Resurrection remembered a memory approach to Jesus' resurrection in First Corinthians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"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." --
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".