An Overview of the Book Resurrection Remembered

The Aim of the Book

To see what can be said about Jesus’ resurrection if one uses a memory approach to historiography.
This is not to argue that a memory approach is the best way to study history but if you used it what would it mean for the case for Jesus’ resurrection.
That being said, I came to think that a memory approach is not with merit, but I think it could be used alongside a criteria of authenticity approach (but I don’t argue for that in any detail in the book).

Why this Subject Matters?

“For Paul and the other early Christian communities (cf. 1 Cor 15:11), Jesus’ resurrection is πρῶτος “first” (1 Cor 15:3)—of supreme significance.”
“Further, in 1 Corinthians 15:12–19, Paul says that if Christ has not been raised, the tradents are false witnesses, faith in Christ is useless, and believers are still in their sins. Paul’s logic is that without the vindication of the resurrection, Jesus’ shameful death (on the cross; cf. 1 Cor 1:17–18; Gal 3:13; Deut 21:23; Rom 4:24b–25) would be devoid of any real purpose, value, or efficacy.”
Also, historical Jesus studies has, in general, attacking a criteria approach and promoting a memory approach.

What is a Memory Approach?

Basically, a memory approach is to make use of what is known about human memory in our historical analysis.
One of the difficulties, as with other methodologies, is that there isn’t a unified consensus on exactly the best way to undertake a memory approach.
It has been popular since about 2000 but can be dated the 1970’s or even earlier.

What about Social Memory?

I find this term is used in a variety of ways.
It can be used as a contrast between memory in individuals and memory of how a society remembers an event (say your individual memory of BLM, compared to the collective memory of BLM including how the narrative is used to shape present issues). I think both should be considered but some scholars think I misunderstand the approach for even thinking this.

Is Memory Reliable?

Schacter writes, “Although this volume is concerned primarily with understanding distortion, it must be emphasized again that memory is quite accurate in many situations. […] Therefore, the key issue is not whether memory is ‘mostly accurate’ or “mostly distorted”; rather, the challenge is to specify the conditions under which accuracy and distortion are most likely to be observed. (“Memory Distortion,” 25)
Diamond, Armson, and Levine found that while roughly only a quarter of things are remembered, those which are remembered can be recalled with about 93%–95% accuracy (“The Truth Is Out There,” 1544–56).

The Elements of a Memory Approach

a definition and taxonomy of memory, (2) passivism and constructivism, (3) presentism and continuism, (4) philosophical considerations of forgetting, (5) theories of remembering, (6) social and collective memory, (7) transience, (8) absent-mindedness, (9) blocking, (10) misattribution, (11) persistence, (12) Bartlett and schemata, (13) John Dean’s testimony and memory distortion, (14) Deese-Roediger- McDermott (DRM) lists and false memories, (15) suggestibility, (16) the social contagion of memory, (17) memory conformity, (18) hindsight bias, (19) personal event memory and flashbulb memory, (20) memory and age, and (21) the effects of health on memory.
Which is too much to cover so we must focus on a few.

Passivism and constructivism

“A passivist (preservationist or archival) view of memory argues that memory is analogous to a storehouse. The view purports that if one is focused while encoding the memory and archives it correctly, then one can accurately retrieve that memory.” (110–1)
“a constructivist (or generationist) approach views memory as active “as the combined influences of the world and the person’s own ideas and expectations.” (111)

Examples of the active nature of memory

“Selection: Only certain incoming stimuli are selected for encoding.
Abstraction: The meaning of a message is abstracted from the syntactic and lexical features of the message.
Interpretation: Relevant prior knowledge is invoked.
Integration: A holistic representation is formed from the products of selection, abstraction, and interpretation processes.
Reconstruction: During retrieval, whatever information was selected for representation and is still accessible is used, together with general knowledge, (roughly) to generate a representation of what must have happened.” (111)

The Implications Passivism and Constructivism

“As for the implications of passivism and constructivism for Jesus’ resurrection, studies on the extent to which the faculty of memory is creative indicate that semantic memory tends to be more passive than constructive. Hence, regarding the creed of 1 Corinthians 15:3–5/7, there are probably fewer constructive factors at work.” (114–5)
“As for abstraction, the creed of 1 Corinthians 15:3–5/7 is already an abstraction of some underlying series of events by those who originally formulated the creed. That is, no one (or no group) perceived the creed taking place. Instead, the creed is a formulation of a larger narrative. However, there is no reason to think that any further abstraction occurred between Paul receiving the creed and passing it on to the Corinthians.” (115)

Theories of Remembering

There are four main types of theories about what it means to remember: (1) empiricist theories, (2) epistemic theories, (3) causal theories, and (4) simulation theories.

An Epistemic Theory of Remembering

On an epistemic theory of remembering, if subject S remembers proposition p, “then S knows that p” or “if S remembers that p, then S knows that p because S previously knew that p.”
The standard view is that knowledge is justified true belief—namely, that a subject S knows proposition P if and only if:
“S believes that P.
P is true.
The belief that P is justified for S at the time S believes it.”

