7. Stopping at Nothing: More Critical Comebacks
Mind Games
Psychological Phenomena
T~ efore we look at the following opposing theories of hallucinations and delusions, it may be helpful to get a clear understanding of what these phenomena are. A fun and easy way of doing this is to contrast illusions, delusions,
and hallucinations. Let's start by looking at the picture below.
Which center dot is larger? The center dot in the group on the right appears to be. This is an illusion, because a distorted perception is caused by the size of the surrounding dots. If you measure both center dots, you will discover that they are exactly the same size. Now let us suppose that you measure the dots and have twenty other people measure them too and everyone comes to the same conclusion that the center dots are the same size. Nevertheless, you still strongly hold your belief that the center dot in the group on the right is larger, in spite of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. You are now experiencing a delusion. Finally, if you have not been to bed for the past three nights, suffer from sleep deprivation, and see a third set of dots, you are experiencing a hallucination, because you see something not there.
Psychological phenomena theories look to the mind for an explanation
Now let's go to the real world, formally define these phenomena, and provide more realistic examples. Then we'll show how hallucinations and delusions can be applied to Jesus' resurrection. A delusion is a false beliefheld with the conviction that it is true in spite ofevidence that invalidates its truth.' A grieving widow may become delusional if she refuses to accept that her husband of sixty years has died, despite the fact that she has his death certificate, went to his funeral, and is unable to see him. A hallucination is a false perception of something that is not there.' The grieving widow who believes that her recently deceased husband is talking to her may be experiencing a hallucination, because she believes that she hears or sees something that in reality is not there. An illusion is a distorted perception of something that is there. It is a deceptive appearance.' The grieving widow is tricked by her senses and experiences an illusion when she sees a man in the distance who looks like her husband and who has similar mannerisms. She thinks she sees her husband. This differs from a hallucination because she experiences a distorted picture of an object that is really there, whereas in a hallucination she sees something that is not there. She may experience the illusion of her husband momentarily without believing that it is actually him, because she has evidence to the contrary, much as we know the appearance of water ahead of us on the sunlit highway is an illusion.
Put succinctly: An illusion is a distorted perception. A hallucination is a false perception. A delusion is a false belief.
'Hallucination explains the accounts.
If the disciples believed they were telling the truth when they testified that the risen Jesus had appeared to them, perhaps other explanations could better account for these appearances. Could hallucinations be responsible for the appearances to the disciples? It is common for a person to experience grief hallucinations following the death of a loved one. No different than us moderns, the ancients used wine and drugs to soothe emotional pain. Too much of either might cause people to see things that are not there.
Although the hallucination theory enjoyed some popularity over a hundred years ago and still has a few adherents, it suffers from a number of problems.
First, today we know that hallucinations are private occurrences, which occur in the mind of an individual. They are not collective experiences.' In a group, all of the people may be in the frame of mind to hallucinate, but each experiences hallucinations on an individual basis. Nor will they experience the same hallucination. Hallucinations are like dreams in this way. Imagine that it is the middle of the night. You wake up your wife and say, "Honey, I just had a dream that we were in Hawaii. Come back to sleep and join me in my dream and we'll enjoy a free vacation together." It would be impossible for her to do so, since a dream exists only in the mind of the individual. It cannot be shared with another person. Likewise, a hallucination cannot be shared.
Let us suppose that a group of twenty people is sailing across the Atlantic Ocean when the ship sinks. After floating on the ocean for three days with no sleep, food, or fresh water, and with the strongest desire for rescue, one member points to a large ship on the horizon that he is hallucinating. Will the others see it? Probably not, since hallucinations are experienced only in the mind of the individual. However, let us suppose that three others in the group are so desperately hopeful of rescue that their minds deceive them into believing that they see the ship as well. As their imaginary ship approaches, will they all see the same hull number? If they do, it is time for the entire group to begin yelling at the top of their lungs because the ship is real.
