Exposure: How the Gospels Use Naked Truths to Debunk Mythology

This is a paper I wrote for my honors Introduction to Christianity class based on Chapters 12 and 13 of the book The Scapegoat, by French theologist, Rene Girard. Girard is incredibly brilliant, but also somewhat dense. I think you might really find his book interesting Dad. Here's the paper, as you asked to read it. Hopefully it is clearly explained enough so that you can pick up some on what Girard is trying to say. Either way, I'm going to bring it home over one of my breaks, so you can read it if you like.

Lizzie Spaulding [Presenting]

The Scapegoat Chapters 12 & 13

Due: October 22, 12

Intro to Christianity

Dr. Case

“Exposure:

How the Gospels Use Naked Truths to Debunk Mythology”

           

“Mimeticism is the original source of all man’s troubles, desires, and rivalries, his tragic and grotesque misunderstandings, the source of all disorder…” [Girard 165].  Perhaps this quote is the most simplified way of explaining Girard’s thoughts on mimetic theory and its relationship with human behavior. He explores these claims thoroughly in the chapters of his book titled “Peter’s Denial” and “The Demons of Gerasa”. The chapters each intensely examine the Bible story they are named for; painfully holding each version as recorded differently in the four gospels up to the light and pointing out the small variances and inclusions or exclusions from certain authors, and then examining what significance that might have on the story and moreover, the scripture, as a whole. The fascinating element to the way Girard’s mind works and subsequently what shows up in his writing is that no rock is ever left unturned. He must examine every small detail, every miniscule and seemingly irrelevant mention and somehow, find a meaning behind it. Gospel accounts that have been left unquestioned for many since their first recitation of it inside the four pristine walls of a childhood Sunday school classroom are subject to severe discrimination under Girard’s lens, and he states, “Rational suspicion is in no way contrary to the Gospels which themselves warn us against miracles,” [Girard 163]. Girard’s thesis for these two chapters is padded largely by the assertion that rationality can explain much more of people’s actions than can miracles, and in order to understand that rationality, mimetic theory must almost always be applied. We can know with certainty that the gospels are true, Girard claims, because of the fallibility of the writers, because their information is “disorganized and contaminated with miracles”, because they did not try to hide by sweeping acts of violence and betrayal under the carpet but laid them bare for all to see, because they wrote as humans write, humans with divine inspiration, but humans nonetheless. [Girard 162].

            In the chapter “Peter’s Denial,” Girard relies heavily on the use of symbolism to prove his thesis. He first begins with a thorough analysis of the fire by which Peter goes to warm himself after Jesus’ arrest and Peter’s ensuing denial of “being with [Jesus]”.  First we must understand exactly why Peter has gravitated toward the fire during this tense period of time when he ought to be hiding. Quite literally, it is noted, Peter goes to the fire seeking warmth on a chilly March night in Jerusalem. But there is another reason that Peter finds himself standing around this communal fire, one that is also rather obvious upon examination, which is that Peter is trying to blend in with the crowd and seem as though he is one of them; far removed from any entanglement with Jesus and his gaggle of disciples. “Elbowing one’s way to the fire and stretching hands toward it with the others is to act like one of them, as if one belongs with them,” Girard writes. [Girard 150]. He says that by huddling around a fire in the night, “a place for communion and communication is established.” [Girard 152]. These two reasons give those reading the gospels some incentive to grant Peter some grace regarding his otherwise despised actions. The fact is, Peter was not technically lying when, in the gospel of Mark, “he denies that he was with Jesus.” [Girard 150. Here, “being with” is the significant phrase. Currently, Peter is not “with” Jesus and it does not seem likely that he shall be “with” him again anytime soon; in fact the entire discipleship has been entirely disbanded. And while questioned, Peter seems somewhat dazed and disoriented, to the extent where Girard claims it is possible that Peter is confused and has no present memory of “having been with” Jesus previously. [Girard 150]. In which case, his actions for moving toward the fire and denying Jesus might just have a rational explanation to back them up. A cold, confused and alone man, suddenly abandoned and in search of communion with others stumbles toward a fire on a night that, for some reason that he may not have fully processed yet, has been incredibly traumatic. He finds himself accused; he denies all accusations. He is not afraid, Girard is quick to highlight. [Girard 152]. He does not try to run away from the persistent slave girl, who continually asserts her dominance and leadership by questioning him and trying to push him out of her group. Again, the concept of “being with” arises; the man Peter had once “been with” is gone, he now seeks to join a new party and the girl feels defensive; she does not want Peter, this outsider, to “be with” her group of comrades. Girard points out how Mark demonstrates his theory here by showing how the slave girl “unleashes the group mechanism, the way she brings collective mimeticism into play.” She challenges the others in her group to question Peter’s presence among their circle too, and they do, suddenly ganging up on him. The final accusation of his being “a Galilean” is made when Peter begins to speak, for “language is the surest indicator of the being with” and from his accent, Peter was certainly “with” Jesus and his disciples- and not these he has suddenly, out of a mimetic need, attempted to join. [Girard 153]. Thus begins a mimetic rivalry between Peter and those around the fire.

