| The
Late Twentieth-Century Resurgence of Naturalistic Responses to Jesus' Resurrection |
||
 by Gary
R. HabermasOriginally published in the Trinity Journal / 2001 (TRINJ 22NS (2001) 179-196) This is an electronic copy of the entire article. Table of Contents:
Introduction The last twenty years or so have witnessed the inevitable march
of new theological trends. Gone are scholars like Karl Barth, Rudolf
Bultmann, Paul Tillich, and Reinhold Niebuhr. In their place, less
centralized currents have captured the spotlight. Through it all,
many publications on the subject of Jesus' resurrection have
continued to appear. As the center of Christian theology, this would
seem to be inevitable. Yet, to the careful observer, some different
tendencies are becoming apparent.
It could be argued that the most captivating theological topic at
present, at least in the United States, is the historical Jesus. Scores of
publications by major scholars have appeared since the mid-1970s,
bringing Jesus and his Palestinian setting to our attention. More
recently, the apostle Paul has been the subject of numerous other
influential studies. Almost unavoidably, these trends add to the
opportunities to discuss the resurrection and its meaning.
Over the last two years, I have tracked more than twelve
hundred publications on the subject of the resurrection of Jesus.
Each source appeared between 1975 and the present, with the vast
majority written by critical scholars. Out of this contemporary
milieu, my purpose here will be to outline what appears to be a
growing, although still fairly limited, trend. In recent years, some of
the old, naturalistic theories that rejected the historicity of Jesus'
resurrection have reappeared after a lengthy hiatus.
This essay concerns some of these most recent scholarly trends
regarding the historicity of Jesus' resurrection. I will note the
emergence of almost a dozen different alternative theses that are
variously suggested or favored by more than forty different scholars,
some of whom endorse more than one theory. While some of these
works are lesser known or more popularly written, others contain
suggestions or assertions held by highly influential authors. There is
an interdisciplinary flavor here, as well. Most of the critics are
theologians or NT scholars, while a number of them are
philosophers, along with a few others from diverse fields.
My effort here will attempt to categorize and list these natural
hypotheses, including naming two alternative proposals that have so
far eluded any generally recognized appellation. Hopefully, even
this broad scholarly demarcation will serve the purpose of calling
attention to the current skeptical trend, which may become more
helpful if the recent trickle becomes a torrent.
I. A Brief Historical Context For Naturalistic Theories
What is a naturalistic theory concerning the resurrection of
Jesus? Drawn from a host of philosophical backgrounds, the basic
idea is to suggest an alternative explanation in place of divine
causation. Thus, a naturalistic theory is an assertion something like
this: "Jesus didn't rise from the dead. What really happened is (fill in
the blank)."
Notice that my explanation requires that the notion of Jesus'
resurrection be replaced with a specific variety of natural substitute. The
seeming supernatural portion of the religious claim is explained in
terms of a natural occurrence. Thus, a comment along the lines of a
simple denial ("There's no way that events like resurrections ever
take place!") does not qualify as a naturalistic theory. Affirmations
can be made as easily as denials can. In short, the blank needs to be
filled in with an alternative explanation.
Some may assume that these naturalistic hypotheses regarding
the resurrection have always been very popular in scholarly circles
right up until the present, but this is not the case. While there have
been many examples throughout the centuries,1 besides David
Hume's influential argument that natural explanations are always
more likely than supernatural ones,2 the golden age of such theories
came during the reign of nineteenth century German liberalism.
Albert Schweitzer lists many examples in his classic volume, The
Quest of the Historical Jesus.3
As with the larger question of miracles, the predominant liberal
approach was to accept fairly large portions of the gospel accounts
as historical, while presenting rationalized alternatives to unwanted
portions. Liberal irritation was chiefly provoked by two sorts of biblical data: dogmatic theology and supernatural reports. With the
latter, the texts were generally not taken at face value; an alternative
sequence of events was supplied.
