I'm currently reading James Crossley's Jesus and the Chaos of History and really enjoying it. Among other things, James has joined those of us who are skeptical of the criteria of authenticity. I want to highlight something he says, however, because I think he's understood the implications of this shift rightly. Here's the quotation:
"Emerging from under the rubble of the criteria, we are left with an old-fashioned view of interpretation, argument, and the combining of arguments for collective weight to make a general case" (Jesus and the Chaos of History, 44-45).
I'll say more about this later, but note right now that this is precisely why criticisms of those employing memory theory in Jesus studies for having failed to produce an example of how social memory theory itself indicates the historical accuracy or inaccuracy of individual traditions have misunderstood the theory from the start. It's also why the charge that we're abandoning methodology altogether is equally misplaced. What it does indicate, as I've said elsewhere, is that it is not the job of theory to do the work of the theorist.