Further Thoughts on Medjugorje and the Resurrection of Jesus

In the comment section of my last post on the apparitions at Medjugorje and the ramifications for NT claims of Resurrection, a gentleman by the name of Scott offered some objections. Below is my response.

Scott,

Thanks for your comments. No, I don't find them offensive at all. I appreciate your tone and your thoroughness. I invite intelligent dialogue. Believe it or not, I don't claim infallibility for my positions. They are subject to change, if I am convinced that I need to.

You say:

1) It is my understanding that the common rabbinical teachings of that time did not teach to expect a resurrected Messiah simply because they didn't expect a crucified one. They were anticipating an earthly king to assume the throne of David and restore the majesty of God's nation. Jesus routinely chides the Pharisees and Sadducees for misinterpreting Moses, the prophets and the Psalms regarding this concept.

I agree with everything except the last sentence. I tend to think that the references to Jesus dying and rising are later redactions to the oral tradition and then the gospels. If Jesus had been as clear on his dying and rising as the gospels indicate, then the disciples would have been as "thick as a brick" not to have understood what has happening when he was crucified. If the gospels are accurate, they should have expected him to rise on the third day.

You are right that Second Temple Judaism did not expect or teach a dying Messiah. So the disciples were completely confused when Jesus died and scared that they might also be crucified. As they contemplated what happened, they began to think of Jesus as a martyr. There was a concept that the resurrection would be for the martyrs as a form of God's vindication. (Dan. 12; 2 Mac. 4). When Peter announced that he had seen the Lord alive, the disciples fit this report into their theological grid of a resurrected martyr. Now, why did Peter have a vision? I think his can truly be explained as a hallucination brought on by grief and guilt. After Peter told them of the appearance, the disciples mood changed to one of expectation.

You say:

2) Jesus' followers didn't even really get that He was the promised Messiah until after his ascension. That is clear from the questions they ask while he's with them, and from all of Jesus' rebukes to the disciples. It is also clear in the record of the 2 travelers on the Emmaus road. They were devastated by the death of Jesus; there is no reason to conclude that they would have been expecting to "see" a resurrected Jesus then or anytime afterward.

I don't accept the Emmaus road story as factual.

You say:

3) Before Jesus came on the scene contemporary resurrections weren't exactly common place. The Jews would have been familiar with the account of Elisha and the Shumanite woman's son but outside of that resurrection wasn't on their radar, especially not resurrections that they would witness. This is evident from Martha's response to Jesus over the death of her brother Lazarus. When Jesus tells her that Lazarus will rise again she says "Ya. I know. On the last day." She was thinking of the after-life not the now-life.

You are right, the Jewish expectation was that the resurrection took place on the last day. But when the disciples started to believe that Jesus was alive, they also started to believe that the last day had begun. Jesus had preached the end of the age from the beginning of his ministry until the last. He told them in Matt. 24:34 that it would come about in their generation. They began to think that the eschaton had begun and that any moment the Son of Man would come in the clouds and bring about the final resurrection and judgment. When the first theologian of Christianity, Paul wrote about this in 1 Cor. 15, he said that Jesus' resurrection was the first-fruits and that the believers would soon follow suit (1 Cor. 15:23-24). Paul expected Jesus to return any moment (1 Cor. 7:29-31; 15:51-52; 1 Thess. 4:15). As time passed and Jesus didn't return and people started to die, there was concern over whether these "dead in Christ" had missed out.

As time continued to go by and Jesus still had not returned, Paul began to think that the end would not come until he had taken the gospel all the way to Rome and the fullness of the Gentiles be brought in. At that point, Jesus would return and all of Israel would be saved (Rom. 11:25-26). After Paul was executed, the church had to rethink things again. Some came to the conclusion that Jesus meant that at least one of his disciples would be alive to see his return. This came to be associated with John (John 21:23). But then John died. This caused many to begin to really mock (2 Pet. 3). New explanations had to come into place. Interpretations of eschatology have since evolved in all kinds of directions--amillennialism, premillennialism, preterism (both full and partial), dispensationalism, postmillennialism, and so on (see "At Best Jesus was a Failed Apocalyptic Prophet," by John Loftus in The Christian Delusion; also see E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, and Dale Allison, Jesus of Nazareth: millenarian prophet).

Concerning Medjugorje, I don't argue that every last detail is the same as the reported appearances of Jesus but I agree with Avalos that there are enough similarities to warrant a thorough comparison.

You say:

1. The Medjugorie apparitions proper of Mary are limited to just 6 visionaries. While others have reported seeing other mysterious things none of them have the same apparitions of Mary that those exclusive 6 have. In contrast Jesus appeared not to just a select few but to many different people: 2 Marys, the 11 disciples, the 2 on the road to Emmaus, a group of about 500 people and Saul/Paul.

2. The visions of Medjugorie are isolated; Mary appears and speaks only in Medjugorie. Whereas with Jesus, he appeared in many different places and under different circumstances: at the tomb site; on the shores of the Sea of Galilee; in the upper room; to a group of about 500 people; to the 2 on the road to Emmaus; and finally to Saul/Paul (who wasn't a believer) on his way to persecute Christians.

3. The Medjugorie apparitions are on a schedule. Some daily; some yearly. The sightings of the post-resurrection Jesus were neither predicted nor predictable on any timetable with one exception: when Jesus told both Marys to tell the disciples to meet him in Galilee.

4. The Medjugorie sightings of Mary are visions only. At the very least Mary Magdalene, Mary, and Thomas touched the resurrected Jesus. And the 2 on the Emmaus road ate with Jesus post-resurrection.

But understand, I don't accept every detail in the NT as inerrant as you and Craig and Habermas do. I take into account the results of historical criticism which show that many of these stories were added and modified by redactors. I accept the notion that Peter and Paul saw the risen Jesus (or thought they did) but I am dubious about the other reports. As I pointed out in the posts, if one accepts the inerrancy of the NT, then, of course, one will conclude a supernatural event took place. That is why I say that the apologists are begging the question. What they need to do is to prove that historical criticism is wrong and that the NT really is inerrant and then they would have a strong case for the resurrection.

You say:

Finally I'd like to comment in general on this whole idea of attempting to discover and explain the supernatural using natural methods and means. By definition supernatural things are those that occur/exist above or outside of the natural. If you can explain/prove a "supernatural" event by naturalistic means then by definition it is not supernatural. The Venn diagram of things "Natural" just keeps including more of what was "Supernatural." This occurred to me while viewing one of the diagrams of one of your professor friends that you linked to in one of your recent posts (sorry I'm not finding it right now). But I can describe it. The picture was divided in half horizontally; on top were things that were so-called "supernatural" and on the bottom was the "natural." As I recall the goal was to move all things from the top to the bottom of the diagram through naturalistic explanations thus nullifying (at least in theory) the supernatural realm. As each thing in the upper half is explained by naturalistic means and methods it is no longer supernatural and now becomes subsumed by the sphere of what is natural. The fault with that should be obvious. If it can be explained naturally then of course by definition it is not supernatural and it never was. However this activity dis/proves nothing about the existence or non-existence of the supernatural. This approach does nothing to eliminate the concept of the supernatural or the fact that there really might be things in this universe that cannot be explained by naturalistic means no matter how hard we try. Isn't it possible?

I agree but what it does show is that much of what used to be thought only explainable through supernatural means is now explainable through natural means. Fewer and fewer things are on the top half. That doesn't prove the supernatural doesn't exist, but it does prove that man has often too quickly jumped to the conclusion of a supernatural explanation.

You say:

The other obvious fault in your position is the same one you lay at the feet of those who believe in the supernatural: presuppositionalism. I know you'd like to think that you are totally objective and unaffected by anything other than science, logic and reason.

