Re: What makes me skeptical about Girard's reading of the Gospels -- 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: 14:16:40 02/24/08 Sun
Author: Hwaet!
Subject: Re: What makes me skeptical about Girard's reading of the Gospels
In reply to: Erin Risch 's message, "What makes me skeptical about Girard's reading of the Gospels" on 16:24:49 02/22/08 Fri

In Things Hidden Bk2, Ch2, J.-M.O. objects that in some texts, such as Luke�s version of the murderous tenants of vineyard, Jesus �takes over Yahweh�s traditional destructive violence� (187). For example, Jesus says, �What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? He will come and destroy those tenants and give the vineyard to others� (Lk 20:15-16, NRSV). Girard replies that Matthew�s version of the parable is more reliable. In Matthew 21:41, Jesus� audience replies, �He will put those wretches to a miserable death, and lease the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the produce at harvest time.� Here, Girard says, the crowd is violent, not Jesus.

I cannot quote Girard�s full answer to this objection, because it runs from pp.187-191, but at this point I question Girard�s methodology. Throughout Bk2, Girard says that his reading that Jesus rejects all violence is founded upon the Gospel texts, and he uses various texts to support this. But when others object that violence appears in the text, suddenly the text is corrupt, scribes misunderstood Jesus� point, the texts �date from a period when this work of desacralization had, quite obviously, a long way to go,� the Gospel writers �cannot stop themselves from reverting�to expressions contaminated by the symbolism of violence,� et cetera (191).

Grant for a moment that Girard has every reason to uphold certain portions of each gospel text as more reliable than others, e.g., and I make this up, the beginning and end of Luke over those of Matthew, and but the middle of Matthew over that of Luke. That�s fine�he is the scholar and exegete�but he should spend most of Bk2, Ch2 delineating his reasons for considering select portions of the gospel texts more reliable than others. I�m not talking about rehashing the ample work others have done on ranking the overall accuracy among the Gospels; I just mean it is dubious when this or that verse in Matthew suddenly is more reliable, and it also just happens to support Girard�s theory. Girard provokes greater doubt when one sees that the verses immediately following Matthew�s version constitute the parable of the wedding feast, in which the king who throws a wedding banquet for his son is enraged at the murderers of his messengers, �sent his troops, destroyed those murderers, and burned their city� (Mt 22:1-14). Jesus does all the talking, and he seems to mean what he says.

Citing no historical, archeological, or etymological evidence, Girard responds to objections such as J.-M.O�s by turning to �superior texts,� but as far as the reader is concerned, these texts are superior only because they lend themselves more readily to Girard�s theory.

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