Did Paul Hallucinate on the Road to Damascus?--Part Two

In yesterday's post, I summarized some of the latest research on hallucinations as presented by Andre Aleman and Frank Laroi in Hallucinations: The Science of Idiosyncratic Perception (American Psychological Association, 2008). Today, I would like to compare what the book of Acts says about Paul's experience on the road to Damascus to see if a case can be made that Paul may have experienced an hallucination.

Hallucination is defined by Campbell's Psychiatric Dictionary (2004) as a false perception characterized by externalization and a continued belief that the experience is a perception of something outside the self rather than an internal thought or image (p. 312). An illusion is a misinterpretation of some external stimuli. As Aleman and Laroi point out, the line of demarcation between an hallucination and an illusion is not always clear. Often an illusion will lead to an hallucination.

The three accounts of Paul's experience in Acts (9, 22, 26) all say that he saw a bright light in the sky, brighter than the sun, and then he heard a voice. It is conceivable that Paul saw something that was really there in the external world and then heard a voice which was not external but internal. The fact that the accounts all say that his companions also saw the light but did not hear (or understand) the voice would lend credence to this position. What might Paul have seen? Of course it's pure speculation but we know that a super solar flare can increase the brightness of the sun. Referring to a solar flare that took place in 1859, an article on the NASA website says: one super-flare produced enough light to rival the brightness of the sun itself. How large and intense would such a super-flare have to be to be visible by the naked eye? I am not sure but there are reports of phenomena in ancient history that are believed to be solar flares. A less dramatic scenario would be a perceived increase in the brightness of the sun due to the movement of clouds. Sometimes when the sun "peaks out" from behind clouds the sensation is that the sun has become much brighter.

Whatever it was that Paul saw, why would he misinterpret it as an appearance of the resurrected Jesus? The Jewish concept of a resurrected person was of a bright, shining being. Daniel 12:2-3 says:

Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever (see also Wisdom of Solomon 3:7-9).

All three accounts say that Paul fell to the ground after seeing the bright light. This has led some to conclude that Paul may have had temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE).

In old Ireland, epilepsy was known as 'Saint Paul's disease'. The name points to the centuries-old assumption that the apostle suffered from epilepsy.

Saul's sudden fall, the fact that he first lay motionless on the ground but was then able to get up unaided, led people very early on to suspect that this dramatic incident might have been caused by a grand mal seizure. In more recent times, this opinion has found support from the fact that sight impediment-including temporary blindness lasting from several hours to several days-has been observed as being a symptom or result of an epileptic seizure and has been mentioned in many case reports(German Epilepsy Museum).

An important article in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry (1987,50:659-664) by D. Landsborough entitled, "St. Paul and Temporal Lobe Epilepsy," compares Paul's experience to clinical research regarding TLE. The similarities are stunning.

Some attacks began with a flash of light seen in both eyes, followed by a psychic state in which the predominant force was one of intense religious experience, of resounding elation in which he would feel compelled to proclaim the glories of God.

Paul also mentions other experiences besides the Damascus road event. For example, in 2 Corinthians 12:2-4, he recounts:

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. And I know that this man-whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows-was caught up to paradise. He heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell.

Landsborough comments:

Paul's words "in the body or out of the body-that I do not know" suggest an aura of depersonalisation as described by Williams: the subject "may feel unsubstantial, not there, or dis-embodied. He may say he sees himself outside himself, with a disturbance of the relationship of himself to his environment ..." Paul also "heard sacred secrets which no lips can repeat" suggesting an intensely esoteric, rapturous state associated with an elaborate auditory sensation whose details cannot be recollected. Gowers writes "these psychological auras are often scarcely separable from the higher special sense warnings. The distinct idea of a sentence and perception of its sound may be almost identical in significance".

In the second paragraph of the extract from Paul's Corinthian letter he writes of his "wealth of visions". This might refer to the variety and richness of the one experience, but it seems more likely that he is writing
of a number of experiences similar to the one he has already described, experiences so delectable and ecstatic that he was prone to become over-elated and conceited ("puffed-up").

