It was first formulated by David Friedrich Strauss in the 19th century, and has been proposed in several forms by critical contemporary scholarship, including Helmut Koester,[1] Géza Vermes,[2] and Larry Hurtado,[3] and members of the Jesus Seminar such as Gerd Lüdemann.
"[13] Reflection on the Messianic hope, and Psalms 16:10,[14][note 1] led to an exaltated state of mind, in which "the risen Christ" was present "in a visionary manner," concluding that Jesus must have escaped the bondage of death.
[23] Paula Fredriksen, an agnostic scholar, expressed strong support for the vision theory, saying that “I know in their own terms what they [the disciples] saw was the raised Jesus.
[31] The belief in Jesus' resurrection radically changed their perceptions, concluding from his absence that he must have been transmitted to heaven, by God himself, exalting him to an unprecedented status and authority.
[33] According to Helmut Koester, the stories of the resurrection were originally epiphanies in which the disciples are called to a ministry by the risen Jesus, and at a secondary stage were interpreted as physical proof of the event.
[34] According to Biblical scholar Géza Vermes, some disciples (not necessarily the apostles) had visions or hallucinations of a risen Jesus shortly after his death.
[35][36] The tales of these ‘apparitions’, and potentially the discovery of the empty tomb, encouraged and “illuminated” the dreaded apostles “like a ray of hope”, and eventually induced in them a "powerful mystical or visionary experience".
[38] A further explanation is provided by the theory of cognitive dissonance, which implies that Jesus’ post-mortem visions might not have been the origin of resurrection belief, but its confirmation in the eyes of the disciples.
[39][40][41][web 2] While Jesus' early followers expected the immediate installment of the Kingdom of God, the delay of this cosmic event led to a change in beliefs.
[39] According to a naturalistic explanation, in a process of cognitive dissonance reduction, Jewish scriptures were re-interpreted to explain the crucifixion and visionary post-mortem experiences of Jesus.
[39] The same process may have led to intensive proselytization, convincing others of the developing beliefs to reduce cognitive dissonance, explaining why the early group of followers grew larger despite the failing expectations.
[48] Several Christian scholars such as Gary Habermas, William Lane Craig and Michael Morrison have argued against the vision explanations for the textual accounts of a physical resurrection.
[5][6][7] According to Schroter and Jacobi, the view that the appearances of Jesus were subjective and the tomb not empty remains a minority in New Testament scholarship,[49] but they also note that "[i]t would also be conceivable that no historical incidents stood at the beginning of the belief in the resurrection, but rather theological ways of thinking."
"[54] Similarly, Wright calls the cognitive dissonance theory "widely discredited" and criticizes it on the basis that "nobody was expecting anyone, least of all a Messiah, to rise from the dead.
[57] David Graieg argues that Paul in First Corinthians remembered Jesus as having bodily risen and that the Resurrection was of core importance to early Christians.
Using a methodology based on memory theory, Graieg argues that Paul believed in Jesus's bodily resurrection with an uncorrupt new body and considers oral transmission, including the previously neglected "Formal Uncontrolled" method before concluding that an approach based on memory points to the view that Jesus physically rose from the dead and that he was remembered by Christians as having risen in a metamorphized form.
[58] The philosopher Andrew Loke and psychologist Nick Meader do not view psychological theories like hallucinations, delusions, or cognitive dissonance as compelling explanations for the appearances of the risen Jesus.
Dodd have noted the antiquity of narratives concerning the postmortem appearances of Jesus, citing the sermons in Acts 10 which report that the risen Jesus ate and drank with the disciples which lack influence from Pauline theology or vocabulary and containing a high degree of semitism, lacking resemblance to the rest of Acts and Luke, indicating it comes from a much earlier tradition.
[62][63][64] Likewise, in his evaluation of the vision theory, Allison notes that the number of witnesses raises "legitimate questions, and waving the magic wand of 'mass hysteria' will not make them vanish.
[70] German Biblical scholar Martin Hengel notes that Lüdemann's theory transcends the limits of historical research, by providing an analysis which is not verifiable.
[72] While some scholars have posited other mass visions such as those of Mary, mother of Jesus as potential parallels for explaining the appearances, Dale Allison argues that certain events, such as the lights of Our Lady of Zeitoun, defy skeptical explanation and that not all apparitions like the resurrection appearances can automatically be considered subjective, though he does not accept Zeitoun as an actual manifestation of Mary.
[75] Additionally, Licona and other scholars point out that the vision theory does not account for the conversions of followers such as James, the brother but also disbeliever of Jesus, and of Paul, a persecutor of the early Christians.