Summary

Christian and New Testaments authors have always considered the resurrection of Jesus as proof that God accepted Christ as his chosen one (Acts 2:22–24). The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ serves as the central foundation of the Christian faith. As the apostle Paul states in 1 Corinthians 15:14, "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless, and so is your faith."[1] Thus, multiple scholars have studied the resurrection accounts to determine if the people who said they saw Jesus after his death were telling the truth.

In the same way, skeptics have developed naturalistic explanations to explain the apostle’s initial claim of witnessing the resurrected Jesus. Some have tried comparing the post-mortem appearances of Christ to the recent claims that the Virgin Mary appeared to groups via apparitions. Other critics ascribe the disciple’s testimony to subjective experiences because they mourned over the death of their master, on which they asserted that some subsequently suffered conversion disorder; those who suffer from conversion disorder may suddenly develop neurological symptoms, including blindness or paralysis.[2] Some believe that the physiological response to a traumatic experience is at the root of conversion disorder.[3]

However, the current mainstream naturalistic theory asserts that Jesus' post-mortem appearances were hallucinations, “a false sensory perception that has a compelling sense of reality despite the absence of an external stimulus.”[4] Hence, they argue that we should not understand the post-mortem appearances of Jesus as authentic real-life bodily appearances.

Nonetheless, for the rest of this paper, I will argue that the hallucination theory fails to explain the disciples' testimony of a resurrected Jesus, the empty tomb, the changed lives of the apostles, and the conversion of skeptic James and the early Christian persecutor Paul.

Conversion Disorder

What Are the Skeptics Saying?

Gerd Lüdemann, a biblical scholar and historian, is a famous proponent of the hallucination hypothesis. Lüdemann argues that Paul's usage of the Greek word ophthe, to see, in 1 Corinthians 15:5—" and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the twelve"— signifies that he and the other apostles had an "active sensual perception" of Jesus' resurrection without any distinguishing physical traits.[5] In other words, he indicates that the apostles thought they had seen the risen Jesus, whereas, in reality, they saw a vision, not the bodily resurrected Christ.

Furthermore, Lüdemann argues that Paul reveals his inner strife before conversion in Romans 7. The Jewish God is a "tyrant that punishes people who could not help themselves," he says, while the Christian God is "kind and offers peace to those who embrace his grace."[6] According to Lüdemann, the conflict between Paul’s thoughts regarding the Jewish God and Christian God led to Paul’s inner strife, which consequentially caused his conversion disorder.

Correspondingly, New Testament scholar Michael Goulder offers a comparable interpretation, postulating that intense pressure, shame, and uncertainty led to "conversion visions" for Peter, Paul, and other followers.[7] He believed Paul felt bound to the severe pattern of religion he followed because of Paul’s subsequent remarks regarding the law as a “yoke” that binds one in “spiritual service” (Gal 5:1). Goulder also infers that Paul has acquired a growing dislike for Judaism and secretly began to question the authenticity of the Christian faith.[8]

Responding to Skeptics

 The New Testament scholar and theologian Gary Habermas has devoted his career to examining the theological, historical, and philosophical questions concerning the death and resurrection of Jesus. Habermas argues that Goulder's addition of the other apostles, such as Peter,  is not "factually grounded" since only Paul is confirmed to have displayed the symptoms outlined by Goulder.[9] Furthermore, Habermas adds that the psychological profile for conversion disorder argues against its applicability to Paul, James, or Peter.[10] People who do fit such a profile include women (much higher chance of hallucinating), teenagers, young adults, people with less education, financial disadvantages, and combat soldiers.[11] Paul does not fit within even one of these categories; likewise, it would be challenging to establish that the other two apostles do.

            Moreover, when studying the data presented about Paul and James, Habermas contends there is no evidence of a conversion disorder.[12]  First, Paul's skepticism is well-known because he was a persecutor of the early Christians (Gal. 1:13, 23).  Second, based on our knowledge of Paul, he saw no fault in his actions before he converted. Quite the contrary, Paul regards his actions as faultless and zealous (Philippians 3:4-6). Third, James was not a believer in Jesus during his time on earth but rather a skeptic (John 7:5), which even critics agree upon.[13] No evidence suggests James struggled with his past denial of Jesus' teachings or felt regret or remorse. Furthermore, building a case for the hallucination hypothesis is difficult since the hallucination hypothesis, in this case, would require both visual and auditory hallucinations. These two events are unusual in their rarity, according to psychiatrists Harold Kaplan and Benjamin Sadock [14]

            Finally, neither James nor Paul desired to see Jesus (Acts 22:4; John 7:5). Since both James and Paul were indifferent about meeting Jesus again, it is highly implausible that they would hallucinate a risen Jesus. Their disbelief provides a shaky foundation on which to construct hallucinations. Thus, Paul and James are unlikely to suffer from a conversion disorder because no evidence suggests otherwise.

