hjalti

I hope this isn't too off topic: But isn't it embarassing that one of Jesus' disciples betrayed him?

In the gospel of Luke the author is clearly embarassed, because he claims that it was caused by Satan entering Judas. Same story in the gospel of John, there Jesus just identifies Judas as a betrayer in front of the other disciples.

We see that the author of Mark is also embarassed, because he tries to soften the blow by claiming that Jesus knew what would happen.

The best explanation of this is that Jesus was actually betrayed by Judas

-> the betrayal of Judas was a historical event.

aa5874

But, it was the the character who walked on water and transfigured that was actually BETRAYED in gMark.

ApostateAbe

OK, so we have two explanations on the table. I'll put my own explanation in my own words:

I propose that Jesus was a follower of John the Baptist, was baptized by John the Baptist, and this became an apologetic problem for Christians for two reasons: (1) Christians believed that baptism was for the cleansing of sin, and (2) Christians were rivals with the cult of John the Baptist.

You gave your explanation. So, I'll run down the list of criteria and compare the two. You can tell me where I went wrong.

Explanatory power. If Jesus really was baptized by John the Baptist, then the hypothesis makes the evidence, the myth of Jesus getting baptized by John the Baptist, much more probable than the alternative hypothesis. Your hypothesis doesn't even seem to be an explanation specifically for why there is a myth that Jesus was baptized. Any number of alternative mythical accounts could have followed from "a theological reason, possibly involving references to Elijah and Elisha and the forerunner to the messiah from the Hebrew scriptures. Later theologians reshaped this scene as their theology changed." Explanatory power is my argument's by-far-strongest point, I figure.

Explanatory scope. I listed four sets of evidence in the OP, in addition to Matthew 3:14, in addition to the reputed baptism event for six sets of evidence total, that cumulatively seem to elegantly explain the evidence. Your explanation seems to cover only the baptism of Jesus.

More plausible. "...it must be implied to some degree by a greater variety of accepted truths than any other, and be implied more strongly than any other..." We see apologetic influence in the gospels analogous to my own explanation. John 21:20-23 is an example (the passages makes a flimsy excuse for the apparently-failed apocalyptic prophecies of Jesus as told in the synoptics). In large part, since you gave little if any details of your hypothesis, your explanation wins on the point of plausibility.

Less ad hoc. My explanation requires several new (though not especially improbable) propositions. 1) Jesus was baptized by John, and 2) Jesus was a follower of John. Again, in large part since your explanation is sorely lacking in details, you win on less ad hoc.

Disconfirmed by fewer accepted beliefs. Both explanations are equal on this point.

The explanatory power and explanatory scope of my hypothesis are both strong enough that the alternative explanation is pretty-much overwhelmed. Your explanation doesn't seem to be much more than hand-waving. You may want to put more substance into your explanation.

ApostateAbe

Yes. It is actually the conclusion accepted among critical scholars. Does that strike you as improbable?

hjalti

The conclusion accepted among critical scholars?

ApostateAbe

Yes.

hjalti

And on what basis do you make that assertion?

ApostateAbe

Some of my remote memories of what I have read that reflects the opinions of critical scholars concerning Judas. It is a conclusion shared by Bart Ehrman, for example, in his book Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, and his opinions seem to reflect the opinions of the consensus, most of the time.

hjalti

Do you consider Burton Mack to be a critical scholar?

A related question, I've read that book, and I was trying to remember if Ehrman believes in the empty tomb, do you remember that?

spin

When you start with a theory and use it as an "observation statement" for another theory and then use that as an "observation statement" for another theory. You actually have no "observation statements" at all. Ehrman's, and other scholars', views are not "observation statements".