Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Grumpy · 02-18-2003, 02:22 PM

I wonder if any LDS apologists use the "too soon for a legend" argument to bolster the Gospels, when it is quite plainly undercut by Mormon history. According to this timeline (from a pro-Christian, anti-Mormon site), Joseph Smith officially founded the church in 1830. By 1838, there were Mormon settlers who died (for their beliefs, you might say) in Missouri.

This depends on one's assumption that Joseph Smith's supernatural claims are, in fact, bogus and not factual. If they were factual, then it stands to reason that people would believe them whole-heartedly from the beginning.

There's also a different kind of "legend" going on here. There's a difference between Mormons heading West on Joseph Smith's say-so, and attributing miracles to an ostensibly ordinary Galilean rabbi.

Fr.Andrew · 02-18-2003, 04:29 PM

Mustn't forget Cassie Bernall.
That one took about a week.

Sauron · 02-18-2003, 08:03 PM

So then, AN Sherwin-White's statement is totally bogus.

Why is it so widely quoted by apologists in support of the historicity of the NT and life of Christ?

Is this just a case of a flawed argument taking on a life of its own? I once saw someone on talk.origins wryly comment "No lie favorable to creationism ever dies." Is that what we're facing here?

Vorkosigan · 02-18-2003, 08:28 PM

LOL. As Darwin said, bad ideas eventually disappear, but bad facts, never.

Toto · 02-19-2003, 01:44 AM

Josh McDowell has made this argument a part of his Evidence. That's why it's so widespread.

Layman · 02-19-2003, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sauron
So then, AN Sherwin-White's statement is totally bogus.

Why is it so widely quoted by apologists in support of the historicity of the NT and life of Christ?

Just to clarify, I have never relied on any such statement. Nor have I ever seen Sherwin-White's purported statement to that effect. Where did you read it?

Layman · 02-19-2003, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sauron
I'm sure I can generate a half-dozen examples of legends arising with less than 40 years timespan between (a) the time of death, or other notable event; and (b) the first recording of the legend. Elvis comes to mind; JFK; Muhammad is another.

Is Sherwin-White's claim of 40 years being too short for such development - is that really taken seriously?

Did Sherwin-White claim that there could be no legendary development at allabout a historical figure in 40 years?

Or does he claim that the existence of Jesus as a significant historical figure itself is an unlikely legendary development over a span of 40 years?

Afterall, Elvis, JFK, and Muhammad were all real people who really did things that had significant impacts on their cultures.

Which of his works are you reading from?

Thanks

Toto · 02-19-2003, 10:38 AM

Here is how Christian apologists use Sherwin-White:

From the Till-Horner Debate

Quote:

The Gospel accounts are more likely historical than legendary. First of all, they are too early. Carrying on from what I mentioned earlier in this regard, Professor A. N. Sherwin-White, an eminent historian of Roman times, has studied the rate at which myths were formed in the ancient Near-east. He chides New Testament critics for not recognizing the quality of the New Testament documents compared to the sources that he must work with in Roman and Greek history. He says these sources usually removed from the events that they describe by generations, even centuries. Despite when they were written and the typically biased approach of the writers, he says, historians can confidently reconstruct what actually happened. In stark contrast, Professor Sherwin-White tells us that, for the Gospels to be legendary, more generations would have had to have been needed between the events and the compilation of the Gospels. He's found that even the span of two full generations, fifty to eighty years, is not enough time for legend to wipe out the hard-core of historical fact.

This is one of many such Christian references to Sherwin-White.

Layman · 02-19-2003, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
Here is how Christian apologists use Sherwin-White:

From the Till-Horner Debate

This is one of many such Christian references to Sherwin-White.

Well, the Christian here seems to be talking about legend "wiping out historical fact" rather than absolutely barring any legendary development at all.

So is Sherwin-White barring any legendary development or simply saying that it was not enough time for legend to "wipe out" historical facts?

What is the reference to his statement?

Toto · 02-19-2003, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman
Well, the Christian here seems to be talking about legend "wiping out historical fact" rather than absolutely barring any legendary development at all.

So is Sherwin-White barring any legendary development or simply saying that it was not enough time for legend to "wipe out" historical facts?

What is the reference to his statement?

I suspect the latter, but that means that he is assuming that there is some historical basis to the gospels, which is the point that he is trying to prove.

You could ask William Laine Craig for a more exact reference:

http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth22.html

Quote:

For in order for these stories [i.e., the appearance stories in the Gospels] to be in the main legendary, a very considerable length of time must be available for the evolution and development of the traditions until the historical elements have been supplanted by unhistorical. This factor is typically neglected in New Testament scholarship, as A. N. Sherwin-White points out in Roman Law and Roman Society tn the New Testament.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-18-2003, 02:22 PM	#11
Grumpy Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Alaska, USA Posts: 1,535	I wonder if any LDS apologists use the "too soon for a legend" argument to bolster the Gospels, when it is quite plainly undercut by Mormon history. According to this timeline (from a pro-Christian, anti-Mormon site), Joseph Smith officially founded the church in 1830. By 1838, there were Mormon settlers who died (for their beliefs, you might say) in Missouri. This depends on one's assumption that Joseph Smith's supernatural claims are, in fact, bogus and not factual. If they were factual, then it stands to reason that people would believe them whole-heartedly from the beginning. There's also a different kind of "legend" going on here. There's a difference between Mormons heading West on Joseph Smith's say-so, and attributing miracles to an ostensibly ordinary Galilean rabbi.

02-18-2003, 04:29 PM	#12
Fr.Andrew Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Betsy's Bluff, Maine Posts: 540	Mustn't forget Cassie Bernall. That one took about a week.

02-18-2003, 08:03 PM	#13
Sauron Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: In the dark places of the world Posts: 8,093	So then, AN Sherwin-White's statement is totally bogus. Why is it so widely quoted by apologists in support of the historicity of the NT and life of Christ? Is this just a case of a flawed argument taking on a life of its own? I once saw someone on talk.origins wryly comment "No lie favorable to creationism ever dies." Is that what we're facing here?

02-18-2003, 08:28 PM	#14
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	LOL. As Darwin said, bad ideas eventually disappear, but bad facts, never.

02-19-2003, 01:44 AM	#15
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Josh McDowell has made this argument a part of his Evidence. That's why it's so widespread.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.