Monday, February 11, 2013

The Resurrection: A Cultural and Historical Overview


            The popular axiom of modern secular thought is that an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. In no area is this more evident than in the skeptics’ claims that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is incapable of providing such a weight of evidence to justify its truthfulness. However, critics of this axiom are right to point out that it is not extraordinary evidence that is necessary, but rather sufficient evidence to support the claim. In examining the resurrection we must then be careful to ask of, and then examine the evidence to see if it is sufficient to justify the belief that Jesus was raised from the dead. Doing so requires that we examine the historical evidence in a twofold manner. First, we must examine it for its weight and historical reliability. Second, we must examine it to see if it could have been falsified in the context and culture of 1st century Judaism. Our final task will then be to discern how best to use this evidence in the best manner when confronted with contrary explanations of what could have caused the belief of that Jesus had been resurrected.
The Descent from the Cross
Rembrandt van Rijn (1606-1669)
            Affirming that the resurrection occurred first requires that it be verified that Jesus was actually crucified. Flavius Josephus, writing in A.D. 94, reports of Jesus’ death that “Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross…”[1] Scholars are of a general agreement that this passage has possible interpolations inserted by early Christians concerning the deity of Christ, his status as Messiah, and his resurrection. However, it is also agreed that if the “questionable components are removed, there are good reasons for maintaining that Josephus wrote the remaining text”[2] which includes the mention of Christ’s death by crucifixion at Pilate’s hands. The satirist Lucian of Samosata provides another attestation of Jesus’ crucifixion in Passing of Peregrinus written in the latter half of the second century. Peregrinus, the focus of the satire, is taken in by Christians who end up worshipping him “next after that other, to be sure, whom they still worship, the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world.”[3] While Lucian is mocking Christ and early Christian beliefs it should be noted that he never treats the historical fact of Christ’s death as something that was not true. It can be readily affirmed that “Lucian…tells us what educated pagans of the second century knew or believed about Jesus.”[4] Finally, the historian Tacitus reports that Nero attempted to attach the blame for the fire of Rome on Christians whose founder Christus “had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus.”[5] The misspelling of Christ as Christus “was a common error made by pagan writers”[6] and Tacitus’ mention of him provides us “with testimony by the leading Roman historian of his day”[7] that Christ lived and was crucified.
            Jesus’ death by crucifixion is also recorded in all four of the canonical gospels. Subsequently, the question must be asked if early Jewish converts to Christianity would have portrayed their Messiah as dying by crucifixion. Old Testament case law prohibited leaving a man who had been hung on a tree from overnight exposure as “a hanged man is cursed by God” and such an act would bring defilement on the land.[8] Disgust at executing a man by hanging from a tree was further exacerbated under the Seleucids and Romans by their extensive use of crucifixion. Josephus records that those who resisted Antiochus Epiphanies in 167 B.C. “were whipped with rods, and their bodies torn to pieces, and were crucified.”[9] Mass crucifixions were also the means by which Rome crushed rebellions and Josephus recounts several such episodes including the crucifixion of 2,000 Jews by Varus to stop a revolt in 4 B.C[10] and the crucifixion of a multitude of Jews during Titus’ campaign in A.D. 70.[11]
These reports from Josephus and other sources, such as the seven brothers in 2 Maccabees, provide a picture a Jews resisting their conquerors in the face of torture and execution. The contrast with Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels is quite striking. Jesus in no account defies his executioners, but instead goes meekly to the crucifixion. This contrast, as well as the curse placed upon those who die by hanging on a tree, provides a criterion of embarrassment that helps to solidify that the crucifixion would not have been an invented belief. In first century Palestine “the differences between Jesus in the Passion Narratives and the seven brothers and Eleazar must have stood out immediately to the early readers and would most likely have been quite embarrassing for Christians…the embarrassing elements in the Passion Narratives weigh in favor of the presence of historical kernels.”[12]
The Resurrection of Christ
Giovanni Bellini (1430-1516)