U.S. Navy SEALS are arguably the most elite fighting force in the world. Before becoming a SEAL, the candidate must complete a grueling "Hell Week." All of the candidates are put through intense exercises and experience extreme stress during the week on only a total of three to five hours of sleep. As extreme fatigue and sleep deprivation quickly set in, most of the candidates experience hallucina- tions.s According to several SEALS interviewed, most hallucinations occur while the candidates, as a team, paddle in a raft out in the ocean. One believed that he saw an octopus come out of the water and wave at him! Another thought he saw a train coming across the water headed straight toward the raft. Another believed that he saw a large wall, which the raft would crash into if the team persisted in paddling. When the octopus, train, and wall were pointed out by the candidates to the rest of the team, no one else saw them, even though they were all in the same frame of mind. Most of them hallucinated at some point, but none of them participated in the hallucination of another.
The disciples of Jesus claimed that as a group they saw the risen Jesus. This is stated in the earliest tradition of the Christian church: "He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve" (1 Cor. 15:5).6 Since Cephas was one of the Twelve, the creed is certainly referring to a group appearance to the Twelve. Otherwise, the creed may have read, "He appeared to Cephas, then to the rest of the twelve." Paul reports that "he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time" (verse 6). Finally, he reports that he appeared "to all the apostles" (verse 7). The appearance to "all the apostles" is certainly a group appearance, since as with Cephas and the Twelve, James was an apostle and witnessed an appearance prior to "all the apostles" (verse 7). Three group appearances are mentioned in this creed: the Twelve; five hundred plus; all of the apostles. This creedal material seems to have been a list of some of the appearances (e.g., Cephas, the Twelve,' five hundred plus, James, all of the apostles, and then Paul adds himself to the list as the last to whom Christ appeared). Finally, group appearances are mentioned in the Gospels' as well as Acts.' Therefore, the earliest witnesses, and indeed all of them we know of, taught that several of Jesus' post-mortem appearances were to groups.
Second, hallucinations do not account for the empty tomb. Even if the Twelve, Paul, and James had all experienced hallucinations of the risen Jesus, his body would still have been in the tomb.
Third, hallucinations do not account for the conversion of the church persecutor Paul. Even if hallucinations could account for the appearances to the disciples, how do we account for the life-changing appearance to Paul? He did not appear to have been in the frame of mind to experience a hallucination, since it seems he hated both Jesus and his followers and believed it was God's will to stop them.10 He was far from grieving over Jesus' death."
Fourth, hallucinations do not account for the conversion of the skeptic James. Although we do not have as much information about James and his frame of mind after Jesus' death as we do for Paul, there is no indication that James was stricken by grief over his brother's death. As discussed earlier, during Jesus' life, James did not believe that his brother was the Messiah. In fact, it seemed that he was among those who thought that Jesus was even deluded." It is unlikely that a pious Jewish unbeliever-who would have viewed his crucified brother as a false Messiah who had been cursed by God"-was in the frame of mind to experience a life-changing hallucination of the risen Jesus, a hallucination so powerful that it would motivate him to alter his religious beliefs in an area that he believed would cost him his eternal soul if he was mistaken.
Fifth, there are too many incident variances. Let us suppose that a UFO hovering one thousand feet above the ground is seen by a group of Boy Scouts in the country one evening. When they report it to the police, the sergeant thanks them and tells them that they have received numerous calls during the past week from individuals and groups reporting similar phenomena, even a couple of individuals who are known to be skeptical of aliens. We may not necessarily conclude that the UFO is an alien spaceship. But we can know for certain that all of these individuals could not have been hallucinating. Likewise, individuals and groups, friends as well as foes saw Jesus not once but many times over a period of forty days. We are told that these numbers in cluded both men and women, hardheaded Peter and softhearted Mary Magdalene, indoors and outdoors, and so on. Not all these persons would be in the same state of mind. It pushes credulity beyond reason to regard every last one of these appearances as hallucinations. Other serious problems plague the hallucination theory. In fact, there are probably more refutations of this theory than any other."
