Biblical Scripture and the End of Myth How Western Culture Evolved from Judeo-Christian Traditions (Reflections on some

of Rene Girards paradoxical ideas) Justin Synnestvedt, Chicago, 2012

Now it is permitted to enter with understanding into the mysteries of faith Emanuel Swedenborg, True Christianity (1771) #508

In his 1978 book, Things Hidden Since the Foundations of the World,1 Rene Girard argues that the modern world view2 is the outcome of biblical ideas, however paradoxical that may seem. And even more paradoxical is the fact that in the last, say, 250 years (since the Enlightenment) the culture of scientific rationalism or modernism has gradually rejected the religious traditions from which it was born. In the modern period, Judaeo-Christian writings have become more and more alien to modern philosophy and all our sciences of man. They now seem more foreign than the myths of the Ojibwa and Tikopia. But our intellectual life is being influenced by forces that, far from taking the Judaeo-Christian scriptures further and further away, in fact bring them closer by a process whose circularity the sciences of man still fail to grasp. We can no longer believe that it is we who are reading the Gospels in the light of an ethnological, modern revelation, which would really be the first thing of its kind. We have to reverse this order. It is still the great Judaeo-Christian spirit that is doing the reading. All that appears in ethnology, appears in the light of a continuing revelation, an immense process of historical work that enables us little by little to catch up with the texts that are, in effect, already quite explicit, though not for the kind of people we are who have eyes and see not, ears and hear not.3 On the one hand, Girards ideas sound strange to my eyes and ears too, because I have come to share the modern view that traditional biblical (or Abrahamic) religions, including Islam, have encouraged prejudice, irrationality and abusive attitudes towards women and those who dont conform to orthodox beliefs. On the other hand, I was raised in a religious tradition myself, but one that held science and religion to be perfectly compatible. The ideas which grounded my upbringing came from a new kind of religious thinker, Emanuel Swedenborg, who lived during the Enlightenment. Although he had a scientific mindset and a public career in science, Swedenborgs main work was to present a rational approach to religion - a new Christianity - based on his revelation that biblical scriptures should be interpreted in light of their inner spiritual meaning, regardless of their literal language.4 For this reason, I can understand both why modern culture has turned its back on traditional religion, and how it is possible to show that Judeo-Christian scriptures contain statements that can help to demythologize all religious texts, including themselves. At the same time, I am skeptical of Girards claim that all modern thought can be traced to the spirit of the Scriptures (if not to the typically uncritical acceptance of their surface meaning). As a student of philosophy, humanities and religions of the world, I would like to credit the influence of other sources too. Ancient Greek thought is surely basic in the evolution of modernity, especially in its 1

humanism, its rationality, its experiential approach to the world, and its view of life as beautiful and comprehensible. And what of South Asian world views about universal spiritual reality, to be seen in Hindu traditions, and the teachings of Buddha? And what of the humanistic Eastern traditions, especially Confucian, which teach the value of loving relationships, and the ideal of treating others as we would be treated; or Taoist sources which honor individuality? All these sources, not to mention the holistic, symbiotic spirit of many native cultures of the Americas, Australia, and Africa, add to the evolution of modern thought, as western social scientists have expanded their research. Granted, these various aspects of modernity and knowledge are not easy to synthesize into a comfortable whole - but the very tensions they produce are also part of modernity. Indeed, these tensions support the skeptical and relativistic trends which mark the more recent phase of modernity, or post-modernism. Before going further in my critique, let me briefly summarize what I see as Girards view of this issue. In the citation given above, he says the forces directing modern intellectual development derive from the great Judaeo-Christian spirit. What is that spirit? I think Girard would say, most simply put, it is the spirit of love, and more specifically of non-violence and reconciliation. The essential message of biblical scriptures, from beginning to end, from Genesis to the Apocalypse, is reducible to love. God is divine Love, and humans are enjoined to receive that love, to reciprocate it, and to share it with their fellow creatures.5 As Jesus put it, we are to do to others as we would have them do to us;6 and we are to love God and our neighbor.7 These two amount to the same message of universal love. Jesus added that upon these rules - the Golden Rule, and the Two Great Commandments - hang all the Law and the Prophets - i.e. the whole Jewish testament. Jesus message and life embody this great Judaeo-Christian spirit. The message of love that Girards interpretation emphasizes certainly isnt obvious in a literal reading of Jewish scripture, nor for that matter, in most Christians reading of the Bible. Perhaps it is because the people to whom the law was given followed it blindly, out of fear of punishment. After all, at the time of Moses the children of Israel were essentially dependent, and followed whoever had power over them. If God had enough power to conquer the combined forces of the Egyptians and their gods, he was indeed awesome. At the same time, in their eyes, God was responsible for whatever happened in their lives, both good and evil. It took many generations before they began to realize, under the teaching of the prophets, that they brought suffering on themselves, because of their bad choices. God does not punish, regardless of the appearance of the literal text. God loves his children. But like all children, the more responsibility they attributed to God, the less they accepted for themselves. The Israelites thought they were the chosen people, and this led to arrogance and even hatred of the people around them. They seemed to forget the promise to Abraham that his descendants were to be an example to the world around them, and that in them all the world would be blessed.8 But gradually, the message of love began to take hold. God was not the special god of the Jews, but the universal god. Religious life was not in the hands of priests, but required the effort of each person. A holy life was not a function of giving ostentatious sacrifices to buy Gods favor. Indeed, it wasnt a matter of ritual acts at all, or even deeds, so much as a condition of the heart. Righteousness required one to live morally, and treat his neighbors with justice and charity. By the time of Micah, some people were beginning to get it.

