Peculiar inconsistencies:
This is a rather strange analysis.I don’t see how JoA was “openly declaring support for Jesus by requesting the body.
Jews had a well known sensibility about burial. I highly doubt Pilate would have been worried about a burial request.
The rest is pure speculation; bad speculation, I would add. After all, Mary, who is reportedly, the first to notice the body is missing assumes the body was moved.
Jesus appearing but not immediately being recognized is multiply attested. This peculiar feature, which surely cannot have been added for dramatic effect, is a constant in three different stories. Further, it is from two different sources: Luke {road to Emmaus} and John {Mary M at the tomb, and the fishermen}. Why invent contrived explanations when there is an obvious one which is consistent with contemporary experience of dealing with victims of violence and road trauma? Injured people are difficult to recognize, especially if their faces are swollen and bruised. And Jesus, if he survived crucifixion, had a profound neurological deficit: he was probably confused and disorientated, unable to recognize his friends.
As to whether a survivor could walk, we have here the problem of a lot of nonsensical speculation about the practice of crucifixion, based on artistic imagination and the one archaeological finding of a nail through a heel. Self-evidently, the purpose of the cross-bar was to exploit the lever effect so that the tension in the arms would be many times the weight of the body, thus stretching ligaments and joints (same effect as the medieval rack).
Providing a fixture to support the weight, such as nails through the feet, would negate the effect of the cross bar. Pragmatic Roman soldiers didn’t waste materials. If extra force in stretching the arms was not required, the victim’s wrists would have simply been nailed to the upright and the cross bar omitted. There is also a lot of nonsense talked about difficulty breathing when hanging from the arms: in fact, exhalation is produced by tension in the abdominal muscles, elevating the diaphragm, and intercostal muscles squeezing down the ribs, NOT by pushing up with the legs. Whoever first promulgated this ludicrous drivel didn’t absorb much of their anatomy and physiology courses, not at passing level in my university anyway.
There doesn’t seem to have been a standard manual on the practice of crucifixion. It is likely, therefore, that Roman soldiers varied the technique according to whim and the malice they felt towards the victim. If Jesus could walk reasonably well, we can deduce that he did not have penetrating wounds through the bones of his feet.
Apologies if sloppy wording gave the wrong impression of the probability question. More clearly stated: were there NO survivors among 10,000 or more victims of crucifixion, OR was Jesus of Nazareth the ONE among the thousands who actually survived? With our modern understanding of death acquired since the advent of CPR in emergency medicine, that latter prospect seems much more plausible today than it must have seemed to scholars in earlier times.
Trevelyan said
Jesus appearing but not immediately being recognized is multiply attested. This peculiar feature, which surely cannot have been added for dramatic effect, is a constant in three different stories. Further, it is from two different sources: Luke {road to Emmaus} and John {Mary M at the tomb, and the fishermen}. Why invent contrived explanations when there is an obvious one which is consistent with contemporary experience of dealing with victims of violence and road trauma? Injured people are difficult to recognize, especially if their faces are swollen and bruised. And Jesus, if he survived crucifixion, had a profound neurological deficit: he was probably confused and disorientated, unable to recognize his friends.
Multiply attested in books that 1.) have an interest in a specific conclusion 2.) their authors are known to have copied directly from at least one of the sources. Moreover, according the the NT Jesus was beaten, whipped and hung on the cross for about 6 hours, and SOMEHOW managed to walk the 6 or more miles to Emmaus in this condition (with what you describe as neurological deficit)
and while suffering a “profound neurological deficit: … was probably confused and disorientated, unable to recognize his friends.” he knew exactly how to get to Emmaus! Also no one meeting him face to face, as it were, notices his “swollen and bruised” face. No one notices he has been traumatized and instead they conclude he must have risen from the dead. Because people make that assumption all the time when they see someone who has been traumatized.
Talk about CONTRIVED And who ever suggested that “This peculiar feature was added for dramatic effect”?
Next is whether Jesus could walk after crucifixion
Well let’s start with the nonsensical Josephus: Victims of crucifixion “were first whipped and then tormented with all sorts of tortures, before they died, and were crucified before the wall of the city…” And here we might reach the nonsensical conclusion that this just MIGHT, combined with say six hours hanging on a cross, affect someone’s ability to walk; particularly 6 or more miles.
