James McGrath has a post up detailing some interesting posts on mythicism. He points to an article by ]]. 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.
Related articles
- Myths In A Time Of Storytelling (cooktench.wordpress.com)
- Mythology Tells the Tale of Our Lives as Cells: “Whatever Happened to Us in the Amnestic Years … Is Projected Toward Cosmogony, Magic and Other Human Beings.” (mladzema.wordpress.com)
- Biblical Studies Carnival – March 2013 (readingacts.wordpress.com)
“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.
Good point.