Mythicism and John the Baptist

I’m struck that most of the mythicists I’ve spoken with accept the existence of John the Baptist. It is not at all clear why this should be the case. If the Gospels, which are the first texts to mention him, are mythical, possibly intended as allegories and nothing more, then why should we treat John the Baptist as historical? Or perhaps Christians invented him to be the Elijah expected to come before the Messiah. Even Doherty could make a case for his views, if one brings into consideration the Mandaean material in which a “jordan” (Mandaic yardna) is any flowing water appropriate for baptism, which connects one with the light world (presumably passing through the infamous sub-lunar realm).

John the Baptist is not mentioned by Paul, and this too is usually made much of by mythicists – things mentioned in the Gospels but not in Paul’s letters.

Josephus mentions John the Baptist, but he also mentions Jesus and James the brother of Jesus called Christ. If mythicists dismiss entirely as Christian interpolations the latter two, why would they accept the authenticity of Josephus’ mention of John the Baptist, rather than regarding it as yet another Christian interpolation?

If the John the Baptist material in Josephus can be regarded as potentially authentic by mythicists, this is significant. It shows a willingness to accept that a detail in a text which is not from an eyewitness or connected with a named or known first-hand source can perhaps provide useful historical information.

But when mythicists accept the historicity of John the Baptist and dismiss the authenticity of Jesus, it suggests that the discrepancy is probably due to a deeper underlying motive: a desire to dismiss Jesus completely, and to be able to ignore all questions about what he might have said or done. I suspect that mythicism is a view that appeals mainly to former Christians, people for whom Jesus was once important and who are eager to leave that period in their lives behind them and never have to think about it again. But however much one may sympathize with the perspective of such individuals, I hope it is clear that it would be inappropriate to rewrite history for their sake.