The Resurrection and grief hallucinations

1. NT scholar Dale Allison has popularized the idea that the Resurrection appearances of Christ might have their basis in so-called grief hallucinations. I should mention that it's been some years since I read his original argument, and I believe he's continued to debate it, so his current position may be more refined than his original formulation. At this point I might be fuzzy on the details. But with those caveats in mind: 

2. An initial problem is terminology. If we classify the phenomenon as a "hallucination", then, by definition, it's a psychological illusion. So the label is prejudicial. A hallucination is a psychological impression of something outside the observer, but in reality the impression originates in the mind. There is nothing objective to the observer that corresponds to what he perceives.

This is not to deny that some people hallucinate under well-known conditions. But whether all or most reported postmortem apparitions are hallucinatory begs the question. I doubt there's an abstract presumption one way or the other. It helps to have some background info about the reporter.

So I prefer to use the term grief apparition, with the caveat that some, but not all, of these may be hallucinatory. For the record, I think there are genuine postmortem apparitions. 

3. To my knowledge, this explanation isn't offered as an interpretation of the Resurrection accounts as they stand. Indeed, it's inconsistent with the Resurrection accounts as written. Rather, it attempts to go behind the narratives to reconstruct what really happened. The Resurrection accounts have their origin in grief apparitions, but Luke and John have transformed them to read more like physical restoration to life. 

A problem with that explanation is a theory that has to explain away inconvenient evidence which stands at odds with the theory. A theory that's consistent with some of the evidence, but discounts other evidence from the same source that runs counter to the theory. That smacks of special pleading. 

4. In fairness, there are situations where you can justifiably offer an explanation in the teeth of the documentary evidence. For instance, Joseph Smith has a well-earned reputation that impugns his credibility as a witness. Therefore, you are justified or even obliged to present an alternative explanation that disregards the record if there's good reason to believe the record is fraudulent.

But unless we're dealing with dubious sources like that, theories that are several steps removed from the documentary evidence are not to be preferred over theories consistent with the documentary evidence.

5. One problem with appealing to grief apparitions is that I doubt that was the primary emotion which the disciples experienced. To the contrary, the primary emotion was fear. Their leader had just been executed, and they were terrified that they were next on the hit list. They were hiding in fear that the authorities would round them up. That's not conducive to grief. Between the crucifixion and resurrection, I don't think there's an opportunity for them to grieve. Their dominant state of mind would be fear of arrest by the authorities, not bereavement. 

6. As I recall, women (esp. widows) are far more likely to experience grief apparitions than men. But we don't find that gender disparity in the Resurrection accounts. Perhaps the explanation would be that the accounts aren't meant to be accurate in that regard. While grief apparitions are the template, Luke and John creatively manipulate their sources or traditions. If so, that's an explanation that must disregard counterevidence in the record. 

7. A further problem is that post-resurrection appearances cluster around a particular time and place. But if these are grief apparitions, why would they be so close in time and place to Easter and succeeding weeks? Wouldn't we expect them to be more spaced out rather than coordinated? Do grief apparitions normally bunch up that way, where friends and family experience them around the same time and place? 

8. Then there's the problem of mass hallucination. Two observers can report seeing these same tree because there's an external object in their field of vision causing them to perceive the same thing. But if the Resurrection appearances are hallucinatory, then there is no external stimulus to generate the same psychological impression. There is no common cause. 

So even if you deny that the observers saw Jesus in the flesh, these would still be genuine postmortem apparitions rather than hallucinations. They saw the ghost of Jesus. So this interpretation still affirms the afterlife, but falls short of resurrection. As an alternative explanation it creates a dilemma because it's less than then NT requires but more than debunkers want to allow for. 

9. Then there's the question of why observers would confuse a ghost with a physical, embodied agent. Many ancient people, including ancient Jews, believed in ghosts. But they didn't confound that with physical restoration to life. So, once again, the claim would be that Luke and John touched up their sources to make it seem like a bona fide resurrection.  

10. Grief apparitions fail to explain the empty tomb. So a proponent of that alternative explanation must come up with an additional, separate explanation for the empty tomb accounts. 

11. Allison cites a few atypical cases of postmortem apparitions that simulate physicality in this or that particular. But in the case of the Resurretion appearances, that requires postulating a patchwork of different cases, to combined all the necessary features. That's highly artificial and far more anomalous than the already exceptional examples.