Parallelomania (parallels between OT/NT & other traditions)

[DCHindley]

Since the question of how much credence to put into parallels between Judaism/Christian beliefs and those of other cultures seems to come up a lot, and charges are made that a lot of parallels cited can be attributed to "parallelomania" (the compilation of large numbers of parallels regardless of context or of grammar/words used), see:

Samuel Sandmel, "Parallelomania" (JBL 81, 1962, 1-13)
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/p ... andmel.pdf

and

Jonathan Z. Smith, Drudgery Divine-On the Comparison of Early Christianity & the Religions of Late Antiquity (1990)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/158720456/Jon ... ine#scribd

When I get a chance (I'm off sick today, but have some things to do here at home anyways, and may not get a chance until the weekend, *if* I feel up to it), I'll see if I can summarize their criticisms of the methodology behind such parallels.

I think the discussion can also be expanded to evaluations of the phenomenon of Syncretism (I know that Birger A. Pearson has a book out on this, but do not know if it is online) and critics who follow the History of Religions school of thought.

"Let the fight begin!" <ding>

DCH

[MrMacSon]

Parellelomania seems to be a label used by apologists to besmirch arguments that there are parallels between Christianity and other belief systems that preceded or were concurrent with early Christianity (such as the cult of Serapis, which both preceded and was concurrent)

[outhouse]

Hows about the parallel of Jesus son of god, and the Emperor son of god.

The parallel of Jesus speaking to large crowds like the Emperor did.

The parallel of the star of Bethlehem, and Augustus celestial event.

[Clive]

Boris Johnson (yes that one) writes in Dream of Rome about these parallels and more. He concludes literary creation!

[Clive]

Seriously, what would plagiarism software conclude?

[DCHindley]

The term "parallelomania" was originally used to describe "wild" theories about the relationship between the sect thought to have deposited the "sectarian" scrolls near Qumran on the Dead Sea and Christianity. These are basically organizational similarities (bishops = overseers had its exact counterpart in the Hebrew of the community, and they both held things in common, and there were similarities of language and ideas about God) which do not require that one derive directly from the other (they could both have been using cultural norms that we had not hitherto been aware of). Apparently Sandmel felt the need to respond due to charges in a book by journalist A Powell Davies that many scholars were running scared and more interested in sweeping these parallels under the rug rather than try to explain them in some manner. Davies book was published somewhere around 1956 or 1957, and is actually fairly astute.

Jonathan Z Smith, on the other hand, doesn't use this term, but goes on and on about folks who find parallels which he felt were, how you say, wishy-washy and not especially well established as actual parallels, and then spin intricate theories off of the half baked parallels they have "documented." I think he was attacking the "history of religion" critical school for having an overactive imagination.

So, I guess most of the members of this forum must be critics! Half baked is our slogan here. We should sell "Half Baked Hams" for US $30 a pop, and make some money.

As soon as I can locate it, I'll review Birgar A. Pearson's book on Syncretism, which I hope will demonstrate a more balanced approach to the subject of the interaction of cultures in general.

DCH

[cienfuegos]

What are the methodologies available for sorting the wheat from the chaff? I do believe we haven't be careful of seeing patterns, because we have a natural proclivity for that.

[neilgodfrey]

The term "parallelomania" was originally used to describe "wild" theories about the relationship between the sect thought to have deposited the "sectarian" scrolls near Qumran on the Dead Sea and Christianity.

The term wasn't coined by Sandmel, then, in his reference to the finding of parallels with rabbinic literature?

[DCHindley]

The term "parallelomania" was originally used to describe "wild" theories about the relationship between the sect thought to have deposited the "sectarian" scrolls near Qumran on the Dead Sea and Christianity.

The term wasn't coined by Sandmel, then, in his reference to the finding of parallels with rabbinic literature?

Not sure I understand your post, Neil.

Per Sandmell, in the first paragraph:

I encountered the term parallelomania, as I recall, in a French book of about 1830, whose title and author I have forgotten,1 in a context in which there were being examined certain passages in the Pauline epistles and in the Book of Wisdom that seem to have some resemblance, and a consequent view that when Paul wrote the Epistle to the Romans, a copy of the Book of Wisdom lay open before him, and that Paul in Romans copied generously from it.

1) A. T. S. Goodrick, The Book of Wisdom, New York, 1913, p. 405, apparently attributes the phrase to Menzel, De Graecis in libris Koheleth et Sophiae vestigiis, p. 40. Goodrick gives neither the place nor or the date of publication. Perhaps it is P. Menzel; cf. Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the O.T., 1, p. 533.

That book he couldn't find a date of publication for is apparently:

De graecis in libris Koheleth et Σοφία vestigiis
Author: Paul Menzel
Publisher: [Halle], [1888]
Dissertation: Diss. Halle, 1888.
Edition/Format: Thesis/dissertation: Latin

So, it seems something was lost and the footnote incomplete, but my guess would be that Paul Menzel supposedly invented the word "parallelomania" in his doctoral thesis dated 1888, which apparently was critical of an unnamed early 19th century French critic's assessment that Paul had borrowed heavily from the Wisdom of Solomon when writing his letters. The wrench in the works is the factoid that Menzel wrote his theses in Latin in 1888. Perhaps he used a Latin phrase which conveyed the same idea of excessive discovery of parallels with the subject of one's interest. Menzie's thesis is not online at least as far as I can see. Sandmel's comment and footnote were very very obscure. Who was the French critic?

DCH

[neilgodfrey]

Yes, of course. I had come to assume the word was coined by Sandmel but as you remind me he saw the word earlier though presumably in another language. Perhaps we can say Sandmel introduced the term to the English language and no more. But of course it's an entirely academic point.