Dismemberment and Community Sacrifice

Still digging in the Diigo archives....

I came upon an article called Dismemberment and Community Sacrifice and the Communal Body in the Hebrew Scriptures. It is a 21 or so page article that deals with a premise of sacrifice that differs from Girard's. In fact, this guy pretty much seems to say that Girard is full of crap and his theory full of holes. Not in so many words of course....but he does not see things the same way Girard does. An excerpt follows:

Rene Girard's thesis that "sacrifice serves to protect the entire community from its own violence" (8), and "to prevent conflicts from erupting" (14) finds no support in the earliest chapters of Genesis, where the first sacrifice results in violence: Cain murders Abel.The subsequent history of ritual sacrifice in the Hebrew scriptures—Noah's propitiation of Yahweh on Ararat; Abraham's offering of Isaac;the innumerable morning and evening burnt offerings of Exodus, Leviticus,and Numbers; the sacrifices of the days of Atonement, of Pentecost, and of the Festival of Booths—has less to do with any violence inherent in the "Israelites" themselves than it does with staving off the violence and/or seeking the favor and assistance of Yahweh. This view is seconded by Baruch Levine, following the early twentieth-century scholar George Buchanan Gray, when he argues that Hebrew sacrifice reflects a "contractual relationship ... [in which the] worshipper pledges a gift to the deity in an effort to secure his assistance"

I think he's missed the point. Sacrifice did not cause the violence that erupted between Cain and Abel...but rather the murder of Abel was caused by Cain's perception that God was more pleased with Abel's sacrifice. It was a case in point of mimetic rivalry. This view also confirms (to me anyway) that the Israelites were worshiping a god of their own making...one who could be appeased with the slaughter of a suitable substitute...one who could be placated with blood spilled and cast his favor on the spillers of that blood. That darkness originates in the heart of man....not in the heart of God.

The article talks in some length about the Levite and his concubine...the story considered by many to be one of the most disturbing stories in the Bible. Stranded at night, in the city of Gibeah, on his way home from fetching the concubine from her father's home, they were taken in by an elderly man. The men of the city came to have sexual intercourse with HIM....to humiliate and degrade him (which has its implication in mimetic rivalry as well) The Levite threw his concubine out to save his own skin and to appease the men of Gibeah who had come for HIM. The host offered to throw his own daughter out with the concubine if the men would agree to leave the Levite alone. The story reeks of Girardian scapegoats (the Levite, a homeless stranger in Gibeah, his concubine...a women...a secondary wife....no status at all in the view of society...the daughter, again a women with no rank or worth in that time) The whole mimetic rivalry thing seems obvious. The concubine is raped all night and finally collapses in the doorway. When the Levite comes to her in the morning, it is assumed she is dead because she does not answer him. I read another article that questions whether she was really dead at that point or just badly injured (which I'll post about later).

So anyway, to make a long story short, the Levite loads her on his donkey and later proceeds to cut her in 12 pieces to send to the different tribes of Israel. (again...more on this horror in another post) This article sees the murder of the concubine (who is referred to as "Beth") as a two way sacrifice "explained" in the snippet below:

However, if sacrifice is viewed as a gift marking a plea to enter into a contractual relationship with God promising submission in return for his favor and assistance, as suggested by Gray, then Beth's dismemberment can be seen as a sacrifice in two ways: it serves to facilitate a contractual arrangement between the Levite and the elders of the non-Benjamite tribes, and further, it serves as a contractual arrangement between this nascent group and God, serving to bring them together into a community focused on God and God's role in the vengeance they wish to take on the men of Gibeah, and the tribe of Benjamin generally (the city of Gibeah is in the territory of Benjamin). If viewed as a covenant between a superior and an inferior, as Schwartz suggests, further sacrificial dynamics can be seen in the dismemberment of Beth. The Levite is landless, a stranger in whatever territory he resides,being a member of the one tribe that does not—at the time of this narrative—have its own inherited territory. As such, the Levite belongs to a group that includes foreigners, women (especially widows—see the story of Ruth), and orphans. As Ilse Müllner argues, such groups are particularly vulnerable: "the fact that the laws in Deuteronomy are aimed at ...social groups especially in need of protection ... tends to indicate that these groups were not treated this way as a matter of course" (135). In this scenario, both the Levite (the sacrificer) and Beth (the sacrificed) are, in a very real sense, inferiors, strangers in the land of the as-yet-disunited tribes of Israel. The sacrifice of Beth serves as a plea from the Levite, not directly for the favor of God, but for the favor of the elders of the landed tribes. In Schwartz's terms, the "inferior who enters into the covenant with a superior" (22), is the Levite, who enters into a covenant with the tribal elders, who have never seen "such a thing since the day that the Israelites came up from the land of Egypt" (Judges 19.30). Each party in the covenant receives something from the sacrifice: the Levite is held blameless for the death and dismemberment of Beth, and the tribal elders, "the chiefs of all the people" (Judges 20.2) are united—albeit temporarily—as a military force.

Isn't"it serves as a contractual arrangement between this nascent group and God, serving to bring them together into a community focused on God and God's role in the vengeance they wish to take on the men of Gibeah, and the tribe of Benjamin generally" and "Each party in the covenant receives something from the sacrifice: the Levite is held blameless for the death and dismemberment of Beth, and the tribal elders, "the chiefs of all the people" (Judges 20.2) are united—albeit temporarily—as a military force."
exactly what Girard's theory declares? Sacrifice serves to bring the community together and stave off the all against all violence. But is is a band-aid and the rivalry begins anew...thus the "albeit temporarily....united military force." While disputing Girard's theory, this article seems to confirm it!!!

And what about:

"further sacrificial dynamics can be seen in the dismemberment of Beth. The Levite is landless, a stranger in whatever territory he resides,being a member of the one tribe that does not—at the time of this narrative—have its own inherited territory. As such, the Levite belongs to a group that includes foreigners, women (especially widows—see the story of Ruth), and orphans. As Ilse Müllner argues, such groups are particularly vulnerable: "the fact that the laws in Deuteronomy are aimed at ...social groups especially in need of protection ... tends to indicate that these groups were not treated this way as a matter of course" (135). In this scenario, both the Levite (the sacrificer) and Beth (the sacrificed) are, in a very real sense, inferiors, strangers in the land of the as-yet-disunited tribes of Israel."

Ahhhhhhhhh.....uh-huh....doesn't this further confirm Girard's theory? The Levite is landless, a stranger...a member of a group that included foreigners, women and orphans. Easy victims of scapegoating, perhaps? And am I reading it correctly when it seems to say that these underdogs, ripe for scapegoat picking, are not usually treated that way because of the laws in Deuteronomy aimed at protecting social groups in need of protection. To me, that seems like God's provision of protection for the very people the Israelites would most likely pick to abuse.

This article left me unsettled for some reason. Probably because within the examples the author uses to discuss his view of sacrifice...and especially the example of the murder of "Beth"....lies all the depravity in the human heart. These may be flat, one dimensional words on a page, but when one adds just a bit of imagination to the scene it would be a rival for modern day horror flicks like the SAW trilogy....or is Saw 4 that is out now? Which would make it a tetralogy...and yes, I did have to look that term up on google. To think that "god" would be appeased, placated, approving of such a display...such a sacrifice is unthinkable. Would it not be more in line with the God we see in Jesus for the Levite to throw himself to the angry mob rather than throw out his concubine? Is that not something that so much more seems to fit the character and nature of our great God? More about "Beth" in later posts.......