"Delusion explains the accounts."
While group hallucinations may be impossible, it cannot be denied that groups of people sometimes do embrace shared false beliefs, to their own de- mise.15 One need only remember Marshall Applewhite of the Church of Venus, who committed suicide with thirty-eight followers in 1997, believing that a spaceship hiding behind the Hale-Bopp comet would pick them up after the event. Cult members led by Jim Jones (Peoples Temple, 1978) and David Koresh (Branch Davidians, 1993) also willingly died with the hope that their leader would lead them to a better place in eternity. One does not need to employ hallucinations to account for these events. Charismatic leaders misled their followers, resulting in tragedy. Therefore, why not employ delusions as an explanation to account for the appearances and the rise of Christianity? Could the charismatic leader Peter have convinced the others that they had seen the risen Jesus and, thus, explain the beliefs of the disciples?"
Delusions area highly problematic explanation for Jesus' resurrection, since they fail to explain much of the known data. First, they do not explain the conversion of the church persecutor Paul. Second, they do not explain the conversion of the skeptic James. People who are candidates for delusions believe something that overrides their logic. While some may accuse the disciples of being in this frame of mind because they really wanted Jesus to be with them, neither Paul nor James appear to have had any desire to see Jesus alive. Paul was having Christians arrested and beaten. He threatened to kill them." He did not want to become one of them, following someone he perceived to be a false Messiah cursed by God. He did not want to forfeit his own soul.'' He did not exhibit the mental instability required for such an enduring delusion of a risen Jesus. James appears to have been a skeptic before the Resurrection. There is no hint that he wanted Jesus back. He was a pious Jew, committed to the Jewish law, who viewed Jesus as Paul did. Paul and James do not fit the profile of someone who would suffer a delusional experience resulting in conversion to Christianity. Therefore, the position that delusion can account for both of their conversions is highly implausible.
Third, delusions do not explain the empty tomb. In fact, no psychological cause suggested in order to account for the appearances can explain the empty tomb. Thus, although delusion can adequately account for the rise of various cults, it fails as a plausible opposing theory to account for the known facts surrounding Jesus' resurrection.
"Vision explains the accounts."
In order to avoid the tremendous pitfalls of the hallucination theory, it is common today for critics to claim that the appearances were a type of vision.'9 Many religious writings, from antiquity through today, speak of visionary appearances of the divine. Some critics hold that the appearances of the glorified Jesus to his disciples fall into this category and are no more credible than those mentioned in these other writings.
What exactly does the term vision mean? Its definition can be somewhat hazy. In fact, a skeptic who suggests a "vision" to explain the appearances to the disciples seldom defines whether the vision is like a dream, a hallucination, an epiphany, or a real experience of something without a body. Getting a solid definition from a critic for what he means by `vision" can sometimes be as dif ficult as nailing jello to a wall. Ask a skeptic who suggests such visions to specify what he means by the term "vision."
If the skeptic defines vision in terms of `vision literature" or a literary style, this has already been answered above in the discussion of legends and the nonhistorical genre. It may be best to ask the skeptic if the vision is objective or subjective in nature.
An objective vision is seen without the use of natural senses. However, the object seen is real, not imaginary. There is a reality and cause of the phenomenon outside of the mind. Christians might regard Stephen's experience of seeing Jesus in heaven as an objective vision, since nothing in the text hints that any of those present also saw him."" Of course, an atheist rejects the possibility that appearances of Jesus might be objective visions. Claiming an objective vision is claiming that the risen Jesus actually appeared to others in some sort of glorified body from heaven, rather than in a material one, though others in the same location might not have seen him.21 Such a visionary meaning would admit that Jesus rose from the dead. So, the atheist must say that the disciples' visions of Jesus were subjective in nature.