Let’s also look to the ever nonsensical Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, ever a source for ludicrous drivel and not up on the “self evident” death by torn ligament theory
Modern interpretation in the medical literature as to how this might work includes blood loss from the fracture site or respiratory failure from fat embolism. In those positioned head up then respiratory failure might also ensue as a consequence of the inability to inflate the chest sufficiently, since the legs could no longer be used to support the weight of the body. However, it is unknown which of these three widely stated hypotheses is correct, since crucifixion is not employed as a modern legal method of execution.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
If only they had absorbed more of their anatomy and physiology courses!!!!
Notice the operative word inflate which requires the opposite of exhalation for some nonsensical reason. And the point of a “fixture” was not supporting the weight but allowing the victim to push up in order to INHALE or relieve that condition that made them EXHALE thus prolonging his agony; The feet being nailed was not, I assure you for support. Self evidently it was to cause even more suffering. By your own description, the victim was in a position which caused “exhalation” and when they wanted to inhale they needed to push up. Just a guess, but someone who is in a position that causes air to leave their body (exhalation) they are going to have some trouble with the ever nonsensical need to inhale.Pushing up when your feet are nailed, I would guess-although I haven’t absorbed much of anatomy and physiology courses or consulted with the ever pragmatic Roman soldiers, would cause the nails to rip the feet forcing the victim to either suffocate or rip his feet apart
Thank you, Spiker, for your thoughtful reply.
The story about the two on the road to Emmaus does not indicate that Jesus was undertaking a planned journey, or knew where he was going. Brain-damaged people wander, as any worker in aged-care facilities will tell you. The ability to walk substantial distances persists in demented patients, long after they have lost their ability to find their way home. This is true of atherosclerotic dementia as well as the more common Alzheimer’s type. A prolonged period of cerebral ischemia, as might be expected in a victim who had (barely) survived crucifixion, would be likely to leave the victim conscious but confused and disorientated, mobile but unable to plan journeys and safe returns, speaking fluently but not making a great deal of sense, and unable to recognize friends, family and associates.
There is nothing wrong with Maslen & Mitchell’s JRSM paper, which is a REVIEW of published work on crucifixion. The quotation you give is not about the cause of death in victims who died from crucifixion itself, but the cause of death after smashing the tibiae with an iron club: hypovolemia and possibly fat embolism. The authors give lip service to respiratory difficulty, because it is mentioned in the (voluminous) literature on crucifixion.
My point was a straightforward one: it is not necessary to fix or support the feet to allow the suffering victim to breathe. It therefore remains plausible that Jesus would not have had wounds in his feet, and therefore would have been able to walk.
As to the cross-bar… The purpose of increasing the traction force on the arms was to induce pain, NOT as you scornfully imply, to cause death. The sufferings of victims were not only subjectively severe, but visible and audible. The aim was to terrify those who viewed this hideous spectacle. Keeping victims alive for as long as they would continue to cry out was part of the Roman campaign of terror.
If you want to think about the mechanics of this, draw a horizontal line to represent the cross-bar. Then draw two sloping lines of length, L, which intersect below the cross-bar. Now draw the vertical from that intersection up to the cross-bar. Its length is H. The triangles you have drawn give the vector resolution of the force in the arms. If the weight of the body is W, the tension in each arm, T = WL/2H. The tighter the arms are stretched before the nails are driven in, the less the distance H, and the greater the tension, which could be many times the weight of the body.
I can sympathize, Spiker, with frustration evident in your many comments about the shortcomings of arguments presented by those with fixed views, particularly those which are faith-based. My own frustration, having waded through the literature on medical analysis of the crucifixion, is that so much of it has an axe to grind. Faith-based conviction, combined with a medical qualification, proves particularly dangerous. The iconic paper in JAMA, “On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ,” by Edwards, Gabriel & Hosmer {JAMA vol 245, pp 1455-1463 (1986)}, is a gruesome exploration of the sufferings of the crucified, but fails to address the question whether the very occasional victim might survive, if taken down soon after lapsing into unconsciousness.
As a scientist and a medico myself, I reject the concept of “belief.” Science is about assessing competing hypotheses for their explanatory power, consistency with the evidence, and ability to make useful predictions. Truth is always provisional, and absolute truth is for believers, not scientists or careful historians. The skeptical position that the post-crucifixion appearances of Jesus were literary fabrications has a great deal to commend it, especially in view of the catalog of deficiencies in the historical evidence.
