion in the next volume of this series. This section is chiefly concerned with investigating some of the relevant medical information concerning how crucifixion most likely led to the death of its victims to complement and round out our previous discussion of the historical data indicating that Jesus died in this manner.

Many medical studies especially in recent decades or so have examined the relevant details regarding the nature of crucifixion.60 While medical researchers differ on particular questions, a number of conclusions often coalesce around several key themes regarding the general cause of death by crucifixion. A few studies were even carried out on cadavers or living volunteers, who in the latter case were always affixed to their “crosses” without nails or other injurious methods, of course! Some of the particulars of how crucifixion was actually performed in the ancient world can and did vary quite widely, depending upon the executioner’s sadistic interests, but the victims’ paths to death could still take some similar routes. As will be indicated, positions on this subject have merged somewhat in recent years. The majority view is that of asphyxiation and is often expressed popularly by statements such that the primary requirement was for the victims’ arms to be suspended and affixed over the head in such a manner that gravity would take its normal course and induce the inability to breathe.

The Cause of Death by Crucifixion

Many physicians and other medical researchers have published their conclusions on the nature of death by crucifixion, both in general and particularly regarding the crucifixion of Jesus. Theories pertaining to the chief causes of death have varied, and often for good reasons, because crucifixion techniques themselves often varied so widely.

Causes of death from crucifixion have been hypothesized as occurring from heart failure, shock, pleural effusion, pulmonary embolism, coagulopathy, or suspension trauma.61 Some of these views might be thought of as being close to others in that they are anatomically related in some way or another. But it seems clear that physicians often agree that the cause of death in crucifixion is “multifactorial.” In other words, as in everyday life, medical personnel will often list two or three conditions that may all contribute to causing an individual’s death. Some researchers may describe these as primary and secondary causes.62

By far the most common explanation provided by medical scholars in the literature is that crucifixion induces asphyxiation, perhaps even if victims are simply left to themselves with little or no interference. This was the most common view a number of decades ago,63 and in spite of a few newer options, like those mentioned above during the past few decades, it clearly remains the most popular observation at present.64

While sometimes only a single medical source or two supports some of the other options mentioned above, more than two dozen medically trained scholars cited here favor asphyxiation as the chief mechanism that most likely causes death during crucifixion. This does not solve the issue entirely, but it should at least make us pause and think due to the data that lies behind these scholarly choices.65 It even seems to be the case that the medical investigators that favor asphyxiation could very well double all of the other medical options combined!66

To repeat, it should be noted again that it is never being argued anywhere in this entire study that the greater number of scholars somehow establishes the views under consideration, in this case that of asphyxiation as the chief cause of death in crucifixion. Apart from assumptions of that nature, there are likely some reasons why the vast majority of medical specialists take this popular option. It needs to be inquired if this widespread conclusion is justified by the relevant research and backed by strong arguments of its own.

Researchers in the medical community who favor the asphyxiation option seem to think that victims will expire chiefly on their own, as the muscles in their own bodies virtually throttle their own lungs due to weight, fatigue, the positioning of the body, and so on. Other medical conditions would certainly factor into the equation here as well, though as lesser contributors. Many of the medical sources above often describe the process in roughly similar terms. While hanging in the “low” position on the cross, with the arms extended outward from or over the head, with the knees bending upward, holding that posture for a varying amount of time would cause the individuals to begin asphyxiating from the pressure on the lungs. The weight of the body essentially pulled down on the intercostal, pectoral, and deltoid muscles surrounding the lungs, which in turn made it very difficult to exhale. A great amount of pain was involved as well, as might be imagined.

If the sufferers could push into variations of the “up” position, most often on feet that were punctured by nails, this could potentially reduce the tension on the lungs at least somewhat. That in turn would usually allow the victim to breathe a little more easily, though usually more quickly, more shallowly, and with pain. But pushing up and down in this manner would grow progressively more difficult due to many potential factors, such as a prior beating that could well have been nearly lethal in itself, the resulting near-total exhaustion, blood loss, lesser amounts of oxygen progressively getting into the lungs and the rest of the body’s cells and organs, the heat of the day, the absence of food and perhaps liquids as well, the pierced arms and feet, and even gravity itself. As the victim stayed in the “down” position for progressively longer periods of time, asphyxiation would set in more deeply and quickly. To occupy the lower position for any length of time often meant that death had already occurred.

Thomas Miller introduces another seldom-mentioned aspect of the subject. He contends that asphyxiation is much more than the obvious aspects of the lungs themselves not functioning properly. Actually, it is a matter of internal bodily operations as well because of the “inadequate oxygen availability to body tissues because of disturbed lung function, resulting ultimately in multiple organ dysfunction, unconsciousness, and death.” The huge amount of blood loss induced by the flogging would mean a significant “decrease in the oxygen carrying capacity of the remaining circulating blood in Jesus’ body.” In short, less circulating blood would have translated to less oxygen being delivered to Jesus’s bodily tissues, resulting in severe functional compromise. The “severe pain” as well as the “pure exhaustion” would also contribute ultimately to the “decreased hemoglobin in the blood,” making it “virtually impossible” to achieve “adequate tissue oxygenation.”67

Other medical conditions were factors too. Most commonly, medical scholars hypothesize that more primary damage such as that described here might lead to other serious problems, such as congestive heart failure and shock. Beyond being quite hideous by itself, crucifixion is an ingenious method in the sense that no medical doctor is needed to be sure the victim is dead, and a coroner does not need to do an autopsy. Remaining in the lower position only invites death and would indicate that this posture exceeded mere unconsciousness. Just affix the individual in a roughly similar manner and he is bound to die even if left on his own. It is an incredibly nasty procedure that gets the job done in a way that obviously makes a public statement and definitely serves as a deterrent to additional would-be misbehavers.

Regarding the important question of how crucifixion victims were usually affixed to their crosses, John Granger Cook has supplied very important details.68 He contrasts the use of nails versus other methods in the ancient literature. Especially in cases of Roman crucifixion, nails were utilized far more often than other means.69 Other potentially important details have been supplied here as well.70

Contrary to this asphyxiation research, Frederick Zugibe’s own detailed inquiry has probably received the most attention largely due to his experiments with volunteers to better ascertain the possible cause of death by crucifixion.71 Zugibe admits that the asphyxiation thesis is the “most widely held theory” but that it turns out to be “completely untenable when tested empirically.”72 Having “crucified” many volunteers, he confirmed that the angle of the arms is an extremely crucial matter, as other researchers have also shown. Zugibe admits that breathing difficulties are indeed the result the closer the arms are brought up toward the head, as confirmed by his own experiments,73 whereas that was not the case with his volunteers given their arm angles.74

Zugibe suspended volunteers between twenty and thirty-five years of age on an actual cross. Rather than nails, of course, gauntlets were utilized to affix their hands, with seat belts for their feet. During the process, Zugibe used an EKG to monitor their hearts as well as also measure their blood pressure and their blood oxygen. The latter actually increased in all cases due to hyperventilating!

The individuals’ arms were stretched out at 60–70 degrees. But their bodies rarely even touched the wood of the cross except slightly in the region of the shoulders. The volunteers constantly shifted position to relieve their various strains, cramps, and other discomforts, and most frequently experienced pain in their extremities. Usually, the volunteers’ chests grew rigid and their breathing emanated from their abdominal regions. They tended to inhale often and in shorter breaths but exhaled more slowly. Only a few of them ever reported having any difficulty in breathing, though it disappeared later in those cases. No doubt, his research needs to be addressed.

Zugibe clearly thinks that actual experimenting is exceptionally important, and few would deny its use. However, he was not the only physician who did significant crucifixion experiments.75 The French surgeon Pierre Barbet’s many tests were infamous and among the earliest in crucifixion research, not to mention Barbet’s research on actual cases of crucifixion and hanging that occurred in the German concentration camps. Like Zugibe, German radiologist Hermann Mödder also experimented with volunteers, though he received radically different results. Also like Zugibe, Robert Bucklin was another American pathologist and medical examiner, but Bucklin actually got up on a model cross himself to observe the consequences!76 And he testified that the deltoid and pectoral muscles “promptly assume a state of spasm, and the victim so suspended is physically unable to make use of his thoracic muscles of respiration.”77

So how do we decide the rather large differences between these two models? For a particular example, why the difference between Zugibe’s cases and Bucklin’s personal experience on a cross? Perhaps the main issue before us is that we do not know the angle of Jesus’s arms during his crucifixion. This could be absolutely crucial, for it appears to be the case that the positioning of the arms may provide the chief determination of whether or not Jesus asphyxiated. So are there other ways to determine how he died?

Barbet proposed that there were at least a couple of indications that asphyxiation accounted for Jesus’s death. Even though crurifragium did not occur to Jesus, Barbet thought that the practice of breaking the victim’s ankles to hasten death was more consistent with the purpose of inducing asphyxiation more quickly. Moreover, in the cases from the German concentration camps, the victims asphyxiated due to the inability to exhale.78 But were these cases analogous to one another?

The initial point regarding breaking the ankles of crucifixion victims seems to be difficult for Zugibe to explain and favors Barbet rather strongly, especially since Zugibe concedes that Jehohanan, the crucifixion victim whose bones were discovered in Israel in 1968, did indeed have his legs broken in such a manner.79 However, Zugibe responded that the ankles also could have been broken in this case to induce shock, which is his preferred hypothesis for what occurred to Jesus on the cross.80

However, the ancient Romans would more likely have been aware of an asphyxiating individual who could not breathe, as opposed to one who was in a state of shock, as the most prominent cause for death, since they could observe the former all too readily if it were the case. Besides, if producing shock had been the goal, they could presumably have landed a blow to any of many places on the human body. But why is crurifragium one of the preferred methods to end crucifixion? This round seems to go clearly to Barbet.

Regarding Barbet’s second argument, Zugibe is correct to point out that the victims in the German concentration camps had their hands affixed directly above their heads, and Barbet is thereby guilty of “extrapolating two completely different physiological situations.” As we saw above, Zugibe even concedes that if such a situation were the case, then it would indicate some greater merit for the thesis of asphyxiation.81 However, these are not comparable situations.

Numerous reports from Barbet’s eyewitness interviews and elsewhere have attested that the Nazi crucifixions were concluded very quickly. Zias records that, depending on how they were crucified, the prisoners often died in just ten minutes to an hour.82 Mödder’s German experiments yielded similar results, with unconsciousness coming in a maximum of just twelve minutes.83 But these data favor Zugibe’s point that these German cases are not very analogous to Roman crucifixions, given the different conditions and much longer periods of time that the latter were known to take. After all, Mark explains Pilate’s surprise that Jesus has died so quickly (Mark 15:44–45). However, that the German deaths occurred in a much briefer time span, under different circumstances, and by asphyxiation, still fails to prove that asphyxiation did not also occur with the different design of the Roman cases; that conclusion is a non sequitur. The Roman victims could still have asphyxiated, though hours or even a couple of days later.

So the overall argument tends to cut both ways. It appears the most vital question here is, How we can know precisely where and how Jesus’s arms were positioned on the cross? As Zias states, “The latest research findings have shown the issue to be more complicated, depending upon the manner in which the victim was affixed to the cross.”84 Christian art notwithstanding (though this apparently holds some major importance for Zugibe), can we know for sure either that Jesus’s arms were positioned straight out, as in Zugibe’s experiments, or closer to a position over his head, more like Barbet and Mödder? Though the latter could result in quicker death, it must be remembered that Jesus’s feet were affixed to the cross too, unlike the usual German examples, so this alone would lengthen the process.

Intriguingly, Zugibe’s own book diagrams just such an upright stake as a possible model for crucifixion.85 Or perhaps Jesus’s cross was actually more like one of Zugibe’s next two more traditional structures diagramed there, with Jesus’s arms both being nailed either more or less straight across or more upward, well above his head. But how close would Jesus’s arms be to the stipes? The overall debate on this particular aspect seems difficult to determine. Though Zugibe’s retort draws upon his employing more detailed experimental methods, it should be remembered that Barbet and Mödder also experimented with cadavers and living volunteers as well. For example, while Roman crucifixion victims may not have had their arms extended directly overhead, as in the German cases, the final outcome may still have been a slower brand of asphyxiation!

So far, then, there seem to be some strong considerations both for and against asphyxiation as the chief cause of death in crucifixion. Zugibe’s most impressive point seems to be his scientific techniques that simply appear to come down to a point where asphyxiation seems to be experimentally doubtful.86

Yet, strangely enough, experiments such as Zugibe’s have been questioned and could also serve as crucial weaknesses! In their medical evaluations mentioned above, Maslen and Mitchell note that Zugibe’s research is open to many crucial criticisms. Zugibe’s volunteers obviously were not actually being crucified, they remained on the crosses for only comparatively brief periods of time, they had not suffered prior scourging or carried a portion of their heavy cross, and they did not experience the resulting dehydration, heat, excessive anxiety, and especially the nails. Hence, Zugibe’s experiments were judged to be too inauthentic—they produced “only limited relevance to actual cases.”87

Perhaps worst of all, Maslen and Mitchell charged that Zugibe had never presented any actual evidence indicating that shock was the chief cause of Jesus’s death. They also judged that Zugibe had not disproved the asphyxiation theses, presumably because the absence of breathing difficulties in his volunteers was not determinative due to this lack of experimental authenticity. As they assert: “The longest time any were left on the cross seems to have been limited, on account of the physical discomfort of being on the cross. Since it was extremely rare for anyone in Roman times to die on a cross within the first few hours, it could be argued that the time scale of the study cannot disprove the asphyxiation theory.”88

Still more crucial questions also remain here for Zugibe’s position. Does Zugibe’s thesis depend too much on the truth of the Shroud of Turin as well as on the accuracy of Christian artwork?89 Most significantly, how can we be sure of the exact position and angle of Jesus’s feet and arms during crucifixion, especially when Zugibe’s theory relies significantly on that knowledge? While several aspects of Zugibe’s experiments as a whole are impressive in several aspects, can we know that they are close enough to Jesus’s example of crucifixion that there is no room for any major errors or other considerations? These are easily overlooked and very difficult issues indeed.

One of the more provocative arguments favoring those who champion asphyxiation as the most likely of the major causes of Jesus’s death on the cross is the precise placement of the crurifragium procedure in breaking the victim’s legs or ankles. Even though there are not many historical cases on record, its practice on a number of occasions is still provocative.90 Further, though much more limited, the experimental data still argue that some of those who tried out model crosses themselves, such as the pathologist Robert Bucklin, did indeed report significant breathing difficulties along with chest pain.

