He is speaking on the criterion of embarrassment. Keith is right… It is a wildcard. What is embarrassing… And now, the illustrated life of the embarrassing moments of Jesus. Tackling the usual apologetics. First, the baptism of Jesus. Goes against Casey a bit here. Not satisfied with this criterion, it seems. Again, the historical plausibility of the events.
He mentions the family, Weeden… Kebler, idea. I sorta agree.
Takes into account that everything in the Gospels comes from post-Easter. Everything is interpretation/story. There, then, is no embarrassment.
And now, Mark Goodacre.
Says that teaching the criteria are good for teaching. Yes! Going to speak about Q. And does he! The Q hypothesis prevents actually scholarly work. Geesh, he doesn’t care for Q. Did not know that…
Talks about privileging data. Against Mark-Q overlap theory. The theory is…. Like young earth creationism.
And another one. Bam! And now, onto Crossan.
And now about embarrassment.
Takes on a latent biblicism.
Joel L. Watts holds a Masters of Arts from United Theological Seminary with a focus in literary and rhetorical criticism of the New Testament. His interests include exploring the role of mimesis in human civilization, specifically in the study of religion and media, as well as science fiction and the way in which it has allowed mythology to be explored in light of scientific discoveries of the past century. He is the author of Mimetic Criticism of the Gospel of Mark: Introduction and Commentary (Wipf and Stock, 2013) and a co-editor and contributor to From Fear to Faith: Stories of Hitting Spiritual Walls (Energion, 2013).
Website: → Unsettled Christianity
Connect
[...] liveblogging day 2Joel Watts blogs about…Day 1ADay 1BDay 2: Loren StuckenbruckDale AllisonRafael Rodriguez and Mark GoodacreAnthony LeDonne and Dagmar WinterConcluding ThoughtsThe HangoutThe Last SupperKen Schenck on the [...]