by Peter Kozushko
Oral transmission may well have been a very effective communication medium in aural cultures, with its use of centuries-old techniques of verbal transmission and memorization, especially with authorized tradents (people who pass on the tradition) overseeing the process. However, does human memory have the capacity to faithfully retain and recollect the amount of information the disciples passed on during the intervening years leading up to the composition of the Gospels? Given our common experiences with the frailties of memory—such as forgetfulness, distortions, and remembering things differently or even things that never actually happened—it is not unreasonable to question its reliability.
For over a century, psychologists have studied recollective memory, and substantial data is now available to assess the reliability of eyewitness and collective memory. In recent years, some New Testament scholars have been tapping into these resources, including Bart Ehrman. Ehrman concludes from his research that many of the discrepancies observed in the Gospels can be attributed to distorted memories of Jesus, which likely arose in various ways during the intervening years between His ministry and the writing of the Gospels. He further argues that some of these distortions were inadvertently created and propagated within the early Christian communities. However, Ehrman’s analysis neglects substantial research that offers a more positive view of recollective memory. He completely ignores the contributions of scholars like Richard Bauckham and Robert McIver.
Richard Bauckham and Eyewitness Memory
The kind of memory Bauckham focuses on is called “recollective memory,” which refers to personal memories of specific events in one's life. Most episodic narratives in the Gospels fall into this category. From his survey of psychological studies on recollective memory, Bauckham identifies criteria that suggest a high reliability of memory and argues that the eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ history meet these criteria very well. The following is a summary of each criterion and how they apply to the Gospels:
Unique or Unusual Event: Psychological research shows that unique or surprising events are more memorable. Bauckham asserts that the Gospel narratives, filled with extraordinary moments, stand out as memorable, even repeated events like healings or exorcisms, due to their unique aspects.
Salient or Consequential Event: Significant events are more likely to be remembered. Bauckham emphasizes that for the disciples, the life of Jesus would have been the most consequential and meaningful period, thus ensuring its memorability.
Emotional Involvement: Although highly emotional events can sometimes distort memory, studies indicate that the central features of such events tend to be accurately remembered. Bauckham argues that the eyewitnesses were deeply emotionally engaged, ensuring a reliable memory of core events, though peripheral details might be less accurately recalled.
Vivid Imagery: Studies suggest that vivid recollections are often more accurate. Although Matthew and Luke offer more condensed narratives than Mark, Bauckham suggests that the oral performances behind these Gospels likely included more vivid detail. Mark’s vividness, in particular, may reflect the original eyewitness testimonies.
Irrelevant Detail: The absence of irrelevant details in the Gospels, Bauckham suggests, reflects a honing of the stories for ease of transmission. He posits that any irrelevant details that remain may have been carried over from eyewitness memories.
Point of View: Shifts in perspective seen throughout the Gospels are typical of recollective memory. Bauckham argues that such shifts do not undermine the reliability of the Gospels but rather reflect natural variations in how the events were recalled and retold by different eyewitnesses.
Dating: Recollective memory tends to exclude specific dates, and Bauckham argues that the lack of precise dating in the Gospels is consistent with this characteristic. The Evangelists' focus on the meaning of events over chronology aligns with how memory often functions.
Gist and Details: Recollective memory often preserves the "gist" of an event with reasonable accuracy, even if some details are forgotten or distorted. Bauckham notes that the Gospel narratives reflect this balance, with key elements remaining stable even when minor details vary.
Frequent Rehearsals: The more often an event is recalled, the more likely it is to be remembered accurately. Bauckham contends that the frequent retelling of Jesus' life and teachings within the early Christian communities would have reinforced the core memories, preserving them with a high degree of reliability.
In sum, Bauckham argues that by applying psychological insights into memory, the Gospels' reliance on eyewitness testimony is likely to be trustworthy. The events of Jesus' life were inherently memorable, and frequent retelling would have further stabilized these memories.