For example, this approach of accepting a fair amount of gospel
content while rejecting the supernatural elements can be seen in
Ernest Renan's famous Vie de Jesus. Renan generally tended to favor
the fourth gospel's account of Jesus, informing his readers more than
once of the general accuracy of this gospel's resurrection account.4 In
the French edition, a footnote by the author also points out that, in
the fourth gospel, Mary Magdalene was "le seul temoin primitif de la
resurrection"--the only original witness to the resurrection. Having
thus identified her, Renan a moment later tells us that it was Mary's
love and enthusiasm that caused her to hallucinate, giving the world
a resurrected God!5 Thus even Renan's favorite gospel is countered
when it comes to miracles.
However, other liberals like David Strauss challenged these
approaches, favoring a second, more radical strategy. He treated the
gospel texts as if they were largely mythical compositions containing
very little history. Such a method thereby questioned or rejected "[a]
large portion" of the gospel records.6 In the process, Strauss created
more of a dispute than he had perhaps envisaged. Besides
repudiating the historicity of miracles, this minority trend even
undermined the predominantly historical emphasis of his
colleagues!7
One trend in German liberalism was that these scholars
criticized the approaches to the gospels taken by their fellow liberals.
Additionally, the naturalistic alternatives to Jesus' resurrection
favored by some were also frequently rejected by others. For
example, David Strauss belittled the swoon theory held by Friedrich
Schleiermacher, Heinrich Paulus, and others. Strauss concluded that
such a scenario would utterly fail to account for the disciples'
passionate belief that Jesus had been raised from the dead as the
Lord of life.8 Schweitzer noted that these rationalistic approaches
suffered the "death-blow at the hands of Strauss."9 On the other
hand, Schleiermacher, Paulus, and later Theodor Keim took aim at
subjective responses like Strauss's hallucination hypothesis.10
After the demise of German liberalism, usually dated shortly
after the termination of World War I, the next few decades of the
twentieth century witnessed a decreasing interest in naturalistic
alternative theories to Jesus' resurrection. There were several reasons
for this, not the least of which was that theological studies had
entered what might be called a "No Quest" period. Due to the
influence of Schweitzer's major study on the historical Jesus, along
with Martin Kähler's The So-Called Historical Jesus and the Historic
Biblical Christ in 1896,11 plus the growing influence of Karl Barth and
Rudolf Bultmann,12 historical Jesus studies were severely curtailed.
During this time, it was often the case that any historical
emphases, even naturalistic ones, were shunned. It might be said,
then, that alternative responses to the resurrection were ruled out by
the same tendency that disparaged any significant value being
placed on historical studies of Jesus. But it was also well-recognized
that there were significant factual problems with these challenges to
the resurrection.
In the second half of the twentieth century, theological trends
began moving in another direction. Even Bultmann's students
argued that at least some historical knowledge was indispensable for
the Christian faith. Ernst Käsemann's famous 1954 essay "Das
Problem des historischen Jesus"13 and James M. Robinson's call for a
New Quest14 marked a very limited interest in historical matters. But
as scholars like Wolfhart Pannenberg moved to the forefront of
theological discussions, history again regained a place of
prominence.15 Over at least the last twenty years, the Third Quest for
the Historical Jesus has dominated the theological landscape.16
For most of the century, then, critical scholarship has largely
rejected the naturalistic approaches to the resurrection. In fact, they
have usually done so in a wholesale manner. After noting that "the
older criticism took some strange paths," Karl Barth named some of
these alternative hypotheses. Then he summed up the matter: "To-
day we rightly turn up our nose at this" because of the problems with the theses. As a result, "these explanations . . . have now gone
out of currency."17 While discussing several naturalistic approaches,
Raymond Brown concluded:
The criticism of today does not follow the paths taken by the
criticism of the past. No longer respectable are the crude theories....
Occasionally some new mutation of the "plot" approach will
briefly capture the public fancy, but serious scholars pay little
attention to these fictional reconstructions.18
This aspect of recent thought is actually quite amazing.
Theologians across a very wide conceptual spectrum have agreed in
rejecting naturalistic approaches as explanations for the earliest
Christians' belief in Jesus' resurrection. Even a sampling of these
scholars is impressive.19
In the last decade or so, several influential theologians and
philosophers have continued to concur with these assessments.
