Hallucinations? I Probably Shouldn't Drink the Water Then...

How naturalists assume
Christian beliefs are formed

Apart from the occasional optical illusion or magician’s trick, most would agree that our senses do not typically deceive us. If we couldn’t trust our own senses, our existence would be fraught with uncertainty and we would be unable to make even the most basic decisions. For how could we know if what we were acting on was true, false, or somewhere in between?  Similarly, there are those who contend that the early disciples of Jesus made not a small decision, but the weightiest decision of their lives based on misperception – they hallucinated Jesus’ resurrection and subsequent appearances. While this idea that the disciples hallucinated the resurrection of Jesus has enjoyed a resurgence of late, we shall see that the evidence contradicts this position and is better explained by the early followers of Christ having actually seen the physically resurrected Lord.

            Let us first examine a hallucination hypothesis proposed by Gerd Lüdemann, a New Testament scholar at the University of Göttingen. Lüdemann proposes that all the resurrection appearances have their origin in the Apostle Peter’s first hallucination of Christ. Peter, wracked with guilt at his denial of Christ and distressed by the crucifixion, hallucinated that which he most wanted to see – Jesus resurrected. This first vision served as the catalyst, “which prompted the further series of visions mentioned by Paul in 1 Cor. 15. The subsequent appearance of Christ can be explained as mass psychoses (or mass hysteria).”[1] In effect, Peter’s retelling of his experience prompted the other disciples to undergo similar experiences due to a cultural acceptance of the miraculous and supernatural. So strong was this suggestion and mass hysteria that it affected James, the brother of Jesus who had opposed Jesus’ early ministry,[2] and Saul, the persecutor of the early church[3], leading to their conversions.

Lüdemann supports his position for mass hallucinations with two main lines of argument. The first is based upon the textual reports of the resurrected Christ in the New Testament, specifically 1 Cor. 15:3-8. His contention is that Paul uses a single term, opthe, to represent various types of appearances – individual and mass appearances alike – and the chain in which they occurred. This means that, “for Cephas the experience denoted by opthe is not combined with a previous process…but is first of all an immediate event, a primary experience…the later [appearances are] based on the proclamation of Jesus as the risen Christ by the earlier ones.”[4] So for Lüdemann the previous experiences have to inform the latter because of the sequencing in 1 Cor. 15. Lüdemann then cites Gustav le Bon, a specialist in group psychology, to confirm his mass hallucination hypothesis. Le Bon concludes that those of similar emotional makeup can experience a “communal soul,” in which, “everything that stimulates the imagination of the masses…appear[s] in the form of a moving, clear image which needs no interpretation.”[5] This fits with Lüdemann’s theory that all of Christ’s followers were so distraught by the crucifixion that on hearing of Peter’s vision they experienced this type of “communal soul” and all saw a vision of Jesus resurrected.

However, there are several flaws with Lüdemann’s hypothesis. Foremost is that much of his theory depends on analyzing the moods and thought patterns of Peter, Paul, James, and the remainder of the disciples. Michael R. Licona adroitly states, “Psychoanalyzing persons who are not only absent but also lived in an ancient foreign culture involves a great deal of speculation and is a very difficult and chancy practice.”[6] The New Testament accounts do not provide enough support for the type of conjecture that Lüdemann must indulge in to support his view. This is evident in his treatment of Paul’s state of mind prior to his conversion. Lüdemann speculates that, “The preaching of Christians had a very strong effect on him [Paul]…his religious zeal was a kind of measure of his [conflict], which was formally released in a vision of Christ.”[7] He cites Paul exposition of law and sin in Romans 7 as evidence of this conflict. The passage is too “loaded with experience” to be separate from Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus and must be viewed as a genuine state of conflict in Paul’s mind.[8] However, a close reading of Acts 9 and Romans 7 does not provide enough evidence to assume an autobiographical nature to the passages as Lüdemann theorizes.

