(11 votes, average: 4.64 out of 5)
Loading...Of all the books I’ve written for a general audience, the one that I think got (by far) less attention than it deserved — well, OK, less attention that I wanted and hoped (!) — was Jesus Before the Gospels. I’ve long thought I gave it a very bad title. The book is really about memory — what we know about how memory works and doesn’t work, and how that affects our understanding of the Gospel stories about Jesus, which are based on memories of Jesus and usually among people who were remembering stories about him rather than things they observed themselves.
I did some posts on the book many years ago, and thought it would be worthwhile to revisit them, and the book, since it really is crucially important for understanding the Gospels themselves and the problems with knowing about the historical Jesus. The book discusses psychological understandings of memories and false memories, the value of eyewitness testimony, anthropological studies of oral cultures, and other things of relevance to New Testament scholars even though the vast majority of New Testament scholars (99% I’d say) (seriously!) have not read what experts in these fields actually say about them (including a number of scholars who *write* on the matter!)
Here’s the first post where I explain my then-burgeoning interest in the topic.
******************************
I became interested in the study of memory for both personal and professional reasons. Professionally, I had long been interested in the question of how eyewitnesses would have remembered the life of Jesus, and how the stories about Jesus may have been shifted and altered and invented in later times based on faulty or even false memories. That led me to be interested in memory more broadly.
Memory is an enormous field of research, just within cognitive psychology. I spent months doing nothing but reading important studies, dozens and dozens of books and articles. It is really interesting stuff. Memory is not at all what I started out thinking it was. Like most people I had this vague notion in my head that memory worked kind of like
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Yes, the book is mostly about memory. Very little about Jesus before the gospels!
Yeah, the title was meant to indicate how Jesus was understood and discussed before the Gospels based on what people heard and remembered hearing…
I was prepared to go to court and give my side of a situation based on notes that I wrote on a meeting I had once. I was so sure of what I had written previously 6 months or so before, that I didn’t bother reviewing my notes until a day or two before the court date. Wow, you want to talk about memory!!?? What I remembered, while technically correct, was NOT exactly present in my notes in the way I had been practicing answering questions. I just sat there and stared at the notes for a while. How could my memory have been off on something so important to me? Again, my memory was basically correct, but my notes showed that I had rearrange some of the most important pieces of information. I was shocked, but from studies I have heard on memory…it shouldn’t have been surprising. Sorry, if my story is a bit vague, but hopefully, the gist is there. Memories are formed in interesting ways…and not the way we think they are, even our own!
Read it!
I admired your inclusion of the Baal ShemTov-quite unexpected-,but had some disagreement about Massada.I also read Jodi Magness’s book.
It seems to me that the historic facts of that terrible chapter must include the zealots’ unthinkable option of their women and children raped and enslaved.This is what defines the entire saga.
The true memory (historic fact)weighs far more heavily in comprehending the message of Massada than convenient and unstable political conjectures and partisan judgments.The depth of the saying “ Massada will not fall again”is core of Israel’s reality,to this day.
Why even say “Massada will never fall again”? Because it simply could.It’s always feared.After “the” literal Massada,Israel faced obliteration many times.Just as “never again!” defines the “ new Jew’s” attitude towards the Shoa,so does Massada’s historic tragedy resonate with the State of Israel.
What has changed with time,though,is the commitment,expressed in the earlier days of the State by the doctrine “it is good to die for our country”.
Today the Israeli military is questioned,taken to task,disclosing difficult events and mistakes hitherto concealed or covered up and top generals are openly criticized and severely judged by Israeli citizens for unnecessary harm or casualties amongst both its soldiers,civilians and non-Israeli innocent victims.
It can be a very moving experience for tourists going up there for the first time and hearing the story. They don’t, of course, hear any of the nuances or complications; still, Josephus tells a powerful tale. But one of the most awful experiences I’ve had in Israel was standing for the cable car going up (I’ve never walked it — I’ve always been with a tour group on a schedule — but really want to) and a car coming down was filled with a group of evangelicals lustily singing Martin Luther’s “A Mighty Fortress is Our God.” Ai yai yai….
“There is no doubt – zero doubt, whatsoever – that early Christians “remembered” things about Jesus that did not in fact happen. All you have to do is read how Jesus was remembered in the non-canonical Gospels – the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Judas, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, the Proto-Gospel of James, and so on – and you’ll see that what Christians recalled about Jesus is not what really happened in your life.”
1. Is “your” (second to last word) a typo (should be his)?
2. Speaking as someone who has not recently read the non-canonical Gospels, why would they in particular be examples of false memories? Is it just that they often contradict the canonical Gospels, and so only one (at most) can be true?
