Tue 29 Sep 2009
After giving my recent lectures on the topic of The Historical Reliability of the New Testament at my church I added one new short section to my free ebook.
In the section arguing in favor of the New Testament being eyewitness testimony:
The New Testament includes certain incidental details that would be hard to comprehend unless they are the result of eyewitness testimony. One example is recorded in John 19:34. After Jesus dies on the cross, John notes that “one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water.” Death by crucifixion occurred due to two primary causes: hypovolemic shock and exhaustion asphyxia (asphyxiation). One consequence of the person going into hypovolemic shock and also being asphyxiated (unable to draw in breath) was that water would collect around the pericardium, the sac surrounding the heart. Thus when the Roman soldier stabbed Jesus’ side with the spear (which was not common procedure for crucifixions) the wall of the pericardium was pierced, resulting in a flow of both blood from the heart itself and water from the surrounding sac.
Even though he would have no idea why he saw blood and water pour out, John’s description of the scene is entirely consistent with modern medical conclusions about what would have happened. How could John have known that if a person who had just been crucified were stabbed in the chest that blood and water would run out unless he (or someone else who was there) witnessed it? John would have had none of this modern medical knowledge; he merely recorded what he saw. Details of this sort strongly indicate that the New Testament is a result of eyewitness testimony regarding the events it describes.
Main source: William D. Edwards, Wesley J. Gabel, and Floyd E. Hosmer, “On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ,” Journal of the American Medical Association, vol 255, No. 11, 21 March 1986, 1461-1463.
See also: Lee Strobel, Case for Christ, 198-200, and Gary Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 74.
September 30th, 2009 at 12:49 am
Thus when the Roman soldier stabbed Jesus’ side with the spear (which was not common procedure for crucifixions) the wall of the pericardium was pierced, resulting in a flow of both blood from the heart itself and water from the surrounding sac.
Only if Jesus had pericarditis and a pericardial effusion – and if pericardial transudate looked like water, which it doesn’t. And if He had a pericardial effusion big enough to have visible “water” come out a spear wound, He’d have been dead for a long time from tamponde.
So, basically, whoever you copied this from is full of shit.
September 30th, 2009 at 11:52 am
Hi Doctor,
As noted at the bottom of the blog, my main source was the article published in the peer-reviewed Journal of the American Medical Association. If you have another source of equal scholarly merit that refutes this article, I’d be willing to take a look. Until then, I’ll defer to the published experts on the matter.
FWIW, Habermas also lists several other peer-reviewed sources which confirm these details (in the reference above) however I don’t have access to those so I could only use the JAMA article, which I have a copy of. (I can send you a copy of the article if you’d like.)
October 7th, 2009 at 11:40 pm
There’s actually a more recent JAMA article that says that there are a lot of different theories and there is not enough data to say that one is right or not. Here are some of the different theories of how Jesus died: Cardiac rupture, Heart failure, Hypovolaemic shock, Syncope, Acidosis, Asphyxia, Arrhythmia plus asphyxia, Pulmonary embolism, Voluntary surrender of life, and Didn’t actually die.
October 11th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
How could John have known that if a person who had just been crucified were stabbed in the chest that blood and water would run out unless he (or someone else who was there) witnessed it? John would have had none of this modern medical knowledge; he merely recorded what he saw. Details of this sort strongly indicate that the New Testament is a result of eyewitness testimony regarding the events it describes.
Ignoring Doctor’s point concerning the accuracy of the medical information (since I’m in no way competent to comment on it), this would indicate only that the author had either witnessed or heard an accurate description of a crucified person being stabbed with a spear.
Not that he’d witnessed it happen to Jesus