brill.com/jshj © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2014 | doi 10.1163/17455197-01202004 journal for the study of the historical jesus 12 (2014) 143-164 1 Paul Foster, ‘Memory, Orality, and the Fourth Gospel: Three Dead-Ends in Historical Jesus Research’, jshj 10.3 (2012), pp. 191–227. We cite this article by page number within parentheses in the text. Memory, Orality, and the Fourth Gospel A Response to Paul Foster with Further Comments for Future Discussion Stanley E. Porter and Hughson T. Ong McMaster Divinity College, Canada porters@mcmaster.ca; hughsonong@yahoo.com Abstract This article examines and responds to the arguments made by Paul Foster in a recent article in jshj regarding social-memory theory, orality, and the Fourth Gospel, where he argues that recent research in these areas are dead-ends for historical Jesus research. We do not necessarily wish to defend the research he criticizes, but we respond to Foster by pointing out some of the limitations in his analysis and provide further com- ments to move discussion of these research areas forward. Our comments address his assumption that form- and redaction-criticism accomplish the purposes that he envi- sions for historical Jesus research and a number of other problematic arguments he raises regarding each of these areas. Keywords form-criticism – Fourth Gospel – historical Jesus research – orality – redaction- criticism – social-memory theory Introduction In a recent issue of Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, Paul Foster takes pains (and goes to great lengths) to characterize some recent work in social- memory theory, orality, and the Fourth Gospel as dead-ends in historical Jesus research.1 He subjects each of these areas to sustained criticism and suggests