(16 votes, average: 4.69 out of 5)
Loading...I indicated in the last post that I got 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 a camera. You see or experience something and take a photo of it and store it in your head. Sometimes the photo might fade, or you might mistake one photo for another, but basically it is all in there in your head.
Since the 1930s, psychologists have realized that it’s not that way at all. When you see or otherwise experience something, you don’t store a snapshot of it in your head. Different parts of your brain store traces of the experience, and the way you “remember” it is by reconstructing the memory from these various places in your brain. Sometimes when you reconstruct the memory – most of the time, actually – there are gaps in your memory. You “fill these in” in one way or another, for example, by “remembering” what probably happened based on other similar experiences to the one you’re trying to recall. Sometimes that filler is inaccurate or wrong for the particular memory you’re trying to retrieve (you remember going to Crete but in fact what you’re remembering is the time you went to Rhodes). And sometimes there are very few traces at all (you don’t remember Crete in the least until you’re reminded of it, and even then it’s just a vague and fuzzy recollection).
And even more frightening,
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, YOU’RE MISSIN’ OUT BIG TIME!
What is your impression of how Martin Halbwachs has held up over time given advances in psychology? I notice he is still taken as foundational and discussed extensively by scholars of social memory (Jan Assmann being a prime example), but I’ve wondered if those looking at memory from a non-historical perspective would look at him the same way psychologists today look at Sigmund Freud.
Most people interested in cultural/social/collective memory revere him as a founder; psychologists have often dismissed him — and still do.
Can’t wait to read your book!
Wow … A fair bit to digest there … Interesting and thought provoking … Look forward to reading more @manx
In addition to reading the cognitive science literature, will you (or have you) interacted with its professionals as well (one on one, at meetings, etc.)? It’s a common observation that even the best-read outsiders have a difficult ( if not impossible) task fully grasping the actual state of a field. Think about people trying to tell you about the content of your own expertise!
Yes indeed! I’ve had email exchanges with the real experts, and don’t *think* I’ll be saying anything that isn’t well grounded in what the experts themselves say (since I’ll mainly be quoting them!)
Hi Bart – is this a typo? It’s a bit confusing: ” and you’ll see that what Christians recalled about Jesus is not what really happened in your life.” HIS life, right?
Yup! Sorry.
Bart,
This a particularly interesting topic for me for two reasons: I worked with combat veterans for some years in counseling and I was a Mormon for a stretch of my life. In working with the veterans I saw how profoundly traumatic memories can affect an individual’s thinking and feelings in their perception of the themselves, other people, and the world. My experience in Mormonism was, among other things, a discovery of alternative histories to the official history, and the realization of how history can be interpreted differently depending on the purposes and even temperament of its chroniclers and readers, and how information can be shaped for purposes of an institution.Therefore, it hasn’t been difficult for me at all to accept that the Gospels were written with particular purposes in mind, that there were different views of Jesus even among Christians, not to mention non-Christians, and there existed diverse Christianities. I’m very much looking forward to this series of posts and to your forthcoming book.
Great topic, relevant for this blog, keep it up. Bart has already elaborated somewhat on the issue of memory fragility, but a comment nonetheless re: a sentence from the previous (3-31-15) post:
“For example, someone may remember perfectly well what happened in an event 20 years ago, but forget a conversation they just had.”
Not quite. Indeed, wrong, as Bart has suggested. There are several nodes begging for deconstruction in that sentence, beyond the word “remember” : “may,” “perfectly,” “what happened,” “event,” “just.”
I am a neurologist specializing in dementing disorders. The most common cause (there are many) of adult-onset dementia is Alzheimer’s disease. I hear almost daily from still-mild Alzheimer’s patients something like the following refrain: “My long-term memory is fine, my short term memory is awful.” That is, some Alzheimer’s victims are, at least at first, aware of their inability adequately to learn new (novel) information, but believe they are able adequately and correctly to retrieve (declare, as it were) memories consolidated within the brain years previously (“retrograde memory”).
