In
the following, a long-standing anti-Mormon warns his fellow critics of the Book
of Mormon from engaging in “parallelomania,” using Dennis MacDonald’s thesis
that Mark was dependent upon the works of Homer:
Homer
in Mark? Methodological Cautions
In seeking to determine if the Book of Mormon’s use of
biblical materials reveals it to be unhistorical, evangelicals will need to be
careful not to employ a method that would unfairly or fallaciously deny as
historical not only the Book of Mormon but also historical narrative texts in
the Bible, such as the Gospels. For example, evangelicals should avoid using a
method similar to that of Jesus Seminar fellow Dennis MacDonald, who argued
that the Gospel of Mark was a “novel” based primarily on Homer’s Iliad and
Odyssey as its “hypotexts” (MacDonald 2000) and that Acts was also
largely a work of fiction that draws several of its stories from Homer
(MacDonald 2003). Even some academics not inclined to a conservative view of
the Gospels have been sceptical of MacDonald’s method and arguments (e.g.,
Mitchell 2003; Sandnes 2005).
Not surprisingly, at least one LDS apologist has
compared theories about the Book of Mormon’s origins based on parallels with
earlier literature to MacDonald’s highly questionable theory (e.g., McGuire
2007). At the other end of the spectrum, sceptic Robert M. Price, drawing in
part on MacDonald and in part on the theory that the Gospels are midrashic
fictions created out of Old Testament narratives, argued that “we must view the
gospels and Acts as analogous with the Book of Mormon, an inspiring pastiche of
stories derived creatively from previous scriptures by a means of literary
extrapolation” (Price 2004). The same sorts of concerns are applicable to
similar studies of the NT writings, such as Marianne Palmer Bonz’s thesis that
Luke-Acts is based on Vergil’s Aeneid (Bonz 2000) or Michael J. Reimer’s
claim that the “hypotext” of Mark 1:1-4:34 was the Pentateuch (Reimer 2006).
Paul Eddy and Gregory Boyd
(2007) laid out ten objections to MacDonald’s hypothesis worth considering with
regard to the development of a sound methodology for assessing the use of the
Sermon on the Mount (SM) in the Book of Mormon’s “Sermon at the Temple” (ST).
(All parenthetical citations in the following ten points are to Eddy and Boyd.)
1. According to MacDonald,
both similarities (in the form of allusions or parallels) and differences
(specifically, contrasts) between Homer and Mark support the conclusion that
Mark is based on Homer. This makes MacDonald’s view “virtually unfalsifiable”
(Eddy and Boyd 2007, 340). The problem is not in claiming that some
similarities and differences are relevant, but in explaining the differences in
such a way that any difference whatsoever somehow is counted as evidence
for literary dependence. This sort of methodological mistake must be avoided in
considering the significance of differences between the SM and the ST.
2. “Many of MacDonald’s
suggested parallels seem quite forced” (340). Since no Mormon would deny some
relationship between the SM and the ST, specific parallels between the two
texts cannot be dismissed as forced. However, in seeking to elucidate the
backgrounds to the two texts there may be occasion to cite parallels with other
texts, and here the issue of whether such parallels are genuine or forced
must be addressed.
3. In his zeal to make a
case for Mark’s dependence on Homer, MacDonald tended to slight the more
obvious influences from OT texts (341). Since the Nephites, if they existed,
had access to much of the OT, some allowance must be made for the possibility
of Jesus quoting from or alluding to the OT in any speech he might have made to
them.
4. MacDonald wrongly argued
that the more often a Homeric story or motif showed up in ancient literature,
the more likely a similar story in Mark was dependent on Homer. But if such
stories were commonplace it would seem that no one, including Mark, need have
associated them with Homer (341). Similarly, commonplace notions or words that
happen to be in the Book of Mormon and in some part of the Bible need not be
evidence of a literary relationship.
5. Similarities between two
texts do not of themselves prove literary relationship, a fallacy Samuel
Sandmel famously called parallelomania (341). Again, any argument for a
literary relationship between the ST and some other text must be made on the
basis of more than mere similarities.
6. Even if Mark did imitate
Homer, it does not follow that Mark was writing fiction; he may have seen
certain parallels in Jesus’ life with Homeric stories “and allowed the
parallels to shape the telling of the Jesus story” (342). This caution is
inapplicable to the supposed original Book of Mormon, since its author
allegedly would not have had any knowledge of the Gospel of Matthew. However,
might the relationship between the SM and the ST be explained in a similar
manner as the result of Joseph Smith’s shaping his “translation” of the Book of
Mormon? This question needs to be considered when assessing the significance of
similarities between the two sermons.
7. MacDonald “admits that there may be historical
elements in Mark” but offered no way of distinguishing those historical
elements from the supposed Homeric fictional elements in Mark (342). This
criticism of MacDonald’s method would be relevant to the Book of Mormon only if
there were some evidence of historical elements in its narrative.
8. “MacDonald has not
adequately explained why Mark would want to create a theological fiction
patterned after Homer” (342). Eddy and Boyd’s observation is relevant to this
study in that part of any complete theory of a modern origin of the Book of
Mormon needs to include some explanation of its purpose.
9. No one until recently
understood Mark as fiction, let alone fiction patterned after Homer. “One
wonders how everyone got it wrong for so long” (342), especially since
MacDonald’s theory assumes that Mark’s readers would have picked up on the
Homeric parallels (343). This kind of concern, frankly, is not relevant to this
study, since critics of the Book of Mormon have always viewed the ST as
basically cribbed from the SM in Matthew.
10. “MacDonald’s theory
requires that we accept that Mark was a rather savvy, sophisticated literary
critic who lived in the world of irony and textual finesse,” a view of Mark
that fits the contemporary postmodern cultural milieu better than it does
Mark’s own ancient Christian community (343). This criticism of MacDonald’s
theory is instructive for the present study as a warning against developing a
theory of the Book of Mormon’s origin that would require Joseph Smith, whose
formal schooling was minimal, to have been a sophisticated scholar or literary
genius.
In review, most of Eddy and Boyd’s criticisms of
MacDonald’s method are suggestive of legitimate cautions to be observed in
comparing the ST to the SM. The point is not that such comparisons are
irrelevant to establishing a literary relationship but that the argument for
such a relationship must avoid various methodological fallacies. (Robert M. Bowman Jr., “The Sermon at the Temple in the Book of
Mormon: A Critical Examination of its Authenticity through a Comparison with
the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew” [PhD Dissertation; South
African Theological Seminary, 2014], 122-25)
Nephi and Goliath: A Case Study of Literary Allusion in the Book of Mormon (I will admit, this is one of my favourite articles on the Book of Mormon--it shows that the Old Testament Nephi used contained the earlier A-source material of 1 Sam 16-18 but not the later, post-exilic B-source, arguing strongly in favour of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon).
