Human memory, while not perfect, is more reliable than often portrayed, especially for significant personal events, suggesting that eyewitness accounts, even from decades prior, can retain a high degree of accuracy.
Mind Map
Click to expand
Click to explore the full interactive mind map • Zoom, pan, and navigate
is your memory
unreliable is human memory riddled with
problems that make it impossible to
trust memory is an essential faculty for
how you live your life but many argue
memory is only an approximation of what
happened in the past and because human
memory is filled with gaps and holes we
cannot assume it preserves trustworthy
information when we recall Memories the
brain has to reconstruct what happened
it is not like playing a video recording
over time false memories creep in and
details change that make our memory
unreliable because of this we should be
skeptical of what we read in the gospels
which were not written down until 30 to
60 years after Jesus
died but is there any reason to think
that what is recorded in the gospels
could be accurate memories of Jesus the
research on memory is not as negative as
Skeptics make it out to be memory is not
perfect but it is also not unreliable
and researchers also point out out there
are different types of
memories certain types of memories are
more reliable than others and the
memories that the disciples would have
formed about Jesus were far more likely
to be retained with little change over
time human memory is often attacked for
being unreliable or poorly reconstructed
and everyone agrees memory is not
perfect we often forget where we placed
important things forget names or events
we experienced but on the other hand
memory is essential for human life and
it would be impossible to live if we
didn't assume our memory was mostly
reliable the research on memory is often
mixed on how reliable it is as many
studies reveal numerous errors in memory
but William Brewer notes laboratory
studies of memory are not necessarily
compatible with normal recollective memory
memory
sometimes studies focus on tasks that
are difficult to retain and others have
attempted to induce false memories that
don't accurately map onto the reality of
how we typically retain
information and jilli and Cohen go so
far as to say in experiments it is
usually more informative to set task
difficulty at a level where people make
errors so that the nature of the errors
and the conditions that provoke them can
be identified diary studies such as
those recording TOs and slips of action
have also concentrated on failures
rather than on
successes people do make naturally
occurring errors in ordinary life
situations but arguably the methodology
has produced a somewhat distorted view
of memory
efficiency so often studies on memory
have given us a warp view of how
reliable memory
is but if we look at memory studies that
attempt to mimic real life experiences
we do find evidence that memory can be highly
highly
reliable in a recent studies subjects
were put through complex real world
experiences and then they were asked to
recall the events a few days later the
researchers expected the reported
memories to only be roughly 40% accurate
but were surprised to find the memories
of the participants were 93 to 95%
accurate these findings suggest that
details freely recalled from one-time
real world experiences can retain High
correspondence to the ground truth
despite significant forgetting with
higher accuracy than expected giving the
emphasis on fallibility in the field of memory
memory
research in another study researchers
studied the memories of eyewitnesses to
an attempted gun shop robbery in
Vancouver Canada the police had
interviewed 21 eyewitnesses and 13
agreed to be interviewed again 5 months
later but the follow-up interviews had
two deliberately misleading questions in
additional questions designed to test
the accuracy of the subject's memory
that were irrelevant to the original
investigation the researchers founded in
the follow-up interviews the
eyewitnesses made mistakes but their
memories of the events were still more
than 80% accurate and despite there
being a number of news reports of the
event that were inaccurate none of them
made their way into the eyewitness
accounts as false
memories although memory is not perfect
it seems to be highly accurate in
recalling the past which is in line with
our intuition about the strength of our
own memory we expect that we will forget
things over time but we retain important
memories and are able to remember them
fairly well
well but researchers are also quick to
point out the reliability of memory
decays over time memory is not like
re-watching a movie in the mind memories
are often recalled through a process of
full or partial reconstruction and with
that Minor Details can change if the
gospels were not written down until
decades after Jesus died how can we
trust what they wrote as accurate to what
what
happened as noted how reliable a memory
is often depends on the type of memory
that is formed formed remembering
something as simple as the color of the
shirt of a person who sat next to you on
a plane is likely to be forgotten but
remembering your first kiss the day of
your wedding or other important life
events are far more likely to be
remembered accurately for a long period of
of
time most studies that conclude memories
unreliable focus on memories over short
time frames and not on details that
would not have been important for life-changing
life-changing
events Robert K mclver says most Psych
iCal experiments on memory focus on
periods of seconds and minutes rather
than periods as long as the 30 to 60
years that most likely intervene between
the crucifixion resurrection and the
writings of the gospels furthermore the
stimulus materials usually used in
