Instant download Resurrection remembered; a memory approach to jesus’ resurrection in first corinthi
Resurrection
Remembered; A Memory Approach to Jesus’ Resurrection in First Corinthians 1st Edition David Graieg
Visit to download the full and correct content document: https://textbookfull.com/product/resurrection-remembered-a-memory-approach-to-jes us-resurrection-in-first-corinthians-1st-edition-david-graieg/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant download maybe you interests ...
Resurrection Bay First Paperback Printing Edition Emma Viskic
“This is a well-researched, up-to-date application of memory studies to a critical issue in early Christian studies—the resurrection traditions in 1 Corinthians 15. The approach is new to me, and the arguments are well worth engaging. The concept of formal yet uncontrolled tradition commends itself.”
—Dale C. Allison, Jr., Richard J. Dearborn, Professor of New Testament, Princeton Theological Seminary
“The so-called “criteria of authenticity” have been used by general historians for more than a century while many historians of Jesus have used them for decades. However, not all historians of Jesus are sold on them and prefer a memory approach. Though not discounting the use of the criteria in historical Jesus research, David Graieg uses a memory approach to the question of whether the claims that Jesus had risen from the dead were based on actual memories of a historical event. He limits his focus on statements in 1 Corinthians and concludes the best explanation for them is that they are grounded in the memories of several individuals, including groups, who believed they had actually seen Jesus alive after his death. This is a fascinating study that breaks new ground. It is a must-read for those interested in current discussions on memory, oral tradition, historical Jesus research, and the resurrection of Jesus.”
—Michael R. Licona, Professor of New Testament Studies, Houston Christian University
“David Graieg’s work is at the cutting edge of recent research into Jesus’ Resurrection. Few topics could be as widely impactful as the historical assessment of the credibility of the testimony to Jesus’ Resurrection. By focusing on memory studies and employing 1 Corinthians 15 as a test case, Graieg has significantly advanced the conversation. This book will be a touchstone, deserving of a wide readership.”
—Matthew Levering, James N. Jr. and Mary D. Perry Chair of Theology, Mundelein Seminary
“David Graieg does an outstanding service in showing how, in light of 1 Corinthians 15, the reality of the resurrection was buttressed by its remembrance. The memories of meeting the risen Jesus generated a tradition, that tradition was transmitted by recollection and rehearsal, and came to fruition in the creedal summary in 1 Cor 15:3-5. Graieg offers an exposition of the memory of the risen Lord and how it shaped the churches of Paul’s day.”
—Rev. Dr. Michael F. Bird, Deputy Principal at Ridley College, Melbourne, Australia
“For many scholars, memory studies has emerged as a key, more recent way to look at the complex issues tied to the New Testament, history, and the Christian tradition. With meticulous care, David Graieg has applied the various aspects of such study to one crucial text in 1 Corinthians 15. The results are both nuanced and eye-opening. I heartily commend this book as a must read.”
—Darrell L. Bock, Executive Director for Cultural Engagement Hendricks Center, Senior Research Professor of New Testament Studies Dallas Theological Seminary
“This is a very important study on the reliability of the transmission of the earliest traditions concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is characterized by meticulous scholarship and rigorous analysis that brings together cutting-edge New Testament studies and psychological studies to address a topic that is of central importance to Christian communities. A must-read for anyone interested in the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus.”
—Andrew T. Loke, Associate Professor, Hong Kong Baptist University
“Did Jesus of Nazareth rise from the dead? Paul and the early Christians not only answer in the affirmative, but insist that this is the foundation stone of Christianity. David Graieg has made a valuable contribution to both Pauline and historical Jesus studies with this volume, applying a range of findings from research on human memory to the creedal affirmation contained in 1 Corinthians 15:3–8. This book is yet another fine example of the fruits of an interdisciplinary approach to New Testament studies.”
—Greg Forbes, Melbourne School of Theology
Resurrection Remembered
This book is the first major study to investigate Jesus’ resurrection using a memory approach. It develops the logic for and the methodology of a memory approach, including that there were about two decades between the events surrounding Jesus’ resurrection and the recording of those events in First Corinthians. The memory of those events was frequently rehearsed, perhaps weekly.
The transmission of the oral tradition occurred in various ways, including the overlooked fourth model—“formal uncontrolled.” Consideration is given to an examination of the philosophy and psychology of memory (including past and new research on (1) the constructive nature of memory, (2) social memory, (3) transience, (4) memory distortion, (5) false memories, (6) the social contagion of memory, and (7) flashbulb memory). In addition, this is the first New Testament study to consider the insights for a memory approach from the philosophical considerations of (1) forgetting and (2) the theories of remembering and from the psychological studies on (1) memory conformity, (2) memory and age, and (3) the effects of health on memory. It is argued that Paul remembers Jesus as having been resurrected with a transformed physical body. Furthermore, the centrality of Jesus’ resurrection in Paul’s theology suggests it was a deeply embedded memory of primary importance to the social identity of the early Christian communities.
New Testament scholars and students will want to take note of how this work advances the discussion in historical Jesus studies. The broader Christian audience will also find the apologetic implications of interest.
David Graieg is a lecturer at Sheridan Institute for Higher Education, a sessional lecturer at Alphacrucis University College, an adjunct lecturer at East Asia School of Theology Singapore, and an academic sessional at the University of Notre Dame Australia.
Routledge New Critical Thinking in Religion, Theology and Biblical Studies
The Routledge New Critical Thinking in Religion, Theology and Biblical Studies series brings high quality research monograph publishing back into focus for authors, international libraries, and student, academic and research readers. This open-ended monograph series presents cutting-edge research from both established and new authors in the field. With specialist focus yet clear contextual presentation of contemporary research, books in the series take research into important new directions and open the field to new critical debate within the discipline, in areas of related study, and in key areas for contemporary society.
