This post contains two posts on 11/8/2026 by Keith P. Myers to the TRC about Frederick Zugibe’s book “The Crucifixion of Jesus: A Forensic Inquiry.”. Including Keith’s posts here is for reference purposes only.
This is from Frederick Zugibe’s book “The Crucifixion of Jesus: A Forensic Inquiry.” The second half of his book covers the Shroud of Turin and outlines what he believes are the facts about it.
The Crucifixion
This is a very interesting book. “The Crucifixion of Jesus: A Forensic Inquiry” by Frederick T. Zugibe, MD, PhD. Zugibe is a Forensic Pathologist with a PhD in Anatomy, so very qualified to provide an assessment. He has also been a member of the formal group that has studied the Shroud of Turin. The first half of this book is about his research into Crucifixion in general and the Crucifixion of Jesus in particular. He has conducted studies using a cross constructed for the purpose from which he can suspend volunteers and monitor all kinds of physiological responses. Based on this and his over 30 years working as coroner & forensic pathologist, I believe he is very likely the expert on this topic worldwide. I will summarize his conclusions about the Crucifixion here, and do a separate post about what he concludes about the Shroud. Zugibe is a “believer” but does manage to be objective. He seems to follow the Gospel of Luke the most closely when it comes to the events leading up to the Crucifixion. His basic conclusions are as follows:
Sweating blood in the Garden of Gethsemane. This is called “hematidrosis.” It is not well-understood, but is a documented medical phenomen. This can occur under conditions of extreme stress and anxiety which somehow causes rupture or leakage of the small capillaries surrounding the sweat glands.
The Scourging. The Roman Flagrum had a handle with about 3 leather straps attached. At the end of each strap was attached a mass of some sort. It could be chunks of metal or bone. In the case of Jesus, it is proposed that the Flagrum had small dumbbell-shaped pieces of metal attached, because this is the pattern of injury seen on the shroud. This would not have caused huge rips and tears in the skin as has been seen when slaves in the south were flogged during this dark period of American history. Rather it would produce bruising and deeper injury from the impacts, almost like being struck over and over again with a small hammer. It would also cause breaks in the skin which would bleed, but not necessarily the “bloody mess” you would expect from flogging. Zugibe proposes that Jesus was scourged rather severely because Pilate, being hesitant to crucify Jesus hoped that a severe scourging would satisfy the Temple authorities, and that this is why Pilate gave the crowd the choice of who to crucify, still hoping he could avoid crucifying Jesus. This kind of punishment could easily cause bruising and bleeding within the lungs and even a hemothorax. Zugibe relates a story of a young healthy teen who had been beaten by his father with a lamp cord and a leather belt until he died. He had superficial injuries very similar to what shows on the Shroud, but pretty severe internal injuries that lead to his death. Zugibe’s point was that had Jesus been scourged rather severely, he was in very bad shape by the time he was put on the cross.
The Crown of Thorns. Given blood patterns on the Shroud, Zugibe concluded that this was a “cap” shape and not a “circlet” as it is typically shown in artwork. Given that the scalp is very vascular, and the area around the face very sensitive, this was no doubt very painful and bloody.
The Shape of the Cross. We have many misconceptions from artwork over the centuries. The cross very likely did not tower over the landscape. This would be too difficult to erect and wood was not easily found. The typical cross was very likely just tall enough that the victim couldn’t touch the ground and that any observers would almost be looking the victim eye to eye. The cross was likely NOT the “t” shape from artwork, but rather a “T” or Tau shape. Jesus did not carry the entire cross on his way to Calvary. This would weigh upwards of 100 to 120 lbs and after his scourging he would not have been capable. He likely only carried the cross piece. This was later either attached to the upright and then the whole thing erected, or more likely was lifted up and set into a notch on the top of an already erected upright.
Nailing. The nails likely went at a bit of an angle through the palm at the base of the thumb (thenar crease) and emerged at the back of the hand just above the wrist. This matches the blood pattern seen on the Shroud. Zugibe shows that this is a more secure location than the center of the palm and could actually pass through the hand without breaking any bones or severing any significant arteries. He notes a woman he autosopied that had been attacked with knife and had a defensive wound through this exact location. He was able to see the results firsthand. The feet were placed with the soles flat against the upright of the cross and nailed through the top of the foot. This would mean that the knees were bent to almost 90 degrees.
Cause of Death. A very popular theory is that a crucifixion victim died of asphyxiation. The idea was that hanging on the cross prevented him from inhaling and that in order to take a breath the victim had to push his body up with his legs each time. As he legs tired and he became unable to do this, he essentially suffocated. Zugibe discounted this theory very thoroughly! First, during his experiments with volunteers up on a cross with their knees bent to approximately 90 degrees, NONE of them could lift themselves up by pressing with their legs! They simply did not have the mechanical advantage to do this. Second, with their arms extended out on the cross, none of the experimental subjects had any problems with breathing. The original person that proposed this theory based it on stories from Nazi concentration camps where victims were hung from posts with their arms extended directly overhead. This does restrict the breathing, but is very different from the position on the cross. Zugibe concluded that Jesus died of shock. Many things can contribute to shock….severe pain, severe stress/anxiety, and hypvolemia from dehyration & blood loss. Jesus would have experienced all three. Zugibe believes that it should not be suprising that Jesus was dead within 6 hours of being put on the cross. He had the severe fear/anxiety response noted in the Garden. He was scourged more severely than may have been typical & given a “crown of throwns” both of which would have lead to bleeding internal & external. It was a hot day and he was sweating alot. He was fatigued and weakened by his ordeal in the garden and his trial. He was in severe pain from the scourging, the crown of thorns, and the nails through his hands & feet.
