III. The New Testament: Jesus asInterpretation of the Old Testament had to be left unfinished because of the summary nature of our investigation. But there are other basic reasons as well. Briefly sketched in the preceding chapter, our perspective does indicate a definite direction, but no proof was presented that all texts are to be understood in this way. Thus, it is from an analysis of the New Testament writings that one must decide on the validity of this interpretation. For Girard himself there is no doubt that the scapegoat mechanism plays a decisive role in the gospels; indeed that these are the only writings in world literature in which the hidden truth is completely revealed:
Scapegoat for the World
Actually, this mechanism is nowhere more visible than in the gospels, indeed to such an extent that the evidence becomes so complete as to suggest the opposite. If indeed Christianity were merely one of the many religions, the fundamental mechanism would have to be hidden, as it is in the others. Then one could always object and say: you haven't seen clearly, you are manipulating the text. But here this is impossible. Here everything is found black on white, and even in four different texts at the same time. For the fundamental mechanism of violence to be effective, it has to remain hidden. But here it is completely unmasked. (1)Girard is convinced that the evidence for his theory is so overwhelming in the gospels that one can discount any objections about manipulations of the texts by a preconceived idea. But what for him is as clear as black and white has until now not been seen by anyone else with such systematic coherence. This inevitably raises the question of whether he might still be interpreting the texts incorrectly, or at least one-sidedly. Thus, along with his own brief remarks on the New Testament, (2) we need a comprehensive examination; but that can be attempted here only in general terms.
1. THE HERMENEUTICAL QUESTION
Since Girard's reading of the New Testament texts differs from the prevailing exegesis of the day, the hermeneutical problem leaps out with full force right from the start. The author of Violence and the Sacred holds that instead of introducing something radically new, he is actually taking up again the scriptural interpretation of the church fathers on a level permeated by modern critical theory. Whether this is so must, however, still be proven. Moreover, since historic-critical exegesis already considers the hermeneutical problem to be of great importance, this question must in view of the new interpretation become even more acute.
Entry into the hermeneutical problem does not come from arbitrary modern questioning. The New Testament texts themselves explicitly thematized this question. They did this, however, from a perspective different from that of modern exegesis that was inspired first and foremost by comparisons with non-biblical religions and scientifically conditioned changes in its world view. In the New Testament the hermeneutical problem arose from the fact that most of the Jews rejected the message of Jesus and the understanding of the Old Testament texts connected with it. The prophet from Nazareth and the first Christian community were convinced that everything new had already been announced "in the law of Moses and in the prophets and psalms" (Luke 24:44). But the Jews disputed this claim. Jesus could therefore rebuke his enemies:
"It is Moses who accuses you, on whom you set your hope. If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote of me." (John 5:45-46)The early church taught that the Old Testament texts prophesied the fate of Jesus. But his enemies found in the very same texts arguments showing that he could not be the Messiah. Two diametrically opposed readings were thus given of the same text. From the perspective of Jesus and the early church, the reason for the negative attitude of the Jews lay in the fact that they read the texts incorrectly -- that they had eyes to see, but did not see.
The synoptic Gospels directly relate the parables, in which the question of interpretation became especially urgent, to this "seeing and yet not seeing." Thus it was that Jesus explained his figurative way of speaking to his disciples in the following words:
"To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables; so that they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand; lest they should turn again, and be forgiven." (Mark 4:11-12; see Matt 13:11f.; Luke 8:10)Here the gospels expose a hermeneutical problem in the fullest sense of the word. The question is one of understanding and insight. But the gospels see the reason for this misunderstanding, not in faulty comparisons of religions or in outdated worldviews, but in the stubbornness of the listeners (see Matt 13:15). Blind conceit and an obdurate will play the decisive role. Paul pronounces a similar judgment when he says of the majority of the Jewish people:
Israel failed to obtain what it sought. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, as it is written, "God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that should not see and ears that should not hear, down to this very day." (Rom 11:7-8)Neither in the synoptic Gospels nor here in Paul are we dealing with some secondary issue. At question is the understanding of the person of Jesus as revealer, and with that the truth of God in his historical activity. Stubbornness and delusion are therefore the determining factors for the New Testament hermeneutical problem. But it is precisely these factors that until now have not been given sufficient attention in modern formulations of that problem. For the most part, they were quietly passed over. If stubbornness meant only an individual moral failing, scientific research could legitimately ignore it. One could easily admit that for subjective reasons individual researchers fall repeatedly into a certain kind of blindness and into false interpretations. There would still remain the expectation that individual errors would be corrected by the entire research community, and that false developments would ultimately be caught.
