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?

Dennis E. Smith, ThD
Oklahoma State University Stillwater

JAMA. 1986;255(20):2755.

	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.—

The article, "On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ,"¹ is a disgrace to your credibility as a journal of scientific inquiry. The intention throughout the article is to present an apology for the Christian faith, yet it masquerades as a scientific study, which you legitimate by printing it. The apologetic intentions are especially transparent in the concluding paragraph: "Accordingly, interpretations based on the assumption that Jesus did not die on the cross appear to be at odds with modern medical knowledge." This is a non sequitur. Medical data can only lend credibility to what is essentially a historical hypothesis. The hypothesis itself must stand or fall on the basis of the validity of the historical analysis that lies behind it. Yet, the depiction of the death of Jesus that is presented represents an uncritical, literal reading of the biblical text that would not be followed by . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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