Program / Course 16: Historical Defense / Lesson 7.1
What you will learn
- State the hallucination or vision theory of the resurrection appearances in its strongest form.
- Describe what psychological research says about grief experiences and group experiences.
- Explain the main objections to the theory and the replies to those objections.
- Judge what the theory explains well and what it leaves unexplained.
The big idea
The vision theory holds that the disciples, and Paul, had real experiences of seeing Jesus, but that these were hallucinations or visions produced by grief, guilt, hope and religious expectation, and not encounters with a risen body. It is the most serious naturalistic alternative, defended by respected scholars. It explains why the disciples sincerely believed. It faces difficulties: the experiences were reported by groups, by a former persecutor and by a skeptic, and the empty tomb and the specific resurrection language need further explanation. The theory is stronger than often admitted and weaker than often claimed.
Key terms
- Hallucination
- A sensory experience of something that is not physically present, such as seeing or hearing a person who is not there. It can happen to healthy people in some circumstances.
- Bereavement hallucination
- An experience of seeing, hearing or feeling the presence of a recently dead loved one. Surveys suggest it is common among the bereaved.
- Vision
- A religious experience of seeing a figure or scene, which may or may not be taken as caused by something outside the person.
- Collective hallucination
- The proposal that several people at once have the same hallucination. Psychologists consider it very rare or doubtful.
- Cognitive dissonance
- The discomfort felt when reality contradicts a strong belief, which people may resolve by reinterpreting the facts.
- Subjective vision theory
- The view, proposed by D. F. Strauss in the nineteenth century, that the appearances were inner experiences with no external object.
Background
If the disciples did not lie, and the resurrection did not happen, then they were sincerely mistaken. The simplest way to be mistaken about seeing someone is to have seen them in a vision. The theory has an old history. It was set out by Strauss, restated in the twentieth century, and defended recently by scholars such as Gerd Lüdemann, who argued that Peter’s guilt over denying Jesus produced the first vision, and Dale Allison, who treats such experiences as probable without deciding what caused them.
Modern knowledge of psychology adds to the discussion. This lesson sets out what is known, what is claimed and where the argument is strong and weak. A student should treat the theory with respect, since it is a real contender, and test it by the same standards used for the resurrection claim.
Step-by-step explanation
Step 1: What research shows about grief experiences
Studies of bereaved people show that experiences of a dead spouse or relative are common. A well-known 1971 survey of widows and widowers in Wales found that nearly half reported some sense of the presence of the dead partner, and many described seeing or hearing them. Later studies point in the same direction, though the numbers vary. Such experiences are usually brief, comforting and recognized by the person as a kind of vision.
This makes it plausible that the followers of Jesus, in the days after his death, had experiences of seeing him. It is also known that intense religious expectation can produce vivid experiences. Paul himself mentions visions and revelations (2 Corinthians 12:1-4), which he treated as real but distinct from the resurrection appearances.
Step 2: How the theory is stated
In its strongest form the theory runs as follows. Peter, overwhelmed by grief and by guilt for denying Jesus, saw him in a vision. This was reported and shared, and others, primed by hope and by the Jewish idea of resurrection, had similar experiences. Paul, tormented by conflict over the church he persecuted, had one on the road to Damascus. Over time the narratives became more physical and detailed.
The theory does not require the disciples to be fools or liars. It uses known processes. It also fits the fact that the experiences were not continuous: they came for a limited period and then stopped, as bereavement experiences do.
Step 3: Objections
Defenders of the resurrection press several objections. First, hallucinations are private, and the sources report appearances to groups, such as the Twelve and the five hundred. Psychologists regard shared hallucinations as extremely rare. Second, the variety of people matters: Peter was a guilty follower, James a family skeptic according to the Gospels, and Paul an enemy. A theory based on grief and guilt fits Peter but not obviously the others. Third, hallucinations of a dead person do not normally lead to the belief that the person has been raised bodily. The bereaved know they are seeing a dead person, and a Jew would have said that Jesus was with God, not that he had risen. Fourth, the theory does not account for the empty tomb.
Wright adds that visions of a dead person would have been recognized as visions in that culture, and would not have led to the claim of resurrection.
Step 4: Replies
Proponents answer each point. The reports of group appearances come from later and shaped sources, and Paul’s list does not say that all saw him simultaneously in the same place. One person’s vision can be shared, retold and spread through a group by suggestion. The conversion of Paul and the belief of James can be explained by Paul’s own conflicts and by James’s later loyalty to his brother’s memory. As for the language of resurrection, they argue that the Jewish hope for resurrection gave the disciples a ready category. The empty tomb, they say, may be a later legend.
Allison notes that the explanation for the experiences and the explanation of what they were are separate. He accepts that real experiences occurred, and holds the question of cause open.
Step 5: Assessment
The theory accounts well for sincerity, for the brief period of the appearances, and for the use of the Jewish category of resurrection. It faces strain from the group reports, from the range of persons and from the empty tomb. How much weight each of these deserves depends on how reliable the sources are, which is why earlier lessons matter. A student who thinks the sources are largely legendary will find the theory strong. A student who thinks they are early and close to the events will find it harder.