Wherewith shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before the high God? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my first-born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He hath showed thee, O man, what is good, and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God? 9 What more beautiful and succinct expression could there be of a religious life than this text? It is a short step from here to the message of Jesus. Even so, love is far below the surface in most of the scriptures before Jesus brings it out. Most of the literal stories are about selfish wayward humans, and an apparently terrible God, given to unpredictable shifts in mood, who punishes and rewards at will. In this, the Bible is very like, and has frequently been likened to, many other mythical religions, by several generations of anthropologists in England, France, Germany and America.10 Girards interpretation rests on one key insight, however, which he claims sets the whole of biblical scripture apart from all sacred or mythic texts. The latter all contain, although in a hidden form, a common founding mechanism, upon which all their rituals, sanctions and rules indeed their whole social order - rests. They all begin with the violent killing or expulsion of an innocent victim or victims, whom Girard calls a scapegoat, who at the outset was thought to be the cause of all the groups violent disorder, caused by their own mimetic rivalry. But after his murder, the scapegoat came to be viewed as the bringer of order. Thus the innocent victim became divine, and the scapegoating deed became the core of the sacred (i.e. sacrificial) mythology of that group.11 Religious prohibitions make a good deal of sense when interpreted as efforts to prevent mimetic rivalry12 from spreading throughout human communities. The chaos, the absence of order, and the various disorders that prevail at the beginning of many myths must also be interpreted, I believe, in terms of mimetic rivalry. Sacrifice is the resolution and conclusion of ritual because a collective murder or expulsion resolves the mimetic crisis that ritual mimics. [T]his resolution must belong to the realm of what is commonly called a scapegoat effect. By scapegoat effect I mean that strange process through which two or more people are reconciled at the expense of a third party who appears guilty or responsible for whatever ails, disturbs, or frightens the scapegoaters. They feel relieved of their tensions and they coalesce into a more harmonious group. They now have a single purpose, which is to prevent the scapegoat from harming them, by expelling and destroying him. 13 The Bible is unique among religious texts, Girard argues, primarily in the fact that it does not hide the violent scapegoating. In many respects, biblical religion resembles mythic religions, as many social scientists have shown. But the key difference is that from Able to Jesus, with manifold examples in between, the victims are shown to be innocent, and the violence is shown to be damnable. In this regard, Judeo-Christian scriptures demythologize religion. This then is the thrust of Girards work that has been evolving over the past fifty years. The message of biblical scripture is the same throughout. God offers his kingdom to humans 3