The Spear Thrust. Many have tried to say that the “blood & water” from the spear thrust was a sign that he was alive at the time. Zugibe shows that this is not true. Jesus was already dead at that point. His flogging would have produced significant lung injuries with a “pleural effusion” or fluid accumulation. That was the “water.” If the spear entered the heart, it would have pulled blood with it when it was retracted. That was the “blood.” A beating heart would not have caused blood to go out of the spear wound as some have suggested. That blood would have went into the lungs, and a negative pressure would have drawn things inward into the lungs. This is how you get the classic “sucking chest wound.”
Of course, Zugibe had a LOT more to say in the book! This is just a brief summary of his main conclusions. I will address his summary of findings about the Shroud [below].
The Shroud of Turin
Zugibe is an MD/PhD with credentials as a forensic pathologist & coroner as well as a doctorate degree in Anatomy. He is one of the few scientists that has had the privilege of directly viewing the shroud seven times. Here are the high points of his assessment, which is based upon decades of research from shroud experts:
- The Blood: The blood stains have been analyzed and confirmed to be actual blood based on chemical analysis. The shroud is not a “bloody mess”, because the body of Jesus was washed upon being taken down from the cross and wrapped in the shroud, which is following Jewish tradition. The body continued to seep blood and fluid after death and this is what is seen on the shroud. When a blood stain is removed from the shroud, there is no image beneath it, suggesting that the blood stains were made before the image was formed…something very unlikely if this was an artist’s creation. When viewed under ultraviolet light, the blood stains show a surrounding halo of albumin staining which is not apparent to the naked eye. This is another factor that an artist of the Middle Ages would not have been aware of or capable of reproducing, and also shows that the stain was from real blood and not paint.
- The Image: No paints or pigments have ever been found on the shroud, nor is there any “directionality” within the image that would suggest brushstrokes. It still has not been established how the image was formed, but many possibilities have been ruled out. When viewed normally, the image on the shroud is somewhat difficult to make out. But when a photo is taken of the shroud, the negative from it shows the shroud in surprising clarity. The shroud image as been described as acting just like a negative of a photograph when it is filmed. There is no way an artist of the Middle Ages would have been able to predict this or reproduce it. There is a “cloth-to-body” distance relationship in the intensity of the image. The image is more intense where the cloth was in contact with the body and less intense where it was not. The image itself only involves the surface of the shroud fibrils and does not penetrate all the way through. Again, it is hard to imagine an artist able to achieve this.
- The Body: The shroud image gives the causal viewer the impression of a body laid out flat. But analysis shows a body that was in rigor mortis. The rigor of the arms had been broken in order to bring them down and crossed in front of the body. But the head and upper body were bent forward and the knees were still partially bent. The image on the back panel is longer than the image on the front because it was stretched out by the body being mildly curled forward. The blood stains from the body are consistent with wounds described in the gospels….lots of bleeding around the head from the crown of thorns, areas of bleeding on the back and chest forming a “dumbbell” pattern consistent with scourging, bleeding at the right ribcage consistent with the spear wound, and bleeding near the wrist consistent with nailing of the hands. The nose shows a separation of the cartilage from a blow, but not really a broken bone. The face shows swelling from being beaten and may have had “widow’s mites” placed over the closed eyes.
- Carbon 14 Dating. This was done in 1987 and came back dating the shroud to 1260 – 1390 CE. When this was published it created a stir around the world with many people concluding that the shroud was a medieval forgery or piece of art. The controversy around this dating would take an entire separate post. But I will point out that scientists had proposed a pretty stringent sampling criteria with blinded testing at multiple labs. However, at the last minute, the Turin authorities chose not to follow what was proposed and sampled only a single area and sent it to only a few labs that were not blinded as to what they were testing. It has been suggested that the area sampled was on an edge that may have been a site of repairs during the medieval period and/or that it may have been contaminated. Given that they did not sample multiple sites, the dating was not firmly established as has been claimed, given all the other factors that suggest authenticity.
Does all the mean the shroud is real? I would say it is not so easily dismissed! I think it has been pretty firmly established that it is not a painting. It is still possible that it was created in the Middle Ages using some kind of primitive photographic technique with a cadaver having a remarkable resemblance to Jesus as described in the gospels. But this would not explain the blood stains as noted above. After the image was created photographically in some way, the forger would still have to go back and paint in the blood stains. But when the stains are removed enzymatically there is no image beneath them, suggesting that they were on the cloth first. My prior objections were based on the fact that I assumed that if the victim was flogged, the shroud would be on big bloody mess! But if the body was cleaned before being placed in the shroud this argument is moot. Personally, I am left saying to myself…..”Geez, it’s hard to explain all of these things away!”
Zugibe did not address what seem to me to be obvious quesions. The image clearly shows that the body was laid out on a flat piece of the cloth that was then brought over the head and drapped over the front of the body. It was not “wrapped” like a mummy. I don’t believe this follows typical Jewish burial custom and would not secure the body very well. Additionally, there were no signs of any herbs on the shroud that would have been used to prepare the body. However, if we follow the gospel narrative….Jesus would have been taken down from the cross, his body immeditately washed before transport to the tomb, and then simply laid out on the shroud because sundown was quickly approaching. The intent would then have been to come back after the Sabbath and properly prepare the body with herbs and wrap it up in the typical fashion. But of course the body was gone when Mary returned after the Sabbath. “Poof” into thin air? Or moved to the Talpiot Tomb? Either way, the Shroud was left behind, one gospel even suggesting that it had been folded neatly. Given that the body had bleed on it after death, this blood would have been seen as “unclean”. The shroud would have been discarded and replaced with a fresh one if the body was moved to the Talpiot Tomb where it underwent final preparation and wrapping for burial.