Two additional observations ought to at least be mentioned here. First, we have commented at length that the angle of the victim’s arms may be quite significant. But if crurifragium is a decent argument favoring death by asphyxiation, and if it was sometimes the preferred choice made by the Romans and others to hasten deaths such as with all three of the crucified men in this particular case (even if it was never actually done to Jesus), then that is indeed a consideration that favors the notion that the men were affixed to their crosses in such a manner that they would indeed asphyxiate if they could not constantly push up to breathe.

From a slightly different perspective here, in spite of our not knowing today the exact angle of Jesus’s arms on the cross, if the soldiers chose to apply crurifragium to the men’s legs, then this argues that the Romans at least thought it likely that the men might die of asphyxiation. It was thus a consideration that was calculated into the very process itself. We will turn to this subject in the next section below.91

The second consideration is this: if the victim’s feet or leg bones were crushed or cut through, the crucified individual presumably could not push up and down. Indeed, that would have been the chief purpose of the blows in the first place. But if the legs were essentially unusable, what made these victims significantly different from those in the Mödder experiments or in the Nazi prison camp cases, where the legs could similarly have been of little or even no help at all? Sure, the arm angles between Zugibe’s and Mödder’s volunteers would still be somewhat different, as they may even have varied from one person to the next one. But the more decisive question is whether Zugibe’s patients would also have asphyxiated or passed out in a comparatively brief time if their feet or ankles likewise did not help them at all? Thus, perhaps it was the case that Zugibe’s volunteers did not asphyxiate precisely because they were able to use their feet and legs for the crucial support that was necessary, plus the brief duration of time of their stints on the cross. In short, perhaps smashing or cutting the victim’s lower legs would essentially have turned Zugibe’s patients into Mödder’s patients, in which case asphyxiation could definitely still have obtained!

Actually, one or both of the arguments just made above may have swung the pendulum sharply in the direction of death by asphyxiation. But for now, we will leave this portion of the discussion noting that there appear to be some excellent reasons why death by asphyxiation is easily the most common medical view today, as Zugibe himself acknowledged.92 Further, there is widespread agreement among medical researchers that a combination of several other possibilities also exist, all of which could actually be true of particular crucifixions given the multifarious nature of what we know about this heinous form of capital punishment. Even the physical descriptions that exist from both ancient and modern times of the widely ingenious procedures provide grounds for these medical suggestions.

Before concluding this discussion and its disagreements, a bit of common ground needs to be emphasized. As Retief and Cilliers wisely point out, “Death was probably commonly precipitated by cardiac arrest, caused by vasovagal reflexes, initiated inter alia by severe anoxaemia, severe pain, body blows and breaking of the large bones.”93 Thus, it just seems that so many horrible and violent acts were often perpetrated upon crucifixion victims that there were simply many different avenues that would end up at the same destination, in that the underlying scenarios would cause death via cardiac arrest.94 By whatever means this occurred, a life had obviously ended at that point. Crucifixion just includes many methods that could get a person to the same terminus, but like a road map, however the finale came about, cardiac arrest would be the end result.95

The Death Blow

Perhaps there is another way to approach some of these matters. We have narrowed considerably some of the chief options in death by crucifixion. But for the topics that we are considering in this study, knowing the precise answer to the question of exactly how Jesus died is nowhere near as crucial as knowing that Jesus died by crucifixion. So, are there any additional indications that Jesus was indeed dead—that he did not get down from the cross alive? May we then, with some assurance, affirm that he had actually died?

Historical and Archaeological Reports

From both Christian and non-Christian writers alike in the ancient world, we learn that often near the end of the crucifixion process, a death blow of some kind would be rendered to the victim. The reason for this culmination could be either to hasten the individual’s death and sometimes to do so as quickly as possible, or to be absolutely sure that the person was not simply in a coma, passed out, or otherwise in danger of getting down off the cross alive. The lives of those who carried out the procedures could depend on whether the job had been carried out properly as well.

John 19:31–35 relates the Jewish leaders were anxious that the bodies of the three crucifixion victims would not remain on the crosses when the Sabbath began, which traditionally was about sundown that same (Friday) afternoon. So they went to Pilate and requested that he give orders to the soldiers to break the men’s legs so that their bodies could be taken down quickly.

Pilate agreed to their wish, and the Roman soldiers promptly broke the legs of the men on each side of Jesus. But when the soldiers got to Jesus, they did not break his legs because it was obvious to them that he was already dead.96 So one of the guards reached up with his spear and pierced Jesus’s side, causing blood and water to flow down from the open wound. Then a statement was made in John 19:35, claiming that the eyewitness who saw all of these things is the one who provided this true, firsthand testimony.

This process regarding the other two crucifixion victims, crurifragium, is well known and can be observed in the relevant historical and medical literature. It is found elsewhere in the ancient world as well, in the areas of history and archaeology, performed in a manner like that described in John. Crurifragium was employed simply as breaking someone’s legs as a punishment by itself,97 or it was used in conjunction with crucifixion as a means to an end. In the latter case, Cicero speaks cynically of a man who died by breaking his ankles in a fall, commenting that he thereby avoided the breaking of his ankles during crucifixion (Fat. 5)! In Philippics, Cicero makes other allusions to crurifragium and crucifixion, using them together in the same context.98

The Gospel of Peter (4:14) also refers to the practice of breaking the legs of crucifixion victims, though it intriguingly is not actually performed on any of the three crucified men. Both Crossan and Ehrman think that the Gospel of Peter is an independent source.99 Additionally, in the Acts of Andrew (which John Dominic Crossan dates to the second century AD),100 a couple other references are made to the command not to use nails or sever Andrew’s knees during his crucifixion to force him to suffer for a longer time.101 It may be the case, then, that the report in John’s Gospel is confirmed at least in part by these backup references from the ancient world.

We have already discussed the debate concerning the first-century crucifixion victim Jehohanan (the name is spelled variously), whose reburied bones had been discovered in a Jewish ossuary in 1968. He was nailed through both feet and possibly through the arms as well. It had initially been concluded that Jehohanan’s leg bones had been smashed to hasten death, but later studies argued that this last matter was “inconclusive.”102 Subsequent commentators have since lined up on both sides of the discussion, with probably most of them reporting that the victim’s legs were probably broken to rush the end result of his execution.103

Recently, it has also been reported in an intriguing discussion by Kristina Killgrove, a bioarchaeologist at the University of West Florida, that another excavation in Mendes in the Nile Delta region may have turned up the possible discovery of two additional ancient cases of male crucifixion victims who also were “subject to crurifragium.”104 In spite of still another possible archaeological discovery of another apparent crucifixion victim’s bones that does not include broken ankles, the journal article did list crurifragium, a blow to the sternum, or piercing the heart with a spear as several regular means of inducing death.105

Given the relative rarity of actual medical or archaeological discoveries related to crucifixion victims, these three potential cases plus other scholarly references seem to offer a fairly good amount of potentially helpful data concerning the use of crurifragium in addition to the other historical references provided above. Altogether then, breaking, cutting, or smashing leg or ankle bones seems well-enough attested in the ancient world, and this method favors the asphyxiation death theory for crucified victims as well.

Crurifragium is probably the best known form of premortem blow, but it was not the only way that the crucifixion process was ended quickly, as mentioned in the relevant literature. Hengel mentions a couple other ancient accounts where a coup de grâce comes into play in crucifixion-like settings. For instance, the historian Duris recounts that the ruler of Samos apparently had ten leaders from the city of Pericles tied to planks. But after they had suffered and were still alive for several days, the ruler ordered his men to crush their skulls with cudgels. In a similar fictional account in Aristophanes, while a man who had been nailed to a plank was writhing in pain, a bowman taunted him and then threatened to kill him, presumably with an arrow.106

Medical specialists who have combed the historical and medical literature have mentioned these and other ancient practices to ensure death.107 The “Roman guards were known to precipitate death” by methods such as deliberately fracturing the legs, stabbing a spear into the heart through the upper abdomen or chest, making sharp blows to the chest, or even by starting a smoking fire to asphyxiate the victim!108 Even apart from the details regarding Jesus’s chest wound, it makes sense that the upper chest is precisely one of the principal places where a veteran Roman soldier would stab an enemy to end the fight in the quickest manner.

Medical Indications

The applications of such death blows would certainly seem sufficient to finish off the crucifixion victim, especially after their already-prolonged torture and suffering before that point. As might be expected, most medical commentators have concentrated on the results of the two methods of crurifragium and the spear thrust due to the connection with Jesus’s crucifixion. As described above, it is probably the case that crurifragium is mostly discussed in the context of asphyxiation.

What about the chest wound? Helpfully, the Greek term for where the Roman spear was placed, pleura, at least implies the upper chest region of the body rather than a lower extremity.109 This is also noted in a few medical and other sources.110

In the account in John, Jesus was already discovered to be dead, presumably indicated by his low position hanging on the cross. Therefore, a Roman spear thrust in the upper chest area was quite apparently applied for the purpose of making absolutely sure that Jesus had expired. Quintilian, a first-century AD Roman rhetorician, states in Latin, “Cruces succiduntur, percussos sepeliri carnifex non vetat,” which Licona translates as: “As for those who die on the cross, the executioner does not forbid the burying of those who have been pierced.”111

In addition to the other texts and indications of such a mortal wound being administered to crucifixion victims, Quintilian’s comment is very important. After the process of crucifixion, the victim’s bodies were struck or pierced and were then allowed burial. Cook explains that the Latin term percussus with reference to execution is usually connected with a final blow or piercing from a sword, axe, or spear. In this sense, “the word’s usage implies that a weapon was employed.”112 Cook also agreed that Quintilian’s reference could serve as possible confirmation of John’s account of Jesus’s postmortem chest wound.

Origen may likewise have had Quintilian’s statement in mind, due to his similar language in speaking of piercing the bodies being the “Roman’s custom for those who are crucified.”113 More recent views have been more specific. Speaking of John 19:34, Brown similarly cites Quintilian regarding the Roman practice of piercing bodies to ensure death by crucifixion.114 Referring to the account of Jesus’s death as being “firm enough,” James D. G. Dunn treats seriously both the breaking of the crucifixion victims’ legs as well as the “spear thrust” to Jesus’s chest to ensure his death, as per the ancient attestation.115 After a critical analysis, Légasse adds his view in favor of both the breaking of the ankles as well as the spear wound to ensure Jesus’s death.116 It is significant that in both Quintilian and the Gospel account, the action taken by the Roman soldier was a postmortem blow for the sake of assurance.117

In recent decades, this has been one of the most intriguing aspects of the research. In an effort to arrive at the best understanding of what happened medically during the crucifixion, many well-credentialed medical specialists have weighed in on the relevant issues here and the results have been rather enlightening. Addressing the aspects of the Roman spear wound along with the blood and water mentioned in John, quite a number of potential medical models have been discussed (and usually rejected) in an effort to provide the best medical explanation. For example, Zugibe outlines and then discusses eleven different hypotheses for the positioning and results of the chest wound.118 Wilkinson does the same with seven potential theses, and then considers a few more variations.119 Although he is not a physician himself, Wilcox helpfully illustrates four of the major positions.120

Intriguingly, the medical views on the nature of the chest wound are probably more in agreement here than on other areas of the discussion so far. Actually, without getting into the finer elements of medical specifics, a large group of medical commentators, including many of those listed above, basically divide into two broad camps on this issue, often with crossover tendencies between them. Most researchers think the Roman spear entered through Jesus’s pericardium, the thin sac that surrounds the heart and holds a little watery serum, and then into his heart. A smaller number think the spear first penetrated Jesus’s right lung on the way into the heart, hitting both the lung and the heart. The water reported by John could have come from the right lung or from the pericardium, while the blood would have come from the right pleural region and especially from the right atrium of the heart. Incidentally, it is false that dead men do not bleed.121

Before we list these positions, one other prominent view should be mentioned. Another American forensic medical specialist, Anthony Sava, is well-known for hypothesizing that Jesus may have suffered from pleural effusion. He holds that pre-crucifixion scourging was severe enough that it caused severe hemorrhaging in the pleural cavity between the ribs and the lungs. As Sava states: “The bloody fluid collects between the outer surface of the lung and the inner lining of the chest wall.” The buildup of the fluid could even have exerted enough pressure on the lungs to actually compress them and cause or hasten death by asphyxiation. Sava sent a questionnaire to a number of thoracic surgeons, who satisfied him that this was a possible scenario. One of the keys to his hypothesis is that the “haemorrhagic fluid” would settle in the upper cavity in two layers, with the heavier blood cells below and the lighter, serum-like fluid on top. Presumably, this is what John saw when the Roman spear released the blood and water.122

However, while Sava’s view has often been cited as one of the medical possibilities, it has remained somewhat on the periphery of the discussion in recent decades. Many medical researchers have judged that Jesus’s scourging in that region of the body was not serious enough or the sort that would have inflicted these sorts of wounds. Pathologist Bucklin concludes, “There is little evidence of direct trauma applied to the thoracic area. This would seem to refute . . . Sava.”123 Further, Wilkinson thinks that pleural effusion is not supported by the best studies on “the causation of haemothorax or blood in the pleural cavity” and that other factors would have to be present as well.124 Zugibe concludes that the thesis is one of the best; but in the end he believes there is a “strong possibility” that the blood and the watery serum would not remain separated but would be “totally mixed.”125

Sava does not seem to think that the spear entered the heart, but that it stopped inside the right pleural region before being withdrawn. Of the other medical views, some researchers conclude that the spear pierced the lung or pleural space, proceeded through the pericardium, and then into the heart.126 Other physicians only mention the likelihood that the spear entered the pericardium and then the heart.127

For by far the majority of these investigators, the spear wound was inflicted postmortem.128 In this case, Jesus would have been dead when the spear entered his chest. After all, the point with the soldiers not breaking his ankles to hasten death was their observation that death had already happened, and the purpose of the spear wound was specifically to ascertain and demonstrate that very fact. But if Jesus had been alive for any reason, this piercing almost undoubtedly would have killed him. As Bergeron asserts, such a blow “would certainly result in immediate death.”129

Another consideration should be added here. The need in this particular case was to end these crucifixions quickly, before sundown. Being noted in a fairly good number of additional sources (both religious and secular), the process of crurifragium seems to be a solid choice to get the job done. Breaking the legs of the other two men renders Jesus’s spear wound all the more likely. Here is the reason: the soldiers were checking all three men at the same time, severely wounding the other two as they checked on Jesus. Doing something to Jesus’s dead body at the same time just to be sure makes absolute sense because the soldiers purposed to ensure that all three men were dead.130 The soldiers’ own lives may possibly have depended on it, especially during the potentially explosive present Passover situation. So the two instances of crurifragium could also be connected to the coup de grâce in the specific case of Jesus.