New Voices in Greek Orthodox Thought
Untying the Bond between Nation and Religion
Trine Stauning Willert
Divine Power and Evil
A Reply to Process Theodicy
Kenneth K. Pak
Leaving Christian Fundamentalism and the Reconstruction of Identity
Josie McSkimming
Feminist Eschatology
Embodied Futures
Emily Pennington
The Soul of Theological Anthropology
A Cartesian Exploration
Joshua R. Farris
The Church, Authority and Foucault
Imagining the Church as an Open Space of Freedom
Steven G. Ogden
Israel, the Church, and Millenarianism
A Way Beyond Replacement Theology
Steven D. Aguzzi
Resurrection Remembered
A Memory Approach to Jesus’ Resurrection in First Corinthians
David Graieg
For a full list of titles in this series, please visit https://www.routledge.com/ religion/series/RCRITREL
Resurrection Remembered
A Memory Approach to Jesus’ Resurrection in First Corinthians
David Graieg
First published 2024 by Routledge
4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158
The right of David Graieg to be identified as author[/s] of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN: 978-1-032-67998-3 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-1-032-72863-6 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-003-42306-5 (ebk)
DOI: 10.4324/9781003423065
Typeset in Galliard by SPi Technologies India Pvt Ltd (Straive)
List of Figures ix Preface x Acknowledgements xii
List of Abbreviations xiii
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Thesis 2
1.2 Definitions 2
1.3 The Need for the Study 3
1.4 Literature Review 6
1.4.1 Research on Jesus’ Resurrection in First Corinthians 6
1.4.2 New Testament Research engaged with Memory Theory 13
1.4.3 Jesus’ Resurrection and Memory 20
1.4.4 Conclusion 24
1.5 The Methodology of the Study 25
1.6 Overview of the Study 25
2 Memories of Jesus’ Resurrection in First Corinthians 26
2.1 Memories of Jesus’ Resurrection in First Corinthians 26
2.2 Hermeneutics 26
2.3 First Corinthians 6:14 27
2.4 First Corinthians 15 29
2.4.1 First Corinthians 15:1–11 30
2.4.2 First Corinthians 15:12–58 69
2.4.3 Conclusion 88
2.5 Summary 88
3 Some Implications from Memory Theory for Understanding Jesus’ Resurrection 90
3.1 The Relevance of Memory 91
3.1.1 The Theor y of the Relevance of Memory 91
3.1.2 The Implications of the Relevance of Memory for First Corinthians 92
3.2 The Period between Events and Writing 92
3.3 Per formance Frequency 93
3.3.1 The Theor y of Performance Frequency 94
3.3.2 The Implications of Per formance Frequency 94
3.4 Models of Orality 99
3.4.1 The Theor y of Models of Orality 99
3.4.2 The Implications of Models of Orality 105
3.5 The Philosophy and Psychology of Memory 106
3.5.1 Defining Memory 106
3.5.2 Taxonomies of Memory 107
3.5.3 Passivism and Constructivism 110
3.5.4 Presentism and Continuism 117
3.5.5 Forgetting 119
3.5.6 Remembering 127
3.5.7 Social and Collective Memory 133
3.5.8 Some Limitations to Human Memory 139
3.5.9 Some Studies on Memory 147
3.6 Summar y 174
4 Conclusion 177
4.1 Findings 177
4.2 Contribution 182
4.3 Directions for Further Study 183
4.4 Conclusion 184 Appendix
3.1 Mean percent correct on free recall as a function of the level of GPA and retention interval
93
3.2 A new taxonomy of long-term memory systems 109
Preface
This monograph is a revision of the doctoral dissertation “Jesus’ Resurrection in Early Christian Memory: The Implications of Memory Theory for Understanding Jesus’ Resurrection in First Corinthians.” It utilizes a memory approach to interpret the account of Jesus’ resurrection as recorded in First Corinthians. It argues that Paul remembers Jesus as having been resurrected with a transformed physical body. Furthermore, the centrality of Jesus’ resurrection in Paul’s theology suggests it was a deeply embedded memory of primary importance to the social identity of the early Christian communities. Chapter 1 develops the need for the study—namely, after surveying the relevant literature, this is the first major study to investigate Jesus’ resurrection in First Corinthians using a memory approach.
Chapter 2 studies the memories of Jesus’ resurrection in First Corinthians. It finds that Paul reminds the Corinthians of the centrality of the gospel (cf. 1 Cor 15:1–11), namely that, according to the Scriptures, Christ died, was buried, was raised, and appeared to Cephas, to the Twelve, to more than 500, to James, to all the apostles and lastly to Paul himself. Verses 3–5/7 were probably an early creed that Paul received within a few years of Jesus’ crucifixion. Verse 8 records the memory of Paul’s encounter with the risen Jesus. This gospel message was the same life-changing news that Paul (and the other apostles) had already preached to the Corinthians (cf. 15:1–2, 11). The remainder of the chapter details how the memory of the risen Jesus influences Christian conduct and eschatology. A word study of ἐγείρω “raised,” indicates that in the context of death, both Jews and Gentiles would have understood this to refer to a bodily resurrection. This interpretation fits with Paul’s explanation of the nature of the resurrection body as incorruptible, glorious, powerful, supernatural, and heavenly—like Christ’s resurrected body (cf. 1 Cor 15:35–49).
Chapter 3 develops the logic for and the methodology of a memory approach and examines some of the implications of a memory approach to Paul’s understanding of Jesus’ resurrection in First Corinthians. There were about two decades between the events surrounding Jesus’ resurrection and the recording of those events in First Corinthians. The memory of those events was frequently rehearsed, perhaps weekly. The transmission of the oral tradition occurred in various ways, including the overlooked fourth
Preface xi
model—“formal uncontrolled.” Consideration is given to an examination of the philosophy and psychology of memory (including past and new research on (1) the constructive nature of memory, (2) presentism and continuism, (3) social memory, (4) transience and forgetting curves, (5) absent-mindedness, (6) blocking, (7) misattribution, (8) persistence, (9) schemata, (10) memory distortion, (11) false memories, (12) suggestibility, (13) the social contagion of memory, (14) hindsight bias, and (15) personal event memory and flashbulb memory). In addition, this is the first New Testament study to consider the insights for a memory approach from the philosophical considerations of (1) forgetting and (2) the theories of remembering and from the psychological studies on (1) memory conformity, (2) memory and age, and (3) the effects of health on memory.
This work concludes that a memory approach supports the interpretation that Jesus rose bodily from the dead and that Paul, and the early Christians, would have vividly remembered the risen Jesus as resurrected with a transformed physical body. For the early Christians, Jesus’ resurrection was unforgettable.
David Jonathan Graieg is a lecturer at Sheridan Institute for Higher Education, a sessional lecturer at Alphacrucis University College, an adjunct lecturer at East Asia School of Theology Singapore, and an academic sessional at the University of Notre Dame Australia.
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, all praise to God, the maximally great being, the gracious creator and sustainer, and humanity’s beautiful saviour.
To Sydney College of Divinity, where I studied from August to December 2017 and then again from February 2020 to March 2021. Special thanks to my doctoral supervisors Prof. Peter G. Bolt and Prof. Robert K. McIver, and James R. Harrison, professor of biblical studies and research director.
To Murdoch University and my supervisors, Dr. Suzanne Boorer and Dr. Robert Myles, from April 2018 to October 2019.
To my examiners Michael R. Licona, Dale C. Allison Jr., and Matthew Levering and anonymous reviewers for useful feedback, all mistakes are my own.
To Dr. Andrew Loke, who suggested I pursue this topic in 2014, and whose scholarship has been an inspiration.
To Christians who have proclaimed the risen Lord across the world throughout the centuries, I am a grateful recipient of their message. May this work be a small continuation of this good news.
