This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Gerschon Suster, MD; Israel Suster
Dallas

JAMA. 1986;255(20):2752.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.—

In the article, "On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ,"¹ a historically inaccurate version of the events leading to Jesus' death is portrayed (although I am not disputing the physiopathological assertions). The reliance of Edwards et al on the New Testament Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as a primary basis for deriving historical data is unfounded. The Gospels are a set of theological documents that are not necessarily historical. The reliance on the scriptures as a source of scientific inquiry pertaining to the actual history of Jesus has been refuted by biblical scholars.^2-4

The many accounts of Jesus' death have been tainted by the lack of scientific empiricism on behalf of religious historians attempting to record his life. The authors of the Gospels were not fundamentally interested in recording reliable historical data. Rather, they were "interested in presenting him as seen through the . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?