            Girard then chooses to look at Peter’s actions when accused by the servant girl. Upon being spoken to, he begins “calling down curses on himself and swearing,” a violent reaction certainly. Is he infuriated with the slave girl? No, indeed. It is because, after the hostility of the crowd, Peter now “understands clearly that he cannot deceive the world, and when he denies his master so fiercely, it is not to convince anyone but to sever the bonds that unite him to Jesus and to form other bonds with those around him.” [Girard 154.] Through his attempts to make himself at one with the others at the fire by uniting through a common enemy in Jesus, Peter employs the use of mimetic rivalry himself. “The best way to make friends in a hostile world is to espouse the enmities and adopt the others’ enemies.” [Girard 154]. So the reason for Peter’s anger towards Jesus must be attributed to an intense feeling of shame at having associated himself with this fallen man whom everyone else despises. Peter chose to be right-hand man to a person who has let him down in a drastic way and thus, his anger seems almost justified. Of course he is going to deny him now. Mimetics play its role in human behavior once again: Peter has a desire to fit in as well as a desire to redeem himself from the shame of being associated with Jesus; this is what drives his anger and his attempts to join this group. In fact, though Peter is in unaware of it, he has always been driven by mimetic desire, even when amongst the other disciples, and therefore cannot see the true nature of Jesus. [Girard 157].

            Girard comes to a point now, where he refers back to when Jesus has accused Peter of “scandalizing him”, both in Matthew 16:23 and Matthew 26:33-36. [Girard 157]. When Jesus prophesies about Peter’s denial, Peter repeatedly has different reactions. Jesus knows that Peter will deny him but Peter himself cannot even know what he will do in the next five minutes; his humanity is overwhelming and he is unpredictable in every respect. This all ties in with the miracle of the crowing cock, or the miracle of the prophecy. The gospel writers want to revere Jesus’ prophecy that, “this very night before the cock crows, you [Peter] will have disowned me three times.” [Matt. 26:34]. But Girard actually argues that the prophecy was not so much a miracle as a logical conclusion for Jesus to come to. This serves to prove Girard’s thesis most profoundly. If the Gospels were yet another set of myths, would Peter’s failures and shortcomings be so eagerly recorded? Or rather, would what was recorded be his succumbing so easily to the whims of mimetic desire, so predictably so that Jesus can see how apt he is to change his mind in succession and end up denying him in the final confrontation, (and not only can Jesus see this, but we, the common reader, can foresee it as well)? [Girard 158]. It seems that Jesus’ great prophecy regarding the cock and how Peter would have denied him three times before he crowed might have been less of a miracle and more of a deduction based on rationality and mimetic theory on Jesus’ part. Girard writes that “we are forced therefore to question whether the authors of the Gospels realized the scope of this desire [Peter’s mimetic desire, that is], which is revealed in their texts,” [Girard 159]. The fact that the Gospel writers were not always entirely aware of the meaning or significance of what they were writing; the fact that Jesus certainly better understood human motives and actions better than his disciples recording them- these obvious flaws in our humanly-transcribed Bible only serve to prove its reality, its truth, its great separation from myths and tales. “[The writers’] insufficiency becomes a positive quality. It increases the credibility and power of the witness.” [Girard 163]. There is an honesty here that one just cannot question when all is said and done and it proves Girard’s point quite nicely, because, after all, oftentimes, “the messenger’s ignorance guarantees the authenticity of the message.” [Girard 164].

            The second story that Girard takes into consideration is that of “The Demon of Gerasa.” The first thing he makes clear in his writings is that both Satan and demons are representations of that which is referred to as false transcendence. False transcendence is also a term that can be used to describe what occurs to a victim when they are “made sacred because of the unanimous verdict of guilt.” [Girard 166]. False transcendence, thus, is a term reserved for those who might be considered sacred in an unrighteous or even blasphemous manner, and thus, the title is often associated with the devil and his demons, also known as “the power of this world”, which directly contradicts the concept of transcendence, as it relates to being above or beyond this physical world in which humans exist. [Girard 166]. It is also worth noting that demonic forces, as a group, versus Satan as a singular entity, are primarily associated with disorder, a concept which will later in the story be quite crucial.

            Girard describes the demoniac that lives amongst the tombs of Gerasa in no uncertain terms: “He is freer than any other man since he has broken all the chains, despised all the rules, and even…wears no clothes, yet he is possessed, a prisoner of his on madness. This man is a living corpse.” [Girard 168.] The state that this demoniac is in represents very astutely Girard’s “phenomena of mimetic crisis”; that is, the impossibility that exists when trying to distinguish whether the demoniac is truly dead or alive; captive or a free man. [Girard 168].  It is noteworthy also, that Satan is most highly associated with mimesis, as his main plaguing sins are “jealousy and envy.” [Girard 166].