A subjective vision is a product of our minds and has no cause or reality outside of our mind, so it is much like a hallucination or dream.22 It could be said that a subjective vision is a hallucination or a dream that has a religious subject. Thus, the skeptic who claims that the appearances can be accounted for by subjective visions believes they were hallucinations or dreams. This makes subjective visions susceptible to all of the problems faced in regard to hallucinations (seep. 106-8), among others.
Therefore, objective and subjective visions as explanations for the appearances of the risen Jesus are problematic: If the vision was objective, we still have a risen Jesus. The most an "objective vision" theory can do is to try to avoid a bodily resurrection. But we still have a resurrection.23 If the vision was subjective, this implies that the vision was the result of some sort of hallucination. Yet, hallucinations are unpalatable.
Visions cannot account for the empty tomb. If the disciples only saw visions of the risen Jesus, objective or otherwise, the tomb should still have been occupied. Thus, vision theory fails to account for the facts surrounding Jesus' resurrection.
The bodily nature of the appearances also testifies against a vision, since a body of Jesus that occupied space and time is described. Many times critics will cite the appearance of Jesus to Paul in Acts 9. In contrast to what was reported by the disciples, only a blinding light in the sky and a voice is mentioned. There was no body to touch or even see.
Thus, these critics usually argue for at least one of three positions. First, Paul saw a vision (i.e., hallucination). Second, since Paul includes his encounter with the risen Christ in a list of the appearances to the disciples (i.e., the creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8), he regarded the nature of the appearances to the disciples to be the same as his own (i.e., visionary). As atheist New Testament critic Gerd Ludemann argues, "Isn't it reasonable to grant that Paul ... had the same experience that the others had-and to conclude from his statement that the others had visionary experiences too?"24 Third, since Paul's writings appear to be earlier than the Gospels, which certainly report bodily appearances, the Gospels must reflect legendary development that occurred in the early oral traditions of Jesus, circulating after Paul's testimony but before being written in the Gospels.
How would we address these objections to the vision theory? The answer is important because, if the Resurrection appearances can be downgraded to events that occurred only in the minds of the disciples, Paul and James, the reality of the appearances can be undermined. First, we must determine what our skeptic means by vision. Ludemann would claim that it was a subjective vision. So we would provide all the refutations to hallucinations: (1) They are not group occurrences; (2) they do not account for the empty tomb; (3) they do not adequately explain the conversion of Paul; (4) they do not adequately explain the conversion of James; (5) there are too many personal variations. In addition, we would cite the physicality of the appearances described by Paul, since our critics here are focusing on him.25 For example, we might point out that the very experience cited by the skeptic in support of a subjective vision (Acts 9) contains details that rule out such an experience (e.g., Paul's traveling companions saw the same light, heard the same voice, and even fell to the ground). Why should critics accept some details in the Acts texts but not others? Remember that subjective visions have no cause or reality outside the mind. If others saw the light and heard the voice, there must have been a cause and reality to the vision outside of Paul's mind.26 The skeptic cannot arbitrarily pick and choose which details to believe and which to ignore because they do not fit into his view.
"Conversion disorder explains the accounts."
Conversion disorder is a psychological problem in which a person experiences symptoms or deficits to one's senses that are not intentionally produced and may have a neurological origin.27 Let us suppose that the year is 1968. A young American named Rick has been drafted into the U.S. Army for a tour in Vietnam. Shortly after he receives his letter from the Department of Defense, Rick begins to feel a sharp pain all the way down his right leg. The pain worsens, and by the time he goes for his military physical he is limping severely. In this case, Rick is not faking the pain in order to get out of going to Vietnam. He may have conversion disorder. Typical symptoms of conversion disorder are blindness, paralysis, loss of voice, pain, uncontrolled vomiting, tics, and seizures. The term conversion is not used here in a sense related to a religious conversion, but we may ask if Paul's religious conversion from Judaism to Christianity was a result of conversion disorder. Perhaps the bright light that blinded him could have been the result of a neurological malfunction or other medical causes rather than a divine visitation.
