Revisiting the Plausibility of Peter and Paul Hallucinating

Here I'm going to focus on some points made in Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment?, one of the great debates that was vital in my big blog project on the resurrection. Michael Goulder's chapter "The Explanatory Power of Conversion-Visions" has some considerably strong material.

Peter liable to a hallucination?

Evidence ("evidence") that Peter could definitely hallucinate was the transfiguration, and the vision when God told him to eat all sorts of meat(1). 

These notions are definitely the easiest to dispel. The transfiguration would be argued by skeptics to not at all be based in reality (it doesn't go back to an eyewitness, it looks like a legendary invention and maybe must be because it is impossible). Someone could argue that Peter disrespecting God would is a factual something (Mark 9:5-6), but, as I have referred to twice before in recent posts, Bart Ehrman would point out Christians definitely might be willing to invent him this way, and legend can blend with fact.  

At any rate, what did Peter say, he sometimes got private visions? Where is the evidence for this? There is nothing to suggest he would be susceptible to hallucinations. Others saw this event, which is reported as undeniably a physical miracle, not a vision. 

(I would like to pause here and point out that the transfiguration is one of my favorite miracles. It is in Mark, the true lost Gospel of Peter, which I am convinced I have proven to be trustworthy information from Peter, even up to the miracle claims. Directly proving Mark is one reason I favor it so much. Another is it so demonstrates Jesus's power which keeps beings like Moses and Elijah alive... but He is better than them.)

As for Acts 10:9-16, it is much the same. Why would a skeptic suggest this story wasn't just plain invented? This is indeed a private vision, but Peter only had it because God gave it to him.

These "examples" which would serve to "support" an alternate theory to the resurrection just shows how feeble critical scholars have to get. And even if Peter was susceptible to visions from the God he believes in, this doesn't fit his scenario of disbelieving in Jesus, who sinned against him.

Paul liable to hallucinate?

I feel I should quote this whole thing so you see the confident statement an unbeliever made and not feel like you need to fear:

"We do not know enough about Paul's state of mind to make a theory about how his conversion-vision came to pass as it did. It is a mistake to stress his feelings of guilt about the law because he seems to have been proud of his success in keeping it ('as to the righteousness in the law, blameless,' Phil 3:6). But Heikki Raisanen notes his reference to bondage and fear in its connection (Rom 8:15; Gal 5:1) and thinks that he may have experienced slavery. Or J.C. Beker asks, 'How could the Christophany have been so traumatic and so radical in its consequences unless it lit up and answered a hidden quest in [Paul's] soul?' Or perhaps, unknown to us, Paul had a friend in Tarsus when he was young who was a Gentile, and he was fretted by the worry how such a person could be denied salvation. So Bill is right that we are not in a position to psychoanalyze someone who has been dead two thousand years, but he is wrong to think that there cannot have been a plain, this-worldy explanation of how Paul's conversion-vision happened." (2)

First off, I want to thank God for William Lane Craig (a.k.a. Bill) who pointed out in the debate that there was no good evidence.

Now, I will pit expert skeptical scholar Bart Ehrman against all that. He pointed out how a non-Jew could be adopted into the Jewish family by conversion rituals(3). As an expert devote Jew, Paul would cherish this. Why trade just one exclusive faith for another? Not even Christians in the early church were at the time of Paul's conversion sure whether or not they should keep the works of the Jewish law. True, Paul became an avid missionary to the Gentiles and defender of a solely faith-based Gospel, but only after conversion.