But the hermeneutical problematic is different when, as with the New Testament writings, one has to reckon with a collective delusion. In this case the scholarly community has to ask itself whether it is succumbing in its entirety to collective errors. Girard understands the human as a passionate being whose reason is constantly being captivated and duped by societal processes. Collective delusions are therefore something quite ordinary for it. But how, faced with this somber perspective, can a reliable point of departure be found for the hermeneutical question? Does not every attempt fall immediately under the suspicion of being itself the product of a general obduracy? This difficult problem cannot be taken up here in all its breadth. But we can affirm that Girard and the New Testament writings agree, at least in the sense that both are fully conscious of the possibility and actuality of collective delusions. Girard further believes he has uncovered the very mechanism that leads to this collective deception. In addition, we have found in the Old Testament writings many surprising parallels to the theory of the scapegoat mechanism. Finally, the New Testament texts emphasize that this blindness has to do with a problem of the will as well as of cognition.
Paul says of the majority of Israelites that they became obdurate (Rom 11:7). At the same time he explicitly acknowledges that his Jewish compatriots "have a zeal for God" but that it is "not enlightened" (Rom 10:2). They do not lack commitment; but some kind of underlying pride distorts their recognition. Therefore they do not live by the truth they are convinced they live by. The Gospel of Luke makes a similar judgment. Here Jesus closes his criticism of the Pharisees and Scribes with the reproach that they had stood in the way of true knowledge:
Woe to you lawyers! for you have taken away the key of knowledge; you did not enter yourselves, and you hindered those who were entering. (Luke 11:52; see Matt 23:13).The synoptic Gospels often characterize the Pharisees and scribes as hypocrites. The text just quoted shows that this does not mean a particular moral aberration among many other possible vices. It is not talking about a mere element of vanity. At stake is the whole question of truth. The Pharisees are hypocrites because they have thrown away "the key of knowledge." Without this key, everything is understood in the wrong way. The most ardent zeal leads to error because it lacks knowledge.
Among the many New Testament texts, Girard maintains, is a passage that with remarkable terseness offers precisely the hermeneutical key that opens the way to full knowledge. This passage explicitly thematizes the problem of collective delusion and the way to overcome it. It reads:
The stone rejected by the builders has become the cornerstone.The builders see the stone, but they all collectively deem it unsuitable, even dangerous, and therefore reject it. But they are blind; they see and yet do not see. The very stone they rejected becomes the cornerstone. Two fundamentally different interpretations of the same reality stand in opposition: the view of the builders and that of the New Testament texts. But the two interpretations do not stand unrelated to each other. They meet in the rejection of this one stone. The collective blindness of the builders is an integral part of the very process by which the stone becomes a cornerstone.
The expression "stone rejected" clearly has a hermeneutical dimension. It symbolizes the confrontation of two completely different views. But before it can be acknowledged as "the key to knowledge," as Girard proposes, one must check whether the New Testament writings themselves give it this central significance.
In all three synoptic Gospels, the passage about the builders is immediately preceded by the parable of the evil winegrowers (Mark 12:10) and serves as a summary interpretation for it. The parable itself was enunciated by Jesus at the high point of the dispute with his opponents in the last days before his death. Critical research cannot agree, however, whether this story is directly attributable to Jesus. We assume its pre-paschal origin as probable (3) but do not in any way make our interpretation dependent on this assumption.
In their account the synoptic Gospels attribute a special meaning to the parable of the evil winegrowers. In it Jesus compares his fate with the violent fate of the Old Testament messengers, (4) but at the same time he makes a totally new and unique claim: he portrays himself in contrast to the other servants as the "beloved son" who, however, is expecting the same fate as they. He is apprehended and killed. Three crucial elements come together in this parable: Jesus' claim to be the beloved son, his dispute with violent opponents, and the situating of his mission within God's activity towards his recalcitrant people. It is especially important for our interpretation to remember that the parable stresses as its central point precisely that aspect of the fate of the Old Testament prophets that we, independently of this parable, have emphasized in the preceding chapter.