The fact that Paul apparently had many experiences which he understood as visions and revelations from God (2 Cor. 12:1) lends credence to the theory that he suffered from TLE. As Landsborough states:

The diagnosis of TLE in Paul's case is suggested on the basis of his recorded subjective experience of a single attack (vide supra). Were this an isolated event without recurrences it would be difficult to sustain the diagnosis. But Paul experienced other "visions". His historian Luke writes that in one vision he saw a Macedonian standing before him appealing to him to cross over from Troy to Macedonia to help (Acts 16:9); in another, Jesus speaks words of encouragement to him (Acts 18:9); in another, while praying in Jerusalem, he fell into a trance (Greek: ekstasia) and saw Jesus (Acts 22:17-21). In other writings Paul does not provide details of his "visions and revelations", but it is suggested that some were ictal in origin, and that the one detailed description he gives was not of an isolated event. Others were mental images of his spiritual convictions. Both kinds were of equal spiritual significance for Paul.

In addition, research shows that some people with TLE develop Geschwind syndrome. This is a characteristic personality syndrome consisting of symptoms such as circumstantiality (excessive verbal output), hypergraphia, altered sexuality (usually hyposexuality, meaning a decreased interest), and intensified mental life (deepened cognitive and emotional responses), hyper-religiosity and/or hyper-morality or moral ideas, that is present in some epilepsy patients. All of these symptoms would seem to be present in Paul.

Whether or not Paul had TLE, it is clear that he had the necessary emotional influences that could lead to hallucinations. Aleman and Laroi identify (1) stress, often related to the experience of traumatic events, (2)anxiety, which can be caused by cognitive dissonance, and (3)depression as triggers for hallucinations. Paul certainly was experiencing stress. He had been involved in the persecution and execution of Christians. Many scholars believe he participated in the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7) which could have produced the syndrome known as post-traumatic stress syndrome. He may have been anxious due to the cognitive dissonance created by his Pharisaic theology and what he was hearing and seeing in Christians. The reference in Acts 26 to it being hard "to kick against the goads" might relate to this internal conflict. The evidence is not as good for Paul being depressed but if he was experiencing stress and anxiety as it appears he was, then it would not be surprising for this to also create depression. The presence of these emotional stressors in Paul could be enough to explain why he heard voices which he interpreted as being from Jesus. As Aleman and Laroi show, it would be expected for Paul, based on the culture, to interpret an hallucination as divine revelation.

So, what happened to Paul on the Damascus Road? The fact is that the data in the NT on this experience is so limited, that it's impossible to make any definitive conclusion. It could have been an illusion which led to auditory hallucinations, it could have been a seizure caused by TLE, or it could have been some other phenomena. In any case, a supernatural encounter with a risen Jesus is not required to understand Paul's radical conversion.

Did Paul Hallucinate on the Road to Damascus?--Part One

In I Corinthians 15, Paul says that the risen Jesus appeared to him just like he had appeared to Peter, James, the Twelve and the 500. When did this experience happen and what was it like? It took place on the road to Damascus as Paul was on his way to persecute Christians. He had already been involved in the persecution and execution of Christians in Jerusalem. His experience on the Damascus road is recounted three times in the book of Acts.

Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord's disciples. He went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem. As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" "Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked. "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting," he replied. "Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do." The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus (Acts 9:1-8, NIV).

And I persecuted the followers of this Way to their death, arresting both men and women and throwing them into prison, as also the high priest and all the Council can testify. I even obtained letters from them to their brothers in Damascus, and went there to bring these people as prisoners to Jerusalem to be punished. "About noon as I came near Damascus, suddenly a bright light from heaven flashed around me. I fell to the ground and heard a voice say to me, 'Saul! Saul! Why do you persecute me?'" 'Who are you, Lord?' I asked." 'I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting,' he replied. My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me. " 'What shall I do, Lord?' I asked. " 'Get up,' the Lord said, 'and go into Damascus. There you will be told all that you have been assigned to do.' My companions led me by the hand into Damascus, because the brilliance of the light had blinded me (Acts 22:4-11).

On the authority of the chief priests I put many of the saints in prison, and when they were put to death, I cast my vote against them. Many a time I went from one synagogue to another to have them punished, and I tried to force them to blaspheme. In my obsession against them, I even went to foreign cities to persecute them. On one of these journeys I was going to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests. About noon, O king, as I was on the road, I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, blazing around me and my companions. We all fell to the ground, and I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic, 'Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.' "Then I asked, 'Who are you, Lord?'" 'I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,' the Lord replied. 'Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen of me and what I will show you. I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.' "So then, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the vision from heaven (Acts 26:10-19).

