Vision theory of Jesus' appearances
|Part of a series on|
|Death and Resurrection of Jesus|
|Portals: Christianity Bible|
The vision theory or vision hypothesis is a term used to cover a range of theories that question the physical resurrection of Jesus, and suggest that sightings of a risen Jesus were visionary experiences. It was first formulated by David Friedrich Strauss, and proposed in several forms by mainstream scholarship, including Helmut Koester, Géza Vermes, and Larry Hurtado, and members of the Jesus Seminar such as Gerd Lüdemann.
Christian apologists object against the theory, taking the resurrection to be a literal, bodily phenomenon.
Subjective vision theory
David Friedrich Strauss (1808-1874), in his "Life of Jesus" (1835), argued that the resurrection was not an objective historical fact, but a subjective "recollection" of Jesus, transfiguring the dead Jesus into an imaginary, or "mythical," risen Christ. The appearance, or Christophany, of Jesus to Paul and others, was "internal and subjective." Reflection on the Messianic hope, and Psalms 16:10,[note 1] led to an exaltated state of mind, in which "the risen Christ" was present "in a visionary manner," concluding that Jesus must have escaped the bondage of death. Strauss' thesis was further developed by Ernest Renan (1863) and Albert Réville (1897). These interpretations were later classed the "subjective vision hypothesis",[note 2] and "is advocated today by a great majority of New Testament experts."
According to Ehrman, "the Christian view of the matter [is] that the visions were bona fide appearances of Jesus to his followers", a view which is "forcefully stated in any number of publications." Ehrman further notes that "Christian apologists sometimes claim that the most sensible historical explanation for these visions is that Jesus really appeared to the disciples."
According to De Conick, the experiences of the risen Christ in the earliest written sources – the "primitive Church" creed of 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:8 and Galatians 1:16 – are ecstatic rapture events.
Exaltation of Jesus
According to Hurtado, the resurrection experiences were religious experiences which "seem to have included visions of (and/or ascents to) God's heaven, in which the glorified Christ was seen in an exalted position." These visions may mostly have appeared during corporate worship. Johan Leman contends that the communal meals provided a context in which participants entered a state of mind in which the presence of Jesus was felt.
According to Ehrman, "the disciples' belief in the resurrection was based on visionary experiences."[note 3] Ehrman notes that both Jesus and his early followers were apocalyptic Jews, who believed in the bodily resurrection, which would start when the coming of God's Kingdom was near. Ehrman further notes that visions usually have a strong persuasive power, but that the Gospel-accounts also record a tradition of doubt about the appearances of Jesus. Ehrman's "tentative suggestion" is that only a few followers had visions, including Peter, Paul and Mary. They told others about those visions, convincing most of their close associates that Jesus was raised from the dead, but not all of them. Eventually, these stories were retold and embellished, leading to the story that all disciples had seen the risen Jesus. The belief in Jesus' resurrection radically changed their perceptions, concluding from his absence that he must have been exalted to heaven, by God himself, exalting him to an unprecented status and authority.
Call to missionary activity
According to Helmut Koester, the stories of the resurrection were originally epiphanies in which the disciples are called to a ministry by the risen Jesus, and at a secondary stage were interpreted as physical proof of the event. He contends that the more detailed accounts of the resurrection are also secondary and do not come from historically trustworthy sources, but instead belong to the genre of the narrative types.
According to Gerd Lüdemann, Peter had a vision of Jesus, induced by his feelings of guilt of betraying Jesus. The vision elevated this feeling of guilt, and Peter experienced it as a real appearance of Jesus, raised from dead. He convinced the other disciples that the resurrection of Jesus signalled that the endtime was near and God's Kingdom was coming, when the dead who would rise again, as evidenced by Jesus. This revitalized the disciples, starting-off their new mission.[web 1]
According to Biblical scholar Géza Vermes, the resurrection is to be understood as a reviving of the self-confidence of the followers of Jesus, under the influence of the Spirit, "prompting them to resume their apostolic mission." They felt the presence of Jesus in their own actions, "rising again, today and tomorrow, in the hearts of the men who love him and feel he is near."
Objective vision theory
Hans Grass (1964) proposed an "objective vision hypothesis," in which Jesus' appearances are "divinely caused visions," showing his followers that His resurrection "was a spiritual reality." Jesus' spirit was resurrected, but his body remained dead, explaining the belated conversion of Jesus' half-brother James. Grass' "objective" vision hypothesis finds no echo in more recent scholarship.