The Implications of an Epistemic Theory of Remembering

if p1 = “the risen Jesus appeared to Paul,” and S1 = “Paul,” then 1 Corinthians 15:8 would indicate that premise (1) is true; namely, Paul believes the risen Jesus appeared to him.
Premise (2) asks, is it true that the risen Jesus appeared to Paul? Unfortunately, the truth of this premise is difficult to determine.
Premise (3) asks, is “the belief that the risen Jesus appeared to Paul justified for Paul at the time he believes it?” There is insufficient detail in 1 Corinthians 15:8 to conclusively decide one way or the other. Paul’s belief could be properly basic—that is, a perceptual belief “produced by cognitive faculties functioning properly in a congenial epistemic environment according to a design plan successfully aimed at truth.” Alternatively, one might conclude from the testimony of others—namely, other parts of the New Testament, such as Acts 9:3–5, 22:6–11, and 26:12–15—that the premise is true. On the other hand, one might infer that Paul was experiencing a cognitive malfunction,191 so the premise is false.

Social and Collective Memory

social memory can refer to “the distribution throughout society of what individuals believe, know, and feel about the past, how they judge the past morally, how closely they identify with it, and how they commemorate it.”

The Implications of Social and Collective Memory

Corinthians 15:11 indicates that the creed did not originate nor exist solely in Paul’s individual memory; instead, it was the collective memory of all the apostles, and hence, one could argue the social memory of the early believers (cf. 1 Cor 1:2; 4:17; 7:17; 11:16; 14:33). The creed was the common message that all the churches proclaimed “that Christ died and rose again.” (137)

Transience

Transience can be defined as “a weakening or loss of memory over time.”

The Implications of Transience

If Jesus was crucified around 30/33 CE, and First Corinthians was written around 53–57 CE, this represents an interval of around 20 to 27 years. Based on the forgetting curves discussed in Section 3.2, this falls into the “c) 20–50 years” grouping, which would indicate an approximate 62%–85% likelihood that the information was remembered correctly (assuming individual memory with infrequent rehearsal). Nevertheless, as outlined in Section 3.3.2, it is more likely that such traditions were performed regularly (perhaps even weekly by community members), and as such, the likelihood that the information was remembered correctly would have been very probable.
Paul probably received the creed of 1 Corinthians 15:3–5/7 within 18 months to 5 years from Jesus’ alleged resurrection (and probably no more than a decade after the event).

Bartlett and Schemata

Schemata are cognitive structures “representing a person’s knowledge about some entity or situation, including its qualities and the relationships between these.” (148)

The Implications of Bartlett and Schemata

“Bartlett proposed that schemata played a role in remembrance, and, in the case of the creed of 1 Corinthians 15:3–5/7, it is directly stated that the Scriptures played this role (cf. 1 Cor 15:3–4). However, the particular Scriptures are not specified.289 It could have included one or more of the following passages: Deuteronomy 18:15; Psalms 2; 16:8–11; 18:22; 22; 31; 69; 110:1; 118; Isaiah 53:7–8; 55:3; Hosea 6:2. Despite this, it is hard to see how reflection upon these Scriptures would have given rise to belief in an individual bodily resurrection prior to the closing of the age.” (151)

John Dean’s Testimony and Memory Distortion

Dean’s “testimony [of Nixon] was accurate at a level that is neither “semantic” (since he was ostensibly describing particular episodes) nor “episodic” (since his accounts of the episodes were often wrong). The term “repisodic” is coined here to describe such memories: what seems to be a remembered episode actually represents a repeated series of events, and thus reflects a genuinely existing state of affairs.”

The Implications of John Dean’s Testimony and Memory Distortion

“The narratives underlying Paul’s traditions could be affected by this memory principle (concerning gist and tenor). Hypothetically, it would mean that even if there were confusions, for example, about when the tomb was found, or which women were present, or if it was one or two young men or angels, or whether the appearances were in Galilee or Jerusalem, one could still have accurate information,303 and perhaps that core is the creed of 1 Corinthians 15:3–5/7.” (154)

Deese-Roediger- McDermott (DRM) lists and False Memories

“The DRM task presents participants “with lists of semantically associated words (e.g., bed, rest, awake). In subsequent free recall and recognition tests, participants often erroneously recall and recognize non-presented critical lures (e.g., sleep) as having been presented as part of the earlier lists.” (155–6)
“A false memory can be defined as a distorted recollection of an event or, most severely, recollection of an event that never actually happened. False memories are errors of commission, because details, facts, or events come to mind, often vividly, but the remembrances fail to correspond to prior events.”