Group Hallucinations

Advocates of Group Hallucination

Two advocates of group hallucinations are Warren Jones, former chair of the Department of Psychology at the University of Tennessee Knoxville, and Leonard Zusne, Professor of Psychology at the University of Tulsa.[15] Zusne and Jones indicate that group hallucinations are possible by examining the Marian apparitions. Their reasoning is somewhat like this: group hallucinations are possible because we have records of people hallucinating the Virgin Mary. Thus, by their analogy, the disciples possibly had a group hallucination of the risen Jesus.

Similarly, Lüdemann argues that the subjective visions of the masses were the result of a "chain reaction," in which one individual's idea sparked such passion and excitement that it led to ecstasy, which then spread to the other followers.[16] Indeed, whether several persons may share the same hallucination or not is essential to the debate. Although, many psychologists, such as clinical psychologist Dr. Gary Collins, reject this assertion.[17]

Are Group Hallucinations Possible?

Zusne and Jones use the Marian Apparition as their leading example in demonstrating collective hallucinations. However, Habermas argues that these cases make one wonder whether there is any way that these experiences may be objective, or even supernatural, in any way.[18]  To put it another way, are not Zusne and Jones presumptuous in assuming these events are hallucinations? Must we assume a naturalistic and subjective explanation? Consequently, their method rules out apparitions as impossible before we examine any evidence.

 By using Zusne and Jones approach, any group sighting may be rendered disprovable. One can simply assert that the group is hallucinating. Granting that the group might have hallucinated, this still does not warrant that the group had a “collective hallucination.” it is highly implausible that the eyewitnesses collectively hallucinated a risen Jesus, given that psychologists assert that hallucinations are subjective and personal events that occur in the mind of a person hallucinating.[19]

Moreover, studies demonstrate that women are far more likely to hallucinate than men and that hallucinations may vary from one person to another according to their character.[20]  Therefore, it is very unlikely that the apostles would all simultaneously experience the same hallucination of the risen Christ because they are all men of various ages, personalities, and emotional states.

Lastly, Zusne and Jones contend that “emotional excitement” and “expectations” are prerequisites for such an occurrence.[21] They point out that expectations play the “coordinating role” in such a case.[22] Some Marian apparitions, such as Fatima, could be held guilty of “expectations” since it records thousands of people marching in Fatima to view the “apparition.”[23] However,  Zusne and Jones’s method cannot be applied to the apostles because their pre-requisites contradict the initial state the disciples were in! The apostles had suddenly lost their master, whom they deeply loved, and fled in fear after he died. Terror, disappointment, and sadness would have been reasonable reactions to the rapid succession of events that resulted in Jesus' floggings and crucifixion. It would be a stretch to say that the disciples showed "expectation" and "emotional excitement" under these daunting conditions. Significantly, some disciples, such as Thomas, doubted the resurrection (John 20:24). Thus, the disciples were in no emotional excitement nor expectation state for having had a collective hallucination.

Furthermore, Group apparition events seem challenging to be described in neurophysiological terms, “concerned with the normal and abnormal functioning of the nervous system,”[24] making it impossible to determine whether these people were hallucinating.[25] Consequentially, Even Zusne and Jones close their case examination by stating that hallucinations have a “dubious state.”[26]

The Empty Tomb

Why is the Empty Tomb Relevant to the Hallucination Hypothesis?

When historians study history in search of proving whether an event occurred or not, they weigh hypotheses by how well they explain the data we have.[27] If skeptics propose that the apostles hallucinated, we must weigh the hypothesis and see how well it explains the evidence and quantity of facts it covers. Michael Licona, a New Testament scholar and author, explains:

“Arguments to the best explanation make inferences and weigh hypotheses according to specific criteria. The hypothesis that best meets the criteria is to be preferred and regarded as most likely to represent what occurred.”[28]

In our current case, we face two hypotheses: the apostles hallucinated, or Jesus resurrected. We must weigh both hypotheses in terms of which one better explains the facts, such as the empty tomb.