A much more crucial observation is that, if by any stretch of the imagination, Jesus had been stabbed in the chest by a Roman spear but it had missed his heart or another vital organ,131 and he remained alive for a time, another exceptionally serious problem would have resulted. As medical examiner Zugibe explains, “If the spear had penetrated the chest and did not strike the heart, a pneumothorax (collapse of the lung) would occur . . . [and] a sucking sound would have been obvious to the centurion and to the individuals who took Jesus down from the cross if he were alive.”132 The sucking sound from inside Jesus’s chest would have alerted those present, even in the first century, that he was certainly still living!

Zugibe relates that he was once called to the scene of a domestic dispute where a man had been stabbed in the chest. Though he was unconscious all the while, “the sucking sound made by air being drawn into the chest through the blood and other body fluids could be heard across the room”!133 This phenomenon is colloquially called “sucking chest.” Here we have yet another of what we might term the many crucifixion checks and balances, indicating that crucifixion victims were indeed dead.

Michael Licona references still another excellent argument concerning Jesus’s crucifixion. Licona states that there “is a very low probability of surviving crucifixion.” Of all our references to this nasty process,134 “only one account exists in antiquity of a person surviving crucifixion.”135 This case has already been described, with the Jewish historian Josephus receiving permission to save three friends by having them removed from their crosses. Roman medical personnel tried to save them, but only one of Josephus’s three friends survived even these interrupted crucifixions.136

Besides Josephus’s account, one story in Herodotus 7.194.1–3 and one more modern crucifixion account in the journal article by John Cheek (each explained earlier) may add to this number, with the likelihood that not a single victim survived a completed crucifixion as far as is known. In other words, the possibility exists that no one ever endured a full-term crucifixion and lived to tell about it. Here’s the chief point: “Thus, even if Jesus had been removed from his cross prematurely and medically assisted, his chances of survival were quite bleak. In addition, no evidence exists that Jesus was removed while alive or that he was provided any medical care whatsoever, much less Rome’s best.”137

The lesson here is that there was a high likelihood of crucifixion ending in death even without the administration of either premortem crucifixion death blows or a postmortem chest or other major wound. Jesus would most likely have died anyway from compound medical causes! So in spite of claimed swoons or apparent deaths, either planned and purposeful or otherwise, critics who suppose that Jesus did not die by crucifixion are counting on just very slight possibilities rather than the historical probabilities. The best historical and medical data regarding death by crucifixion oppose such naturalistic alternative views! Besides, instead of simple “what ifs” and “maybes,” where is the actual evidence to support these rival guesses?

Therefore, we seem to have arrived at an essential conclusion here. Even if medical investigators do not agree unanimously on the precise reason for Jesus’s death on the cross, it probably can be narrowed down to by far the majority view—asphyxiation, perhaps accompanied by lesser complications—as the most likely cause.138 All of these conditions could coexist as part of the multifactorial process mentioned above. In the end, it has been said that the probable case is that, as with most crucifixion victims, these other conditions resulted in Jesus likely suffering a final cardiac arrest.139 Thus, it does seem quite clear from our preceding discussion that, in historical and medical terms, it is quite highly probable that Jesus died due to the rigors of the crucifixion process with the likelihood of the postmortem heart wound having been administered to him.

Historicity of John 19:34

John 19:34 reads, “One of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once blood and water came out.” What is the likelihood, as some commentators have thought, that this text in John should not be taken as either literally or historically true? What are some of the considerations for and against this charge?

Arguing that the author meant these descriptions in other than historical terms, it is often pointed out that John alone describes these events without any backup attestation from other canonical Gospel texts. After all, if the other Gospel authors had known of these things, surely they would have recorded such momentous events in their own texts, such as the soldiers breaking the legs of the men on each side of Jesus, the Roman agreement that Jesus was in fact dead, and the subsequent spear wound in Jesus’s side along with the report of the blood and water coming from his body.

Further, another reason for doubting that John was attempting to relate a straightforward historical account here according to some is that the author was in awe of the whole spectacle, as if he thought there was some sort of mystical significance involved. (This is especially the case when we remember John’s interest throughout his Gospel in the use of water as a symbol.)140 Of further note is John’s subsequent statement to his readers explaining that two prophecies were fulfilled when the Roman soldiers did not break Jesus’s legs and when his side was pierced (John 19:36–37). These aspects have caused some to wonder about John’s real purpose in recording these things.

Up front, these objections are far from determinative. For starters, the initial question regarding John being the only source for the crurifragium and the spear wound is obviously an argument from silence, which is anything but a firm foundation upon which to begin a debate! That no other canonical Gospel author mentions these events is less than convincing.141 If we were reminded of how many key events in the Gospels are only recorded in one of the four books, things might look a little different here.

For instance, just sticking to the trial and crucifixion accounts alone, there are some surprises. Most Christians probably have a detailed picture in their minds about the beating which Jesus underwent at the hands of the Roman soldiers before his crucifixion. We could probably list all sorts of details. We could visualize the horrible events! However, the Gospels are virtually silent on this subject—there are only a very few total verses in the four Gospels combined with very few details shared between them!

Why were the authors seemingly not very interested in writing about Jesus’s scourging, especially when we learn just a little later that Jesus was apparently so beat up and worn out that he needed help carrying the crossbeam ( patibulum)? This seems strange, especially for later ministry applications to our following Jesus in his suffering.142 But it makes more sense if we realize the potential historical reasons for this.143 At any rate, it appears that the pictures in our minds may be based more on the movies than on the Gospel texts themselves! And depending on how we count, it is John who arguably says more about Jesus’s mistreatment by the Romans than any other Gospel writer, as in the example that we are considering above!

Another instance is that all four Gospels together say hardly a word about the nails used to affix Jesus to his cross! Not a single Gospel even mentions during the crucifixion accounts that Jesus was nailed to the wood! We only know from the resurrection appearance accounts in Luke 24:39 and John 20:20, 27 that Jesus even had wounds in his hands and feet. And, once again, it is only John who specifically mentions the nails at all (John 20:25)! But surely many readers would presume that the nails were worth mentioning. At least Jesus was still alive when that happened! But surprise, they are not mentioned by other Gospel authors except John, the same author who has been questioned for being the only one to tell us about the broken leg bones and the postmortem spear wound.144

What about the second charge—that John seems so interested in the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy and might have thought these events carried such a special or even mystical meaning here that perhaps this was what really engrossed him as opposed to the writing of history? What is worse, maybe he was so caught up in the potential hidden meaning of the occurrences that he simply invented the story line!

However, does coloring an event in a particular way mean the event in question actually never happened at all? Even if that could be the case, does it automatically mean that it was in fact what happened? The author in this instance was Jewish, so should we be surprised if he is very interested in pointing out that the Old Testament is both true and relevant?145 Or to change the situation here, for a huge sports fan today, if their team just won the Super Bowl and they used that opportunity to brag about their team’s place in sports history, even attempting to tell the world that their team is the very best that ever played the game, does that interpretation invalidate the very real game that was just played? Did they not, in fact, just win the biggest game of the year?

The point so far is that these objections regarding John’s account are quite far from showing that crurifragium and the spear wound to ensure Jesus’s death never occurred, whether or not John was the only one to record these events. Neither one gets close to showing that John was probably inaccurate. But perhaps this is not the best way to go about it. What if we look at it from the other way around? Are there actually any positive reasons for concluding that John really did record real historical events? That appears to be the central question at hand.

We will briefly propose four interrelated considerations which indicate that John probably described correctly the two cases of crurifragium and the spear wound to Jesus’s body. First and most noticeably, the immediate, surrounding context of the spear wound pertains to the historical report of the crurifragium being administered to the other two crucifixion victims (see the above discussion), a process that has been confirmed by several other sources.146 Given that straightforward report, it makes sense that the spear wound is likewise a historical event. Breaking the ankles fits coherently with John’s follow-up reference to the spear wound. They were both practices, one premortem and the other postmortem, where the entire point was meant to ensure that no one got down off a cross alive, which was a known concern for the Roman soldiers. In other words, if lethal blows had been dealt to the other two initial victims, then it would follow that an equally vicious, confirmatory postmortem blow was administered to the third as well, for he would hardly have been simply ignored.

Second, an even more crucial indication is that in addition to the list of sources in support of crurifragium directly above, a wound from a weapon (as well as other forms of coup de grâce for crucifixion victims) is also confirmed from several other additional and independent ancient sources.147 This automatically places John’s comments pertaining to Jesus’s chest wound within a multiply attested framework.

Third, even without ancient precedent for both breaking the ankles as well as the spear wound, the entire scenario simply makes excellent sense.148 Seen either from the viewpoint of the Roman soldiers who took their jobs very seriously or that of the Jewish leaders who were present at the event and wanted to be doubly positive that they would never again have to put up with the Galilean preacher, these moves both just appear quite normal. Actually, the situation required some kind of assurance for these groups before they left the scene. Each set of adversaries simply wanted to be totally positive. Given that Jesus had been tried and crucified, not to ensure this event to the bitter end could have been an absolute fiasco. The fact that everything that can be ascertained from John’s account, including the medical details, “checks out” and makes good sense is yet another reason that tips the scales toward trusting the account.149

Fourth, as Brown also remarks, the statement in John 19:35 purporting to be from an eyewitness ought not to be taken lightly. It is “a serious argument” standing against the assumption that John may simply have invented the whole thing for his own theological reasons. Of course, the author could simply have added this for effect, but it has more of the appearance of someone who was indeed very impressed by the events and just wanted to mention that the account came with robust credentials. Therefore, Brown states that it is “more plausible” than not to decide for historicity for this scenario.150

One other question: It is mentioned often that the Greek word used here in John 19:34 (nyssein) may mean either a mere prodding to see if Jesus was really dead, or a much more serious spear thrust to ensure it. The word has been used both ways. Assuming, then, that John did mean this as a literal report, which did he consider to be the more accurate description?

The context itself strongly favors the latter option of the severe thrust, for the author is the one who reports the results of the blood and water coming from the wound. Therefore, it does not appear that he meant the action as a simple poke. Further, as Wilkinson notes, in the next chapter when Thomas demands to place his hand “into” Jesus’s side wound and Jesus responds by telling Thomas to go ahead and place his hand “into” his side, this is ample indication that the author thought that the wound made by the spear was large enough to accommodate Thomas’s request.151 So there can be little question that a more serious spear thrust was intended by the author.152

In the end, we agree with James D. G. Dunn’s summary comment on the matter: “John’s account of the final phase (John 19.31–37) is refracted through a theological prism (19.36–37), though attributed to an eyewitness (19.35), but both the practice of breaking the legs of a crucified man (to hasten his death) and that of a spear thrust to ensure death are attested for the period.”153 So as discussed above and as Dunn clearly agrees, the theological overtones in this passage hardly indicate the events could not have occurred!

Similarly, after a detailed study of this entire passage in John, and while also noting the obvious theological overtones, Raymond Brown still concludes, after all these things are considered, that the information favors the historicity of the report of crurifragium and the spear wound. Without much doubt, this conclusion in large part is due to the ancient parallels for both the breaking of the legs as well as the spear wound.154

Lastly, skeptical classical scholar Duncan Derrett, whose 1982 book argued that the resurrection of Jesus did not occur, still concedes that John’s account here is probably historical. The reason for his conclusion is that “jabbing was indeed a Roman practice.” Derrett’s endnote lists several ancient sources for this last comment.155

Wilkerson began the first sentence in his essay on the subject of the Roman postmortem spear wound to Jesus’s body with this assertion “There is no doubt that John intended his record of the spear thrust which produced blood and water from our Lord’s side to be taken as historical fact.”156 We have observed some of the strong grounds here for concluding, both historically as well as medically, that John was correct in his conviction that this event really happened. There is one additional consideration to mention just briefly before moving onward.

The Death of Jesus by Crucifixion: A Final Argument

Since the First Quest for the historical Jesus in the nineteenth to early twentieth centuries, the argument that has perhaps convinced more scholars of the reality of Jesus’s death by crucifixion than any other has not been addressed so far in this chapter. While it does have some strong medical implications, it is perhaps better considered to be a logical or historical argument. But because it will be looked at in more detail later in this study when commenting on the naturalist “swoon” or “apparent death” theory of the resurrection, here we only want to outline the argument briefly as it relates to the subject of this chapter—the death of Jesus by crucifixion.

David F. Strauss (1808–1874) was a fierce critic of conservative Christianity. He was one of most liberal theologians of his time and denied the resurrection of Jesus. But he also opposed simplistic rational arguments. In the early decades of the nineteenth century, it was popularly taught that Jesus had only apparently died on the cross but escaped death. Could Jesus have been taken down from the cross and placed in the tomb while he was still alive and then have recovered later? Strauss thought this was an exceptionally weak hypothesis.

On medical grounds alone, Strauss stated that Jesus’s chances were not good. Among the many difficulties with this alternative view, Strauss thought that one principal weaknesses of the swoon hypothesis was how the Christian church could have been born based on this starting point. Strauss states that “this view . . . does not even solve the problem which is here under consideration—the origin, that is, of the Christian Church by faith in the miraculous resurrection of the Messiah.” Continuing, Strauss immediately leveled his now infamous, elegantly worded, bombshell critique:

It is impossible that a being who had stolen half-dead out of the sepulcher, who crept about weak and ill, wanting medical treatment, who required bandaging, strengthening and indulgence, and who still at last yielded to his sufferings, could have given to the disciples the impression that he was a Conqueror over death and the grave, the Prince of Life. . . . Such a resuscitation could only have weakened the impression which he had made upon them in life and in death . . . but could by no possibility have changed their sorrow into enthusiasm, have elevated their reverence into worship.157

Basically, Strauss’s critique, made well over a century ago, has been one of the chief reasons persuading even recent scholars that the apparent death theory is inaccurate and wrongheaded. In the process it has actually become a major reason to know the opposite: that Jesus died actually by crucifixion. Here is one angle from which to analyze and assess Strauss’s response: even if Jesus had successfully escaped this Roman death, which was highly unlikely in itself, this would not account for his disciples’ transforming belief in his resurrection, a faith that even skeptical scholars virtually always recognize without question to be historical.158 And if an apparent death by crucifixion cannot explain the disciples’ belief in Jesus’s victory over death, then the former view fails.

The reason for this is rather straightforward: a recently beaten and crucified but still barely living Jesus would without question have been in absolutely horrible physical shape, and all precisely because he had survived such a death. He had been scourged viciously, had been suspended for hours on nails, had been bloodied from wounds that had now broken open again, had walked some distance on incredibly wounded feet, and was sickly looking, bent over and limping badly, disheveled, and in obvious need of immediate medical assistance!159

Strauss’s argument is that such a condition obviously would have contradicted the disciples’ belief that Jesus had appeared to them again in a newly revitalized, resurrected body! Faith in the resurrection was clearly what provided the vitality and direction for the new movement. Jesus’s resurrection was the center of the earliest believers’ faith. And someday believers also would have a new body too, just like Jesus’s body!

