Previously, I’ve shared these blog posts inspired by the now quite famous “Blow Up in Baltimore”: Chris Keith’s Social Memory Theory and the Gospels: Assessing the First Decade (video); The SBL Memory and Historical Jesus Session;  Less Serious Observations on the SBL Memory Session; and Jens Schröter Weighs In, Giving Further Reason to Buy and Read His From Jesus to the New Testament; Tyler Stewart’s The Blow up in Baltimore (Part 1 – Summary) and (Part 2 – The Sparks); and my own “big picture” summary: 2013 AAR/SBL Annual Meeting Report (2a): “The Blow Up in Baltimore”.

I’ve come across a few more entries now. First, Judy Redman has done a couple of posts linking psychological memory research with social memory studies: Memory in real life (1) and Memory in real life (2). Second, Michael Kok’s SBL and social memory  and The SBL and Social Memory Discussion Continues…

Also, according to a Facebook update from Anthony Le Donne the session was recorded and we’ll hear more about it soon!

The last few days I’ve been thinking to myself, “If Paul Foster’s view is correct that all we can ‘know’ about Jesus is what a positivist historiography allows us to affirm broadly about Jesus’ life, then is there anything more to say?” Keith, Le Donne, Rodriguez, Thatcher, and others have presented a way of knowing that isn’t limited merely to the few bare bone facts that we can uncover at the bottom of the Jesus Tradition, but instead it has allowed the tradition itself to give us a knowledge of Jesus that may be distinct from that which was sought by the Questers, but knowledge nevertheless. If Foster is correct, and if I’ve understood his argument, I wonder if any further discussion about the historical Jesus is an exercise in futility since the bare minimum has been said already and to say more would be to affirm more than the bare minimum.