Two Generations or Five years?

13: Natural History
This is not Jesus, James McGrath, or me.

James McGrath has a post up detailing some interesting posts on mythicism. He points to an article by Kris Komarnitsky. Komarnitsky stands against the Sherwin-White hypothesis used in defending the historical narratives of Gospels. Sherwin-White gives it more than two generations for myths to develop. Komarnitsky suggests otherwise, but he is not the first.

As I covered earlier, S.V. McCasland writing in 1932, suggests it would have taken something like five years for legends to develop.

Regardless, one must insist (if we are to take the development of myth into consideration) that the authors intended to write a historical narrative akin to what we have today before we ask about the natural development of myth. I do not believe they did, of course.

However, if they didn’t, they would still need acceptance of their stories by their audience — so they must have something of a recognized history in them.

Natural myth v. Created Myth?

Anyway, check out McGrath’s post.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Joel L. Watts
Joel L. Watts holds a Masters of Arts from United Theological Seminary with a focus in literary and rhetorical criticism of the New Testament. He is currently a Ph.D. student at the University of the Free State, analyzing Paul’s model of atonement in Galatians. He is the author of Mimetic Criticism of the Gospel of Mark: Introduction and Commentary (Wipf and Stock, 2013), a co-editor and contributor to From Fear to Faith: Stories of Hitting Spiritual Walls (Energion, 2013), and Praying in God's Theater, Meditations on the Book of Revelation (Wipf and Stock, 2014).

3 thoughts on “Two Generations or Five years?

  1. “Sherwin-White’s rule has been misconstrued, as it was about the erasure of history and not the appearance of mythologizing elements. ”

    This seems to be the money line. Sherwin-White doesn’t even apply to the case for which he is being enlisted.

Leave a Reply, Please!