A big problem in confirming or rebutting this belief is that the claim for the most part is based on autobiographical episodic memory, that is, personal experiences unique to each of us as individuals. It’s very difficult to test independently. Unless there is hard-wired INDEPENDENT documentation/record of an event (e.g., un-doctored video and/or audio, a reliable and real-time transcript (RELIABLE is a key word) of what was said/done, it’s impossible in most cases to verify that what the person believes has occurred in fact has occurred. That’s why cognitive scientists, at least in clinical (office) settings rely on public or general information to which most (but not all) of us have been exposed and upon which most of us, in a given milieux (see above Bart’s comments re: “collective memory”) can agree (e.g., how JFK died) Even then, the evaluator can never be sure that the evaluated has been exposed to the material, because if never exposed to it, “it” can’t be “remembered.” (examples: 1. a 65 year old high school educated who could in no way identify the images of Superman, Hitler, Elvis, and Nixon; was he never exposed to these images? 2. A recently encountered 11 year old muslim, born and reared in the USA, who “never heard of” Jesus Christ.)
The point is that “remote” (retrograde) memory, when adequately tested, of even mild Alzheimer’s patients has been shown definitively to be quite inaccurate, just not as poor as their difficulty in learning new information (“anterograde” memory).
Pretty much the same in principle, if not in degree, for persons with “normal” memory. So when someone says that he/she remembers “perfectly well” what happened 20 years ago to him/her, he/she will almost certainly fail Jack Palance’s test from “Shane”: “Prove it.”
I will bow before your authority, since I’m not an expert. My comment was based on anecdotal evidence. I wasn’t referring to those suffering form Alzheimer’s. My mom had a TIA a few years ago. The accounts she gives of events long ago are exactly what she was saying 10-15 years ago about the same events. But her recollection of what happened about 10-15 minutes ago is terrible. So her retrograde memory seems to be pretty good; her anterograde memory is awful. Maybe she’s an exception to the rule. Is she?
With the caveat that memory isn’t my area (though I am a cognitive psychologist) my understanding is that anterograde amnesia is indeed more common then retrograde amnesia, and that in cases of retrograde amnesia, memories that happened closer to the event that caused the amnesia are more likely to be lost than memories for events in the more distant past.
But (as I’m guessing you’re going to be discussing in your book) someone’s feeling that they vividly recall something that happened 20 years ago (or 1 year ago!) isn’t necessarily related to the accuracy of the memory. For example — however firmly I’m convinced that I’m the exception! — research suggests that most people’s vivid memories of where they were and what they were doing when they found out about JFK/Challenger/9-11/etc. aren’t very accurate at all.
Yup, the idea that flashbulb memories were permanent and reliable idea lasted for …. only a flash.
As a physician, I’ve of course all the answers. That some of these answers are wrong, well, is an indication that bowing is not at all necessary. I expounded, as it were, on Alzheimer’s disease (AD) only as an (large) appetizer for my comment’s final paragraph. That is, all memory is suspect (to a variable degree) and, when personal/autobiographical, is often unverifiable as well. In other words, and for what it’s worth, I’m pretty much in agreement with what you (Bart) have already documented.
As for your Mom: sorry to inform that many neurologists (including yours truly) and stroke sub-specialists (who are neurologists) disdain the term “TIA.” It’s archaic, not informative (certainly not as an explanation for your mother’s memory issue) and potentially misleading, yet still widely used by doctors and non-medical professionals.
With regard to Mom’s consistent testimony, that is, the language she employs to communicate understandably to others, no issue with that. The issue is whether that consistent testimony indeed reflects accurately those “events long ago.” I sure don’t know. Are there independent AND reliable sources, i.e., preferably more than one, who/which can confirm her history, “exactly”?
Another movie reference, quite supportive of what you’ve already documented in this blog and elsewhere: “12 Angry Men” (1957; Henry Fonda, Lee J Cobb, Ed Begley, etc.).
Interesting. What do professionals (apart from the ones who told me what had happened to my mom!) prefer to TIA?
As to whether her memory is *accurate* or not, I couldn’t agree more! Absolutely! All I’m saying is that her memory now is no worse then it was 20 years ago when it comes to things that happened long before that.
Yup, I know 12 Angry Men!
They called it a “TIA” in the hospital after my Dad had one, too (just several months ago).
I ran across another researcher in this field recently who appeared on a podcast: “Dr. Julia Shaw, a forensic psychology lecturer and false memory researcher.” The podcast was entitled “False memories create false criminals”. I was actually thinking about your work when I was hearing the podcast.
Thanks.
As a long time student of yoga, our studies included memory which from a yogic point of view is seen as frequently tainted by emotional preferences as well as skewed by our senses … and then there is mind the interpreter of all emotional preferences and sensory data. We also read extensively on hypnosis both individual and collective … collective memory can be and I stress can be from a traditional yogic perspective a kind of mass hypnosis. Real events are easily contaminated by senses as well as mind as the interpreter of sensory input before even reaching a collective arena. (The object of traditional “old school” yoga is to understand these complex filters and you might say “clean the lens and other sensory filters in order to experience what is … a noble if not challenging feat few attain). So when it comes to your studies, yes personally, easy to consider that some Jesus stories were skewed and I think you’ve previously proven did not occur at all.