1. Scribal corruption of the text; 2. No, it’s because they are obvioulsy legendary. Just read the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (online) or the Coptic (not Greek) Apocalyupse of Peter, and you’ll see.
Offering an alternate point of view regarding the accuracy of memory: During family conversations discussing events from our childhood (sometimes 50 to 60 years in the past) my siblings, parents, children, cousins, aunts, and uncles recall interesting or humorous events that we recognize are reasonably accurate. And sometimes details that someone recalls amazes me. Very rarely (if ever) does someone think, or voice, “No, that wasn’t the way it was,” or “No, that didn’t happen.” Mostly, we recall those events and have clear pictures in our minds. And most of these events were not written down or otherwise documented in some form or another. Bottom line, I think there is more accuracy to memory of past events than suggested in this article.
Lots of gist memories can be accurate. But we can’t evaluate the accuracy of memory on the basis of anecdotal evidence/personal experience; psychologists have devised tons of experiments that reveal (often humorously; often amazingly) just how inaccurate memories — even (or sometimes especially) memories that seem crystal clear to us.
My Mom (born in 1922) was 5 years older than her brother. They grew up in a chicken coop that their mother (a single mother with a 2nd grade education) turned into a warm and cozy home. My Uncle was an artist and (in his 70’s) did a rendering of their “chicken coop “ home. When Mom saw it she was horrified. The most important part of their home for her (and in her memory) was a window in the front with a coal oil lamp lighting the window. She talked about this window (and how important it was to her) all of my life. This window was not in my uncle’s rendering…
I’d like to ask about one example: in Luke there is an unusual story by Jesus in which he gives one of the characters the name Lazarus. In John there is the miracle of Jesus raising a man called Lazarus from the dead. In both cases the point is made that even if someone comes back from the dead the stubborn Jews won’t listen to him (their take, not mine!) (Luke 16:31, John 12:10,11) So, is it possible in a case like this to determine with any probability how these stories arose? Did Jesus tell a similar parable. or simply say that people won’t listen even if someone is raised from the dead, and later the name Lazarus gets inserted and the parable and his resurrection story are developed based on it? Did later disciples just make up the parable and the resurrection story? How did the name Lazarus get affixed to both? Or in this case must one just shrug the shoulders and say, “Who knows?”
It is commonly thought that Luke’s story of Lazarus and the rich man was in circulation and morphed into a story about Jesus: both about someone who dies who would not be/is not believed when come back from the dead….
Hi Bart. I’ve taken an interest in Biblical scholarship after being recommended one of your debates months ago on YouTube. Since then I’d say I’ve seen all of your videos on YouTube, I’m up to date with the podcast and have started working through your books. Loving them and your style, will read all of them for sure.
Are there any other scholars you’d recommend to someone with a recent interest in early Christianity, the teachings of the historical Jesus and the context of the books in the New Testament? What books in particular? Take into account that I am not an academic myself!
As a note, I’m not a believer myself, but I’m completely open to reading Christian scholars. However, I’ve often seen some Christian scholars bend over backwards to reach a pre-established conclusion which would put them in the minority among scholars as far I know (e.g. reaching the conclusion that the same person wrote the Gospel of John and the Apocalypse of John; the correspondence of Paul and Seneca is authentic; all of the letters attributed to Paul in the NT actually are from Paul…), and that really impacts my opinion of them and makes me question how much stuff of which I didn’t think anything was also dubious.
My textbook on the New Tesatment (The New Testament: A Historical and Literary Introductoin) covers all the major aspects of the NT (and all the books) and at the end of each chapter provides bibliography of sone of the best books out there. If you want further bib on something specific, let me know. (But really: you’re read people who say the correspondence of Paul and Seneca is authentic?? Yikes!!)
I’m currently reading your New Testament: Historical Introduction book online. It’s really good! I will definitely check out the bibliography for each chapter. Thanks!
Have you since come up with a title you think is better?
Nothing definite, but it would have Memory in the title; (The Study of Memory and the Search for Jesus? Misremembering Jesus? False Memories and Flawed Gospels? I really don’t know…)
I am sorry to hear that the book didn’t have much impact; as it appears to have been raising important questions.
In respect of your reading around collective and individual memory, I wonder whether you found useful sources in studies of medieval canonization investigations? I recall a fascinating article in the British Medical Journal (one of their Christmas editions, where they let their hair down a bit), which looked at 14th century miracle reports for the period when the Vatican ‘took-over’ the whole canonization process; and introduced rigorous formal investigations of claimed healing miracles. The value being that these investigating panels – which always included qualfied medics – were able to combine both a wholly open mind on the possibility of miraculous healing happening, with a hard-headed expectation that any individual claim might well be false.
So,they re-interviewed the subjects of the claimed miracles, asking key questions, such as “are you still better?”; and “what do you really recall from the event itself?”