A conversion disorder on Paul's part does not refute Jesus' resurrection because of the following crucial reasons:
First, even if plausible, at best a conversion disorder could only account for the single appearance to Paul. It cannot adequately account for the appearances to the disciples or the appearance to James.
Second, conversion disorder cannot account for the empty tomb.
Third, Paul does not fit the profile of one who is likely to experience a conversion psychosis. According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual ofMen- tal Disorders: DSM-1V,` the primary source used by professional psychologists and psychiatrists for diagnosing psychological conditions, women are more likely than men to experience conversion psychosis by as much as a 5:1 ratio. Adolescents, military persons in battle, those of a low economic status, and those with a low IQ are likewise more prone to experience the phenomenon. Paul does not fit into any of these categories.29 This does not mean that he could not have experienced the disorder. Men still experience depression, although women are much higher candidates for it. However, combined with other challenges to the theory, the fact that Paul does not fall into any category of those likely to experience a conversion disorder renders the condition all the more unlikely as the cause of his experience of the risen Jesus.
Fourth, conversion disorder cannot explain other details of Paul's account of the risen Jesus appearing to him, such as the voice and his belief that God wanted him to tell others something. This would require an additional auditory hallucination, since he claimed that he heard a voice speak to him. Remember, as discussed under the hallucination theory, Paul hated Christians and saw the enterprise as a movement against God. He did not appear to be in the frame of mind to hallucinate a risen Jesus. Similarly, the same mindset would make conversion disorder difficult.
Conversion disorder also requires Paul's experience to include another psychosis often referred to as a "messiah complex." Here, a person really believes that God spoke to him and told him to tell others something. Now, of course, we can find examples of people who have experienced visual hallucinations, auditory hallucinations, and a messiah complex. It is highly uncommon to find someone who has experienced all three simultaneously. Did Paul experience all three during the same period? The data suggests that he did not, since he does not fit into the psychological profile for conversion disorder, and he does not appear to have been in the frame of mind to hallucinate a risen Jesus.
It would not benefit the critic to say that he does not trust the accounts in Acts of the appearance of Jesus to Paul, and so the voice and command to tell others a message from God is irrelevant. The only accounts of the bright light, the voice, and the command are found precisely in these accounts in Acts. Therefore, in rejecting the Acts accounts, the critic would also reject any data he has for claiming conversion disorder.
A fifth and final problem with conversion disorder as an explanation to account for Paul's experience of Jesus is that it requires the adding of multiple explanations to account for the event. Such a combination theory appears ad hoc, that is, it appears to have been manufactured in order to make everything fit, not because this appears to have been what happened.
Therefore, conversion disorder is implausible as an explanation for the appearances. Paul does not fit the profile of someone who is a candidate for conversion disorder. Conversion disorder cannot explain the other details of Paul's account of the risen Jesus appearing to him. Other explanations must be employed in order to do this, such as hallucination and messiah complex. However, this is problematic as well. Not only does it appear from what we know of Paul that he was not in the frame of mind to experience a hallucination of the risen Jesus, but the number of additional theories required in order to make conversion disorder explain Paul's experience makes it strongly suspect of being ad hoc. More damaging to conversion disorder theory, however, is that even if the evidence suggested that Paul experienced one, it still does not account for the appearances to the disciples, the conversion of the skeptic James, or the empty tomb. Therefore, conversion disorder does not adequately explain all of the known facts. In fact, it hardly explains any of them.
In a nationally televised debate in April 2000 between atheist philosopher Antony Flew and Habermas, conversion disorder was one of Flew's main objections to Jesus' resurrection. However, when Habermas brought up the above problems, Flew commented that he was glad to give up the objection and never found it very helpful anyway.30
Other psychological theories target Paul
Most scholars today believe that Paul's letters precede the writing of the Gospels, and admit that he saw what he believed was an appearance of the risen Jesus. Moreover, Paul preserves many earlier creedal traditions regarding the gospel message. Thus, his testimony of Jesus' rising from the dead is believed to be the most reliable account of Jesus' resurrection. Paul had been an enemy of Jesus and the church. He was glad Jesus was dead, and he was trying to finish the job the Jewish leaders had started by destroying the church, which he believed was a gross heresy. Then to the amazement of many, he suddenly changed his mind and became a member of the church he had sought to destroy. What caused this change in Paul? His testimony is that the risen Jesus appeared to him personally. The opposing theories we have observed thus far have failed to account for the appearances of the risen Jesus to others. But what if we were to focus only on Paul for a moment? Are there any possibilities we should consider that might account for his sudden change of mind? Let's look at three.
