This paper recounts two versions that are told of the origins of work on
endogenous growth. The first concerns what has been called the convergence controversy. The second concerns the struggle to construct a viable alternative to perfect competition in aggregate-level theory. These accounts are not sur- veys. They are descriptions of the scholarly equivalent to creation myths, simple stories that economists tell themselves and each other to give meaning and structure to their current research efforts. Understanding the differences be- tween these two stories matters because they teach different lessons about the relative importance of theoretical work and empirical work in economic analy- sis and they suggest different directions for future work on growth.