A Very Interesting Medical Fact that Supports John's Crucifixion Account

  • Thread starter Thread starter prodigalson2011
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

prodigalson2011

Guest
I was reading an article by Peter Kreeft which made passing mention of this, so I did a little research and found this article:
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.
Click to expand...
You can read the entire article here.

Cheers. 🙂
 
JAMA looked into this a couple decades ago with a cover article. Can’t remember the date.
 
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.
Click to expand...
He could have easily known if he had witnessed other crucifixions in which this happened. Apparently there was ample opportunity to witness such punishments while the Romans occupied Jewish territory. It indicates “eyewitness type” testimony but it has *nothing *specific to do with Jesus and it is hardly unique given the quantity of Roman crucifixions.

The church doesn’t insist on the gospels being “eyewitness testimony”, even the Pontifical Biblical Commission indicates that the gospels are based on “apostolic origins”, not eyewitness testimony. Try reading the Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels (available online).
 
I think John even alludes to the water coming from the heart when he said earlier in his Gospel account:“He who believes in me, as the scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water.’” (John 7:38) :o
 
patg said:
He could have easily known if he had witnessed other crucifixions in which this happened. Apparently there was ample opportunity to witness such punishments while the Romans occupied Jewish territory. It indicates “eyewitness type” testimony but it has *nothing *specific to do with Jesus and it is hardly unique given the quantity of Roman crucifixions.

The church doesn’t insist on the gospels being “eyewitness testimony”, even the Pontifical Biblical Commission indicates that the gospels are based on “apostolic origins”, not eyewitness testimony. Try reading the Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels (available online).
Click to expand...
Well, actually it does have something specific to do with Jesus. If you will go back to Scripture, piercing the side with a lance was not a normal procedure for crucifixions. The standard procedure was to break the legs of the crucified after so long to speed up their death. In Jesus’ case, he died much quicker than expected and the soldier did this to ensure he was really dead. Besides, the Gospel of John specifically states in its conclusion that it is the testimony of the Apostle. If that is not true, then it is a deliberate lie.

I’ve read many interpretations of Gospel authorship, and it is worth noting there is a burgeoning movement of apologists and scholars, Jimmy Akin among them, returning to the traditional ascription of authorship.

Here’s an article from the main page:
Who wrote the Gospel of John? Certainly not the beloved disciple, according to “modern scholarship,” which claims the book is more or less unhistorical fantasy written by a pseudonymous author. These critics of Johannine authorship try to make the case that the beloved disciple was not, in fact, the author of the Gospel that bears his name… read “Did John Write His Gospel?”
Click to expand...
 
patg said:
The church doesn’t insist on the gospels being “eyewitness testimony”, even the Pontifical Biblical Commission indicates that the gospels are based on “apostolic origins”, not eyewitness testimony. Try reading the Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels (available online).
Click to expand...
Actually, sections 18 and 19 of Dei Verbum state:18. It is common knowledge that among all the Scriptures, even those of the New Testament, the Gospels have a special preeminence, and rightly so, for they are the principal witness for the life and teaching of the incarnate Word, our savior.

The Church has always and everywhere held and continues to hold that the four Gospels are of apostolic origin. For what the Apostles preached in fulfillment of the commission of Christ, afterwards they themselves and apostolic men, under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, handed on to us in writing: the foundation of faith, namely, the fourfold Gospel, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.(1)
  1. Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, **whose historical character the Church **unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven (see Acts 1:1). Indeed, after the Ascension of the Lord the Apostles handed on to their hearers what He had said and done. This they did with that clearer understanding which they enjoyed (3) after they had been instructed by the glorious events of Christ’s life and taught by the light of the Spirit of truth. (2) The sacred authors wrote the four Gospels, selecting some things from the many which had been handed on by word of mouth or in writing, reducing some of them to a synthesis, explaining some things in view of the situation of their churches and preserving the form of proclamation but always in such fashion that they told us the honest truth about Jesus.(4) For their intention in writing was that either from their own memory and recollections, or from the witness of those who “themselves from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word” we might know “the truth” concerning those matters about which we have been instructed (see Luke 1:2-4).
    So the companions of Jesus wrote two Gospels and others, using second-hand information, wrote two. If all four depended on second-hand information, the Fathers of the Council would not have made a distinction between the two sets of authors.
 
I heard that dead bodies, dont bleed casue blood circulation stops is this true? How can Jesus body bleed?
 
Just a little something.

There is a rather curious and little-known textual variant in early Alexandrian manuscripts of Matthew’s Gospel (one of the so-called Western non-interpolations) which places the spearing of Jesus’ side immediately before He expires, thereby making it look like the immediate cause of His death.

But the rest said, “Let be; let us see if Elias comes to save Him.” Now another, taking a spear, pierced His side, and there came out water and blood. But Jesus, crying out again a great voice, gave up the spirit.
  • Matthew 27:49-50
As mentioned, this particular variant is found in Alexandrian witnesses such as Codex Sinaiticus (c. 330-360), Vaticanus (c. 325口350), Ephraemi Rescriptus (c. 450), Regius (8th c.), Nanianus (9th c.), Tischendorfianus IV (9th-10th c.), Minuscules 1010, 1293, Palestinian Syriac, as well as some Vetus Latina (such as Usserianus II*) and Vulgate manuscripts. It is omitted by all other manuscripts and even in late witness of the Alexandrian text-type (Minuscule 892).

There is some disagreement as always about this variant: those who think it as genuinely Matthean think that this was removed in order to smoothen out apparent internal (while the bystanders were apparently waiting for Elijah to rescue Jesus, someone, in complete opposition to the preceding thought, kills Him!) and external discrepancies between Matthew and John. Detractors propose that because this comment finds such a strong parallel in John 19:34 (albeit with some minor differences - “water and blood” rather than “blood and water”), it was probably inspired by or taken from John’s account by early scribes and inserted into this verse, since if it was originally from Matthew, it is rather hard to explain why the variant is absent from a vast majority of other manuscripts. It is thought that this sentence was specifically inserted to combat Docetism, emphasizing that Jesus did die.
 
MarcoPolo said:
I think John even alludes to the water coming from the heart when he said earlier in his Gospel account:“He who believes in me, as the scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water.’” (John 7:38) :o
Click to expand...
Just a little trivia: the passage in John 7:38 can be parsed differently. In one rendering, it can be read such that Jesus is the source of the living water (the ‘Western’ interpretation favored by St. Justin, St. Hippolytus, Tertullian, and St. Irenaeus), while in the other, it is the believer from whom the water will flow (the so-called ‘Eastern’ interpretation because this is the sense in which the Greek Fathers like St. Athanasius and Origen understood the passage).

“If any one thirsts, let him come to me and drink, he who is believing in me. According as the Scripture said, ‘Rivers out of his belly shall flow of living water.’”

“If any one thirsts, let him come to me and drink; he who is believing in me, according as the Scripture said, ‘Rivers out of his belly shall flow of living water.’”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top