The first proclaimed evidence of the resurrection is the reports by the women of the empty tomb. All four gospels record in some fashion that when the women and Peter and John went to the tomb “they did not find the Lord Jesus.”[13] While it could be claimed that this is insufficient evidence that the tomb was actually empty, several factors can lead us to believe it is true. First, the gospels record this as a piece of common knowledge known to both early Christians and their opponents. Matthew records that the story that Christ’s body had been stolen from the tomb was propagated by chief priests and had “spread among the Jews to this day.”[14] Such a statement invited direct investigation by the readers of the gospel and predicted that the story, though false, could be verified and would testify to the empty tomb. Similarly, Luke records Paul’s statement to Agrippa of his conversion in which he proclaims it was necessary that “the Christ must suffer and…[be] the first to rise from the dead…”[15] While the statement does not directly mention the empty tomb, it does imply it by speaking of the resurrection from the dead. Paul declares these events to be widely known by Agrippa for “none of these things [had] escaped his notice, for this has not been done in a corner.”[16] Again, such statements invited scrutiny and were not denied by those to whom they were given.
Paralleling the lack of denial of the empty tomb is the fact that at no time did the opponents of Christianity ever produce the body of Christ to refute the claim of the empty tomb. Matthew’s record again provides illumination in this area as the chief priests’ efforts to deny the resurrection were to tell the guards to “[t]ell people, His disciples came by night and stole him while we were asleep.”[17] Gary Habermas and Michael Licona note that it would have been much more effective to exhume Jesus’ body and “publicly display it for the hoax to be shattered.”[18] The silence from the early critics of Christianity in this area is telling. No easier method of destroying the fledgling religion could have been available to the Romans or the Sanhedrin, and yet no source records the body being produced or the location of a still occupied tomb. Recent attempts to explain away the body not being produced are inadequate in their scope or explanatory power as well. To say that the body was so decomposed as to be unrecognizable ignores “the arid climate of Jerusalem, [and] a corpse’s hair, stature, and distinctive wounds” that would have made the corpse “identifiable, even after fifty days.”[19] Also, no matter how disfigured, the presentation of any corpse that could even be remotely identified with Christ would have been immensely damaging to the early church.
Ascertaining whether or not the account of the empty tomb could arise naturally within the minds of first century Jews is more difficult. Certainly the religious and philosophical mindset of Roman and Greek culture denied that anyone could rise from the dead and leave an empty tomb. The more common belief, as represented in Homer and religious praxis, was that that “the dead were non-existent; outside Judaism, nobody believed in resurrection.”[20] In this view the dead were at most “shades…ghosts…phantoms…They are in no way fully human being…one cannot grasp them physically.”[21] In such an environment the idea of a body coming to life and leaving its tomb went against common observance and was absurd at the least. If such appearance was appealed to as a vision of the deceased, the common interpretation would be that it was only a haunting of the recently deceased since “such visions meant precisely, as people in the ancient and modern worlds have discovered, that the person was dead, not that they were alive.[22]
Even Jewish belief in resurrection precluded the type of resurrection that left an empty tomb as portrayed in the gospels. The resurrection hoped for by the Jews had less to do with individual resurrection “but on the fate of Israel and her promised land.”[23] Such a view of the resurrection was more long term, looking ahead to the future resurrection of the faithful at the Day of Judgment, not on a single individual resurrected as a sign from God. In this combined atmosphere the spontaneous creation of a story that presented Jesus as being physically absent from the tomb through resurrection would have been laughable without direct confirmatory evidence.
Saints Peter and John Healing the Lame Man
Nicolas Poussin (1594-1665)
