The Psychological Origins of the Resurrection Myth [Paperback]

Jack A. Kent (Author)

Book Description

ISBN-10: 1871871433 | ISBN-13: 978-1871871432 | Publication Date: September 1999

The author examines the New Testament treatment of the resurrection and reviews the Habermas-Flew debate on the pros and cons of an actual physical resurrection of Jesus. Jack Kent offers his own psychological theories and explanations, and opposes the arguments of the theologians Kung, Spong and others. Much of his research is based upon the studies of modern psychiatry and its findings on hallucinations caused by bereavement, which the author relates movingly to the grief and bereavement experiences of people in various walks of life. This book aims to do much to explain the origin of the Resurrection myth.

Product Details

• Paperback: 144 pages
• Publisher: Open Gate Press (September 1999)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1871871433
• ISBN-13: 978-1871871432
• Product Dimensions: 9 x 6 x 0.5 inches
• Shipping Weight: 8.8 ounces
• Average Customer Review: 2.1 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (9 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #4,095,816 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

9 of 10 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars Resurrection Myth?, September 17, 2006

By 

Alberto - See all my reviews

This review is from: The Psychological Origins of the Resurrection Myth (Paperback)

In his book, the late Jack Kent weaves a hypothesis to explain the "myth" of the resurrection story. Many of the same topics, contra resurrection are addressed. The main focus of the book, however, revolves around the disciples hallucinations as a normal psychological symptom of grief and Paul's hallucination due to conversion disorder.

Hallucinations due to grief cannot be denied. Kent's view is that the disciples and Mary Magdalene did in fact experience grief-related hallucinations of the resurrected Jesus. Examples of grief-related hallucinations are presented with a survey noting that 47% of widowed spouses have experienced hallucinations due to grief, with a small percentage hallucinating being touched by the deceased.

The second main point made by Kent concerns Paul's experiencing the resurrected Jesus by conversion disorder. Conversion disorder is a psychological disorder that involves the "loss of physical functioning...due to an expression of psychological conflict or need (p.50)." Examples are also given by Kent of individuals who seemed to have experienced conversion disorder type symptoms.

According to Kent, Paul experienced his Jesus-hallucination due to his conflict on whether or not he should persecute Christians. Paul's respected teacher Gamaliel advised the Jewish leaders to be cautious about the treatment of Christians (Acts 5:17-42). Gamaliel is contrasted with his student Paul, who is approving persecution to the point of death. From Kent's perspective, Paul's emotional conflict came to a head during his trip to Damascus, thereby causing temporary blindness and experiencing a hallucination of Jesus (Acts 9:1-31). Thus, with Paul's hallucination due to conversion disorder and the disciples' grief-related hallucinations, the myth of the resurrected Jesus was born.

Big problems surface in Kent's hypothesis myth due to hallucination. Concerning point one, grief-related hallucinations, many questions are never answered. For example, no explanation is given concerning the empty tomb. Only a footnote is offered from the Anglican Bishop Barnes that states that Jesus' body was "possibly flung into a common grave (120)." Many of the critical scholars accept the tomb as being both known and empty after the third day. Secondly, according to Mark, Jesus makes reference to his eventual death and bodily resurrection. In Mark 8:31-32; 9:9,31; 10:34; and 14:28, we find detailed information by Jesus predicting his judgment, torture, death and resurrection. Kent makes no mention of these verses as being added texts, and, in fact, fails to mention the Markan evidence altogether. Perhaps the biggest unanswered question revolves around I Corinthians 15. Here we have the earliest creedal evidence of the physical resurrection of Jesus. Kent even concedes that this creed "could be dated very close to the actual crucifixion (p. 17)."

The hallucination-hypothesis of the disciples and Mary has other flaws. Kent's own listing of grief-related hallucinations further discredits his hypothesis. According to the survey (p. 29), only 39% felt the presence of the dead spouse, auditory and visual hallucinations were around 14%, and a mere 2.7% had the feeling of being touched by a deceased loved one. Additionally, grief-related hallucinations were always recognized as hallucinations, whereas the disciples actually believed they had physical contact with the resurrected Jesus. Kent even wildly asserts that the disciples could have mistaken mist for the apparition of Jesus (p. 38-39).

If we are to believe Kent's grief-related hallucination myth, then we must believe 100% of the disciples simultaneously shared the same physical encounters of Jesus as a hallucination experience. Hallucinations, however, are individual and not cooperate experiences. Finally, why would the hallucinations suddenly stop after a 40-day time period?

Kent's second point about Paul's conversion disorder is unsubstantiated by evidence and contradictory. Paul clearly had no conflict of interest prior to his Damascus trip. In fact, he fully intended to continue his persecution of Christians by going to Damascus (Acts 9: 1,2). Ananias was even aware of Paul's intentions, questioning the Lord's instruction in meeting with Paul (Acts 9:13,14). Conversion disorder calls for an individual to have psychological conflict. Paul was intent on causing harm to Christians and had absolutely no psychological conflict. Paul also believed he had physically encountered the risen Jesus. In I Corinthians 15: 42-44, Paul uses the Greek word sôma for body, which always indicates a material body.

In summary, Kent falls short in The Psychological Origins of the Resurrection Myth. He provides no evidence of hallucination due to grief for the disciples or hallucinations due to conversion disorder for Paul. The disciples and Paul believed they had physically encountered the resurrected Jesus. Not one first century source even insinuates the possibility of the disciples hallucinating. The end result of Kent's book becomes that which he was trying to prove concerning the resurrection of Jesus - an invented myth.