I wonder, however, if the alternate hypothesis has been examined with sufficient care by objective scholars who are not burdened by faith. While accounts of the post-crucifixion appearances could well be literary creations inspired by imagination or wishful thinking, is it also plausible that the tales might have grown from the experience of eyewitnesses who encountered a dazed, disorientated, wounded survivor wandering about? Someone they eventually realized was their former leader, Jesus?
Granted that tales grew in the telling, such a scenario would bypass David Strauss’ 19th century critique of naturalistic explanations of a “resurrection.” It would also provide a simple, in fact trivial, explanation for the report of Jesus appearing through a locked door. A group of people, some knowing each other only slightly, mill about in a locked room. A figure standing quietly goes unnoticed in the crowd. Then one of the party recognizes him. To a person on the other side of the room, it might seem as if Jesus had suddenly appeared.
he story about the two on the road to Emmaus does not indicate that Jesus was undertaking a planned journey, or knew where he was going. Brain-damaged people wander, as any worker in aged-care facilities will tell you. The ability to walk substantial distances persists in demented patients, long after they have lost their ability to find their way home. This is true of atherosclerotic dementia as well as the more common Alzheimer’s type. A prolonged period of cerebral ischemia, as might be expected in a victim who had (barely) survived crucifixion, would be likely to leave the victim conscious but confused and disorientated, mobile but unable to plan journeys and safe returns, speaking fluently but not making a great deal of sense, and unable to recognize friends, family and associates.
I think you’d agree that Jesus was not demented and that, people in an aged-care facility probably haven’t been” whipped and then tormented with all sorts of tortures” then hung on a cross for reportedly 6 hours”.
You’d also have to agree that it is odd that none of his interlocutors seem to notice either the physical damage or that he was “confused and disorientated”. Were those signs of ressurection? In fact, if the story is reliable at all, He had an intelligent conversation with two men (didn’t seem nonsensical); went with them and had dinner. Yet, again, no one notices that he is in a state of disorientation and confusion and not making sense.
There is nothing wrong with Maslen & Mitchell’s JRSM paper, which is a REVIEW of published work on crucifixion. The quotation you give is not about the cause of death in victims who died from crucifixion itself, but the cause of death after smashing the tibiae with an iron club: hypovolemia and possibly fat embolism. The authors give lip service to respiratory difficulty, because it is mentioned in the (voluminous) literature on crucifixion.
I agree there’s nothing wrong with the paper, I disagree with the idea that they were paying lip service to respiratory difficulty.
In fact, since the purpose of breaking the leg(s) was to hasten death, and that Roman soldiers probably not having advanced medical degrees, were doing so to prevent them from pushing up to alleviate the very condition you describe, the passage is completely relevant.
So why am I sure of the respiratory angle?
Well we have it on good authority that “in fact, exhalation is produced by tension in the abdominal muscles, elevating the diaphragm, and intercostal muscles squeezing down the ribs, NOT by pushing up with the legs.
and yet pushing up with the legs would alleviate the conditions producing exhalation. You’d agree with that,right? This is to say that the very things causing you to exhale aren’t consistent for the ability to inhale. Further, you leave out the physical torment prior to crucifixion.
My point was a straightforward one: it is not necessary to fix or support the feet to allow the suffering victim to breathe. It therefore remains plausible that Jesus would not have had wounds in his feet, and therefore would have been able to walk.
Well, there’s absolutely no evidence of nailed feet; yet since we know nothing of what exactly being “tormented with all sorts of tortures” might include, I don’t think it makes sense to assume there were no injuries to his feet; particularly since Mark tells us “… Simon of Cyrene…was passing by on his way in from the country, and the soldiers forced him to carry the cross of Jesus.
As to the cross-bar… The purpose of increasing the traction force on the arms was to induce pain, NOT as you scornfully imply, to cause death.
No I certainly don’t believe increasing traction force on the arms would cause death and I certainly don’t the Romans crucified people to get torn ligaments. Inducing pain in the arms had the same affect as nailed feet. To cause the victim to torture himself.
I can sympathize, Spiker, with frustration evident in your many comments about the shortcomings of arguments presented by those with fixed views, particularly those which are faith-based.
I don’t have a problem with fixed views or even necessarily “faith based” views, but
find it particularly odd that one could present their views (based only on “self evidence” while ignoring data that makes their claims problematic
The skeptical position that the post-crucifixion appearances of Jesus were literary fabrications has a great deal to commend it, especially in view of the catalog of deficiencies in the historical evidence.