James D. G. Dunn judges that "alternative interpretations of the data
fail to provide a more satisfactory explanation" than the Christian
proclamation that God raised Jesus from the dead.20 Steven T. Davis
agrees:
All of the alternative hypotheses with which I am familiar are
historically weak; some are so weak that they collapse of their own
weight once spelled out. . . . the alternative theories that have been
proposed are not only weaker but far weaker at explaining the
available historical evidence.21
Richard Swinburne concludes: "alternative hypotheses have always
seemed to me to give far less satisfactory accounts of the historical
evidence than does the traditional account."22
Still, an unusually large number of positive reassessments of
naturalistic hypotheses were published in the last ten to twenty
years, often put forward by influential scholars. No new evidence
favoring these alternative responses has emerged. After a lengthy
lapse, it is difficult to account for this trend.
II. The Present Scene
The latest research on the historicity of Jesus' resurrection
reveals other very intriguing trends. Perhaps more firmly than ever,
the vast majority of contemporary scholars are agreed that the
earliest followers of Jesus at least believed that they had experienced
their risen Lord. Even radical scholars rarely question this fact. It
may well be one of the two or three most widely established
particulars about Jesus' life. Therefore, any attempt to explain what
happened in natural terms must be able to adequately account for
this early conviction.
As Reginald Fuller remarked years ago, Jesus' disciples
believing that he was raised from the dead "is one of the
indisputable facts of history." That they had experiences that they
thought were Jesus' appearances to them "is a fact upon which both
believer and unbeliever may agree."23 Later, Fuller pointed out that
these experiences must be adequately explained: it "therefore
requires that the historian postulate some other event over and
above Good Friday, an event which is not itself the `rise of the Easter
faith' but the cause of the Easter faith."24
James D. G. Dunn speaks similarly:
It is almost impossible to dispute that at the historical roots of
Christianity lie some visionary experiences of the first Christians,
who understood them as appearances of Jesus, raised by God from
the dead.25
And they were not merely speaking about an internal realization or
conviction: "they clearly meant that something had happened to
Jesus himself. God had raised him, not merely reassured them."26
Even more skeptical scholars often grant the grounds for the
appearances. Norman Perrin concluded, "The more we study the
tradition with regard to the appearances, the firmer the rock begins
to appear upon which they are based."27 Helmut Koester concurs:
We are on much firmer ground with respect to the appearances of
the risen Jesus and their effect. . . . that Jesus also appeared to
others (Peter, Mary Magdalene, James) cannot very well be
questioned.28
How we explain the nature of these early experiences, then, is
the chief issue. Peter Carnley sets up the issue rather nicely:
Meanwhile, there is no doubt that the first disciples interpreted the
Easter visions or appearances as signs of the heavenly presence of
Christ. Why they should be minded to do this with the degree of
conviction that is so clearly reflected in the early testimony is what we
must seek to explain.29
The different sorts of explanations can perhaps be categorized
briefly, at the expense of some oversimplification. The major
disagreement, of course, comes from those scholars who hold that
natural hypotheses can explain the data better than the thesis that
Jesus appeared alive after his death. Of these natural suppositions,
some appeal to the earliest Christians' subjective, internal states,
while others prefer objective solutions involving external events and
conditions. I will call these two perspectives the naturalistic
subjective and the naturalistic objective theses, respectively.
Similarly, of those who think that Jesus was really raised from
the dead and appeared to his followers, some prefer manifestations
that did not involve Jesus' physical body. Others think that Jesus
appeared in an external, bodily form.30 But what they both have in common is the conviction that Jesus really appeared to his followers.
So I will call these the supernatural subjective and the supernatural
objective theses, respectively. We will have much less to say in this
essay concerning these supernatural categories, since neither
involves natural explanations in order to account for the central
phenomena, which are our main concern here.
It is my contention that, while not approaching large
proportions in terms of the total number of commentators, we are at
present witnessing a noteworthy comeback of scholars who espouse
naturalistic hypotheses to account for Jesus' resurrection. Some of us
have been predicting this for years, and so we are not really
surprised. Although we have seen comparatively little of this
activity for perhaps several decades, attitudes do change.