I don't even claim to be objective much less totally objective. I don't think true objectivity exists. We are all subjects and whatever we see and experience is by definition subjective. An attempt can be made to move towards objectivity by involving more people (that's why juries have multiple people) and "comparing notes" and listening to objections to your views, and so on. We all have biases but if one realizes what one's biases are and tries to give a "fair shake" to other viewpoints, one can move towards the goal of objectiivity. That is why I am a firm believer in reading the "other side." If one only reads what one agrees with, one will never be challenged or be able to move towards the truth. That is why I read Craig, Habermas, Licona, and so on. I want to see the best arguments that evangelicalism has to offer.

And, I have not ruled out the supernatural a priori. I allow for the possibility that it might exist. I just have not seen sufficient evidence to believe at this point.

Scott, thanks again for your interaction.

One more point I would like to make about Medjugorje. Hector Avalos, in his book, The End of Biblical Studies (pp. 191-92) looks at the apparitions of Medjugorje in light of William Craig's criteria for a historical theory.

1. It has great explanatory scope. It explains why Mary's tomb has never been found, why people all over the world see postmortem appearances of Mary, and why faith in Marian apparitions came into being.

2. It has great explanatory power. It explains why Mary's body has never been found, why people repeatedly see Mary alive despite her earlier presumed death and burial (or disappearance).

3. It is plausible. Given the historical context of Mary's own unparalleled life and claims, the resurrection or continued existence of Mary serves as a direct confirmation of those radical claims.

4. It is not ad hoc or contrived. It requires only one additional hypothesis--that God exists. And even that need not be an additional hypothesis if you already believe in God's existence.

5. It is in accord with accepted beliefs. The hypothesis "God raised Mary from the dead or keeps her alive" does not in any way conflict with the accepted belief tht people don't rise naturally from the dead. The Marianist Christian accepts that belief wholeheartedly as he or she accepts the hypothesis that God raised Mary from the dead (or kept her from ever dying).

6. It far outstrips any rival theories in meeting conditions 1 through 5. Down through history various rival explanations have been offered. Such hypotheses have been almost universally rejected by contemporary Marian scholarship. No naturalistic hypothesis has attracted a great number of Marian scholars.

If one were to apply Craig's criticisms of naturalistic explanations for the belief in the resurrection of Jesus against the naturalisitic explanations for the belief in Marian apparitions, one would have to conclude that the Marian apparitions are genuine. It is a double standard to accept one and not the other.

Apparitions at Medjugorje and Ramifications for NT Claims of Resurrection

In the comments section of yesterday's post a gentlemen who calls himself Pilgrim described some of his experiences at Medjugorje. He has visited the location 35 times in the last 10 years. I appreciate him sharing his thoughts. The phenomena happening at Medjugorje is fascinating and relevant to the discussion of the reported post-mortem appearances of Jesus in the NT.

Hector Avalos wrote the following to me in an email yesterday:

I argue that the Medjugorje apparitions are an excellent laboratory for testing claims about the Jesus stories. There you have all the elements that are usually used to argue for the historicity of Jesus:

1. Witnesses that have little social standing.

2. Claimed physical contact with a person otherwise regarded as dead.

3. Creation of "gospels" within a short span of time, as opposed to the claim that legends need long periods of time to form.

4. Disavowal of the witnesses by main authorities, and yet popular support growing enormously.

5. No recantations of the witnesses despite opposition and persecution.

6. The Medjugorje witnesses were subjected to more scientific tests than anything we have for the Jesus witnesses.

There are many others, too. In short, I don't think the that historical Jesus can be discussed again without thorough acquaintance with events such as those at Medjugorje.

I am not aware of any in-depth study of this phenomena by evangelical Christians. As Steve pointed out in the comment section, Craig and other apologists constantly say that people in NT times would have checked out the disciple's claim that Jesus was risen. Yet, I don't see Craig or any other apologist checking out these apparitions at Medjugorje. I wonder why not? Could it be that they just dismiss it as emotionalism fueled by superstition? Perhaps, that is what the people in NT times thought when they heard the disciples' claim and so they didn't bother to check it out either.

There have been studies of the phenomena at Medjugorje by others, however. A book published in 1987 by Rene Laurentin and Henri Joyeux, entitled: Scientific and Medical Studies on the Apparitions at Medjugorje . Joyeux, a medical doctor, was the Professor of Oncology in the Faculty of Medicine at Montpellier, France at the time of the study. Laurentin, a priest, a Marian apologist and historian, synthesized the research and co-authored the book with Joyeux. I have not personally read the book but I have it on order. However, Hector Avalos, wrote an article in 1994 for Free Inquiry in which he examined the evidence presented by Joyeux and Laurentin. The article is entitled: Mary at Medjugorje: A Critical Inquiry .

Avalos writes:

Joyeux concluded that the visionaries had no mental illness of any sort. The apparitions are not sleep or dream or hallucination in
the medical or pathological sense of the word. This is scientifically excluded by the electro-encephalogram and by clinical observation. He also excludes "any element of deceit." Since Joyeux could not find any condition that he would label "pathological," he concludes, "We are dealing with a perception which is essentially objective both in its causality and in its scope." As to the cause of the youngsters' experience, he says, "The most obvious answer is that given by the visionaries who claim to meet the Virgin Mary, Mother of God." In sum, Laurentin and Joyeux conclude that there is no scientific or natural explanation available to account for the reports of the visionaries. More important, they conclude that the absence of any condition labeled as "pathological" is evidence that the reported experience of the visionaries is authentically supernatural.

So, the doctor and the priest conclude that the visionaries were (1) not mentally ill, (2) not hallucinating nor dreaming, and (3) not lying. Their conclusion was that the phenomena was indeed supernatural.

Avalos points out that studies have shown that hallucinations are not necessarily due to mental illness. There is a misconception that hallucinations are either caused by psychosis or by drugs. Instead, there is evidence that otherwise perfectly normal and sober people do experience hallucinations. An article in the Scientific American, Ghost Stories: Visits from the Deceased, cites a research study that concluded that 80% of elderly people experience hallucinations of their deceased spouse. A third of those studied heard their recently departed partner speak to them. One of the most thorough studies of hallucinations, Sensory Deception: A Scientific Analysis of Hallucination, written by Peter Slade and Richard Bentall, estimates that 7 to 14% of people have experienced an hallucination. In the article, Hallucinations, in the Encylopedia of Psychology (ed. R. J. Corsini), it is reported that anywhere from 1/8 to 2/3 of the normal population experience hallucinations.

Avalos asks:

Why do otherwise normal people come to believe that they are witnessing non-occurring entities and events? The Barber and Calverley experiment [Toward a Theory of "Hypnotic" Behavior] as well as a host of recent research, indicates that human acts of perception always involve interpretations and inferences that may be held in common by large groups of people. Raw visual and auditory data are combined with inferences about what was thought to be seen and heard. We often select out of the large raw input of visual and auditory data those that we regard as important and that confirm expectations, especially if they are desirable.

Many recent experiments show that the human mind is biologically wired to interpolate many expected images or portions thereof, even if such images are not objectively present. People often form mental images of all types of objects, real and unreal.

He continues:

Once a believer is convinced that an inference is valid, then the conclusion may be considered sufficiently certain to contradict or suppress raw visual data. Any further disconfirmation of their interpretation may be either ignored or disregarded in favor of the inference. This type of avoidance of disconfirming data among Marian devotees is clearly manifested in the oft-repeated dictum: "To those who believe, no proof is necessary; to those who doubt,
no proof is sufficient."

Avalos argues:

If, as in the Barber and Calverley experiments, an average of at least 33 percent of people with no obvious pathology can report clearly seeing or hearing events that are not occurring, then it would not be extraordinary to find 333 "normal" people in a parish of at least one thousand believers who could report seeing or hearing non-occurring events, especially when, as is the case with supposed Marian apparitions, the events in question are believed to be not only possible but desirable as well.

If, as in the Barber and Calverley experiment, at least 2.5 percent believe what they are seeing or hearing is actually present, then it would not be extraordinary to find at least twenty-five people in a parish of one thousand members who actually believe what they are seeing and hearing is present in real time and space.

