To avoid the evidence for the resurrection and its implications, skeptics have come up with several alternative hypotheses and theories to explain away the data that supports Jesus being bodily raised from the dead. Because virtually all scholars, Christian and non-Christian, believe that the disciples really saw the risen Jesus,[1] skeptics must come up with good reasons to explain why this happened.
Subjective vs Objective Visions
Subjective Visions
Another theory they raise suggests that the disciples, Paul, and Jesus’ brother James, who witnessed Jesus alive again, were merely having visions. There are two types of visions to look at here: subjective and objective. Subjective visions occur only within the brain of the person experiencing them. They have no correlation to anything external to the mind.
These would be very similar to the nature of dreams and hallucinations, both of which are not directly linked to a real event outside of the mind. So, if you have a dream that you won the lottery and you wake up the next morning, you will not find millions of dollars next to your bed. Or if someone hallucinates their deceased relative, the body of that relative is not actually outside of their grave alive again.
So, many atheists claim that Jesus wasn’t alive again, rather, those who “saw” him merely had a personal experience in their brains similar to hallucinations. However, if you read my article on hallucinations, you will see that subjective visions which were common in the ancient world, fail to explain the evidence surrounding the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus.
Just like hallucinations, these types of visions cannot account for the historical data we have, which are, multiple appearances of the risen Jesus to different people and groups at different times with extensive interaction, the conversion of Church persecutor Paul, the conversion of Jesus’ skeptical brother James, and the empty tomb.
Some skeptics have tried to say that Paul had a subjective vision of the risen Jesus which made him convert to Christianity; however, it’s quite the contrary—Paul’s Damascus Road conversion is evidence that Paul did not have a subjective vision of the risen Jesus. Notice the physical effect that Paul’s encounter with Jesus had on the companions travelling with him.
Luke tells us that Paul’s companions heard an audible voice (Acts 9:7), saw a light (Acts 22:9), and fell to the ground (Acts 26:14). Remember, Luke is a trustworthy historian, and scholars have demonstrated that the book of Acts is a historically reliable document.
Distinguished historian Craig Keener says that by the standards of ancient historiography, when we compare Acts to other ancient writings, we can have “major confidence” in this document, and that he “would trust Luke up against any ancient historian.”[2]
Subjective visions, however, only occur in one person’s brain and cannot produce these kinds of physical effects on everyone else. Historian Michael Licona reminds us that
“His [Paul’s] traveling companions perceived portions of the auditory and visible aspects of the experience.”[3]
If others saw the light and heard the voice, then there was a literal event that occurred outside of Paul’s brain which was directly responsible for, and linked to, Paul’s “vision.”
If the risen Jesus was nothing more than a subjective vision, then he didn’t literally rise from the dead which means Christianity wouldn’t be true. As renowned historian Dale Allison remarks,
“The teaching of Jesus, which as a Christian I am committed to, may well hang in the air without a dramatic, postmortem endorsement.”[4]
In other words, no resurrection: no Christianity.
Objective Visions
What about objective visions? This is a view proposed by more liberal scholars who deny the bodily resurrection of Jesus but still affirm that Jesus was resurrected. I know, it sounds a little strange. Atheists will want to reject this theory because ultimately, an objective vision would still mean that Jesus was raised from the dead in a spiritual manner which is impossible in a Godless world.
Objective visions are real events that occur independent of the mind but can only be observed by the person experiencing them. For example, when Stephen was stoned by the Jewish religious leaders of the Sanhedrin, he had an objective vision of a real event. Stephen witnessed Jesus standing next to God which only his mind could perceive (Acts 7:54-60).
Although objective visions are better than subjective visions, they still have problems and cannot adequately account for all the historical data we have.