The Implications of Deese-Roediger- McDermott (DRM) lists and False Memories

“Studies on DRM lists suggest that false memories can arise from associations. DRM associations based on first-century Jewish cultural beliefs about the afterlife would have expected an ascension to heaven, awaiting the general resurrection. The predictions of Jesus’ resurrection (cf. Mark 8:31//Matt 16:21// Luke 9:22; Mark 9:31//Matt 17:23; Mark 10:34//Matt 20:19//Luke 18:33; Mark 14:58//Matt 26:61; Mark 15:29//Matt 27:40; Mark 14:28; Matt 12:40; 27:63–64; Luke 24:6–7, 46; John 2:19–22; Mark 16:7//Matt 28:6//Luke 24:6–8) could prime the disciples for a more imminent resurrection; however, it is doubtful that this could generate a false memory of such a magnitude. The disciples also knew that Jesus was crucified and did not believe that individuals were bodily resurrected in advance of others.” (157)

Suggestibility

Suggestibility refers to “memories that are implanted as a result of leading questions, comments or suggestions.”

The Implications of Suggestibility

“The creed of 1 Corinthians 15:3–5/7 is unlikely to have been influenced by suggestibility due to its memorability and brevity. However, the creed was formulated at some point. If one assumes that a narrative similar to those found in the Gospels underlies it,326 then there are several ways in which suggestibility could have impacted the tradition. Unfortunately, this is speculative. For instance, one could imagine one of the Gospel authors speaking with an eyewitness about the tomb where Jesus was buried. Even asking an innocent question such as, “Was it still dark when you found the tomb?” has the potential to implant false memories, whereas asking an open-ended question such as, “At what time did you find the tomb?” would not induce suggestion.” (159)

The Social Contagion of Memory

“The social contagion of memory refers to “false memories implanted by social influence.”” (161)
The Implications of The Social Contagion of Memory
“Studies focusing on the social contagion of memory suggest that if one of the early disciples, especially a prominent disciple, were to recall the traditions in a particular way, it is more likely that the others would be influenced accordingly. The creed of 1 Corinthians 15:3–5/7 is an example of how social interactions have enhanced memory—he creed is a formulation not devised by Paul, yet nonetheless, it is a formulation that Paul once received and passed on to the Corinthians. Furthermore, Paul would probably have now influenced the Corinthians, so they would, in turn, pass on the tradition in a similar form.” (162)

Memory Conformity

Memory conformity occurs “when an individual alters their memory report of an event to be consistent with another person’s differing, and sometimes erroneous, memory report of the same event.”

The Implications of Memory Conformity

“memory conformity is more likely to occur when one is unsure of his or her memories. Given that Jesus’ resurrection was central to Christian identity, it is improbable that the early Christians would have been unsure of the main details (such as Jesus’ death, burial, resurrection, and appearance) as outlined in the concise creed (cf. 1 Cor 15:3–5/7). However, perhaps for the narratives underlying Paul’s traditions, memory conformity could have impacted the secondary details, such as which women were present, whether it was one or two young men (or angels) who were present, and so on. Further, given that the disciples did show a degree of scepticism (cf. Matt 28:17; Luke 24:4; 11–12, 21–25, 37; John 20:2, 9), it suggests that although memories concerning Jesus’ resurrection would, in general, be more prone to conformity, the central facts would be less prone to distortion.” (164)

Hindsight Bias

Bias is “the powerful influence of our current knowledge and beliefs on how we remember our pasts.”

The Implications of Hindsight Bias

“A study has found that considering alternative explanations for one’s beliefs can reduce hindsight bias.362 Interestingly, on the morning of Resurrection Sunday, apart from the beloved disciple (cf. John 20:8), none of the other disciples interpreted the events to imply that Jesus had risen.363 Instead, they came to conclusions, such as Jesus’ body had been taken (cf. John 20:13–16), or they were generally puzzled (cf. Luke 24:11, 21–25; John 20:25), or thought that Jesus was a ghost (Luke 24:37). The other disciples had to consider “alternative explanations” before they could reduce their bias and came to believe that Jesus had risen. Also, the beloved disciple was exposed to the other disciples’ “alternative explanations,” providing him with an opportunity to reconsider his interpretation, but he found himself convinced that “Jesus has risen” was the correct explanation.” (167)

Personal Event Memory and Flashbulb Memory

Flashbulb memories “are memories for the circumstances in which one first learned of a very surprising and consequential (or emotionally arousing) event.”

The Implications of Personal Event Memory and Flashbulb Memory

“The original eyewitnesses would have had a flashbulb memory of their experiences due to both the shocking nature of Jesus’ death and the surprising nature of his resurrection. The creed itself was succinct, memorable, and contained remarkable content. The creed of 1 Corinthians 15:3–5/7, containing surprising and consequential content, would likely (at least for first-century believers) create a flashbulb memory upon its initial hearing. 380 Furthermore, the appearance of Jesus to Paul (cf. 1 Cor 15:8) would have formed a flashbulb memory for him. Although Paul does not mention further details of the memory (cf. Acts 9:3–5, 22:6–11, and 26:12–15),381 the likelihood that Paul would have misremembered “that Jesus appeared to him” is highly improbable.” (171)

Conclusion

A memory approach supports the conclusion gained from historical criticism—confirming that the early Christians would have had deep and lasting memory impressions of the bodily resurrected Jesus.