True, by living through the crucifixion, Jesus would have been very lucky to be alive, and his disciples might even have treated his escape as an answer to prayer. But as they and the women gently, tenderly, and thoroughly treated his incredible pain and nursed him back to health again, there was one thing that they could be absolutely sure of: he was alive, barely, but he had definitely not been raised from the dead in a newly reenergized body! Additionally, the frequently repeated New Testament teaching that believers would someday be raised just like Jesus would be seen for what it was: absolutely groundless, as Paul was to say later in 1 Cor 15:12–19. Such a sickly body would hardly be an inspiration for Christian theology!

Actually, Strauss’s critique was brilliant. We will have much more to say about this later. It is what we might term a “you cannot get there from here” argument. Even in the nineteenth century, just like the situation today, scholars recognized that without the disciples’ belief in Jesus’s resurrection, there would have been absolutely no Christian faith.160 This faith was as solid as any historical fact in Christianity, as virtually all critical scholars freely acknowledged both in Strauss’s day as well as today. But by hypothesizing that Jesus did not die by crucifixion, this belief would have been more than severely undermined. It would have been absolutely destroyed. Yes, this sort of Jesus would still have survived the cross. But he would hardly have been a candidate for resurrection. As such, he would have provided no inspiration for either his or the believers’ resurrection either.

Strauss raised the challenge as to how such theses of Jesus’s avoiding death could have given rise to the critically well-recognized exuberance of Jesus’s followers that he had risen triumphantly from the dead. Even skeptical scholars understood the chief thrust of Strauss’s argument and perceived the horns of the dilemma: Jesus’s purported lack of death and the disciples’ transformative experiences could not coexist very well—one view or the other needed to be jettisoned. The historical result of Strauss’s critique was that the supposition of Jesus’s apparent death, which was the most popular critical response at that time, fell by the wayside. After Strauss’s critique, Albert Schweitzer listed no more proponents of the swoon theory during the remainder of the century, even during the heyday of these natural responses.161

If Jesus had survived the cross, perhaps his teachings would still have lived on in some other form, but not with the resurrection of Jesus precisely at the epicenter of its belief. But since the early Christian faith of his disciples did indeed rest precisely on the resurrection of Jesus, and along with it, the believer’s resurrection as well, it can only be concluded that Jesus must have died due to the rigors of crucifixion! Alternative ways to arrive at an assessment that makes both sides of the dilemma compatible were tried and rejected as highly improbable.

Conclusion: Checklist

Proceeding from this discussion, the case for Jesus’s physical death by crucifixion is exceptionally strong, even focusing just on the twelve high points. (1) We began with several species of multiply and independently attested historical reports (including about a dozen to more than twenty independent Christian and non-Christian sources, depending on how these are enumerated). (2) Data from the very earliest teaching (homologia) after the crucifixion corroborates the historicity of Jesus’s death. This early aspect is accented even further in that this teaching was formalized in the pre-Pauline creedal traditions. Additionally, (3) the eyewitness testimony strengthens the case considerably. Other criteria continue to contribute to the information favoring Jesus’s death by crucifixion, including the force of (4) the principle of dissimilarity, (5) at least three examples of embarrassment, (6) four types of enemy attestation, (7) multiple forms (such as narrative, epistle, parable, apocalyptic), and (8) events that cohere or fit within a historical context. This amount of historical attestation is exceptionally weighty.

Next, (9) medical researchers added their scientific knowledge, with several even conducting experiments on both volunteers as well as cadavers to better understand death by crucifixion. The results of a recent tabulation of more than forty medical studies found that asphyxiation was favored by researchers approximately 2:1 over all the other options combined as the cause of death on a cross.162 However, determining the cause of death is not as crucial as the fact of Jesus’s death itself.

Moreover, (10) several ancient sources indicate that a postmortem wound from a Roman spear probably pierced vital organs on its way into Jesus’s chest and probably into his heart, thereby ensuring his death. Research shows that these postmortem piercings from spears, axes, or swords were a common Roman procedure.

What we referred to as (11) Strauss’s critique is a devastating insight of its own, as even liberal commentators over a number of decades have concluded ever since. Given the exceptional amount of information in support of the disciples’ acknowledged exuberance after they thought that they had seen Jesus alive after his demise, it has been deemed highly unlikely that Jesus appeared to the disciples in a deathly state after having gotten off of the cross alive, especially when there is no record of anyone escaping death from a full-term crucifixion anyway.

(12) Lastly, it will simply be mentioned briefly that if the Shroud of Turin turns out to be an authentic burial garment of a crucifixion victim,163 and if the best arguments favor the man buried in it being Jesus,164 then another fact would be relevant here: there are several major medical indications that the victim buried in the shroud was certainly dead.165

The Shroud of Turin is often denigrated by biblical scholars, but at least a portion of this criticism could be generated by rather second-order questions concerning Christian relics, enthusiasm from nonscientific or other sources, a lack of analysis, and the like. At least two items should be noted here. Initially, several very influential critical scholars have at least been open to the scientific results on this artifact, including, notably, John A. T. Robinson’s perhaps surprising positive verdict,166 Gerald O’Collins’s optimistic treatment,167 and even Raymond Brown’s generally encouraging agnosticism.168 Further, the chief question here ultimately concerns the data itself, which requires an investigation rather than a priori dismissals.

These twelve different arguments are not exhaustive. Further, they can yield many additional considerations according to the purposes of the individual researcher. For example, the figure of twelve to twenty sources in the initial point could be understandably tallied in several ways. This configuration of twelve arguments (with its additional considerations being grouped together) fits our purposes in this chapter.

Due to all of these avenues, the abundant wealth of information from almost a dozen separate historical indications from those who specialize in these and related areas has shed a great amount of light on these subjects, regardless of one’s personal beliefs. Further, medical knowledge from pathologists, forensic specialists, and others, especially those who by profession are medical examiners and surgeons, have offered an incredible amount of modern scientific knowledge regarding how people may have died on a cross, favoring the verdict of asphyxiation. The additional insights concerning a coup de grâce in the form of a Roman lance were also incredibly helpful, especially where large amounts of medical agreement were reached. But among current critical scholars, it may be that Strauss’s critique has made the largest impact. Together, the distinct historical and medical insights total about twelve arguments plus additional considerations as may be counted by other researchers, all attesting to the reality of Jesus’s death.

The death of Jesus Christ is a foundational event in the Christian gospel proclamation. In New Testament definitions of the factual side of the gospel, the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus are regularly present.169 Moreover, Jesus’s death is obviously a precursor to any consideration of his resurrection.

The overall evidence here might even be judged to be overkill, given the already overwhelming acceptance of this fact even by very skeptical specialists, as shown in this chapter by the comments of the foremost critical scholars such as Bart Ehrman, Gerd Lüdemann, John Dominic Crossan, and Marcus Borg, all of whom agree and acknowledge that the factual case for Jesus’s death by crucifixion is absolutely solid. In the next chapter, we will analyze the contemporary critical attitudes toward the death of Jesus.

Notes

1 Ehrman, New Testament, 233 (see chap. 4, n. 34). It should be noted at the outset that in the initial section of this chapter, we will make much use of Bart Ehrman’s work. There are several reasons for doing so, among them being Ehrman’s regular statements regarding his personal outlook, such as: “I am not a Christian, and I have no interest in promoting a Christian cause or a Christian agenda. I am an agnostic with atheist leanings.” Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 5 (see chap. 2, n. 15). With regard to his theological beliefs, Ehrman identifies himself as an atheist in “On Being an Agnostic. Or Atheist?,” The Bart Ehrman Blog, May 23, 2021, https://ehrmanpodcast.libsyn.com/on-being-an-agnostic-or-atheist-the-message-of-jesus. Further, Ehrman adds, “The only thing I attack in my writings . . . is a fundamentalist and conservative evangelical understanding of Christianity.” This last statement is also from Ehrman’s Did Jesus Exist?, 35, with similar comments being made on 36–37, 71, 94–95, 143. Given statements such as these, Ehrman can hardly be regarded as a scholar whose views are slanted toward Christianity. He concedes a number of items, probably because that is where he thinks the evidence honestly lies in those areas. In those cases, he quite often makes the positive comment without excuses. Yet, it is likewise more than clear that he also has huge disagreements with Christianity in several major areas, such as the overall reliability of Scripture and the Gospels in particular, the deity of Jesus Christ, as well as the historicity of Christian miracles, including the resurrection of Jesus. Thus, when disagreements arise with his theses in these crucial areas as addressed in these works, he states this as well. But Ehrman is generally quite fair in his evaluations. Moreover, critical researchers often tend to gloss over supernatural details of interest to Christians with only a slight tip of the hat, whereas Ehrman is one of the few scholars whose recent writings interact seriously with a plethora of specifics in what might be termed the more extraordinary occurrences attached to the life of Jesus, according to the New Testament. Further, he is a specialist in the New Testament, with excellent training, and works precisely in many of the subjects that we wish to discuss here. Perhaps most of all in terms of my overall minimal facts methodology utilized throughout this work, Ehrman’s evaluations are exceptionally helpful in establishing where critical scholars agree regarding the historical data, and far more importantly, providing many of the reasons why they think they need to agree in those areas.

2 Elsewhere, Ehrman uses other arguments for this event too.

3 Granted, multiple early attestation is major, contributing to the excellent data here, and reaching the “almost universally attested” plateau is due to this in addition to other evidence; Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 163.

4 It is crucial to note here that for those interested in individual arguments for these historical facts, the categories below are arranged according to the type of evidence that is being considered, rather than by representing separate arguments. Usually, there are multiple lines of evidence within each of the categories.

5 Of these more than twenty sources for the life of Jesus, eight of them (more than one-third) are non-New Testament, including a few non-Christian texts. See Ehrman, 56, 74–78, 92–93, 140–41, 261–63 for examples.

6 Ehrman, 163, 291–92, 327–31, to name just a few instances.

7 Ehrman’s period of 100 years after an event in the ancient world is quite a fair time frame, though some scholars may allow a little longer period beyond that. In one of my own studies of the historical Jesus, sources from approximately 150 years were counted as the period of demarcation. See Habermas, Historical Jesus, chap. 9 for these “Ancient Non-Christian Sources” (see chap. 3, n. 48).

8 The ten New Testament sources are Mark, M, L, John, the early speeches in the book of Acts, Paul’s Epistles (counting as one author), 1 Timothy (Ehrman rejects Pauline authorship for this book), 1 Peter, Hebrews, and Revelation.

9 The five non-New Testament sources are the writings of Josephus, Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Tacitus, and the Gospel of Peter. Ehrman dates the Gospel of Peter as one of the latest texts at the end of this 100-year period after the crucifixion (76–78).

10 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, esp. 98–105, 163, 291. Ehrman repeats the list more than once, with slight variations. The sources above are drawn from the combined accounts.

11 Examples include Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 97, 132, 141, 290–91. On the traditions behind the Gospels, see Dunn, Jesus Remembered, esp. chap. 8 (see chap. 1, n. 3); Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, chaps. 13, 18 in particular (see chap. 4, n. 45).

12 While much older, two of the very best, groundbreaking works here are Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions (see chap. 2, n. 22); Dodd, Apostolic Preaching (see chap. 2, n. 22). Two slightly later, excellent studies on these subjects are Vernon H. Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions (see chap. 2, n. 22) and the specialized study from Max Wilcox, The Semitisms of Acts (Oxford: Clarendon, 1965).

13 Cullmann agrees here: “Accordingly we can conclude that the divine Sonship of Jesus Christ and His elevation to the dignity of Kyrios, as consequence of His death and resurrection, are the two essential elements in the majority of the confessions of the first century.” See Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions, 57.

14 For our purposes, the most crucial pre-Pauline creedal statement is undoubtedly 1 Cor 15:3–7. Other major instances receiving much scholarly attention in recent years include 1 Cor 8:6; 11:23–25; Rom 1:3–4; 4:25; 10:9–10; Phil 2:6–11; 1 Tim 2:6; and 1 Pet 3:18. The speech summaries in Acts include especially 2:22–36; 3:13–16; 4:8–10; 5:29–32; 10:39–43; 13:28–31; and perhaps 17:30–31. On the entire subject, but especially the texts in Acts, see especially Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 17–31. Each example above mentions the death or the resurrection of Jesus, and usually both, with the exception of only 1 Cor 8:6, even though they provide only a few details each. It should also be noted carefully that while these creedal texts certainly introduce further examples of criteria such as multiple attestation, we will also cite them below as early texts, which they certainly are, as well as potentially being eyewitness testimony of a more general nature, though this last possibility is more difficult to determine. See Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 21. The last point here is that the same passage can provide more than one species of confirmation. This tendency has also been indicated by Ehrman (as will be pointed out in our later treatment of the creeds). John Meier is another scholar who has shown a slightly different angle on how a particular passage may yield several instances of criteria being manifested, as in his work Marginal Jew, 3:433–444 in particular (see chap. 1, n. 27). A noncreedal example might be the frequently cited comments that the female testimony to the facticity of the empty tomb in Mark 16:1–8 indicates multiply attested, embarrassing, and potentially early data, all at the same time. Or again, the resurrection appearance reported by Paul in 1 Cor 9:1 and 15:8 is at once multiply attested, reported early by an eyewitness, as well as consisting of enemy testimony, at least at the time it happened.

15 Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions, see particularly 18–34.

16 For the reference numbering here, J. B. Lightfoot’s edition of The Apostolic Fathers, ed. J. R. Harmer (1891; repr. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1971) is being cited. See also the updated scholarly version edited and translated by Michael W. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007). Ehrman argues that Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and also Papias are all independent sources that are “especially significant”; Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 98–105, quotation on 98. These three writers are all quite early, with Clement of Rome usually being dated at about AD 90–97, Ignatius at about 107, and Papias at about 125, although Papias’s fragments (also found in Lightfoot) do not help us on the death of Jesus, whereas they are invaluable elsewhere. If we include Polycarp at about AD 110, this would add an additional source to the count. On these dates, Helmut Koester is helpful in his Introduction to the New Testament, 2:3, 57–58, 145, 288, 306 (see chap. 4, n. 47). Even the Epistle of Barnabas (esp. 5) is possibly helpful here and should not be ruled out, most likely also falling within our date range as well. Koester thinks that a late first-century date for the Epistle of Barnabas is quite possible (2.277). A concern heard periodically regarding the texts of these apostolic fathers is that they might not be completely independent sources, in that they seem to draw heavily from the four canonical Gospels and Paul’s Epistles. This may be true enough, though Ehrman disagrees. Did Jesus Exist?, 98–105, esp. 98, 103, 105. However, to be fair, other second-century sources would also have to be evaluated by these same standards, including the Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of Thomas, as well as the gnostic works cited just below. In fact, the gnostic sources might not even fare as well, in that they are later and could more easily make use of the canonical Gospels. But like the Gospels of Peter and Thomas, some of these apostolic fathers also provide additional information that probably is not reflected in the canonical sources, indicating some level of independence. This might include many aspects of the early church, such as the sufferings and probably the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul in 1 Clem. 5 and Polycarp Phil. 9, Ignatius’s own coming martyrdom (Ign. Rom. 5; Smyrn. 4), as well as the suffering and martyrdom of others (Pol. Phil. 9), and offices and officers in the church (Ign. Trall. 2–3, 13). Nonetheless, the bottom line is that we have only mentioned these authors briefly, adding the suggestion that Polycarp be added in this category here. Still, we will not base any specific arguments on their assertions.