Just as we can imagine a Nazi soldier feeling great remorse after the Holocaust and converting to Judaism, we can imagine Paul on his way to persecute Christians feeling great remorse over his recent actions of destroying Christian families and consenting to the death of Stephen. Could it be that Paul experienced such pain over his actions that it motivated him to convert to Christianity?
Several serious problems beset the guilt theory.
First, there is not a shred of evidence from Paul's writings or Luke's account of Paul's actions in Acts that he experienced guilt while conducting his persecution. However, even if he did, this would more likely have led to the cessation of his terrorism toward Christians ("I'm sure they learned their lesson."), rather than his becoming one. His interpretation of the Scriptures prohibiting Jesus from being the Messiah would simply have been too strong.
Second, Paul's own testimony indicates the very opposite-that he was very content in Judaism and confident of his actions. In Philippians 3:5-6 he provides his resume as a Jew: He was the Jew's Jew and a zealous teacher of the Law in which he was blameless. He gives no indications of experiencing guilt while in that position.
Third, even if guilt could account for Jesus' appearance to Paul, it does not account for his appearances to the others. Finally, guilt does not account for the empty tomb.
Could it be that Paul was hungry for power and converted to Christianity with the hope that he might come to lead the church from one of its most prominent positions? According to his own testimony, Paul was moving up within the Jewish leadership more quickly than his colleagues. Perhaps it wasn't fast enough for him. Filled with confidence and ambition, he believed that the new Christian church would be filled with pride and empowered if he became a Christian. Christians would cite the name of this former powerful Pharisee as one of Christianity's trophies. Perhaps he had dreams of having a large platform of influence within the church and of being respected for bringing peace between Christian Jews and non-Christian Jews, between whom there were bitter relations.
In a critique of Habermas, New Testament critic Evan Fales writes concerning Paul's motivation, "What Paul absolutely needed ... was to legitimate a claim of independent authority.... I would suggest that he had the vision because he needed the authority."" For whatever reasons we might speculate, perhaps ambitious Paul converted because he believed he could realize his goals for power faster in the church than in Judaism.
Yes, it was a change. But we must remember that since the early church was comprised almost entirely of Jews who continued worshiping in the synagogues for some time, at the time of Paul's conversion it would not have been the major leap that it would be today. Rather it would have been more like the relatively minor switch from major league baseball's National League to its American League.
While we are all aware of the ambition for power possessed by some, the "power theory" applied to Paul seems unlikely for a number of reasons.32 We present three:
First, if Paul was looking for quick power through a prominent position of authority in the church, his actions certainly provide no indication that this was the case. According to Paul's own testimony, even after being a Christian for seventeen years, he visited Jerusalem in order to compare the gospel he was preaching with that preached by the apostles. He wanted to insure that his labors had not been in vain and that he was not preaching a false gospel. It may be that at this time the apostles first fully accepted him into fellowship as a leader in the church.33
Second, if Paul was looking for more power, being a Roman citizen, why didn't he pursue a place of power within the Roman government?
Third, the hard life that Paul cheerfully lived as a Christian did not reflect a person who was out for self-gratification. Paul accepted multiple beatings, imprisonments, put his life in danger continuously, and lived a life close to poverty for the sake of the gospel.