III. Charting Natural Hypotheses
The last couple of decades have produced more than forty
suggestions31 favoring about a dozen different alternative scenarios
to account for the NT report that Jesus was raised from the dead.
With few exceptions, these theses are paralleled in the older liberal
literature and elsewhere, although they occasionally include new
twists. Many of the suggestions are expressed in fairly popular
works, while others are published for scholarly consumption. Some
are no more than brief mentions, while others are developed in
detail. These natural hypotheses are of both the subjective and
objective varieties. My purpose here is simply to note some of these
trends.
A. Naturalistic Subjective Theories
As with later nineteenth century liberalism, so today some of the
most popular alternatives to belief in Jesus' resurrection are that the
internal states of the earliest Christians were such that they became
convinced that Jesus was alive, even though nothing happened to
Jesus himself. Perhaps this approach is largely prompted by the
trends that we just noted: the critical community most frequently
acknowledges that the disciples at least believed firmly that the risen
Jesus had appeared to them. What could give rise to such a
conviction? In this general category, two major answers include hallucinations (often called subjective visions) and what I will call
the illumination hypothesis.
After a decades-long hiatus, the subjective vision theory is
making a comeback and is again the most popular natural response
to Jesus' resurrection. The most influential version is that argued by
German theologian Gerd Lüdemann. After a study of the major
resurrection texts in the NT, Lüdemann appeals to "stimulus,"
"religious intoxication," and "enthusiasm" as the states of mind
leading to the visions seen by Peter, as well as by others who
concluded that Jesus was alive. Lüdemann prefers to speak of these
experiences as visions rather than hallucinations, but he is clear that
nothing literally happened to Jesus himself.32
Another influential version is held by Michael Goulder, who
employs subjective visions or hallucinations in a more limited
fashion than Lüdemann. For Goulder, these psychological states of
mind ("conversion visions") particularly explain Peter's experience
and Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus and are rather
typical of religious conversions even today.33 Closer to Goulder, Jack
Kent employs grief hallucinations and conversion disorder to
account for Jesus' appearances.34
Other recent discussions in German circles have touched on a
related thesis. Samuel Vollenweider has argued that in the history of
religions, group visions are quite rare.35 But Ingo Broer notes a
decades-old wartime story involving a reported vision by a group of
German soldiers. Yet in the very next sentence, Broer questions the
report.36 He concludes his essay while still leaving some question
regarding the veridical status of the resurrection appearances.37
Other examples of the subjective vision thesis have also
emerged, but without the details provided by Lüdemann, Goulder,
and Kent. A few scholars have built on some of the ideas of Carl
Jung and his "collective unconsciousness," with visions providing the catalyst for early Christian belief.38 Philosophers Antony Flew39
and John Hick40 also prefer the hallucination thesis. Historian
Michael Grant thinks that this is a possible explanation of Paul's
conversion experience.41 Jewish scholar Dan Cohn-Sherbok favors
such an explanation,42 while John Barclay seems at least open to it.43
Somewhat distressingly, even though Carnley supports the
occurrence of the resurrection, he considers the subjective vision
scenario to be a very difficult one to answer on the grounds of the
historical data.44
What I have called the illumination thesis argues that, through
some nondescript internal process, the disciples became convinced
that Jesus had been raised from the dead. Rarely are many details
provided. Almost always, the apostle Peter is the key. His insights
provided the initial impetus, and his enthusiastic encouragement
was the engine that powered and persuaded his friends. As a result,
the contagious conviction that Jesus was alive spread to the others.
Some idea of autosuggestion or other form of transmittable faith is
thereby suggested.
