Porter and Ong respond to Foster, Foster responds to Porter and Ong—Chris Keith

The most recent volume of the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus has two articles that might intrigue readers who remember Paul Foster's argument against the usefulness of social memory theory in historical Jesus studies or the panel discussion between me, Rafael Rodriguez, Zeb Crook, and Paul Foster at SBL 2013.  Stanley Porter and Hughson T. Ong respond critically to Foster's article ("Memory, Orality and the Fourth Gospel: A Response to Paul Foster with Further Comments for Future Discussion") and Foster then responds to Porter and Ong ("Memory, Orality, and the Fourth Gospel: An Ongoing Conversation with Stan Porter and Hughson T. Ong").  I haven't had a chance to read the whole thing thoroughly but will report back in due course.  My own two-part article "Social Memory Theory and Gospels Research: The First Decade," interacts critically with Foster's initial argument at some points as well and has been with the journal Early Christianity since the summer of 2013.  The editors decided to have a themed volume on the memory approach, which is why it's taken a while to come out.  It will be out later this year.