Interesting question, but he doesn’t just talk about ” visions of Jesus”. He specifies and distinguishes between different types. If you read this part of the book you would know that there is literature dealing with just this question. It is interesting that we automatically gravitate towards lying as an explanation. Consider, that 1.) They are reportedly talking about something that never happens. That to most people would seem preposterous. If you’re going to make stuff up, don’t you at least want it to sound plausible. 2.) Paul specifically mentions the the idea of a resurrection (Christ crucified) is a stumbling block for Jews and gibberish to Pagans (The Greeks) If someone is going to lie, it is more likely they will make something up that wont be immediately rejected.
In a recent post discussing whether he is converting to Islam, Ehrman writes,
“The reality is that the way rumors start is sometimes, but not always, and in fact not all that often, because someone comes up with a lie that s/he tells to someone else. But more often a rumor starts because someone misunderstands something they heard, or unwittingly exaggerates what they heard, or unknowingly alters what they heard. This happens ALL the time. A falsehood does not have to be a lie. If a claim is false, well, then it’s false. But a lie involves a falsehood that someone tells while knowing full well that it’s false. That’s different.
And when it comes to such things as rumor and gossip (there is actually a whole field of scholarship that specializes in such things!), lying is rarely the culprit….”
ask21771 said
I read that par it didn’t make things any clearer
clearer in what sense? that lies are not as likely as we think? That a lie would most likely have a certain amount of credibility?
Scholars tend to believe there is some real experience at the bottom of this story; that at least some of the disciples had experiences that convinced them Jesus was alive. That this tends to happen to people who suffer a great loss is instructive.
I think Gerd Ludemann, for example, thinks the experience-whatever it was happened at Pentecost. BUT, in a historical context, one
is talking about what most likely happened as opposed to trying to say X or why IS what happened
Consider, modern examples, numerous sightings of Elvis Presley after his death. Hallucinations aren’t even required to explain the idea that someone thought they saw someone else.
spiker said
ask21771 said
I read that par it didn’t make things any clearerclearer in what sense? that lies are not as likely as we think? That a lie would most likely have a certain amount of credibility?
Scholars tend to believe there is some real experience at the bottom of this story; that at least some of the disciples had experiences that convinced them Jesus was alive. That this tends to happen to people who suffer a great loss is instructive.
I think Gerd Ludemann, for example, thinks the experience-whatever it was happened at Pentecost. BUT, in a historical context, one
is talking about what most likely happened as opposed to trying to say X or why IS what happened
Consider, modern examples, numerous sightings of Elvis Presley after his death. Hallucinations aren’t even required to explain the idea that someone thought they saw someone else.
Just so. How many people not only believe in ghosts but are convinced (or try to convince others) that they have seen one? Try disproving this, ‘I cannot explain x, therefore it must have been a ghost.’ We live in a more sceptical age but if everybody believed that spirits, angels etc are real and a credible member of society says that he certainly saw such a thing, that is all it would take. That person does not need to be deliberately trying to mislead or dissemble. Vermes, in ‘Resurrection,’ thinks that the disciples were so bereft that they almost willed Jesus back to life – and it would only take one (Peter, say) to describe a vivid dream or imagine an apparition to start the whole thing off.
ask21771 said
When erhman talks about visions of Jesus his disciples had after his death does he mean dreams or awake hallucinations if it’s the second one how is that possible and how do we know the visions actually happened and weren’t just lies
Rather than getting caught up in the hallucinations type arguments – an idea that leads to the irrational my dream, my vision, my hallucination, is better than yours – a battle of the visions – a more rational approach would be to credit the early christians with the ability to reason.
A favorite quote of mine suggests the early christians might well have been great thinkers, rather than being swayed by subjective emotions or psychological problems.
All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds, wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act on their dreams with open eyes, to make them possible.
T.E. Lawrence
Boltonian said
Just so. How many people not only believe in ghosts but are convinced (or try to convince others) that they have seen one? Try disproving this, ‘I cannot explain x, therefore it must have been a ghost.’ We live in a more sceptical age but if everybody believed that spirits, angels etc are real and a credible member of society says that he certainly saw such a thing, that is all it would take. That person does not need to be deliberately trying to mislead or dissemble. Vermes, in ‘Resurrection,’ thinks that the disciples were so bereft that they almost willed Jesus back to life – and it would only take one (Peter, say) to describe a vivid dream or imagine an apparition to start the whole thing off.
Yea, I read Vermes. makes alot of sense. Lets not forget garden variety denial. I remember attending a class where the instructor talked about her father -a helicopter pilot- She said for years after he died she would act as if he was coming home any minute.
Oh it’s 5 o’clock, dad will be home soon, etc
ask21771 said
Look how could three people have hallucinations the chances of that happening are slim to none
I have never liked the term “hallucination” in this context, but multiple people see the same unreal things all the time. Consider the Testimony of the Three Witnesses at the beginning of every book of Mormon. You can read Joseph Smith’s story behind the Testimony in History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Vol. 1, pp. 52-53. Go to ** you do not have permission to see this link ** and search for “Not many days after the above” to find where the story begins. When I read this, I think Joseph Smith could make people believe they saw things.
In modern times, followers of Rebbe Schneerson have seen him after his death. Kris D. Komarnitsky on page 88 of “Doubting Jesus’ Resurrection: What Happened in the Black Box?” quotes one of his followers saying “A few people can see the Rebbe. People tell me, ‘just open your eyes and you will see him.’ A few spiritually developed people have seen him – in body and in flesh looking as he did before his passing. It’s not happened to me yet. Perhaps one day it will, I do not know, I hope so.”
magpie said
There are many instances of mass hallucinations. I am thinking of the Lady of Fatima appearance which about 500 claimed to have seen if I remember correctly.
Mass hallucination is only one possible and rather unlikely explanation for the “Sun miracle” of the Lady of Fatima. ** you do not have permission to see this link **. We should not slap the label “hallucination” on every supposedly miraculous appearance. Like UFO sightings, there may be multiple explanations.
Perhaps this is a pet peeve of mine. Many critical scholars, including Prof. Ehrman, theorize that the apostles must’ve had hallucinations. I think this theory is too specific. They saw something, but it could have been many other things besides a hallucination. For example, you’ll probably think I’m crazy if I suggest it might have been a hoax, somebody impersonating Jesus. However, consider that thousands of Victorian British and American people thought they saw dead relatives at séances. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle saw his mother so clearly that he could see the wrinkles on her face. Call me skeptical, but I believe it was probably the medium impersonating his mother. It is complete speculation to think that the same sort of thing might explain Jesus’ appearances, but it makes about as much sense as hallucinations.
ask21771 said
Look how could three people have hallucinations the chances of that happening are slim to none
Are they? How do you figure this? If 3 people have preconditions (Grief, shock, etc) why are the odds against it, so slim? Besides who says they ALL had hallucinations? Consider the Road to Emaus story for example. Two men met another on their way home. They walked together, conversed and then ate a meal together. Just suppose for the sake of argument that later the two men hear someone (Peter?) talking about how Jesus appeared to him and they think back to their stranger. AHA! It wasn’t a stranger! IT WAS JESUS!
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert