Paul the Uncertain wrote: ↑Wed Aug 24, 2022 12:01 am The Mandaeans are a people of ancient roots who aren't Christians but who share McGrath's belief in a historical John. While I agree that that happy circumstance can only provide McGrath comfort in his conclusion, it also seems to me that he was already comfortable enough based on other evidence to consider the threshold question settled for him.
I don't like the McGrath's argument:
Rivka Nir says that John the Baptist is filtered only by Christian eyes
Mandeans adored John the Baptist, and alas!, they were not Christians!
Therefore: Nir is wrong since we have at least someone who filtered the Baptist by not-Christian eyes!
Therefore: the Josephus's passage is genuine and John the Baptist probably existed.
Again and again, everything in McGrath's interest for Mandeans appears to be designed to persuade about the historicity of the Baptist.
Therefore: Nir is wrong since we have at least someone who filtered the Baptist by not-Christian eyes!
Yes, wrong (from McGrath's point of view) not to look into a potential channel of information, even if only to explain-or-argue why it shouldn't be used. But
Therefore: the Josephus's passage is genuine and John the Baptist probably existed.
I don't get that that is what McGrath is arguing. Given that McGrath has no conspicuous problem with the overall authenticity of the Josephus passage, and applying to this case a way of thinking he has recommended for a similar case, I think John's probable existence hasn't been an open question for McGrath for a good long while.
It is becoming more and more evident, in my eyes, that the only argument left for historicists hard-to-die à la McGrath is the following:
you see, even if John the Baptist is midrashized totally in the Gospels, Josephus secures us that he at least existed. So, why not Jesus also?
It is an argument meant to preserve as concrete the possibility that Jesus existed, beyond of all the midrash in the gospels and even beyond the sound silence about an earthly Jesus in Paul. This is the principal reason, I think, behind the McGrath's interest for the Mandeans. By now, mine are only suspicions and prophecies about McGrath. I would like that the facts will confute me on this.
As to Nir, I will check personally her book, when I will have it, if really she has never mentioned the Mandeans. What can I say about McGrath if I find that she has really mentioned the Mandeans?
If McGrath accepts certain aspects of accepted Christian cultural heritage because of his faith in Christianity and it turns out the accepted Christian cultural heritage has preserved accurate details about early Christianity how is being 'an apologist' detrimental?
The point here is that I DON'T THINK THAT 'JESUS' WAS A HISTORICAL PERSON. I have come to that decision because (a) I think Marcionite gospel was earlier than any of the canonical 'forgeries' and (b) Marcionism (and Justin/Tatian's Diatessaron assume a supernatural figure who can pass through bodies/walls and fly) and the fact that (c) even the 'orthodox' assume (like the Marcionites) that 'Jesus' was a divine being and divine beings don't - according to my understanding - have a 'historical existence' (they can theoretically 'exist' in an extra-historical sense but they are not technically 'historical beings' EVEN BY THE STANDARDS OF ANCIENT JEWS AND CHRISTIANS viz. Philo, Josephus, Marcion and Justin assume that God only 'appeared' to 'exist' by manipulating the sensory process of human beings). These are my assumptions. They are based on ancient testimonials. I think they are reasonable, I think (one can never be entirely sure if one has 'reason' or 'reasonable hypotheses because it might turn out that one's reasoning is being affected by mental illness) but THAT DOESN'T MEAN I AM 'RIGHT.' If I am wrong it would mean that my set of data was represented of a later form of Christianity rather than what I assumed it to be i.e. the earliest form(s) of Christianity. I can never be 100% certain of the priority of Marcionism. It just seems more like to me than the alternatives.
There is always the possibility that Irenaeus was 'right' in some sense - viz. that the 'orthodox' tradition preserved and passed along 'the right belief' about Jesus (whatever that is) or a somewhat accurate understanding of Jesus. Just the facts I am afraid. It could turn out that smoking is good for you and what not. It could turn out that when we die an angel was accost us for having the chance to accept Jesus Christ in the exact terms proscribed by the various ancient creeds and because of our refusal to embrace that doctrine we will be assigned to the depths of hell. Unlike for sure. But it is a possibility.
McGrath's case for the historicity of John the Baptist and the validity of Mandaean sources for details about the historical John the Baptist is circular, apologetic and has nothing in common with how historians of ancient persons and events (apart from many biblical scholars) use sources.
He points to the "criteria of authenticity" and specifically to the "criterion of embarrassment" (and vaguely to any other method that might some day prove to be more effective -- whatever that is since he does not say). I don't know of any historian in any other field of historical studies who has relied upon the "criterion of embarrassment" to establish the value of a source for historical reconstructions of events a generation or more earlier than the source. ("Embarrassment" can be used within contemporary sources to make judgements about psychological motives of persons, but that's a different question altogether and has nothing to do with historical reconstructions of an earlier generation.) Maybe someone here has read more widely and does now of historians using such a method on their sources and finding some acceptance among their peers for doing so.
From all that I have read about historical method by historians since the nineteenth century, all a late source can reliable do for us is to tell us what people at the time of the source understood and thought and believed. By itself such a late source cannot inform us about earlier times and generations. In order for a late source to have any value for earlier times it must be able to demonstrate through more than mere self-witness that it is relying upon earlier sources, those from the time in question.
Mandaean sources do not pass the above most fundamental of tests for reliability about events in the first century Palestine so are rightly ruled out of court for any serious historical reconstruction of John the Baptist.
He fails to understand that what makes a late source of any use at all is if it can be directly confirmed in any way by unquestionable sources of earlier times. If it cannot be so confirmed then it is useless. If all we had about the life of Alexander the Great was the Alexander Romance and if we lacked any earlier sources for Alexander the Great then we would have no valid reason for believing that there ever was a historical Alexander. It is only because of the earlier sources that a historian can validly make assessments about Alexander's historicity.
If we only had the Romance then we would have no more reason for believing in Alexander than we would in Achilles or William Tell. If we discovered that Achilles or William Tell were true historical figures after all, then that would not justify those who believed in them up till now but only tell us about the luck of coincidences -- someone has to win the lottery, after all.
Ditto of McGrath's reliance upon Josephus for John the Baptist. It's worse, there, since McGrath simply ignores Nir's evidence-based argument re Josephus as a source entirely and sets up his own "what if" scenario as if that's somehow a serious argument.
.