The third line of evidence that points to the resurrection of Jesus is the testimony of the disciples that the resurrection occurred and their willingness to die for that testimony. Matthew and Mark record that prior to the resurrection the disciples lacked the courage to even stand with Jesus when he was arrested choosing instead to flee in fear.[24] The change after the resurrection events is startling in its contrast. Acts records that the disciples were willing to defy the Jewish religious authorities,[25] be beaten,[26] rejoice in that suffering[27], and suffer martyrdom for their testimony.[28] The testimony of the early church fathers provides further extra-biblical support of the willingness of the disciples to suffer and die for what they believed. Hippolytus, writing in the third century, records that of the original twelve disciples seven of them suffered martyrdom for their beliefs.[29] Among the early church fathers Clement records in the first century that “[b]y reason of jealousy and envy the greatest and most righteous pillars of the Church [Peter and Paul] were persecuted, and contended even unto death.”[30] What could have brought about such a radical change of behavior among those who fled from the fear of persecution and death previously? Licona correctly states that “[t]he strength of their conviction indicates they were not just claiming that Jesus had appeared to them after rising from the dead. They really believed it.”[31]
The specific content of the testimony that the disciples were willing to suffer for is demonstrative of their belief that Jesus had been raised from the dead. Peter’s sermon at Pentecost hinges upon the resurrection of Christ as its central point. It is because “God raised [Jesus] up, loosing the pangs the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it”[32] that the disciples were able to testify and perform signs and wonders. Furthermore, the means of freedom salvation have been made known and demonstrated to be true in the resurrection of Jesus because “he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses.”[33] Other sermons recorded in Acts continue to appeal to the resurrection of Jesus as the ultimate confirmation that the message being presented is indeed true.[34] John writes of Jesus that he is the “firstborn of the dead”[35] and that “every eye will see him, even those who pierced him”[36] as he returns in his resurrected body. Similarly, Peter addresses persecuted believers in the name of the Father who gives hope “through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.”[37] It can be unequivocally asserted that the resurrection mattered to those who had witnessed it, and it made an indelible change in their beliefs and actions.
But we must ask if the disciples could have been deceived or invented the story, and would they have been willing to die for what they knew to be false. N.T. Wright argues that Hellenistic literature provides evidence that the ancients were “aware of haunting, appearances, and so forth”[38]of those who had died. However, such visions were by no means the type of events that would be interpreted as a resurrection from the dead or an event that would cause such a radical worldview shift as to cause someone to be willing to be martyred. Rather, such events were “not cases of people ceasing to be dead and resuming something like normal life, but precisely of the dead remaining dead and being encountered as visitors from the world of the dead, who have not and will not resume anything like the kind of life they had before.”[39] To thus claim that the disciples were deceived by a vision, cognitive dissonance, or mass hallucinations ignores the cultural milieu in which the disciples lived. In addition, claims of hallucination or cognitive dissonance cannot adequately address the willingness to die for the claim that they had seen the resurrected Christ. Lee Strobel succinctly addresses the point by noting that “[p]eople will die for their religious beliefs if they sincerely believe they’re true, but people won’t die for their religious beliefs if they know their beliefs are false.”[40]
Conversion on the Way to Damascus
Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio (1571-1610)
For our final line of evidence we look to the apostle Paul and his conversion experience upon seeing the resurrected Jesus. The testimony of Paul as to his experience is particularly useful as he “is the earliest known author to mention the resurrection of Jesus, and there are numerous extant texts he wrote that give us clues pertaining to the nature of Jesus’ resurrection.”[41] The Scriptural record is clear that Paul was antagonistic to the early church “ravaging the church, and…dragg[ing] off men and women…to prison”[42] Paul testifies of himself that he “was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent”[43] of the church prior to his conversion. The catalyst that drove Paul from persecutor to willing martyr must then have been drastic and profound. By Paul’s own words and the record of Luke we learn that this event was seeing the resurrected Jesus.
Paul writes in Galatians that he received his ministry “through a revelation of Jesus the Messiah”[44]in which God “was pleased to reveal his Son to me”[45] and not through the commissioning of men. Gerd Luedemann contends that Paul’s use of the phrase revelation is indicative of “an experience in terms of its religious character”[46] and that this revealing was not a true experience of Christ resurrected but only a vision. However, such an interpretation does not capture the full scope of what Paul is saying. The revelation which Paul experienced was one of commissioning by which he was to “preach among the Gentiles” the gospel of Christ. Wright notes that