Championed by Willi Marxsen in a day when his treatment was
a rare but perennial example that dismissed the historical
resurrection, his was the prototypical position that espoused such an
inner enlightenment on Peter's part, leading to the belief of the other
disciples.45 In a later volume, he continued to hold that Peter's faith
was the primary motivation for the other disciples' faith, although
Marxsen concluded that he did not know whether this vision(s) of Jesus was subjective or objective.46 There is a marked sense here in
which the fading influence of Rudolf Bultmann can be seen.47
Edward Schillebeeckx expressed similar thoughts, without
necessarily denying the resurrection appearances.48
Don Cupitt expresses some reluctance to outline precisely the
nature of the resurrection appearances. But like Marxsen, he is also
much more interested in the disciples' faith than in any event, for
(contrary to the vast majority of recent commentators) Cupitt thinks
that the former precedes the latter. Through "a shocking flash of
recognition everything fell into place and they saw the meaning of
this man."49
Thomas Sheehan perhaps supplies the most details concerning
the new understanding of Jesus arrived at by Peter and the other
disciples. In a flash of revelatory "insight," they understood that
Jesus had been exalted and glorified by God. So, in some "ecstatic"
occurrence that could have been as "ordinary as reflecting," Peter
and the others began proclaiming that Jesus had been raised from
the dead. Like Marxsen and Cupitt, we do not really know what
happened, although Sheehan is quite clear that no resurrection took
place. Rather, all we have is the interpretation of what Peter and the
other disciples experienced.50
John Shelby Spong's writings on the subject have created quite
an uproar. Again Peter is the key individual. It was he, not Jesus,
who "was resurrected to new life, a new being." Standing "as if in a
trance," Peter was "suddenly aglow with life." But there were no
visions, hallucinations, or anything to do with the real world. No
one else in the room (including Peter) really saw Jesus. He then
helped to open the eyes of the other followers of Jesus.51 In a later
work, Spong provides the disclaimer that we really cannot know
what happened. He also removes Peter's transformation to about six
months after Jesus' death.52
Without resorting to the full ramification of the illumination
thesis, Rudolf Pesch's early work is perhaps the major example of a
few scholars who thought that Jesus' pre-crucifixion teachings and
authority were largely sufficient to help his followers survive the
crucifixion and retain their faith.53 Pesch later changed this position,
granting that Jesus' appearances could be established by careful
research.54 However, largely due to the influence exerted by Pesch's
earlier position, scholars like Hansjürgen Verweyan continued to
emphasize the part that the pre-Easter message of Jesus played in
preparing his disciples. Still, Verweyen is more positive towards the
importance of the disciples' visionary experiences after Jesus'
death.55
These two hypotheses--hallucinations (or subjective visions)
and what I have called the illumination thesis--are the chief
examples of subjective naturalistic theories. There has definitely
been an increase in the number of scholars who have held these
positions during the last ten to fifteen years. B. Naturalistic Objective Theories
Recent attempts have also been made to explain away the NT
accounts of Jesus' resurrection in terms of external states and
conditions. This category involves more options and, not
surprisingly, includes a wider range of scenarios.
The swoon theory has reappeared recently in a few places,
although seldom among specialists. One of the only exceptions is the
brief article by Margaret Lloyd Davies and Trevor A. Lloyd Davies.
It develops the hypothesis that Jesus lost consciousness, causing the
bystanders to conclude that he was dead. When taken down from
the cross, he revived and was treated. Surprisingly, the appearances
apparently seem not to be caused by Jesus actually being seen after
his recovery, but by some unspecified sort of "perceptions," raising
once again the issue of hallucinations.56 The medical outcry against the Davies' stance was instructive, with multiple reasons being given
to indicate that Jesus really died by crucifixion.57
Barbara Thiering has a habit of publishing rather nontraditional
items about Jesus. According to her, Jesus married Mary Magdalene,
had children, got divorced, and also married Lydia of Philippi. She
continues: Jesus was crucified at Qumran, along with Judas Iscariot
and Simon Magnus. But none of them died, even though the other
two men had their ankles broken. Jesus was drugged, given an
antidote later, and traveled all around the Mediterranean with his
followers, dying in the 60s A.D.58 Perhaps needless to say, scholars