Abbreviations
1 Clem. 1 Clement
abbr. Abbreviated
A.D. Anno Domini, Latin for “in the year of the Lord.”
b. Babylonian Talmud
BBR Bulletin for Biblical Research
B.C. Before Christ
BCE Before the Common Era
BDAG Bauer, Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature
BDF Blass, Debrunner, Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature
BECNT Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
BrillDAG The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek
BTB Biblical Theology Bulletin
BUP Baylor University Press
ca. circa, about, approximately
CE Common Era
cf. compare or see also
CGL The Cambridge Greek Lexicon
chpt. chapter
Cicero
Phil. Orationes philippicae
Corp. Herm. Corpus hermeticum
CSB Christian Standard Bible 2020
CUP Cambridge University Press
Dig. Digesta
dir. director
DOI digital object identifier
DRM Deese, Roediger, and McDermott
EDNT Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament
ed. edition or editor
1 En. 1 Enoch
e.g. exempli gratia, for example
xiv Abbreviations
esp. especially
ESV English Standard Version of the Bible 2016 et al. et alia, and others
ext. external
fol. folio
fr. from freq. frequent(ly)
Gos. Thom. Gospel of Thomas
Gos. of Mary Gospel of Mary
HALOT Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament
Horace
Ep. Epistles
HTTP Hypertext Transfer Protocol
ibid. ibidem, in the same place
i.e. id est, that is iff if and only if
Ign. Eph Ignatius, To the Ephesians
Ign. Magn. Ignatius, To the Magnesians
Ign. Phld. Ignatius, To the Philadelphians
Ign. Rom. Ignatius, To the Romans
Ign. Smyrn. Ignatius, To the Smyrnaean
Ign. Trall. Ignatius, To the Trallians
Inst. Institutes
Irenaeus
Haer Against Heresies
IVP InterVarsity Press
JAAR Suppl Journal of the American Academy of Religion Supplements
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
Jos. Josephus
Ant. Jewish Antiquities
Life The Life
Ag. Ap. Against Apion
J.W. Jewish War
JSHJ Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus
JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament
Jub. Jubilees
Justin Martyr
1 Apol. First Apology
Dial. Dialogue with Trypho
KJV 1900 King James Version of the Bible
L material unique to the Gospel of Luke or a hypothetical source for that material
LEB Lexham English Bible 2012
Abbreviations xv
LSB Legacy Standard Bible 2022
LSJ Liddell, Scott, Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon
Lucian
Peregr. The Passing of Peregrinus
LXX Septuagint
M material unique to the Gospel of Matthew or a hypothetical source for that material
m. Mishnah
MM Moulton, Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament
MT Masoretic Text
NA28 Novum Testamentum Graece, Nestle-Aland, 28th ed.
NAC New American Commentary
NASB95 New American Standard Bible 1995 Edition
NASB2020 New American Standard Bible 2020 Edition
n. note
n.b. nota bene [note well]
n.d. no date
NET New English Translation of the Bible 2005
NET2 New English Translation of the Bible 2019
NICNT New International Commentary on the New Testament
NIDNTTE New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis
NIGTC New International Greek Testament Commentary
NIV New International Version of the Scriptures (2011 update)
NKJV New King James Version of the Bible 1982
NLT New Living Translation 2015
NTS New Testament Studies
N.p. No place
NRSV New Revised Standard Version 1989
NRSVue New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition 2021
NT New Testament Origen
Cels. Against Celsus
OT Old Testament
OUP Oxford University Press pace contrary to the opinion of par. parallel
PGM Papyri Graecae Magicae
Philo
Alleg. Interp. Allegorical Interpretation
Flaccus In Flaccum (Against Flaccus)
Her. Quis rerum divinarum heres sit (Who Is the Heir?)
Prob. Quod omnis probus liber sit (That Every Good Person Is Free)
xvi Abbreviations
QG
Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin (Questions and Answers on Genesis)
Plat. Plato
Ep Letters
Phileb Philebus
Rep Republic
PLOS Public Library of Science
Plutarch
Ant. Antonius
Is. Os. De Iside et Osiride
Mor. Moralia
Pyth. orac. De Pythiae oraculis
PNTC Pillar New Testament Commentary
Pol. Phil Polycarp, To the Philippians
Q on the two document hypothesis, this is the hypothetical source lying behind the double tradition (or close parallels) material in Matthew and Luke, or the double tradition material itself
Rab. Rabbah
repr. reprint
rev. revision
SBL Society of Biblical Literature
Sib. Or. Sibylline Oracles
sic Literally, “thus,” used to indicate that something incorrectly written is intentionally being left as it was in the original.
SIG Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum
SNTSMS Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series someth. something
Tacitus
Ann. Annales
Talmud
Pe’ah Péah
Sanh. Sanhedrin
TDNT
Tertullian
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament
Prax Prescription against Heretics
Praescr Against Praxeas
Virg The Veiling of Virgins
Tg. Targum
Thucydides
Hist. History of the Peloponnesian War trans. Translated
v. verse
Abbreviations xvii
vv. verses vol. volume
Wis Wisdom of Solomon
WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament
www World Wide Web
YUP Yale University Press
ZECNT Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
ZNW Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft
1 Introduction
This book investigates what insights memory theory has to offer for researching the presentation of Jesus’ resurrection as recorded in First Corinthians. It utilizes the findings obtained from present-day memory studies to understand how the post-crucifixion appearances of Jesus were interpreted in order to determine the best explanation for what (most probably) happened that Sunday morning in either 30 or 33 CE,1 which gave rise to the memories that were recorded in written form two decades later in First Corinthians 6:14; 15:1–58.2
This study makes an original contribution by building upon several recent works that endeavour to apply memory theory to elucidate how Jesus’ resurrection would have been remembered, retold, and eventually written down in the form found in First Corinthians. Although memory theory has been applied, in a general way, to New Testament research, and even though the topic of Jesus’ resurrection has been studied in detail,3 the Pauline traditions about Jesus’ resurrection have not yet been investigated using a memory approach.
1 Hoehner argues for Friday, 3 April 33 CE (Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ, 65–114).
Bond states that 7 April 30 CE is the most widely accepted date but argues, “All we can claim with any degree of historical certainty is that Jesus died [some time] around Passover (perhaps a week or so before the feast) between 29 and 34 CE” (“Dating the Death of Jesus,” 461). Visi also argues that there is strong evidence to affirm that Jesus died ca. 29–33 CE (“The Chronology of John the Baptist and the Crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth,” 1, 15–18). Cf. Humphreys and Waddington, “Dating the Crucifixion,” 743–6.
2 A memory approach is analogous to how in textual criticism, the original reading is probably the one that best explains the rise of the other variants (cf. Epp, “Traditional ‘Canons’ of New Testament Textual Criticism,” 79–127); as Keith puts it, “[W]hat combination of sociohistorical conditions and past reality could have led to the interpretations of Jesus that we find in the [New Testament writings]” (“Summary of Jesus’ Literacy and Response”).
3 See Massey, “The Quest for the Historical Jesus, 2000–2023,” 21–5, 62–4. For instance, see the over 7,000 English books on Jesus’ resurrection alone in Alter, A Thematic Access-Oriented Bibliography of Jesus’s Resurrection. Only four titles listed by Alter mention memory (or synonyms). While this does not mean that some works may not discuss memory despite not mentioning the term in the title, it does suggest that few works focus on the subject. See Allison, Constructing Jesus; Habermas, “Remembering Jesus’ Resurrection,” 267–86; Hübenthal, “Luke 24.13–35, Collective Memory, and Cultural Frames,” 85–95; Rhodes, “Day 204: The Disciples’[sic] Memories and Jesus’ Resurrection.”
The focus of this work is the earliest resurrection traditions as recorded in First Corinthians.4 As discussed further in Chapter 2, the traditions found in 1 Corinthians 15 include both oral tradition(s)/history, which Paul received and passed on, and traditions that originated with Paul himself.