Paul’s Conversion
Take Paul’s conversion for example. As distinguished historian N. T. Wright explains: Paul said he saw the risen Jesus, but the words Paul uses to describe his encounter denotes a meaning that literally translates as “ordinary sight” and not some internal revelatory vision.[5]
Prominent historian and Koine Greek linguistics scholar, Stanley Porter, also agrees that Paul experienced a literal encounter with the risen Jesus, saying,
“So far as actual physical signs are concerned, both sight and sound attended his call. In his letters, Paul mentions that he saw Jesus (1 Cor 15:8; Gal 1:16).”[6]
Paul saw a physically resurrected body of Jesus. Historian Michael Licona adds,
“It is clear to me that he [Paul] thought of the resurrection of Jesus in terms of an event that revivified his corpse and transformed it into a new and immortal body.”[7]
In other words, Paul knew he was seeing a body that occupied time and space that could clearly be seen by others. Philosopher Stephen Davis provides insight here with his expertise in philosophy, explaining that Paul’s description of a resurrected or glorified body in 1 Cor. 15, is referring to a physical body that can be seen and touched; and that
“A glorified body (soma) is still a body—that is, still a material object that can be seen.”[8]
Paul also tells us that there were 500 witnesses who saw the risen Jesus. Notable historian Jerome Murphy-O’Connor believes that Paul references the 500 for two reasons:
“To exclude the likelihood of hallucination and to underline the availability of witnesses.”[9]
New Testament scholar Mark Taylor adds,
“Paul’s mention that most of the five hundred were alive at the time of his writing implies a known group rather than five hundred anonymous witnesses.”[10]
Therefore, this would enable the skeptics and doubters to personally interview those who saw the risen Jesus.
World-class theologian Anthony Thistleton believes that Jesus was bodily raised and that his appearance was not a vision, because parts of 1 Cor. 15,
“Seem to demand continuity between Christ’s resurrection and the resurrection of the dead, and the latter is, in some sense, ‘bodily.’”[11]
In other words, Jesus’ resurrection was directly linked to the Jewish conception of bodily resurrection.
And it’s imperative that we remember the religious historical context here. The Jews had always believed in a physical resurrection and that all would be bodily raised from the dead at the end of the world. Theologian William Lane Craig points out that when Paul says,
“The resurrection body will be ‘spiritual’ (pneumatikos), he does not mean ‘made out of spirit.’ Rather, he means ‘dominated by or oriented toward the Spirit.’”[12]
This would be the same way that we identify someone as a spiritual person, like when we say, “that person is very spiritual.” We don’t actually mean they are invisible or ghost-like. Scholars Paul Rhodes Eddy and Greg Boyd add,
“When Jews thought of resurrection, they thought of a bodily resurrection in history, not a mystical vision.”[13]
Distinguished historian Craig Evans comments,
“For them [Jews] resurrection involved the body and not simply a spirit.”[14]
Modern scholarship has clearly demonstrated that the Jews—unlike their surrounding Greek culture—did not believe or teach that the material was evil or that our soul needed to be freed from it. The Jews had always taught they would receive a new and transfigured body during the final resurrection event.
Additionally, the nature of Jesus’ post-death appearances is bodily, all of which are supported unanimously in the Gospels.[15] This is why Jesus could eat and drink with the disciples and be physically touched by them (Luke 24:36-43; John 20:25).
By the way, historians classify the Gospels as ancient biography, not mythology.[16] Moreover, the dating of the Gospels and the underlying sources for them are too early for legendary embellishment to distort their original message and meanings.
Empty Tomb
Objective visions cannot explain why Jesus’ tomb was discovered empty. I will briefly summarize what I’ve previously written about this. First, it should be noted that a significant majority of contemporary critical scholars, Christian and non-Christian, agree that Jesus’ empty tomb is a historical fact.[17]
Second, if everyone were hallucinating that Jesus was alive again, when he really wasn’t, then Jesus’ corpse would still be in the tomb. If the body was available as it should have been, then the Jewish leaders could have put it on display, thereby preventing the Jesus movement and Christianity from ever starting. New Testament scholar Craig Blomberg says,
“The fact that none of the Jewish or Roman authorities hostile to the early Christian claims ever produced, claimed to produce, or even tried to produce a body to squelch the notion of Jesus’ resurrection, is remarkable.”[18]
Historian Gary Habermas adds that “it would have been impossible for Christianity to get off the ground in Jerusalem if the body had still been in the tomb.”[19] Jerusalem was the last possible location for Christianity to ever successfully develop since that was the place where everyone knew Jesus had been crucified and “failed” as the Messiah.
