• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

FairMormon

Read 2019 FairMormon Conference Transcripts!
Missed the conference? Streaming is still available.

  • Find Answers
  • Blog
  • Media & Apps
  • Conference
  • Bookstore
  • Archive
  • About
  • Get Involved
  • Search

Parallelomania

January 8, 2010 by Keller

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)

  1. Parallels should come from the right time. It doesn’t do to assume uniformity of thought and culture for a given area.
  2. 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.
  3. Anti-parallels should not be ignored.
  4. 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]:

  1. 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.)
  2. 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.”
  3. 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.”)
  4. 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).
  5. Recognize that rhetorical skill can artificially strengthen or weaken a parallel.

From Poulsen’s review of Norman:

  1. 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.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Ben McGuire says

    January 8, 2010 at 7:53 am

    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

  2. SmallAxe says

    January 8, 2010 at 9:49 am

    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.

  3. Keller says

    January 8, 2010 at 10:57 pm

    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?

  4. Keller says

    January 8, 2010 at 11:06 pm

    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.

  5. SmallAxe says

    January 11, 2010 at 5:41 pm

    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.

  6. Robert Boylan says

    January 11, 2010 at 5:54 pm

    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

  7. Ben McGuire says

    January 20, 2010 at 1:37 pm

    Keller – I will have to give your question some thought before I try to put together an answer.

Primary Sidebar

Subscribe to Blog

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner


RSS-Icon RSS Feed (all posts)

Subscribe to Podcast

Podcast icon
Subscribe to podcast in iTunes
Subscribe to podcast elsewhere
Listen with FairMormon app
Android app on Google Play

Pages

  • Blog Guidelines

FairMormon Latest

  • FairMormon Conference Podcast #49 – Angela Hallstrom, “Women’s Voices in Saints Volume 2”
  • FairMormon Conference Podcast #48 – Ben Spackman, “A Paradoxical Preservation of Faith: LDS Creation Accounts and the Composite Nature of Revelation”
  • FairMormon Conference Podcast #47 – Richard Terry, “The Dirt on the Ancient Inhabitants of Mesoamerica”
  • FairMormon Conference Podcast #46 – Daniel Peterson, “‘Idle Tales’? The Witness of Women”
  • A Guide to the First Century Apostasy

Blog Categories

Recent Comments

  • thechair on FairMormon Conference Podcast #48 – Ben Spackman, “A Paradoxical Preservation of Faith: LDS Creation Accounts and the Composite Nature of Revelation”
  • Dennis Horne on FairMormon Conference Podcast #48 – Ben Spackman, “A Paradoxical Preservation of Faith: LDS Creation Accounts and the Composite Nature of Revelation”
  • whizzbang on FairMormon Conference Podcast #48 – Ben Spackman, “A Paradoxical Preservation of Faith: LDS Creation Accounts and the Composite Nature of Revelation”
  • whizzbang on FairMormon Conference Podcast #48 – Ben Spackman, “A Paradoxical Preservation of Faith: LDS Creation Accounts and the Composite Nature of Revelation”
  • Dennis Horne on FairMormon Conference Podcast #48 – Ben Spackman, “A Paradoxical Preservation of Faith: LDS Creation Accounts and the Composite Nature of Revelation”

Archives

Footer

FairMormon Logo

FairMormon is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of LDS doctrine, belief, and practice.

Quick Links

  • About FairMormon
  • Bookstore
  • Contact Us
  • Get Involved
  • Sign Up for Updates

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • iTunes
  • YouTube

Donate to FairMormon

We are a volunteer organization. We invite you to give back.

Donate Now

Donate to us by shopping at Amazon at no extra cost to you. Learn how →

Site Footer

Copyright © 1997-2019 by The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

No portion of this site may be reproduced without the express written consent of The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, Inc.

Any opinions expressed, implied, or included in or with the goods and services offered by FairMormon are solely those of FairMormon and not those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR) Logo

FairMormon™ is controlled and operated by the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR)