How do we recognize parallel texts?

[bskeptic]

There is the question of how we recognize parallel texts, or how we recognize that the same event is being spoken of.

I imagine there would be more than one principle in play which we consciously or unconsciously use when we make that recognition of "same event", or "parallel text". However, similarity in language, or similarity in concept or what is spoken of, certainly looks to me like a big part of how we recognize such.

What other principles would be in play?


Can anyone point to work on this issue?


Parallelomania

In historical analysis, biblical criticism and comparative mythology parallelomania refers to a phenomenon where authors perceive apparent similarities and construct parallels and analogies without historical basis.[1]

The concept was introduced to scholarly circles in 1961 by Rabbi Samuel Sandmel of the Hebrew Union College in a paper of the same title, where he stated that he had first encountered the term in a French book of 1830, but did not recall the author or the title.[2] Martin McNamara, MSC (Milltown Institute of Theology and Philosophy) stated that Sandmel's initial paper has proven to be "highly influential".[3]

Sandmel stated that the simple observations of similarity between historical events are often less than valid, but at times lead to a phenomenon where authors first notice a supposed similarity, overdose on analogy, and then "proceeds to describe source and derivation as if implying a literary connection flowing in an inevitable or predetermined direction."...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallelomania

[Peter Kirby]

Can anyone point to work on this issue?

Dennis MacDonald attempts a discussion in the opening chapters of his book The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark. One emphasis of his concerns the general plausibility that an author would choose the source work as a target for mimesis. If this is the kind of document that several other authors are already using for such purposes, and if there is an easy general explanation that demonstrates why the source document is used the way it is, that helps.

That particular criterion makes the Hebrew scriptures as well as Macdonald's own favorite (the Homeric epics) a lot higher in general plausibility than a lot of suggestions out there.

[bskeptic]

Can anyone point to work on this issue?

Dennis MacDonald attempts a discussion in the opening chapters of his book The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark. One emphasis of his concerns the general plausibility that an author would choose the source work as a target for mimesis. If this is the kind of document that several other authors are already using for such purposes, and if there is an easy general explanation that demonstrates why the source document is used the way it is, that helps.

That particular criterion makes the Hebrew scriptures as well as Macdonald's own favorite (the Homeric epics) a lot higher in general plausibility than a lot of suggestions out there.

Thanks.

[Roger Pearse]

The difficulty is never in finding parallels, but in excluding false positives. I have come to believe that no argument based on "parallels" is valid. Arguments based on identical passages are another matter.