[A] comparison of this passage with Romans 1.3-4 and 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 reminds us that when Paul here talks about ‘the gospel’ he does not mean ‘justification by faith’ or ‘the inclusion of the Gentiles’. He means ‘Jesus, the Messiah, is risen from the dead and is the lord of the world’…[T]he best way of taking Galatians 1.12 and 16 is to insist that when Paul spoke of the revelation of Jesus the Messiah, of God’s son, he was taking it for granted that in and through his revelation he had become convinced that Jesus had been raised from the dead in the sense explained by those other two letters.[47]

            At this point we need to examine Paul’s description of Christ’s resurrection appearances as recorded in 1 Corinthians to bring the statements in Galatians into their full context. 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 is a creedal formula that most scholars agree “was formed in Jerusalem and that Paul either received it directly from the Jerusalem apostles or from someone he deemed very credible.”[48]Additionally, this creed in its basic formulation has a very early date “within four to six years of Jesus’ crucifixion and…it comes from the eyewitnesses themselves.”[49] As we’ve already noted, the eyewitnesses mentioned in the creed all testified that Jesus had appeared to them in alive in bodily form. The reader is thus invited to test the veracity of their claims by being given the list of those to whom Christ had appeared and the statement that most of those mentioned were still alive and thus able to be questioned. To this list of witnesses Paul adds that “as one untimely born, he appeared to me also.”[50] Paul is not trying to indicate that his experience was different in quality than that of the other witnesses as some contend. Rather, he is showing his own unpreparedness for the life altering change seeing Jesus resurrected had upon him. In effect, he “explains the difference between himself and the others not in terms of his seeing of Jesus being a different sort of ‘seeing’, but in terms of his own personal unreadiness for such an experience.”[51]
Paul Writing His Epistles
Possibly Valentin de Boulogne (1591-1632)
            What does this say of Paul’s experience and the possibility that it was either a mistaken hallucination or a fabricated event? As we have previously noted, the idea of a vision or visitation of a spirit would not have been interpreted as a full physical resurrection, but rather been considered a haunting by the recently deceased. Furthermore, Paul’s declaration that he was a “Pharisee, a son of Pharisees”[52] helps to demonstrate that the resurrection as described by him is not the fiction that would have been told had he been creating a legend extemporaneously. The tradition of the Pharisees was rooted in the second Temple belief that “[r]esurrection…was not simply about ‘life after death’; it was about a new, embodied life after ‘life after death’. Nobody supposed that the patriarchs, Moses, Reuben or anyone else had yet been given this resurrection life.”[53] Even the rabbinic tradition of the second century AD, which grew out of the Pharisee’s beliefs, continued to look ahead because the “resurrection of the dead, though confidently expected, has not yet occurred.”[54]
            With our historical basis in place we must finally ask how best to use the historical and cultural evidence for the validity of the resurrection when confronted with a contrary explanation. Since we have examined the claims of the resurrection from a historical perspective and found them to fit with the historical record and the cultural beliefs that were prevalent, it is only fitting that we examine counter-claims in the same way and see if they are capable of explaining both as well. Habermas and Licona point out that “as the Christian can be expected to provide facts to support her claim that Jesus rose from the dead, the critic must do likewise for his opposing explanations…The critic must provide good reason why [their] theory…offers a better explanation for the facts than does Jesus’ actual bodily resurrection.”[55]
            In comparing the resurrection narratives to any competing claims it is necessary to have some criterion in place to judge which is most in accordance with what really happened. Licona provides a set of criteria which provide an ample basis on which to compare and a few of them merit mentioning in brief here. First, explanatory scope is the means by which we “look at the quantity of facts accounted for by a hypothesis. The hypothesis that includes the most relevant data has the greatest explanatory scope.”[56] Second, explanatory power examines the data to determine which account “explains the date with the least amount of effort, vagueness and ambiguity.”[57] Third, plausibility determines whether other areas of knowledge and accepted fact lean towards one particular hypothesis or the other. Finally, each claim must be examined to see which is less ad hoc by avoiding “nonevidenced assumptions” that go “beyond what is already known.”[58]
            We have only mentioned in passing some counter claims to the resurrection such as Luedemann’s claim the resurrections events were hallucinations, the claim to cognitive dissonance among the disciples, or the supposedly strictly religious nature of the Easter narrative which has no basis in actual events. However, if we were to examine each of these, and others like them, we would find that each is unable to account for some aspect of the criteria that Licona suggests. Indeed we would find that each must manipulate or ignore the historicity of the records or the cultural beliefs that would have been incapable of conceiving of the resurrection as presented in the gospels. We rightly reject these explanations because, as Karl Barth put it,

