ApostateAbe

The seemingly similar natures of the gospels suggest, in my opinion, that the the authors share roughly the same beliefs, and they can be used to clarify each other. That is only my personal opinion, and I won't ask you to agree on that point. If you think Matthew and Luke can not be used to shed light on what is going on in Mark, then that is OK by me.
I am saying that the conclusion does not follow from your hypothesis. It follows from the contents of Mark, be it written as fiction, pseudo-fiction or non-fiction. Your hypothesis does not have explanatory power, meaning it does not strongly expect the fact that JtB is a Christian authority figure. JtB could have just as easily been non-existent or a villain. Your hypothesis is too non-detailed and ambiguous to expect such a thing. When you put Mark on the fence between intended biography and intended fiction, that means we may expect to find just about anything in Mark.
The cults of JtB and Christianity were rivals with each other. Both cults viewed both Jesus and JtB as authorities. Among Christians, Jesus was the primary authority and JtB was the secondary authority. Among the cult of JtB, JtB was the primary authority and Jesus was the secondary authority. Each cult claimed mutually conflicting primary authorities. The cult of JtB made their case by pointing out that Jesus was baptized as a disciple of JtB. This was a troubling point for Christians, who believed that Jesus was the Messiah who exclusively represented God. So, Christians spun the baptism story and their accounts of JtB to that end.
Insensible beginning, discontinuities, boring sermons, and abrupt ending. You explain those things with a seemingly implausible new supposition (bad writing).

aa5874

You INVENT your own EMBARRASSMENT. There is NO historical source that can show what you claim was not invented.

In the NT, John the Baptist made it CLEAR he was the fore-runner of Jesus and that there was one MIGHTIER to come.

Mark 1 In the NT, John the Baptist had ALREADY made it KNOWN that there was ONE MIGHTIER him and would BAPTIZE with the Holy Ghost.

And when John was asked he was the Messiah this is John's reply in the NT.

John 1:19-23 - In the NT, John the Baptist made it ABSOLUTELY clear that he was NOT the Christ.

When will all your embarrassing inventions stop?

There is ZERO credible historical evidence that the early Jesus cult was embarrassed by baptism of John and you cannot even show that there was an actual Jesus cult BEFORE the fall of the Temple.

There is ZERO credible historical evidence that any character called Jesus was actually Baptized by John.

Minimalist

Perhaps for people who are inclined ( or desperate ) to believe. For myself, a single reference from a contemporary writer would be sufficient and far superior to all the nonsense that believers put forward.

ApostateAbe

Such a contemporary writer is found with Paul, who met Peter and John, and who mentioned in passing that he met "James, the Lord's brother," reputed by the gospels and Josephus to be the "brother of Jesus," but that probably doesn't count in your opinion, because Paul was a Christian and you can't trust him, and he might have been interpolated or misunderstood anyway.

When I used the phrase, "explanatory scope," I was talking about one of the five criteria from the "Argument to the Best Explanation." It is a methodology for deciding beliefs based on the evidence independent from wishful thinking or ideology of any sort. I think we should free ourselves from the delusion that the only people who are irrationally bent on matters of religion are religious adherents, and that is what the Argument to the Best Explanation is about.

You can find the details of the methodology here. I most certainly would suggest that such a methodology would be superior to either indiscriminate skepticism or minimalism. "Minimalist" is your username, and I find it rather unfortunate, because it bounds a certain prejudice tightly to your identity. Not that "ApostateAbe" doesn't have a similar problem. If you ask the mods to change your username, then so will I. I think a fair person of historical studies should not demand a written non-cult contemporary witness to the leader of a small poor cult, especially when written evidence from his own cult does not exist except for copies upon copies dated centuries after.

People have pointed out to me in the past that my belief in a model of Jesus as a traveling charismatic apocalyptic cult leader can be attributed to my anti-Christianity prejudice. It is a fear that is difficult for me to shake, because I love belief in the truth for the sake of the truth, not for the sake of opposing religion. I find solace in the point that is the same model of Jesus (apocalyptic prophet) predominantly accepted by non-ideological historians of early Christianity. And the evidence in favor of it does seem darned conclusive. Just about everything in the New Testament can be explained using that model, including passages that are difficult for every other model, and it elegantly fits the historical context--an apocalyptic preacher sired Jesus (John the Baptist), and Jesus sired more apocalyptic preachers (Paul and the canonical authors).

show_no_mercy

Because we all know that the baptism of Jesus by John was embarrassing to Cerinthians, Ebionites, and other Separatists who thought that "Jesus" and "Christ" were two separate beings.

ApostateAbe

OK, I'll take your word for it.

aa5874

In the NT, Jesus was NOT a man. In the NT, Jesus was God Incarnate.

In the NT, Jesus had a woman as a mother and the Holy Ghost of God as his father.

No Church writer or author of the Gospel ever claimed that the apostle James had a human brother, whose father was human, named the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

In the NT, "Paul" called God our father, but that does not mean that God is human.

Now, in the Church writings, Papias "Fragment" X and Jerome'e De Viris Illustribus" 2, the apostle James was not the son of the supposed mother of Jesus and the Holy Ghost of God was the father of Jesus.

The "Argument to the Best Explanation" when APPLIED to all the information available about Jesus suggest that Jesus was MYTH.

spamandham

...seems pretty specious considering the source of the texts is the Jesus cult, who you claim were embarrassed to have John as their predecessor.

...well, I'm glad it's not essential, because you're way off in the weeds of speculation here.

ApostateAbe

Yes, you are right. I am not aware of other plausible explanations for why John the Baptist was killed according to Josephus and the gospels, though there could be other plausible explanations out there.

spamandham

If you agree that Mark precedes the other gospels, and I seem to recall that you do, then I don't see how you can reasonably use Matthew and Luke (or John or the gospel of Thomas, etc) to try to figure out what Mark meant. That which precedes chronologically establishes precedence, not the other way around. If Mark is the earliest we have, it must be analyzed from the perspective of assuming Mark and his audience were unfamiliar with later texts.

For the moment, assume Mark is a work of pure Jewish fiction written by someone who is clearly familiar with Jewish scriptures. Please tell me the most plausible explanation, in your mind, for the author including the story of Jesus' baptism by John. For the purpose of this exercise, assume the existence of a JtB cult.

You seem to be willing to say much more about the beliefs of the JtB cult than most scholars are willing to claim.

The idea that Mark was a piece of shit writer is not my original idea.