The Problem of Selectivity in Memory Research: A Response to Zeba Crook

2013 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-97
Author(s):  
Anthony Le Donne
Keyword(s):  
Social Memory ◽  
Historical Jesus ◽  
Historical Narratives ◽  
Memory Distortion ◽  
Memory Research ◽  
Memory Theory ◽  
Memory Applications ◽  
Interdisciplinary Study

Zeba Crook argues that there is an emerging consensus that the Gospels are reliable historical narratives by those to have applied ‘memory’ theories to historical Jesus research. Crook argues that this emerging consensus betrays a selective reading of research done on ‘memory distortion’ in interdisciplinary study. This essay demonstrates that Crook misunderstands and misrepresents social memory theory both in and outside Jesus studies. A better understanding would have properly represented the spectrum from theoretical ‘presentism’ to ‘continuitism’ in memory applications/adaptations.

scholarly journals Matthew, memory theory and the New No Quest

2014 ◽  
Vol 70 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zeba Crook
Keyword(s):  
Gospel Of Matthew ◽  
Social Memory ◽  
Historical Jesus ◽  
Memory Distortion ◽  
Memory Theory

This article explores the effects of cognitive and social memory theory on the quest for the historical Jesus. It is not the case that all memory is hopelessly unreliable, but it is the case that it commonly is. Memory distortion is disturbingly common, and much worse, there is no way to distinguish between memories of actual events and memories of invented events. The Gospel of Matthew was used to illustrate this very difficulty. This article also draws attention to the fact that although numerous criteria have been developed, refined and used extensively in order to distinguish between original Jesus material and later church material, those criteria have long been unsatisfactory, and most recently, because of the effects of thinking about memory theory and orality, have been revealed to be bankrupt. Since memory theory shows that people are unable to differentiate accurate memory from inaccurate and wholly invented memory, and since the traditional quest criteria do not accomplish what they were intended to, this article argues that scholarship about Jesus has been forced into a new no quest.

Jesus at the Crossroads of Inference and Imagination

2015 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 66-89
Author(s):  
Jordan J. Ryan
Keyword(s):  
Social Memory ◽  
Philosophy Of History ◽  
Historical Jesus ◽  
Historical Imagination ◽  
Memory Theory ◽  
Methodological Foundation ◽  
Question And Answer

A significant re-evaluation of the historiographical methods and approaches used in historical Jesus research has been underway in recent years. Some scholars have begun to look to social memory theory for a way forward. Although social memory theory provides some valuable insights, a solid methodological foundation is still lacking. The intention of this article is to advance the discussion by drawing attention to R.G. Collingwood’s contributions to the philosophy of history and historiography in The Idea of History (1946). In particular, I will discuss his historiographical principles of inference, evidence, question and answer, historical imagination, along with his critique of ‘scissors-and-paste’. These principles have the potential to form the foundation of a theoretically grounded historiographical practice in Jesus research.

Ehrman, Bauckham and Bird on Memory and the Jesus Tradition

2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 88-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan Kirk
Keyword(s):  
Historical Jesus ◽  
Recent Book ◽  
Theory Analysis ◽  
Memory Research ◽  
Memory Theory ◽  
The Past ◽  
History Of ◽  
Christian Origins

The past twenty years have seen numerous studies applying memory research to problems in the history of the Jesus tradition and also in historical Jesus research, where it has become a point of controversy. Three recent book-length contributions to these debates are Bart Ehrman’s Jesus Before The Gospels (2016), the just-released second edition of Richard Bauckham’s 2006 volume, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (2017), and Michael Bird’s The Gospel of the Lord (2014). Respectively these authors represent quite different appropriations of memory theory. Analysis of their contributions will clarify where, twenty years on, applications of memory theory in Gospels and Christian origins scholarship stand.

Memory, Orality, and the Fourth Gospel

2014 ◽  
Vol 12 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 143-164 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stanley E. Porter ◽  
Hughson T. Ong
Keyword(s):  
Recent Article ◽  
Social Memory ◽  
Historical Jesus ◽  
Fourth Gospel ◽  
Redaction Criticism ◽  
Memory Theory ◽  
Research Areas

This article examines and responds to the arguments made by Paul Foster in a recent article in jshj regarding social-memory theory, orality, and the Fourth Gospel, where he argues that recent research in these areas are dead-ends for historical Jesus research. We do not necessarily wish to defend the research he criticizes, but we respond to Foster by pointing out some of the limitations in his analysis and provide further comments to move discussion of these research areas forward. Our comments address his assumption that form- and redaction-criticism accomplish the purposes that he envisions for historical Jesus research and a number of other problematic arguments he raises regarding each of these areas.

Collective Memory Distortion and the Quest for the Historical Jesus

2013 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zeba A. Crook
Keyword(s):  
Collective Memory ◽  
Level Of Detail ◽  
Historical Jesus ◽  
Memory Distortion ◽  
Memory Theory ◽  
Do So

Memory theory is being used, if not explicitly to buttress the reliability of the Gospel portraits of Jesus, to do so implicitly by shifting the search away from the ipsissima verba Jesu towards the memory of Jesus. Rather than argue about what Jesus did or did not say—the reliability wars—some scholars now sidestep the issue by arguing that memory is inherently reliable in a broad or general way. Thus, the Gospels are reliable not at the level of detail, but at the level of broad memory, impact, or gist. In this article I argue that such optimism can only come by selectively quoting the troubling work of memory theorists, and by ignoring the full implications of memory theory.

