Parallelomania (parallels between OT/NT & other traditions)

[Charles Wilson]

Sample Sentence: "Richard Carrier, who has not read Joe Atwill's Caesar's Messiah, dismissed the book as an example of extreme Parallelomania..."

[Peter Kirby]

But of course it's an entirely academic point.

Like so much else of this Bible business.

That's why it's so fun.

[Leucius Charinus]

Sample Sentence: "Richard Carrier, who has not read Joe Atwill's Caesar's Messiah, dismissed the book as an example of extreme Parallelomania..."

Very funny Charles.

But I'd like to see some more comments DCH on the subject matter of parallelomania.

Does this term include the claims relating to the use the NT authors made from Stoic theology? (See Bruno Bauer onwards)



LC

[DCHindley]

I'd like to see some more comments DCH on the subject matter of parallelomania.

Does this term include the claims relating to the use the NT authors made from Stoic theology? (See Bruno Bauer onwards)

I think that it might be best to read through Jonathan Z Smith's book and summarize his points as to what is a properly vetted parallel and what is not. That I have not yet done, as his book is lengthy.

Sandmel's article is short by comparison, but kind of off-topic (he is venting about a too casual comparison of Bible and the DSS, but I did not see him specifying what makes a parallel valid).

DCH

[neilgodfrey]

Smith's criticisms are complex (and important for any discussion) but have little to no relevance to the sorts of work scholars like Brodie and MacDonald do in relation to studies of literary mimesis. I also look forward to having time to discuss (and critique) some of Smith's discussions.

[neilgodfrey]

I read often some expression like "wishy washy" parallels and every time I do I can't help but roll my eyes. What on earth is meant by "wishy washy"? (The most recent is on Daniel Gullotta's blog.) A scholarly discussion to be useful needs a bit more precision. Terms like wishy washy are pejorative, of course, and not at all constructive or informative.

[MrMacSon]

What on earth is meant by "wishy washy"? ... Terms like wishy washy are pejorative, of course, and not at all constructive or informative.

wishy-washy = spurious (?)

[neilgodfrey]

What on earth is meant by "wishy washy"? ... Terms like wishy washy are pejorative, of course, and not at all constructive or informative.

wishy-washy = spurious (?)

Whether the meaning given to a parallel should be considered "spurious" is what we are trying to establish. We can't begin by saying a parallel is "spurious". We need to have some clear explanation why it is not valid. Some scholars use criteria. At least an explanation of some sort.

Things get confused because every parallel by definition must have some difference, too -- otherwise there could be no parallel since we would be talking about identical things.

What good discussions about parallels do is not only point to the similarities but especially and most importantly very often can explain the differences. That's where J.Z. Smith was coming from, actually. And that's what the best discussions of parallels actually do. So we can not only understand the similarities between Homer's epics and Virgil's Aeneid, but we can especially appreciate the differences that Virgil wanted us to see and find meaningful. Ditto the better works of Brodie and MacDonald et al.

[Clive]

Isn't the process of creating parallels the same as that as someone trying to rebuild a castle from a pile of rubble? Some stones will fit together, others wont, others not sure, maybe another way round? Ideas of how stuff fits together will be taken from other places where similar bits have been put together?

[Leucius Charinus]

What good discussions about parallels do is not only point to the similarities but especially and most importantly very often can explain the differences. That's where J.Z. Smith was coming from, actually. And that's what the best discussions of parallels actually do. So we can not only understand the similarities between Homer's epics and Virgil's Aeneid, but we can especially appreciate the differences that Virgil wanted us to see and find meaningful.

This was leading to the "Golden Age" of Augustus. The parallels are caused because a Roman poet is inventing a new Roman history by borrowing from Homer. It is a very interesting study, right down to the comparison between the shields of the two heroes. The following from my Uni notes...

• The shield of Aeneas and the shield of Achilles
  
  A number of very interesting articles which compare the Shield of Aeneus (via Vergil) and the Shield of Achilles (via Homer).
  
  Here are a few extracts from a few articles ...
  
  • "...we see a striking difference between the Homeric shield of Achilles and the Vergilian shield of Aeneas. Homer's shield is a generic image of Greek life, the life to which Achilles will never return. On the other hand, the shield of Aeneas portrays the history of Rome, complete with the Battle of Actium in its center. This kind of specificity is a particularly Roman habit..."
    
    Roman Myth Author(s): Judith De Luce
    Source: The Classical World, Vol. 98, No. 2 (Winter, 2005), pp. 202-205
    http://www.jstor.org/stable/4352931?origin=JSTOR-pdf
  Another article, READING AENEAS’ SHIELD
  by John L. Penwill (available at classics-archaeology.unimelb.edu.auCAVirisvolume18penwill.pdf) at page 38 sets out a
  comparitive tabulation between Achilles’ shield (Iliad 18.483-608) and Aeneas’ shield (Aeneid 8.626-728)
  before making the following summary points:
  
  • The question of why Virgil has reversed Homer’s ordering of the three central elements I shall leave aside for the moment. First let us look briefly at how Virgil has modified Homer’s content. To begin with the obvious: where Homer is synchronic, Virgil is diachronic; where Homer is generic, Virgil is specific; where Homer describes the shield as Hephaistos makes it, Virgil describes it as the recipient reads it; Homer’s description evokes the present, Virgil’s the future; Homer’s is of the world that Achilles has abandoned, Virgil’s of one that Aeneas will embrace (however uncomprehendingly), the end towards which his mission is directed. Both describe a world as perceived and given form by a divine craftsman. Homer gives us a universal picture beginning with the elements earth, air, water, and fire (earth, sky, sea, sun/moon/stars), rimmed at the end by the river Okeanos, and focuses on the whole range of human activity that takes place within this cosmic framework. For Virgil, the generic city has become Rome, the generic war the Battle of Actium, the generic peace the pax Augusta, the generic scenes scenes from Roman history. The radical change to Homer’s description under- scores the reality of Rome’s world-domination and the new world order: the only significant events are those of Roman history, the culmination of that history is Actium and the estab- lishment of the Augustan regime, nothing confines or defines this world other than Rome it- self. Thus it is that in place of Homer’s fixed rim of Okeanos we have the (ever-expanding) boundaries of empire, no longer described as running round the edge of the shield but as part of the world that Augustus contemplates from his seat in the temple of Apollo, a world in which there is nothing that is not Roman.

Ditto the better works of Brodie and MacDonald et al.

Dennis R. MacDonald of the "Christianizing Homer ...." fame ?

Interesting stuff.

Where does something like Proba's "Cento Vergilianus de laudibus Christi" fit in to "a parallels categorisation and management system"?




LC