All three synoptic Gospels conclude the crucial parable of the evil winegrowers with a reference to the rejected stone. If the parable served to sum up the whole dispute between Jesus and his opponents, then the concluding reference brings the parable to its ultimate significance. It is as if the passage about the rejected stone sums up the gospel. Thus it gains a central hermeneutical significance; it does indeed serve as a "keyword."
The central position of the passage about the builders is further underscored by the fact that it is a quotation from the Old Testament. Just as the parable refers to the prophets, so this passage establishes a connection to Israel's liturgical hymns. It comes from Psalm 118, a hymn of gratitude, whose importance we singled out in the preceding chapter. This song describes in great detail the role of the violent evildoers. At the same time it has a special affinity to the Song of the Suffering Servant. If the synoptic Gospels draw their concluding interpretation of the parable of the evil winegrowers precisely from this psalm, they are both attributing to it a central hermeneutical significance for the New Testament and providing confirmation for the abovementioned interpretation of the Old Testament texts. What constitutes the special hermeneutical value of the passage about the rejected stone is that if the parable sees in the material greed of the evil winegrowers the reason for the son's murder, the interpreting psalm passage goes a step further. It shows that it is precisely through the rejection of the son that the hidden truth becomes visible. The collective blindness serves the process of revelation.
The passage about the rejected stone is also found in the Acts of the Apostles, which tells several times how the apostles, in particular Peter and Paul, preached to the people. The contents of this preaching can almost always be reduced to the formula: The just servant whom the Jews persecuted and killed, God has raised up and installed as deliverer and judge (Acts 2:23f.36; 3:13f.; 4:l0f.; 5:30; 10:39f.; 13:27-30). In the context of this proclamation there is also found the saying about the rejected stone. After having healed a paralytic, Peter says to the Sanhedrin:
"If we are being examined today concerning a good deed done to a cripple, by what means this man has been healed, be it known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by him this man is standing before you well. This is the stone which was rejected by you builders, but which has become the head of the corner. And there is salvation in no one else." (Acts 4:9-12)While citing Psalm 118, Peter changes the Old Testament passage ever so slightly by explicitly identifying Jesus as the stone and the Jews as the builders. Thus he advances the same interpretation as do the synoptic Gospels. Peter's speech before the Sanhedrin further demonstrates that the saying about the rejected stone is nothing less than a short version of the primitive Christian kerygma. It is not some partial truth or other, one among many other possible statements. Rather, it expresses in a highly condensed form the central event in the fate of Jesus. According to the way the synoptic Gospels present it, the prophet from Nazareth announces through this psalm verse his imminent death and resurrection. In Acts, the primitive Christian community looks back upon the fate of its master, and Peter proclaims with the same saying that Jesus, rejected and killed by the Jews, was raised up by God and made into the cornerstone. Despite the different perspectives, the statement is identical in content.
The First Letter of Peter also speaks of the rejected stone. The first part (1:3-25) treats of the goal and progress of the faith. In 2:1-10 follow explanations about the living stone, immediately followed by statements and exhortations to live the Christian life (2:11-4:11). The text about the living stone must therefore be considered the center of the letter. It describes the contents of the Christian faith and in doing so twice uses the saying about the rejected stone.
Come to him, to that living stone, rejected by men but in God's sight chosen and precious; and like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it stands in scripture: "Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and he who believes in him will not be put to shame:" To you therefore who believe, he is precious, but for those who do not believe, "the very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner," and "a stone that will make men stumble, a rock that will make them fall." (1 Pet 2:4-8)We need not analyze in detail this dense text. But it should be noted that in addition to the saying about the rejected stone, this text also takes up Isa 28:16 with its metaphor of the chosen stone. There is also a clear reference to Isa 8:14, which tells of a stone that people stumble against, and of a rock that makes them fall. In this context the saying from Psalm 118 gains additional significance. The builders not only rejected the stone chosen by God; they are also scandalized by and trip over it. This indicates that Psalm 118 also contains the idea of judgment.
The First Letter of Peter takes on a broader meaning from still another perspective. The builders do not represent, as in the synoptic Gospels and in Acts, just the obdurate sons of Israel. This letter speaks in quite general terms of "humans" (2:4) or of "those who do not believe" (2:7). With the reference to the rejected stone it encompasses the quarrel of all unbelieving men and women with Jesus. This leads to the conclusion that the high priests, scribes and Pharisees of the synoptic Gospels and the people of Israel in Acts stand for all nonbelieving men and women. Even if in those works the question could remain open whether the saying about the rejected stone meant only a partial truth, because it described exclusively the relationship between Jesus and Israel, the First Letter of Peter does give a clear answer: it uses the same saying to refer to the behavior of all unbelieving men and women.
