Myth Growth Rates and the Gospels

[boatsnguitars]

Myth Growth Rates and the Gospels: A Close Look at A.N. Sherwin-White’s Two-Generation Rule

One of the unfortunate roles of the atheist and skeptic is to continually point out how the clergy have continually lied, embellished, invented, or mistaken key facts in their arguments.

One glaring one is "all the apostles died for their beliefs". There is no record whatsoever they died for their specific belief in the literal resurrection of Jesus. None.

Another one that makes the rounds, propounded most visibly by William Lane Craig, is the claim that the story of Jesus's resurrection couldn't possibly be mythological, since "it takes two generation, at least, for a myth to form."

This is not only untrue, it is a demonstrable lie - since we can see where this 'myth in the formation of myth' started, we have the original author writing about his own misgivings about his claim.

At this point, it is well-known by Christian Apologists that this claim is wrong, yet, they continue to use the lie. This should give average Christians to question the legitimacy and morals of their self-proclaimed experts/academia. (Christians are fond of being skeptical of secuarl academics, but not of their own, where they seem to accept any claim, despite the motivation for the clergy to lie.)

For example, New Testament scholar William Lane Craig says, “One of the major problems with the legend hypothesis…is that the time gap between Jesus’ death and the writing of the Gospels is just too short for this to have happened.”

Lee Strobel, had a similar inclination to consider how quickly myth could form, and for him, Sherwin-White's claim was the "clincher" that made him believe in Jesus.
That belief is based on a lie.

What clinched it for me was the famous study by A.N. Sherwin-White, the great classical historian from Oxford University, which William Lane Craig alluded to in our interview. Sherwin-White meticulously examined the rate at which legend accrued in the ancient world. His conclusion: not even two full generations was enough time for legend to develop and to wipe out a solid core of historical truth.

Strobel and Craig refer to a 1960-1961 eight-part lecture series by the late Adrian Nicholas Sherwin-White. In 1963, all eight lectures were published as a book titled Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament. The last lecture, Sherwin-White stepped out from the main topic of his lectures to “boldly state a case” in favor of the historical reliability of the Gospels.

He claimed: “…Even two generations [about seventy years total] are too short a span to allow the mythical tendency to prevail over the hard historical core of the oral tradition.”
Sherwin-White, Roman Society, 192.

Scholars reject this, but that doesn't matter the the Apologist. It didn't stop WLC to claim that Sherwin-White was saying that Myth couldn't develop that fast.

(The quote doesn't say that, BTW. Sherwin-White’s two-generation rule above is not primarily focused on how fast myth can grow; it is primarily focused on how fast the historical core can be erased.)

But, would WLC and other Apologists take Sherwin-White's opinion of his claim?

Sherwin-White wrote in this footnote:

Mr. P.A. Brunt has suggested in private correspondence that a study of the Alexander [the Great] sources is less encouraging for my thesis. There was a remarkable growth of myth around his person and deeds within the lifetime of contemporaries [circa 300 BCE], and the historical embroidery was often deliberate. But the hard [historical] core still remains, and an alternative but neglected source – or pair of sources – survived for the serious inquirer Arrian to utilize in the second century A.D. This seems to me encouraging rather than the reverse.

The Apologist may say, "No, see? He disregarded Brunt in the end!"

But why?

Brunt replies:

Sherwin-White has done me the honour to cite a comparison I drew with our accounts of Alexander whom some of his own contemporaries treated as a god….[It is true that Alexander’s history was still able to be written,] but Alexander’s career was public in a sense which that of Jesus in Galilee was not….If the synoptic Gospels reflect traditions that grew and were remoulded in the changing experience of the Palestinian Church, how can we objectively distinguish between what is original and what is accretion, seeing that the Gospels themselves must be almost our only evidence for that changing experience? …Sherwin-White has not provided, as he thinks, conclusive reasons to reject the view…that the history of his [Jesus’] mission cannot be written.

Peter Brunt, “A Historian of Rome on the New Testament,” The Oxford Magazine, New Series Vol. 4 No. 13 (20 February 1964), 209-210.

