This article considers the implications of a memory approach (David Graieg, Resurrection Remembered: A Memory Approach to Jesus’ Resurrection in First Corinthians (London: Routledge, 2024)) on the various hypotheses relating to Jesus’ resurrection (Andrew Loke, Investigating the Resurrection of Jesus Christ: A New Transdisciplinary Approach (London: Routledge, 2020), 24–25).
(1) The no-experience hypothesis states that the disciples falsely claimed that Jesus had risen (Chris Sandoval, Can Christians Prove the Resurrection?: A Reply to the Apologists (Victoria, CA: Trafford, 2010), 36, 174, 187–189)). A memory approach indicates that it would be unlikely that all the conspirators would have accurately remembered their fabrication. (2) The intra-mental hypothesis (Stephen H. Smith, “Parapsychology, Hallucinations, Collective Delusions, and Jesus’ Post-Resurrection Appearances: A Response to Glenn Siniscalchi,” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 21 no. 3 (2023): 228–253) has three varieties: (a) On the subjective hallucinations hypothesis, it would be unlikely that there was a coherent collective memory, and such memories would be liable to suggestibility and possible false memory associations. (b) The objective visions theory would create similar memories to the supernatural resurrection hypothesis. (c) The metaphorical interpretation hypothesis suffers from a lack of retrieval cues. (3) The mistaken identity hypothesis (Robert Greg Cavin, “Miracles, Probability, and the Resurrection of Jesus: A Philosophical Mathematical, and Historical Study” (Ph.D. diss., University of California Irvine, 1993), 309–358) would be liable to absent-mindedness due to superficial encounters, suggesting only shallow memory impressions. (4) The swoon theory (Zahid Hussain Khan and Seyed Amir Hossein Javadi, “Jesus Christ: Resurrection or Resuscitation,” British Journal of Medical and Health Sciences 2, no. 11 (2020): 590–593) would have created a flashbulb memory regarding Jesus’ survival but not regarding his resurrection. (5) The resurrection hypothesis has two varieties: (a) The naturally rose hypothesis would initially produce similar memories to the supernatural resurrection hypothesis; however, when Jesus naturally died again, the memory of his resurrection would likely fade. (b) The hypothesis that God supernaturally raised Jesus would have made deep memory impressions on the early Christians. In conclusion, a memory approach supports the God supernaturally raised Jesus hypothesis in confirming that the early Christians would have vividly remembered the bodily resurrection of Jesus.