A summary of the forthcoming journal article “Resurrection Misremembered? The Interpretative Options Parts 1&2” with JETS 2025.
Overview
- What is the best explanation for what (most probably) happened that Sunday morning around either 30 or 33CE, which gave rise to the memories surrounding Jesus that were recorded in the New Testament?
- How does memory affect the five logically possible options: (1) the no-experience hypothesis, (2) the intra-mental hypothesis, (3) the mistaken identity hypothesis, (4) the swoon theory, and (5) the resurrection hypothesis.
What is a Memory Approach?
- A memory approach analyzes history using the psychological and philosophical principles from studies about memory.
Issues to Consider
- (1.2) Documents have been found claiming individuals and/or groups experienced a resurrected Jesus.
- (1.2.2) The documents are of historical value as sources since the originals were composed close enough to the reported events.
- (1.2.4) The documents are not (overly) text critically problematic to be of any historical use.
- (1.2.6) The central facts of the surviving documents can be harmonized, or at least one of the surviving documents has historically trustworthy information and indicates individuals and/or groups claimed to experience a resurrected Jesus.
- (1.2.8) In crucial areas, the documents were not the product of memory distortions, or the memory distortions can be detected so that the sources are useable for historical purposes.
Options for Jesus’ Resurrection
- (2.1) All of them [people in mid-first-century Palestine who claimed to have witnessed the resurrected Jesus] did not experience anything which they thought was the resurrected Jesus (no experience hypothesis).
- (3.1) All of these ‘experiences of Jesus’ were caused intramentally (hallucinations, ‘subjective vision,’ and ‘illumination’).
- (4.1) For all these experiences, the extramental entity was not Jesus (mistaken identity hypothesis).
- (5.1) Jesus did not die on the cross (swoon hypothesis).
- (6) Jesus rose from the dead (resurrection).
See Andrew Loke, Investigating the Resurrection of Jesus Christ: A New Transdisciplinary Approach, 2020.
Historical Sources
- There exist accounts (i.e., 1 Cor 15:5–8; Matt 28; Luke 24; John 20–21; Acts 1:1–11; Mark 16) that identify individuals and groups as having claimed to experience a resurrected Jesus. Therefore, premise 1.2 is true; namely, documents have been found claiming individuals and groups experienced a resurrected Jesus.
A Defeater: Fictional Genre?
- Few advocate that the Gospels are pure fiction, so for this argument, regardless of the precise view one holds, as long as the Gospels contain some history concerning the resurrection accounts, then that is enough to conclude that this premise is probably true. Further, whatever one concludes about the Gospels, they are not the only accounts of Jesus’ resurrection. For instance, 1 Corinthians 15 is part of a historical letter aimed at conveying historical information.
See Andrew Judd, Modern Genre Theory: An Introduction for Biblical Studies, 2024, 202–221.
Temporal Proximity
- Most (if not all) surviving accounts date to within the first century, and the Pauline literature dates to 20–35 years after the events. The period between the events and the artifacts is close enough to have potentially historically valuable information.