One of the central issues that the hallucination theory fails to explain is the empty tomb of Jesus Christ, a historical fact warranted by roughly seventy-five percent of scholars on the topic.[29] Provided the apostles hallucinated, it follows that their experiences of the risen Christ were not real because hallucinations are subjective experiences occurring in the person’s mind.

In the same way, If the experiences of the risen Christ were not real, Jesus’ tomb should have been occupied. However, the tomb of Christ was not occupied; it was empty. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the apostles hallucinated. Moreover, the empty tomb is attested by very early primary sources such as the Gospel of Mark and Paul’s letter in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. It is also improbable that the disciples would succeed in spreading their message in the very area where the Romans publicly crucified their Jesus since skeptics could have pointed out the corpse’s location.

Was the Tomb Empty?

            Some skeptics have realized this “Achilles Heel” in the hallucination theory and attempted to defend their position by providing naturalistic explanations for the empty tomb. Lüdemann calls the empty tomb "an apologetic legend" and rests his doubt on guesses.[30] First, he suggests that the empty tomb story was likely invented later because no other primary sources for it exist except for the Gospel of Mark. However, Lüdemann is mistaken in making this assumption because he does not build his claim on positive evidence. William Lane Craig contends that Lüdemann is incorrect with a high degree of certainty. He argues that the empty tomb is referenced in the sermons in Acts (2:29, 13:36), is inferred by Paul (1 Corinthians 15:3-8) and is corroborated by separate sources in Matthew and John.[31]

Furthermore, in 1 Cor 15:3-8, which dates approximately from 53-55 A.D, Paul begins this passage by stating, “For what I received I passed on to you.”[32] Thus, Paul is reciting tradition that precedes the dating of his letter. Therefore, we are looking at an early historical source that mentions Jesus’s resurrection and burial! Licona claims the following regarding the passage: “In nearly every historical investigation of the resurrection of Jesus, 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 weighs heavily and is perhaps the most important and valuable passage for use by historians when discussing the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus.”[33] Accordingly, Lüdemann is mistaken by assuming Mark as the only primary source for the empty tomb.

Second, the story of the women discovering the empty tomb is claimed by Lüdemann as a mere invention by the apostle after they escaped to Galilee.[34] While this assumption is possible, it is highly improbable because women’s testimony was not viewed as credible in early Jewish and Roman culture.[35] If the disciples invented the empty tomb story, it is unreasonable to include attestations that would damage the story’s reputation. In other words, if the story of the empty tomb being discovered by women were an invention, we would expect male disciples as the discoverers, not women.

Lastly, let us assume that Lüdeman’s assumptions are plausible. Considering that the apostles hallucinated and that the tomb should have been occupied, it would have been effortless for the authorities to dismiss the apostle’s hallucinations by presenting the dead body of Jesus. However, Habermas argues contrary to that assumption. He argues that in addition to Christian texts, non-Christian sources also testify to the tomb's emptiness:

“The empty tomb is attested not only by Christian sources. Jesus' enemies admitted it as well, albeit indirectly. Hence, we are not employing an argument from silence. Rather than point to an occupied tomb, early critics accused Jesus' disciples of stealing the body (Matt. 28:12-13; Justin Martyr, Trypho 108; Tertullian, De Spectaculis 30). There would have been no need for an attempt to account for a missing body, if the body had still been in the tomb.”[36]

Thus, while many skeptics attempt to rule out the empty tomb through naturalistic explanations, their assumptions are what historians call “ad hocs.” Ad hoc elements exist in hypotheses when they rely on assumptions that have not been proven or tested.[37] The historical truth of the empty tomb presents a formidable obstacle to proponents of the hallucination theory. Craig sums it up by affirming the following:

“The simple fact that the Christian fellowship, founded on belief in Jesus' resurrection, came into existence and flourished in the very city where he was executed and buried is powerful evidence for the historicity of the empty tomb.”[38]

Conclusion

It seems that the hallucination hypothesis fails to meet any of the criteria we used to evaluate it. It can only go so far in offering convincing arguments against the possibility of a resurrection. To accept it as a credible argument, we must consciously disregard and go against many of the prevalent beliefs of the time. The hallucination theory, however, is still ad hoc and unconvincing in the face of other arguments. Nonetheless, Habermas claims that for the hallucination thesis to stand as credible evidence against the resurrection, it would need to go against most of what we know about Psychiatric and psychological studies. Thus, the resurrection remains the best explanation for the disciples' testimony of a resurrected Jesus, the transformation of the disciples’ lives, the conversion of Paul and James, and the empty tomb. The disciples saw the risen Jesus, for “He is not here; he has risen” (Matthew 28:6).