Avalos believes that the social setting in which many of these visions takes place is very conducive to such claims. He writes: Imagine living in a subculture that constantly and repeatedly suggests to its members the desirability of experiencing a Marian apparition. Imagine living in a subculture where young people who have claimed to have seen Marian apparitions at Lourdes, Fatima, and other places also are beloved role models.

In addition, other cues within in the subculture can influence the nature of the visions. . . .it also provides detailed and coherent imagery of how the Virgin Mary ought to look and speak. According to P. and I. Rodgers, a picture of Mary supported by a cloud rising above Medjugorje has been present in the church of the visionaries since about 1971. Not surprisingly, the youngsters' description of the Virgin is quite consistent with the picture to which they were exposed for years.

So, it seems to me that we are justified in being skeptical of these visions. Many within the Catholic Church are themselves skeptical. Bishop Pavao Zanic, the former bishop for the diocese which includes Medjugorje, denies the validity of the visions. He even maintains that it is a conspiracy of the Franciscans. Cardinal José Saraiva Martins, the former prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints (the group that recommends individuals for sainthood, a requirement of which is to have worked miracles), as recently as January of this year expressed his strong doubts about the authenticity of the visions.

I do not question the sincerity of those who claim to have experienced miraculous phenomena in Medjugorge but I do question the reality of it. Pilgrim, the individual who commented on yesterday's post, says he saw the sun "spinning" in the sky on many occasions and on one occasion he saw it "dancing." He describes what he saw:

The sun seemed to descend towards me. In fact, I thought it about to crash to the earth. It then receded, and then moved to my right across the sky to a two o’clock position before returning to its starting point. From there it again started to descend towards me and once more receded. Its next move was to my left and a 10 o’clock position. When this happened I literally had to turn my head to follow its movement. Once more it moved back to its starting point before descending towards me. Finally, it settled back to its original position, pulsating and spinning. The whole event probably lasted between five and ten minutes

.
Once again, I do not doubt Pilgrim's sincerity but I do deny the objective reality of what he saw. If the sun had literally moved around in the sky in the fashion he describes, it would have caused enormous consequences on the earth. It would have been reported by every observatory in the world. It just could not have happened in any objective sense.

What are the ramifications of all of this for the claims in the NT that Jesus was seen alive after his death? I think we can conclude that at least some of those who claimed to see him probably did see something. What they saw, however, was not, in my opinion, objective reality. They were not crazy. They were not lying. They were not on drugs. They experienced a phenomena that was not unique to them or their time in history. Such visions have been reported almost since the invention of writing. We don't understand everything involved in this phenomena but I don't believe there is any need to conclude they are supernatural.

Did the Disciples Hallucinate? -- Part Three

In a prior post, I referred to NT scholar Gerd Lüdemann's book What really happened to Jesus: a historical approach to the Resurrection. The book is a popularization of his more thorough treatment of the subject, The Resurrection of Christ: A Historical Inquiry . Ludeman is perhaps the best defender today of the hallucination theory among NT scholars. In 1997, William Craig debated Ludemann at Boston University. The debate turned into a book entitled: Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment?: A Debate Between William Lane Craig and Gerd Ludemann .

Craig has also written an article, Visions of Jesus: A Critical Assessment of Gerd Lüdemann's Hallucination Hypothesis, which is available on his web site.

In the article, Craig gives his problems with the hallucination theory. First, he says that it lacks explanatory scope, i.e., the ability to explain all the factors associated with the resurrection. He writes:

This is the central failing of the Hallucination Hypothesis. Offered only as a way of explaining the post–mortem appearances of Jesus, its explanatory scope is too narrow because it offers nothing by way of explanation of the empty tomb. In order to explain the empty tomb, one must conjoin some independent hypothesis to the Hallucination Hypothesis.

If this is the central failing of the theory, then I think Craig is in trouble. Why should all the various details surrounding the resurrection as reported in the gospels have to be explained by one theory? In reality, the hallucination theory is part of a bigger theory that would include how the empty tomb legend developed. Craig's objection seems ludicrous. Reports of unusual phenomena are sometimes complicated, especially when more than one person is involved; to require that one explanation fit all the circumstances involved is absurd. For example, many different people report seeing UFO's. Must all of these be explained under one theory? They all saw a weather balloon? No, there is a multitude of different things that one could see that might make him think he is seeing a UFO.

Second, Craig maintains that the hallucination theory lacks explanatory power, i.e., the ability to adequately explain the nature of the appearances. He writes:

... the diversity of the appearances is not well–explained by means of such visions. The appearances were experienced many different times, by different individuals, by groups, at various locales and under various circumstances, and by not only believers, but also by unbelievers like James the brother of Jesus and the Pharisee Saul of Tarsus.

This diversity is very difficult to explain by recourse to hallucinations. For hallucinations require a special psychological state on the part of the percipient. But since a guilt complex "ex hypothesi" obtained only for Peter and Paul, the diversity of the post–mortem appearances must be explained as a sort of contagion, a chain reaction.

Just like Gary Habermas, Craig is presupposing the inerrancy of the NT reports. If one does that, then, of course, there is no way to explain the resurrection in naturalistic terms. The counter-apologist must not allow himself to be drawn into this trap. It could be that Peter and Paul are the only ones who actually did see something. The stories of the appearances to the Twelve, to James, and to the 500 could be legendary developments. Or, some others could have claimed to see visions too as we know that it was a status symbol (1 Cor. 9:1). You didn't want to be a second-class citizen. This "me too" phenomena is seen in all kinds of human social settings. For example, in some Charismatic churches, one is not a good Christian unless one has spoken in tongues. There is huge sociological pressure to "fit in." Under this kind of pressure and the contagious excitement of those who have claimed the supernatural gift, many people will claim something that they are really not sure they have experienced but, as time goes on, they do convince themselves of the reality of their experiences (See Glossolalia: behavioral science perspectives on speaking in tongues, by H. Newton Malony and A. Adams Lovekin).

Craig argues that the diversity associated with the various appearances argues against the hallucination theory. He says:

It is important to keep in mind that it is the diversity that is at issue here, not merely individual incidents. Even if one could compile from the casebooks an amalgam consisting of stories of hallucinations over a period of time (like the visions in Medjugorje), mass hallucinations (as at Lourdes), hallucinations to various individuals, and so forth, the fact remains that there is no single instance in the casebooks exhibiting the diversity involved in the post–mortem appearances of Jesus. It is only by compiling unrelated cases that anything analogous might be constructed .

But the fact that there are so many different cases in history that can be amalgamated as Craig says is proof that hallucinations can take place under a lot of various circumstances.

Craig also maintains that an hallucination would not have been interpreted by the disciples as a physical resurrection. He writes:

Subjective visions, or hallucinations, have no extra–mental correlate but are projections of the percipient's own brain. So if, as an eruption of a guilty conscience, Paul or Peter were to have projected visions of Jesus alive, they would have envisioned him in Paradise, where the righteous dead awaited the eschatological resurrection. But such exalted visions of Christ leave unexplained their belief in his resurrection. The inference "He is risen from the dead," so natural to our ears, would have been wholly unnatural to a first century Jew. In Jewish thinking there was already a category perfectly suited to describe Peter's postulated experience: Jesus had been assumed into heaven. An assumption is a wholly different category from a resurrection.

This argument is also put forward by N. T. Wright in his massive volume, The Resurrection of the Son of God. There are at least two problems with it.

First, there was a lot of diversity among Jewish beliefs in the first century. There were the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Essenes, as well as others. There were also sects and cults that had incorporated various Greek ideas into Jewish theology. To maintain that the Jewish belief in the afterlife was monolithic in the first century is mistaken.

Second, the concept of the resurrection seems to have entered Jewish theology during the exile and is found primarily in the Hebrew writings after that time, namely Daniel and 2 Maccabees. Many scholars believe this belief in the resurrection was adapted from the Persian religion of Zoroastrianism . The concept of the resurrection in Jewish theology arose as a way to explain how God would vindicate the martyrs. Initially, it seems that Jews who believed in a resurrection expected only the martyrs to be raised (see Life after death: a history of the afterlife in the religions of the West, by Alan Segal, pp. 248ff.)