(quite apart from the many inconsistencies of detail) it all smacks too strongly of an apologetic to explain away the mystery and miracle attested in the texts. And this is something that cannot be said of the identification of the Easter event with the rise of the Easter faith…[The belief in Jesus’ resurrection] did at least keep closer to the texts by not only maintaining but trying to show that the disciples did not come to this faith of themselves, but were brought to it by some factor concretely at work in the world…[59]

We may rest assured that ours is not a blind faith informed by legend, but a faith that has roots deeply imbedded in the historical reality that is the promise of our future reality in Jesus Christ.


[1] Flavius Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews XVIII.3.3.
[2] Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, A New Historiographical Approach (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2010), 239.
[3] Lucian of Samosata, The Passing of Peregrinus, 11, http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/lucian/peregrinus.htm (accessed November 17, 2012).
[4] Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, 246.
[5] Tacitus, Annals, XV.44, http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Tacitus/Annals/15B*.html#note28 (accessed November 17, 2012).
[6] Josh McDowell, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict (Dallas, TX: Thomas Nelson, 1999), 120.
[7] Ibid., 121.
[8] Deuteronomy 21:23, ESV.
[9] Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews, XII.5.4.
[10] Ibid., XVII.10.10.
[11] Flavius Josephus, The Wars of the Jews, or History of the Destruction of Jerusalem, V.11.1.
[12] Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, 306.
[13] Luke 24:3, ESV.
[14] Matthew 28:15, ESV.
[15] Acts 26:23, ESV.
[16] Acts 26:26, ESV.
[17] Matthew 28:7, ESV.
[18] Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2004), Kindle e-book, 616.
[19] Ibid., 625.
[20] N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2003), 35.
[21] Ibid., 43.
[22] Ibid., 690-691.
[23] Ibid., 99.
[24] Matthew 26:56, Mark 14:50.
[25] Acts 4:19-20.
[26] Acts 5:40.
[27] Acts 5:41.
[28] Acts 7:57-60, 12:1-2.
[29] Hippolytus, On the Twelve Apostles: Where Each of Them Preached, And Where He Met His End, Christian Classics Ethereal Library, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iii.v.ii.html (accessed November 18, 2012).
[30] Clement, The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, Chapter V “No less evils have arisen from the same source in the most recent times. The martyrdom of Peter and Paul”, Christian Classics Ethereal Library, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ii.ii.v.html, (accessed November 18, 2012).
[31] Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, 366.
[32] Acts 2:24, ESV.
[33] Acts 2:31, 32, ESV.
[34] Cf. Acts 3:14, 15; 4:10; 5:30; 10:39-41; 13:30.
[35] Revelation 1:5, ESV.
[36] Revelation 1:7, ESV.
[37] 1 Peter 1:3, ESV.
[38] Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 63.
[39] Ibid., 64.
[40] Lee Strobel, The Case For Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1998), 247.
[41] Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, 437.
[42] Acts 8:3, ESV.
[43] 1Timothy 1:13, ESV.
[44] Galatians 1:12, ESV.
[45] Galatians 1:16, ESV.
[46] Gerd Luedemann, The Resurrection of Jesus: History, Experience, Theology (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1994), Kindle e-book, 52.
[47] Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 380-381.
[48] Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, 237-238.
[49] Ibid., 231.
[50] 1 Corinthians 15:8.
[51] Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 328.
[52] Acts, 23:6, ESV.
[53] Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 199.
[54] Ibid., 194.
[55] Habermas and Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, 716.
[56] Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, 109.
[57] Ibid., 109.
[58] Ibid., 110.
[59] Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, IV.1: The Doctrine of Reconciliation (New York, NY: T&T Clark International, 2004), 340-341.

Monday, February 4, 2013

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.