Yes, but the deficiencies don’t hold up the idea that the stories are fabrications.
I have little doubt that Jesus never rose from the dead, but can certainly understand how grieving people might think they have seen him alive. That Paul seems to have undergone a radical conversion after such an experience, suggests his experience was not fabricated
“… is it also plausible that the tales might have grown from the experience of eyewitnesses who encountered a dazed, disorientated, wounded survivor wandering about?”
No, there’s less evidence for that than for the resurrection. Again why would these people not notice that he was “…dazed, disorientated, wounded” You seem to think that 1.) That no one would notice this despite talking to him while
he wasn’t making “a great deal of sense”
Thanks again, Spiker, for your detailed analysis.
The issue I am trying to explain is why the accounts of post-crucifixion appearances have Jesus not being immediately recognized. I suggested that he was difficult to recognize because of his injuries and that he did not promptly identify himself to his acquaintances because of the brain damage he suffered. You raise two problems with my suggestions: Why no mention of injuries? and Why no mention of dementia?
First, injuries. The gospels are conspicuously lacking in description. We are given no idea of anyone’s appearance. The carriage of the stories over decades as fragments in the oral tradition explains the focus on sayings, such as parables, and on significant events, rather than on descriptive detail. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence {to use the well-worn cliche}. So I don’t think we can argue from absence of mention of injuries that Jesus was uninjured, easily recognizable.
It was also quite common in the poverty-stricken regions of the ancient world for many people to be sick or injured for much of the time. The statistics of the Roman army indicate the impact of disease. Frequently only half to two thirds of the soldiers of a legion were fit for battle at any one time. And that is the Roman army, well-organized, well fed, and with attending physicians, not the poor peasantry! If Jesus were sick-looking, bruised and battered as he wandered along, it would not be remarkable enough to be preserved in an oral tradition.
Secondly, brain damage or dementia. Jesus was not talking to today’s trained psychiatrists or even to the Greek physicians of his era. He was speaking to the illiterate peasants, fishermen and shepherds of 1st century Palestine. Our experience today is that demented patients who are unable to recognize friends can still talk fluently. In an informal social setting, they can get by, speaking elliptically and in generalities, spiced with the occasional recollected anecdote. It is only when they wander and become lost, or are asked to recall specific detail, that their deficits become apparent to a lay audience.
Remember also that concepts of mental illness were rather different in the ancient world. Someone who was manifestly ranting might be harboring a demon. But the failing faculties of dementia or brain damage were not recognized as an actual illness. King Herod the Great, who died in 4 BCE, was clearly demented, murdering his wife, firstborn son and numerous members of his extended family. But at the time he was not regarded as mentally incompetent: the Romans did not replace their client king, nor did his court seek Roman help to remove him from office.
There is simply not enough detail in the gospel accounts of the post-crucifixion appearances to assess the mental state of Jesus. Luke has some sensible-sounding dialog, but it is all very general. And it is implausible that the recorded dialog in the gospels could be accurate records of words actually spoken. Never forgetting, of course, Luke is particularly good at making his story sound sensible {a trait of a physician??? … let’s not get into that debate!}.
Other issues: Let us put aside questions about the mechanics of crucifixion, since we are agreed that whether Jesus had foot wounds inhibiting his mobility is not the major issue in assessing the stories of post-crucifixion appearances.
Overall: if we postulate a factual basis for the resurrection stories, one of the most puzzling features is Jesus not being immediately recognized. The gospels are written as if this had some mystical significance. But doesn’t actually make much sense. And why would the authors have invented such a counter-intuitive element?
I suggest the rational solution is that Jesus was difficult to recognize, and was mentally damaged to the extent that he did not promptly identify himself. If we think about how stories were carried in the oral tradition, it is only those encounters with people who did eventually recognize Jesus that would be preserved. A surviving but unrecognizable Jesus would probably have met many who engaged him in conversation, and even offered food and shelter, but such encounters would be forgotten.
Imagine the evening conversation over a meal, after the journey on the road to Emmaus. Eventually, Jesus might have mentioned some notorious event, such as the ruckus in the temple. Recognition dawns. “You’re Jesus the Nazarene, who preached on the coming Kingdom of God!” And that would be a story told, and retold, down the decades until it reached the ears of our gospel author, Luke.