Alfred Edersheim (1959) pointed out several objections to the hypothesis, including that the record shows that disciples expected Jesus to remain dead and needed convincing of the opposite. Others also have cited Christ's eating with the Twelve and showing them his wounds. Several Christian apologist scholars such as Gary Habermas, William Lane Craig and Michael Morrison have argued against the vision explanations for the resurrection. William Lane Craig and Gerd Lüdemann entered a written debate on the subject in 2000. Pinchas Lapide rejected the possibility that the appearances were hallucinations. After examining the various claims he wrote, “If the defeated and depressed group of disciples overnight could change into a victorious movement of faith, based only on autosuggestion or self-deception—without a fundamental faith experience—then this would be a much greater miracle than the resurrection itself.”
- See also Herald Gandi (2018), The Resurrection: "According to the Scriptures"?
- Gregory W. Dawes (2001), The Historical Jesus Question, page 334: "[Note 168] Pannenberg classes all these attempts together under the heading of "the subjective vision hypothesis."; "[Note 169] In the present study, we have seen this hypothesis exemplified in the work of David Friedrich Strauss."
- Ehrman dismisses the story of the empty tomb; accoridng to Ehrman, "an empty tomb had nothing to do with it [...] an empty tomb would not produce faith."
- Koester 2000, p. 64-65.
- Vermes 2008a, p. 151–152.
- Hurtado 2005, p. 73.
- Kubitza 2016.
- McGrath 2011, p. 310.
- Garrett 2014, p. 100.
- Rush Rhees (2007), The Life of Jesus of Nazareth: "This last explanation has in recent times been revived in connection with the so-called vision-hypothesis by Renan and Réville."
- Ehrman 2014, p. 100.
- Ehrman 2014, p. 107.
- De Conick 2006, p. 6.
- Hurtado 2005, p. 72-73.
- Leman2015, p. 168-169.
- Ehrman 2014, p. 98, 101.
- Ehrman 2014, p. 98.
- Ehrman 2014, p. 99.
- Ehrman 2014, p. 101-102.
- Ehrman 2014, p. 109-110.
- Garrett 2014, p. 101.
- Gerd Luedemann in The Historical Jesus in Recent Research ed. James D. G. Dunn, Scot McKnight - 2005 Page 418: "The thesis of an “objective vision” has rightly found no echo in more recent scholarship, but Grass does more in his excellent book than provide a basis for the objective vision hypothesis."
- Alfred Edersheim The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah 1959 Volume 1 "The 'Vision-hypothesis' is not much improved, if we regard the supposed vision as the result of reflection - that the disciples, convinced that the Messiah could not remain dead (and this again is contrary to fact) had wrough themselves first into ."
- Hank Hanegraaff The Third Day 2003- Page 49 "... and John, who recount Christ's eating with the Twelve and showing them his wounds (see Luke 24:36–43; John 20:19–20). ... “even the skeptical NT critic Hans Grass admits that the conversion of James is one of the surest proofs of the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
- Michael Morrison The Resurrection of Jesus: A History of Interpretation
- Charles Foster The Jesus Inquest: The Case For and Against the Resurrection of ... 2011 "Gerd Lüdemann in Paul Copan and Ronald K. Tacelli, ed., Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment: A Debate Between William Lane Craig and Gerd Lüdemann (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2000)"
- Pinchas Lapide, The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective, p.126.
- Printed sources
- De Conick, April D. (2006), "What Is Early Christian and Jewish Mysticism?", in De Conick, April D. (ed.), Paradise Now: Essays on Early Jewish and Christian Mysticism, SBL, ISBN 9781589832572
- Hurtado, Larry (2005), Lord Jesus Christ. Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity, Eerdmans
- Koester, Helmut (2000), Introduction to the New Testament, Vol. 2: History and Literature of Early Christianity, Walter de Gruyter
- Kubitza, Heinz-Werner (2016), The Jesus Delusion: How the Christians created their God: The demystification of a world religion through scientific research, Tectum Wissenschaftsverlag
- Gerd Lüdemann, The Resurrection of Jesus, trans. John Bowden (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994)
- McGrath, Alister E. (2011), Christian Theology: An Introduction, John Wiley & Sons, ISBN 9781444397703
- Vermes, Geza (2008a), The Resurrection, London: Penguin
- Vermes, Geza (2008b), The Resurrection: History and Myth, New York: Doubleday, ISBN 978-0-7394-9969-6
- Bart Ehrman (5 oct. 2012), Gerd Lüdemann on the Resurrection of Jesus
- Ozen, Alf; Lüdemann, Gerd (1995), What Really Happened to Jesus? A Historical Approach to the Resurrection, translated by John Bowden, Louisville, Kent.: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1995, ISBN 0-664-25647-3