1.1 Thesis
This monograph is the first study to use a memory approach to interpret how Paul remembered Jesus’ resurrection in First Corinthians. It argues that previous studies, which have used a memory approach, while already perceptive, omitted aspects of memory which could shed further insights. These lacunas are the philosophical considerations of forgetting, theories of remembering, and psychological studies on memory conformity, memory and age, and the effects of health on memory. Through historical criticism of 1 Corinthians 6:14; 15:1–58, it is argued that Paul remembers that after Jesus’ death, Jesus appeared in a transformed, but nevertheless physical, body—a memory approach supports this conclusion as memory theory confirms that the early Christians would have had deep memory impressions of the bodily resurrected Jesus. Further, the memory of the risen Jesus impacted the way Paul and the early Christians conducted their lives.
1.2 Definitions
There are many aspects of memory (which will be explored further in Chapter 3), yet, broadly speaking, memory refers to the various ways in which a person’s past influences their ability to recall information or affects their behaviour.5
Another key term is “resurrection,” which refers to a return from physical death to a glorified bodily life, expecting that one would not die again. On the
4 First Thessalonians 1:10 was probably written about 50–51 CE (cf. Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 587–88; Shogren, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 29–30), and consequently, preserves an earlier memory of Jesus’ resurrection than First Corinthians (likely written between 53–57 CE). However, given that 1 Thessalonians 1:10 is not a detailed account of Jesus’ resurrection, 1 Corinthians 6:14; 15:1–58 were selected as they are more significant passages on the resurrection of Jesus. The Gospels (cf. Mark 16; Matt 28; Luke 24 John 20–21) also contain early independent memories of Jesus’ resurrection and would likely yield insights from their examination. However, they are beyond the scope of this study. Nevertheless, since a memory approach has primarily been applied to the Gospels and since the Gospels have a connection to potential underlying narratives of the creed of 1 Corinthians 15:3–7 (see Section 3.5.9.5.2), the intersection of Gospel and memory studies will be utilized where fruitful to the interpretation of Jesus’ resurrection in First Corinthians.
5 The terms “memory studies,” “memory theory,” and a “memory approach” can be used interchangeably. If distinctions are to be made, “a memory study” would refer to “the findings of an experiment on memory,” “memory theory” would refer to “the principles concluded from such studies,” and “a memory approach” would be “to make use of memory theory as a way of analyzing history.”
other hand, revivification or resuscitation refers to a return from death to a bodily life, expecting one to die again.6
1.3 The Need for the Study
For Paul and the other early Christian7 communities (cf. 1 Cor 15:11), Jesus’ resurrection is πρῶτος “first”8 (1 Cor 15:3)—of supreme significance. Further,
6 Davis has argued that while there is a philosophical distinction between resurrection and resuscitation, there is no grammatical distinction in the New Testament (“Resuscitated Indeed,” 154–5). An example of this is seen in Hebrews 11:35, where the term ἀνάστασις is used in the sense of “revivification” (likely referring to the raising of the widow of Zarephath’s son (cf. 1 Kgs 17:17–24), and the Shunammite woman’s son (cf. 2 Kgs 4:18–37). Later in the same verse, this is contrasted with a κρείττονος ἀναστάσεως “better resurrection” (in the sense defined above referring to an immortal resurrection; cf. Cockerill, “The Better Resurrection (Heb. 11:35),” 222). Nevertheless, as Ehrman argues, “If an apocalyptic Jew [i.e., the followers of Jesus] […] were to come to believe that the resurrection of the dead had begun—for example, with the raising of God’s specifically favored one, his messiah—what would that resurrection involve? It would naturally and automatically involve precisely a bodily resurrection. That’s what resurrection meant to these people. It did not mean the ongoing life of the spirit without the body. It meant the reanimation and glorification of the body” (How Jesus Became God, 186). Likewise, Brown states, “It is not really accurate to claim that the New Testament references to the resurrection of Jesus are ambiguous as to whether they mean bodily resurrection—there is no other kind of resurrection” (The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus, 70). Similarly, Allison writes, “To my knowledge, nowhere in the Bible or in old Jewish or Christian literature does the language of resurrection refer to a materially new body, physically unconnected to the old. A resurrected body is always the old body or a piece of it come back to life and/or transformed” (“The Resurrection of Jesus and Rational Apologetics,” 317). Also, Wright explains that while there were various beliefs about the afterlife in the surrounding first-century culture, the term “resurrection” consistently referred to a return to physical bodily life—“life after ‘life after death’” (The Resurrection of the Son of God, 201, italics original; cf. Wright, “Resurrection of the Dead,” 676). Wright found that it was not until the second century that the idea of resurrection was applied, not to a return to bodily life, but rather to the concept of continued existence in some disembodied state. He concludes, “a few writers used the language of ‘resurrection’ to denote, not what the entire ancient world, both pagan and Jewish, had meant by it up to that point, that is, some kind of a return to bodily and this-worldly life, but rather something which was well known as a concept but for which this language had never before been used, namely, a state of blissful disembodied immortality” (Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 83). In addition, Harris argues that in the New Testament, there are three levels of meaning in the conception of resurrection, including resuscitation, transformation, and exaltation—the resurrection is an event that leads to a state of rise-ness (“Resurrection and Immortality in the Pauline Corpus,” 148–9). As demonstrated in chapter two, there are a few first-century exceptions to this resurrection language; nevertheless, this was the general understanding. Cf. Hurtado, “Resurrection-Faith and the ‘Historical’ Jesus,” 39–40; Harris, “On the Three Kinds of Resurrection of the Dead,” 8–30.
7 The term “Christian” (cf. Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Peter 4:16) is used to refer to followers of Jesus, the Christ. For convenience, this present work makes use of this one term rather than employing alternate terms, such as “the Way” (cf. Acts 9:2; 19:9, 23; 24:14, 22) or “Nazarenes” (cf. Acts 24:5) (cf. Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 4–17).
8 BDAG 892–4; states πρώτοις can pertain “to being first in a sequence” or “to prominence, first, foremost, most important, most prominent”; Paul could even have both in view. Brookins and Longenecker argue for a priority of status, not time (1 Corinthians 10–16, 137–8).
in 1 Corinthians 15:12–19, Paul says that if Christ has not been raised, the tradents9 are false witnesses, faith in Christ is useless, and believers are still in their sins.10 Paul’s logic is that without the vindication of the resurrection,11 Jesus’ shameful death (on the cross; cf. 1 Cor 1:17–18; Gal 3:13; Deut 21:23; Rom 4:24b–25)12 would be devoid of any real purpose, value, or efficacy. While one may wonder about the need for more discourse on Jesus’ resurrection (given the already vast literature), insights from memory theory are promising in that they provide a fresh perspective to Paul’s understanding of the topic.13 Although theories on memory have been present at least since the time of the ancient Greek philosophers,14 modern scientific studies on memory began in the nineteenth century, and memory analysis has only made a significant impact on New Testament research in the last few decades (as will be covered in more detail in the literature review that follows).
Most historical Jesus scholars using memory research have focused on psychological studies on memory and have not adequately engaged with the philosophical theories of memory.15 This work will demonstrate how insights from the philosophy of memory can improve the histographical utility of a memory approach. Chapter 3 will delineate the key categories and concepts of memory needed for more rigorous utilization of memory research as part of historical inquiry.