Trevelyan, I think you have the makings of a very fine novel of historical fiction there! Perhaps it could rival The DiVinci Code. Add in some of the remarkable stories about his mother, Mary, and his possible marriage and it could sell like hotcakes. Seriously, what is the point? Is it to deny Jesus’ resurrection? I can do do that without all the tortured physiological manipulations. It can be explained as wishful and/or delusional thinking magnified by multiple retellings. People have powerful imaginations and charismatic individuals can make some others believe the most amazing things, alien abductions anyone? Golden plates the angel Moroni took back to heaven before anyone but Joseph Smith could read them? Scientology? The Jonestown Kool-aid suicides? The list is endless. See PT Barnham and Houdini. But you do have the makings of a great book!
First, injuries. The gospels are conspicuously lacking in description. We are given no idea of anyone’s appearance. The carriage of the stories over decades as fragments in the oral tradition explains the focus on sayings, such as parables, and on significant events, rather than on descriptive detail. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence {to use the well-worn cliche}. So I don’t think we can argue from absence of mention of injuries that Jesus was uninjured, easily recognizable.
Good thing I wasn’t doing that. It’s not about the text but the nature of the story itself. While we might not be able to argue from absence of “mention” a point I never raised- You posit that,
It was also quite common in the poverty-stricken regions of the ancient world for many people to be sick or injured for much of the time. The statistics of the Roman army indicate the impact of disease. Frequently only half to two thirds of the soldiers of a legion were fit for battle at any one time. And that is the Roman army, well-organized, well fed, and with attending physicians, not the poor peasantry! If Jesus were sick-looking, bruised and battered as he wandered along, it would not be remarkable enough to be preserved in an oral tradition.
Yet we aren’t talking about disease. And commonality isn’t synonymous with going unnoticed . Further, we are talking about Traumatic injuries resulting in a person who, according to your own analysis would cause the victim to be “disoriented and confused”and not making “a great deal of sense” I don’t really see why “illiterate peasants, fishermen and shepherds of 1st century Palestine.” would need to be like “today’s specialists to notice.
Our experience today is that demented patients who are unable to recognize friends can still talk fluently. In an informal social setting, they can get by, speaking elliptically and in generalities, spiced with the occasional recollected anecdote. It is only when they wander and become lost, or are asked to recall specific detail, that their deficits become apparent to a lay audience.
Again we aren’t talking about Dementia and it seems to be precisely that Jesus would have been, according to your previous posts, wandering and lost. I still don’t see how you think extensive injuries would go unnoticed.
Remember also that concepts of mental illness were rather different in the ancient world. Someone who was manifestly ranting might be harboring a demon. But the failing faculties of dementia or brain damage were not recognized as an actual illness. King Herod the Great, who died in 4 BCE, was clearly demented, murdering his wife, firstborn son and numerous members of his extended family. But at the time he was not regarded as mentally incompetent: the Romans did not replace their client king, nor did his court seek Roman help to remove him from office.
Sure so long as you remember no one is suggesting Jesus was mentally ill
There is simply not enough detail in the gospel accounts of the post-crucifixion appearances to assess the mental state of Jesus.
And therefore no reason to suggest your hypothesis is credible
Other issues: Let us put aside questions about the mechanics of crucifixion, since we are agreed that whether Jesus had foot wounds inhibiting his mobility is not the major issue in assessing the stories of post-crucifixion appearances.
On the contrary, an inability to walk undercuts your theory. If Jesus had foot or leg wounds, it makes it that much less credible that he then walked 6 or more miles to Emmaus. Now since Mark suggests that very fact, I don’t see that you have (pardon the pun), a leg to stand on
Overall: if we postulate a factual basis for the resurrection stories, one of the most puzzling features is Jesus not being immediately recognized. The gospels are written as if this had some mystical significance. But doesn’t actually make much sense. And why would the authors have invented such a counter-intuitive element?
That really depends on what the authors were trying to do. If they are taking their Q from Mark, then they may simply be repeating Mark’s details. And yet they may have had a dramatic motive to tell their story in that way. They may have had a polemical motive.
I don’t think we can describe the story as “counter-intuitive” if we really don’t know what the”factual basis for the resurrection stories” was. Simply selecting details because they seem consistent with your theory, doesn’t make them any more real. Your whole hypothesis rests heavily on SPECULATION and insinuation: Because people with Dementia today can walk far and “get by” Jesus survival must be the “factual basis for the resurrection stories”
Further the Emmaus story really only appears in Luke. Mark’s version is way too vague to know if it’s the same story or not. Consequently, it barely passes the independent sources test.