What emerged is how far the detailed memory of claimed eye-witnesses appeared have been constrained and influenced by previous miracle ‘templates’ – which did not accord with the recollections of the subjects themselves.
Ah, I haven’t looked at any of that. sounds interesting.
This book is in my top three of your publications, Bart, if not in my entire library. Misleading title? Maybe, but your revelations concerning the process of memory are fascinating as well as useful, inside and outside of scriptural studies. I have discussed with my wife and several friends what your book says about memory and we all agree that now we can’t know if our most vivid past experiences actually happened the way we remember, thank you very much!
What a fascinating piece. I’ve written 2 books which were semi-autobiographical and learned quite quickly how even firsthand memories disappear. Some were crystal clear while others were so faded, I found myself embellishing. Now, some years since their publication, I struggle with which memories were accurate versus invented.
Much like eye witnesses, I was able to consult with individuals and family during the drafts, but their memories were just as foggy.
I find it extremely improbable that the events in the NT gospels could be true based on human memory.
That was the first book I read by you and I found it absolutely fascinating. I had previous read some work on false memories by Elizabeth Loftus and others, so seeing you apply these kinds of ideas to early Christian history was pretty incredible. Highly recommended read!
I’ve wondered about this lack of attention on “Jesus Before the Gospels” too, which is one of my favorites. I’m glad you put a twitter post out today to restart the interest. You just did interview with Dr. Dan McClellan on his Data over Dogma podcast. You should interview him on your podcast or get him to do a guest post here to see our interest before a podcast. I’ve imagined you two could plan an interesting podcast conversation exploring the cognitive side. His 1st book is out and he adopts methodologies from the cognitive sciences. Some of his tiktok videos touch on the cognitive side of things regarding how the “Bible’s authority is rooted in and goes no further than agreements (negotiations) between people about what the Bible says”. His book “YHWH’S DIVINE IMAGES A Cognitive Approach” is available for free download.
That’s excellent – and especially the funny title “My forgotten book on memory! 😂
Keep them coming . . .
I am reading Jesus Before the Gospels now and agree with you about the title. While the title led me to buy the book, I am not all disappointed that the content does not exactly match the title. I find your discussion on memory enlightening, particularly how people remember the “gist” of an event more so than details.
One thing that did occur to me while reading the book involves an assumption that more intelligent people might have better memories. For example, John Dean.
My “search for truth” has involved a quest to understand “why” people maintain certain beliefs. In my research I discovered “cognitive dissonance” and how people will engage in motivated reasoning to resolve cognitive dissonance. Thus, I think the example of John Dean may not be so good. John Dean was a politician. Politicians are masters of motivated reasoning to resolve cognitive dissonance. And the more someone does this the better they get. I think that this would also apply to “creating” memories of events from the past that differ from reality.
Well. I’m in the memory biz. And _I_ liked Jesus Before the Gospels a LOT.
Hope that helps.
Bart, in the past decade, I have read all your books as soon as they came out. Before “Jesus Before the Gospels” came out, you wrote extensively about the fact that the book was about memory, and how you studied and researched memory in order to write the book. I thought the book was great, but I agree it did have a strange title, considering its subject matter. The book was also different because it was not your regular area of expertise. Might that be the reason it has not gotten more attention?
I don’t think so. Lots of people have said I have no right to pubish books on the historical Jesus, apocryphal Gospels, interpretation of the New Testament, fourth-century Christianity, and … lots of other things because it’s not my regular area of expertise. I myself am not sure what my regular area of expertise is supposed to be!
It is my favorite, actually. I forced my neuroscientist wife to read it, too 🙂
Memory is indeed a strange and terrible thing. Back in 2016 I was “dead” (Not breathing, respiratory Arrest.) for a total of 45 minutes. When I woke from the coma 3 weeks later, (this was my second coma, the first one lasted 4 months back in 2009), I had severe retrograde and Ante-retrograde amnesia. My ability to create new memories came back, sorta lol. But my long term memories were full of holes. I wouldn’t realize until after the fact when talking about the past that I did not remember it very well. My brain filled in the blank spots the best it could, but with completely false information. So now, much of my life is a lie that I tell myself. So I can certainly say from experience the other people that hadn’t experienced a TBI also have a LOT of false memories. And that’s not even getting into reality being subjective, and eye witnesses being notoriously unreliable, yet they are still called up in court trials that end up legally defining the truth based on false memories. If that can happen these days, imagine how easily it happened back then in a mostly illiterate society.
I”m so sorry to hear about the comas; it must have been truly awful, both times and in the aftermaths. Thanks for sharing and all best wishes as you move ahead. Yup, the brain is an amazing thing in all sorts of ways….