9 A tradent is a “person or group of persons who preserve and re-present a tradition or traditions. Michael Fishbane makes the helpful distinction between traditum, the content of the tradition, and traditio, the manner in which the tradition is transmitted (Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, 1985). Tradents do not simply reproduce the tradition but reactualize it in new and fresh ways” (Patzia and Petrotta, Pocket Dictionary of Biblical Studies, 117, italics original).
10 One could add that Paul sees the defeat of death (cf. 1 Cor 15:25–26, 54–57) as tied up with the reign of the risen Jesus.
11 See Bar ton, “Why Does the Resurrection of Christ Matter?,” 108–15; Hurtado, “ResurrectionFaith and the ‘Historical’ Jesus,” 44–5; Allison, The Resurrection of Jesus, 360–1.
12 Allison has argued that while Paul might have reasoned from Deuteronomy 21:23 that Jesus’ crucifixion meant that Jesus was cursed (cf. Gal 3:13), that does not necessarily mean that all of Jesus’ disciples would have reasoned to the same conclusion (The Resurrection of Jesus, 202, n. 120). Allison, The Resurrection of Jesus, 202, n. 120; follows Müller (“Auferweckt Und Erhöht,” 202, n. 8) in seeing T. Mos. 6:9; 8:1 revealing the view that the faithful crucified are not always viewed negatively. Allison also points to Philo, Flaccus 72; Josephus, Ant. 12.255; Mek. Bahodesh 6:140 on Exod. 20:6, for similar attitudes (The Resurrection of Jesus, 202, n. 120). As will be considered in Section 2.4.1.1, it is not only views on the suffering of innocent individuals but also the notion of a suffering messiah that is relevant to the case of Jesus. Cf. Streett, “Cursed by God?,” 189–209.
13 Although not all share optimism for a memory approach, see Crook, “Matthew, Memory Theory and the New No Quest,” 1–11; van Eck, “Memory and Historical Jesus Studies,” 1–10. For a partial response, see Keith, “The Narratives of the Gospels and the Historical Jesus,” 426–55.
14 See Chaffin and Hermann, eds., Memory in Historical Perspective; Bower, “A Brief History of Memory Research,” 3–32; Markowitsch and Staniloiu, “History of Memory.”
15 Exceptions to this include Byrskog, “Philosophical Aspects on Memory,” 23–48.
The quest for the historical Jesus has often proceeded by utilizing the criteria of authenticity,16 which has recently received emphatic challenges.17 However, whether or not the criteria of authenticity still has a role to play is not the focus of this present work.18 Instead, the book will explore the implications of
16 On the criteria of authenticity generally, see Porter, The Criteria of Authenticity in HistoricalJesus Research; Holmén, “Authenticity Criteria,” 43–54; Porter, “The Criteria for Authenticity,” 695–714; Porter, “Criteria for Authenticity,” 153–62; Bernier, The Quest for the Historical Jesus after the Demise of Authenticity; Allen, “The Use of Criteria,”129–41; Everton and Cunningham, “The Quest for the Gist of Jesus,” 156–89; Burr, Authenticating Criteria in Jesus Research and Beyond. On the criteria of authenticity and Jesus’ resurrection, in particular, see Licona, “Jesus’s Resurrection, Realism, and the Role of the Criteria of Authenticity,” 285–302. Note, in memory studies, the term “authenticity” has a technical meaning, referring “to the accuracy of the present rendition of a past representation (true and false) by means of a memory judgment. The truth of a memory report, on the other hand, has to do with the memory content correctly representing the objective reality” (Bernecker, “Memory and Truth,” 56, italics original; cf. Bernecker, “Visual Memory and the Bounds of Authenticity,” 445–64). In New Testament studies, there is probably no consensus on how to define “authentic”; however, Stein provides a representative definition, stating “an authentic saying of Jesus’ as an actual saying which was uttered by the historical Jesus before his death” (“The ‘Criteria’ for Authenticity,” 228); Keith points out that some scholars use “authentic” to mean “uninterpreted” (“The Narratives of the Gospels and the Historical Jesus,” 429). Cf. Meier, The Roots of the Problem and the Person, 176.
17 Against the criteria, see Hooker, “On Using the Wrong Tool,” 570–81; Keith and Le Donne, eds., Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity; Allison, “How to Marginalize the Traditional Criteria of Authenticity,” 1–30. For a partial response, see Blomberg, “Review of Chris Keith and Anthony Le Donne, eds., Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity”; Licona, “Is the Sky Falling in the World of Historical Jesus Research?,” 353–68; Bock, and Komoszewski, eds., Jesus, Skepticism, and the Problem of History; Meier, Probing the Authenticity of the Parables, 8–29. Cf. Eklund, “Jesus of Nazareth,” 139–60; Barber, The Historical Jesus and the Temple, 20–42.
18 Cf. Hägerland, “The Future of Criteria in Historical Jesus Research,” 43–65; Keith, “The Narratives of the Gospels and the Historical Jesus,” 426–55; Metts, “Neglected Discontinuity between Early Form Criticism and the New Quest with Reference to the Last Supper,” 67–92; Blomberg, Jesus the Purifier, 156–8. In brief, my position would be that the criteria of authenticity can be used independently of form criticism and in conjunction with a memory approach (perhaps they should no longer be called the criteria of authenticity; instead, maybe marks of memory or hallmarks of historicity—although it would be less confusing to retain the existing terminology). In particular, I think the following criteria are still useful: the criterion of independent attestation, the criterion of contextual credibility, and the criterion of dissimilarity. In short, I would define these as, if two independent memories provide attestation to a saying or event, then that is to be preferred over a single attesting memory. In addition, if a memory does not fit contextual credibility, then it is probable that that memory is not genuinely from that context. Furthermore, using Ehrman’s definition of the criterion of dissimilarity, “which maintains that any tradition about Jesus that does not coincide with, or that works against, the vested interests of the Christians who preserved it is likely to be historically reliable” (The Historical Jesus, 60); or “[d]issimilar traditions, that is, those that do not support a clear Christian agenda, are difficult to explain unless they are authentic; they are therefore more likely to be historical” (The New Testament, 249). Similarly, any memory that does not coincide with or that works against the vested interests of the Christians who preserved it is more likely to be a genuine memory rather than a false memory. Nevertheless, this present work will not consciously utilize such criteria but will instead focus on what a memory approach offers. The contribution of this book is to examine how a memory approach can assist in interpreting Jesus’ resurrection in First Corinthians.
memory theory for the presentation of Jesus’ resurrection as recorded in First Corinthians.19
1.4 Literature Review
There are three areas of research relevant to this study: (1) research on Jesus’ resurrection in First Corinthians (that has not engaged with memory studies), (2) New Testament research that has engaged with memory studies (but not relating to Jesus’ resurrection), and (3) the most important is research on Jesus’ resurrection that has engaged with memory studies. However, only a few articles or chapters20 address memories of Jesus’ resurrection—hence the need for this present work.
Many scholars have contributed to the research relevant to this study.21 However, eight scholars have particular significance (for this present work).