have not taken her hypotheses very seriously.59
Every once in a while, the swoon theory appears again.60 But it
has not really been very popular since Strauss's devastating critique
in 1835.61 By the turn of the century, it was declared to be only a
curiosity of the past.62
Some commentators have responded to the burial and empty
tomb accounts in the gospels by returning to hypotheses reminiscent
of nineteenth century efforts. John Dominic Crossan, for example,
made headlines by asserting that Jesus' dead body was either simply
left on the cross or buried in a shallow grave. Either way, he concludes, "the dogs were waiting."63 Others agree, suggesting that
Jesus' body was placed in a common grave and covered. The body
decayed rapidly so that nothing was left.64
Barnabas Lindars is an example of those who have argued that
while the resurrection appearances of Jesus are founded upon strong
evidence, the empty "tomb legend" arose as a "late element"
extrapolated from the resurrection accounts.65 Similarly, Adela
Yarbro Collins charged that Mark composed his story of the empty
tomb to complement his own belief that Jesus had been raised from
the dead and appeared to his disciples.66
Certainly the majority of scholars think that Jesus' body was
placed in a tomb. But Michael Martin asks why we can rule out the
thesis that someone other than the disciples stole the body of Jesus
from the tomb.67 A. N. Wilson suggests the possibility that the
young man at the tomb stole the body and took it elsewhere, but
admits that we will never know for sure.68
Another rather unconventional criticism has also emerged in
recent years, as it did more than a century ago. It has been proposed
that a twin brother or another person who looked like Jesus
represented him after the crucifixion. A. N. Wilson suggests that this
person was James, the brother of Jesus. Their resemblance would
explain how James could represent his brother in the post-
crucifixion appearances.69 Greg Cavin supports a bit more forcefully
the twin brother scenario.70
In answer to my request that critics be willing to offer
naturalistic hypotheses, Frank Miosi offers a similar "likeness"
view--what he terms the "John the Baptist Theory." Just as some
thought that Jesus was John the Baptist raised from the dead (Mark
6:14-16), Miosi thinks that early believers may have concluded that
Jesus was raised when they saw someone else who reminded them
of Jesus.71 Martin also mentions very briefly the possibility of a look-
alike individual seen by the followers of Jesus.72
Crossan also offers another provocative thesis. It is not even
necessarily a naturalistic account of the resurrection appearances,
but seems to function that way in his system. Crossan holds that in
Paul's account in 1 Cor 15:1-11, the stories are chiefly concerned with
explaining the authority structures in the early church, not in
proclaiming supernatural acts. Accordingly, Jesus' appearances are
divided into three groups, denoting "three types of recipients" of
Jesus' "apparitions or revelations." These three groups are the
individual leaders (like Peter, James, and Paul), two leadership
groupings (the Twelve and the apostles), and a general community
of believers. The accounts are "quite deliberate political
dramatizations . . . primarily interested . . . in power and
authority."73
As in the nineteenth century, forms of the legend theory also
existed at the end of the twentieth century.74 To some extent, of
course, many alternative hypotheses employ legendary elements that
still do not involve full-blown proposals of this sort. For example,
we have seen that Lindars and Collins employ such processes
regarding the empty tomb narratives.
But others have stretched legendary accretion to cover a much
wider scenario.75 The best known and most radical of these theses is
probably that by G. A. Wells, who has written numerous works on
the subject. He asserts either that Jesus never lived at all or that he
was an obscure ancient personage who cannot with certainty even
be dated to the first century A.D. In the legendary process, Wells notes what he takes to be stages of development regarding the NT
books, as well as the evolution of ideas concerning both the
historical Jesus and Christology. He thinks that there was very little
early interest in the historical Jesus and that by the time of the
gospels, we are more or less dealing largely with fabrication. The
resurrection appearances are similarly to be explained as the growth
of legend.76
Michael Martin defends Wells's program on the historicity of
Jesus, quoting it widely. But he notes that, since "Wells' thesis is
controversial and not widely accepted, I will not rely on it. . . ."77
Nonetheless, Martin's recognition of the scholarly response to Wells
is still a bold understatement! Concerning the resurrection, Martin
also adds the features noted below.