Ehrman specifically repels the idea of Paul being burdened under the law, in a quote that brings attention to us Christians that we should challenge our presuppositions:

"It is worth emphasizing this point [Phil. 3:6] because many readers (Christians, especially) have thought that Paul had a real guilt complex when it came to the law, that he saw Jewish law as a terrible taskmaster that made unreasonable demands on people and then punished them for not keeping them. This does not seem to have been Paul's view, at least as a righteous Jew before coming to faith in Christ. He appears, on the contrary, to have been like most other righteous Jews of his day, who saw the law as the greatest gift God had given his people, and a joy to keep. Rather than claiming to have an enormous burden of guilt imposed by the law, Paul claims that as far as doing what the righteous demands of the law were concerned, he was 'blameless.'" (4)

Exactly! Thank you Ehrman, for your biography of the pre-conversion Paul, stemming from evidence that is actually about Paul. Read both Romans 8:5 and Galatians 5:1 and compare. It is nonsensical to suggest this was pre-conversion Paul. 

Ehrman responded to a couple arguments for why Paul hated the Christian church, and refutes them. Instead, the evidence is "an explanation hinted at in Paul's own writing slater in life."(5) This is anyone is cursed by God if they are crucified (Deuteronomy 21:23, quoted in Galatians 3:13). Jesus is the most offensive Messiah anyone could ever make up for Paul. They were horribly sinning against God, and this highly intelligent, well-defined Jew knew what he could -- must? -- at any rate would like to, do.

Moreover, I also thought that if Paul was having any sort of doubts, why would he try to extinguish the Christians? Intense persecution, especially for someone who believes in God and His morality (this is not only impressed from Judaism but atheism is practically not an option at all in his setting), just goes to show dedication, as he himself says in Galatians 1:13 and Philippians 3:6. Jews definitely didn't need to go to the greatest extent, in the case of Paul, a Jew in the diaspora (not in Jerusalem; the group of Jews scattered throughout the region). Jews didn't have to sign some "Let's destroy all Christians" pact, and could just leave them alone. (But perhaps he would feel morally obligated to do so because of his knowledge.)

Yes, Paul's high intelligence would force him to be thorough, his willingness to kill show he conquered doubts, making it evidently baseless against common causes that he had a conversion disorder.

Finally, there is such a thing as "psychogenetic blindness," where someone goes blind because they literally aren't willing to believe something which doesn't fit with their current worldview. But this doesn't surmount the unlikelihood Paul would have a conversion disorder in the first place. And significantly, Habermas would point out, if we are relying on the account in Acts 9, Paul would have had a auditory and visual hallucination, messiah complex (when someone thinks God specifically told them to save others), and conversion disorder all at the same time. That's a tall order for someone like Paul, to say the least.

At the bottom of this post on alternate theories, I point out that yes, we can't "psychoanalyze" historical figures, but it is possible for historical evidence to take a shape that renders it highly implausible that Jesus didn't rise from the dead.

Oh, but speaking of which, I ran into also where Ehrman points out Paul's new view of salvation: Romans 7:7-25 is the already converted Paul speaking of people in general(6). Of course, Ehrman has pointed out, it wouldn't be wise to suggest Paul was struggling and feeling burdened under the law, as the evidence where he actually speaks of the pre-conversion Paul so fits his certainty. See the alternative theory on Paul for more information.

A quick word on another skeptical observance: Goulder asks (I paraphrase), "Where would Galileo or Darwin have gotten if he had gone by consensus?" (7)

But what if the consensus had the tools to be highly educated, and their beliefs were against their biases? Imagine creation scientists admitting evidence that points to evolution. And finally, I don't nearly accept all claims because they are accepted by a majority. I have to be able to explain evidence for almost everything myself. 

And therefore I view skeptical scholarly consensus as evidence, albeit from this time period.

Citations:

1.  Paul Copan and Ronald K. Tacelli, Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment? A Debate Between William Lane Craig and Gerd Ludemann (InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, IL. 2000), 93.

2. Ibid., 95. He cites Heikki Raisanen, Paul and the Law (London: SCML Press, 1982), p. 323; J.C. Beker, Paul the Apostle (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), p. 237.

3. Bart Ehrman, Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene: The Followers of Jesus in History and Legend (Oxford University Press: Oxford, NY. 2006), 104.

4. Ibid., 105.

5. Ibid., 109-110.

6. Ibid., 115.

7. Copan and Tacelli, Jesus' Resurrection, 102.