Section 1.4.1 will consider the findings from N. T. Wright and Michael Licona, who have contributed to scholarship on Jesus’ resurrection in First Corinthians. Section 1.4.2 will investigate the insights from Bart Ehrman and Tuomas Havukainen, who have contributed to scholarship on a memory approach. Finally, Section 1.4.3 will survey the results from James Dunn, Dale Allison, Matthew Levering, and Peter Carnley—all of whom have contributed to scholarship on memories of Jesus’ resurrection.
1.4.1 Research on Jesus’ Resurrection in First Corinthians
Wright and Licona have provided significant studies of Paul’s understanding of the resurrection of Jesus, yet without utilizing memory studies. The following section will survey some of their contributions, thereby establishing a foundation for understanding Paul’s perspective of Jesus’ resurrection in First Corinthians, upon which this present work builds itself and explores other areas of research.
19 On the use of memory in historical Jesus studies, see Foster, “Memory, Orality, and the Fourth Gospel,” 191–227; Foster, “Memory, Orality, and the Fourth Gospel,” 165–83; Ong and Porter, “Memory, Orality, and the Fourth Gospel,” 143–64; Eve, “Orality is No DeadEnd,” 3–23; Gregory, “Memory as Method,” 52–61.
20 Cf. Davis, “James D. G. Dunn on the Resurrection of Jesus,” 255–66; Habermas, “Remembering Jesus’ Resurrection,” 267–86; Schröter, “History in Light of the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 49–70; Fodor, Unreasonable Faith, 231–334; Levering, “Historical Memory and the Resurrection of Jesus,” 157–85; Levering, “Remembrance of the Risen Jesus,” in Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?, 62–90; Carnley, The Reconstruction of Resurrection Belief, 170–241; Stecher, “The Historical Evidence is Insufficient and Contradictory,” 66–71; Williams, “Evidence, Explanation, and Expectation,” 244–9; Parsons, “From Romans to Colossians,” 157–82.
21 For a survey, see Baird, History of New Testament Research, 3 vols; Brown and Evans, A History of the Quests for the Historical Jesus, 2 vols.
1.4.1.1 Nicholas Thomas Wright
Wright’s book The Resurrection of the Son of God utilizes a criteria of authenticity approach with little attention to the role of memory.22 (This was probably because the memory approach was emerging around the same time). Based upon his approach, Wright concludes (from Paul’s understanding of Jesus’ resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15) that Paul
believes in the two-stage resurrection because, against all expectations, the Messiah has been raised in advance of everyone else. And [Paul] believes in the discontinuity between the present body and the future one, as well as the continuity, because of what he believes happened to Jesus at his own resurrection.23
Concerning memory, Wright occasionally mentions the concept but does not develop the implications for Jesus’ resurrection. He appears to assume the role of memory without mentioning any specific details. For instance, he says,
not that [the biblical author] has invented a story from whole cloth, or radically falsified one which already existed, but that he has highlighted and foregrounded elements in the story to serve particular purposes, not least to evoke memories and associations of other narratives.24
Regarding the memory of Jesus’ tomb, Wright states,
It is just conceivable that an early Christian, making up this story, would put such a description of Jesus on the lips of the Jewish leaders, since it may well have been quite widely known that this charge was near the heart of the accusation against him. But it seems more likely that it goes back to some kind of well-rooted memory.25
22 This is volume 3 of Wright’s Christian Origins and the Question of God, and most of the methodology was laid out in volumes 1 and 2: The New Testament and the People of God, and Jesus and the Victory of God. See also Wright, “Grave Matters,” 51–3; Wright, “The Resurrection and the Postmodern Dilemma,” 141–56; Wright, “Jesus’ Resurrection and Christian Origins,” 615–35; Wright, “Resurrection Faith,” 28–31; Wright, “An Incompleat (but Grateful) Response to the Review by Markus Bockmuehl of The Resurrection of the Son of God,” 505–10; Wright, “Resurrecting Old Arguments,” 209–31; Wright and Crossan, “The Resurrection,” 16–47; Wright, “Can a Scientist Believe in the Resurrection?,” 41–63. For a response, see Bryan, “The Resurrection of Jesus and the Problem of History,” 321; Crossley, “Against the Historical Plausibility of the Empty Tomb Story and the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus,” 171–86; Goulder, “Jesus’ Resurrection and Christian Origins,” 187–95; Hurtado, “Jesus’ Resurrection in the Early Christian Texts,” 197–208; O’Collins, “The Resurrection,” 2–4; Smith, “N. T. Wright’s Understanding of the Nature of Jesus’ Risen Body,” 29–73; Carnley, Resurrection in Retrospect; Chidgzey, “Subjugating Subjectivity.”
23 Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 360.
24 Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 388–9.
25 Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 637.
In general, Wright views the New Testament writings (including First Corinthians) as essentially recorded memories.26 However, he does not fully explore what that entails.27 For example, he states,
The reports of people thinking that Jesus was Elijah, or another of the old prophets, function in the same way: the early Christians did not identify Jesus in those ways, but preserved the memory of people who did[,] as signposts towards what they believed to be the truth.28
It was not Wright’s purpose to investigate memory to any great extent. For instance, when he mentions both the transience of memory and the interpretative aspects of memory, he says that the [l]ogical reasoning and biblical reflection took place within the context both of the memory of the original vision (interpreted in relation to biblical models), and of the continuing practice of prayer to, and meditation upon, the one God of Abraham, Isaac[,] and Jacob.29
But it is not his purpose to consider what this would mean in terms of memory; when he says,
It is, of course, quite conceivable that [the meaning of resurrection in Luke’s Gospel, especially when contrasted with that in Acts] reflects the genuine historical memory of the very early church (Jesus said little on the topic, Peter and Paul said a lot), but it is not part of my present purpose to argue that that is so.30
The closest Wright comes to engaging with a more nuanced view of memory is when he interacts with Schillebeeckx’s view, saying it “threatens to collapse
26 See Wright, “Resurrection Narratives,” 675–6.
27 On these lines, Thatcher states that the “view that Gospels were written […] to archive their respective authors’ traditions and/or personal memories is persuasive” (Why John Wrote a Gospel, 23). Such a view of Gospel writings likewise applies to the other New Testament writings—not that Paul’s letters were written primarily to archive Paul’s memories, but his letters would, nevertheless, function as a preservation of his tradition thereafter. Along these lines, Aune points out that “by the second generation of Thessalonian Christians, if not earlier, the communal memories preserving the experience of the Pauline ministry would have faded, only to be gradually replaced by 1 Thessalonians, no longer functioning as an aide- mémoire, but transformed into a cenotaph for living memories and gradually supplanting them as a source for generating new communal memories” (“Jesus Tradition and the Pauline Letters,” 327, italics original). Aune goes on to argue, “The same process must have occurred in much the same way throughout the Pauline churches, as the other genuine Pauline letters became sources for a secondhand social memory” (p. 327).
28 Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 412.
29 Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 397–8.
30 Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 457.
back into a variation of that of Albert Schweitzer: Jesus was a noble but disastrous failure, but his followers were challenged in a new way by the memory of what he did and said.”31 However, Wright finds such a view unconvincing and states,
[l]ike the theory of “cognitive dissonance”, the theory that the early Christians had a profound religious experience which only slowly grew into the (misleading) language of bodily resurrection provides no kind of an explanation for the rise of the early Christian belief.32
Overall, while Wright’s excellent study considers the background for a belief in the resurrection and surveys the relevant texts about Jesus’ resurrection (which he achieves through a criteria of authenticity approach), he does not delve into the nuances of memory, leaving room for this present study to consider what implications a memory approach has for interpreting Paul’s understanding of Jesus’ resurrection in First Corinthians.
