Christic visions

"Visions of Jesus" is an attempted analysis of 30 modern visions of Jesus Christ. It also mentions medieval visions of the same type. Philip Wiebe is a Christian and probably believes in the visions at some level, but strives to be as objective as possible when discussing various explanations.

I admit that I found the book too "scholarly" and strangely boring. It also has a tendency to jump back and forth between very different subject matters (a bit like a college lecture, I suppose).

Wiebe discusses various explanations for Christic visions (his term), from frankly supernaturalist to strongly sceptical. I was struck by the fact that even Christian theologians have problems with modern visions of Jesus, and often attempt to explain them away. Thus, Karl Rahner seems to have suggested that not even "true" Christic visions are of Christ himself. Rather, angelic beings create sense-impressions of Christ in the minds of the percipients. It's not clear to me whether Rahner said this for "modernist" reasons, for reasons of Church authority, or both. (Churches sometimes have problems with free-wheeling visions or visionaries.) The silliest explanation discussed by Wiebe is psychoanalytic, and claim that visions of Jesus and Mary are...surprise...Oedipal-sexual fantasies. At the opposite side of the spectrum are charismatics, who have no problems whatsoever with supernatural appearances of Jesus. One charismatic church in Oakland claims to have taped a short movie sequence showing Jesus materializing in the congregation. Unfortunately, the original film got lost during a burglary... Wiebe has seen it, but implies that it might have shown a painting rather than a real person!

The visions of Jesus recorded in the book are of several different types, and the author admits that a Christian believer in the supernatural would be hard-pressed to explain some of them. For instance, there are visions of Jesus as a child, or visions which show scenes from his life (usually the passion). These visions don't seem to be different in kind from regular apparitions of Jesus (sometimes Jesus even interacts with the percipient), but they obviously can't be "true" in the sense of being actual meetings with Baby Jesus or the crucified Christ. According to Christian theology, Jesus has ascended to his Father in Heaven! He is no longer a child, nor is he still crucified. This sounds trivial, but note that it's connected to the historical-temporal claims of Christianity. Hindus would presumably have no particular problem with Krishna showing himself as a child for the benefit of some devotee, despite not really being a child. From a Christian perspective, meetings with Jesus as a child could be more problematical, especially if the whole thing is seen as a clever illusion created by angels. (Note also that Jesus' childhood is mentioned mostly in passing in the canonical Gospels.)

On the other hand, some other visions are of Jesus actually touching the percipient, as if he still had a physical body of some kind. These visions can't be illusions induced by angels, but they are also difficult to explain theologically: does Jesus occasionally leave the right hand of God and descend to Earth? Does he have a glorified body that one can touch? If he has, does that mean that the Second Person of the Trinity is somehow limited in space?

The author also points out the strange fact that all percipients he interviewed immediately recognized the person in their visions as Jesus, despite nobody knowing how Jesus really looked like. Often, Jesus would have a "traditional" look (beard, long hair, sandals and so on), but there were nevertheless obvious differences in detail between the various testimonies. At other times, Jesus did *not* show his face nor tell his name, but the percipient somehow knew who he was anyway.

The author is brave enough to point out that there doesn't seem to be an absolute difference between the post-Resurrection appearances of Jesus on the one hand, and the medieval or modern visions on the other. The post-Resurrection but pre-Ascension Jesus could appear and disappear at will, yet he also had a physical body and could be touched. He often appeared to several people at once, but that too has been reported in modern times. At the road to Emmaus, Jesus somehow changed his countenance, thereby keeping his identity secret. Some medieval reports are about mysterious beggars who later turn out to be Jesus. Wiebe also points out that a certain kind of ghosts have non-transparent bodies which look physical, sometimes complete with clothes!

The above could be controversial for several reasons. Some Christians are cessationists, and would presumably deny that anyone after the death of the apostles had visions of Jesus. However, modern visions are more well-documented than ancient ones, and seem to be of the same kind as the original post-Resurrection appearances. Sceptics could point to the similarities between modern visions and NT-recorded visions as evidence in favour of none of them being true. If people today can hallucinate physical meetings with Jesus, perhaps Thomas was hallucinating, as well? Finally, New Age believers could make the opposite claim: all visions of Jesus are true, but so are apparitions of dead relatives, angels, gnomes, Hindu gurus etc. (Yogananda's book "Autobiography of a Yogi" records several purported resurrections in India.)

Wiebe never reaches a firm conclusion, and as already mentioned, his book became tedious to read after a while. I admit that I didn't read literally every word of it...

Since the descriptions of the actual visions are relatively short, the book probably isn't suited for the general reader. Rather, "Visions of Jesus" belongs to the library of a theology student, or perhaps a student of comparative religion or mythology.