Luke 24 has a series of events that become “clear” to the witnesses only after they’ve been de-briefed and re-remembered. Those post-resurrection witnessings seem significantly influenced by post-event suggestions, in much the same way therapists might engender a “repressed” memory over the course of a therapy session — or many therapy sessions, and have never seem entirely convincing to me.
Inasmuch as one’s faith is dependent on history — and witnesses’ accurate recall of that history — that kind of faith will always rest on a trust in what others in authority have remembered — and what the faithful are then required to believe as true.
On the other hand, the Gospels of Thomas, Valentinus and Philip rely on experiences that are personal, largely internal and not conditioned by belief — or memory. If there is a living god, then shouldn’t experience in the here-and-now be a more reasonable ground for one’s faith, and not history — aka memory, which you seem to be acknowledging in these brief is highly unreliable?
The scope and depth of your commitment to the project is admirable and at the same time humbling to someone having minimal scriptural knowledge, like me. Proto-orthodox Christianity relies heavily on memory, which certainly makes memory an area deserving special attention.
However, will you be considering/comparing/contrasting the memory-based religions with those other Christianities, which not only do not rely on memory but in some instances seem to scorn those who do?
I’m not sure any of the forms of Christianity scorned memory so much as they insisted that some memories were absolutely false.
On the other hand, the Gospels of Thomas, Valentinus and Philip rely on experiences that are personal, largely internal and not conditioned by belief — or memory. If there is a living god, then shouldn’t experience in the here-and-now be a more reasonable ground for one’s faith, and not history — aka memory, which you seem to be acknowledging in these brief is highly unreliable?
—————————————————————————————
IMO that is the MOST profound statement you will ever see and read on this site or any other site dealing with religious beliefs abd even with Bart’s expertise.
IE every believer in the Abrahamic faiths believe God is active in the world and Christians believe Christ is alive as well. YET virtually all of these people think they need the bible to guide them in their everyday lives and couldn’t live without it presumably. IF they really believed God and Jesus are alive and active, then why not trust in their OWN relationship with them via the holy spirit and not ancient manuscripts which are clearly biased and full of errors?
The only conclusion is they don’t really believe that God and Jesus are alive and active in the world and so need to read what other believers said and did thousands of years ago. Even if that goes against common sense and science. Such is the power of mass deception. We saw Pope Francis hug a man with real bad leprosy last year which made all the news. Surely he must THINK IF Jesus and his disciples had the power of healing and cured lepers, why hasn’t he? Indeed why no Pope since has ever had that power? Its churlish to say most believers must be brain dead not to realize things so obvious. But that seems logical. But then do they really THINK about their beliefs? I don’t think they do.
What I really mean is we should be able to burn every single holy text that was ever written and allow God to show himself to us in the hear and now, which is the point made. That is such a profound statement its a shame its lost here and on most believers.
Your recent posts on memory remind me of a quote from Mark Twain that I heard ( or read, I don’t remember which ) not long ago. This is not it exactly ( again, faulty memory ) but it’s pretty close: ” When I was younger I could remember everything that actually happened, but now that I’m older all I can remember is things that never happened at all. ” I’m 66 and whenever my friends and family (or I myself ) start taking about the ” glory days”, I always keep this quote in mind. Apparently this could be applied to the early Christians as well. I’m looing forward to reading your book!
Bart:
It will be very interesting to see what you construct out of this. Toss in motivation and you have another rabbit hole down which to plunge.
I find it interesting how enormous edifices are created out of very little. When you delve into something and learn on what a flimsy foundation a given interpretation or narrative is built it can astonishing. That is, how someone would have the gall to pass off as ‘fact’ something that is essentially surmised. “Things had to be so”…that sort of conclusion.
One of my other enthusiasms is the Richard III Society that is much in the news given the finding of the late King’s remains. The objective of the Society is to examine what is knowable about the period – now over 500 years ago and so 1500 years nearer our time than your patch – and in particular deal with Tudor perspective on the man. Shakespear’s role in Richard’s perception is critical, of course, and Shakespear was a playwrite, not a historian. The period was rather a ‘Game of Thrones’ world, with much nastiness, minus dragons, etc.
To get to the point. What is truly knowable about a period that long ago? Records are vast in comparison with early Christianity, but still pretty thin. Determining motivation, what people really thought, what was recorded and why, and then what really happened is extraordinarily difficult. Most conclusions, save for certain basic, indisputable, facts are tentative and always will be. Complicating everything is that our modern minds have very little in common with those of 500 years ago – and these are English speakers with English minds. Your patch is not only far further in the past, the languages and world view utterly alien.
It makes it all very interesting to study and to learn about, of course. I look forward to what you come up with.
Cheers,
Ian
As a physician I have become convinced that memory is so fallible that it should not be considered definitive in any context: legal, historical, religious, etc. There is increasing evidence that memory is extremely fragile and easily influenced. If we can’t completely trust someone’s recollection of what happened just recently, why trust the accuracy of stories being told decades after the event? As with the Gospels?
Right!
So this presumably applies to many historical figures of ancient times.. In many cases the first written sources are much later than few decades from the events! Let alone the OT and the Talmud…
That a Bible scholar, like you, would spend so much time learning about memory says a lot about your intellectual creativity.
So, the bottom line seems to be that it is hard to trust something as being historically accurate if it got remembered and passed down orally for several decades before it was finally written down.
Yup!
Can’t wait to read it!
And can’t wait to write it!
I dont think this fact of false memories can be over-emphasized. Almost everyday I run into instances where people recall details of situations (that just occurred!) that did not in fact happen. I am anxious to hear what you uncovered in your research!!!
Am I the only one who was disappointed that this wasn’t an obvious April Fools day post (or that if it was that I just wasn’t smart enough to get it?)
Ha!! Good question.
How can you separate false memories from outright lies made up to perpetuate the divine Jesus? For example, “remember that time the mile high cross came out of that hole in the ground that everyone though was the tomb of Jesus?” vs “I totally made up that story about the mile high cross”.
I’d say it’s virtually impossible to determine intention and motivation — especially 2000 years later!
That’s my point, if you can’t distinguish intent from motivation, regardless of the time frame, then how can you reliably write about memory when you don’t know whether intent is involved in any of the pericopes of the gospels? Don’t get me wrong, I’m definitely looking forward to what you have to say, but it seems like a slippery slope unless you speak in generalities.
See today’s post for a comment on that.
Impressive. I’m glad to know that you’ll provide your contribute to one of the most interesting “trends” in recent gospels’ studies, that is, memory and oral traditions. Currently this field is leaded by specialists and some prominent scholars, so it will be interesting to see how your work will be received – knowing that any review/assessment will be likely done by expert scholars in an informed way. I recently had a chance to read a very good book by a very good author: Eric Eve, “Behind the Gospels: Understanding the Oral Tradition”.
It’s not the things you know, it’s not the things you don’t know; it’s the things you know that just ain’t so!
I guess the question running through my head while reading this is, how does one tell the difference between a false memory and a lie? If we’re going to attribute things like Jesus’ magical multiplication of bread to the category of false individual or collective memories, why is the alternative that it was just a lie not equally as valid?
I’d say it’s impossible to konw whether someone intentionally says something that s/he knows is wrong (a lie) or simply says what is wrong without realizing it (a false memory)
Prof Ehrman
Completely fascinating. Sorry if I’m jumping the gun here but I can’t help but wonder: has your study of memory caused to seriously reconsider your historical views of who Jesus was, what he taught and how much we can realistically say about him and his disciples?
thanks!
It has put these quesitons in a new perspective.
I’m curious to know if your research in memory has led you to reevaluate or refine any of your views on forgeries and other pseudepigrapha from early Christian writers. To give a not very serious example, maybe it’s possible “Luke” actually was an associate of Paul and just had piss poor episodic memory?
Ha! Good question! It’s possible. But I knew that all along!
Hi Bart. I look forward to reading your new book. I am sure it will be fascinating. One thing I wonder though is where deliberate myth making comes into this. For example, I rather suspect some of the miracle stories were simply made up to express theological purposes e.g. the feeding of the 5 thousand. I doubt that these are really the result of a “dodgy” memory. How do you see these things inter playing?
If I had to guess, I’d say that the people who told the story thought it really happened, just as people today often think it happened but that it’s theologically significant.