Since Jesus would have been viewed by his followers as a martyr, it would have been natural for them to think that he would be resurrected. As for the argument that they believed the resurrection would only take place at the end of the age, the fact is they did think they were at the end of the age. Jesus had taught that the end was near. He said that this generation will not pass away until all these things be fulfilled (Matthew 24:36). The author of Matthew's gospel, which is commonly thought to be written primarily to a Jewish audience, is the only one to include the resurrection of many saints in connection with Jesus' death (Matthew 27:52-53). When Paul offered the first theological interpretation of the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15, he argued that Jesus' resurrection was the first-fruits (15:23) and that soon all believers will join in that resurrection (15:51-52).

I will continue discussing Craig's objections to the hallucination theory in the next post.

Did the Disciples Hallucinate? -- Part Two

In a previous post, the question, did the disciples hallucinate?, was examined. This post continues that discussion.

The Christian apologist Gary Habermas has written an article in which he argues against the hallucination theory. He lists four problems with the concept of collective hallucinations.

First, he says that the primary example often cited for the reality of mass hallucinations is Marian apparitions. He argues that these examples simply beg the question whether such experiences could possibly be objective, or even supernatural, at least in some sense. In other words, why must a naturalistic, subjective explanation be assumed? This approach seems to rule out the apparitions in an a priori manner, before the data are considered.

It is interesting that Habermas is open to the possibility that these visions of Mary may be genuine because most of his evangelical brethren are not so open. The reason is that if these visions were veridical, then that would validate the Roman Catholic teaching on Mary and by implication all of Roman theology. Evangelical Christianity and the RCC are at odds on major theological doctrines and thus most evangelicals are not willing to grant this validation. I agree, however, that one should not rule out the reality of these visions a priori . The data should be examined and if possible scientific methodology used to evaluate the evidence.

Habermas' second objection is that the collective hallucination thesis is unfalsifiable. It could be applied to purely natural, group sightings, simply calling them group hallucinations, too. Concerning this thesis, crucial epistemic criteria seem to be missing. It can be used to explain (away) almost any unusual occurrence. How do we determine normal occurrences from group hallucinations?

This is a valid objection and needs to be examined. It is impossible to say that the individuals are hallucinating in psychological terms unless each individual can be examined. However, whether or not the claimed vision seems to have any real objective presence can be evaluated. This evaluation can then determine if the group of people really saw what they thought they saw or not. If it is determined that they did not really see what they thought they saw, then an explanation for their mistaken perception can be sought.

There is an interesting discussion on an apologetics website in which a fictional scenario is created with a defense attorney arguing that the three eyewitnesses to the murder were actually hallucinating. The judge will not permit the argument because in his opinion unless there can be some grounds for believing the witnesses did hallucinate, then it would
create substantial danger of undue prejudice. The point that the apologist is attempting to make by using this fictional court case is this:

Before trying to convince people that the disciples hallucinated Jesus resurrection, there should be some basis for finding it likely that they may have. This doesn’t exist in the case of the resurrection. Consequently, even though it can be raised as a possibility, the claims should be disregarded on the basis that, without more foundation, they create “substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading” the listener.

There are a number of problems in using this court analogy to illustrate the case for the resurrection of Jesus. First, there are no multiple eyewitness accounts in Scripture. There are second or third hand reports of multiple eyewitnesses. Second, in a court room, eyewitnesses can be cross-examined and even evaluated psychologically if deemed appropriate by the court. Third, contrary testimony can be introduced if it exists. In the case of the gospels, we don't have the other side of the story because all we have are documents written by the side that believes the appearances were real. We don't have any documents from those, and there were obviously many, who did not believe the resurrection had really taken place.

Habermas' third objection to collective hallucinations is:

Even if it could be established that groups of people experienced hallucinations, it does not mean that these experiences were therefore collective. If, as most psychologists assert, hallucinations are private, individual events, then how could groups share exactly the same subjective visual perception? Rather, it is much more likely that the phenomena in question are either illusions — perceptual misinterpretations of actual realities— or individual hallucinations.

I think this is a valid argument. From what we know about hallucinations, it doesn't appear that a group of people could have precisely the same hallucination at precisely the same time. However, as Habermas admits, there are other possibilities. First, one person could hallucinate and then as that person describes what he is seeing, others see the same thing perhaps by illusion rather than hallucination. Second, it could be that the whole group is experiencing an illusion rather than a hallucination.

Habermas' fourth objection is that the conditions reported in the NT differ from the conditions necessary for collective hallucinations. He refers to the work of Leonard Zusne and Warren H. Jones, Anomalistic psychology: a study of magical thinking , in which they maintain that expectation and emotional excitement are prerequisites before such group experiences can occur. Habermas contends:

These necessary elements contradict the emotional state of the early witnesses of Jesus’ resurrection appearances. The early believers were confronted with the utter reality of the recent and unexpected death of their best friend, whom they had hoped would rescue Israel. As those events unfolded in a whirlwind of incidents that included Jesus’ physical beatings, crucifixion, and seeming abandonment, the normal response would have been fear, disillusionment, and depression. To suppose that these believers exhibited “expectation” and “emotional excitement” in the face of these stark circumstances would require responses on heir part that would scarcely be exhibited at a funeral! All indications are that Jesus’ disciples exhibited the very opposite emotions from what Zusne and Jones assert as being necessary for such hallucinations.

Again, Habermas is assuming the inerrancy of the NT documents, and as I have already admitted, if the NT documents are inerrant then there is no natural explanation for what happened. However, if one treats the documents as one treats any other historical documents and assumes that there is both truth and error in the stories, then one can come up with other explanations. I would propose the possibility that Peter was the first one to have a vision of the risen Jesus. Perhaps it could be explained on the basis of his grief and overwhelming guilt for denying his Lord. In order to resolve these psychological issues, he experienced an hallucination in which he really believed that his Lord was alive.(See Gerd Lüdemann, What really happened to Jesus: a historical approach to the Resurrection, pp. 92-95). When he reported this experience to the other disciples, they did become emotionally excited and anxiously expected their Lord to appear to them as well.

In reality, there is no reason to believe that were any group sightings of Jesus unless one presupposes the inerrancy of the NT. It is actually more likely than a few experienced visions or hallucinations at separate times and as these appearances were told and retold by word of mouth and eventually written down a generation or more later, the individual appearances had morphed into group appearances with Jesus even having a physical body and being able to eat fish, and so on.

Did the Disciples Hallucinate?

After going through, in previous posts, Phillip Wiebe's possible explanations of the visions of Jesus discussed in his book,Visions of Jesus: Direct Encounters from the NT to Today, I want to ask the question: Were the reported post-mortem appearances of Jesus in the NT hallucinations?

Christian apologists such as Gary Habermas have argued that the hallucination theory is not plausible. The primary argument given by Habermas and other defenders of the resurrection against the theory is that hallucinations are experienced by individuals not groups. Since the NT records Jesus appearing to groups of people at various times, those appearances cannot be hallucinations. Habermas poses the following question: If, as most psychologists assert, hallucinations are private, individual events, then how could groups share exactly the same subjective visual perception?

First, and most importantly, Habermas is presupposing that the accounts in the NT are true in every detail. The school where he teaches, Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, has in its doctrinal statement the following: We affirm that the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, though written by men, was supernaturally inspired by God so that all its words are the written true revelation of God; it is therefore inerrant (emphasis added) in the originals and authoritative in all matters. If one begins by assuming that the gospels are without error, then of course one is going to conclude that Jesus arose literally from the tomb. One is going to find it impossible to explain what is recorded in the NT on a purely naturalistic basis if one begins with the prior faith commitment that the Scriptures are absolute truth. But that is simply begging the question.