            The demoniac’s relationship with the people of the town in which he lives, the Gerasenes, is also nothing short of disturbing. It seems, in simple terms, to be a mutually dependent one. Girard points out how the process of chaining the demoniac with insufficient bonds, his escape and subsequent self-harm, and then return and recapture in the village, is a cycle that repeats itself on a constant loop. And both parties seem somehow to benefit from it. Indeed, Girard writes, “ [The Gerasenes] must gain some enjoyment from this drama and even feel the need of it since they beg Jesus to leave immediately and stop interfering in their affairs. Their request is paradoxical, given that Jesus had just succeeded…in obtaining the result which they had professed to be aiming at…but which, in reality, they did not want at all…In this episode, as always, Jesus’ presence reveals the truth of the hidden desires.” [Girard 169].  Though the Gerasenes do use violence to attempt to fetter the demoniac in town when he goes into a rage, they do not actually stone him, and thus it becomes interesting to examine the point that the demoniac instead takes the task of stoning upon himself. This too reveals a strong tendency toward mimetic character, Girard writes, as the demoniac recreates for himself all of his worst fears and punishments [stoning and expulsion from town/society], as if this will somehow spare him from the punishment being inflicted upon him by others. “There is a sort of conspiracy,” Girard says, “between the victim and his torturers to keep the balance in the game because it is obviously necessary to keep the balance of the Gerasene community.” [Girard 171]. This is where Girard begins to talk of mirror relationships: a sort of twisted form of mimetic rivalry that manifests itself in reciprocity. The victim persecutes his persecutors and thus the persecutors are become victims through their victim’s actions. Their behavior is mimicked by each other and toxically cyclical. Girard finds support for this thesis in the passage in Matthew, which references actually “two identical possessed beings.” [Girard 171]. This passage proves that “possession is…the result of aggravated mimeticism. There are always at least two beings who possess each other reciprocally…each is the other’s demon.”

            This being established, it is fairly fascinating to read Girard’s explanation of the relationship between the Gerasenes and the demons themselves, or “The Legion”. He actually draws multiple comparisons between the two groups, and talks, not insignificantly, about how the Gerasenes are unsettled after Jesus performs the exorcism.  Supposedly he has given them exactly what they have been yearning for and yet, “the account [of the exorcism] increases their anxiety…Without hesitation they determine not to accept it. They want nothing to do with Jesus and what [Jesus] represents.” [Girard 174]. Why the suspiciously cool reaction to Jesus’ miracle? “It must be recognized that the attachment of the Gerasenes to their demons has its counterpart in the demons’ attachment to the Gerasenes.” [Girard 174.] The Legion was terrified of being sent out of “his country” and deemed that being placed into the bodies of pigs would be a better fate than being sent to the abyss. Similarly, the Gerasenes “cannot do without [the demoniac]…There remains enough difference between the voluntary exile and the Gerasenes who refuse to expel him, enough real drama in each repetition to achieve a certain catharsis,” [Girard 175.] Yes, it is true that there is a routine that has been established here and in the strange structural balance of the Gerasenian society, an upset of that balance is very disturbing indeed. When the victim is saved and the crowd of possessed pigs instead topples over the cliff, the reverse of the Scapegoat mechanism occurs and nature seems to turn on its head. “These unfortunate people fear that their precarious balance depends on the demoniac, on the activities they share periodically and on the kind of local celebrity their possessed citizen has become.” [Girard 181].

The undeniable similarities between The Legion and the Gerasenes also reveals a certain tendency toward mimetics that cannot be ignored. Both societies possess a structure, and a singular speaker who serves as spokesperson for the entire group. Namely their behaviors are far too alike; the violence and the stoning that they resort to in order to communally harm or expel others as a group is a strong bond that does not exist amongst other species.

Finally, Girard touches on the significance of the pigs throwing themselves off the cliff once they become possessed by the The Legion. It is a simple question of mob mentality, when asked what would drive the entire herd of pigs to seemingly commit suicide off the edge of a cliff. “In other words,” Girard writes, “the irresistible tendency to imeticism. One pig accidentally falling into the sea, or…[convulsing], is enough to cause a stupid panic in which all the others follow.” [Girard 183]. The sight of the whole crowd of them scrambling and toppling off the edge of that precipice must have been a somewhat horrifying, but certainly not surprising when mimetic theory is analyzed, or even miraculous. “The slightest mimetic incitement can agitate a close-knit crowd.”

So the purpose of Girard’s chapters devoted to Peter’s denial and the exorcism of the demons in Gerasa into a herd of pigs must be attributed to an attempt to both prove the importance of mimesis in explaining all human action and, therefore, rationalizing the gospel writers and the Bible as a whole. What others might call miraculous, magical, supernatural, mystical, and any number of words used by skeptics and judges, Girard sets to explain as simply elemental of human nature. The Bible holds within it a truth that can be reached through a logical analysis of human behavior, most especially when examined with regards to the humanity of those who recorded the divinely-inspired work. Thus, Girard can say with confidence, and so can his readers, that the Bible is no myth, but rather, it is truth.