 

 

Endnotes 

[1] 1 Cor. 15:14 (NIV Bible; all subsequent citations are from this version).

[2] Conversion Disorder - about the Disease.” Genetic and Rare Diseases Information Center. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Accessed September 16, 2022. https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/6191/conversion-disorder.

[3] Ibid.

[4] “APA Dictionary of Psychology,” American Psychological Association (American Psychological Association), accessed October 1, 2022, https://dictionary.apa.org/hallucination.

[5] Gerd Lüdemann and John Bowden, The Resurrection of Jesus: History, Experience, Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994), 50.

[6] Mike Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Nottingham: Apollos, 2018), 499.

[7] Michael Douglas Goulder. “The Baseless Fabric of a Vision.” In Resurrection Reconsidered, ed. Gavin  D’Acosta, 48–61. Oxford, 1996.

[8] Ibid,52.

[9] Gary Habermas. “Explaining Away Jesus’ Resurrection: The Recent Revival of Hallucination Theories.” Christian Research Journal 23, no. 4 (2001): 30-31.

[10] Ibid, 30-31

[11] Harold I. Kaplan, Benjamin J. Sadock, and Jack A. Grebb, Kaplan and Sadock's Synopsis of Psychiatry: Behavioral Sciences Clinical Psychiatry, 7th ed. (Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1994), 621.

[12] Habermas, “Explaining Away Jesus’ Resurrection,” 31.

[13] Ibid, 47.

[14] Harold I. Kaplan, Benjamin J. Sadock, and Jack A. Grebb, Kaplan and Sadock's Synopsis of Psychiatry: Behavioral Sciences Clinical Psychiatry,621

[15] Warren Jones, “Warren H. Jones,” Mind Garden, accessed September 8, 2022, https://www.mindgarden.com/223-warren-h-jones; https://peoplepill.com/people/leonard-zusne

[16] Lüdemann, “The Resurrection of Jesus,” 106–7, 174–75

[17]  Habermas, “Explaining Away Jesus’ Resurrection, 48.

[18] Ibid, 29.

[19] Ibid, 30.

[20] Payne, Meredith S. Hallucinations: Types, Stages, and Treatments. Neuroscience Research Progress. Nova Science Publishers, 2011. https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.biola.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cat04317a&AN=bio.b2194378&site=eds-live&scope=site, 136, 62.

[21] Leonard Zusne and Warren H. Jones, Anomalistic Psychology: A Study of Extraordinary Phenomena of Behavior and Experience (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates, 1982), 135.

[22] Ibid, 135.

[23] Elliot Miller and Kenneth R. Samples, The Cult of the Virgin: Catholic Mariology and the Apparitions of Mary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1994).

[24] “APA Dictionary of Psychology,” American Psychological Association (American Psychological Association), accessed October 1, 2022, https://dictionary.apa.org/neurophysiological.

 

[25] Phillip H. Wiebe, Visions of Jesus: Direct Encounters from the New Testament to Today (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 210.

[26] Zusne, Anomalistic Psychology, 136.

[27] Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 104-108.

[28] Ibid, 108-113.

[29] Gary Habermas and Mike Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2004), 70.

[30] Lüdemann, The Resurrection of Jesus, 118.

[31] William Craig. “Visions of Jesus: A Critical Assessment of Gerd Ludemann's Hallucination Hypothesis: Reasonable Faith.” Visions of Jesus: A Critical Assessment of Gerd Ludemann's Hallucination Hypothesis | Scholarly Writings | Reasonable Faith. Accessed September 4, 2022. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/historical-jesus/visions-of-jesus-a-critical-assessment-of-gerd-ludemanns-hallucination-hypo.

[32] Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 223-226.

[33] Ibid, 223.

[34] William Craig et al., Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment? A Debate between William Lane Craig & Gerd Lüdemann (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 175.

[35] Habermas, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, 72.

[36] Ibid, 71.

[37] Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 110.

[38] “Sermon Quotes on Fellowship.” The Pastor's Workshop, September 14, 2022. https://thepastorsworkshop.com/sermon-quotes-by-topic/sermon-quotes-fellowship/.