What happened to Paul? Did he hallucinate or did he really encounter the resurrected Jesus?

One of the most recent attempts to bring together all of the relevant research related to hallucinations is Hallucinations: The Science of Idiosyncratic Perception by Andre Aleman and Frank Laroi(American Psychological Association, 2008). They open their book by saying:

Hallucinations are an intriguing psychological phenomenon. A person perceives something: a sound, a voice, an image. However, there is no corresponding source in the outside world. . . . Hallucinations can occur in several medical conditions, including psychiatric disorders, but they can also arise because of the intake of a variety of substances, such as LSD or PCP. Further, hallucinations have also been reported in healthy people from the nonpatient population. The riddle of how hallucinations come about has puzzled clinicians, researchers, and laypeople alike (p. 3).

They provide a number of various definitions of hallucination from the literature including one by Campbell's Psychiatric Dictionary (2004): Hallucination is a false perception characterized by externalization and a continued belief that the experience is a perception of something outside the self rather than an internal thought or image (p. 312).

What is the difference between an illusion and an hallucination? An illusion is a misperception that is based on an existing stimulus, for example, misinterpreting a coat and hat on a coat rack for a man standing in the hall. In contrast, a hallucination is entirely based on internal representations with no corresponding stimulus coming through the senses (p. 18). On the surface, this seems a clear enough distinction. However, often the lines are blurred. The fact that in a large number of individuals hallucinations can be triggered by certain enviromental stimuli already makes this distinction problematic (p. 18). In other words, often some external stimuli will result in an hallucination. The stimuli is misinterpreted (an illusion) and then the brain creates images and sounds which are not really present in the external world (an hallucination).

Is this what happened to Paul on the road to Damascus? Did he see some phenomenon in the sky which he misinterpreted as the risen Jesus and then his brain created sounds that he understood as Jesus speaking to him? It is certainly possible. The latest research reveals the following points which may help us in evaluating Paul's experience.

1. "Normal" people have hallucinations.

Hallucinations occur in "normal" people. In other words, they are not just found in people with psychotic disorders or in substance abusers. They are much more common than one might think among the general population. In 1991, Tien sampled 18,572 people and found 10-15% reporting experiences which could be classified as an hallucination. In 2000, Ohayon studied 13,057 people from three different countries in Europe and found 38.7% reported having experienced an hallucination (pp. 62-63).

As Aleman and Laroi report,

Numerous studies have revealed that hallucinations may occur in a number of populations, including psychiatric patients, non-psychiatric patients, and even normal subjects. These findings question the diagnostic specificity of hallucinations and also challenge the idea that hallucinations are necessarily a sign of mental illness or pathology. Moreover, these findings provide evidence for the so-called "continuum hypothesis of hallucinations," that is, that both clinical and nonclinical hallucinations lie as points on a continuum and do not differ qualitatively from each other (p. 47).

Hallucinations experienced by "normal" people do not differ qualitatively from those induced by psychosis or drugs. Aleman and Laroi state:

Similarities in both clinical and nonclinical groups suggest that hallucinations may lie on a continuum with normal experiences. This line of reasoning, known as the "continuum hypothesis," argues that the main difference between pathological and normal groups is quantitative rather than qualitative (p. 80).

2. Auditory hallucinations are the most common form of hallucination.

Research shows that auditory hallucinations are more common than visual hallucinations. Often the percipient hears a voice commanding him to do something. Command hallucinations may be considered a particular subtype of auditory hallucinations in that the voice is experienced as commanding rather than commenting . . . . Studies have reported that they are relatively common in voice hearers, with between 33% and 74% reporting such activity (p. 37).