The theory also depends on background beliefs. If a resurrection is thought possible, the vision theory competes with it as a hypothesis. If it is thought impossible, the vision theory wins by default. Lesson 8.2 addresses this point.
- What is known about grief experiences, and how far do they resemble the appearances?
- Does the theory explain the appearances to groups?
- Does it explain Paul and James, who were not grieving followers?
- Why would a vision of a dead man lead to the claim that he had been raised?
- What does the theory require about the reliability of the sources?
- What would count as evidence against the theory?
Examples
A widow’s experience
A woman whose husband died sees him sitting in his usual chair a week later, and feels peace. She knows he is dead, and does not tell the doctor, because she understands the experience as a memory. A first century woman might have understood it as a message from beyond. Neither would conclude that he was physically alive.
Paul on the road
Paul was a determined opponent of the church until he had an experience that he took as an appearance of the risen Jesus. A vision theorist suggests inner conflict. A defender notes that Paul’s account offers no hint of previous sympathy, and that he describes a sudden reversal.
The five hundred
Paul says that Jesus appeared to more than five hundred at once. Skeptics note that this appearance is not reported in the Gospels and that the event is a single line in a creed. Defenders reply that Paul cites it as checkable. The disagreement turns on how much weight to place on that line.
Different perspectives
Scholars who defend the vision theory
Gerd Lüdemann argues that the appearances to Peter and Paul were visions with psychological causes. Other scholars with more cautious positions treat visionary experiences as likely, though they do not claim to know their cause.
Defenders of the resurrection
N. T. Wright, William Lane Craig and others argue that the vision theory does not account for the data and that a bodily resurrection explains it better. They regard the objections about groups, diversity and the empty tomb as strong.
Catholic and Orthodox Christians
Both traditions affirm a real bodily resurrection and see the appearances as real encounters. They also have a long tradition of discernment of visions, which separates true from false and does not assume every vision is God’s work.
Liberal Protestants
Some hold that the appearances were visions in which God communicated, and that it matters little whether the body was involved. Others insist on the bodily event. The position is debated within liberal Protestantism.
Psychologists of religion
They generally accept that grief experiences are common and normal and caution that such experiences do not on their own explain the shape of belief in resurrection. They also warn against diagnosing historical figures from documents.
Why it matters
The vision theory is the main naturalistic explanation that treats the disciples respectfully. A student who understands it can see what the argument for the resurrection is actually up against, and can avoid weak replies such as claiming that hallucination is impossible or that the disciples were too sensible to be mistaken.
Common misunderstandings
Misunderstanding: Hallucination theories assume the disciples were insane.
Correction: Bereavement experiences are common in healthy people. The theory does not require mental illness.
Misunderstanding: Hallucinations cannot happen to groups, so the theory is refuted.
Correction: Group hallucination is rare, but proponents argue that the group reports are shaped, and that one experience can spread by suggestion. The reply is debated, not trivial.
Misunderstanding: The theory is a recent invention to avoid the resurrection.
Correction: It goes back at least to the nineteenth century, and some forms of it were held by believers who accepted visions as God’s way of communicating.
Misunderstanding: If the appearances were visions, Christianity is false.
Correction: Christians differ. Some hold that a vision caused by God would still be a revelation, though most traditions insist on the bodily event.
Knowledge check
What does research show about experiences of the dead among the bereaved?
Surveys, including a well-known 1971 study of Welsh widows and widowers, found that nearly half of those surveyed had some sense of the dead partner’s presence, including seeing or hearing them. These experiences are common among healthy people, brief, and usually understood by the person as a kind of vision.
What are two main objections to the vision theory?
Hallucinations are private and group hallucinations are rare, yet the sources report group appearances. Also the persons involved include a skeptic and a persecutor as well as grieving followers, and grief visions would not normally lead to the claim of bodily resurrection or explain the empty tomb.
How do proponents of the theory respond?
They say the group reports come from shaped traditions, that one vision can spread by suggestion, that Paul and James had their own reasons, that the Jewish resurrection hope supplied the category, and that the empty tomb may be legend. Their case depends on how reliable the sources are.
Why do background beliefs matter in judging the theory?
If a resurrection is thought possible, it competes with the vision theory as a hypothesis. If it is considered impossible, the vision theory is accepted by default. So the dispute is partly about how plausible a miracle is, not only about the evidence for the appearances.
Think it through
- Have you or anyone you know had a vivid experience of someone who had died?
- What features of the appearance accounts would you most want the theory to explain?
- Is it fair to say that this theory treats the disciples with more respect than the conspiracy theory? Why?
- What would you need to see to decide between a vision and an event?
Independent assignment
Putting the theory to the test
In your own notebook, write 400 to 600 words. State the vision theory in its strongest form, list four facts about the earliest Christian claim that it must explain, and for each rate how well it does. Conclude with how strong you think the theory is. Do not send this to anyone.
Further study
- N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God Read his discussion of the vision and hallucination theories.
- William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics Read his response to hallucination and compare it with the strongest forms of the theory.
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Hume on Religion Read for the broader question of testimony and miracle.
- David Bentley Hart, The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss Read for the philosophy of religious experience.
- 2 Corinthians 12:2 Paul speaks of visions and revelations of the Lord.
- Acts 9:3 Paul on the road to Damascus.