It must also be stressed that in proposing mass hysteria among the disciples based on Peter’s initial vision, Lüdemann contradicts much of what we know about the nature of hallucinations. Hallucinations are described by psychologists as “private, individual events”[9] that are not capable of being shared.[10] While Lüdemann tries to bypass this issue by citing Le Bon’s work as support for “communal soul” hallucinations, the point of Le Bon’s work was not to explore mass hallucinations but the irrational behavior of groups due to the anonymity of the crowd.[11] It is in this context that Le Bon created the idea of the “communal soul”

Attempts have been made to maintain the validity of Lüdemann’s “mass hysteria” among the 500 witnesses of 1 Cor. 15. Among these is a proposal by author Nicholas Covington. He asserts, “No one says that the group has to see precisely the same thing…it is completely possible…that some saw Jesus in white linen with a pure, unblemished body, and that others saw him in black with pierced hands and a wound in his side, and others saw Jesus in yet another form.”[12] Additionally, blogger and author N.T. Wrong argues that the report of the 500 witnesses was a purposeful exaggeration created to give credence to the vision of an individual or small group of individuals. He cites several historical examples – Ashurbanipal’s vision of Isis, Constantine’s vision of the cross, and Alexander’s dream at the siege of Tyre – in which a single person reported a vision that was then attributed as having happened to a whole group.[13]

Both arguments by Covington and N.T. Wrong fall into the same problems shared by Lüdemann’s hypothesis – an appeal to conjecture with no solid evidence to substantiate the claim. Covington’s argument appeals to psychoanalysis of the long dead by attempting to explain the deeply seated emotions and attitudes of the disciples. While the Gospel narratives give a thorough account of the resurrection, they do not provide enough emotional insight into the disciples to make this type of analysis. Most modern psychologists spend months or years in personal interviews with their subjects to create the sort of profile that Covington does with much more limited resource. Additionally, there is little scientific evidence for Covington’s hypothesis of everyone hallucinating Christ in a different manner as there is for Lüdemann’s hypothesis of a “communal soul” In the same vein, N.T. Wrong mistakenly infers that the report of 500 witnesses was fabricated to support an individual report of a resurrection vision, simply because similar incidents are known to history. Just because there is a correlation between semi-legendary reports of one vision being reported as multiple visions the best explanation must be that the same thing occurs in the Gospel accounts. He provides no strong evidence to support his hypothesis and must rely on conjecture to sustain his idea.

Additionally, both arguments ignore that the claim made by Paul in 1 Cor. 15:3-8, regarding the witness of the resurrected Christ, was given as a historical record intended to be verified independently if necessary. In the case of Covington’s argument, if 500 separate witnesses had hallucinated Jesus in different modes or appearance, any outside verification of the event would immediately detect the discrepancies in the accounts and disprove the whole. The same holds true for N.T. Wrong’s hypothesis that reports were purposefully exaggerated to include a large group. Any outside verification would reveal that no such group had seen Jesus and such a claim had no basis in reality.

Apparently we shouldn't drink
the water in Israel.

            A second critic that has received attention with his hallucination theory is Michael Goulder, professor of Biblical Studies at the University of Birmingham until his death. Goulder’s position differs from Lüdemann’s in two distinct ways: first, he allows for only a few hallucinations rather than mass hallucinations, and second, he argues that the retelling of the supposed resurrection appearances over time filled in the necessary gaps in accounts of the resurrection appearances.

Goulder strengthens the hallucination theory by removing the need for mass hallucinations, and instead limits the source of the resurrection appearances to a few individual hallucinations. He states, “It would be difficult to think that all five hundred of the witnesses to the risen Jesus…were in this state (conversion-vision), but fortunately we do not have to think that. Only Peter and Paul were in the position of having primary conversion visions…”[14] This state of “conversion vision” is one in which the whole of persons psyche is rocked by emotional disturbances and shifts in self-image leading to a radical change in outlook and behavior.[15]

