Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Bernard Muller wrote:There is a page on Parallelomania on Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallelomania
In it, I read:

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

Cordially, Bernard

What luck. Now you don't have to read Sandmel's essay itself and compare, do you. I have read it and I have also read a lot of comparative literature works. I suggest you avoid Sandmel and comparative literature studies because they will in no way support your conclusions and will therefore be a complete waste of time for you.

Ulan wrote:

Bernard Muller wrote:There is a page on Parallelomania on Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallelomania
In it, I read:

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

Cordially, Bernard

I bolded the gist of the problem. Where you see "historical events", others see religious texts.

I suspect the main author of that Wikipedia article has never actually read the Sandmel article either. How else can we explain his statement referring to "historical events" which Sandmel does not discuss as an issue at all. It also explains why his supposed Sandmel definition is footnoted with the title of Sandmel's essay and "pages 1-13" --- in other words he/she has no idea what page the definition is taken from and almost certainly never read it anyway.

Tim has been writing about this sort of thing on Vridar quite a bit over the past few months. So many myths circulate among the guild of biblical scholars about who said what and what some basic concept is said to mean . . . . but so often when a lay person checks the sources one finds that it really does appear that scholars don't like to take the time to read original or source or foundational articles. Just like some Wikipedia authors who think they've heard or read something about Sandmel and repeat that without bothering to read Sandmel for themselves.

And why do we just blindly accept an article we read (Wikipedia in this case but it could be any) without checking its sources/footnotes for ourselves to test its reliability before picking it up and running with it?

I wish we could lift our game with this business.

to Neil,
So what is your own definition of parallelomania?
About some common elements in Odyssey and the pericope of calming the sea in gMark, do you think that "Mark" made significant use of Odyssey for that pericope? What are the odds for that?

Cordially, Bernard

While I'm pretty sure that I have read Sandmel's article Parallelomania, I found it to be rather pretentious.

The "Mr. Wilson" he complains about is Edmund Wilson, a reporter and literary critic who, who had been following the DSS story since its inception in `947, and in a New Yorker article asked whether scholars were unwilling to discuss the parallels between the scroll documents and rabbinical Judaism as it appeared to be emerging during the 1st century, as well as parallels with the earliest forms of Christianity.

According to A. Powell Davies, who wrote of the early days of DSS research in his 1956 book The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls, said that in response to Wilson's (IMHO legitimate) questions, "New testament Scholars had to begin to say something. And what some of them said was that they did not think much of Mr. Wilson. He is not a scholar, he is only a reporter. What they neglect to mention is that he is a very good reporter and that he has transmitted quite correctly what the experts who have been working on the scrolls have come to think about them."

So, that being said, I am not any more interested in overreacting to "parallels" (e.g., "Jesus MUST have been an Essene because his disciples were organized into a group of 12 men") than I am interested in overreacting to the parallels that some have suggested (e.g., "Even suggesting that the use of Greek words meaning "overseer" in Philippians, 1 Timothy and Titus, reflect influence from the sectarian communities which produced certain DSS, because these Greek words correspond to a Hebrew word used for an official of their sects, is WAY TOO FAR OUT AND MUST BE CONDEMNED OR WE ALL RISK LOOSING OUR VERY MINDS!).

DCH

PS: Yes, I am aware that both the "parallels" above can be explained as due to common, not necessarily direct, influences. They are just examples of overreactions.

DCHindley wrote:While I'm pretty sure that I have read Sandmel's article Parallelomania, I found it to be rather pretentious.

I found it to be waffle (beyond what one might expect from a 1962 'philosophical' article).

Bernard Muller wrote:to Neil,
So what is your own definition of parallelomania?

I'll venture mine. 'Parallelomania' is a term of derision -

• - a term used to belittle attempts to point out parallels between passages in the NT texts and non-Christian texts.

Bernard Muller wrote:to Neil,
So what is your own definition of parallelomania?
About some common elements in Odyssey and the pericope of calming the sea in gMark, do you think that "Mark" made significant use of Odyssey for that pericope? What are the odds for that?

Cordially, Bernard

My definition is the same as Sandmel's. Look it up. (The Wikipedia article's claim to give Sandmel's definition is false. You have to read Sandmel and I've linked the article for you.)

You are confusing in your following statement "parallels" and "parallelomania". There are parallels between Mark's stories and myths among the ancient Chinese, Cambodians, Australian aboriginal Dream Time, and on and on. The parallels are clear to any intelligent person with a normally functioning brain.

Parallels are there to be explained. There are all sorts of potential explanations. Each one needs to be justified.

It is much easier for some people to just dismiss the very idea that there are parallels or just to dismiss any explanation without engaging with its premises and reasoning.

Bernard Muller wrote:do you think that "Mark" made significant use of Odyssey for that pericope? What are the odds for that?

Cordially, Bernard

Depends what you mean by "significant use". That's vague. Do you mean, "Did he have a copy beside him and consciously follow the outline and even some wording?" Do you mean, "Did he have the Odyssey in his mind as a not too distant memory and incorporate some ideas from that?" Do you mean, "Did he have a general idea of certain scenes or general literary motifs to which the Odyssey and others (including OT stories) contributed?" Do you mean "Did he compare in his mind the Odyssey and story of Jonah and try to combine the two in some new way?"

The odds for each of these vary.

What are the odds that someone who had been taught to write in Greek in the early Roman imperial period knew of the Odyssey? What do we know of the author (as distinct from what we infer about him from his work -- which is circular)?

How about taking a thesis, examining its assumptions and criteria, and seeing what can be reasonably concluded from it? I'm not into this either-or black and white thinking. I'm interested in learning what we can understand from the available evidence and background knowledge we have and keeping my mind open.

Most ideas about Mark I hold as tentative propositions, some stronger than others. I leave you to debate certainties.

MrMacSon wrote:

DCHindley wrote:While I'm pretty sure that I have read Sandmel's article Parallelomania, I found it to be rather pretentious.

I found it to be waffle (beyond what one might expect from a 1962 'philosophical' article).

The relevance of the article is its subsequent influence.

neilgodfrey wrote: The relevance of the article is its subsequent influence.

Which is?