1.4.1.2 Michael R Licona
Licona’s The Resurrection of Jesus investigates the matter with a historiographical approach that utilizes the criteria of authenticity.33 He particularly emphasizes the importance of a sound historical methodology.34 However, as with Wright, because the memory approach was still in development, he said little about the role of memory.
Concerning Paul’s understanding of Jesus’ resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15, Licona argues, “Paul knew the Jerusalem apostles and their teachings, that he claimed to preach the same thing as they did about Jesus’ resurrection, that Paul taught that Jesus’ corpse had been raised.”35 Licona goes on to state that “we are warranted in inferring that bodily resurrection is what was in mind.”36 After an examination of 1 Corinthians 15:42–54, Licona says, “[t]hese texts make it clear that resurrection for Paul does not occur at death. The
31 Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 705.
32 Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 706.
33 Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus. For a review, see Akin, Blomberg, Copan, Kruger, Licona, and Quarles, “A Roundtable Discussion with Michael Licona on The Resurrection of Jesus,” 71–98; McCullagh, “The Resurrection of Jesus,” 41–53. See also Licona, “Paul on the Nature of the Resurrection Body,” 177–98; Licona, “Did Jesus Predict his Death and Vindication/ Resurrection?,” 47–66; Licona, “In Reply to Habermas, McGrew, and McCullagh,” 55–69; Licona, “A New Starting Point in Historical Jesus Research,” 99–127; Licona, “Historians and Miracle Claims,” 106–29; Licona, “When the Saints Go Marching In (Matthew 27:52–53)”; Licona, “Is the Sky Falling in the World of Historical Jesus Research?,” 353–68.
34 See Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 29–132.
35 Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 336–7.
36 Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 338.
continuing life of the soul is not ‘resurrection;’”37 instead, Paul affirms a transformation of the corpse, rather than an exchange.38 Regarding memory, Licona notes that “[m]emories are selective and are augmented by interpretive details. In time, they may become uncertain, faded or distorted.”39 Licona finds the failure of accuracy in memory to be sobering:
But even reports by eyewitnesses attempting to be truthful have challenges. Zabell notes that the eyewitness must “(1) accurately perceive it; (2) remember it with precision; (3) truthfully state it; and (4) successfully [sic] communicate it to others.” Moreover, even bona fide eyewitnesses who were both sober and sincere often provide conflicting testimonies.40
Hence, although Licona provides a solid study of Jesus’ resurrection through a historiographical approach, there is still a need to study Jesus’s resurrection in First Corinthians through a memory approach.
1.4.1.3 Conclusion
A brief survey of key scholars who have engaged in historical research on Jesus’ resurrection in First Corinthians (without engaging with memory studies)
37 Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 421.
38 Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 422–3. Note this transformation of the corpse should not be understood as creating a zombie; instead, “the emergence of deceased persons from the realm of the dead in a transformed bodily state” (Harris, “Resurrection and Immortality in the Pauline Corpus,” 149).
39 Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus , 34. Two other places where Licona comments on memory: (1) “The past only survives in fragments preserved in texts, artifacts and the effects of past causes. The documents were written by biased authors, who had an agenda, who were shaped by the cultures in which they lived (and that are often foreign to us), who varied in both their personal integrity and the accuracy of their memories, who had access to a cache of incomplete information that varied in its accuracy, and who selected from that cache only information relevant to their purpose in writing. Accordingly, all sources must be viewed and employed with prudence” (p. 38). (2) “We have just considered various obstacles that prohibit historians from claiming absolute certainty: selective and imperfect memories, selection of content deemed important to a particular historian, interpretation, fuzziness of genre, unreliable eyewitness reports, fragmented data surviving from a foreign culture, and the bias and horizon of both our sources and of historians analyzing them” (p. 67).
40 Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 35; citing Zabell, “The Probabilistic Analysis of Testimony,” 334 [sic in original].
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
1 gill brown stock
A little nutmeg
A few drops of lemon juice
Cook the butter and flour together, but do not brown. Take off the fire and add the yolks. When thoroughly mixed add the cream and stock, salt, nutmeg and lemon. Heat but do not boil. Pass through a tammy. Heat again without boiling.
Cold Sauces
Anchovy Butter
4 ozs. anchovies
6 ozs. butter
Wash and dry the anchovies. Pound them and put them through a sieve. Beat the butter to a cream and add to it the anchovies.
Horse-radish Sauce
2 table-spoons grated horse-radish
1 tea-spoon mustard
1 dessert-spoon sugar
1 table-spoon vinegar
2 table-spoons thick cream
It is essential in making this sauce that the horse-radish should be grated as fine as possible. Mix all together, adding the vinegar slowly, and the cream last of all.
Mayonnaise Sauce
1 or 2 raw yolks of egg
Olive oil
Vinegar
Put the yolk into a bowl and beat it slightly. Add the oil drop by drop, stirring continually in one direction, and working it well against the sides of the bowl. When the sauce becomes thick, the oil may be added more quickly. Continue adding oil until sufficient sauce has been made. Add vinegar, salt, pepper to taste. This sauce should be made in a cold place and will take about fifteen minutes to make. Finely chopped tarragon, chervil and olives may be added to the mayonnaise.
Mint Sauce
1 handful of mint chopped
1 gill vinegar
2 table-spoons powdered or brown sugar
Melt the sugar in the vinegar. Chop the mint very fine. It cannot be too fine. Add it to the vinegar.
Sauce for Cold Fish
4 anchovies
3 yolks (hard boiled)
2 yolks (raw)
1 tea-spoon mustard
Oil
Vinegar
A little smoked salmon
Clean, bone and pound the anchovies with the hard boiled eggs. Add the mustard and raw yolks, stirring all the time. Add vinegar and oil until you have a sufficient quantity of sauce, using three times as much oil as vinegar, and stirring continually and always in the same direction. Add salt, pepper and a little shredded smoked salmon.
Sauce Gaillarde
2 hard boiled eggs
2 gherkins
4 small pickled onions
A little tarragon and chervil
Oil
Vinegar
Crush the yolks and add to them the whites, gherkins, onions, tarragon and chervil finely chopped. Add oil very slowly, turning continually from left to right until the quantity of sauce required has been made. Add one or two table-spoons of vinegar Salt, pepper and a little mustard.
Sauce Moutarde
2 hard boiled yolks
2 table-spoons olive oil
3 table-spoons vinegar
1 table-spoon mustard
1 small handful tarragon
Crush the yolks and add to them the oil, salt, pepper, vinegar and mustard. Stir well together. Chop the tarragon very finely. Add it to the sauce.
Sauce Ravigote
2 hard boiled yolks
2 raw yolks
1 dessert-spoon mustard
Tarragon, shallot, parsley, chives
Capers, gherkins
Oil
Vinegar
Pound and pass the hard boiled yolks through a sieve. Mix them thoroughly with the raw yolk and mustard. Add oil as for mayonnaise until the required quantity is made. Season. Add vinegar to taste and a little very finely chopped tarragon, shallot, parsley, and chives. Just before serving add a table-spoon capers and chopped gherkins.
