Perhaps we are all still missing something...... -- Mimetic Theory and Literary Study

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1], 2 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 14:15:51 04/15/08 Tue
Author: Betsy Peters
Subject: Perhaps we are all still missing something......
In reply to: Kiernan 's message, "Perhaps I'm missing something......" on 09:38:43 04/14/08 Mon

Kiernan,
This post as two parts: the first part is my thoughts to answer your question and the second part is just me "re-posting" other people's posts in answer to this very question. I raised this same question and frustration about the story of Achan way back at the beginning of the semester. I wanted to know if Achan was really guilty or if he was innocent and if this was just the scapegoat mechanism working itself out to restore order. To see what John Dunn and Jon Fisher had to say then for helpful clarfication, see below.

Before re-citing John and Jon, here are my thoughts since January. If Achan is an example of negative scapegoating, let us consider the example of Rahab as a POSITIVE example. God is not a God without mercy in this text. He saves the harlot--and her whole house while the rest of the whole city is destroyed. Achan and his whole house is stoned so that Israel can live. In Jericho, everyone else is stoned (as the walls come a tumbling down) and Rahab alone and her family survive. Like Achan, Rahab's family had to be in agreement/consent with her to stay in doors.
Like Achan, Rahab was really good at hiding things--she hid the spies under the flax on her roof; Achan hides Babylonian jewels under his tent. One is killed; the other receives mercy. This does not answer the question of the wrathful God in Israel demanding a victim--because it seems to give us an arbitrary God, but it does provide an example of an anti-scapegoat in the text. MAYBE Jackson will let us talk about this tomorrow in class...

Now for Jon and John's thoughts from January...

"Probably the scapegoat mechanism. The myths that are built up around the scapegoat mechanism are supposed to justify the selection of the victim, right? Certainly the victim isn't guilty, but if the rest of the community were conscious of that fact, then the mechanism wouldn't work. The fact that the stories try to give reasons supporting their choice of victim doesn't mean that those stories are the real reasons behind their choice." ~John Dunn

"My guess in the case of Achen is both. Remember, the scapegoat doesn't have to necessarily be innocent. He simply has to suffer. Girard attributes this mechanism to the justice system in general. He says in Violence and the Sacred, pg. 23, that "the judicial system and the institution of sacrifice share the same function, but the judicial system is infinitely more effective." I suppose if you have God acting as judge, it is infinitely more effective than the current justice system too in carrying out the scapegoat mechanism.

But this example I think raises another question which I was hoping to discover once we start reading the Biblical text. We are told that the Biblical text uses the same mechanisms, but takes the side of the victim. But it doesn't always do so. The example of Achen demonstrates this, but there are many more. So the question is why. Why does the Bible take the side of the victim in some circumstances and not others. The answer cannot be something like, "The Bible takes the side of the victim whenever the victim is innocent," because innocence and guilt are defined in the Girardian system by whose side you take. So, is there a different answer?" ~Jon Fisher

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]