Goulder singles out Peter for this condition because in his estimation Peter was the disciple most emotionally shaken by the events of the crucifixion. Peter would have been distraught by his self-preservation in spite of his protests to Jesus of being ready to die, his denial of Jesus, and the loss of hope in seeing the kingdom of God ushered in.[16] Additionally, Peter is a likely candidate because of other reports of his visionary experiences, namely on the Mount of Transfiguration and on the rooftop just prior to the conversion of Cornelius. Paul is the other likely originator of the vision report because of a supposed inner conflict sparked by the teachings of the early church, his desire to uphold traditional Judaism, and Paul’s own struggle with the concepts of law and grace. Goulder suggests that Paul’s blindness in Acts 9 was “psychogenetic blindness” caused by resistance to his own inner conflict. He cites Carl Jung’s analysis of Paul to support the feasibility of Paul’s distress, “Unable to conceive of himself as a Christian, on account of his resistance to Christ, he became blind, and could only regain his sight through complete submission to Christianity.”[17]

Goulder also argues that as stories of the resurrection appearances were told and retold, reports of visions multiplied and details in the stories were filled in along the way. Goulder draws a parallel between the retelling of the resurrection visions of Paul and Peter to the sightings of UFOs and Bigfoot in small communities. “[F]rom time to time someone sees an unidentified flying object, and then dozens of people will report seeing a UFO…These delusions spread most easily in uneducated communities, especially among women…and where there are anxiety and a lack of clear criteria.”[18] These sightings produce a form of emotional reward that causes them to be perpetuated in the community. People desire to be included in the community and will delude themselves into believing they have seen something in order to gain approval in the community. Goulder also claims that as the resurrection visions were recounted over time more and more details were added to “fill in the gaps” and make the accounts more plausible.

So it becomes important to stress the reality, the physical nature of the resurrection. This is done in steps. At first in the 60s we have the empty-tomb story (which requires burial in a tomb), which we first find in Mark. Then in Luke we have stories about Jesus’ eating and drinking and asking to be touched. Finally these physical aspects are made memorable by the stories of Thomas and Mary Magdalene (“Do not hold on to me”) in John (20:17). Luke wrote in 90 C.E., and John about 100 C.E.[19]

This gradual expansion in narrative of the resurrection appearances became a form of communal delusion, not in the sense of hallucinations, but as a form of elaborated myth. This delusion had such a strong effect that it completely altered the personalities of the disciples and early believers.[20]

The first problem with Goulder’s hypothesis is that much of what proposes is founded on conjecture. Goulder frequent use of the term “imagined” implicitly admits that much of what he supposes cannot be proven directly.[21] In addressing Paul’s vision Goulder begins by stating, “We do not know anything in detail about [Paul‘s mental state] before his conversion experience.”[22] However, much of what Goulder has to say about Paul is founded upon Paul’s pre-conversion life and mental state. Similarly, in discussing the emotional state of Peter before his conversion experience, Goulder maintains that while it may be hard to psychoanalyze Peter, “historians (and psychologists) are trying to…account for events in the light of other similar happenings. It is only too easy to imagine Peter…pacing up and down in his bedroom.”[23] Michael Licona notes, “Appealing to possibilities does not warrant the conclusion that it is what happened.”[24] However Goulder’s theory, at each step, must build upon what he has stated previously is only a possibility, not a fact.

This leads into the second issue with Goulder’s assessment: as previously noted, the analysis of a subjects mind and emotions is not something that can be done successfully by imagining someone’s state of mind. Goulder’s usage of Jung’s psychoanalysis of Paul does not bolster his case, but instead demonstrates that he is, in fact, guessing at someone’s mental state. In his analysis, Jung states that his diagnosis of psychogenetic blindness is due to prior experience in dealing with fanatics.[25] It must then be asked, if we have no prior record of Paul’s mental state prior to conversion, as Goulder verifies, by what means does Jung decide that Paul fits his prior experiences with fanatics? Speculation into someone’s mental state without direct interaction does not allow for an accurate diagnosis of their mindset or inclination to hallucinate.