4 of 5 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars Doesn't muster against his own evidence, October 6, 2007

By 

GlobalTraveler (South Carolina, USA) - See all my reviews

This review is from: The Psychological Origins of the Resurrection Myth (Paperback)

Written in 1999, this slim book is an easy enough read to get through in one or two days, but beyond this the book does not offer anything to the debate over the resurrection. A reworking of the classic hallucination theory, this book attempts to explain the resurrection away by pointing to a supposed conversion disorder of Paul and the bereavement process of the disciples. Fraught with contradictory and unsubstantiated claims this book is a poor attempt at a naturalistic swipe against the resurrection of Jesus.

First, Kent, who incidentally has no formal psychology training, uses psychological data on widows to try to explain what happened to the disciples. Claiming that the disciples were so overcome with grief over the death of their spiritual leader whom they had been with for three years, they imagined that they saw Jesus to satisfy their inner grief. Kent uses a study by Rees as his evidence. However, this study when examined, actually would not support Kent's claim. In the study, Rees points out that hallucinations among widowed were significantly higher the longer the widow was married, thus if the couple had been married 50+ years as compared to less than 10 years the chance of seeing a hallucination jumps from 30% (10 years) to more than 60% chance. Thus a correlation between spending time with someone and seeing a hallucination points to a longer period. The disciples were only with Jesus less than three years, not enough time to create a bond like that of a married couple, especially among a younger crowd (as compared to those in their 60's and 70's). In addition, even Jesus' own brother who grew up with Him initially doubted and thought them to be crazy. Only when he saw the risen Christ was it only than that he changed his mind. Add this to the fact that psychologists agree that hallucinations are a private event brought on by certain environmental factors, we cannot explain how these "hallucinations" occurred in multiple settings, to a large number of people, and they all agreed with what they saw. If this were truly a large hallucination event, there would be multiple contradictory accounts and they would have to continue to occur for the faith to continue. Kent also believes that hallucinations are a normal event and thus can account for Jesus' appearance. However, most psychologists and therapist also point out that while those who grieve do see things, they know that what they are seeing is not the real thing and they snap out of it. In addition, these hallucinations do more for the individual to cope than to transform their lives or those around them.

Kent goes on to claim that Paul's conversion account can be explained away by the extreme stress he was under forcing him to a decision point of either stopping his killing spree or give into the wishes of his teacher Gamaliel. There is a major problem with this theory though, one that other critics have yet to point out. While it may be argued that Gamaliel was opposed to the killings of the Christians, Paul, if he was to succumbed to the wishes of his teacher, would not have joined this fringe group as his teacher saw them as. If he felt so awful about defying the wishes of his teacher, why, after stopping the killings, would he join the very group that his teacher labeled as a fringe group not worthy of significance? If he was so adamant about being loyal to his teacher as Kent proposes, he would have ceased the killing and returned home to his beloved teacher, not join the very group that his teacher opposed! This disorder also does not explain Paul's companions either. The various accounts clearly show that those present with Paul also experienced something as well. They claimed to here something or saw something. An inner personal trauma cannot be manifested into an experience that others can attest to.

Kent clearly does not understand the nature of a hallucination event in relation to trauma and group experiences. Hallucinations do not account for what happened to the disciples or to Paul. Hallucinations would not account for the physical appearance of Jesus in a Platonic world view. The disciples who lived in a Platonic world would have never imagined a physical body coming back to life. The body was something to be shed and to be done away with in that time. To be released from the body was the goal of mankind. To claim a physical body would have been ludicrous and religiously suicidal. Kent grossly extrapolates a few anecdotal accounts in a medical journal and conjures up a fanciful theory that in no way deals with the facts at hand. After reading this book I am convinced that the only one who is delusional is Kent himself.

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars Sound Core Argument With Many Glaring Weaknesses, February 28, 2010

By 

Richard H. Mott "searcher" (Jacksonville, FL) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: The Psychological Origins of the Resurrection Myth (Paperback)

(Personal bias disclosure: I was a life-long Christian who has become a reluctant doubter of the Faith)

The only book of its kind that I'm aware of, it is a shame that it was written by someone with no scholarly credentials, the fact of which is borne out in significant gaps in awareness of the evidence which has been presented by Christian apologists, both popular and scholarly. (It's also borne out by an amateurish arrogance in the characterization of positions -- Rather than write "the evidence seems to indicate" or "most scholars believe," for example, he characterizes many statements as indisputable facts, when they are far from being so.) These gaps in awareness of rebutting arguments have been identified by other reviewers: dismissal of problem of group hallucination; failure to address 1st Century cultural recognition of the difference between a resurrection and a vision or apparition; dismissal of problem of empty tomb; failure to address the distinction between insisting on beliefs for a lifetime even in the face of torture and martyrdom and the typical grief-induced hallucinations.

Kent makes an interesting analogy to reactions to the death of MLK, which begs the question: How many MLK disciples were convinced throughout their lives that MLK had appeared to them after his death?

I do, however, find grief- and guilt-induced hallucinations to be strong alternative explanations for the belief in resurrection of Jesus; emphasis on the influence of Paul in almost single-handedly making Christianity a world-wide phenomenon a strong argument. Even the gospel accounts provide hints at alternative explanations of resurrection appearances (mistaking Jesus for someone else; some disbelieving appearances, etc.).

I think Kent makes a pretty strong argument to explain the appeal of Paul's theology: mitigates anxiety about an afterlife and emphasizes a beautiful moral system built around the concepts of grace, love, and internalized values.

In sum, this is a book with a subject I truly want to explore more deeply. I only wish the author had been better equipped to address it.