Parallelomania was a term perhaps coined in 1830, coincidently (or is it?) the same year the Book of Mormon was published.
I put some notes together a few months ago on evaluating parallels. I would like to hear some of your methods for discerning the significance of a proposed parallel and some examples as well.
William Hamblin’s own summary of methodology:
If one wishes to discuss divergent models for the origin of the Book of Mormon, the proper methodology to be followed is: 1—Assume that the book is an authentic ancient record and analyze it from this perspective; . . . 2—Assume that the book is a nineteenth-century document and analyze it from this perspective; 3—Compare and contrast the successes, failures, and relative explanatory power of the results of these studies; 4—Attempt to discover which model is the most plausible explanation for the origin of the text
From Hamblin’s critique of Nibley: (I am trying to put things in my own words, though)
- Parallels should come from the right time. It doesn’t do to assume uniformity of thought and culture for a given area.
- Parallels should come from the right place. A hemispheric region for an ancient setting is overly broad, just as a modern setting that Joseph Smith studying foreign and European literature is also overly broad.
- Anti-parallels should not be ignored.
- A multi-dimensional approach should be used: for example use tools from both from comparative literature and historical reconstruction.
From Brant Gardner’s review of Wirth [I am not quite as skeptical as Brant G. is about the worth of Spanish parallels]:
- Be very cautious in the uses of secondary sources. (discern reliability of cited scholars, recognize the influence of mediating cultural layers that add distortion. Example, Spanish christianizing Mesoamerican legends.)
- Similarity in elements is not necessarily evidence of an indication of a historical connection. Further argumentation is required: show that paralleling elements have unique “features that would be difficult to replicate by independent invention.”
- Do deal with anti-parallels, but be wary of using a “silly putty” classification scheme for parallels and anti-parallels. For example, having a scheme where parallels represent the original deposit of faith while anti-parallels are a result of apostasy or mistransmitted oral traditions. (Popper: “theories that explain so much and that seem to be immune to falsification ought to arouse our suspicion.”)
- See Hamblin’s #1 above (#2 is less of a problem for Wirth (narrower area), but there are still problems with some ideas crossing over between antagonistic cultures in the same area).
- Recognize that rhetorical skill can artificially strengthen or weaken a parallel.
From Poulsen’s review of Norman:
- Control for “the Light is better over here” phenomenon. Recognize that more information is available for some settings than others, which increases the odds of getting false positives.
My article in the recent Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture is also relevant.
http://mi.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=18&num=1&id=475
I think the significance of any given parallel depends (at least partially) on the purpose for which the two things being compared are brought together. Personally, I find the issue of the historicity of the BoM to be a less than ideal context for comparative work. This is because, as laid out in Hamblin’s methodology, the conclusion of the comparative work is mostly complete before the project even begins. While I find this work valuable, especially in responding to challenges of the historicity of the BoM, it’s often too rigidly shaped by agendas other than doing good comparative work.
Doing comparison to prove or disprove historical causality or connectiveness is only one reason for doing comparative work. Other reasons could be more intriguing. For instance, comparative work could be done to offer new insights on a particular religious tradition. This might lead to questions such as, how do Buddhists read sacred texts in comparison with Mormons? Then, following on this, what would it look like to do a Buddhist reading of the BoM? In this sense a “good” comparison is one which leads to a fruitful re-reading of a particular aspect of a tradition.
Ben,
I should have known that, having waited a few months, I would fall behind in scholarship published in Mormo-oriented journals. I just read your article. Very well done!
Are you suggesting that the bit about one man perishing to save a bunch might have been in the original Northern text. If so, why do you thimk a Davidic or Messianic passage got excised?
Smallaxe I like your example of another reason to study paralells. Answering how some one from cultural millieu Y would/could have read text Y is a worthwhile pursuit. Of course I think the most interesting Y’s for the Book of Mormon will be 19C America and 4C MesoAmerica will dominate the literature for some time. Brant Gardner’s work seems to me to be more about what you suggest for MesoAmerica than about histority.
Hmm… I suppose I would politely disagree about what would be most interesting as far as the BoM is concerned. I think projects that focus on 19c American and/or 4c Meso American comparisons are stuck in the mode of certifying the BoM’s authenticity. IMO, more interesting, whereby I mean likely to develop Mormon thought, are comparisons with things outside those that have too much potential to keep falling back on the historicity issue.
For instance, I came across an article in the recent issue of Element that was a Confucian reading of Mormon ritual. Rather than focusing on the issue of parallels for the sake of certifying the authenticity of Mormon ritual, the article provides an interpretation of Mormon ritual from a Confucian perspective that helped me to see ritual in a new way–in short the “embodied” learning that takes place in ritual as a broadly construed category of religious practice.
Among the best texts determining how one evaluates parallels between texts, one should pursue:
Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel by Michael Fishbane
Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul by Richard B. Hays (cf. his Conversion of the Imagination)
A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40-66 by Benjamin Sommer.
FWIW.
Robert Boylan
Keller – I will have to give your question some thought before I try to put together an answer.