Hypothesis testing in experimental and naturalistic memory research

1996 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 210-211
Author(s):  
Daniel B. Wright
Keyword(s):  
Hypothesis Testing ◽  
Everyday Memory ◽  
Memory Research ◽  
Memory Theory ◽  
Theoretical Approaches ◽  
Heated Debate

AbstractKoriat & Goldsmith's distinction between the correspondence and storehouse metaphors is valuable for both memory theory and methodology. It is questionable, however, whether this distinction underlies the heated debate about so called “everyday memory” research. The distinction between experimental and naturalistic methodologies better characterizes this debate. I compare these distinctions and discuss how the methodological distinction, between experimental and naturalistic designs, could give rise to different theoretical approaches.

Feasible Researches in Historical Jesus Tradition: A Critical Response to Chris Keith

2017 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-61
Author(s):  
F. Gerald Downing
Keyword(s):  
The Other ◽  
Clear Distinction ◽  
Historical Jesus ◽  
Feasible Method ◽  
Memory Theory ◽  
Critical Response ◽  
Historical Tradition

In his programmatic article, ‘The Narratives of the Gospels and the Historical Jesus: Current Debates, Prior Debates, and the Goal of Historical Jesus Research’, Chris Keith argues for a very clear distinction between two styles or types of historiography (Keith 2016). One searches ‘behind’ the gospel texts for ‘authentic’ matter; the other, according to Keith, the only ‘feasible’ method, allowing for ‘memory theory’ in particular, is to discern how ‘the tradition’ developed, and only thence generate theoretical reconstructions of a Jesus who may have originally prompted it. It is argued here that this presents an unsustainable dichotomy, for the historical tradition(s) of the first Christians also themselves ‘lie behind’ our texts, and imaginative searches for both Jesus and Jesus traditions have to proceed hand in hand.

O potrzebie badań lokalnych pogranicza na przykładzie Babimojszczyzny w XX wieku

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 21-40
Author(s):  
Katarzyna Zielińska ◽  
Keyword(s):  
World War I ◽  
20Th Century ◽  
Time Perspective ◽  
Social Memory ◽  
Historical Narratives ◽  
World War ◽  
New Approach ◽  
Real Effects ◽  
New Approaches ◽  
The Subject

The aim of the study is an attempt to refer to the historiography of a small microregion at the border of today's provinces: Lubuskie and Wielkopolskie, called "Babimojszczyzna". The time perspective relating to the events of World War I, Polish-German disputes, as well as the transformations in Poland and Germany after 1989 requires a new approach to historical narratives. The thesis of the article is the assumption that the hitherto historiography of this complex microregion in Polish-German relations in the first half of the 20th century did not develop new approaches. Another problem is the lack of real effects under the research models on the Polish and German narratives of the last thirty years. Their lack is particularly noticed in the context of the condition of social memory in the vicinity of Babimost, where only the tradition of the Polish Uprising 1918-1919 and the struggle for Polishness is cultivated, without a broader context. The discussed region can also be an interesting example for other similar historical areas, which, like all borderlands, were the subject of natural osmosis rather than their contact.

Harald Wezler som erindringsforsker: En viderefører af Halbwachs-Assmann-traditionen?

2005 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernard Eric Jensen
Keyword(s):  
Social Factors ◽  
Cultural Memory ◽  
Social Memory ◽  
Interdisciplinary Approach ◽  
The State ◽  
Memory Research ◽  
Term Memory ◽  
Memory Work ◽  
Theoretical Approaches ◽  
Theoretical Analyses

Bernard Eric Jensen: Harald Welzer’s Approach to Memory Research An analysis of the approach to memory research found in the writings of Harald Welzer is presented. At the present time, Welzer is head of the Centre for Interdisciplinary Memory Research at Kulturwissenschaftliches Institut in Essen, Germany. He has contributed both empirical surveys and theoretical analyses to memory research during the last decade. At a first glance, Welzer’s approach appears to belong neatly within the tradition of memory research that was originally founded by the French sociologist Maurice Halbwachs, and which Aleida and Jan Assmann have been seeking to revive and develop since the 1980’s by introducing concepts such as “communicative and cultural memory” as well as “storage memory” (Speicher-Gedächtnis) and “use memory” (Funktions-Gedächtnis). On closer inspection, however, it transpires that Welzer’s approach cannot be characterised as a mere refinement of the approach taken by the Assmanns. This is partly because Welzer is attempting to develop an interdisciplinary approach, focused on the intricate relationships between biological, psychological and social factors in ongoing memory work. Apart from focussing of the work of Welzer, this article also seeks to highlight the state of “terminological anarchy” that characterises memory research at the present time, making it next to impossible to make direct comparisons between different theoretical approaches. This state of anarchy becomes transparent as soon as one begins to scrutinize the meanings of those adjectives, which nowadays are fixed to the term memory – for instance, “communicative”, “cultural”, “historical” and/or “social” memory. 

Mnemonic Interplay: A Response to Byrskog, Bauckham, Zimmermann, and Schröter

2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 173-182
Author(s):  
Anthony Le Donne
Keyword(s):  
Autobiographical Memory ◽  
Collective Memory ◽  
Social Memory ◽  
Historical Jesus ◽  
False Dichotomy ◽  
The Social ◽  
Social Components

In response to the essays by Bauckham, Byrskog, Schröter, and Zimmermann concerning “memory”, Le Donne summarizes and critiques four different applications of mnemonic studies to the Jesus tradition. The author notes the different approaches to sociology relative to memory and argues that both autobiographical memory and collective memory fall under the wider category of social memory. Moreover, contra Bauckham social memory is helpful avenue of study for historical Jesus research once properly understood. Contra Schröter, he argues that the study of the social components of autobiographical memory ought to play a part in scholarship concerning the Gospels. He also challenges the false dichotomy between the “remembered Jesus” and the “historical Jesus” as posed by Zimmermann.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document