psychological experiments are quite
different from the materials found in
the synoptic
gospels to understand whether or not the
gospel authors could accurately retain
information for several decades we need
to look at research on Long term
memories to see if there is anything demonstrating
demonstrating
reliability one type of long-term memory
is called episodic memory which is the
conscious recollection of previous
experiences together with their context
in terms of time place Associated
emotions Etc this is basically the
memory of everyday
events William Wagar researched his own
episodic memory and found that after 6
months he was able to remember half the
events of his past with one q but this
dropped less than 20% after 5 years
given more cues Wagar could remember
about 40% after 5
years however many of the events and
things Wagar attempted to remember fell
under the rubric of ordinary memories it
were not necessarily important memories
that were impactful nor did his research
extend beyond 5
years Harry P barck conducted a study a
longterm memory where he studied
subjects who learned Spanish at an early
age and tested to see how well they
retain their know knowledge of the
language decades
later this was not a study on episodic
memory but he found there was a
forgetting curve for the first 3 to 6
years where much was forgotten but after
that point their memories of the
language became stable he found that
what was remembered after this period
was retained for decades to quote there
is a period from approximately 5 to 25
years after training during which no
responses appear to be
lost he also found the better the
initial learning environment was the
better the memories were
retained similarly a review of various
studies found that roughly 50% of
significant material learned in school
can be retained for many years so it
seems our memory can be quite reliable
in Remembering large swast of
information while at the same time
forgetting various
percentages but other research on
long-term visual memories found considerable
considerable
retention one study found that subjects
were able to remember the names and
faces of classmat well for roughly 35
years so sometimes ordinary information
can be remembered for long periods of
time some have tried to compare the
memories of the disciples to what are
called flashball
Memories this type of memory is a highly
Vivid and detailed snapshot of a moment
in which a consequential surprising and
emotionally arousing piece of news was
learned an example is that most people
remember exactly where they were when
9/11 happened or when President Kennedy was
was
assassinated because of the emotional
and impactful nature of the events
people often retain Vivid memories of
when these events happened in their
analysis of the reliability of flashball
memory Brown and Kulik say a flashball
memory is fixed for a very long time
conceivably permanent varying in
complexity with consequentiality but
once created always there in a need of
no further
strengthening however other researchers
found that flash ball memories do Decay
over several years but what is retained
is vividness and the level of confidence
people have in them a 1992 study on the
memories of the explosion of the Space
Shuttle Challenger demonstrated
substantial inconsistencies over time in
one's memory of the
event a 2003 study found that flashball
memories Decay similarly to episodic
memory much can be retained but the
memories naturally decay in the same way
episodic memories
do but we need to point out out that
many of the events recorded in the
gospels are not ordinary episodic
memories flashball memories or mere
visual memories but personal event
memories and in the study of long-term
memories research has found that
important and emotionally impacting
events can be retained well for
decades David pmer lays out the criteria
of personal event
Memories the memory represents a
specific event that took place at a
particular time and place rather than
than a general event or an extended
series of related happenings the memory
contains a detailed account of the rem's
own personal circumstances at the time
of the event the verbal narrative
account of the event is accompanied by
sensory images including visual auditory
Al factory images or bodily Sensations
that contribute to the feeling of
reexperiencing or reliving memory
details and sensory images correspond to
a particular moment or moments of
phenomenal experience the rememberer
believes that the memory is a truthful
representation of what
transpired these are the types of
Memories We form from defining personal
experiences personal trauma key
experiences with loved ones or critical
incidents personal event memories are
most likely what the disciples would
have had of Jesus because Jesus was
their Rabbi who they loved and followed
for roughly 3 years they would have had
a close connection with him and shared
many personal experiences
pilmer notes personal event memories
have been demonstrated to retain a high
degree of accuracy for years a 1993
study stated the majority of earliest
childhood memories emerged here as
apparently accurate Recollections of
real events thus the Assumption of a
standard or frequent Distortion factor
and infant tal recall was not
supported who were in risberg reviewed
laboratory and naturalistic studies of
vivid and highly emotional experiences
and found emotional memories will
contain errors and will eventually be
lost nonetheless we believe it is likely
that we can largely trust our Vivid
memories of emotional
events in a 1993 review of the
literature they found the evidence
supports the view that adults asked to
recall Salient factual details of their
own childhoods are generally accurate
especially concerning experiences that