Evan Fales is one of the few recent representatives of the
nineteenth century theory popular among the Religionsgeschichte
scholars, who traced the origination of NT teachings to the ancient
mystery religions. Similarly, Fales thinks the best approach is to
study Near Eastern mythical figures like Tammuz, Adonis, Isis, and
Osiris.78
Robert Price concentrates on historical examples where, in a
religious context, legendary growth appeared very quickly. He
chides Christian apologists for not doing their homework on these
cases. Yet, while he concludes that legend also infests the
resurrection accounts, he makes a surprising comment:
One need not assume that there was no resurrection. Indeed it was
precisely because of experiences of some kind (such as those
intriguingly listed but not described by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15)
that anyone cared to glorify Jesus.79
Thus Price apparently thinks that, while much legend has crept into
the NT texts, it does not explain entirely the core of the resurrection
tradition.
The last naturalistic hypothesis that we will mention is often
treated as a relative to hallucinations because of obvious similarities.
Yet, what I will term the illusion theory really needs, upon further
reflection, to be cataloged differently. It is an objective alternative
response because it is concerned largely with conditions in the
external world, although this is seldom noticed.
Perhaps we need briefly to differentiate hallucination from
illusion. The former is a seeming perception that is not linked to the
real world--"false sensory perception not associated with real
external stimuli." Hence, in their very nature, hallucinations are
subjective. On the other hand, an illusion is the mistaking of one
natural condition for another--the "misperception or
misinterpretation of real external sensory stimuli."80 Accordingly,
and unlike hallucinations, the illusion theory builds on situations
where people, singly or in groups, mistake actual phenomena for
something other than what they are in reality. Martin enumerates several illusions (which he also calls mass
hysteria) that he thinks are parallels to the early Christian belief in
the resurrection appearances of Jesus. His examples certainly include
some curious cases--UFOs, cattle mutilations in the western United
States that were thought to indicate the activity of satanic cults, as
well as reports of witchcraft and related phenomena in colonial
America, which Martin especially treats in detail.81 Wells similarly
uses witchcraft trials as an example, although he incorrectly refers to
this illusional data as hallucinations.82 Goulder also employs some
odd illusional incidents as being analogous to the resurrection--like
statues of the Virgin Mary that reportedly move, while he
concentrates especially on stories of Bigfoot appearances!83 With regard to the resurrection appearances, then, illusion
theorists hold that something real was mistakenly thought to be
something else--namely, the risen Jesus. As Martin suggests, "a
person who looked like Jesus could have triggered a collective
delusion."84 Presumably, the other believers enthusiastically agreed
that they had seen their Lord.
I could give other examples of these naturalistic theories that
have appeared in the last decades of the twentieth century. Further,
as can be initially noted from this presentation, even the options
within the same general species of alternative responses can exhibit
many dissimilarities. But hopefully this demarcation will provide a
framework for observing that these alternative theses seem to be
making a comeback. That alone is worth noting.
Conclusion
Even many scholars seem to be unaware of the current revival of
naturalistic theories aimed at the resurrection appearances of Jesus,
let alone the history of such alternative theses. This recent trend has
not been torrential, and is still not the critics' first option, but the
change is nonetheless quite noteworthy. While some of these critics
only briefly mention their response in a sentence or two,85 many
others are serious, detailed efforts to dismiss the central event and
doctrine of orthodox Christianity. Perhaps surprisingly, very few
alternative attempts appear in the works of the scholars who are
currently the most influential in the Third Quest for the Historical
Jesus. Given the exceptional amount of attention to this area of
contemporary study, this is surely remarkable.
This study was necessarily sketchy, consisting chiefly of a brief
survey of current trends on the subject of naturalistic approaches to
Jesus' resurrection. I tried to map a wide range of positions,
including differentiating four categories of explanations regarding
the resurrection appearances, pro and con.86 From the more than
forty scholars and almost a dozen alternative theses, I also tried to
name and describe two of these positions that are seldom, if ever,
differentiated in the literature--the illumination and illusion views.
What responses might be given to the challenge of these
naturalistic theses, especially the last two, concerning which there
are comparatively few treatments? Detailed rejoinders must be
forthcoming.87 The more thoroughly naturalistic theories are
dismantled, the more the solid data in favor of Jesus' resurrection is
displayed.
Endnotes
[*] Gary R. Habermas teaches in the Department of Philosophy and Theology at
Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia.
|
||
|