7.4 Hallucination theory

Published by 1c15 on

Reading Time: 4 minutes

Explanatory scope

The hallucination theory has narrow explanatory scope. It says nothing to explain the empty tomb. Therefore, one must either deny the fact of the empty tomb (and, therefore, the burial as well) or else conjoin some independent theory to the hallucination theory to account for the empty tomb.

Again, the hallucination theory says nothing to explain the origin of the disciples’ belief in Jesus’ resurrection. Some scholars have made a great deal out of the alleged similarities between the postmortem appearances of Jesus and visions of the recently departed on the part of the bereaved. But the overriding lesson of such intriguing stories is that the bereaved do not conclude that the deceased has returned physically to life as a result of such experiences, however real and tangible they may seem—rather the deceased is seen in the afterlife. As N.T Wright observes, for someone in the ancient world, visions of the deceased are not evidence that the person is alive, but evidence that he is dead! Moreover, in a Jewish context, more appropriate interpretations of such experiences than resurrection are close to hand. Given the current Jewish beliefs about life after death, the disciples, if they were to project hallucinations of Jesus, would have seen Jesus in heaven or in Abraham’s bosom, where the souls of the righteous dead were believed to abide until the final resurrection. And such visions would not have led to belief in Jesus’ resurrection. At the most, it would have only led the disciples to say that Jesus had been assumed into heaven, not raised from the dead. It needs to be emphasized that for the Jew an assumption into heaven is not the same as a resurrection. Assumption is the taking of someone bodily out of this world into heaven. Resurrection is the raising up of a dead man in the space-time universe. They are distinct ideas.

Given Jewish beliefs concerning assumption and resurrection, the disciples, having seen heavenly visions of Jesus, would not have preached that Jesus had been raised from the dead. At the very most, the empty tomb and hallucinations of Jesus would have caused them to believe in the assumption of Jesus into glory, for this was consistent with their Jewish frame of thought. But they wouldn’t have come to believe that Jesus had been raised from the dead, for this contradicted Jewish beliefs about the resurrection of the dead, as we have seen. Thus, even given hallucinations, belief in Jesus’ resurrection remains unexplained.

Explanatory power

The hallucination theory obviously does nothing to explain the empty tomb and the origin of the disciples’ belief in Jesus’ resurrection. But it arguably has weak explanatory power even when it comes to the appearances. Suppose that Peter was one of those individuals who experienced a vision of a deceased loved one or experienced a guilt-induced vision, as critical scholar Gerd Lüdemann imagines. Would this suffice to explain the resurrection appearances? Not really, for the diversity of the appearances bursts the bounds of anything found in the psychological casebooks. Jesus appeared not just one time, but many times; not at just one locale and circumstance, but at a variety of places and under a variety of circumstances; not to just one individual, but to different persons; not just to individuals, but to various groups; not just to believers, but to unbelievers and even enemies. Positing a chain reaction among the disciples won’t solve the problem because people like James and Paul don’t stand in the chain. Those who would explain the resurrection appearances psychologically are compelled to construct a composite picture by cobbling together different unrelated cases of hallucinatory experiences, which only serves to underline the fact that there’s nothing like the resurrection appearances in the psychological casebooks.

Illumination of history

I’ll be brief. Without Paul, much of european history, and all the church fathers that follow, leave a huge gaping hole in the rise of Christianity. The credit to Paul is overwhelming in spreading the early claims of Christianity. 

Less ad hoc

Lüdemann’s version of the hallucination theory is contrived in a number of ways: For example, it assumes that the disciples fled back to Galilee after Jesus’ arrest, that Peter was so obsessed with guilt that he projected a hallucination of Jesus, that the other disciples were also prone. Where’s this evidence springing from?

Plausibility

Some of the accepted beliefs of New Testament scholars today tend to disconfirm the hallucination theory, at least as Lüdemann presents it which is considered the holding hallucination theory; for example, the beliefs that Jesus was laid in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea, that Jesus’ tomb was discovered empty by women, that psychoanalysis of historical figures is not feasible, that Paul was basically content with his life under the Jewish law, and that the New Testament makes a distinction between a mere vision and a resurrection appearance. 

The hallucination theory remains a live option today for some and in that respect has outstripped its naturalistic rivals. But the question is whether it outstrips the resurrection theory. Many today will hold onto a miracle and grant mass hallucinations multiple times in audibly and visibly, to friend and foe alike with no evidence. This probabilistically would have huge problems and would literally be a miracle to be true!

T


0 Comments

Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder

Your email address will not be published.