3 This argument carries a considerable amount of weight, asīoth of its premises appear well-supported. 2 However, the hypothesis has not gone uncriticised, with the strongest argument against it being that the fact of group resurrection appearances is incompatible with hallucinations because group hallucinations are impossible. Increasing number of adherents in recent years. This suggestion was popularised in the critical era by David Strauss 1 and has won an It has long been argued that Jesus’ resurrection appearances can be explained as hallucinations (or subjective visions). ![]() Thus, collective hallucinations provide an inadequate explanation for the resurrection appearances. The lack of glorious appearances in the Gospels is therefore an indicator that the appearances were originally non-glorious and thus not hallucinations. However, there are strong reasons to believe that the early church would have preserved, not eliminated, traditions of glorious appearances, had such existed. Since the Gospels relate only non-glorious appearances of Jesus, hallucinations can only be maintained as an explanation if the original tradition of glorious/non-glorious appearances was changed to a tradition of purely non-glorious appearances. The evidence indicates that if the resurrection appearances were collective hallucinations, hallucinations of glorious appearances of Jesus would have occurred alongside hallucinations of non-glorious appearances. Part II examines whether the same is true of Jesus’ resurrection appearances. Five factors make it very likely that such visions are collective hallucinations. Part I examines modern accounts of collective religious visions. Jesus’ Resurrection And Collective Hallucinations ![]() Volume: TYNBUL 60:1 (NA 2009) Article: Jesus’ Resurrection And Collective Hallucinations Author: Jake H.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |