![](\"https:\/\/roccas.files.wordpress.com\/2009\/01\/pictograph.jpg\")
<\/a><\/div>\nI\u2019m struck that most of the mythicists I\u2019ve 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 \u201cjordan\u201d (Mandaic yardna<\/em>) is any flowing water appropriate for baptism, which connects one with the light world (presumably passing through the infamous sub-lunar realm).<\/p>\n John the Baptist is not mentioned by Paul, and this too is usually made much of by mythicists \u2013 things mentioned in the Gospels but not in Paul\u2019s letters.<\/p>\n Josephus mentions John the Baptist, but he also mentions Jesus and James the brother of Jesus called Christ. If\u00a0mythicists dismiss entirely as Christian interpolations the latter two, why would they accept the authenticity of Josephus\u2019 mention of John the Baptist, rather than regarding it as yet another Christian interpolation?<\/p>\n