This article we are looking in detail at the scientific implausibility of group hallucinations. That is, since hallucinations are personal mental events, groups of people can’t hallucinate the same thing in the same place at the same time.
The significance of this is that half of the post- resurrection appearances of Jesus are to groups of people (cf 1 Cor 15:5-8). But what about the appearances of the risen Jesus to individuals? After all, individuals certainly could have hallucinated Jesus, right? In fact, in Paul’s list (1 Cor 15:5-8), Jesus first appears to the individual Cephas, or Peter. Now, regarding Peter, on the surface, we do have some reason to believe that he may have suffered a hallucination.
Having denied Jesus three times (Luke 22:61-62), it has been postulated that Peter could have hallucinated Jesus “as an unconscious resolution to his cognitive dissonance,” what psychologists generally term as bereavement hallucinations or as “grief hallucinations.” Most often, these are hallucinations of a recently departed loved one. It is postulated that Peter’s bereavement vision of Jesus could have been triggered by delusional “wishful thinking” and unsuccessful mourning in an attempt to gain some relief from his guilt. This seems plausible. There is certainly no doubt that Peter was stricken with heavy grief, and he was guilt-ridden for having denied Jesus three times in his time of need. However, there is a self-identifiable quality to grief hallucinations. Research shows that those experiencing bereavement hallucinations know that their visions are hallucinations and are not real. As such, even under duress, Peter would have known that his vision of Jesus possessed a particular quality that would allow him to identify his hallucination as unreal.
In other words, if we hold to the current scientific understanding of the predispositions necessary for a person to hallucinate, it was not within the capacity of Peter’s subconsciousness to hallucinate a risen Jesus in order to relieve his guilt and bereavement. Now, remember that a hallucination is a projection of one’s own mind. That is, hallucinations cannot exceed the content of a person’s mind. As far as Peter was concerned, Jesus was dead and cold, and in the tomb. Quite simply, Peter had absolutely no mental content nor expectation of seeing a risen Jesus. Now, this is interesting in that one intriguing driver of hallucinations is that they “usually come to people with an anticipating spirit or hopeful expectancy.” Applying this principle to Peter, he knew Jesus to be crucified and dead, so Peter had no “anticipating spirit.” More than that, Peter was first and foremost a Jew. It is noted that in Jewish thought, “the resurrection always (1) occurred after the end of the world, and (2) concerned all people, not just an isolated individual. Jesus’s resurrection was both within history and of one person.” So again, Peter had no “anticipating spirit” or a “hopeful expectancy” to see a risen Jesus. These things are given; even if Peter’s grief was overwhelming, he lacked the necessary mental content, he lacked the “anticipating spirit,” and he lacked the “hopeful expectancy” necessary to hallucinate a resurrected Jesus.
Beyond that, regardless of how compelling and plausible Peter’s bereavement hallucination theory sounds, it still stands that this was not Peter’s only experience with the risen Jesus. Recall Peter also experienced the risen Jesus at least two other times in group settings as a part of “The Twelve” and as a part of “all the apostles.” And likely as part of “the 500” as well (cf 1 Cor 15:3-8). So, even if Peter hallucinated Jesus in a one-on-one setting, it is difficult to think that Peter would have hallucinated Jesus in at least two group settings, given that group hallucinations are not part of currently accepted psychiatric understanding.
Finally, to be sure, Peter thought the appearance of Jesus after the resurrection was real enough that he was willing to die for that belief. Peter’s boldness in the face of danger plays out over and again in the book of Acts, indicating his willingness to suffer to proclaim his faith that came directly from his belief that he had personally witnessed the risen Jesus.” Considering all the canonical and non-canonical evidence, the historical claim that Peter was martyred for his belief in the resurrected Jesus is given by historians “the highest possible probability.” Peter was utterly convinced that the risen Jesus had appeared to him, and he died for that belief.
