Memory and the NT

Why Memory and the NT?

• Because the criteria approach has been declining and a memory approach has been suggested as a way forward.
• A memory approach makes use of what is known about human memory in historical analysis.
• It argues that the NT contains at least some historical memory, and so it is appropriate to analyze the texts in light of that.

Historical Criticism and Hermeneutics

• A memory approach must be used alongside grammatical-historical exegesis, which seeks to follow the rules of grammar within the historical context of the text in question in order to interpret meaning from the text (rather than eisegesis, which is to read one’s ideas into the text).

Memory Should Be Used in Conjunction With Other Factors

• Ben Shaw spoke on the criteria:
• 1.Distance of the source (reported early)
• 2.The bias of the witness (their perspective)
• 3.Multiple independent attestation (and multiple forms)
• 4.Single attestation (makes something like 51% likely)
• 5.Embarrassing testimony (and hostile/disinterested attestation)
• 6.Dissimilarity: not plausibly explained by contemporary factors
• 7.Unintentional signs of history
• 8.Criterion of the impact of an event
• 9.Coherence with existing data

A Definition of Memory

• Memory can be defined as “a cognitive capacity related to how an organism’s past affects its ability to recall information or modify its behaviour” (Graieg, Resurrection Remembered, 106).

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 that are remembered can be recalled with about 93%–95% accuracy (“The Truth Is Out There,” 1544–56).

The Elements of a Memory Approach

• (1) 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 things.

Transience

• “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).

The Primacy of Jesus’ Resurrection

•Jesus’ resurrection should be central to your apologetic. For instance, let’s just say, memory studies indicate that it is more likely that in Luke 1 that Zechariah’s prophecy could suffer from transience than other passages. That is more of a biblical studies question, and we are focusing on apologetic issues right now. Even if you thought it was problematic it doesn’t follow, that God did not rise Jesus.

Lydia McGrew Presented on Jesus’ Resurrection

•Argued its is not likely to be a lie, or a mistake, rather there is a texture of testimony such as undesigned coincidences.

•In ways a memory approach can strength this. As memory studies indicate it is plausible that the disciples could have remembered Jesus’ resurrection and that if the story of Jesus’ resurrection was a product of lies, we would expect far greater diversity in the fabricated narratives (see Graieg, “Resurrection Misremembered?” JETS 68, 2025).

•Also, to further strengthen the case for Jesus’ resurrection being the product of trustworthy testimony, see Paroschi, “False Witnesses of God?” PhD diss., Asbury Theological Seminary, 2025.

Performance Frequency

• “Transience occurs over time, and so repeated recall reinforces a memory. Further, recollecting an event with others creates a social web in which the memory is embedded and endures” (94).

The Implications of Performance Frequency

• On a daily or weekly basis (cf. Acts 2:46; 1 Cor 14:26), the stories (or memories or traditions) about Jesus, especially concerning his death and resurrection, were being repeated and passed on.

Models of Orality (including a Fourth Option)

• “Informal uncontrolled means having no designated teacher, with no attempt to preserve the tradition.
• Formal controlled means having a teacher and intentionally seeking to preserve the tradition.
• Informal controlled means having no designated teacher but attempting to preserve the tradition.
• Formal uncontrolled means having a designated teacher but not attempting to preserve the tradition.” (102)

The Implications of Models of Orality

• I have argued that all these models were likely in operation but that the formal controlled model likely lies behind many of the key parts of the Gospels (cf. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses), and perhaps the informal controlled for some other traditions (cf. Dunn, Jesus Remembered).

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

• 1.“Selection: Only certain incoming stimuli are selected for encoding.
• 2.Abstraction: The meaning of a message is abstracted from the syntactic and lexical features of the message.” (111)

The Implications of Passivism and Constructivism

• The extent to which the faculty of memory is creative indicates that semantic memory tends to be more passive than constructive. Hence, regarding the creed of 1 Cor 15:3–5/7, there are probably fewer constructive factors at work.
• As for abstraction, the creed of 1 Cor 15:3–5/7 is an abstraction of some underlying series of events (such as those in the Gospels).

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 Flashbulb Memory

• If the disciples had seen the risen Jesus, that would have created a vivid and deep memory.

Memory Distortions?

• A distortion can refer to
• 1. any inaccuracy of perception, cognition, memory, and so forth. 2. either the unconscious process of altering emotions and thoughts that are unacceptable in the individual’s psyche or the conscious misrepresentation of facts, which often serves the same underlying purpose of disguising that which is unacceptable to or in the self. (VandenBos, ed., APA Dictionary of Psychology, 326)

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, one could still have accurate information, 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

• “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)

Editorial Choices

• Note that not everything in the Gospels is the product of the unintentional effects of memory; it is likely that the Gospel authors also made deliberate decisions in their writing (cf. Redaction Criticism).

How Do We Know if a Memory Corresponds to Reality?

• To varying degrees, several scholars (Crook 2014; Hübenthal 2018; Schröter 2022; Keith 2024; Bird 2025) have argued that, at most, there only remains the memory of Jesus as recorded in the New Testament accounts and other early writings. These memories do not take one behind the text, back to the historical Jesus, but only to a remembered Jesus, whether this representation corresponds to reality.
• Several epistemological assumptions undergird this position, which are rarely, if ever, argued for. One must consider the relevance of direct vs. indirect realism and the extent of perceptual access to events. Following this, there is the epistemological chain of transmission via testimony—does this convey epistemological justification for the recipients of the testimony in the written accounts. Finally, all this comes via memory—the dualistic theory of memory justification argues that one should consider a subject’s justification for acquiring a belief and for retaining the belief.

Conclusion

• In conclusion, there are many factors to consider, and not all of them are clear-cut. Still, I would argue that a memory approach supports the conclusion that the early Christians would have had deep and lasting memory impressions of the bodily resurrected Jesus.

The Period Between Events and Writing

Book	Lower (Bernier)	Lower (Robinson)	Middle (Harnack)	Higher (Sturdy)
Matthew	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
Romans	winter of 56/57	57	56–57	50
1 Corinthians	early 56	55	56	50
2 Corinthians	late 56	56	56	50
Galatians	47–52	56	53	50
Ephesians	57–59	58	57–59	100
Philippians	57–59	58	57–59	50
Colossians	57–59	58	57–59	80
1 Thessalonians	50–52	50	48–49	40
2 Thessalonians	50–52	50–51	48–49	120
1 Timothy—if Pauline	63 or 64	55	n/a	n/a
1 Timothy—if pseudo	60–150	n/a	90–110	140
2 Timothy—if Pauline	64–68	58	n/a	n/a
2 Timothy—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 Peter—if Petrine	60–69	61–62	n/a	n/a
2 Peter—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.