17 But even with as many of the independent New Testament creeds as we can meaningfully enumerate, plus possibly adding Polycarp, a few new references may need to be added to the list of ancient sources for Jesus’s death. Some researchers also might be inclined to count both Papias and the Epistle of Barnabas here too, but we will not push for that possibility.

18 That is, with the likelihood of a few emendations. Influential scholar James H. Charlesworth sums the matter with some surprisingly strong words: “We can now be as certain as historical research will presently allow that Josephus did refer to Jesus” and that the Jewish historian thereby produced “corroboration of the gospel accounts.” See Charlesworth, Jesus within Judaism, 96–97 (see chap. 6, n. 70).

19 These additional noncanonical texts could then include the Talmud, Lucian, Thallus, the Gospel of Truth, Treatise on Resurrection, Justin Martyr, Celsus, and Irenaeus.

20 For details on many of the sources discussed here and much additional information, see Van Voorst, Jesus outside the New Testament (see chap. 6, n. 3); Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins (see chap. 6, n. 3); Habermas, Historical Jesus, esp. chap. 9 (see chap. 3, n. 48).

21 Once again, this is largely for the purposes of simply producing a count of potential sources by certain cutoff dates, working in our first category of multiple attestation. The goal is by no means to somehow try and surpass Ehrman’s total sources! Plus, he cut off his count at AD 130, as mentioned. Nor does Ehrman even report that this is his maximum count. Moreover, for my own purposes, I have already remarked more than once that I will not be using any of the second-century sources for any of the central claims made in this study. So possibly, perhaps we should even think here of a two-tiered demarcation of sources for Jesus’s death: the earlier “A-1” texts and the somewhat later but still potentially helpful (in terms of ancient historiographical research) “A-2” texts. After all, I am still moving forward with a minimal facts methodology, and so even individual texts beyond Paul’s list of “authentic” epistles need to either be established or at least have decent reasons to consider each one on a piecemeal basis, as in the illustration of building a brick wall.

22 Maier, In the Fullness of Time, 197 (see chap. 1, n. 24).

23 Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 26 (see chap. 2, n. 19).

24 This is another example of our earlier comment that critical scholars do not object to quoting New Testament sources as good data as long as the sources are being used critically. Further, it was said that if conservative scholars did not quote from the New Testament, then the specialist critics would still do so. Again we see that these specialists are indeed willing to do so, regardless of how skeptical they may be, while it tends to be some of the writers without the scholarly credentials, and especially the popular bloggers and commentators, who object to this practice. Unless this principle is kept firmly in mind, our comments throughout may look hopelessly biased to some readers, but then again, they may well react to the critical scholars like Ehrman as well, especially since he has criticized them thoroughly and for many reasons, as noted! But the chief problem here would be that such a mindset may be sure to miss some of the strongest considerations drawn from recent scholarship, as with the exceptionally positive approach taken with regard to the pre-Pauline creed in 1 Cor 15:3–7.

25 Again, the point is definitely not the sheer number of sources alone, and that will not impinge specifically in terms of our study here. The quality of the sources is the major consideration. However, there are still a very surprising number of critically ascertained sources for Jesus’s crucifixion.

26 When comparing Jesus to other prominent persons in antiquity, ancient historian Paul Barnett refers to the small gap from Jesus to the earliest sources as “a brevity without equal.” Barnett, The Birth of Christianity: The First Twenty Years, After Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 1:210.

27 Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 25–26.

28 Lüdemann, Resurrection of Jesus, 26 (see chap. 6, n. 173).

29 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 92; cf. also 141.

30 Besides Ehrman and others, Lüdemann provides another influential testimony from a prominent critical scholar with regard to 1 Cor 15:3–5 in Resurrection of Jesus, 25, 38, 118, 202, endnote 165.

31 As a reminder, we are specifically addressing here the earliness of Jesus’s crucifixion traditions. When we develop the case in more detail later, as just mentioned above, it will be with more specific reference to Jesus’s resurrection appearances.

32 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 164, 251. One of the most crucial distinctions of all to be made here as well as throughout this entire study is that it is not the creedal traditions and their dates per se that are absolutely the keys at this juncture, but rather the content of these teachings being communicated within and through these more formal expressions. In other words, the most vital element in this discussion is not to identify the creedal dates as if they are an end in themselves, but to know the earliest proclamation that was being emphasized within them. As Oscar Cullmann points out in note 13 of this chapter, the message of the lordship, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ was the very center of the earliest Christian proclamation and makes up the bulk of these more formal statements. If the creedal traditions were the best and earliest way to identify this message, then so be it. But the documentation of the earliest message is more crucial than the exact dates of the oral vehicles that carried that message. Thus, dating the original teaching, along with who taught these items and related features such as the circumstances, is foremost here. Much like Cullmann, Larry Hurtado asserts quite similarly that based on the early data available, devotion to Jesus Christ in light of his crucifixion and resurrection “had installed him in heavenly glory,” and this message was being proclaimed just days after Jesus’s execution, in “the very earliest circles of Jewish Christians.” See Hurtado, How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God? Historical Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 4, 30, 36, cf. 48, 192. The first quotation is found on 4 and the second quotation on 36. Lüdemann is also very helpful when he states that the “appearances of Jesus were talked about immediately after they happened.” Lüdemann, Resurrection of Jesus, 38. These were the earliest conclusions from the most crucial data to which we refer here. The nature of this information that Cullmann, Hurtado, and Lüdemann (along with the majority of other researchers) are addressing is discussed and evaluated in detail in later chapters of this volume.

33 For the crucifixion, see Matt 27:55–56; Mark 15:40–41; Luke 23:27–31, 49; John 19:25–27. For Jesus’s burial, see Matt 27:61; Mark 15:47; 16:1–3; Luke 23:55–56; 24:1. Strangely enough, the only exception is the Johannine burial account, which does not mention the presence of the women while Jesus’s body was being interred. However, there is a fairly strong implication that Mary Magdalene along with the other women knew where they were heading in the dark and so they at least knew where the tomb was located (John 24:1–2).

34 Matt 27:57–60; Mark 15:43–46; Luke 23:50–53; John 19:38–42.

35 See N. T. Wright, The Kingdom New Testament: A Contemporary Translation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011). Although no more than a possibility, the news that many Jewish priests had become believers just a little later (Acts 6:7b) could also have introduced an entirely different set of “insider” data, and from a totally different perspective.

36 Besides what has already been noted here, it should also be added that both Joseph of Arimathea’s involvement plus the disciples’ trip to the tomb are both multiply attested in the sources.

37 Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 264–71, 308.

38 For example, Paul, Peter, and James are all present in the Acts 15 account as well (though John is not mentioned, as he was in Gal 2:9). According to Acts, there were many other times, especially in the earlier chapters, when multiple apostles were together and had opportunities to share with each other. For a number of these instances, see Acts 1:13–14, 15–26; 2:1, 42–47; 3:1; 4:23–33; 5:18–19, 41–42; 8:1, 14; 9:26–30; 11:25–26; 21:17–20. For further details regarding some of the relevant questions in these texts, see Craig Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary: Introduction and 1:1–2:47 (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012) and Acts: An Exegetical Commentary: 3:1 to 14:28 (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013). Cf. Keener’s briefer remarks in his volume Acts, New Cambridge Bible Commentary (see chap. 4, n. 43), such as 115–20, 358–75. In this later Cambridge volume, Keener attests that the majority of scholars hold that Galatians 2 and Acts 15 probably describe the same event; see 358–62.

39 Such as Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, chaps. 2–14. As an example, see 243 on a pre-Markan passion narrative. Cf. Soards, “Premarcan Passion Narrative,” 2:1492–524 (see chap. 4, n. 40).

40 Actually, before even commenting on multiple attestation or dissimilarity, the first of Ehrman’s three criteria for establishing traditions that are probably authentic is what he terms “Contextual Credibility.” It seems to be a bit of a cross between coherence or consistency with a little Aramaic flavor added to the mix. For Ehrman, before we even begin, we need to ascertain that a particular tradition is one that actually could happen or “fit into a first-century Palestinian context” or else it will probably have to be discounted. But Ehrman announces that “the crucifixion of Jesus under Pontius Pilate is, of course, contextually credible. The Romans crucified lots of people all the time” (291). For Ehrman, if a tradition concerning Jesus passes this initial test, then it is only possibly historical, but that does not automatically make it probable. To arrive at the conclusion of probability, he adds, we must move on to the next two criteria: “And a tradition is even more probable if it can pass not just one but both of them” (290). But we have already seen above the incredibly strong conclusion with multiple attestation, and we are considering the positive case for dissimilarity here. The evaluation of this initial criterion is from Did Jesus Exist?, 288–91. Notice too, Ehrman’s research steps here from possible, to probable, to “even more probable.” This is a good example of how the data can cause the likelihood of events to grow.

41 In 2008 an account of an archaeological find captivated the popular religious news for a brief period of time. According to some, an ancient, enigmatic writing on a stone suggested the existence of a little-known view. It could have been the case that a minority of Jews roughly from just before Jesus’s time did indeed hold a view of a messiah who dies and is then raised from the dead. Called “Gabriel’s Revelation” or “Gabriel’s Vision” because the speaker is identified as Gabriel, the writing is thought to date from the end of the first-century BC or perhaps a little later. One Jewish scholar who favors this general scenario is Israel Knohl, “‘By Three Days, Live’: Messiahs, Resurrection, and Ascent to Heaven,” in Hazon Gabriel, Journal of Religion 88 (2008): 150–58. There are some tough problems here, including some particularly difficult deciphering issues largely due to deletions in the text. Scholars very seldom try to employ this find either to support or to challenge existing positions on a small number of relevant issues. Without much question, however, the majority position among critical scholars is still the one favored by Ehrman above, that the Jews really did not conceive of a messiah who would die and afterwards rise again. In a few essays, I have argued that the positive points involved with Gabriel’s Vision easily outweigh any negative concerns. For instance see Gary R. Habermas, “Does ‘Gabriel’s Revelation’ Challenge the Resurrection of Jesus?,” Union Biblical Seminary Journal (India) 6 (2009): 1–13. A very brief synopsis of a few issues and questions was posted in a popular essay; see Habermas, “‘Gabriel’s Vision’ and the Resurrection of Jesus,” www.garyhabermas.com, July 2008, http://garyhabermas.com/articles/gabrielsvision1/gabrielsvision.htm.

42 This entire discussion is found in Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 291–92.

43 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 292. Elsewhere, Ehrman summarizes it this way: “Since no one would have made up the idea of a crucified messiah, Jesus must really have existed, must really have raised messianic expectations, and must really have been crucified. No Jew would have invented him” (164).

44 For details, see Hengel, Crucifixion, 1–3, 10, 89–90 (see chap. 6, n. 57).

45 While John does not report this aspect, the women knew where Jesus was buried (John 20:1–2), and it is at least possible that they were present during the burial, though unmentioned. Of course, this is a weaker argument than the previous case regarding the women’s testimony pertaining to Jesus’s crucifixion and death.

46 Borg, Jesus: A New Vision, 61 (see chap. 2, n. 32).

47 These attested reports of taunting are found in Mark 15:29–32; Matt 27:39–43; Luke 23:35, 48; John 19:21–22, 31. Interestingly, the Gospel of Peter reports that the Jewish leaders rejoiced that the ordeal was over and gave Jesus’s dead body to Joseph (6:22; cf. 7:25).

48 These reports are also multiply attested, being recorded in Matt 27:27–37, 54; Mark 15:15–26, 39, 44–45; Luke 23:26, 34, 36–38, 47–48; John 19:16–19, 23–24, 32–34; Gos. Pet. 7:31–32; 11:43–49.

49 See also John 19:38; Matt 27:58; Luke 23:52.

50 The question of whether Pilate granted a Roman or a Jewish Temple guard (Matt 27:62–66; 28:11–14) is a moot point for our purposes here.

51 Matti Kankaanniemi, The Guards of the Tomb (Matt 27:62–66 and 28:11–15): Matthew’s Apologetic Legend Revisited (Biskopsgatan: Åbo Akademi University Press, 2010). (The dissertation was written in English.) After an insightful discussion of pro and con arguments, William Lane Craig concludes that the matter should be left as an open issue. See Craig, “The Guard at the Tomb,” New Testament Studies 30 (1984): 273–81, with this conclusion stated on 273.

52 Josephus, Life 75. Herodotus (7.194.1–3) mentions another crucifixion case where the individual was taken down and released after a reconsideration of his good deeds, perhaps somewhat similarly to Josephus’s friend who also survived after being purposely taken down. In a modern case a crucified man survived briefly after being taken down after the German soldiers who presided over the situation walked away from the scene. It is unclear here if the German soldiers who simply walked away knew that the man was still alive—as if to acknowledge that this punishment was sufficient (as with some German Aufbinden cases). But if the soldiers thought that this individual was truly dead, this would indicate an example of a person escaping the crucifixion process with his lack of death having been overlooked. Since this last crucified man was still killed directly afterward, it is also unknown if he still would have died anyway, as did two of Josephus’s three friends. So the two most crucial questions for our purposes cannot be determined in this latter example. John L. Cheek, “The Historicity of the Markan Resurrection Accounts,” Journal of Bible and Religion 27 (July 1959): 195. At any rate, there are apparently no known examples of a person surviving a fully completed crucifixion, in spite of the thousands of known cases of this capital punishment (see Josephus, Wars 2.5.2; 2.14.9; 5.11.1 on the large numbers of these deaths). Cook also mentions the Herodotus case (“Crucifixion in the Mediterranean World,” 220–21), while Allison mentions both the Herodotus and the German cases (The Resurrection of Jesus, 12n15; 13n19).

53 See Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 311–12 (see chap. 2, n. 13).

54 More historical research is intertwined with the medical information below.

55 Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, 145; cf. 154, 196, 201 (see chap. 6, n. 44).

