Samuel Zinner quotes Steve Mason in support of the point that Giuseppe quotes in the OP^^.
First, the beginning and abstract of of Zinner's essay, -
ABSTRACT
There are good reasons for doubting the standard model that insists Mandaean beliefs and formulae that parallel Christian and Islamic traditions are basically derivative. Mandaeism’s focus on John the Baptizer ... reflects the religion’s origins in ancient Palestine as an independent group that developed at about the same time as the Jewish Jesus sect. Similarly, the parallels between some Mandaean texts and the Johannine gospel are not the result of Mandaean “borrowing”; each represents an independent trajectory based on John the Baptizer’s preaching, modified according to each group’s needs. Similarities between Islamic and Mandaean liturgies and prayer formulae are best explained as the result of Mandaean influence upon nascent Islam rather than the latter’s influence upon Mandaeism. Similarities between Mandaean and Jewish liturgies result from preservation of traditions (dynamically modified over time) from the era before Mandaeans parted ways from their Jewish or at least Jewish-related matrix.
[Article INTRODUCTION/BEGINNING]
Mandaeism is one of the few living religions of Gnosticism [The Yazidi religion is another]. As I will argue, similarities between Jewish and Mandaean liturgies are most parsimoniously explained if Mandaeism, which eventually became a theologically anti-Jewish religious group, originated as a Jewish or a somehow Jewish-related sect. A denial of Gnosticism’s origins in Judaism because of the former’s anti-Judaism is not a decisive argument, because as Lester L. Grabbe observes, Christianity grew into an anti-Jewish movement despite its Jewish origins.3
As Grabbe continues: “To get from Judaism to Gnosticism is not easy, but it is certainly not impossible. . . . One does not have to bridge the gap all in one go.”4 Regarding the era of Gnosticism’s origin/s, the fact that it appears already fully developed in the early second century CE arguably makes a first century origin probable, and as Grabble writes, “the situation in Judaism after 70 was not conducive to this sort of development; it seems likely that any Jewish proto-Gnosticism was already in existence before the 66–70 war.”5 Grabbe concludes with the following important observations: “Many of the pre-70 strands of Judaism were cut off by the 66–70 war or disappeared soon afterwards because of the changed circumstances. Others developed in their own way, leading away from Judaism itself: the Christians and perhaps the Gnostics.”6 I would be more specific here, for present purposes, and say, “the Christians and perhaps the Mandaeans.”
3 Lester L. Grabbe, An Introduction to Second Temple Judaism: History and Religion of the Jews in the Time of Nehemiah, the Maccabees, Hillel and Jesus (London/NY: T&T Clark, 2010), p. 123. However, Grabbe’s claim needs to be qualified. The original Jewish followers of Jesus did not become anti-Jewish. It was the Gentile movement founded by Paul, which was only indirectly rooted in Judaism by virtue of its founder Paul’s Jewish background, that became anti-Jewish.
4 Ibid., p. 123. Häberl informs me that, based on a personal meeting between him and the late Cyrus Gordon, that the latter should be added to the list of scholars who have suspected some measure of Jewish origins for Gnosticism. Incidentally, cf. Cyrus H. Gordon, “Gnostic Light on Genesis 1 and 2 via Maśśaʾ ,” in Cyrus H. Gordon; Gary A. Rendsburg, eds., Eblaitica: Essays on the Ebla Archives and Eblaite Language. Volume 4 (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2002), pp. 197-198.
5 Lester L. Grabbe, An Introduction to Second Temple Judaism, pp. 123-124.
6 ibid., p. 124
Zinner cites Mason in this context, immediately prior to the excerpt Giuseppe quotes above, -
.
A Christian scholar will not in a purportedly scholarly journal openly reject the Mandaean version
on theological grounds. Instead, the rejection will be made on the basis of the claim that the gospels are “historical” while the Mandaean texts are
[supposedly] not, because the gospels are
[supposedly] “earlier” than the “late” Mandaean texts. However, even if we accept this reasoning, which really in some cases could just serve the purposes of theology and apologetics, it runs the risk of overlooking the fact that it doesn’t take long at all for legendary accretions to develop. Such can take place rapidly and do not require several years’ passage. Pertinent to these issues is Steve Mason’s following remarks:
.
... we see an obvious and major difference between Josephus and the Gospels in their respective portraits of the Baptist. To put it bluntly, Josephus does not [portray] John as a “figure in the Christian tradition.” ... Josephus presents him as a famous Jewish preacher with a message and a following of his own, neither of which is related to Jesus. This is a problem for the reader of the NT because the Gospels unanimously declare him to be essentially the forerunner of Jesus the Messiah.28
Steve Mason, Josephus and the New Testament (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1993), p. 155.
.