Memory and historical Jesus studies: &lt;i&gt;Formgeschichte &lt;/i&gt; in a new dress?

Ernest Van Eck

doi:10.4102/hts.v71i1.2837

Abstract

In the quest for the historical Jesus, memory studies are seen as an important breakthrough in the study of the historical Jesus and the way forward in establishing the historicity of the Gospel traditions. This article evaluates the claim made by memory studies by evaluating memory studies’ critique on the methodology of the criteria approach. In this evaluation attention is given to the methodological points of departure of memory studies, including an assessment of the few examples memory studies thus far have produced in their investigation of the historicity of the Gospels and the historical Jesus. The conclusion reached is that memory studies are guilty of what they accuse the criteria approach, and thus far have not yet offered a viable methodological alternative to the current criteria approach used in historical Jesus research.

Highlights

Memory studies, or the so-called ‘Jesus-memory-approach’ (Keith 2011:155), is the new buzzword in historical Jesus studies.1 Memory studies, it is argued, are an important breakthrough in the study of the historical Jesus, and the way forward in establishing the historicity of the Gospel traditions
[T]he growing awareness that a portrait of the historical Jesus has to be designed as part of the Judaism of the HellenisticRoman period in its Galilean shape. This approach, aims at interpreting Jesus within his context. It is the general perception of the historical background [which we find in the gospel tradition] against which Jesus’ activity has to be interpreted
The Gospel narratives are seen as a window to the world of the historical Jesus, that is, as a crucial link to the past

Summary

Introduction

The so-called ‘Jesus-memory-approach’ (Keith 2011:155), is the new buzzword in historical Jesus studies. Memory studies, it is argued, are an important breakthrough in the study of the historical Jesus, and the way forward in establishing the historicity of the Gospel traditions. It is argued, are an important breakthrough in the study of the historical Jesus, and the way forward in establishing the historicity of the Gospel traditions In advocating this ‘new way forward’, the current dominant ‘criteria approach’ – that ‘employs criteria of authenticity to sanitize Gospel traditions as authentic before connecting them to the historical Jesus’ (Keith 2011:155) – is rendered as the wrong tool (see Hooker 1972:574–581) for the question under investigation. This critique by Hooker on the criteria approach used in historical Jesus studies has since become a slogan for those who advocate memory studies. The reason for this assessment of the criteria approach is articulated by Le Donne (2012b) as follows:

Objectives

Conclusion