Are the Gospels Mythical?

On Emerging Universalist we have been discussing Girard’s book, “I See Satan Fall Like Lightening” We just discussed the part in the foreword where it deals with the similarities of the Gospels to many creation myths in other cultures.

I've read an excerpt from one of Girard's books that is available online; "Are the Gospels Mythical". In it he says:

As soon as we become reconciled to the similarities between violence in the Bible and myths, we can understand how the Bible is not mythical—how the reaction to violence recorded in the Bible radically differs from the reaction recorded in myth.

As Deb pointed out in her summary, the Bible always tells the story from the perspective of the victim. Even though the similarities to creation myths in different cultures has caused many, even Christians, to question the validity and authority of the Bible, Girard thinks the similarities strongly emphasize the differences. The Bible takes the side of the oppressed, the falsely accused, the innocent (or not nearly as guilty as thought) victim. Or as Girard puts it,

In the Bible, the false or insignificant causes of mythical violence are effectively dismissed in the simple and sweeping statement, They hated me without a cause (John 15:25), in which Jesus quotes and virtually summarizes Psalm 35—one of the "scapegoat psalms" that literally turns the mob’s mythical justifications inside out. Instead of the mob speaking to justify violence with causes that it perceives as legitimate, the victim speaks to denounce the causes as nonexistent.

The power of myth is the way it glosses over the guilt of the crowd. It has to gloss over it because otherwise, as Girard states, if we see the truth....that the victim, the sacrifice, the scapegoat is really a target for displaced anger gone amuck....the all against all he talks about, it simply doesn't work and does not provide the cathartic release when the all against all becomes all against one, and the cumulative rage is vented on the victim. Girard puts it this way


myths are the voice of communities that unanimously surrender to the mimetic contagion of victimization.
This interpretation is reinforced by the optimistic endings of myths. The conjunction of the guilty victim and the reconciled community is too frequent to be fortuitous. The only possible explanation is the distorted representation of unanimous victimization. The violent process is not effective unless it fools all witnesses, and the proof that it does, in the case of myths, is the harmonious and cathartic conclusion, rooted in a perfectly unanimous murder.


How subtle, yet blatant, the Bible is in revealing this and how it works. Especially in the Gospels. Just the fact that there are four of them. Four times, four chances for us to pick up on this....to emphasize the point and then reemphasize it....and again....and yet again. It is there in how Peter succumbs to the pressure of the crowd out of fear....he goes along because to do otherwise jeopardizes his own safety.

It points it out in the prophetic words of Ciaophas:

then one of them, named caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, “you know nothing at all! you do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.” he did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the jewish nation, and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one. so from that day on they plotted to take his life.john 11:49-53

And in a verse that is often passed over by many Christians it shows how the scapegoating thing works to bring former enemies together. When I mentioned it to Keith, he said, "I don't think that verse is in the Bible". But alas....as I left for work I pulled it up on studylight for him to read. Later that night, he mentioned that it was such an odd verse, seemed almost out of place in the chapter

Luke 23:12 And the same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together: for before they were at enmity between themselves.

It is all there....so unavoidable to see once one knows the theory....the thoughts of Girard and his anthropology of the cross. I do think, as Deb pointed out in another of her posts, that Girard does not have the whole truth....to me in the fact that he does not emphasize the supernatural empowerment of the holy spirit in helping us to overcome the "bad mimesis" and following in the ways of "good mimesis" (Jesus, who is the expressed image of the invisible God) and he does not emphasize another aspect of our tendency to long for the belongings of our neighbor....and that is this selfish, me, me, me, it's all about me core of the carnal man. That is why Jesus stresses so strongly to love our neighbor as ourselves. Girard provides a mirror in which to see ourselves. Not a great image when we see the truth....sort of like the time when I was trying on clothes at K-mart and I looked up and wondered who in the heck is that fat, old woman in my dressing room!!! It is stark, and it is not pretty, but once the Bible reveals this to us, there is help readily available if we turn to God for empowerment to overcome our selfishness....and with the example of Jesus to follow. It is the ultimate WWJD.