I couldn’t believe this bit of nonsense that was posted in my city’s online newspaper today (probably in the print issue as well):
Jesus Christ
Obituary
Guest Book
– Bridget Chandler
View Sign
CHRIST Jesus Jesus Christ, Son of… God, died at mid-day on Friday after hours of long suffering. It was not a peaceful death. He was born to the late Mary and Joseph (with the help of the Holy Spirit). Jesus worked most of His life under His father Joseph… until He was around 30 years of age, when He began performing miracles, healing the sick, raising the dead, and claiming to be both the Son of God and King of the Jews. Such blasphemy (unless it is true) led to His untimely crucifixion. He is survived by… the whole Christian Church on earth and at rest. Memorial contributions… can be made to your local Christian church to support the continued proclamation of His life-giving death, and if you’re interested in what happens next and why it matters, join us this Easter Sunday, April 5, in Washington Park on State St. for our Sunrise Service at 6:30 a.m., or at St. Paul’s Lutheran Church, Albany, 10 Western Ave., at 9:30 a.m.
Published in Albany Times Union from Apr. 3 to Apr. 5, 2015
– See more at: http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/timesunion-albany/obituary.aspx?n=jesus-christ&pid=174545679#sthash.t6ZCnUlC.dpuf
Me, back “live”: Obviously, you could even view and sign a “guest book”! I don’t even find this “reverent,” though that’s clearly the way it was meant.
Wow.
Thanks for reiterating this subject as you did, I believe, from your last book. Personally, at 63, my “senior moments” are enough proof to take this subject seriously. Off topic here: Assuming you’re familiar with the Plantinga brothers, Cornelius(fellow Princeton grad) and philosopher Alvin, have you ever had the opportunity to debate either of them? If not it would be a worthy match-up. Thanks.
No, I haven’t. But as a non-philosopher, I probably wouldn’t have a prayer.
Ha! You wouldn’t have a prayer anyway. Who would you pray to! 😉
I was just reading your post of 5/26/2014. When I got to the part about form criticism, I immediately thought of your current project. Do you see your memory project developing along those lines? If so, I will start reading about form criticism so that I can follow your thinking.
Yup, I’ll be dealing with the form critics.
I’m digressing radically from this thread but I thought of your writing immediately after reading this blog written by a close Internet (is this an oxymoron) friend with whom I’ve been corresponding for about four years as time and internet allows. It reminded me of one of several blogs that you had written on the Old Testament. I wondered too if you would comment or post a URL if I’ve missed a blog that discusses specifically Exodus. Thank you. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marty-kaplan/moses-said-let-my-people-_b_6994562.html
I don’t think I’ve written specifically about the Exodus on the blog, though I do talk about it (obviously!) in my textbook on the Bible. My view is that it did not actually happen.
The Bible A Historical etc. has finally turned up under “used” on amazon.com at a price I can afford … look forward!!! The Buddhist/ Yogic memory investigation adaptation uses something the size of a card table with an assortment of 50 or more objects positioned at different levels. Participants are asked to walk around the table within a time frame of 3 not more than 5 minutes. They then return to their seats and are asked to list what they saw and also any associations connected to the object without editing out their associations. It always surprises how frequently people list objects that weren’t on the table and how personal memory selection is. Again, reading your blogs remains a high point in my day when I have internet.
I don’t depend on human memory. The word of God is God’s memory. Did God speak a word? why wasn’t it preserved? You’re missing the the mark DR EHRMAN! Without faith you can’t please God. Paul spoke the words of God. Paul claims to be speaking God’s word not his own word. Believe it or not that’s what Paul claims. the Old Testament prophets also claimed that what they were speaking was the word of the Lord…
Interesting. A good book from several years back was “Lincoln’s Virtues.”
It is definitely true he was not an abolitionist — but readers today should understand that even leading up to and including Lincoln’s election, Abolitionists were widely reviled in the North, and the best analog I could come up with would be very radical, clinic-picketing/vandalizing (maybe not as far a clinic-bombing) anti-abortion activists.
I bring neither side of this comparison up judgmentally, but to note that if most people today believe they would have been public abolitionists had they lived in the north in 1850’s, they themselves may be guilty of transporting current, comfortable realities to a different place and time.
He was definitely opposed to the spread of Slavery. He clearly did not expect to dismantle it when he ran for election. He worked very hard in the last days of his life to force through the amendment that completely ended it.
Note, Dr. E, that I understand your point to be more to be about collective memory than a critique of Lincoln.
Yes, I have no interest in critiquing Lincoln. I’m simply talking about memory. (Some other readers didn’t pick up on that, so I obviously need to reword how I express myself)
Wonderfully interesting and EXTREMELY relevant!