fulfill the criteria of having been
unique consequential and
unexpected numerous studies indicate
that personal event memories have an
autobiographical nature and retain a
high degree of accuracy for decades
David pilmer notes personal event
memories are not perfect but he still
concludes research supports a conclusion
that fits nicely with commonly held
conceptions of human memory memories of
personal life episodes are generally
true to the original experiences
although specific details may be
admitted or misremembered and
substantial distortions occasionally do
occur Shaker put it well on balance
however our memory systems do a remark
ably good job of preserving the general
Contours of our past and of recording
correctly many of the important things
that have happened to us we could not
otherwise one 1993 study noted that
childhood memories of adults only
contain roughly 12% inaccuracies
supporting the notion they retained a
far higher degree of accuracy than other
types of
memories included in personal event
memories are often teachings or sayings
from parents teachers or close friends
Research indicates people can often
remember important teachings from close
peers for long periods of time and are
used by the individuals for personal
guidance throughout
life due to the difficult nature of
studying the reliability of personal
event memories over several decades few
Studies have looked into this but one
2005 paper did study the accuracy of
personal event memories across 60 years
they looked at the memories of who lived
through World War II and compared them
with those who were born after the war
and obtained all their information from
later reports participants were asked to
recall the events of April 9th 1940 the
day Germany invaded Denmark
interestingly the results indicated
those who Liv through the experiences
had many accurate and Vivid memories 100
individuals remembered the weather of
the day correctly the iwitness group was
also able to give far more accurate
information than the control group but
they also note Danish resistance
movement had higher accuracy scores than
more canonical categories for the two
public events and they remembered all
four events with greater Clarity than
did participants who did not report such
ties in other words those invested in
the resistance movement had the most accurate
accurate
memories a similar study from 1990
looked at police reports following the
closure of a German concentration camp
for Dutch prisoners in
1943 the researchers interviewed living
survivors roughly 40 years later and
compared the reports for accuracy what
they found was the most striking aspect
of the testimonies is that the witnesses
agreed about the basic facts which is
demonstrated by a comparison of 55 longer
longer
interviews there is no doubt that almost
all the witnesses remembered Camp Erica
in great detail even after 40 years the
accounts of the conditions in the camp
the horrible treatment the daily routine
the forc labor the housing the food the
main characters of the guards are remarkably
remarkably
consistent also the recall of smaller
details were remarkably accurate in many
instances 17 of the 30 Witnesses
remember their date of arrival in the
camp 16 out of 30 Witnesses remember
their full registration number but a
minority of Witnesses were occasionally
mistaken although not everything was
remembered correctly the horrible
personal experiences of the camp led to
the creation of reliable memories that
lasted for over 40 years
the human memory is not like a video
recorder inaccuracies do slip in
occasionally but personal event memories
do seem to retain a great degree of
accuracy even decades after the
events as Alan battley says much of our
autobiographical recollection of the
past is reasonably free of error
provided that we stick to remembering
events moreover false memories and
inaccuracies that occur are rarely
radically different from the original event
event
in other words when the brain recalls a
memory it will construct it in a way
that mostly remains faithful to the
original event false memories more often
than not tend to work with the original
event not radically alter what occurred
some research has shown that false
memories are more likely to be subject
to correction or suppression in healthy young
young
adults and to quote two researchers
memories are sometimes inaccurate but
provide a good first approximation of
the events that make up our personal
past the first order faithfulness also
tells us something important about
memory errors in memory are errors that
make sense in terms of constructing a
more or less accurate rendition of the
gist of past events as with vision
memory provides a constrained
interpretation of our past based on
ambiguous fragmentary evidence but does
so in a way that makes sense in terms of
the world we live in and our own
personal experiences with it a quality
control memory system fills in gaps with
schemas and post-event information
because such information is reliable
more often than it is
not so there are limits to how much
memories can be changed it's not the
case people will typically have vivid
false memories that are entirely
divorced from reality especially when it
comes to personal event memories which
retain a high degree of accuracy for
decades from this research we can see
memory is not perfect but still carries
reliable information for years personal
event memories are likely to be more
reliable than General episodic memory or
the specific type known as flashball
memories given this the claim the
disciples would not have remembered the
life and teachings of Jesus by the time
the gospels were written is not
necessarily true as Craig Keener says
the gospels do suggest that Jesus's
closest followers would have had such