The Period Between Events and Writing
| Book | Lower (Bernier) | Lower (Robinson) | Middle (Harnack) | Higher (Sturdy) |
| Matt | 45–59 | 50 | 70–75 | 130 |
| Mark | 42–45 | 45 | 65–73 | 80 |
| Luke | 59 | 60 | 80–95 | 110 |
| John | 60–70 | 65 | 80–110 | 140 |
| Acts | 62 | 62 | 80–95 | 130 |
| Rom | winter of 56/57 | 57 | 56–57 | 50 |
| 1 Cor | early 56 | 55 | 56 | 50 |
| 2 Cor | late 56 | 56 | 56 | 50 |
| Gal | 47–52 | 56 | 53 | 50 |
| Eph | 57–59 | 58 | 57–59 | 100 |
| Phil | 57–59 | 58 | 57–59 | 50 |
| Col | 57–59 | 58 | 57–59 | 80 |
| 1 Thess | 50–52 | 50 | 48–49 | 40 |
| 2 Thess | 50–52 | 50–51 | 48–49 | 120 |
| 1 Tim—if Pauline | 63 or 64 | 55 | n/a | n/a |
| 1 Tim—if pseudo | 60–150 | n/a | 90–110 | 140 |
| 2 Tim—if Pauline | 64–68 | 58 | n/a | n/a |
| 2 Tim—if pseudo | 60–150 | n/a | 90–110 | 140 |
| Titus—if Pauline | 63 or 64 | 57 | n/a | n/a |
| Titus—if pseudo | 60–175 | n/a | 90–110 | 140 |
| Philemon | 57–59 | 58 | 57–62 | 50 |
| Hebrews | 50–70 | 67 | 81–96 | 110 |
| James | prior to 62 | 47–48 | 70–90 | 130 |
| 1 Peter | 60–69 | 65 | 81–96 | 110 |
| 2 Pet—if Petrine | 60–69 | 61–62 | n/a | n/a |
| 2 Pet—if pseudo | 60–125 | n/a | 110–120 | 150 |
| 1 John | 60–100 | 60–65 | 80–110 | 140 |
| 2 John | 60–100 | 60–65 | 80–110 | 140 |
| 3 John | prior to 100 | 60–65 | 80–110 | 140 |
| Jude | prior to 96 | 61–62 | 100–130 | 130 |
| Revelation | 68–70 | 68 | 93–96 | 150 |
Bernier, Jonathan. Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament: The Evidence for Early Composition, 2022.
Establishing the Text
- Text-critical issues: 1 Corinthians 15:5–8, NA28 lists no variants with the appearances to Cephas, to the “more than five hundred,” to James, to “all the apostles” or to Paul (1 Cor 15:5–8). The only variant is to “the Twelve” (in place of “the Eleven”), which, in either case, would still represent an appearance for our purposes. Consequently, text-critical issues do not provide a defeater to studying Jesus’ resurrection.
See Bruce Manning Metzger and United Bible Societies, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition a Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, 4th ed. 1994; Tommy Wasserman and Peter J. Gurry, A New Approach to Textual Criticism: An Introduction to the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method, 2017.
A Coherent Account?
- There have been various attempts at harmonizing all the accounts.
- As long as there was a coherent core (i.e., that Jesus died, was buried, and various people claimed he appeared to them), then at least these central facts are worthy of further historical investigation.
- Alternatively, if some of the sources are too contradictory to know which of any is correct, then perhaps one of those sources (through historical criteria) might be found to contain at least some historically trustworthy information.
See John William Wenham, Easter Enigma: Are the Resurrection Accounts in Conflict? 2nd ed. 1992, 76–125.
Memory Distortions
- A recent study of 1 Corinthians 6:14; 15:1–58 investigated potential memory distortions and did not find any factors that would prevent at least the account of Jesus’ resurrection in 1 Corinthians 6:14; 15:1–58 from being utilized as historical sources.
See David Graieg, Resurrection Remembered: A Memory Approach to Jesus’ Resurrection in First Corinthians, 2024.
No-Experience Hypothesis
- The theory that the disciples did not experience anything related to a resurrected Jesus but merely claimed they did.
No-Experience Hypothesis: Response
- Improbable because the early disciples seemed to be sincerely claiming that Jesus rose from the dead and that He appeared to them (even if they were sincerely mistaken).
- So-called liars, who were in a position to know the truth, would not be willing martyrs.
- What happened to the body?
No-Experience Hypothesis: Memory
- Is it conceivable that the disciples, through suggestibility, Deese-Roediger-McDermott (DRM) associations, or the constructive nature of memory, came to believe Jesus had risen?
- Such an extrapolation seems to be beyond the bounds of memory, as “false memories may be induced, but they are memories that are consistent with the stimulus.” Therefore, even given predictions of Jesus’ resurrection, in view of the first-century beliefs about the afterlife, it is improbable that “the narrative would have been reconstructed to entail bodily appearances. Instead, it would have been reconstructed to involve ascension to heaven, awaiting the general resurrection.”
- It is improbable that a group of people conspiring to perpetuate the fabrication would have gained a deep memory impression of the fraudulent account. As a result, such a view would have been more prone to the effects of transience, absent-mindedness, blocking, and misattribution.
Intra-mental Hypothesis
- The subjective hallucination version.
- The objective vision version.
- The illumination or metaphorical interpretation version.
Hallucinations
- A hallucination is “a false sensory perception that has a compelling sense of reality despite the absence of an external stimulus.” So, the appearances of Jesus “were projections of the disciples’ own consciousnesses, of their own minds.”
Hallucinations: A Response
- Does not account for what happened to Jesus’ physical body.
- Inconsistent with Paul’s view of Jesus’ resurrection body as being a transformed physical glorified body.
- Multimodal hallucinations are rare.
- Even if the disciples had experienced hallucinations, it is improbable, given their first-century memory schematics of the afterlife, that they would have remembered this as a resurrection. (Instead, they would have interpreted this as evidence that Jesus was dead and destined to arise with everyone else at the end of the age or he was exalted to heaven or was a ghost).
Hallucinations: Memory
- Given the subjective nature of hallucinations, it is unlikely that the social memories of such traditions would correspond with one another.
Visions
- A vision is a mental projection caused by God. It is “not something that is out there in the external world. Visions are mental projections from the brain of the person who sees them.”
Vision: A Response
- Does not account for what happened to Jesus’ physical body.
- The appearances of the risen Jesus to the disciples are not described in the language of a vision, rather, these encounters are described as extra-mental events (cf. Matt 28; Mark 16; Luke 24:23, 39–43; John 20–21; Acts 1:1–11, 22; 2:23–36; 9:3–5, 17; 10:39–41; 13:28–37; 22:6–11, 14–15; 23:6, 9; 26:12–15, 19; Gal 1:1, 12, 16; 1 Cor 15).
Visions: Memory
- A vision could create a deep memory impression, and the objective nature of the vision could result in similar implications to that of the resurrection hypothesis.
- A few of the disciples experienced a few visions (cf. Mark 9:2–8//Matt 17:1–9//Luke 9:28–36; Luke 1:22; 24:23; Acts 2:17; 9:10, 12; 10:3, 9–17; 11:5; 12:9; 16:9; 18:9; 22:17; 26:19; 2 Cor 12:1; Rev 1:1). Consequently, DRM associations could influence the memory of such visions.
Illumination
- Also known as the metaphorical interpretation hypothesis, this view argues that the accounts of Jesus’ resurrection were a kind of “figure of speech.” That the early Christians’ experience of the resurrected Jesus was a new revelatory understanding of Jesus’ ministry and was not intended to be taken literally.
Illumination: A Response
- Unless this view also considers Jesus’ death and burial metaphorical, it is difficult to see how one could argue that the resurrection and appearances (on their own) are symbolic.
- Furthermore, if the appearances indicate, for example, that Cephas and the Twelve had come to experience forgiveness or had a mystical experience, why would the appearances cease to occur (cf. Acts 1:3; 1 Cor 15:8)? That is to say, would not Paul then expect each of the Corinthians and all other future believers also to have an appearance of the risen Jesus (if these appearances indeed represented one’s realization of the forgiveness that God offers)?
- The Greek term ἐγείρω “I raise” (and related words such as ἀνάστασις “rising up”), within the context of death, does not support the idea that it as metaphorical (unlike the English, such as “my spirit arose” to mean “I became hopeful”).
Illumination: Memory
- The experience of forgiveness is central to the metaphorical interpretation hypothesis but describing that experience as resurrection would only be secondary.
- Therefore, it is unlikely that they had the memory cues to retrieve the tradition. Consequently, the memories would not be stable and would suffer from transience.
Mistaken Identity Hypothesis
- What the disciples saw was extra-mental but not actually Jesus himself (i.e., it was a case of mistaken identity).
Mistaken Identity Hypothesis: Response
- Since there are multiple appearances, it is improbable that everyone would have misidentified him, including the Twelve (who would have known Jesus well) or even possibly one of Jesus’ biological brothers (James).
Mistaken Identity Hypothesis: Memory
- It almost seems as if the implication of absent-mindedness is what lies behind the mistaken identity theory. Each of the disciples would have been insufficiently perceptive to accurately observe the identity of who it was. Consequently, the encounters would have been superficial, would not have made a deep memory impression, and would have been more susceptible to transience.
