Girard’s Evolutionism

Jonathan Klawans charges (Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple) that Girard’s Violence and the Sacred is “nothing short of an indictment of sacrificial rituals” (22), which Girard finds “abhorrent” (23).

Klawans thinks that Girard’s theory suffers from the same flaws as earlier theories from Robertson Smith and James Frazer. His theory is “antiritualist” insofar as Girard describes all sacrifice as the unjust slaughter of an innocent victim, presumably by a “guilty” worshiper or priest (25). Girard doesn’t think much of purity rules either, which he also equates with violence.  Klawans seems a little mystified as to why Girard’s theory would be so popular among biblical scholars, and after reading Klawans you start to wonder why as well: Christians think sacrifice has been superseded, but we don’t believe Israel was wrong to perform sacrifice at Yahweh’s command.

Klawans also spots evolutionist assumptions in Girard’s notion that “sacrifice [is] a primitive but failed attempt to achieve what systems of justice are devoted to” (24). Again like Robertson Smith and other earlier theorists, Girardian sacrifice is a primitive method to achieve what we have learned to achieve non-violently (sort of).

These are important points against Girard, but Klawans’s other charge is less persuasive: “The supersessionistic nature of Girard’s project becomes most clear when he turns to Christian narratives and finds only in them the revelation of what all earlier myths and rituals conceal. Thus, the Gospels outdo all previous mythology. . . . Girard is led to view Christianity as the necessary completion of Judaism” (25). 

Klawans finds this very traditional claim “troubling,” and finds more troubling Girard’s tendency to blame “Jewish authorities” and “the (Jewish) crowd” for Jesus’ death, ignoring “the possibility that postcrucifixion conflicts between Jesus’ followers and other Jews may have had an impact on how the passion narratives were constructed” (25). 

This doesn’t hit the target though, since, as Klawans himself notes, Girard’s interest is in examining the anti-mythical, myth-exposing character of the Gospels. To demonstrate this part of his theory, Girard doesn’t need to prove that the Gospels have recorded an accurate account of the crucifixion. He only has to show that the Gospels expose the myth of the guilty scapegoat.