An epiphany is a sudden perception of reality caused by an intuitive breakthrough. For example, let's suppose you were brought up in a family with atheist parents and have been an atheist since childhood. One night you are looking up at the stars and say to yourself, 'How could all of this be here by chance? There must be a God!" Irrespective of the soundness of your reasoning or the truth of your conclusion, you have experienced an epiphany.
How would an epiphany be employed in an attempt to account for Paul's change of mind concerning Jesus? Let's consider the following scenario: Paul had already started his aggressive persecution of Christians as reported by Luke in Acts 6:8-8:3. He consented to the execution of Stephen and began persecuting Christians in Jerusalem, dragging men and women from their homes and throwing them into prison. He then went to the high priest, asking for and receiving permission to arrest Christians in Damascus and bring them bound to Jerusalem (9:1-2). While on his way to Damascus, Paul and his traveling companions engage in discussions concerning why Jesus could not have been the Messiah. One of his colleagues raises the point that the Scriptures clearly state that anyone hanged on a tree is cursed by God and that crucifixion met that criterion (Deut. 21:23). God would exalt his Messiah; not curse him. They all nod in agreement. Then Paul experiences an epiphany. He suddenly understands what Christians mean when they say that the Messiah became cursed by God for us and in doing so paid the penalty for our sins. The Messianic prophecies in Isaiah 53 of a suffering Messiah now make sense to him. As a result of this epiphany, Paul is now convinced that Christianity is true and converts.
What about the details of Paul's experience reported by Luke in Acts, such as the bright light and the voice from heaven? From the viewpoint of a skeptic, we might explain these by saying that they are metaphors for the epiphany itself. For example, today when we have an epiphany or a new idea we say, "A light came on in my mind," or "I now see the light!" Those in antiquity of course did not have electricity and light bulbs but the metaphor was the same. The New Testament uses the metaphor of light many times.34 Jesus himself said, "I am the light of the world."35 Non-Christian Jewish writings of the time use the word "light" as a metaphor for wisdom, knowledge, insight, and both physical and spiritual life.36 So it appears that this metaphor was used in Jesus' day in much the same manner it is employed today.
Was Paul saying he now saw the light of the gospel and that he saw it very clearly? What about the voice from heaven? Today it is very common for Christians exiting a worship service where they were affected, to say, "God spoke to me today." The language sounds like they are claiming that they heard the audible voice of God. However, what they mean is they believe that God communicated something to them through the music or sermon. Paul and his traveling companions heard the voice from heaven, but his companions did not under stand the words.37 Paul's metaphor here is that God's Word concerning the Messiah was discussed among them. Paul heard from God through his new understanding of the Messianic prophecies applied to Jesus. But the others just didn't get it.
While the epiphany theory sounds interesting at first look, it is plagued with many serious difficulties. First, even if all of these conjectures were true, it only accounts for the appearance to Paul. It does not account for the appearances to the disciples, nor does it account for the appearance to the skeptic James.3R
Second, an epiphany experienced by Paul does not account for the empty tomb. Jesus' body should still have been lying there. Third, Christianity's critics responded to a literal interpretation of Jesus' resurrection rather than to an epiphany, implying this is what the witnesses were proclaiming. The Jewish leaders claimed that the disciples stole the body.39 The accounts of the bright light and voice do not come from the early writings of Paul. Rather, they come from Acts which scholars date after the writing of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Thus, an evolution of the story of Jesus' resurrection going from an epiphany in Paul to the bodily appearances in the Gospels seems to be going in precisely the opposite direction, since it is the Gospels that teach bodily resurrection and the later Acts that provides certain details that might be used to support the notion of a Pauline epiphany.4"
Fifth, there is something helpful to remember when considering the differences between Paul's encounter with Jesus and what the disciples experienced: Paul's experience of the risen Jesus occurred after Jesus' ascension. That could account for the difference in the glorified nature that Christ showed to Paul from what the disciples experienced.
No psychological phenomena-such as hallucinations, delusions, visions, conversion disorder, grief, guilt, epiphany, or Paul's lust for power can adequately account for all of our five facts. Serious problems stand in the way of these theories.