McIver’s Contribution to the Reliability of Eyewitness Memory in the Gospels
Robert McIver’s work on the reliability of eyewitness memory is a vital contribution to Gospel scholarship. While acknowledging the inherent limitations and errors in human memory, McIver provides a balanced perspective that challenges overly skeptical views like Bart Ehrman’s. McIver’s approach is based on empirical research into the psychology of memory, demonstrating that while errors in recollection are inevitable, human memory can still offer what he calls "first-order faithfulness," which acknowledges that 100 percent accuracy is not only impossible, it is unnecessary for eyewitness testimony to be considered reliable. This concept underpins his argument that the Gospels, though not perfectly accurate in every detail, are largely reliable in conveying the key events and teachings of Jesus.
One of McIver’s central arguments is the distinction between peripheral errors and core accuracy in eyewitness memory. He draws on psychological studies, such as the DRM (Dees-Roediger-McDermott) procedure, which reveal that memory errors typically occur in peripheral details rather than in the central aspects of an event. Participants in these studies might recall minor details incorrectly, but they consistently retain the core elements of the event they experienced. McIver argues that this same phenomenon can be applied to the Gospel traditions. While some variations in detail—such as minor discrepancies between accounts—are expected, the central message and key events remain reliably preserved.
Moreover, McIver emphasizes the importance of frequent rehearsal in maintaining the accuracy of eyewitness memory. Psychological research shows that memories which are frequently recalled and retold are less likely to degrade over time. Because the stories of Jesus’ life and teachings would have been shared and repeated often, not only by the eyewitnesses themselves but by the communities that valued these traditions, this constant rehearsal would have helped stabilize the core elements of the Gospel narratives, ensuring that the essential truths of Jesus’ ministry were passed down with a high degree of accuracy. McIver argues that this process would have significantly mitigated the risks of memory distortion over time.
McIver also contends that while collective memory can be selective and may exaggerate or embellish certain aspects, outright fabrications are exceedingly rare. The process of exaggeration tends to be constrained by historical facts and grounded in the shared experiences of a community. Thus, while errors are possible in the collective memories of Jesus, and fabrications occasionally happen in other collective memories, for McIver, a balanced historical evaluation would conclude that fabrications would very likely not be found in the Gospels.
McIver’s contribution is thus essential in balancing the extremes of memory skepticism. He acknowledges that memory is not infallible, but he contends that it is sufficiently reliable to give us a trustworthy record of Jesus’ words and deeds. His concept of "first-order faithfulness" provides a framework for understanding the Gospels as reliable witnesses, even in the face of inevitable human error. This view affirms that while minor inaccuracies may exist, the Gospel traditions faithfully represent the life and ministry of Jesus, rooted in eyewitness testimony and preserved through frequent community rehearsal.
Conclusion
While memory is prone to error, Bauckham and McIver’s psychological research supports the conclusion that the core elements of the Jesus traditions were faithfully transmitted. Bauckham’s identification of key criteria for memory reliability, along with McIver’s focus on collective memory, presents a strong case for the trustworthiness of the Gospel narratives. Though absolute certainty remains elusive, the evidence indicates a high degree of reliability in the transmission of these traditions, providing reasonable confidence in the Gospels as records of Jesus' life and teachings.
Key Sources:
Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. Second. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2017.
Ehrman, Bart D. Jesus Before the Gospels. New York: HarperCollins Publishing, 2016.
McIver, Robert K. “Eyewitnesses as Guarantors of the Accuracy of the Gospel Traditions in the Light of Psychological Research.” JBL 131, no. 3 (2012): 529–46.
———. Memory, Jesus, And The Synoptic Gospels. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011.
Peter Kozushko (DMIN Acadia University) is Senior Associate Pastor of Countryside Community Church, Sherwood OR.
Related Resources
So Bart Ehrman is Right about Discrepancies in the Gospels? by Peter Kozushko
Plausible Solutions to Gospel Discrepancies by Peter Kozushko
Are the Gospels Really Based on Eyewitness Testimony? by Peter Kozushko
Mind the gap: the role of eyewitness testimony, orality, and memory in the development of the Gospel tradition – Chapter Three. Kozushko's doctoral dissertation: