Not Hallucinations - Argument II

Great Bishop of Geneva!: Does the Bible Say How Many Books It Has? · somewhere else: Not Hallucinations - Argument II · Creation vs. Evolution Do Flood Stories Around the World Prove Oral Transmission Inaccurate?

I suppose everyone has heard of Argument I for the Resurrection Experiences not being hallucinations.

Will Durant has:

"Although at least a few if not all of Jesus’ disciples may have been in an emotional state that rendered them candidates for a hallucination, the nature of some of the experiences of the risen Jesus, specifically those that occurred in group settings and to Jesus’ enemy Paul, and the empty tomb strongly suggest that these experiences were not hallucinations.”

- Will Durant, an American writer, philosopher, and historian. Best known for his 11-volume "The Story of Civilization".

Cited from:
Is Jesus Alive?
HALLUCINATION, WERE THE DISCIPLES "SEEING THINGS?"
https://isjesusalive.com/hallucination/

So, credits to Erik Manning for this quote from Will Durant, I find his youtube channel Testify one of the more enjoyable ones.

But what about Argument II against the hallucination explanation? No, I did not mean "Paul would not have hallucinated" though that might be true too. I mean things like Luke 24:

25 Then he said to them: O foolish, and slow of heart to believe in all things which the prophets have spoken. 26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and so to enter into his glory? 27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded to them in all the scriptures, the things that were concerning him. 28 And they drew nigh to the town, whither they were going: and he made as though he would go farther.

You can hallucinate (under the right, or rather wrong, conditions) a lecturer. But you cannot hallucinate him giving a long and coherent lecture. Both the walk from Jerusalem to Emmaus (probably 160 stades = 32 km) and the talk would have taken hours. An undramatic hallucination lasting for hours while one succeeds in doing actual walking, leading to the correct destination? Nah.

Acts 1:

3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion, by many proofs, for forty days appearing to them, and speaking of the kingdom of God.

So, a forty day series of interactions involving multiple lectures. Back to Luke 24:

43 And when he had eaten before them, taking the remains, he gave to them. 44 And he said to them: These are the words which I spoke to you, while I was yet with you, that all things must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. 45 Then he opened their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures. 46 And he said to them: Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise again from the dead, the third day: 47 And that penance and remission of sins should be preached in his name, unto all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 And you are witnesses of these things. 49 And I send the promise of my Father upon you: but stay you in the city till you be endued with power from on high. 50 And he led them out as far as Bethania: and lifting up his hands, he blessed them.

This could be theoretically a short speech, simply the words:

These are the words which I spoke to you, while I was yet with you, that all things must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise again from the dead, the third day: And that penance and remission of sins should be preached in his name, unto all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And you are witnesses of these things. And I send the promise of my Father upon you: but stay you in the city till you be endued with power from on high.

In that case, [t]hen he opened their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, is a resumé of the result. I would say, even that short speech is too long and structured for a hallucination.

But [t]hen he opened their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, could also refer to a longer speech, or to a series fo speeches. I find the latter most probable. A lecture series on the Old Testament. Not the first one He had given, but another one.

So, this is a huge problem for those who would argue the resurrection accounts were hallucinations.

But it is also a huge problem for those who would argue Protestantism is true Christianity. Why so? Well one claim of Classic Protestantism is, what Jesus taught is available to us through the New Testament books alone, and no Apostolic Tradition beside that. But the lecturing on Moses and the prophets, at least to the disciples of Emmaus, and probably to all disciples, comprises all of the Old Testament. Yet the New Testament books do not contain a whole list of Christ-referring meanings of all Old Testament passages. Therefore, these lectures by Christ involved information not contained in the New Testament books. This in turn gives us a choice - either it is not accurately accessible to us, or it is accessible to us in a fully reliable source, newer than the Old Testament books, and not being texts in the New Testament books - what we call Apostolic Tradition.

But we can refute that it is no longer accessible to us, Matthew 28:20 containing:

Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:

And John 14 gives a parallel promise, not from the post-Resurrection, but from the last supper:

16 And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever. ... 26 But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.

This means, the idea that the OT exegesis offered by Our Lord (to people who were used to learning from Him as from a rabbi), the Post-Resurrection lectures, are still accessible, or He would have been a liar. And Apostolic Tradition on OT exegesis is in fact a reason for a lot of things that the Protestants consider disputable in our New Testament exegesis. For instance, that the "woman" in Genesis 3:15 is Mary.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Easter Tuesday
11.IV.2023