So, why would the disciples choose Jerusalem of all places to say that he was alive again? This is why the Jewish leaders had to invent the rumor that Jesus’ body had been stolen by his disciples in order to explain why the tomb was empty (Matt. 28:13). If you read this article, you’ll see why scholars completely reject the stolen-body hypothesis.
Resurrection Wins Either Way
Although I do not agree with the objective vision theory—hypothetically speaking—if it were true, then you would still have a real resurrection event. There would still be a risen Jesus who appeared in a glorified body (like Stephen’s vision). A real event that occurred outside the human mind. As Habermas and Licona state,
“The most an ‘objective vision’ theory can do is to try to avoid a bodily resurrection. But we still have a resurrection.”[20]
Nevertheless, I believe we can be historically and theologically confident that Jesus was bodily raised from the dead. Thanks for reading.
Blessings,
Andrew Drinkard
[1] In my previous articles for the evidence of Jesus’ resurrection, you will see several cited sources from various critical scholars who concede this point. Here’s a couple for a quick reference: Prominent Jewish (non-Christian) historian Paula Fredricksen said this about the disciples believing they saw the risen Jesus: “I know in their own terms what they saw was the raised Jesus. That’s what they say, and then all the historic evidence we have afterwards attest to their conviction that that’s what they saw. I’m not saying that they really did see the raised Jesus. I wasn’t there. I don’t know what they saw. But I do know that as a historian that they must have seen something.” Atheist New Testament scholar Gerd Lüdemann, says “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.” E. P. Sanders says, “That Jesus’ followers (and later Paul) had resurrection experiences is, in my judgement, a fact. What the reality was that gave rise to the experiences I do not know.” See Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, 305. Princeton New Testament scholar Dale Allison says, “I am sure that the disciples saw Jesus after his death.” See Allison, Resurrecting Jesus (2005), 346.
[2] See Craig Keener, “Is Acts Historically Reliable? A Conversation with Craig Keener,” Dr. Sean McDowell, May 27, 2020, accessed May 13, 2021, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSrAbfXmlL0. Keener makes these claims at the 19 and 25-minute mark.
[3] Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 394.
[4] Dale C. Allison, Jr., Resurrecting Jesus: The Earliest Christian Tradition and Its Interpreters (New York: Bloomsbury Academic & Professional, 2005), 214.
[5] N. T. Wright, Resurrection Son of God V3: Christian Origins and the Question of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), 382.
[6] Stanley E. Porter, The Apostle Paul: His Life, Thought, and Letters (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2016), 32.
[7] Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 378.
[8] Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, and Gerald O’Collins, Editors. The Resurrection (Oxford: Oxford University, 1997), 139.
[9] Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, Keys to First Corinthians: Revisiting the Major Issues (Oxford: Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2009), 235.
[10] Mark Taylor, 1 Corinthians: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture (Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2014) 49498L.
[11] Anthony C. Thiselton, The Living Paul: An Introduction to the Apostle’s Life and Thought (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2010), 141.
[12] William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, 3rd ed (Wheaton: Crossway Publishing, 2008), 382.
[13] Paul Rhodes Eddy and Gregory A. Boyd, The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 145.
[14] Michael F. Bird, Craig A. Evans, Simon Gathercole, Charles E. Hill and Chris Tilling, How God Became Jesus: The Real Origins of Belief in Jesus’ Divine Nature—A Response to Bart Ehrman (Grand Rapids: HarperCollins Christian Publishing, 2014), 92.
[15] See Craig, Reasonable Faith, 383.
[16] See Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament, 2nd ed (Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 2014), 37.
[17] Just under 75% of critical scholars (Christian and non-Christian) believe the tomb was empty; therefore, as historian Michael Licona says, this narrative is “granted by a significant majority of scholars.” See Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 461-462.
[18] Carl Stecher and Craig L. Blomberg, Resurrection: Faith or Fact?: A Scholars’ Debate Between a Skeptic and a Christian (Chicago: Pitchstone Publishing, 2019) 146.
[19] Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2004), 70.
[20] Habermas and Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, 112.