Implicit within all the arguments for hallucination explaining the resurrection appearances of Jesus is a naturalistic bias. Goulder sums up this position well when he states that “We should only consider a supernatural explanation at all when totally at a loss for a natural one.”[26] However, critics such as Lüdemann and Goulder place themselves in the position of defending hypotheses that founder for lack of evidence and plausibility. By shedding the commitment to naturalism and allowing for the supernatural, we are able to see there is an eminently more plausible explanation: Jesus physically rose from the dead. Hallucinations may be the best naturalistic explanation, but the evidence, rigorously examined, continually points to the physical presence of Jesus with his disciples as the most probable cause for the resurrection appearances.

---

[1] Gerd Lüdemann What Really Happened to Jesus: A Historical Approach to the Resurrection, trans. John Bowden (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995), 130.

[2] Mark 6:3, John 7:5.

[3] Acts 8:1-3.

[4] Gerd Lüdemann, The Resurrection of Jesus: History, Experience, Theology, trans. John Bowden (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press 1994), Kindle e-book, 49.

[5] Gustav Le Bon, Psychologie der Massen (1911), with an introduction by Peter R. Hofstätter, 1982, quoted in Gerd Lüdemann, The Resurrection of Jesus: History, Experience, Theology, trans. John Bowden (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1994), Kindle e-book, 105.

[6] Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, A New Historiographical Approach (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2010), 505.

[7] Lüdemann, The Resurrection of Jesus: History, Experience, Theology, 82.

[8] Ibid., 84.

[9] Leonard Zusne and Warren Jones, Anomalistic Psychology: A Study of Extraordinary Phenomena of Behavior and Experience (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1982), 135–36, quoted in Gary Habermas; Explaining Away Jesus’ Resurrection, The Christian Research Journal, Volume 23, No. 4, 2001, http://www.equip.org/articles/explaining-away-jesus-resurrection-hallucination (accessed March 22, 2012).

[10] Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, (Grand Rapids, MI, Kregel, 2004), Kindle e-book, location 972.

[11] Theodor W. Adorno,”Masses” in Aspects of Sociology. trans. John Viertel. (Boston, MA, Beacon Press, 1972). pp. 72-88, http://solomon.tinyurl.alexanderstreet.com/cgi-bin/asp/philo/soth/getdoc.pl?S10023167-D000006, (accessed March 27, 2012).

[12] Nicholas Covington, “Jesus’ Resurrection and Mass Hallucinations”, Digital Bits Skeptic Blog, entry posted August 16, 2009, http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/08/16/jesus-resurrection-and-mass-hallucinations/ (accessed March 22, 2012).

[13] N.T. Wrong (pseud.), “The Resurrection of Jesus as Mass Hallucination”, N.T Wrong Blog Archive, entry posted September 24, 2008, http://ntwrong.wordpress.com/2008/09/24/resurrection-of-jesus-as-mass-hallucination/ (accessed March 22, 2012).

[14] Michael Goulder, Jesus’ Resurrection: Fact or Figment?, eds. Paul Copan and Ronald K. Tacelli (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), Kindle e-book, 95.

[15] Ibid., 86.

[16] Ibid., 92.

[17] Carl Gustav Jung, Contributions to Analytical Psychology (ET; New York; Harcourt Brace; London: K. Paul, Trench, Trübner, 1928), 257, in Michael Goulder. Jesus’ Resurrection: Fact or Figment? eds. Paul Copan and Ronald K. Tacelli (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), Kindle e-book, 94.

[18]Goulder, Jesus’ Resurrection: Fact or Figment?, 95-96.

[19] Ibid., 99.

[20] Ibid., 95.

[21]Ibid., 92, 99, 100.

[22] Ibid., 91.

[23] Ibid., 92; emphasis mine.

[24] Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 483.

[25] Jung, Contributions to Analytical Psychology, 94.

[26] Goulder, Jesus’ Resurrection: Fact or Figment?, 102.