The language your piece, which you linked in your signature, said these scholars accused Jesus of sin. That's simply untrue. The language reads as follows:
Originally Posted by Adelphos
Mark describes John’s baptism as “a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Mark 1:4b), and when people were baptized, they did so “confessing their sins” (Mark 1:5b).... From what did Jesus need to repent?....He says a full discussion will not stop with just that first option; he rejects the third option as speculative and without any textual basis; and then procedes to talk more of the nature of John's baptism to explain how it would be that Jesus took a "baptism of repentance". He states an option that some take (e.g., Hollenbach). Then he rejects it as "highly speculative" because "There is, in fact, no historical evidence of a particular sin for which Jesus needed to repent. The texts are silent."
We are left with three alternatives at this point. First of all, we could simply take the approach found in early Christian Gospels.... Second, we could make possible inferences about Jesus’ state of mind from what we may know about his background and suggest possible sins of which Jesus may have been guilty.... Third, we could return to the nature of John’s baptism and investigate further the character of repentance and confession of sin.
For those who would like to read the entire paper rathe just the extractions in this discussion see http://www.ibresearch.com/page.asp?page_id=23
Level your accusations against the likes of Hollenbach, certainly; however, the IBR paper rejects that stance.