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.