Second, one could theorize that perhaps Peter was the first to have a vision of Jesus and then as he told the other disciples about his experience, some of them also had a similar experience. It is not necessary to suppose that they all had the same experience at the same time unless one presupposes the inerrancy of the gospels. The same holds true of the 500 to whom Jesus is said to have appeared. Since Paul give no details about the alleged appearance--not the time, not the place, not the circumstances, not the names of the people involved, nothing--then, it is impossible to evaluate the claim.

Third, contrary to Habermas' claim, it is possible for a group of people to hallucinate at the same time. Hallucinate may not technically be the best word to describe group appearances, but regardless, we know that groups of people have all claimed to see the same apparition at the same time. The best examples are the cases of Marian apparitions which have occurred throughout history and today in settings where groups of people claim to have seen the Virgin. In recent times, these group visions of Mary have taken place in Conyers, Georgia and Medjugorje, Bosnia.

The Skeptic's Dictionary defines collective hallucination as:

a sensory hallucination induced by the power of suggestion to a group of people. It generally occurs in heightened emotional situations, especially among the religiously devoted. The expectancy and hope of bearing witness to a miracle, combined with long hours of staring at an object or place, makes certain religious persons susceptible to seeing such things as weeping statues, moving icons and holy portraits, or the Virgin Mary in the clouds.

Those witnessing a "miracle" agree in their hallucinatory accounts because they have the same preconceptions and expectations. Furthermore, dissimilar accounts converge towards harmony as time passes and the accounts get retold. Those who see nothing extraordinary and admit it are dismissed as not having faith. Some, no doubt, see nothing but "rather than admit they failed...would imitate the lead given by those who did, and subsequently believe that they had in fact observed what they had originally only pretended to observe...."(Rawcliffe, 114).

Not all collective hallucinations are religious, of course. In 1897, Edmund Parish reported of shipmates who had shared a ghostly vision of their cook who had died a few days earlier. The sailors not only saw the ghost, but distinctly saw him walking on the water with his familiar and recognizable limp. Their ghost turned out to be a "piece of wreck, rocked up and down by the waves" (Parish, 311; cited in Rawcliffe, 115).

The Rawcliffe cited above is the psychologist, Donovan H. Rawcliffe, who in 1952 wrote a book entitled: Illusions and Delusions of the Supernatural and the Occult . On page 113 of that book, he writes:

The same factors which operate for a single individual in the induction of hallucinations or pseudo-hallucinations may become even more effective in an excited or expectant crowd, and on occasion may result in mass hallucinations. This is not to say that any two people are capable of having precisely the same hallucination identical in every respect. But similar preconceptions and expectations can undoubtedly result in hallucinatory visions so alike that subsequent comparisons would not disclose any major discrepancy. . . . Accounts of comparatively dissimilar hallucinatory experiences often attain a spurious similarity by a process of harmonisation in subsequent recollection and conversation.

Since we know that the reports of the post-mortem appearances of Jesus were passed down by oral tradition for many years before they were ever recorded, it is quite reasonable to assume that the various accounts were harmonized as they were retold.

Habermas is right to argue that its impossible for a group of people to have precisely the same hallucination at the same time but its not necessary to believe that is what actually occurred unless one presupposes the inerrancy of the written gospels. Thus, Habermas dismissal of the hallucination theory on the grounds that mass hallucinations is impossible is misguided.

Neurophysiological Explanations of Visions--Part Two

Continuing the discussion of Phillip Wiebe's Visions of Jesus: Direct Encounters from the NT to Today, I want to again examine neurophysiological explanations for the visions.

Another theory produced by neruophysiology is the perceptual release theory. This theory states that information obtained through sensory perception is stored, altered, and then "released into consciousness" at a later time and experienced as a hallucination. This mechanism has been thought to be the basis for both dreams and hallucinations (Wiebe, p. 201).

According to Ernest Hartmann (Dreams and Other Hallucinations: An Approach to the Underlying Mechanism in R.K Siegel and L. J. West, eds. Hallucinations: Behavior, Experience, and Theory), The neurophysiological activities thought to be involved are those in the brain stem, including some originating in the pontine brain stem that bombard the cerebral cortex, possibly the visual area.... defects in the norepinephrine systems involved in neurotransmission could account for some forms of hallucination, and the chemical substructure of such functions as reality testing might be found in the ascending norepinephrine systems that extend to the cerebral cortex (Wiebe, p. 202).

Another theory propounded by some neurologists is the information processing theory. Mardi Horowitz (Hallucinations: An Information Processing Approach in Siegel and West) argues that hallucinations are a form of image representation. An image is information that remains after a perceptual event has taken place, capable of being combined with other information derived from memory, thinking, and fantasy (Wiebe, pp. 202-03).

An important factor according to Horowitz is the capacity of the image forming systems to obtain information from both internal and external origins. . . . Experimental evidence shows that normal subjects can confuse internal and external signals when the latter are vague or dim (Wiebe, p. 203). According to Horowitz, hallucinations are caused by an intensification or "release" of images of internal origin when external image formation decreases but the representational system is still "on" (cited in Wiebe, p. 203). When external stimulation falls below a certain threshold, but cortical arousal remains constant, previously recorded perceptions are released into awareness and are experienced there as hallucinations (Wiebe, p. 204). This phenomena is more likely in cases where the information processing system has become impaired either through damage, intoxication, sleep deprivation, high anxiety, stress, deep depression, grief, and so on.

Another neurophysiological explanation for visions is the overactive reticular system theory advocated by Frank Fish (A Neurophysiological Theory of Schizophrenia, Journal of Mental Science). The reticular system is a tight, complex network of fibers at a point where the spinal cord ends and the brain begins. A site of vital brain activity, it is causally related to sleep and arousal, reflexes and muscle tone, and with the organization of the brain as a whole (Wiebe, p. 206).

Fish says that the hallucinations of schizophrenics occur as a result of overactivity of the reticular system, resulting in certain cell assemblies being closer than usual to their firing threshold. When a sensory event occurs, the cell assemblies that are activated acquire greater significance than they normally would, and produce a new set of cell assemblies capable of later becoming active independently of the sensory input that led to their development in the first place. Because the new set of cell assemblies is not well-integrated into the central processes that are part of normal experience, it is not associated with the sense of self that is part of the central processes. So when the new set of cell assemblies is later triggered, producing a hallucination, it is experienced as foreign (Wiebe, p. 206).

This theory may explain the out of the body sensation that some experience when having a vision. Note Paul in 2 Corinthians 12:2: I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know-God knows. Mystics typically report out of the body sensations when they experience a vision. This experience can be seen clinically according to Fish, in both schizophrenics and amphetamines drug users. In both cases the reticular system is overactive.

Neurophysiology is still in its infancy. Much more about how the brain functions is being learned literally every day. While ancient peoples and even some people today attribute whatever they don't understand to the supernatural, it is no longer necessary. Superstition is being gradually eroded by the advances of modern science.

Neurophysiological Explanations of Visions--Part One

Continuing the discussion of Phillip Wiebe's Visions of Jesus: Direct Encounters from the NT to Today, I want to examine neurophysiological explanations for the visions.

Neurophysiology (from Greek νεῦρον, neuron, "nerve"; φύσις, physis, "nature, origin"; and -λογία, -logia) is a part of physiology. Neurophysiology is the study of nervous system function. Primarily, it is connected with neurobiology, psychology, neurology, clinical neurophysiology, electrophysiology, biophysical neurophysiology, ethology, neuroanatomy, cognitive science and other brain sciences. This discipline is still in its infancy but the discoveries that have been made already are fascinating. I have been told that 95% of what we know about how the brain operates has been learned in the last 15 years.

Wiebe writes:

Western culture has increasingly come to rely on specialized sciences to give us explanations, and the sorts of unusual phenomena that constitute central elements in religious life are widely expected to be explained by sciences already in existence and developing rapidly. Human consciousness is considered by many in the scientific and philosophic communities to be susceptible to scientific explanation, and peak religious experiences, of which Christic apparitions would be one kind, are no exception (p. 193).