Sauce Remoulade
1 hard boiled yolk
1 raw yolk
1 coffee-spoon mustard
1 large table-spoon chopped shallots, parsley and chervil
Oil
Vinegar
Put the hard boiled and raw yolk with the mustard in a basin. Mix thoroughly with a wooden spoon. Add the oil very slowly, stirring continually in one direction. The quantity of oil used depends on the quantity of sauce required. Add a large table-spoon of finely chopped parsley, chervil and shallots. A very little vinegar, salt and pepper. THE END
Artichoke Soup, 35.
” ”, 42.
Asparagus, Purée of, 61.
Asparagus Soup, 35.
Bain Marie, 110.
Barley Broth, 87.
Beef Essence, 95.
Beef Tea,—I., 95.
” ” II., 96.
” ” III., 96.
Bisques, 78-80.
Black Beans, Purée of, 62.
Bouillabaisse, 82
Broad Beans, Purée of, 63.
Broths, 87-92.
Index
Soups
Brown Bread Soup, 51
Brown Soup, 24.
Brown Soup Stock, 7.
Brunoise, 16.
Calves’ Foot Broth, 97.
Caramel Colouring, 13.
Carrots, Purée of, 63.
Carrot Soup, 42
Cauliflower Cream, 51.
Cauliflower Soup, 36.
Celery Cream, 43.
Celery Soup, 36.
Chestnut Soup, 37.
Chicken Broth, 87.
” ”, 98
Chicken Custard, 98.
Chicken Panada, 99.
Chicken Soup, 57.
Chicken Stock, 9.
Chicken Tea, 100.
Clarify, How to, 4
Clear Brown Stock, 8.
Clear Soups, 16-22.
Clear Soup with Quenelles, rice, etc., 22.
Cockie Leekie, 88.
Colouring for Soups, 13, 105.
Common Stock, 7.
Consommé, 9
” with poached eggs, 16.
Crab Bisque, 78.
Cream of Pearl Barley, 25.
Cream of Rice, 25.
” ” ” and Parmesan, 52.
Croûte au pot, 17.
” ” ” Gratinée, 18.
Croûtons, 104.
Cucumber Soup, 52.
Custards, 104.
Dutch Soup, 53.
Economical Stock, 10
Endive, Purée of, 64.
Fat, How to remove, 3.
Fire, Care of, 1.
Fish Soups, 82-85.
Fish Soup, 83.
Flemish Soup, 53.
Force-meat Balls, 105
Fowl, Purée of, 73.
Fowl, Purée of, à la Reine Margot, 73.
Friar’s Chicken, 54.
Game Broth, 89.
Game Panada, 99.
Game Soup, 18.
Giblet Soup, 26.
Glaze, 14.
Green colouring for Soups, 105.
Green Pea Soup, 37.
Green Peas, Purée of—I., 65.
Green Peas, Purée of—II., 65
Green Peas, Purée of, Dried, 66.
Hare, Purée of, 74.
Hare Soup, 27.
Hotch Potch, 90.
Imperial Soup, 19.
Invalid Broths and Soups, 95-101.
Italian Dried Green Peas, Purée of, 66.
Italian Macaroni Soup, 54.
Julienne, 20.
Left-over Soup, 28.
Lentils, Purée of, 67.
Liaison of cream and eggs, Soups made with, 51-58.
Lobster Bisque, 78.
Macaroni Soup (clear), 20.
Macaroni Soup (Italian), 54.
Macaroni Soup (Thick), 55.
Meat Purées, 73-76.
Mock Bisque, 44
Mock Turtle, 29.
Mulligatawny, 30.
Mushroom Soup, 38.
Mutton Broth, 100.
Onions, Purée of, 68.
Ox-tail Soup, 31.
Oyster Bisque, 79
Oyster Soup, 84.
Pearl Barley, Cream of, 25.
Pheasant, Purée of, 75.
Polish Soup, 39.
Portuguese Soup, 44.
Potato Balls, 106.
” Broth, 90.
” Cream, 45.
” Soup, 46.
Purées of Meat, 73-76.
Quenelles, 106, 107.
Rabbit, Purée of, 75
Rice, 107.
Rice Balls, 108.
Rice, Cream of, 25.
Rice, Purée of, 68.
Rice, Savoury, 108.
Roux, 12.
Russian Soup, 56
Salmon Soup, 84.
Scotch Broth, 91.
Seasoning, 3.
Sheep’s Head Broth, 92.
Sorrel Soup, 46.
Spinach Colouring, 105.
Spring Soup, 21
Stock, General Remarks, on, 1-5.
Stocks, 7-11.
Straining Soup, 4.
Summer Soup, 47.
Thickening for Soups, 12
Thick Soups, 24-33.
Thick Vegetable Soups made with Stock, 35-39.
Tomato Soup, 39.
” ”, 47.
Turkish Soup, 56.
Turnips, Purée of, 69.
Veal Broth, 101
Veal Soup (White), 58.
Veal Stock, 10.
Vegetable Purées, 61-69.
Vegetable Soups made with Stock, 35-39.
Vegetable Soups without Stock, 42-47.
Venison Soup, 33.
Vermicelli, 22
Water Cress Soup, 57.
White Chicken Soup, 57.
White Veal Soup, 58.
Winter Vegetables, Purée of, 69.
Anchovy Butter, 137.
Anchovy Sauce, 114.
Apple Sauce, 126.
Béchamel, 126.
Black Butter, 112.
Bread Sauce, 127.
Brown Sauce, 118.
Celery Sauce, 127.
Cold Sauces, 137-141.
Cream Sauce, 132.
Cucumber Sauce, 114.
” ”, 118
Cullis, 118.
Dutch Sauce, 112.
Egg Sauce, 114.
Fish Sauces, 112-116.
Sauces
Game Sauce, 132
Genoese Sauce, 113.
German Sauce, 133.
Gooseberry Sauce, 128.
Horse-radish Sauce (cold), 137.
Horse-radish Sauce (Dutch), 119.
Hot Sauces for Fowls, Ducks, etc., 126-130.
Hot Sauces for Game, 132-135
Hot Sauces for Roasts, 118-124.
Italian Sauce, 113.
Lemon Sauce, 128
Maître d’Hotel Sauce, 114.
” ” ”, 120.
Mayonnaise Sauce, 138.
Melted Butter, 114.
Mint Sauce, 138.
Mushroom Sauce, 121.
Onion Sauce, 121.
Orange Sauce, 134
Oyster Sauce, 115.
Parsley Sauce, 129.
Sauce Béarnaise, 122
” for Chops and Steaks, 122.
Sauce for Cold Fish, 139.
Sauce Gaillarde, 139.
” Hollandaise, 115.
” Moutarde, 140.
” Piquante au Citron, 123.
Sauce Poivrade, 134.
” Ravigote, 140.
” à la Reine, 129.
” Remoulade, 141.
” Robert, 123.
” Vinaigrette, 124.
Shrimp Sauce, 114.
Sour Cream Sauce, 135
Tomato Sauce, 124.
PRINTED BY TURNBULL AND SPEARS, EDINBURGH
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE SOUP AND SAUCE BOOK ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