Let’s explore what a hallucination theory concerning the apostle Peter’s experiences would look like. From that exploration, we concluded that Peter neither had the “anticipating spirit” nor the “hopeful expectancy” to have hallucinated a risen Jesus. Much of the same can be said of hallucination theories concerning Paul’s experience as well. Similar to Peter, critics often theorize that Paul’s experience was a hallucination of the risen Jesus. However, it is postulated in Paul’s case that his hallucination was not driven by bereavement over Jesus’ death but by his own internal mental tension. Recently, skeptical scholars like Michael Goulder have suggested that Paul had “secret doubts about the Christian teachings and the Jewish faith.” And Paul may have had doubts brought about by a “growing distaste for Judaism.”
Goulder further postulates that Paul had a secret Gentile friend from childhood that also influenced his cognitive dissonance. And that ultimately led to his hallucination and conversion. Based on these theories, Paul’s internal conflict became too great, and he hallucinated Jesus on the road to Damascus. However, it seems to me that to claim that Paul hallucinates Jesus in response to intense internal tension is to argue from both silence and extreme distance. Hallucination researcher Michael Licona rightly notes, “Psychoanalyzing persons who are not only absent but who lived in an ancient foreign culture involves a great deal of speculation and is a challenging and chancy practice.”
Additionally, there is no evidence of any internal tension that influenced Paul’s decision between Judaism and Christianity. We find no indication in any of Paul’s later writings that he suffered from any internal conflict whatsoever. On the contrary, Paul seems to have been wholly committed to Judaism, all the while loathing Christianity (cf Phil 3:5ff). Nor is Paul in a state of expectancy for the risen Jesus to appear to him. Remember, such a mental disposition is necessary to conjure a hallucination from the content of their own mind. Paul would later refer to himself as a “Hebrew of Hebrews” (Phil 3:5). Like all Pharisaical Hebrews, Paul looked forward to a general resurrection later, not the resurrection of a single person in the present time. Finally, like Peter, Paul was utterly convinced the risen Jesus had appeared to him. Contemplating his own fate, Paul wrote the words “For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain” (Phil 1:21). Paul did die. In fact, it is historically “very certain” that Paul died specifically for holding fast to his conviction that the risen Jesus had appeared to him. Paul writes to his associate Timothy just before his death; “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith (2 Tim 4:6).
Now, in presenting hallucination theories as untenable, this does not mean that the Christian resurrection narrative merely wins by default. On the contrary, the Christian resurrection claim nicely accounts for our three historical bedrock facts and has greater power to explain the available evidence with the least amount of ambiguity. This means that the Christian resurrection hypothesis enjoys greater simplicity (and best satisfies Ockham’s Razor) thereby surpassing naturalistic hallucination theories.
Having investigated the phenomena of hallucinations and having considered the cases of Peter and Paul specifically, I am compelled to close this section where I began, and in doing so, I feel justified and secure in taking resurrection critic Bart Ehrman at his word when he says; “Either Jesus really appeared to his disciples after the crucifixion, or they were seeing things.” From what has been presented, it seems to me naturalistic theories involving both group and individual hallucinations attempting to explain what happened to Jesus after the crucifixion are implausible. If the disciples weren’t “seeing things,” then one can only conclude that they actually beheld the physical, risen Jesus. Otherwise, Jesus’ body should have been found “safely and securely in his grave.”
“Wait a minute! Wait just one minute!” Michael, the Bible skeptic, cries foul. But does he have a case? Over the last several weeks, I have repeatedly used the Bible and Bible verses as evidence to help determine what happened to Jesus after the crucifixion. It seems to me before we can move ahead, perhaps we need to spend a bit more time considering our sources. Join us next time as we begin to do just that. Until then, ask a close friend: is God dead? Gloria in excelsis Deo! Ty B. Kerley, DMin., is an ordained minister who teaches Christian apologetics and relief preaches in Southern Oklahoma. Dr. Kerley and his wife, Vicki, are members of the Waurika church of Christ and live in Ardmore, OK. You can contact him at dr.kerley@isGoddead.com.