A person experiencing an apparition is thought to have central nervous system activity in those areas of the brain associated with perception, belief formation, affective states, and so forth (Wiebe, p. 193).

Weston La Barre writes: We are confident that there is no "supernatural" psychic event in tribal life anywhere that may not be better understood as a dissociated state--whether endogenous dream, vision, trance, REM state, sensory deprivation, hysteric "possession"--or as an hallucinatory activity of the brain, under the influence of exogenous psychotropic substances (Anthropological Perspectives on Hallucinations and Hallucinogens cited in Wiebe, p. 194).

One of the common neurophysiological explanations for visions is that it an hallucination. The Oxford English Dictionary defines hallucination as the apparent perception (usually by sight or hearing) of an external object when no such object is actually present . While the term is really neutral it has a bad connotation. People tend to think of hallucinations as signs of mental disease or drug intoxication. The fact is, though, that perfectly normal, sober people do sometimes have hallucinations. It can be caused from a variety of factors. You can make yourself hallucinate right now. Take a look at this video.



Now it may be, as I am not a neurophysiologist, that what you just experienced is best called an illusion as opposed to an hallucination . The point is the same, however. We can perceive things as real when they are not.

Brain scientists now know that tumors and lesions of the temporal lobe can cause visual hallucinations. In addition, clinical studies have shown that electrical stimulation of this lobe can do the same thing. Maitland Baldwin describes such a procedure: As the stimulating electrode activated the depth of his left temporal lobe, he remembered these experiences with a striking sense of familiarity . . . . The senses were in color and vividly portrayed, and he described them as if he were looking at a cinematic production in color. Yet, during the description he was oriented to the reality of the environment and he recognized that the recollected scenes were somehow apart from it (Hallucinations in Neurologic Syndromes cited in Wiebe, pp. 199-200).

Other researchers have found that sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, and hypnosis can produce hallucinations ((P. Solomon and J. Mendelson, Hallucinations in Sensory Deprivation; H. L. Williams, Illusions, Hallucinations, and Sleep Loss; and M. Orne, Hypnotically Induced Hallucinations in Hallucinations: behavior, experience, and theory, edited by Ronald K. Siegel, Louis Jolyon West).

I will continue this discussion in the next post but enough has been said here for one to realize that just because someone claims to have seen a vision of Jesus is no reason to think they actually have.

I will also interact with Christian apologists, such as Gary Habermas, who argue that the hallucination hypothesis is too problematic to offer a serious explanation of the post-mortem appearances of Jesus reported in the NT.

Psychological Explanations of Visions

Continuing the discussion of Phillip Wiebe's Visions of Jesus: Direct Encounters from the NT to Today, I want to examine psychological or mentalist explanations for the visions.

Wiebe writes:

Various explanations using mentalistic concepts have been proposed for apparitions of all kinds. Gardner Murphy's suggestion that apparitions might be brought on by wishing [Three papers on the survival problem: An outline of survival evidence difficulties confronting the survival hypothesis field theory and survival], and Julian Jayne's explanation of hallucinations as arising from stress [The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind] are examples from psychologists of theories positing mental events. Popular explanations of apparitions in terms of mental events include the theories that they are brought by expecting them to occur, or by vigorous efforts to produce them, or by mental depression (p. 172).

Another psychological explanation comes from Carl Jung and his theory of archetypes. Wiebe writes: Archetypes are primordial mental structures that cannot be explained simply in terms of personal experience or the personal unconscious. They are "universal patterns or motifs which come from the collective unconscious, and are the basic content of religions, mythologies, legends and fairy tales"(p. 180 citing Daryl Sharp, C. G. Jung Lexicon: A Primer of Terms and Concepts, p. 29).

Wiebe continues Jung's explanation:

Apparitions, like dreams, are considered to involve psychic content from the unconscious that is forced into our conscious life. Such psychic complexes escape the control of our consciousness and appear and disappear according their own laws. Jung says: "The vision comes in much the same way as a dream, only in the waking state. It enters consciousness along with the perception of real objects, since it is an eruption of unconscious ideas into the continuity of consciousness." . . . Jung explains St. Paul's apparition experience by suggesting that Paul had already been a Christian for some time, only unconsciously. The incident in which he heard the voice speaking from heaven "marks the moment when the unconscious complex of Christianity broke through into consciousness. . . . The complex, being unconscious, was projected by St. Paul upon the external world as if it did not belong to him"(C. G. Jung, The Psychological Foundations for the Belief in Spirits cited in Wiebe, pp. 180-81).

While the psychological theories do seem to have great explanatory power, there is a problem, namely, its very hard to prove cause and effect between the proposed mental state and the vision. As Wiebe points out: Establishing the plausibility of the causal claim central to a mentalistic explanation is difficult (p. 183). If this can be accomplished, it will have to be done through neurophysiology and not psychology. Even then, there could be a correlation between the mental state and the vision but not necessarily a cause and effect relationship.

Obviously, there is much more research and analysis that needs to be done. While the believer will express certainty about the reality of his vision or the visions of those whose theology agrees with his, I think its better to remain skeptical until more study is done.

Newsweek Editor Writes Book on Resurrection/Heaven

Lisa Miller is the Religion editor of Newsweek magazine. She has recently written a book entitled: Heaven: Our Enduring Fascination with the Afterlife. An excerpt from the book appears in the April 5th edition of Newsweek.

The article begins:

It's Easter-that most pleasant of springtime holidays-when children stuff themselves with marshmallows and stain their fingers with pastel dyes. In reality, of course, Easter is about something darker and more fantastic. It's a celebration of the final act of the Passion, in which Jesus rose from his tomb in his body three days after his execution, to reside in heaven with God. The Gospels insist on the veracity of this supernatural event. . . . Jesus died and rose again so that all his followers could, eventually, do the same. This story has strained the credulity of even the most devoted believer. For, truly, it's unbelievable.

Lisa, it turns out, is a skeptic, but as most Americans, she is fascinated about the afterlife. As she states:

While 80 percent of Americans say they believe in heaven, few of us have the slightest clue about what we mean. . . . Despite the insistence of the most conservative branches of all three Western religions on resurrection as an incontrovertible fact, most of us are circumspect. The number of Americans who say they believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ has dropped 10 points since 2003 to 70 percent, according to the most recent Harris poll; only 26 percent of Americans think that they'll have bodies in heaven, according to a 1997 Time/CNN poll.

With the popularity of Eastern religions in the West, 30% of people now report believing in reincarnation (2003 Harris poll). She mentions that cremation is also on the upswing with about 33% of Americans opting for that instead of burial. Historically, Christians have eschewed cremation as it was seen as a descration to the human body which they believed would one day be raised.

She argues:

Resurrection presented credibility problems from the outset. Who, the Sadducees taunted Jesus, does the man who married seven wives in succession reside with in heaven? The subtext of their teasing is obvious: if the resurrection is true, as Jesus promised, then in heaven you must have your wife, and all the things that go along with wives: sex, arguments, dinner. Jesus responds in a typically cranky way: "You just don't get it," he says (my paraphrase). "You are wrong," he said in Matthew's Gospel, "because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God."

The main alternative to a resurrected body, going back to Plato, is the immortality of the soul. This concept, Lisa says, is easier to swallow than resurrection. After death, the soul-unique and indestructible-ascends to heaven to be with God while the corpse, the locus of our senses and all our low human desires, stays behind to rot. She continues: The belief in resurrection is more radical. It's a supernatural event. It's a special act of grace or of kindness on God's part." For my part, I don't buy it. I do, however, leave the door open a crack for radical acts of grace and kindness-and for humbling ourselves before all that we don't understand.