56 Borg, Jesus: A New Vision, 179; cf. 178–84.

57 Lüdemann, Resurrection of Jesus, 38.

58 Hengel, Crucifixion; Cook, Crucifixion, 452, see also 216 (see chap. 6, n. 57); Felicity Harley, “Crucifixion in Roman Antiquity: The State of the Field,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 27, no. 2 (2019): 308.

59 Of course, these challenges have been revived somewhat in certain circles today where Muslims have interacted with Christians. Since the Qur’an is usually said to teach that Jesus did not die on the cross during the process of crucifixion (Surah 4:156–58), this has been a standard response by Muslims. However, since the Qur’an has not spelled out the exact way that Jesus’s death was avoided, Muslims have employed more than one supposition as to how the mistake or oversight came about.

60 A very important caution needs to be mentioned here at the outset: among the titles of various sources in this chapter, especially on the nature of crucifixion, it will be obvious that some of these medical investigations have been done in conjunction with studies on the Shroud of Turin, which many well-credentialed researchers think may be the actual burial garment of Jesus. But it needs to be noted very carefully that arguing the medical details of Jesus’s death does not require any particular judgment concerning this archaeological artifact. We have already seen that historical insights on Jesus’s crucifixion have been derived from several directions. The research has in some circles become a medium for some of these medical views to be aired. So be it. But the investigation in this chapter will proceed without a verdict on the nature of this cloth, where differing views have obviously been taken. Though influential scholars such as Joe Zias and James Charlesworth decry the role played by the Shroud of Turin in some crucifixion research, their views also employ several unproven assumptions, such as the shroud not being a genuine archaeological artifact, whether or not it belonged to Jesus, or that research by otherwise competent medical scholars is dependent on their view of the cloth. But this need not be the case. Research on the Shroud of Turin has progressed quite a long way since Zias and Charlesworth’s essay appeared, and of course if the shroud turns out to be genuine, it goes almost without saying that this could totally invalidate at least some of their conclusions. Yet all of this is beside the point. To be clear, questions regarding this cloth arise from time to time here from the researchers being discussed, but no efforts are made to prove or disprove the ultimate provenance of this cloth. See Joe Zias and James H. Charlesworth, “Crucifixion: Archaeology, Jesus, and the Dead Sea Scrolls” in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls, 281–82 (see chap. 6, n. 164).

61 These medical studies will be listed together here, precisely for the last reason mentioned. It is difficult regarding many of these authors to state or imply that their view is that it was “only” this or that cause of death by itself. For some of these medical studies, see K.-S. Schulte, “Der Tod Jesu in der Sicht der Moderner Medizin,” Berliner Medizin 7 (1963): 177–86, especially for the experimental work of Hermann Mödder in Germany; Matthew W. Maslen and Piers D. Mitchell, “Medical Theories on the Cause of Death in Crucifixion,” Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 99, no. 4 (2006): 185–88; Joseph W. Bergeron, The Crucifixion of Jesus: A Medical Doctor Examines the Death and Resurrection of Jesus (Suwanee, GA: St. Polycarp, 2018); Bergeron, “The Crucifixion of Jesus: Review of Hypothesized Mechanisms of Death and Implications of Shock and Trauma-Induced Coagulopathy,” Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine 30 (2011): 1–4; B. Brenner, “Did Jesus Christ Die of Pulmonary Embolism?,” Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis 3 (2005): 2130–131; P. Bishop and B. Church, “An Alternative Mechanism for Death by Crucifixion,” Linacre Quarterly 73 (2006): 282–89; Pierre Barbet, A Doctor at Calvary: The Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ as Described by a Surgeon, trans. Earl of Wicklow (New York: Doubleday, 1953), 66, 74–80; Frederick T. Zugibe, The Cross and the Shroud: A Medical Examiner Investigates the Crucifixion (Cresskill, NJ: McDonagh, 1981), 136; Anthony Sava, “The Holy Shroud on Trial,” in Proceedings of the 1977 United States Conference of Research on the Shroud of Turin, ed. Kenneth E. Stevenson (Bronx: Holy Shroud Guild, 1977), 50–57; W. Stroud, Treatise on the Physical Cause of the Death of Christ and Its Relation to the Principles and Practices of Christianity (London: Hamilton and Adams, 1847), 55; S. Bersgma, “Did Jesus Die of a Broken Heart?,” Calvin Forum 14 (1948): 153–63; S. M. Tenney, “On Death by Crucifixion,” American Heart Journal 68 (1964): 286–87; D. A. Ball, “The Crucifixion and Death of a Man Called Jesus,” Journal of the Mississippi State Medical Association 30 (1989): 77–83; V. Wright, “Resurrection or Resuscitation?,” Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London 25 (1991): 269–70; J. V. Warren, “On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ,” Journal of the American Medical Association 255 (1986): 2760. For a popular presentation of Mödder’s crucifixion experiments, including a photograph of one such examination, see Robert K. Wilcox, Shroud (New York: Macmillan, 1977), 23–25, 72–73, 161, with the photograph on 25.

62 The “multifactorial” aspect is cited commonly by these researchers. Instances can be found in the volume by Bergeron, “Crucifixion of Jesus,” 4; F. P. Retief and L. Cilliers, “The History and Pathology of Crucifixion,” South African Medical Journal 93 (2003): 938–41, esp. 938, 941; William D. Edwards, Wesley J. Gabel, and Floyd E. Hosmer, “On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ,” Journal of the American Medical Association 255 (1986): 1463.

63 Examples include A. LeBec, “The Death of the Cross: A Physiological Study of the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ,” Catholic Medical Guardian 3 (1925): 126–32; J. Whitaker, “The Physical Cause of the Death of Our Lord,” Catholic Medical Guardian 11 (1935): 83–91; R. W. Hynek, Science and the Holy Shroud: An Examination into the Sacred Passion and the Direct Cause of Christ’s Death (Chicago: Benedictine, 1936), 80–85; F. P. Furlong, “Jesus Christ Who Was Crucified,” Linacre Quarterly 19 (1952): 3–6; J. W. Hewitt, “The Use of Nails in the Crucifixion,” Harvard Theological Review 25 (1932): 29–45; Barbet, Doctor at Calvary, 74–80; Anthony Sava, “The Wound in the Side of Christ,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 19 (1957): 343–46; Hermann Mödder, “Die Todesurache bei der Kreuzigung,” Stimmen der Zeit 144 (1948): 50–59.

64 Many medical publications have argued for asphyxiation as the major contribution to Jesus’s death, with probably the best-known example being Edwards, Gabel, and Hosmer, “Physical Death of Jesus Christ,” 1455–63. For an explication and defense of the previous article, including many medical drawings, see Edwin A. Blum, “Jesus and JAMA,” Christian Medical Society Journal 17 (1986): 4–11. Other major works include Robert Bucklin, “The Legal and Medical Aspects of the Trial and Death of Christ,” Medicine, Science and the Law 10, no. 1 (1970): 14–26; Bucklin, “The Shroud of Turin: Viewpoint of a Forensic Pathologist,” Shroud Spectrum International 1, no. 5 (1982): esp. 9; J. E. Holoubek and A. B. Holoubek, “Execution by Crucifixion: History, Methods, and Cause of Death,” Journal of Medicine 26 (1995): 1–16; Retief and Cilliers, “History and Pathology of Crucifixion,” 938–41; Christos Papaloucas, “Anatomical, Physiological, and Historical Aspects of the Crucifixion and Death of Jesus,” Catholic Medical Quarterly 54, no. 3 (2004): 1–9; T. Eduard, A. Al-Turki, and T. Andrey, “Death by Crucifixion: View of the Medicolegal Expert,” Journal of Forensic Science 2 (2017): 555–90; N. P. DePasquale and G. E. Burch, “Death by Crucifixion,” American Heart Journal 66 (1963): 434–35; Zias and Sekeles, “Crucified Man,” esp. 26 (see chap. 6, n. 164); R. Lumpkin, “The Physical Suffering of Christ,” Journal of the Medical Association of the State of Alabama 47 (1978): 8–10. Other scholars hold positions like the multifactorial view mentioned above, with asphyxiation as the chief contributor to death. An example is Mödder’s view, which is somewhat nuanced, but see Schulte, “Der Tod Jesu,” Berliner Medizin, vol. 7 (1963), 177–86; Barbet has some similarities in Doctor at Calvary. S. Bordes et al., “The Clinical Anatomy of Crucifixion,” Clinical Anatomy 33 (2019): 12–21. C. Truman Davis clearly favors asphyxiation but thinks that the final cause of death in Jesus was shock and heart failure. See Davis, “The Crucifixion of Jesus: The Passion of Christ from a Medical Point of View,” Arizona Medicine 22 (1965): 183–87. A revised version of this article was published later as Davis, “The Crucifixion: A Medical View,” New Wine (1982): 1–4. See also A. M. Porter, “The Crucifixion,” Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London 25 (1991): 271; S. J. Leinster, “Resurrection or Resuscitation?,” Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London 25 (1991): 268–72; D. Barnardo, “Deceased or Deceit?,” Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London 25 (1991): 270–71; G. J. Potter, “On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ,” Journal of the American Medical Association 255 (1986): 2759–60. For another study by a surgeon, professor of medicine, and longtime medical researcher who presents some different angles while still supporting asphyxiation, see Thomas A. Miller, Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead? A Surgeon-Scientist Examines the Evidence (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2013), esp. 78–85. Popular arguments for asphyxiation by medical doctors include Alexander Metherell, “The Medical Evidence: Was Jesus’ Death a Sham and His Resurrection a Hoax?,” in Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ: A Journalist’s Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 191–204; Robert Wassener, “A Physician Looks at the Suffering Christ,” Moody Monthly 79, no. 7 (1979): 41–42; James Hyland Jewell and Patricia A. Didden, “A Surgeon Looks at the Cross,” Voice 58, no. 2 (1979): 3–5.

65 To add to this total, detailed medical letters to the editor were published in volume 25 of the Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London (1991): 268–271 (see previous footnote) following a published essay advocating the apparent death theory concerning Jesus. (The original article is detailed and critiqued in the second volume of this study that treats naturalistic theories such as the swoon theory.) Four of the five published medical letters, most of them written by British medical professors, without a dissenting view, mentioned either asphyxiation or the Roman spear piercing the heart increasing the tallies in each of these categories above. While truth is not determined by head counts, when the votes cast are by specialists, that adds to the strength of the medical evaluation.

66 For specific details on this comment, see Gary Habermas, Jonathan Kopel, and Benjamin Shaw, “Medical Views on the Death by Crucifixion of Jesus Christ,” Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings 34 (2021): 748–52. For a contrasting view, see Thomas W. McGovern, David A. Kaminskas, and Eustace S. Fernandes, “Did Jesus Die by Suffocation?: An Appraisal of the Evidence,” Linacre Quarterly 73 (2022): 1–16.

67 Miller, Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?, 79–80.

68 For one example, see Cook, Crucifixion, 425n45. For a discussion of these details, compare Gary Habermas and Benjamin Shaw, “Crucifixion in the Ancient World: A Historical Analysis,” Eleutheria 5 (2021): 5–17.

69 These contrasts are made in various places throughout Cook’s volume, most notably on 425n45, which documents the specific usages, with nails being employed far more commonly; see 451 as well. Hengel agrees with this assessment as well in Crucifixion, 32.

70 Michael Licona performed a count of a number of relevant ancient sources and also found that nails were cited much more frequently in ancient works for affixing the individual’s feet, arms, and/or wrists than were ropes and the like. Actually, nothing pertaining to the onslaught of death turns on which sorts of fasteners were utilized. See Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 304. The possibility of a few other cases has now come to light since Licona wrote his tome, which adds considerable data to the use of nails instead of tying victims. Besides Cook’s studies above, another report, bolstered by color photos of what appears to be holes in the victim’s feet, is supplied in Emanuela Gualdi-Russo et al., “A Multidisciplinary Study of Calcaneal Trauma in Roman Italy: A Possible Case of Crucifixion?,” Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 11 (2018): 1783–91. Cf. also another unresolved case that possibly involves the bones of two crucifixion victims from the Mendes area of the Nile region, where crurifragium is possible in both cases, but nails are debated. No firm conclusions were drawn from the research reported specifically in these studies. For the account, see A. C. Aufderheide and C. Rodriguez-Martin, The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Paleopathology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998). The Aufderheide article here is also discussed by University of West Florida bioarchaeologist Kristina Killgrove in her blog post “Line on the Left, One Cross Each: Bioarchaeology of Crucifixion,” Powered by Osteons, November 4, 2011, http://www.poweredbyosteons.org/2011/11/line-on-left-one-cross-each.html. In general, Killgrove does report the use of crurifragium and seems to think that nails are used more commonly. Although Cook allows for some possibilities (such as on 462), he seems more skeptical of these and related archaeological finds, raising a number of areas for doubt; see Cook, Crucifixion, 463–74.

71 For instance, see Zias and Charlesworth, “Crucifixion,” 281–82. In Cullen Murphy’s well-publicized article “Shreds of Evidence,” Harper’s, November 1981, 56–57, Zugibe was the chief opponent of the asphyxiation position.

72 Zugibe, Cross and the Shroud, 89–90. A few years before Zugibe’s death, a second edition of this volume was published: The Crucifixion of Jesus: A Forensic Inquiry, 2nd ed. (New York: Evans, 2005).

73 Zugibe, Cross and the Shroud, esp. 94–95; cf. 42–43, 67–71, 114.

74 Zugibe, 108, 114–15.

75 For the following details concerning the work of Barbet, Mödder, and Bucklin, see the sources listed in footnotes 61 and 64 above.

76 Having known both Bucklin and Zugibe personally, I recall Bucklin telling me once in a very friendly manner that not only was he convinced that Zugibe was mistaken in his views against asphyxiation, but that he also thought he could convince other experts of the significance of asphyxiation if he had the opportunity to talk the matter through! Actually, Bucklin was quoted once as saying something quite similar regarding another medical examiner, Michael Baden, who was a friend of his. For details, see Reginald W. Rhein Jr., “The Shroud of Turin: Medical Examiners Disagree,” Medical World News, December 22, 1980, 40, 49–50.

77 Bucklin, “Trial and Death of Christ,” 24; Bucklin, “Shroud of Turin: A Pathologist’s Viewpoint,” Legal Medicine Annual (1982): 37, 39; cf. also Bucklin, “Medical Aspects of the Crucifixion of Christ,” Linacre Quarterly 31, no. 4 (1958): 1–9.

78 Barbet, Doctor at Calvary, 66.

79 For the important details here, see Haas, “Anthropological Observations,” 38–59 (see chap. 6, n. 164); cf. the equally important responses contained in the Zias and Charlesworth essay “Crucifixion,” as well as the Zias and Sekeles article, “A Crucified Man from Giv‘ar ha-Mivtar,” both listed above. Cf. also Vassilios Tzaferis, “Jewish Tombs at and Near Giv‘at ha-Mivtar,” Israel Exploration Journal 20 (1971): 18–32 .

