Original sentence: " According to Chris Keith, an alternative to the search for a historical Jesus "posits a historical Jesus who is ultimately unattainable, but can be hypothesized on the basis of the interpretations of the early Christians, and as part of a larger process of accounting for how and why early Christians came to view Jesus in the ways that they did." According to Keith, "these two models are methodologically and epistemologically incompatible,"  calling into question the methods and aim of the first model." According to Le Donne, the usage of such criteria is a form of "positivist historiography.According to Keith, the criteria are literary tools, indebted to form criticism, not historiographic tools.Any Gospel unit is shaped and interpreted by the ones who remember; the distinction between "authentic" and "inauthentic" is therefore useless.Chris Keith and others argue for a "social memory" approach, which states that memories are shaped by socially determined interpretative frameworks, which in turn are shaped by the needs of the present.Instead of searching for a historical Jesus, scholarship should investiage how the memories of Jesus where shaped, and how they were reshaped "with the aim of cohesion and the self-understanding (identity) of groups.Since the late 2000s, concerns have been growing about the usefullness of these criteria.They were meant to discern pre-Gospel traditions, not to identify historical facts, but have "substituted the pre-literary tradition with that of the historical Jesus