Stark emotive
experiences given their closeness to
Jesus and the life-changing nature of
many of the things Jesus said and did it
is likely this would have been a recipe
for for the formation of strong
memories Helen Williams Martin Conway
Jillian Cohen and William Brewer note
that lowf frequency events are far more
likely to be remembered over events that
happen regularly we are also more likely
to remember events that are Salient or
consequential and ones which we are
emotionally involved with as two experts
say we conclude that emotional events in
real life situations are retained well
both with respect to the emotional
events itself and the central critical
detail information of the emotion
eliciting event that is the information
that elicits the emotional
reaction the events reported in the
gospels were lowf frequency events they
obviously had consequential implications
and the disciples were emotionally
involved additionally Jesus lived with
his disciples for a few years and likely
would have spent time instructing them
to remember his teachings it is unlikely
he gave the lessons we find in places
like The Sermon on the Mount just once a
Jewish rabbi from the first century
would expect his disciples to remember
what he taught them and have them repeat
it back to him in their own
words Research indicates frequent
rehearsal helps to result in reliable
memory and such a practice was expected
in the culture of first century
Judaism Jesus also frequently taught
with short sayings or in the style of
Parables which would have made much of
what he said easy to
remember furthermore Robert mver notes
it is inconceivable that the disciples
would not have discussed the stories of
Jesus after the fact which would have
helped to enhance their
memory given that the earliest
Christians were in the business of
evangelizing they would have often been
talking about what Jesus said and
did Research indicates frequency of
rehearsal AIDS in forming reliable
memories this constant use of their
memory early on would have led to
stronger and more reliable memories that
would have allowed them to last longer
as Richard bacham says we can be sure
that the eyewitnesses of events in the
history of Jesus would have first told
their story soon after the
event research does seem to indicate
that after about 5 years memories tend
to become stable for long periods of
time the real issue for the disciples
would have been forming and retaining
accurate memories in the first few years
after that very little change would have
occurred so it would not have mattered
if the gospels were written down 10 or
50 years after Jesus had died it would
likely have been the same
story given that the nature of personal
event memories and that the textual data
suggests the disciples began to preach
and evangelize in Jesus's name shortly
after Jesus died we should expect that
the disciples were in positions that
would have allowed for strong memories to
form of course that doesn't mean they
developed photographic memories of
Everything Jesus said and did but it is
very likely they would have been able to
accurately remember much of what he
taught who he interacted with and what
he did CR barklay said autobiographical
memories are true in the sense of
maintaining the Integrity in gist of
past life
events as Craig Keener notes the
disciples would likely retain a reliable
G recollection of much of what Jesus
said and did without having to remember
the exact wording of
everything evangelists themselves did
not pretend to capture Jesus's words
verbatim one need only compare for
example Matthew's fairly regular
reference to the kingdom of heaven and
Mark's regular kingdom of God or one may
compare Luke's varied wordings for words
spoken in the scenes that Luke himself
repeats what matters more is the
substance of his acts and teachings the
gist the sense and we have very good
reason to believe that this is what the
gospels offer us though some of the
evangelists such as John May develop
their understanding of that gist more
extensively than
others there is no doubt Minor Details
would have been forgotten but the story
of Jesus does not rest or fall in Minor
Details but the main body
as mver said it is safe to conclude that
the memories of most eyewitnesses 30 to
60 years after the crucifixion would
have been as reliable and complete as
their memories 3 to 5 years after it not
that this automatically guarantees that
such memories are free from error human
memory is capable of extraordinary Feats
it works well in extracting meaning and
significance from the Cascade of sensory
events that continuously impinge on
humans of course this does not prove
that what we read in the gospels is
witness testimony however given that
we've already looked at the biographical
nature of the gospels which shows us
that when they were written they were
written with the intent to record
accurate history of the life of Jesus we
can infer the gospel authors were likely
recording accurate and reliable
information that wouldn't have decayed
much and given that there is strong
evidence the authors were Matthew Mark
Luke and John it is likely the gospels
did come from eyewitnesses or Close
Associates of the disciples meaning the
information we read in the gospel Els is
likely the reliable memories of the
eyewitnesses of
Jesus there is no reason to dismiss the
gospels as unreliable information that
were written down too distant from the
Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video
Share:
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps
Paste YouTube URL
Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript
Transcript Extraction Form
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
Get Our Chrome Extension
Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.