Brunt later said:

In his memoir of Sherwin-White that he wrote for the British Academy in 1994, Brunt revisited Sherwin-White’s myth-growth-rate essay from thirty years earlier with brutal honesty: “His remarks do not convince me that he had deeply considered this whole matter….He was himself a practising Church-man, and this may explain his unconvincing adventure into apologetics.”

Peter Brunt, “1994 Lectures and Memoirs,” Proceedings of the British Academy, Vol. 87 (1995), 462, 467.

Note, that apologetics in this regard can be summed up as lying.

Three reviews that were critical of Sherwin-White’s myth-growth-rate essay are: Peter Brunt (already cited above); Frederick Grant, The Journal of Theological Studies, New Series, Vol. 15, Part 2 (October 1964), 352-358; and Rudolph C. Gelsey, The American Journal of Legal History, Vol. 8, No. 4 (October, 1964), 348-351. Two reviews that were supportive of Sherwin-White’s myth-growth-rate essay are: Robert M. Grant, Classical Philology, Vol. 59, No. 4, (October, 1964), 304 and A.E. Raubitschek, The Classical World, Vol. 56, No. 9 (June, 1963), 294. Two reviews that were ambiguous toward Sherwin-White’s myth-growth-rate essay are: John Crook, The Classical Review, New Series, Vol. 14, No. 2 (June, 1964), 198-200 and J.J. Nicholls, Journal of Religious History, Vol. 3, Issue 1 (June, 1964), 92-95.

In conclusion, this is what we are left with:

1. Christians today still claim the 2-generation rule applies, despite there being no evidence (and evidence to the contrary). This is lying.
2. The two generation rule was made up by a man who was religiously motivated to believe it, and did no research to support it, nor accept criticisms of it.
3. When you hear an Apologist use Sherwin-White, you need to recognize they are liars, or very ignorant.

Now that I have educated the Apologists here, I wonder if they will continue to claim 2 generations is too short to develop myths.

To end, here are myths that have developed since 1990 (33 years):
9/11 Conspiracy Theories - The idea that the September 11 attacks were an inside job, orchestrated by the U.S. government for various reasons.

Anti-Vaccine Myths - The belief that vaccines are dangerous and can cause autism, despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.

Climate Change Denial - The myth that global warming and climate change are not real or are not caused by human activity.

Chemtrails - The belief that the trails left behind by airplanes are actually chemicals being sprayed on the population for various nefarious purposes.

Flat Earth - The idea that the Earth is actually flat, despite centuries of scientific evidence to the contrary.

Moon Landing Hoax - The belief that the moon landings were faked by the U.S. government for various reasons.

QAnon Conspiracy - The myth that a group of high-ranking government officials and celebrities are part of a global cabal involved in child trafficking, Satan worship, and other heinous activities.

Here are living figures who people claim have supernatural powers:
Sai Baba: An Indian spiritual leader who was believed to have miraculous powers such as materializing objects out of thin air, healing the sick, and performing other supernatural feats.

John of God: A Brazilian healer who claimed to be able to channel the spirits of deceased doctors and perform miraculous healings on his patients.

Amma: A spiritual leader from India known as the "hugging saint" who is believed to have the power to heal physical and emotional pain through hugs.

Wim Hof: A Dutch extreme athlete who is known for his ability to withstand extreme cold temperatures and has been dubbed "The Iceman" by the media.

Daryl Bem: An American social psychologist who has conducted research on extrasensory perception (ESP) and claimed to have evidence of its existence.


Here are living figures that have mythologies told about them:
Elon Musk - Elon Musk is a technology entrepreneur and billionaire who has become something of a legend in the business world. His reputation for being a brilliant, visionary thinker has led to many stories and myths about his life and career, including that he was once so broke he had to borrow money for rent, and that he sleeps on a couch in his office.

Beyoncé - Beyoncé is a singer, actress, and entrepreneur who has achieved almost mythical status in the music industry. Her legions of fans have created a mythology around her that portrays her as a powerful, otherworldly being with supernatural abilities.

