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.