The enduring allegory of John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress has captivated readers for centuries, its vivid depiction of Christian’s journey to the Celestial City resonating deeply within religious and literary spheres. However, the very universality of its themes has occasionally led to questions regarding its originality when compared to other works. One such inquiry involves the assertion that Joseph Smith, founder of the Latter Day Saint movement, may have plagiarized elements from Pilgrim’s Progress in the Book of Mormon, specifically in narratives like Lehi’s vision and the story of Abinadi.
This article delves into these claims, scrutinizing the purported parallels between Pilgrim’s Progress and the Book of Mormon. By applying principles of literary analysis and plagiarism assessment, we aim to demonstrate that such accusations often stem from a superficial understanding of both texts and a flawed methodology of comparison known as “parallel hunting.” Rather than indicating plagiarism, the perceived similarities are more reflective of common narrative archetypes and themes prevalent in religious and moral literature.
The Pitfalls of “Parallel Hunting” in Literary Analysis
Critics alleging plagiarism frequently employ a technique we can term “parallel hunting.” This approach involves extracting isolated similarities between texts while minimizing or ignoring crucial differences and contextual nuances. Alexander Lindey, in his seminal work Plagiarism and Originality, astutely identified the inherent weaknesses of this method. Lindey outlined nine “vices” of using parallels to substantiate plagiarism claims, which are highly relevant to the discussion surrounding Pilgrim’s Progress and the Book of Mormon.
One primary flaw, as Lindey notes, is that parallel hunting inherently misrepresents by emphasizing similarities and downplaying differences. Any two narratives, particularly those within similar thematic or genre conventions, will inevitably share some common elements. Reducing complex works to simplistic summaries and then highlighting these superficial resemblances can create a false impression of direct borrowing.
Furthermore, parallels are easily manipulated to fit a predetermined narrative. “Superficial resemblances,” Lindey argues, “may be made to appear as of the essence.” Critics driven by a desire to prove plagiarism may selectively focus on elements that support their claim, while consciously or unconsciously overlooking contradictory evidence or alternative interpretations. This bias undermines the objectivity necessary for sound literary analysis.
Lindey also points out that parallel hunting often relies on “lowest common denominators.” By stripping away the unique details, stylistic nuances, and overarching messages of literary works, any text can be reduced to basic plot points or thematic elements that appear to overlap with numerous other works. For instance, as Lindey illustrates, one could argue that Mark Twain’s The Prince and the Pauper plagiarizes Dickens’ David Copperfield based on shared elements like an English setting and a protagonist experiencing social mobility. However, such a comparison ignores the vast differences in character development, thematic focus, and literary expression that distinguish these novels.
Another significant issue is that parallel columns, a common tool in parallel hunting, wrench phrases and passages out of context. Literary works are organic wholes, where meaning is derived from the interplay of various elements within the complete text. Isolating fragments and juxtaposing them with similar-sounding phrases from another work disregards the intended meaning and significance within each original context. As Lindey aptly states, “To remove details from their setting is to falsify them.”
Moreover, parallel hunting fails to consider the proportion of purportedly borrowed material in relation to the entirety of both the source and the new work. Even if some minor similarities exist, they may be insignificant within the larger scope of each text. Accusations of plagiarism based on a few isolated parallels often exaggerate the importance of these similarities while ignoring the vast amount of original content in the allegedly plagiarizing work.
Lindey further critiques the “sleight of hand” employed by parallel hunters, who use language not to accurately describe but to create a rhetorical illusion of similarity. By using identical words to describe different things, they artificially construct parallels that do not genuinely reflect a meaningful connection between the texts.
Finally, parallel hunting often operates under the flawed assumption that similarity implies direct copying. This ignores the possibility of independent invention, common sources, shared cultural influences, or the use of archetypal narratives. The mere existence of similar elements does not automatically prove plagiarism; other explanations for the resemblance must be considered.
Examining Alleged Parallels: Vanity Fair and the Abinadi Narrative
With Lindey’s principles in mind, let’s examine a specific example of alleged plagiarism: the comparison between the Vanity Fair episode in Pilgrim’s Progress and the story of Abinadi in the Book of Mormon. Critics have pointed to a list of 14 purported parallels, suggesting a direct borrowing of Bunyan’s narrative by Joseph Smith. These parallels, often presented in side-by-side columns, highlight superficial similarities in plot points, such as the protagonists entering a wicked city, causing a disturbance, facing trial, and ultimately being persecuted.
However, a closer examination of both texts within their respective contexts reveals that these parallels are largely superficial and fail to account for significant differences in narrative purpose, character motivation, and theological underpinnings.
Consider the first alleged parallel: both narratives involve protagonists entering a wicked city and causing a disturbance. In Pilgrim’s Progress, Christian and Faithful journey through Vanity Fair as pilgrims on their way to the Celestial City. Their distinct clothing, unfamiliar language, and disinterest in the fair’s worldly goods cause a stir among the inhabitants. The disturbance arises from the pilgrims’ status as outsiders and their rejection of the fair’s values.
In contrast, Abinadi in the Book of Mormon is not a pilgrim entering a foreign city. He is a prophet who returns to his own people, the Nephites in the city of Nephi-Lehi, after a period of absence. His preaching and prophecy of destruction cause a disturbance not because he is a stranger, but because his message challenges the wickedness and idolatry of King Noah and his priests. The source of the disturbance is fundamentally different in each narrative.
Another alleged parallel points to the imprisonment of the protagonists. In Pilgrim’s Progress, Christian and Faithful are placed in a cage in Vanity Fair, primarily to be made a spectacle and to deter others from sympathizing with them. The “prison” is more of a public humiliation and temporary confinement within the fair itself.
Abinadi, on the other hand, is imprisoned in a more conventional sense, held captive by King Noah’s authorities. His imprisonment is a direct consequence of his prophetic message and a prelude to his trial and eventual martyrdom. The nature and purpose of the imprisonment differ significantly between the two narratives.
Furthermore, the alleged parallels regarding the trial and accusations also reveal crucial distinctions. In Vanity Fair, Faithful is put on trial and accused of being a “madman,” stirring up contention, and slandering the town leaders. These accusations stem from the fair’s inhabitants’ misunderstanding and rejection of the pilgrims’ Christian values.
Abinadi, in the Book of Mormon, is tried before King Noah and his priests and accused of similar charges: being “mad,” stirring up contention, and slandering the town leaders. However, the context is different. Abinadi’s “madness” is a dismissal of his prophetic claims, and the “contention” arises from his direct condemnation of the king and priests’ wickedness. The accusations are rooted in a specific religious and political conflict, rather than a general rejection of outsider values as in Pilgrim’s Progress.
The alleged parallel culminating in the martyrdom of Faithful and Abinadi, who both “seal their testimony with their blood,” appears to be a stronger point of comparison at first glance. Faithful is executed in Vanity Fair as a consequence of his unwavering faith, and Abinadi is burned at the stake for refusing to recant his prophecies.
However, even in this seemingly similar outcome, the underlying theological significance differs. Faithful’s martyrdom in Pilgrim’s Progress is part of the allegorical journey, a trial that strengthens his faith and serves as an example for Christian. Abinadi’s martyrdom in the Book of Mormon is a pivotal event that leads to the conversion of Alma the Elder and the establishment of a righteous group among the Nephites. While both deaths are testimonies of faith, their narrative function and theological implications are distinct within their respective texts.
Common Narrative Archetypes and Themes
The superficial similarities between the Vanity Fair episode and the Abinadi narrative are better understood not as evidence of plagiarism, but as reflections of common narrative archetypes and themes found in religious and moral literature. Both stories draw upon the archetype of the righteous individual confronting a wicked society, a narrative pattern that recurs throughout history and across cultures.
The theme of conflict between spiritual values and worldly corruption is central to both Pilgrim’s Progress and the Abinadi story. Vanity Fair embodies the allure and deceptive nature of worldly temptations, while the city of Nephi-Lehi under King Noah represents religious and political corruption. The protagonists in both narratives stand in stark contrast to these corrupt environments, upholding higher moral and spiritual principles.
Furthermore, the motif of persecution of the righteous is a common thread in religious narratives. Both Faithful and Abinadi face opposition, trials, and ultimately martyrdom for their beliefs. This motif resonates with biblical narratives of prophets and apostles facing persecution for their faithfulness, and it serves to emphasize the cost of discipleship and the importance of remaining true to one’s convictions in the face of adversity.
The use of symbolic cities is another shared literary device. Vanity Fair is explicitly allegorical, representing worldly vanity and temptation. While the city of Nephi-Lehi is not presented as an allegory in the same way, it functions symbolically as a place of wickedness and apostasy in the Book of Mormon narrative. The use of cities as symbolic settings is a common literary technique to represent societal values and moral landscapes.
Conclusion: Separating Superficial Parallels from Plagiarism
Claims that Joseph Smith plagiarized John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress in the Book of Mormon, based on superficial parallels between episodes like Vanity Fair and the Abinadi narrative, are ultimately unsubstantiated. These accusations rely on a flawed methodology of “parallel hunting” that exaggerates minor similarities while ignoring significant differences in context, narrative purpose, and theological meaning.
The perceived parallels are better explained by the presence of common narrative archetypes, themes, and literary devices prevalent in religious and moral literature. Both Pilgrim’s Progress and the Book of Mormon draw upon shared cultural and literary traditions, and their narratives reflect universal human experiences of faith, temptation, and persecution.
To suggest plagiarism based on these superficial similarities is to misunderstand the nature of literary creativity and the rich tapestry of shared narratives that have shaped human culture. A deeper and more nuanced analysis reveals that both Pilgrim’s Progress and the Book of Mormon are distinct and original works, each with its own unique literary and religious contributions. Focusing on superficial parallels obscures the true value and message of both texts, diverting attention from their individual merits and significance.
References
- Alexander Lindey, Plagiarism and Originality (Greenwood Press, 1952).
- John Bunyan, The Pilgrim’s Progress (1820 Edition). http://books.google.com/books?id=5AADAAAAQAAJ
- The Book of Mormon.
- Wikipedia article on Sanhedrin trial of Jesus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanhedrin_trial_of_Jesus