Mark Zuckerberg - Mark Zuckerberg is the founder of Facebook, and his story has become the stuff of legend in the tech world. Some myths about him include that he dropped out of Harvard to start Facebook, that he wears the same outfit every day to save time and energy, and that he once hacked into Harvard's computer network.

Oprah Winfrey - Oprah Winfrey is a media mogul who has achieved almost mythic status in popular culture. Her story, which includes a rags-to-riches journey from poverty to fame and fortune, has inspired many legends and myths about her life and career.

Tiger Woods - Tiger Woods is a professional golfer who has become a legend in the sports world. His incredible talent and success on the golf course have led to many stories and myths about his life, including that he started playing golf as a toddler, that he practices for hours every day, and that he has a photographic memory when it comes to golf courses.


Not only are legends capable of being made in a generation, they can happen faster, especially if the only source is a group of Musk-loving fans writing about how great Musk is.

[TRANSPONDER]

So again. The Rule or Intention on the forum is to pose a particular question for debate or discussion. I know the OP was intended to be an argument for consideration, but perhaps a Question could be framed to stay within ToS.

[boatsnguitars]

So again. The Rule or Intention on the forum is to pose a particular question for debate or discussion. I know the OP was intended to be an argument for consideration, but perhaps a Question could be framed to stay within ToS.

What is the rebuttal from Christians that myth can develop in 30-60 years?
Why can't the story of Jesus be a myth or legend?
Does this undermine the arguments from Apologists, and should they stop using this argument?

[JehovahsWitness]

What is the rebuttal from Christians that myth can develop in 30-60 years?

A myth can develop within a very short time if the circumstances are right. All beliefs are not equal but it is still a question of who or which sources one chooses to believe as to the events around the life and death of one Jesus of Nazareth.




FURTHER READING : Are Doubts About Jesus Justified?
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1995603

[TRANSPONDER]

So again. The Rule or Intention on the forum is to pose a particular question for debate or discussion. I know the OP was intended to be an argument for consideration, but perhaps a Question could be framed to stay within ToS.

What is the rebuttal from Christians that myth can develop in 30-60 years?
Why can't the story of Jesus be a myth or legend?
Does this undermine the arguments from Apologists, and should they stop using this argument?

Thank you. Let me put my Christian hat on. Myth CAN develop in a few short years, but history can be written the same way. And may even be a mix. Alexander is historically credible, yet the Gordian knot looks like a legend.
the Jugurthine war looks like history by some mythical elements? Arthur was apparently a real Dux of the later Roman empire but none of the legends seem credible.

Let me take my Christian hat off. It is doing my head in. And never mind Spin. I know that the last stand of the Old guard at Waterloo is a lie, invented by a journalist to have something heroic to print. It is known to be a lie, but there is still a statue to it, it is shown in the film and people still repeat it in supposed histories. That was within the lifetime of people who were there. So can we be blamed for supposing that perhaps some Myths about Jesus appeared in the lifetimes of some who were alive? Especially if made up by people culturally removed from the action, like Romanized greece, not Jewish Judea.

[boatsnguitars]

What is the rebuttal from Christians that myth can develop in 30-60 years?

A myth can develop within a very short time if the circumstances are right. All beliefs are not equal but it is still a question of who or which sources one chooses to believe as to the events around the life and death of one Jesus of Nazareth.

So, will I count on you to correct Christians who use the argument that it's impossible for myth to develop as fast as it did for Jesus?

For example, maybe correct these people:

If you take into account the small time period after the death of Jesus, the writers had no time to develop a legend. Roman historian Sherwin-White argues, “Tests suggest that even two generations are too short a span to allow the mythical tendency to prevail over a hard historical core[1].” If one generation is approximately 30-35 years, then two generations would be 60-70 years before legendary additions are even possible. Luke was written about 20-30 years after the death of Jesus. According to historians, this is too short a time period for legendary additions. And even if I use the late date of some scholars, the time span is still too small for the writers to create a myth; historians say too much of the historical core information would be available.

https://biblicalworldviewacademy.org/wa ... nt-part-4/

Because what they're saying isn't true, is it?