80 Zugibe, Cross and the Shroud, 91–94.

81 Zugibe, 94–95. Bergeron agrees and also raised the same objection regarding the German cases in “Crucifixion of Jesus,” 2, where he states, “Such re-enactment studies cannot be considered directly comparable to crucifixion.” It should be noted that any final critique of the concentration camp examples may also potentially apply to Mödder’s German experiments as well, since the arms of his volunteers were also affixed over their heads, as clearly seen in the photograph of Mödder at work, contained in Wilcox, Shroud, 25. But how could it be determined that Zugibe’s reenactments were exactly comparable to Jesus’s case?

82 Joe Zias, “Crucifixion in Antiquity: The Evidence” (1998), 6, available for download at https://www.academia.edu/588244/Crucifixion_in_Antiquity. What seems to be a briefer, edited form of the article by Zias, titled “Crucifixion in Antiquity: The Archaeological Evidence,” was published by the Foundation for Biblical Archaeology (2010), originally located at http://tfba.co/crucifixion-in-antiquity.html (no longer accessible). Cf. Barbet, Doctor at Calvary, with Zugibe’s comments, Cross and the Shroud, 94–95.

83 Wilcox, Shroud, 161.

84 Zias, “Crucifixion in Antiquity,” 6.

85 Zugibe, Cross and the Shroud, see the drawing on 41.

86 As Maslen and Mitchell attest after a survey of the medical studies, Zugibe has been “the most thorough” researcher here; see “Medical Theories,” 187.

87 Maslen and Mitchell, 187. Cook seems to agree with these cautions regarding Zugibe’s experiments; see Crucifixion, 434–35.

88 See Maslen and Mitchell, “Medical Theories,” 187.

89 Of course, some well-credentialed scientific researchers with peer-reviewed studies in secular journals might retort that if ongoing tests indicate that the Shroud of Turin is indeed at least an authentic archaeological artifact, some of these questions might be answered in unexpected ways.

90 See the discussions below on the historical and archaeological evidence for crurifragium for more evidence.

91 Another possibility from an ancient source is Seneca’s comment about the long, debilitating process of crucifixion where the victim is “drawing the breath of life amid long-drawn-out agony”; see Seneca, Dial. 3.2.2. It is true that this could probably be the case simply from the twisting, turning, and pain of nearly any crucifixion victim, but it does sound as if it may describe the process of asphyxiation better than normal writhing and breathing. Translation from Seneca, Moral Essays I, trans. John W. Basore, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1928).

92 Zugibe, Cross and the Shroud, 89–90.

93 Retief and Cilliers, “History and Pathology of Crucifixion,” 938.

94 An intriguing contrast is how the “rival” asphyxiation versus hypovolemic shock theses still come a bit more closely together at some very crucial places. Not surprisingly, Bucklin and Zugibe, both of whom were medical examiners, provide straightforward pronouncements that read like statements on a death certificate. Though Bucklin favored asphyxiation, he included the “failure of the cardiovascular system from shock and pain,” sounding just a little more like Zugibe. For his part, Zugibe includes “cardiac and respiratory arrest” as a part of Jesus’s death certificate (which he places all in caps). Edwards, another pathologist who is closer to Bucklin’s view, still includes hypovolemic shock and “perhaps heart failure.” For Bucklin’s comment here, see his interview in Richard Lewis, “Pathologist at Calvary: Examination of Turin Shroud Provides Crucifixion Details,” American Medical News, April 13, 1979, 21; for Zugibe’s appraisal, see Cross and the Shroud, 136; cf. 132–37; for Edwards, Gabel, and Hosmer, see “Physical Death of Jesus Christ,” 1463. Besides the differing highways that can be taken on occasion, the road map can also seem to converge at a few common points, even traversing along some of the same pathways!

95 As an aside, while we do not have a body here for an autopsy, the amount of knowledge that modern medical knowledge has in Jesus’s case is simply incredible. That we have this much data about an individual who lived almost 2,000 years ago almost boggles the mind. Having only a fraction of this amount of information has not stopped us from pronouncing death in the case of many of history’s other famous persons of the past. As a comparison, it is commonly taken for granted that Alexander the Great died of some sort of fever and sickness, yet fevers do not always kill, so how could we be sure? Besides, the biographical sources for Alexander’s life are exceptionally late, even centuries after the facts! So we do not have anywhere near the luxury with Alexander that we do with the very early sources for Jesus. In Alexander’s case, how do we know precisely what happened after a few hundred years? With Jesus, this is exactly where the excellent historical evidence from a comparatively short period of time later comes into play, with far more early, independent sources than necessary, sporting a number of other checks and balances that we delineated above. As examples of the latter, those present at Jesus’s execution who would not want him to get down off the cross alive provide a level of antagonistic attestation that is also very valuable. Successfully evading the watchful eyes of the Jewish leaders as well as the Roman guards, both for quite different reasons, provides still additional “backup” in this case, as was delineated above. Briefly comparing the difference between Alexander and Jesus, New Testament historian E. P. Sanders states, “The sources for Jesus are better, however, than those that deal with Alexander. The original biographies of Alexander have all been lost, and they are known only because they were used by later—much later—writers.” See Sanders, Historical Figure of Jesus, 3 (see chap. 1, n. 44).

96 For those favoring asphyxiation as the usual method of death by crucifixion, this would most likely indicate that, even without any medical training, the soldiers could observe readily enough that Jesus had been hanging in the “low” position on the cross. Being practiced at such executions, the Romans would know that anyone who hung like that without moving for a sufficient period of time did so because they had either already died or were very close to death. No faking or feinting was going on here! If someone cannot exhale, they cannot live for very long. The position of Jesus’s body, then, would have told them that he had indeed stopped breathing, or else he would be struggling to push or pull himself up especially so he could exhale and then gulp down more air once again, before slumping downward on the cross to begin the tortuous process all over again.

97 As noted in Suetonius, Aug. 67; Tib. 44.

98 Cicero, Philippics, trans. C. A. Ker, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1969), 11.14; 13.27, where the translator remarks concerning Cicero’s allusions in these texts to both crucifixion and crurifragium (477n2 and 577n6). For excellent details, see S. J. Harrison, “Cicero and ‘Crurifragium,’” Classical Quarterly 33 (1983): 453–55, where, incidentally, Harrison refers to John 19:32 as one of the classic examples of this practice, see 454.

99 Crossan, Who Killed Jesus?, 23–25, 30 (see chap. 6, n. 151). Ehrman dates the Gospel of Peter to about AD 120–130 and considers it to be independent from the canonical Gospels; Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 77. If he is correct, the mention here would be a significant parallel to John’s account.

100 Crossan, Who Killed Jesus?, 135.

101 Acts Andr. 51:1; 54:4. Translation from Dennis Ronald MacDonald, The Acts of Andrew and the Acts of Andrew and Matthias in the City of the Cannibals (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990). This text is also found, though with different text numbering, in M. R. James, ed., The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1924). Intriguingly, immediately after these comments concerning the command not to sever Andrew’s knees, the text remarks that the multitudes of people who were present wondered why the executors were not doing the things to Andrew that were normally done to crucifixion victims.

102 See the above discussion in this chapter. Intriguingly enough, Joe Zias and Eliezer Sekeles, who disputed portions of the original report, still concluded that Jehohanan died due to asphyxiation. See Zias and Sekeles, “Crucified Man,” 26.

103 For example, the well-known scholar Vilhelm Moller-Christenson later confirmed Haas’s account in a subsequent journal article; see Moller-Christensen, “Skeletal Remains,” 35–38 (see chap. 6, n. 164). Cf. Tzaferis, “Jewish Tombs”; and Hans-Ruedi Weber, The Cross: Tradition and Interpretation, trans. Elke Jessett (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978). But notice that Moller-Christensen, Tzaferis, and Weber were all written before the follow-up evaluation by Zias and Sekeles. Maslen and Mitchell supported the conclusions of Zias and Sekeles in “Medical Theories,” 186–87.

104 See Killgrove, “Line on the Left.” The Nile region case that she mentions is Aufderheide and Rodriguez-Martin, Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Paleopathology.

105 Gualdi-Russo et al., “Calcaneal Trauma in Roman Italy,” 2. Retief and Cilliers also mention crurifragium among other atrocities that were applied to crucifixion victims in “History and Pathology of Crucifixion,” 938. Incidentally, the article in this note by Gualdi-Russo et al. on 2 also lists the bones of yet another possible case of an ancient crucifixion victim in the Nile region with evidence of being nailed. See Aufderheide and Rodriguez-Martin, Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Paleopathology.

106 Hengel, Crucifixion, 70.

107 Maslen and Mitchell report that they surveyed more than forty clinical publications on the nature of crucifixion for their research in “Medical Theories,” reprint, 3.

108 See Retief and Cilliers, “History and Pathology of Crucifixion,” 938, 940.

109 As with the English pleurisy.

110 Wilkinson, a physician with training in theology, notes that the medical meaning of the English pleura refers to “the membrane which lines the cavity of the thorax and covers the lungs,” while noting that it is not that specific in the Gospel of John. See J. Wilkinson, “The Incident of the Blood and Water in John 19.34,” Scottish Journal of Theology 28, no. 2 (1975): 152; cf. also Edwards, Gabel, and Hosmer, “Physical Death of Jesus Christ,” 1462; Brown, Death of the Messiah, 2:1178.

111 Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 309. The source of this quotation is Quintilian, Decl. 6.9. Could this piercing simply be a reference to the use of nails instead of the more substantial body wound? In spite of the question by Craig Keener, he nonetheless opts strongly for the spear wound, citing both Quintilian as well as Valerius Maximus, De fact. 3.2.ext.5 as relevant sources here, plus noting that the “Jewish tradition also required proof of death before treating one as dead (Semaḥot 1; m. Šabb. 23:5)” as listed in Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), 2:1151n738. As Licona points out, the Latin term percussos is defined as “to strike through and through, thrust through, pierce, transfix” (309n125). Terms such as these (especially “strike through . . . thrust through”) are much more thorough, depicting a more substantial blow, or blows, than the use of nails alone, which does not constitute thrusting at all. Raymond Brown agrees with the same evaluation as that made by Licona as well. See Brown, Death of the Messiah, 2:1177. Likewise, Cook concurs in detail (as listed in the text below); see Crucifixion, 111–12, 429. Lastly, Quintilian’s comment in context places the piercing and the burying together as a final indicator of death, hence in much closer proximity to the end of the process than would be the case if the reference were to the nails, which were inflicted upon the victim probably even many hours earlier.

Although not in the context of crucifixion, other relevant examples from the ancient world concerning the piercing of bodies to ensure death also exist, such as an instance from Plutarch’s Lives where a man used a knife to prod several bodies to make sure that each individual was truly dead (Cleom. 37.7). Another example comes from ancient Jewish literature that is closer to Jesus and also involves Roman soldiers. Rabbi Yohanan was trying to escape from the city of Jerusalem past the watchful eye of the Roman guards, so he posed as a dead body so that a couple of other rabbis could carry him out. But the Roman guards stopped them and wanted to stab the body with a lance, just to make sure that Yohanan was indeed dead. But the other two rabbis talked them out of it. The latter accounts are contained in both the Lam. Rab. 1.5.31 and in b. Gittin 56a. These instances are exceptionally helpful because they indicate a general tendency in the ancient world as well as the specifically Roman practice of using a lance (or a knife), precisely as in Jesus’s case. These provide very helpful background information that confirms further John’s account, making it more likely.

Religious historian John Foxe, an Oxford University student and later a Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford University, during the sixteenth century, was famous for writing stories of Christian martyrs. Although these accounts were popular, anecdotal, sometimes rather fanciful, and far too late to be used here as actual research cases, one of Foxe’s descriptions is still interesting and helpful. Foxe provides this report pertaining to Roman Emperor Diocletian’s persecution of Christians in the late third century: “Some were martyred by being tied to posts, and having their hands and feet pierced with nails; after remaining in this dreadful condition for a day and night, their sufferings were ended by lances being thrust through their bodies.” See John Foxe and others, Foxe’s Christian Martyrs of the World, rev. ed. (Chicago: Moody, 1960), 96.

112 Cook, Crucifixion, 111n290.

113 Cook, 111–12.

114 Brown, Death of the Messiah, 2:1177–78.

115 Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 781, esp. n. 93.

116 S. Légasse, The Trial of Jesus (London: SCM, 1997), 161n112.

117 For similar thoughts here, see Gary Habermas and Benjamin C. F. Shaw, “Crucifixion in the Ancient World: A Historical Analysis,” Eleutheria 5 (2021): 14.

118 Zugibe, Cross and the Shroud, 121–30.

119 Wilkinson, “Blood and Water,” 154–72, for an extensive treatment of the nature of Jesus’s chest wound. It should be noted here that Wilkerson is trained in theology and is a physician, even having had “extensive experience” with many of the items in this discussion, such as postmortem pericardial fluid (esp. 165; cf. 160).

120 Wilcox, Shroud, 72–73. We are reminded here once again by a couple of these book titles that, on this consideration as well, a number of these medical researchers are convinced that the Shroud of Turin is authentic. But three important considerations need to be kept in focus at this point: these scholars could actually be correct about the shroud, so we need to keep open minds! Further, their medical conclusions pertaining to crucifixion are not necessarily affected by their conclusions regarding this cloth. Moreover, especially since it is unlikely at this point that the shroud is a fake, it could well occupy something of a middle ground as an authentic archaeological artifact that once truly wrapped a crucifixion victim, even if it never belonged to Jesus. In this case, it would still be exceptionally useful in revealing absolutely crucial medical information regarding the process that we are addressing here, including the spear wound in the chest.

121 See Zugibe, Cross and the Shroud, 125, 151. Wilkinson states, “No one who has performed a postmortem examination of a body recently dead would agree with Origen’s observation that neither blood nor water flows from a corpse.” See “Blood and Water,” 159–60.

122 Sava, “Holy Shroud on Trial,” 50–56, particularly 53, including the quoted sentence above.

123 Bucklin, “Shroud of Turin,” 9. While Bucklin is referring chiefly to studies on the Shroud of Turin here, two additional items should be remembered. Even if the Shroud were not that of Jesus but still wrapped a real crucifixion victim (a conclusion that seems quite firm), Bucklin’s conclusions would still be helpful and well grounded. Further, Sava’s conclusions were also drawn largely from the Shroud, as his title indicates, so that he and Bucklin are on a level playing field so to speak.