Imagine the evening conversation over a meal, after the journey on the road to Emmaus. Eventually, Jesus might have mentioned some notorious event, such as the ruckus in the temple. Recognition dawns. “You’re Jesus the Nazarene, who preached on the coming Kingdom of God!” And that would be a story told, and retold, down the decades until it reached the ears of our gospel author, Luke.
Well, one, we have no way of knowing whether the two companions would have known about this story or any other. Why in his presence they would not only miss injuries, etc but would not conclude that he had survived. Lastly, actual cases of survival, if Josephus is reliable, makes your theory even more improbable: Of the 3 who were taken off their crosses, and given immediate medical attention, two later died. In the case of Jesus there’s not a shred, spec, iota or quanta of evidence suggesting he survived, or received medical attention. And I’m pretty sure neither of the 3 walked 6 or more miles.
Trevelyan wrote
Jesus appearing but not immediately being recognized is multiply attested. This peculiar feature, which surely cannot have been added for dramatic effect, is a constant in three different stories. Further, it is from two different sources: Luke {road to Emmaus} and John {Mary M at the tomb, and the fishermen}. Why invent contrived explanations when there is an obvious one which is consistent with contemporary experience of dealing with victims of violence and road trauma? Injured people are difficult to recognize, especially if their faces are swollen and bruised. And Jesus, if he survived crucifixion, had a profound neurological deficit: he was probably confused and disorientated, unable to recognize his friends.
Actually the motif of divine “hiddenness” found in some of the post-resurrection appearances is probably derived from a similar motif found in some of the early OT stories where Yahweh or more commonly the figure of the “Angel of the Lord” is first identified as a human being and only subsequently recognized as divine.
Let me recommend Hebrew scholar James L Kugel’s ** you do not have permission to see this link **, the first third of which discusses the figure of the “Angel of the Lord” and just this idea of divine “confusion”.
Could it possibly have been that Jesus was wearing a flowing head covering. Knowing how shocking His appearance would be, He might have taken His time in allowing Himself to be recognized by keeping his face partially covered? Since no one was expecting to see Him, that alone might have caused Jesus not to be recognized immediately especially if His face was partially hidden by the head covering. (Just speculating here.)
Hi Magpie.
Let me just reassure you I have no intention to produce such a travesty. The fanciful interpretation of the Emmaus encounter was to explore the type of events that MIGHT have been preserved in an oral tradition, contrasting with the (perhaps many) events that would seem so commonplace that they would be lost. This arose out of a long exchange with the redoubtable Spiker, who has an answer for everything.
Hi Trevelyan,
I do tend to toward an Occam’s razor approach to the murky history of the NT. I came across as perhaps more harsh than I meant to. While I do appreciate your scholarship and that of others here, I find so many parallels to current events and personages that I find no mystery in the confusion of historical stories and people. Your explanation of why Jesus was not immediately recognized is possible, but I really cannot believe that he survived crucifixion in any shape or form. I think people saw what they wanted to see and interpreted stories to fit what they wanted to be true. I do think your explanation could really be an interesting book. I was not kidding about that. Sorry if I was a bit flip, I do tend to see things from a humorous and secular point of view. I realize that many who are wiser and more scholarly than I hold other beliefs. I apologize if I offended you. Please keep up the interesting posts!
Stephen said
Actually the motif of divine “hiddenness” found in some of the post-resurrection appearances is probably derived from a similar motif found in some of the early OT stories where Yahweh or more commonly the figure of the “Angel of the Lord” is first identified as a human being and only subsequently recognized as divine.
Let me recommend Hebrew scholar James L Kugel’s ** you do not have permission to see this link **, the first third of which discusses the figure of the “Angel of the Lord” and just this idea of divine “confusion”.
Another point to consider is one Prof Ehrman made, that Mark’s theme is that it is precisely unlikely who do recognize Jesus. Your point about Peter in a previous post is well taken, minus the motive. It is interesting that Peter seems to fade in the NT. One wonders if he remained a Jewish follower and was simply eclipsed by the increasingly Gentile nature of the movement.
