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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Memory as Method: Some Observations on Two Recent Accounts

2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 52-61
Author(s):  
Andrew Gregory
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Processes ◽  
Review Essay ◽  
Social Memory ◽  
Theoretical Understanding ◽  
Memory Theory ◽  
Vital Part ◽  
Scribal Culture

This review essay considers the use of social memory theory in two monographs on the gospels, and the extent to which that theory aids their arguments and conclusions. In the case of Jesus’ Literacy: Scribal Culture and the Teacher from Galilee, by Chris Keith, I argue that the author uses social memory theory to provide a helpful account of what historians do, but that his conclusion could stand without explicit appeal to his theoretical understanding. In the case of Q in Matthew: Ancient Media, Memory, and Early Scribal Transmission of the Jesus Tradition, by Alan Kirk, I argue that his use of social memory theory, alongside his account of individual neurobiological memory and cognitive processes, is a vital part of the argument that he presents.

scholarly journals Between psychology and history

2018 ◽  
Vol XVI (2) ◽  
pp. 332-332
Author(s):  
Marko Marina ◽  
Ivan Karlić
Keyword(s):  
Basic Problem ◽  
Social Memory ◽  
Methodological Approach ◽  
Primary Sources ◽  
Historical Jesus ◽  
The Past ◽  
Present Essay ◽  
Adequate Understanding ◽  
Present Context ◽  
The Relationship

Historical Jesus Studies represent the attempts of historians and New Testament scholars to, using different methodologies, deduce certain facts about his life and acts. This present essay is primarily concerned with the standard methodology based on criteria of authenticity. By characterising this methodology in a clearer way, the article strives to critically analyse it, and show its disadvantages. The conclusion of the article is that the criteria of authenticity cannot be only basis of studying Historical Jesus, and that such criteria could be replaced by a more sophisticated approach. Basic problem with such criteria lies in the fact of their incompatibility with respect to the way history is remembered. Such a methodological approach assumes that history, if done properly, will be able to tell us how it really was. Also, trying to find exact words of Jesus does not take into account that people tend to remember gist of the event, not exact details. Numerous psychological studies have shown that. Also, very own act of remembering past events always includes present context. We are inclined to fill the gaps of our memory with things that are of great importance to us from the perspective of present events. Furthermore, present essay deals with specific criteria (e.g. Criterion of embarrassment, Criterion of dissimilarity etc.) and problems they have when one tries to use them as a means of getting to the real »historical« Jesus. The Criterion of dissimilarity, for example, ends up in a picture of historical Jesus whose foremost characteristics are his dissimilarity to Judaism. Getting there means that one has to have a presupposition that embeds anti-Judaism in methodology, a presupposition that is obviously wrong. Jesus was a 1st century Jewish teacher and that context is crucial if one wants to understand historical Jesus. The second part of the article presents a different approach to studying Historical Jesus based primarily on a more adequate understanding of the relationship between the past and the present. Also, this approach takes the studies of social memory and perception into consideration and use those studies when dealing with primary sources for Historical Jesus.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document