124 Wilkinson, “Blood and Water,” 160.

125 Zugibe, Cross and the Shroud, 127. This last point regarding the importance of the blood and water in John 19:34 staying separate and/or coming out in precisely that order without being mixed at all has just always seemed to me to make too many demands on this text. Yet, medical researchers often mention them, almost as prescriptions or meticulous patterns, as reasons to reject certain physiological theses. Presumably, the idea is that John seems to think that they were totally separate substances and that they emerged one at a time, with the blood coming first followed by the water. While the sense there definitely appears to be that both substances could be clearly detected coming from Jesus’s wound, this does not seem to require that a hard-and-fast differentiation between the two be made. In contrast, it seems that there could be mixed portions of each as long as both were clearly visible. The point here is that the textual description does not appear to be good grounds to decide between precise physiological options. Wilkinson, being trained in both theology and medicine, appears to agree here; see “Blood and Water,” 153–54, but see 156, as well.

126 Edwards, Gabel, and Hosmer, “Physical Death of Jesus Christ,” 1463; Bergeron, “Crucifixion of Jesus,” 3; Mödder, “Die Todesurache,” 50–59; David Willis, “Did He Die on the Cross?,” Ampleforth Journal 74 (1969): 27–39; Zugibe, Cross and the Shroud, 127–30; Bucklin, “Shroud of Turin,” 9; Whanger and Whanger, Shroud of Turin, 90 (see chap. 6, n. 167); Willis’s view, taken from his unpublished notes, along with Mödder’s position, are reproduced by Ian Wilson, The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ? (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1978), esp. 29; see also 30; cf. Wilcox, Shroud, 73.

127 Barbet, Doctor at Calvary, 113; Wilkinson, “Blood and Water,” 154–72, for more details on Barbet’s seminal work, see 159–61; Retief and Cilliers, “History and Pathology of Crucifixion,” 941, but possibly having traveled through the chest first; Davis, “Crucifixion of Jesus,” 187 (repr., 4); Jewell and Didden, “Surgeon Looks at the Cross,” 5; Wassener, “Suffering Christ,” 42; cf. Blum, “Jesus and JAMA,” 11.

128 One of the major medical scholars in recent decades to do work on death by crucifixion has been Yale University professor John Heller, who also explicitly affirms the postmortem nature of the chest wound; see Heller, Report on the Shroud of Turin (Boston: Mifflin, 1983), 217; cf. 202. See also Edwards, Gabel, and Hosmer, “Physical Death of Jesus Christ,” 1463; Davis, “Crucifixion of Jesus,” 187; Wilkinson, “Blood and Water,” 154–55, 159. This aspect is also mentioned clearly by other physicians like Zugibe, Cross and the Shroud, 127–30; pathologist Bucklin, personal discussions, May 5 and May 30, 1981, plus his article “Shroud of Turin,” 8–9; Whanger and Whanger, Shroud of Turin, 90; Wassener, “Suffering Christ,” 42; Jewell and Didden, “Surgeon Looks at the Cross,” 5; and it seems that this is Sava’s view as well; see “Holy Shroud on Trial,” 53, in particular. It is very likely to also be the conclusion of many of the other researchers listed in the last two notes above. Once again, in spite of many of these discussions listed here also involving the Shroud of Turin, it must be remembered that whatever is thought of this cloth, the scholars doing the investigations are trained in various medical specialties, where their medical studies are being utilized regardless of their conclusions about the shroud.

129 Bergeron, “Crucifixion of Jesus,” 3.

130 The well-known and operative phrase here was probably “Not on my watch”!

131 It would really be a long shot for a trained soldier who was attempting to ensure the death of a stationary target to stab his spear into Jesus’s chest region and never pierce a vital location such as a lung, or the pericardium, aorta, or heart. Of Zugibe’s eleven proposed medical hypotheses to explain the nature of this wound, only three of them even proposed that Jesus was still alive at that time, thereby conceding the death verdict! In the remaining three scenarios, each involved the spear entering the heart or lung space. Eight of the views involved either the piercing or the rupturing of the aorta/heart. All but one of the eleven theses proposed a heart or chest wound, and that single exception proposed that Jesus was already dead anyway! See Zugibe, Cross and the Shroud, 121–30.

132 Zugibe, 165.

133 Zugibe, 165. During or after lectures, I have been told of several personal experiences that people in the crowd have had with pneumothoraxes. I distinctly remember hearing of another experience very similar to Zugibe’s account above, where a former police officer was standing near an unconscious man who had been stabbed in the chest, wondering what the sucking sound was that he could hear. In another case, an emergency room nurse explained to the group what had to be done in these circumstances, where very quick action was necessary to save a life. These chest wounds are so common, prominent, and dangerous during wartime that the US Army teaches soldiers how to respond immediately. The condition needs to be treated very quickly even in these modern times to save the person’s life. See First Aid for Soldiers Field Manual (Washington, DC: Department of the Army, 1983), 3–14, 3–35, with drawings of the proper medical response on 3–32 to 3–35.

134 Josephus testifies in Life, “I saw many captives crucified” (75).

135 Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 311–12. Licona has since learned of the other examples from Herodotus and John Cheek.

136 Josephus, Life 75. The translation used here is William Whiston, Josephus: Complete Works (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1960).

137 Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 311.

138 Edwards, Gabel, and Hosmer agree, see “Physical Death of Jesus Christ,” 1455, 1463.

139 As per Retief and Cilliers, “History and Pathology of Crucifixion,” 938.

140 Craig Keener provides the following list of these texts: John 1:31, 33; 2:6; 3:5; 4:14; 5:2; 9:7; 13:5. See Keener, Gospel of John, 2:1153.

141 However, as mentioned earlier, the Gospel of Peter (4:14) does mention the practice of breaking the legs of crucifixion victims, and as an independent source, it would serve as additional attestation.

142 Such as Heb 2:10; 4:15; 5:8–9.

143 For example, one of the themes of Hengel’s book on crucifixion is to explain that this subject was viewed so disdainfully in the ancient world that it was seldom even mentioned in polite company. In fact, as mentioned above, the details the Gospels provide on this subject are still more than any other ancient narrative; see Hengel, Crucifixion, 25, 37–38.

144 So it well may be that the reason why only John mentions these last items is this same sense that made the Gospel writers virtually ignore the scourging and the use of nails, as we just recounted in the previous note above regarding the ancient attitudes on the social impropriety of discussing aspects of crucifixion.

145 An excellent analogy here was the popular practice among Roman historians to do similarly: they frequently noted that particular events were actually the fulfillment of various prophecies. On other occasions, the authors saw the occurrences they were recording in more mystical terms as omens or portents. But they did not thereby think or propose that the actual events themselves did not happen! Many examples abound in Tacitus (Ann. 1.28, 55; 14.22; Hist. 513) and Suetonius (Jul. 88; Aug. 94, 96; Cal. 57–58, Claud. 46; Nero 56, Vesp. 5, 7, 23–25; Dom. 23). In fact, editor Robert Graves states that in spite of Suetonius’s reliance on omens, he is still “trustworthy enough”; see Graves, Twelve Caesars, 7.

146 The Roman practice of crurifragium is noted in both numerous ancient sources (Cicero, Fat. 5; Phil. 11.14, 13.27; Plautus, Poen. 886; John 19:31–32; Gos. Pet. 4:14; Acts Andr. 51:1; 54:4) plus several possible archaeological sources, such as those noted by S. J. Harrison, “Cicero and ‘Crurifragium,’” 453–55; Haas, “Anthropological Observations,” 57 (see chap. 6, n. 164); Moller-Christensen, “Skeletal Remains,” 35–38; Zugibe, Cross and the Shroud, 92–94; Légasse adds his own name to this list as well in Trial of Jesus, 161; Gualdi-Russo et al., “Calcaneal Trauma in Roman Italy,” 2; Aufderheide and Rodriguez-Martin in The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Paleopathology; Killgrove, “Line on the Left,” 1–11, with contemporary positive verdicts from critical scholars such as Crossan, Brown, and Wilkinson, among many others.

147 Besides the account in John 19:33–35, further confirmation of death blows, particularly piercings, come from Quintilian, Decl. 6.9; Plutarch, Cleom. 37.7; Per. 28.3; along with the Jewish story and sources above (Lam. Rab. 1.5.31; b. Gittin 56a; see footnote 111 above) pertaining to the regular Roman practice of piercing dead bodies to assure the reality of death. Cf. also Retief and Cilliers, “History and Pathology of Crucifixion,” 938, 940. Among others, additional critical scholars who agree include Derrett, Hengel, Dunn, Brown, Légasse, and Wilkinson.

148 Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel according to John, Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1970), 2:946.

149 Wilkinson makes a related comment in “Blood and Water,” 169.

150 Brown, John, 2:948.

151 Wilkinson, “Blood and Water,” 150.

152 Incidentally, it makes absolutely no difference for our purposes whether a critical scholar thinks that the incident with Thomas did or did not actually take place. The chief point here is what the author meant by recording the events he described. It is more than clear from his previous description of the spear wound causing the flow of blood and water, as well as Thomas’s response to Jesus, that the author meant that the stab with the lance should be understood as a purposeful coup de grâce, to ensure Jesus’s death.

153 Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 781n93. To Dunn’s testimony here we may add the views of critical scholars such as Raymond Brown and John Wilkinson regarding the likelihood that John reports historical data regarding crucifixion aspects noted here. C. H. Dodd should also be added to this group, from his volume Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965), 133. Légasse, “The Trial of Jesus,” 97–98.

154 Brown, John, 2:934, 946–48; also, Brown, Death of the Messiah, esp. 2:1176–77. In the latter source, Brown is quite critical of medical doctors who comment on Jesus’s death without understanding some of the textual nuances (2:1089, 1092). Yet, his comment that physicians especially do not understand the theological overtones (2:1089) largely applies only to the spear wound, since the extensive medical literature on death by crucifixion as a whole, including many relevant experiments such as those we have discussed above, are all very helpful. After all, in spite of his criticism, Brown still surveys the medical work for several pages (2:1088–1092). So how bad can it be? One other important item should be mentioned here. Brown comments more than once that the most surprising and troublesome detail in John’s account is that dead bodies do not bleed; e.g., John, 2:946. One cannot help but wonder if this issue for Brown contributed somehow to his emphasizing of the “mystical” aspects and playing down the historical ones in John, since according to his interpretation, it would appear that Jesus was still alive at this point in spite of John’s comment to the contrary. Here is a place where Brown should have listened more closely to the exact same medical sources on which he is commenting and citing in the immediate context. As we have discussed above, it is more than clear that dead bodies do indeed bleed, especially if a place like the right side of the heart is pierced, where the blood has not yet coagulated. See Wilkinson, “Blood and Water.” After all, glass jars should not leak liquid either, but if someone breaks the glass, the contents have to go somewhere!

155 J. Duncan M. Derrett, The Anastasis: The Resurrection of Jesus as an Historical Event (Shipston-on-Stour: Drinkwater, 1982), 50. Derrett also doubted Jesus’s death on the cross. A much later essay by Derrett continues many of the same ideas; Derrett, “Financial Aspects of the Resurrection,” in Price and Lowder, The Empty Tomb, 393–94, 399, 401–4 (see chap. 4, n. 11).

156 Wilkerson, “Blood and Water,” 149.

157 David Strauss, Das Leben Jesu für das deutsche Volk bearbeitet, 8th ed. (Leipzig: Brodhaus, 1864), with Strauss treating the apparent death theory on 295–99, esp. 299. Strauss uses the term swoon on 297 of the original German edition. The English translation is David Strauss, A New Life of Jesus, 2nd ed. (London: Williams and Norgate, 1879), 1:408–12, esp. 412.

158 As Ehrman declares, “Historians, of course, have no difficulty whatsoever speaking about the belief in Jesus’ resurrection, since this is a matter of public record. For it is a historical fact that some of Jesus’ followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution.” Ehrman, Apocalpytic Prophet, 231 (see chap. 5, n. 43). Ehrman also insists, “We can say with complete certainty that some of his disciples at some later time insisted that . . . he soon appeared to them, convincing them that he had been raised from the dead” (230).

159 Strauss, Das Leben Jesu für das deutsche Volk bearbeitet, 299.

160 Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 131–33, 203–4 (see chap. 6, n. 173).

161 Schweitzer, Quest of the Historical Jesus, 10, 56–57, 62–65 (see chap. 4, n. 16) for the incredible influence of Strauss’s critiques on German liberalism.

162 The details can be found in Habermas, Kopel, and Shaw, “Medical Views,” 751.

163 For one or more reasons, a few of the notable volumes that argue this initial point include: Antonacci, Test the Shroud (see chap. 6, n. 167); Whanger and Whanger, Shroud of Turin; Mark W. Foreman, “The Image on the Shroud: A Best Explanations Approach,” in Raised on the Third Day: Defending the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus—Essays in Honor of Dr. Gary R. Habermas, ed. W. David Beck and Michael R. Licona (Bellingham: Lexham, 2020), 37–60.

164 For a briefer statement of what has been argued in much more detail in other studies, see Gary R. Habermas, “Historical Epistemology, Jesus’ Resurrection, and the Shroud of Turin,” Proceedings of the 1999 Shroud of Turin International Research Conference, ed. Bryan J. Walsh (Richmond, VA: Magisterium, 2000), 267–79; see also Antonacci, Test the Shroud, 89–95; Whanger and Whanger, Shroud of Turin, 122–25.

165 See the survey of medical sources and views by Antonacci, Test the Shroud, 17–37; cf. the list of medical indications by William Meacham, “The Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology,” Current Anthropology 24 (1983): 286.

166 Cf. John A. T. Robinson, “Re-investigating the Shroud of Turin,” Theology 80 (1977): 193–97; Robinson, “The Shroud and the New Testament,” in Face to Face with the Turin Shroud, ed. Peter Jennings (Oxford: Mowbray, 1978), 69–80; Robinson, “The Shroud of Turin and the Grave-Clothes of the Gospels,” in Proceedings of the 1977 United States Conference of Research on the Shroud of Turin, ed. Kenneth E. Stevenson (Bronx: Holy Shroud Guild, 1977), 23–30.

167 Gerald O’Collins, “The Shroud of Turin: Its Implications for Faith and Theology,” The Way 20 (1980): 140–47.

168 Raymond E. Brown, “Brief Observations on The Shroud of Turin,” Biblical Theology Bulletin 14, no. 4 (1984): 145–48.

169 See texts such as Rom 1:3–4; 10:9–10; 1 Cor 15:3–4; 2 Tim 2:8, or some of the Acts sermon summaries, such as 2:29–36. While more obvious in some texts than others, these passages indicate the deity of Jesus especially by the use of titles such as “Son of God” and “Lord” (Rom 1:3–4; 10:9). This point will be discussed below.

↑ Back to top