Geza Vermes, in his book on the resurrection says that Jesus death seems to have hit his disciples out of the blue. It’s not too hard to see a gap of sorts between how the disciples may have understood him during his lifetime and how they did after coming to believe in his resurrection (that is to say if they saw him as a mere human, but later began thinking of him as divine). It’s not too hard to believe that people telling and retelling the stories were confronted with this purported gap. and that “divine confusion recommended itself as a believable explanation.
magpie said
Hi Trevelyan,I do tend to toward an Occam’s razor approach to the murky history of the NT. I came across as perhaps more harsh than I meant to. While I do appreciate your scholarship and that of others here, I find so many parallels to current events and personages that I find no mystery in the confusion of historical stories and people. Your explanation of why Jesus was not immediately recognized is possible, but I really cannot believe that he survived crucifixion in any shape or form. I think people saw what they wanted to see and interpreted stories to fit what they wanted to be true. I do think your explanation could really be an interesting book. I was not kidding about that. Sorry if I was a bit flip, I do tend to see things from a humorous and secular point of view. I realize that many who are wiser and more scholarly than I hold other beliefs. I apologize if I offended you. Please keep up the interesting posts!
Mags
Ahh that crazy Friar Occam, insisting that explanations aren’t too strained!
And isn’t it already a book published by Dr. Brown?
Hi Spikes,
you are correct, of course, Dan Brown’s book The Da Vinci Code is very popular, but surely there is enough material to come up with another good book. It has been years since I read The Da Vinci Code, perhaps there are others out there that I am not aware of. Even if some of the main characters might be roughly the same, a different tale could be told, eh?
Hi Magpie! Thanks for your thoughts. And certainly no offense taken!
The focus in contemporary resurrection research is to explain how the disciples came to their beliefs without any objective evidence of Jesus’ survival. If we explore the contrary view, that Jesus somehow DID survive, the disciples belief is no longer puzzling, but we are faced with the problem of explaining how a victim of Roman crucifixion might have survived.
Most historians reject the idea of a naturalistic (non-miraculous) survival on the grounds of commonsense plus a body of published medical opinion, such as the iconic paper by Edwards, Gabriel & Hosmer in the Journal of the American Medical Association [volume 255, March 1986, pp 1455-1463] detailing the injuries typically inflicted by crucifixion and concluding that they were definitely not survivable.
There are two flaws in this orthodox view. The first is that medical opinions are inherently probabilistic, and the statistics of rare or unique events contain a subtlety which is seldom recognized. The question is usually stated as: “What is the probability of a victim of crucifixion surviving?” And the answer is that it is so low as to be not appreciably different from zero. This is true, but irrelevant. If Jesus became famous only because of his resurrection, the relevant formulation becomes: “What is the probability that among 10,000 or more victims, there will be ONE survivor rather than NONE?” That gives us pause. Can we ever be so certain of something that we will be right 10,000 times out of 10,000, rather than 9,999 times out of 10,000…?
The second flaw in the orthodox position is a misunderstanding of the nature of death. We feel intuitively that death is a state that is easily identified from the stillness of a body without pulse, breathing or movement. We believe that death occurs in a moment of time, unambiguously separating life from the irreversible loss of life. But as doctors and paramedics have learned in the last few decades, these instinctive views about death are quite false.
As we now understand it, death is not a STATE but a PROCESS. Death progresses over a time course with the successive failure of the organs and systems required for the maintenance of life. With skill and luck, we can often maintain a patient whose heart has stopped, using CPR to keep the brain alive while we rectify the heart problem with intravenous drugs and/or electrical counter-shock from a defibrillator. Little more than half a century ago, such patients would certainly have died, but today many leave the hospital in good health.
How plausible, therefore, is it that Jesus’ apparent death was a misdiagnosis? That he was in the final stages of deterioration from loss of blood and body fluids {stage IV of hypovolemic shock}, deeply unconscious and unresponsive to painful stimuli, but not quite in complete circulatory arrest?
Even today, we see occasional cases where patients awaken in the morgue as startled attendants are preparing a place in the cold storage. Paramedics know that they have a very technical and serious task ahead when they are called to assess a patient who has died in the last hour or so. And in the hospital environment, we occasionally encounter the Lazarus Phenomenon, where patients recover unexpectedly, several minutes after an apparently unsuccessful resuscitation has been abandoned [a report in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, volume 100, Dec 2007, pp 552-557, reviews 38 cases from the medical literature. Recoveries were reported up to 20 minutes after CPR had ceased]. Even experienced medicos supported by electronic monitoring equipment will occasionally be in error when declaring that all hope of restoring life has vanished.