[JehovahsWitness]

So, will I count on you to correct Christians who use the argument that it's impossible for myth to develop as fast as it did for Jesus?

I have personally never met anyone that has made that claim but should I do so I will point them in your direction as I really don't care enough to engage, while you seem quite passionate on the topic.



JW

[boatsnguitars]

I have personally never met anyone that has made that claim but should I do so I will point them in your direction as I really don't care enough to engage, while you seem quite passionate on the topic.

I care if people are lying to me, even if the lie sounds too good to be true. Perhaps, especially if....

But, I'll admit, when I was a Christian, I didn't care as much and just wanted people to confirm my beliefs. I will give you a spoiler: This isn't the only thing apologists get wrong. (for example, I referenced the lie that "all the apostles died for their belief in the literal resurrection")

I'll cover this in my next post:

Amidst some uncertainty, one thing is clear—the reason given for their deaths was the same. They were killed because they claimed to be eyewitnesses of Christ’s death and resurrection. They all died because of an unwavering, unrelenting claim that Christ rose from the grave. They died for Easter.

https://credohouse.org/blog/what-happen ... nce-easter

This is another lie.

The story of Jesus is built on a house of cards, and you'll have to be brave to face it.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #1]

Oh, what the heck this might be fun.

1. You never documented any fast-occurring myths by dating the event and the myth.
2. If you are speaking of the resurrection and Paul. This would be a few years at most. No one would say that history is unrecoverable in this amount of time.
3. It was the scholar Paul's writing. Said that others within a year or less believed that Jesus rose from the dead.

You might have an argument if you are talking about the writing of the Gospels. And even then I believe that it would be very difficult to prove that. But I am talking about Paul's writings. Paul's writings pretty much kill the legend hypothesis.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #1]

Oh, what the heck this might be fun.

1. You never documented any fast-occurring myths by dating the event and the myth.
2. If you are speaking of the resurrection and Paul. This would be a few years at most. No one would say that history is unrecoverable in this amount of time.
3. It was the scholar Paul's writing. Said that others within a year or less believed that Jesus rose from the dead.

You might have an argument if you are talking about the writing of the Gospels. And even then I believe that it would be very difficult to prove that. But I am talking about Paul's writings. Paul's writings pretty much kill the legend hypothesis.

Thank you for your response. Allow me to address your points:

1. While I did not provide specific dates for the fast-occurring myths I mentioned, it is widely accepted by scholars that myths can develop rapidly, even within a few years of an event. This is especially true in oral cultures where stories are passed down through generations before being written down (Because there would have been a common, urban legend understanding throughout the region already). I can provide such detail if you would like, but I think it might embarrass you since, as I said, it is widely accepted by scholars because of the rich trove of evidence. In fact, the myth of Jesus would be one particular data point. Also, perhaps you've heard of Mormonism, Scientology, and Cargo Cults. They all prove what is widely accepted by scholars, just not non-scholars such as yourself.

2. While it is true that Paul's writing is dated within a few years of the supposed resurrection, it is important to consider the possibility of bias and motive in his accounts. Paul's writings were intended to promote Christianity and to persuade others to believe in the resurrection of Jesus. Therefore, his accounts may be more theological than historical.

3. It is true that Paul wrote about others believing in the resurrection within a year or less, but it is important to remember that he was writing to an audience that was already familiar with the story and likely predisposed to believe it. Additionally, Paul's accounts are the earliest Christian writings we have, and they were not written until at least two decades after the supposed events. This leaves plenty of time for myth and legend to develop.

Finally, I would like to address your statement that Paul's writings "pretty much kill the legend hypothesis." While Paul's writings may provide evidence for the early belief in the resurrection, they do not necessarily disprove the possibility of myth and legend surrounding the story. The early Christian community was still subject to the same cultural and psychological processes that contribute to the development of myths and legends. Therefore, it is important to consider a variety of factors when evaluating the historicity of any event, including the possibility of myth and legend.