She also has a chapter on the near-death experience (NDE) which has become a "proof" for some Christian apologists of life after death (see Dinesh D'Souza, Life After Death: The Evidence). She refers to the work of

Andrew Newberg an associate professor in the radiology department at the University of Pennsylvania who has made his reputation studying the brain scans of religious people (nuns and monks) who have ecstatic experiences as they meditate. He believes the "tunnel" and "light" phenomena can be explained easily. As your eyesight fades, you lose the peripheral areas first, he hypothesizes. "That's why you'd have a tunnel sensation." If you see a bright light, that could be the central part of the visual system shutting down last.

Newberg puts forward the following scenario, which, he emphasizes, is guesswork. When people die, two parts of the brain, which usually work in opposition to each other, act cooperatively. The sympathetic nervous system-a web of nerves and neurons running through the spinal cord and spread to virtually every organ in the body-is responsible for arousal and excitement. It gets you ready for action. The parasympathetic system-with which the sympathetic system is entwined-calms you down and rejuvenates you. In life, the turning on of one system prompts the shutting down of the other. The sympathetic nervous system kicks in when a car cuts you off on the highway; the parasympathetic system is in charge as you're falling asleep. But in the brains of people reporting mystical experiences-and, perhaps, in death-both systems are fully "on," giving a person the sensation both of slowing down, being "out of body," and of seeing things vividly, including memories of important people and past events.

This sounds like an excellent, easy to read book, which could serve as a good antidote to the all the fluff that is out there such as Heaven: My Father's House by Anne Graham Lotz (daughter of Billy Graham), as well as all the sensational books on the near death experience.

If one wants to make a ton of money, one should write a book on the afterlife. People are fascinated by the subject and many desperately wish to live on in some form after death.

For interesting views on heaven from a lot of different sources, Muslims, Secularists, Fundamentalists, Liberal Christians, and so forth, see the On Faith discussion in the Washington Post. At the bottom of the article, click on previous to read someone else's view of heaven.

Thanks to Cipher for pointing me to this video of Lisa Miller discussing her book:

Visions of Jesus throughout History and Today

Philip Wiebe, the chair of Philosophy for many years at Trinity Western University, is the author of a book entitled: Visions of Jesus: Direct Encounters from the New Testament to Today. In the book, he examines the reports of people who have claimed to see Jesus.

He writes:

"Visual encounters" with a being taken to be Jesus have been reported since the earliest days of Christianity. In fact, the Christian belief that Jesus was resurrected seems to have been based largely upon the reports of appearances of him after his apparent death by crucifixion, for the report of an empty tomb by itself would hardly have given rise to the Resurrection belief. Christic visions and apparitions have been reported during the entire history of the Christian church . . . " (p. 5).

These visions of Jesus as well as visions of Mary and other saints are rampant throughout Church History. Wiebe mentions several other books that document specifically visions of Jesus in history (actually there are far more books dealing with apparitions of Mary).

1. A Dictionary of Miracles by E. C. Brewer (1901)

2. The Apparitions and Shrines of Heaven's Bright Queen by W. J. Walsh (1904)

3. I Saw the Lord by Chester and Lucille Huyssen (1992)

One of the appearances of Jesus in Church History that I found interesting was the report by St. Jerome. Jerome (347-420 CE) was one of the great scholars and intellectuals of the first millennium of the Christian Era. He translated the Bible into Latin which became the standard translation for Christians for a thousand years. Jerome describes having been beaten for his love of Cicero and his neglect of the Scriptures. He was taken to the judgment seat of God and scourged on the orders of Jesus. He remarks: "Let none think this is a vision or a dream!! The angels know it was no dream. Christ himself is my witness it was no dream; yea, my whole body still bears the marks of that terrible flagellation" (Brewer, p. 368 cited in Wiebe, p. 18).

That is an interesting report. Jesus had Jerome scourged because he was neglecting the Scriptures. Its a good thing Jesus doesn't do that now as I am told that while the Bible is the world's bestseller, most Christians have never read it in its entirety and many Christians seldom read any of it.

In 1221 St. Francis of Assisi (1181-1226 CE) saw Jesus, Mary his mother, and a multitude of angels, and two years later he saw Jesus again. This time St. Francis was given three white and three red roses of exquisite beauty as an external ratification of the reality of his vision, it being in the midst of winter, when a rose was nowhere to be found (Walsh, vol. 2, p. 34 cited in Wiebe, p. 20).

William Booth (1829-1912 CE) reported seeing a myriad of angelic beings as well as patriarchs, apostles, and Christian martyrs. Then he saw Jesus, who rebuked him for his "nominal, useless, lazy, professing Christian life." (Huyssen, p. 34 cited in Wiebe, p. 21). This experience led Booth to start the Salvation Army.

After surveying church history, Wiebe, in chapter two of his book, discusses the experiences of 30 people he interviewed between 1988 and 1993 who claimed to see Jesus. He says:

I do not know whether any of them would accept the designation "visionary," for most were quite mystified about having had such an experience, and none is in monastic life, although some are very active in their religious communities. None of them, moreover, seems to have deliberately induced the visionary experience(s), and most appear to think of themselves as quite ordinary. All of them were quite committed in their faith when I spoke to them, although a number indicated that this commitment had fluctuated in their lives, even after the visionary experience(s). (pp. 40-41).

These individuals either responded to a newspaper ad that Wiebe ran or were referred to him by those who knew he was involved in this research. The individuals interviewed lived in the UK, the US, Australia and Canada. A number were from his home province of British Columbia which has a population of 4 million; this fact tells him that this phenomena of Christic appearances must be much more common than most expect. There were 19 women and 11 men interviewed and their religious affiliation included Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Mennonite, Pentecostal Holiness, Christian Reformed, Baptist, United Church of Canada, Anglican, non-denominational Evangelical and several with no religious affiliation at the time of their vision. 7 of these have gone on to enter the Christian ministry and all are now actively involved in their churches.

The most interesting account to me was the case of Kenneth Logie, a Pastor of a Pentecostal Holiness Church in Oakland, CA for 40 years. He claimed multiple experiences of seeing Jesus in his church service with one of these even being videotaped. The first encounter was on a Sunday night in April 1954. While preaching Kenneth

saw a shadow on the exterior glass doors, made by someone standing outside. He wondered who might be arriving so late in the evening. He reported that "the door opened up, and Jesus started walking down the aisle just as plain as you are." He turned to the people on one side of the aisle, and then to the people on the other side of the aisle, smiling as he went. He walked up to the platform where Kenneth was preaching, but instead of walking around the pulpit, moved right through it. When he placed his left hand on Kenneth's shoulder, Kenneth collapsed to the floor. Jesus then knelt down alongside him and spoke to him in another language. Kenneth responded in English, believing that he was interpreting what was being said to him. He says that this event was witnessed by the congregation of about fifty people present on that occasion (p. 77).

In May 1959, a Mrs. Lucero got up to testify of seeing Jesus and being healed.

As she spoke she disappeared from view, and in her place stood a figure taken to be Jesus. He wore sandals, a glistening white robe, and had nail prints in his hands--hands that dripped with oil. Kenneth reports that this figure was seen by virtually everyone in the congregation, which he estimated at two hundred people. He also reports that the figure was filmed (in color) by a member of the church with kind of eight-millimeter movie camera popular that the time. Kenneth says that the photographer was so awestruck that he shook, and placed the camera on top of the organ in order to keep it steady. The appearance was much like Sallman's "Head of Christ." Kenneth says that the effect upon the people in the church was electrifying. After several minutes Jesus disappeared, and Mrs. Lucero was again visible (pp. 77-78).

Wiebe had met Logie in 1965 at a meeting in Grenfell, Saskatchewan where Logie was speaking about the appearance and showing the movie clip of Jesus to a group of about 200 people. Wiebe says this was the impetus for the research that led to his book some thirty years later. In 1991, while researching for his book, Wiebe visited Logie in Oakland. He writes: I visited him and the church that summer, and spoke with four or five persons who were present in his church in 1959 when the incident took place. They supported the account given above. I naturally wanted to see the film again... and was disappointed to learn that it had been stolen from the apartment in which Kenneth lives (p. 78).