Swoon/Escape Theory
- The Swoon Theory states that although the disciples saw Jesus, he did not actually die on the cross. Instead, he fainted and later revived naturally after being placed in the tomb.
Swoon/Escape Theory: Response
- It is improbable that Jesus would have survived the practice of Roman crucifixion.
- Furthermore, it is unlikely that a nearly-dead Jesus would have inspired the disciples to believe that he was risen to the extent that they would declare that “death has been conquered and that Jesus is the firstfruits of the resurrection.”
Swoon/Escape Theory: Memory
- An appearance of a swooned Jesus would probably have created a flashbulb memory, as the disciples would have been amazed that he had survived such a horrendous ordeal. However, swooning is unlikely to have made a deep memory impression about Jesus’ glorious resurrection. Instead, at most, one would only surmise that the disciples would believe they were to face near-death encounters courageously, hoping they might somehow survive.
Supernaturally Rose Hypothesis (Resurrection)
- The “God raised Jesus” hypothesis is the view that the disciples extra-mentally saw Jesus, who had supernaturally risen from the dead.
Resurrection: Response
- The main objection to this view is that it requires God to exist and to want to raise Jesus from the dead.
Resurrection: Memory
- The view that God supernaturally raised Jesus would have made a deep memory impression. This observation does not prove that Jesus rose from the dead; however, if he had, it would have profoundly impacted the disciples’ memories, making it entirely consistent with what is known about human memory, indicating that the disciples would have been able to remember the event.
Conclusion
- This article on memory and Jesus’ resurrection alternatives has argued that the view that God raised Jesus would have made a deeper memory impression upon the disciples than any of the other alternative views.
- The most fitting explanation for why the early Christians remembered Jesus’ resurrection the way they did is the memorial context of Jesus having risen (supernaturally) from the dead.
For further reading, see Gary Habermas, On the Resurrection: Vol. 2: Refutations, 2024.
Extra Notes
The Ending of Mark
- The ending of Mark (16:9–20) is complicated and may be included or excluded at the reader’s discretion.
- David Alan Black, ed., Perspectives on the Ending of Mark: Four Views, 2008.
- Nicholas P. Lunn, The Original Ending of Mark: A New Case for the Authenticity of Mark 16:9–20, 2014.
- James Snapp, Jr., Authentic: The Case for Mark 16:9–20, 4th ed., 2023.
- James Snapp Jr. “A Case for the Longer Ending of Mark: An Argument for Mark 16:9–20 as the Original, Canonical Ending, Written by Mark but Added by His Colleagues,” Text & Canon Institute, June 1, 2022, https://textandcanon.org/a-case-for-the-longer-ending-of-mark/
- Peter M. Head, “A Case Against the Longer Ending of Mark: An Argument That Mark 16:9–20 is Not Original and So Not Inspired Scripture,” Text & Canon Institute, June 14, 2022, https://textandcanon.org/a-case-against-the-longer-ending-of-mark/
- K. R. Harriman, “Response to Peter Head’s Case Against Mark 16:9–20,” K. R. Harriman’s Newsletter, March 25, 2024, https://krharriman.substack.com/p/response-to-peter-heads-case-against
A Combinatorial Intra-mental View
- In the illustration, even though it is bizarre, the leap from ‘there are men in black coats’ to ‘it is the CIA after me’ is consistent with the data, even if it is a wrong interpretation. However, the extrapolation from ‘I see Jesus,’ therefore, ‘he is resurrected,’ rather than ‘he is exalted to heaven,’ or ‘he is a ghost,’ or ‘I am having a vision or hallucination,’ does not fit the first-century cultural memory schematics concerning beliefs about the afterlife.
Naturally Rose Hypothesis
- The “naturally rose” hypothesis is the view that the disciples saw Jesus (extra-mentally) and that he had truly died, but he revived through natural means.
- Naturally Rose Hypothesis: Response
- The main problem with this view is that there is no good reason to think that Jesus could have been naturally raised from the dead.
- Naturally Rose Hypothesis: Memory
- When Jesus later died of natural causes, the memory of his final death would replace the memory of his resuscitation.