This important and, for the interpretation to follow, even decisive conclusion must be tested more closely against other New Testament writings. In the speech the apostle Paul gave in the Areopagus in Athens -- thus a speech which, in the understanding of Acts, was destined exclusively for a non-Jewish audience -- there is no statement that would even indirectly remind one of the saying of the psalm. The apostle of the Gentiles speaks of the resurrection of Jesus but says nothing about his rejection. Is this not a sign that Acts means only the Jews (or the Jewish leadership) when it talks about the builders?
As an important rule of interpretation, one should note that general conclusions can be drawn from a single text only with caution. But it would be above all incorrect to rely on an argument from silence and conclude that the absence of a statement means it cannot be true. The speech that Acts attributes to Paul does not contain all Pauline thought. Indeed, the epistles show that he never concealed Jesus' rejection, even from his non-Jewish audience. He even emphasizes clearly that the message of the cross is incomprehensible to the Jews as well as to the Greeks:
For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. [ . . . ] For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. (1 Cor 1:18-24)There is no fundamental difference between Jews and Greeks in regard to the idea of the cross of Christ (see Rom 2:1-3:20). Ultimately whoever seeks merely visible signs or human wisdom has no access to the Crucified. But there is the additional question of whether Jews and Gentiles reject the man on the cross in the same way. For Paul seems to be making a distinction when he says that for the Jews the Crucified is a scandal, but for the Greeks a folly. The word "scandal" recalls "the stone of scandal" of which Paul himself speaks in his letter to the Romans (9:32). By that he is pointing out that Jesus was violently rejected by the Jews. But did violence also play an essential role in the rejection of the message of the cross by the Greeks? This question is of great importance for our interpretation. It will decide whether the problem of violence has as central a significance in the New Testament as a whole as the texts thus far discussed attribute to it. Paul does not explicitly mention violence with regard to the rejection of Christ by the Gentiles. Rather, he cites as a reason the folly they see in the message of the Crucified. What is really meant by this folly? It is possible that it could have something to do with that blindness and obduracy that was the reason why the Jews killed Jesus. But the word "folly" does not by itself justify the assumption that Paul is indirectly referring to the violence that seeks to conceal itself and leads to delusion.
But there is a text that is directly connected with the saying about folly. Immediately after describing the message of the cross (1 Cor 1:18-31), Paul presents himself as the herald of the wisdom of God (1 Cor 2:1-3,4). He writes:
But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glorification. None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. (1 Cor 2:7-8)In this text Paul establishes a connection between Jesus Christ and all the worldly powers. Not only the Jews, but all principalities failed to recognize God's concealed wisdom and are therefore responsible for crucifying "the Lord of glory." Exactly what Paul might have been thinking about when he said this can be left open here. Certainly he does not exempt a single worldly power. Because none of them recognized Christ as the Lord, he was crucified. All are therefore responsible for his violent fate.
We can now give a preliminary answer to the hermeneutical question raised in the beginning. As Girard assumes, the saying about the rejected stone does indeed have central significance in New Testament writings. It describes in the briefest way the conflict between Jesus and his opponents, indeed the whole fate of him who was rejected by his people and by all unbelieving human beings but who was chosen by God. This hermeneutical key is not merely of a rhetorical nature. It offers a summation of the contents of the primitive Christian kerygma. It points to the central role of violence in the rejection of Jesus. The rejected stone is the beloved son who was seized and killed by the evil winegrowers. At the same time, the message of the rejected stone expresses how God chose precisely the murdered one and made him the cornerstone. This conclusion requires that the investigation to follow must be guided by the hermeneutical rule that special attention is to be paid to violence in the conflict over Jesus. We must ask if violence is the reason for the collective delusion, and how God overcomes this evil power.
Notes
1. R. Girard, "Das Evangelium legt die Gewalt bloss," Orientierung 38 (1974): 53.
2. Ibid.; see also Girard, "Les malédictions contre les pharisiens et la révélation évangélique," Bulletin du Centre Protestant d'Etudes 27 (1975), no. 3.
3. See R. Pesch, Das Markusevangelium, II. Teil, Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament (Freiburg: Herder, 1977), 213-214.
4. Ibid., 217. See also O.H. Steck, Israel und das gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1967), 269-273.