There are several features of the biblical story which support the possibility of a survival as a rare, but non-miraculous, event. These are all questioned by historians, but are still worthy of consideration. The time on the cross was only 6 hours, rather than days. The body was taken down, rather than being left on the cross to decay. The body was laid supine, improving cardiovascular function. The tomb was cool, favoring recovery of fluid from the periphery to improve blood flow to the brain. The body was attended, so someone may have witnessed a return to consciousness and given him fluids. Additionally, we have Pilate’s reluctance, which could be a whitewash, but if real might have overflowed to the soldiers so that the pre-crucifixion damage was less than the usual.
All these points are doubtful, as everyone on this blog will agree. And medical experience is that anyone as far gone in hypovolemic shock as Jesus seemed to be would almost certainly die, even with modern efforts at resuscitation.
But we are not trying to determine what is probable, or what would happen in most cases. We are trying to determine if there is a plausible mechanism by which ONE among tens of thousands of victims might have survived. Of course, the lead in the saddlebags of this argument is the ridiculous Swoon Theory from the 19th century, pilloried in the academic literature for over a century. Jesus obviously didn’t just faint. His loss of consciousness {whether he eventually recovered or not} was due to the decrease in blood flow to the brain as his circulation failed in the final stages of shock.
There are many medical/biological technicalities in this discussion, which are perhaps not really appropriate for a blog on historical analysis of ancient documents. Although we don’t usually give personal details in these blogs, it might be relevant that, although yours truly is indeed an amateur in historical studies, I am in fact an elderly doctor and medical academic, from the generation which, 50 years ago, invented resuscitation techniques and coronary care facilities, thus revolutionizing our understanding of the process of death. I could be wrong… Totally on the wrong track… But at least my opinions are based on profession knowledge, rather than being the rantings of an over-active imagination.
I commend the idea of an actual survival, unfashionable as it is, to your thoughtful consideration.
Ahh, Trevelyan, thank you for this last post! I assumed you were a physician from your detailed analysis of the physical and physiological effects of crucifixion. I understand now much more your approach. I also salute your work in coronary care and resuscitation techniques. I am also elderly and a retired nurse and have observed the results of your efforts and have seen many lives saved thereby. I agree that determining death is a chancy diagnosis and that there are many well documented instances in which errors were made. Perhaps “saved by the bell” should be reinstituted in morgues and hospitals.
Yours is a fascinating approach. I will have to think more deeply about it. You write well and clearly, any hope that a book could be coaxed from your proposition?
Assuming that Jesus did survive the cruxifiction, how does this hypothesis play out? He recovers enough to walk and to talk with his disciples and various other folks, but what is the denouement of these events? At some point he must either die a corporeal death or be taken into heaven. How do you see it?
Hi Magpie! My guess, based on nothing more than medical commonsense, is that Jesus {if he indeed survived the crucifixion} would have died about 10 days later. As you will recall, an episode of severe hypotension in hypovolemic shock almost inevitably leads to renal failure in the Acute Tubular Necrosis pattern. In today’s intensive care situation, we dialyse such patients for about a fortnight, until the kidneys are regenerated. Without such intervention, the patient will sink into coma from aberrations of blood chemistry {particularly metabolic acidosis}.
The other lethal factor in the story is the compound fractures from the nails. As we know, freshly broken bone is particularly prone to infection, inevitable in pre-antibiotic days with any penetrating wound. Septicemia would almost certainly have developed. The victim would lapse into septic shock, hemolytic uremic syndrome, multiple organ failure…
Acts says it was 40 days before Jesus “ascended to heaven.” Forty is a favored number in scripture, and I think Luke just plucked the number out of the air. All the same, IF Jesus survived in good enough condition to walk and talk, he would probably have kept mobile for a few days, certainly long enough to encounter a handful of people who might remember him.
As for a book on this topic, I think it would probably need to be a multi-author work between a serious biblical scholar and specialists in EMST and Intensive Care. I did discuss some of these issues in about 10 pages of a “Bible for Dummies” section in a book I wrote on the very abstract topic of the impact of Relativity and Quantum Theory on our concept of Eternity. I wouldn’t recommend anyone in bible studies to buy the print version, but an electronic version is available from Amazon as a freebie for Kindle subscribers, or for the minimum price of a dollar to purchase. As I say, the biblical chapter is very low level, being aimed at popular science readers, but the Resurrection section goes into some detail on the issues we have been discussing here {search Amazon for author Trevelyan, title Eternity…}.
Anyway, thanks for your encouragement, and I look forward to your further thoughts on this topic.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)