The second hypothesis Michael Licona examines pertaining to Jesus’ fate is that of Michael Goulder, who appeals to psychology and sociology to account for the rise of early Christian belief in Jesus’ resurrection. Licona summarizes Goulder’s hypothesis (GH) as follows:
- Peter experienced a hallucination in which he saw Jesus. This was caused by Peter’s low self-esteem, guilt, and grief in the wake of Jesus’ death. He was prone to this type of experience based on his personality type.
- Peter told the other disciples of his experience, which led them to experience “communal delusions” similar to Bigfoot, Mary, and UFO sightings.
- The pre-Christian Paul probably harbored doubts about his views toward the Christian movement and his own Jewish faith. He might have had a Gentile friend as a child, and this led him to connect his conversion experience with his call to evangelize Gentiles.
- The original Jerusalem apostles believed that Jesus’ resurrection was immaterial, but Paul believed in bodily (material) resurrection.
- Later Christians began speculating about what happened to Jesus, which led to the empty tomb and appearance stories found in the NT gospels.
Using the five criteria for weighing historical hypotheses, Licona judges GH as follows:
1. Explanatory scope. GH does well because it accounts for the three historical facts, thus making it superior to Vermes’ hypothesis (VH) in this area.
2. Explanatory power. GH appeals to hallucinations, delusions, and hypnotic experiences to account for the “appearances” of Jesus, but it is uncertain exactly which explanations account for which experiences of the disciples. “This ambiguity throughout GH demonstrates how much it lacks explanatory power” (493). Licona judges that GH trails VH in explanatory power.
3. Plausibility. Licona doubts GH’s contention that the Jerusalem apostles held to a spiritual resurrection, as opposed to Paul’s physical resurrection, but he does find the suggestion that Peter’s experience was a grief hallucination to be plausible. On the other hand, “[s]ince group hallucinations are rare to impossible and are not supported by … psychology, a group hallucination to the disciples is implausible” (493). Likewise, because Paul was not in a state of grief, it is implausible to attribute his experience to a hallucination. Licona judges VH superior to GH in plausibility.
4. Less ad hoc. Licona states that this might be GH’s weakest area, since it is almost entirely speculative in its multiple and diverse psychological analyses. GH trails VH by a significant margin in this area.
5. Illumination. GH passes this criterion.
I am probably less skeptical of GH than Licona is. Having said that, I think that GH’s weakest areas are 1) its claim that the Jerusalem apostles did not believe that Jesus’ resurrection was bodily; 2) its claim that Paul was growing dissatisfied with Judaism (Goulder’s exegesis of some of Paul’s references to the law lacks much); and 3) it is highly speculative. The one making a claim for something bears the burden of proof, and I don’t think Goulder demonstrates several of his claims very well at all (e.g., the original disciples’ belief in “spiritual” resurrection).
In addition to other objections, Goulder’s last point — that is shared by many — is unrealistic.
If his account of the origin and nature of the Gospel resurrection stories were true, there would have to have been:
(1) A period of time for church leaders to speculate about “what happened to Jesus” (usually applied to much more than the resurrection appearances)
(2) A broad consensus of acceptable speculations among a diverse population of Christians — located in diverse places well before AD 50
(3) A period for the creation and circulation of new tales about Jesus
(4) The uncritical acceptance of the new Jesus-stories by those who formerly thoughtfully speculated about him — or their immediate successors
(5) A period of time in which the Gospels were written
(6) The rapid circulation and acceptance of the Gospels, as if they were of apostolic origin
This scenario is loaded with historical and logical problems, beginning with the assumption that underlies point one: the idea that the early church did not know “what happened to Jesus,” — yet they were supposed to have been deeply devoted to, and deeply interested in, him. (What could possibly motivate them to such devotion and interest when they knew little or nothing about the resurrection — or other core aspects of his mission and message?)
A much more realistic view of the Gospels is to read them as didactic and preaching material that was preserved and passed along precisely because the material was — the source — of the early church’s devotion to, and interest in, Jesus.
Bobby – I agree with a lot of your points. It boggles my mind to think that serious scholars today can imagine a scenario where an intensely devoted religious group formed around its founder and his fate could exist for even a single year (month?) without at least some followers asking, “By the way, what was it that happened to Jesus, the guy we’re saying is our Messiah?” And then everyone responds with something along the lines of, “Oh, who cares? He’s the Messiah. Don’t be bothered with such tedious details…”
Really? That’s the way it happened? If anything is impossible, that scenario is.
Pingback: Biblioblog Carnival February 2012 « Cheese-Wearing Theology