3. Emotional factors can lead to hallucinations.

Its not surprising that one's emotions can be a major factor in producing hallucinations. Studies have shown several key emotional issues present in people who experience hallucination.

a) Stress

A study by Gauntlett-Gilbert and Kuipers in 2003 revealed that stress was a major factor in the onset of an hallucination. 85% of their patients reported being under enormous stress prior to their experience. This study also showed that a majority (55%) interpreted their experience as a supernatural event. It also showed that at least with their patients, the hallucinations were not chronic or persistent. Often they stopped in two weeks or less but they nontheless had an impact on patients long after their offset. For example, more than half of the participants reported that visual hallucination affected their beliefs, and in 55% of the cases, the visual hallucination helped underpin a delusion (e.g., "It is Jesus telling me I must kill a man") (p. 39).

In addition, Johns, Hemsley, and Kuipers (2002) found that a majority of non-psychiatric participants had experienced stress when their hallucinations first started and that stress was the most important factor in triggering hallucinations (pp. 66-67).

b) Anxiety

Another major emotional factor that seems to be present in many people who experience an hallucination is anxiety. This has been seen especially in those with posttraumatic stress disorder (p. 50). A traumatic experience, particularly, observing a violent death can be the stressor that leads to an hallucination.

Morrison et al. (1995) argued that the need to attribute intrusive thoughts to an external force is due to motivational factors. The presence of certain intrusive thoughts may lead to negative affect in the subject in the form of anxiety (Bentall, 1990) or congnitive dissonance (Morrison, et al., 1995). According to cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957), dissonance occurs when two cognitions contradict each other, resulting in an uncomfortable state from which an individual is motivated to escape. Morrison et al. argued that to reduce levels of negative affect, the subject chooses to externalize the intrusive thought, resulting in hallucinations (p. 147).

c) Depression

Severe depression is another factor especially in auditory hallucinations. A psychotically depressed person may hear voices that are mocking and humiliating and that criticize him or her for various failures, shortcomings, and sins (which may be real or imagined). A depressed person may be accused of various wrongdoings and might be further ordered by the voices to "make up" for these by performing acts of self-mutiliation or even suicide (pp. 49-50).

A number of studies indicate that emotional disorders (especially depression and anxiety) are associated with hallucinatory experiences in nonclinical participants (p. 65).

4. Auditory hallucinations are externalizations of inner speech.

As Aleman and Laroi write:

There is a certain consensus in the literature that auditory hallucinations occur when the individual misattributes inner speech to a source that is external or alien to the self. The term "inner speech" refers to the internal dialogue one uses to regulate one's own behavior. This may include commenting to oneself about what is happening or issuing instructions to oneself about what to do (p. 110).

Finally, neuroimaging studies have also shown that auditory hallucinations coincide with the activation of those areas in the brain responsible for the production and perception of speech, which in most people is located in the left hemisphere. Thus, the obserations from behavioral, electrophysiological, and neuroimaging studies all provide strong evidence that inner speech may occur simultaneously with auditory hallucinations and, therefore, that hallucinations relfect the individual's mistaken judgments about the source or location of their inner speech (pp. 111-12).

5. Culture and beliefs influence how one interprets the hallucination.

People will interpret their experience based on their culture and religious beliefs. A study done by Mitchell and Vierkant in 1989 compared hallucinations in patients admitted in the 1930's with those admitted in the 1980's in the same East Texas hospital. They found that the primary sources of the hallucinations in the 1930's were religious in nature (God, the Holy Ghost, spirits), whereas the primary sources of the hallucinations in the 1980's included not only God, devils, and demons but also doctor, scanner, television, and radio (p. 30). In the 30's people typically thought the voices they were hearing were from the spirit world whereas in the 80's they though the voices were coming from the television, radio, or scanner (as well as the spirit world).

More current research has confirmed this conclusion.

Furthermore, a cross-cultural study (Wahass & Kent, 1997) found that whereas patients from the United Kingdom were more likely to use biological and psychological approaches to explain the apparition of their hallucinations, patients from Saudi Arabia were more likely to evoke religious and superstitious causes (p. 31).

The suggestion that source monitoring judgments are influenced by the inherent plausibility of perceived events helps to explain the role of culture in shaping hallucinatory experiences. Bentall (2000) went on to explain that an individual who grows up to adulthood in a society that recognizes the existence of ghosts or that values spiritual experiences is more likely to attribute reality to the image of a deceased relative compared with a person who reaches maturity in a materialistic, scientifically oriented society (p. 120).

In the next post, we will examine the evidence that we have from Paul's life to see if he might have been a good candidate for an hallucination.

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 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.