Wiebe says: My own memory of the film is that it showed a figure that looked like traditional images of Jesus. . . . My memory of the glistening white robe as well as the outstretched and scarred hands is clear, but I cannot remember any movement of the figure, nor do I remember seeing the full face appear (pp. 78-79). Wiebe says he remembers the responses of some of the people who saw the film with him in 1965--some thought it was Jesus and others thought it was an actor playing Jesus. Wiebe doesn't give his own personal opinion.

This is a fascinating report. If true, you would have Jesus appearing to a group of people at one time and even being recorded on film. This should prove once and for all that Jesus was raised from the dead and lives today. Unfortunately, the film has been stolen.

If its not a genuine appearance of Jesus, then you need to be able to explain how a crowd of people could have been fooled. It could have been an actor but it could also have been a mass delusion . (I am intentionally avoiding the term hallucination for now as it carries the connotation of a mental disorder). Groups of people have been deluded or fooled by an illusion. Large crowds have claimed to see the Virgin Mary in Medjugorje, Bosnia. 10 miles from where I currently live, from 1990 to 1998, in Conyers, Georgia, thousands of people claimed to see Jesus and the Virgin Mary . See this video:



Interestingly enough, most Protestants will deny that anything miraculous happened in Conyers or in Medjugorje but they will insist that the miraculous happened in Jerusalem circa 32 CE. Many Christians both Catholic and Protestant will deny that what the people claimed to see in 1959 in Oakland, CA was really Jesus but they will insist that what Paul saw on the road to Damascus circa 38 CE was really Jesus. Is this being consistent? I maintain that all of these claims are not genuine appearances of Jesus or Mary but rather are best explained as delusions.

Current Visions of Jesus vs. NT Reports of the Risen Jesus

I have just finished reading Philip Wiebe's book, Visions of Jesus: Direct Encounters from the New Testament to Today. Wiebe is the former Chair of the Department of Philosophy at Trinity Western University in Canada.

Wiebe interviews 30 people who claim to have seen the risen Jesus. He analyzes their claims and compares them to the reports of those in the NT who claimed to have seen Jesus after his death. He explains:

Some of the advantages of dealing with reports derived from living subjects, as opposed to ancient documents, can readily be itemized: Living subjects can be scrutinized for signs of sincerity; living subjects can be cross-examined to determine whether language is being used to assert a proposition, rather than being used in some performative sense that excludes assertion; living subjects can be questioned about ontological commitments implicit in their descriptions; living subjects can be quizzed about further details of their experiences; living subjects can be scrutinized for signs of psychopathology in order to satisfy the misgivings of skeptics; living subjects can be scrutinized for deception. These factors give reports from contemporary experience greater epistemic value than those coming from antiquity (p. 91).

In a future post, I will discuss some of Wiebe's views on the contemporary visions of Jesus but today I want to point out some of his problems with the NT accounts.

He says:

A number of curious features of the NT documents support the contention that they do not have as much historical "concreteness" as traditionalists have assigned to them. Because the Resurrection belief is both extraordinary and crucial for Christianity, one might expect numerous and detailed accounts defending its authenticity. Moreover, in view of early opposition toward Christians and skepticism of Christianity, writers of documents that began to appear some twenty-five or more years after the alleged events took place might be expected to have gone to considerable lengths to reply to those who rejected the claim that the Resurrection occurred. But this is not what we see. The authors content themselves with several brief stories, or one or two slightly more detailed accounts, or with a list of appearances (such as Paul's) so sketchy that its evidential value is almost negligible. . . . When one compares the kind of detail that can be obtained from someone reporting a contemporary vision or apparition with that available concerning the NT appearances, it is obvious the NT presents very little information (p. 129).

I think he is right. The accounts that we have in the NT are quite sketchy and the appearances were to a very select few. In Acts 10:40-41, Peter said: but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen -by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. I have often thought that God could have confirmed the truth of the resurrection by having Jesus appear to the Roman rulers in Jerusalem, to the Jewish authorities, to the whole city. Matthew 27:53 claims that the saints who were resurrected at the time of Jesus death went into the city and appeared to many. Now of course, there is no historical confirmation of this either, which makes the account highly suspect, but at least it says they appeared to many. Yet Jesus only appears primarily to his disciples. If he had appeared to Pilate and Herod and the High Priest, and this was confirmed by history, then the apologists for Jesus' resurrection would have a case.

In his debates, William Craig always talks about the four historical "facts" upon which virtually all scholars agree. (1) Jesus of Nazareth was killed and then buried; (2) the tomb in which he was buried was found empty on Sunday morning; (3) the disciples and others reported seeing Jesus alive after his death; (4) the Christian faith spread quickly and widely throughout the Roman empire. He maintains that the best explanation of these "facts" is that Jesus rose bodily from the dead. What Craig doesn't say in his debates is that the scholars whom he says agrees with his "facts," for the most part, do not agree with his explanation of the "facts." As Wiebe points out: The traditional view is widely seen by recent biblical scholars as giving too little attention to questions about the literary forms of the NT documents, the role that editors (redactors) might have had in piecing together various oral traditions, the sources of the accounts, and the results of historical criticism. The plausibility of the Resurrection of Jesus, as traditionally understood, is widely questioned (p. 120). It would seem that Craig is anxious to refer to scholars when they agree with him but not when they disagree.

Another interesting thing about the appearances reported in the NT is the reference to doubting. Wiebe writes: Although the long ending of Mark is not generally taken to be authentic, it is of interest that it too makes reference to some of the eleven being hard of heart and unwilling to believe those who reported they had seen Jesus. The account of the walk to Emmaus in Luke describes how Jesus scolded his two companions for being slow to believe, and John, finally, mentions the unbelief of Thomas. Various explanations for these doubts could be offered, but one explanation that must be considered is that the appearances may not have been as "historically concrete" as are those that form the normal experience of public objects and events (p. 130). The contemporary witnesses of the risen Jesus whom Wiebe interviews have one thing in common--they do not doubt what they have experienced. Why did some of the ones that Jesus appeared to in the NT doubt? Let me speculate. Perhaps it was a technique used by the gospel writers in order to make their case for the resurrection stronger. In other words, they sought to emphasize to their readers that the disciples didn't accept the idea of Jesus' resurrection too quickly or too easily. Some of them required proof. This would strengthen the apologetic value of the gospels.

The idea that the disciples doubted doesn't seem to ring true, however. As Keith Parsons observes:

It is very odd that the gospels depict the disciples as skeptical of the Resurrection. After all, the disciples had supposedly seen Jesus raise others from the dead, walk on water, turn water into wine, cast out demons, cure the sick, the lame, and the blind, feed thousands with a few loaves and fishes, and appear in glistening raiment with Moses and Elijah while a divine voice boomed "This is my beloved son..." By this time it should have been clear even to the slowest disciple that Jesus was a supernatural being possessed of awesome miraculous powers. After all that it would surely be a pretty simple trick to come back from the dead. So something is out of place here. Either the disciples, dumb as they were, could not have been so skeptical of the resurrection, or they had not witnessed the miracles they allegedly did. Either way, the credibility of the gospels is undermined (Why I am not a Christian).

It is also strange that some of the disciples did not recognize Jesus when he first appeared to them. The two disciples who walked to Emmaus did not recognize Jesus, Mary Magdalene did not recognize him just outside his tomb, and the disciples who fished in the Sea of Galilee did not recognize Jesus standing on the shore (Wiebe, pp. 130-31). Once again, Wiebe points out that all of the people he interviewed said they immediately recognized the person in their vision as Jesus. Why didn't all the disciples recognize him? I think it could be another case of a technique on the part of the gospel writers to strengthen the apologetic value of their writings.

I found this book by Wiebe to be fascinating and I would highly recommend it to anyone who is interested in the NT claims that Jesus rose from the dead. In the next post, I will deal with some of the contemporary visions of Jesus he reports.