The Shroud of Turin · Chapter 13 of 21

The final hours: the cause of death and the side wound

What the Gospels say about the death of Jesus, the medical explanations that have been proposed, what the side wound can and cannot show, and where the question remains open

The Gospels say that Jesus died within a few hours of being nailed to the cross, which surprised Pilate. They also report that a soldier pierced his side, and that blood and water came out. Medical writers have proposed several causes of death, and they disagree about which of them was dominant. This chapter sets out the Gospel account, the main hypotheses, and what the cloth can contribute to the question, and it says plainly where the evidence stops.

What the Gospels say

Mark places the crucifixion at the third hour, about nine in the morning, and says that darkness covered the land from the sixth hour until the ninth (Mark 15:25, 33). Jesus cries out and then dies at the ninth hour (Mark 15:34–37). Luke and John give the same sequence in different words.1

Mark records that Pilate was surprised to hear that Jesus had died so soon, and he asked the centurion to confirm it before releasing the body (Mark 15:44–45). John says that the soldiers came to break the legs of the men crucified with Jesus, found that Jesus was already dead, and did not break his legs (John 19:33). Instead, one soldier pierced his side with a spear, and blood and water came out (John 19:34).1

The Gospels do not give a medical cause of death. They describe the events, and they leave the mechanism to later interpretation.

The question of speed

Roman crucifixion could last for hours or days. Josephus records victims who were taken down alive during the siege of Jerusalem, and some survived long enough for their families to ask for the bodies.2 The speed of Jesus’s death, which surprised Pilate, is therefore part of the historical question. Any explanation has to account for why the death came early. The explanation should fit the flogging, the blood loss, and the crucifixion itself, and it should not depend on a single assumption.

Asphyxia

The idea that crucifixion kills by suffocation has a long history. Barbet argued that the victim, hanging by the arms, could not exhale easily and had to push up on the nailed feet to breathe. Over time the muscles tired, the breathing became inadequate, and the victim died of asphyxia.3 Zugibe’s experiments with suspended volunteers found that breathing shifted toward the abdomen and that oxygen levels did not fall in short trials, which weakened the asphyxia model. Zugibe later argued that shock and trauma played a larger role.4

A 2021 survey of medical opinion found that asphyxia was often cited as a contributing mechanism, though the authors made clear that the question remains open.5 A 2023 review by McGovern and colleagues argued that the evidence for suffocation as the primary cause is weaker than often assumed, and that realistic suspension experiments did not reproduce progressive hypoxia.6 The debate is active, and the survey and the review disagree.

Shock and blood loss

Edwards, Gabel, and Hosmer’s 1986 review proposed a multifactorial death. Scourging caused substantial blood loss, and crucifixion interfered with breathing, so that hypovolemic shock and exhaustion-asphyxia both contributed to death.7 Shock from blood loss can cause collapse and death, and the coagulation problems that follow severe trauma can add to the danger.8 On this view, the scourging and the fall with the crossbeam were as important as the crucifixion posture.

Maslen and Mitchell reviewed the medical literature in 2006 and concluded that the evidence was insufficient to say exactly how Roman crucifixion victims died. Different methods and postures could produce different mechanisms.9

Cardiac causes

Some researchers have proposed that the heart or the pericardium was involved. The most developed version holds that fluid or blood collected around the heart, and that the spear released it. This hypothesis is consistent with the side wound, but it depends on the lance reaching the pericardium, which is anatomically demanding from a right-sided entry. The hypothesis is one of several and is not widely accepted as the main cause.

The side wound

The Shroud shows an elliptical wound on the right side of the chest, of roughly four and a half by one and a half centimetres, which has been read as the trace of a lance thrust between the fifth and sixth ribs. The stain below it has two parts, a darker part and a clearer, paler part, and this has been read as blood and serum separated by gravity.10

There are several readings of John’s “blood and water.” One is that the lance released fluid that had collected in the chest, a mixture of blood from a chest injury and clear fluid from the pleural space. On this view, the blood came first if the lance entered the lower part of the chest, where blood had settled, and the clear fluid followed from above. Another reading is that the separation of the two fluids shows the flow was after death, when the heavier blood cells had settled and the serum rose above them.10 A third reading takes the wound to have been made after death, with the stain showing drainage from the chest once the heart had stopped. These readings are not exclusive, and the cloth does not decide between them.

What the side wound can show with more confidence is limited. The flow was not pulsatile, which fits the heart having stopped, and the separation of two fluids suggests that time passed before the lance was used. Whether the wound was made before or after death is a matter of interpretation, and the chapter reports it as such.

What the medical record supports

The sources support a set of conclusions with varying firmness. The Gospels are firm that Jesus died and that his death came sooner than expected. The cloth is consistent with severe blood loss from many wounds, with trauma to the chest, and with positional changes during the crucifixion. The side wound is consistent with the Gospel account of blood and water, and it fits more than one interpretation. The mechanism of death is still debated, and the debate turns on how much weight is given to asphyxia, shock, and trauma.

The medical literature does not allow one cause to be named with confidence. A reasonable summary is that severe flogging, the fall with the beam, the hours on the cross, and the chest injury together brought death, and that the relative contribution of each remains uncertain.

What the cloth can and cannot show

The cloth can show the marks of the wounds, the blood flows that record position, the chest wound, and the separation of blood and serum. It can show that the blood was on the body for some time before the cloth was wrapped. It cannot tell us the exact time of death, the precise mechanism, or whether the lance was used before or after the heart stopped. Those questions remain open, and the chapter has tried to keep the readings in their proper place.

References

  1. Mark 15:25, 33–37, 44–45; John 19:33–34. Mark 15:44–45; John 19:33–34.
  2. Josephus, The Jewish War, on victims of the siege of Jerusalem. Translations are widely available. Publication details to be confirmed before publication.
  3. Barbet, P. (1953). A Doctor at Calvary. New York: P. J. Kenedy & Sons.
  4. Zugibe, F. T. (2005). The Crucifixion of Jesus: A Forensic Inquiry. New York: M. Evans and Company.
  5. Habermas, G., Kopel, J., & Shaw, B. C. F. (2021). Medical views on the death by crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Proceedings (Baylor University Medical Center), 34, 748–752. doi:10.1080/08998280.2021.1951096
  6. McGovern, T. W., Kaminskas, D. A., & Fernandes, E. S. (2023). Did Jesus die by suffocation? An appraisal of the evidence. Linacre Quarterly, 90(1), 64–79. doi:10.1177/00243639221116217
  7. Edwards, W. D., Gabel, W. J., & Hosmer, F. E. (1986). On the physical death of Jesus Christ. JAMA, 255(11), 1455–1463. doi:10.1001/jama.1986.03370110077025
  8. Bergeron, J. W. (2012). The crucifixion of Jesus: review of hypothesized mechanisms of death and implications of shock and trauma-induced coagulopathy. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine, 19(3), 113–116. doi:10.1016/j.jflm.2011.06.001
  9. Maslen, M. W., & Mitchell, P. D. (2006). Medical theories on the cause of death in crucifixion. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99(4), 185–188. doi:10.1177/014107680609900416
  10. Side-wound readings as described in the forensic literature on the Shroud. Primary publication details to be confirmed before publication.