the kingdom of love. They must give up violence and scapegoating done in the name of the sacred, i.e. the sacrificial. They must find another way of bringing social order. They must love as God loves. And if they (we) do not, violent disorder - even annihilation - will be the outcome. That is the apocalypse: not Gods punishment, but humans self-destruction. God does not punish; humans do. Girard offers little to show that Jewish scriptures contain the message of love. He concentrates on Christian scriptures where this is much more evident on the surface. Swedenborg on the other hand, concentrated his most detailed exegesis on the book of Genesis,14 and shows how the principles of interpretation - i.e. the keys to finding the internal sense of the text - can be applied to the entirety of Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation. It is from this Swedenborgian perspective that I find Girards approach (which he calls anthropological) so beautifully sensible and moving. But Girard has a limited following despite his reputation as a scholar.15 He often speaks of the difficulty he has of convincing academics to give serious attention to his theories, and he modestly says it represents a failure on his part to make himself understood. But he also knows it is largely because anthropologists, and social scientists generally, are suspicious of religion, and think that believers cant be objective. In my view, there are at least three issues that need to be clarified and researched, in response to Girards claim that western society owes its existence to the Judeo-Christian spirit. One is the question of showing, in much greater detail, what western thinking entails, and how that should be seen in the biblical sources and their interpretation over time. A second question is to what extent western thought also includes influences from other, non-biblical sources, especially from Greece, but also from Persia and South Asia. Indeed, it would be valuable to show whether, and to what extent, these other sources related to Jewish history, and whether the latter and the former affected each other. It seems obvious, for example, that medieval Judaism was greatly influenced by Greece. About earlier interactions, however, I find no clear evidence; but Im not an historian of ancient cultures. The third question I think needs scholarly attention, which is also a pressing issue in contemporary international relations, concerns the relation between western culture and Islam. Does Islam, which presents itself as the third of the Abrahamic religions, continue in ways that will demythologize religion? Or is it somehow a return to one of the mythic forms of religion that justify violence as an effort to bring social order? Girard himself claims to have nothing useful to say in this regard, as he has not done the scholarly research that would allow such a critique.16 In the remainder of this essay, I will offer some thoughts on the first of these questions, namely, in what sense can it be said that the spirit of biblical scripture leads to, or explains, or is present in western modernity. Since Girard speaks to and about intellectuals and academics primarily, it is well to distinguish where in modern culture the modernity lies. What distinguishes modernity from the past, in terms of a world view? It can only be the scientific attitude. It has been said that Descartes is the father of modern philosophy. Whether or not he deserves that title, it is certainly true that Descartes was trying to test whether science 4

was sufficiently well grounded to replace the traditional religious approach to explaining experience. Of course in popular thinking, modern means technological, but technology is not a philosophy or world view; it is the result of that view. I think it is safe to say that ordinary people today are basically the same as their ancient forebears, and today are no different from their traditional contemporaries in the non-western world. They seek to satisfy their physical and emotional needs, and look favorably on whoever can help in this regard. Western people today believe in science, but that is not typically from any knowledge of science. Recent studies show that seventy five percent of Americans are scientifically illiterate, and only twenty years ago the number was about ninety percent.17 Most people (four in five) can, for instance, answer correctly that the earth revolves about the sun; but they dont know this to be true from scientific understanding. Rather, they accept it as fact, because scientists say it. Thus they believe in science, as tribal native might believe in shamanism. If the shaman can cure a disease, his followers believe in him. If a doctor can cure a disease, her followers believe in her. Why or how she is able to do so is of little interest. The scientific attitude, or world view, then is what sets the modern world apart from what went before, and from what still exists in traditional cultures. This view is, primarily, that nature is lawful and comprehensible, and can be understood by rational analysis of experimental evidence. Of course this idea was born in Pre-Socratic Greece, but it did not prevail against the religious viewpoint until it was revived in the Renaissance, and brought to fullness in the Enlightenment. And today, in many parts of the western world, religious thinking is still characteristic of much of the population, and increasingly so in America as it seems. We can say that modernity is a product and quality of rational science, which is typically the work of a small knowledgeable portion of the population. Is it safe to say that the scientific attitude, or the philosophic roots of that attitude, can be found in the spirit of biblical scripture? Not obviously. As Heidegger put it, Philosophy begins with questions; religion begins with answers. Science is based on curiosity, yet it is not satisfied to have just any answer - certainly not the typical mythical answers of traditional societies. Answers must be objective, rational and based on experience; not subjective, emotional and based on authority. On the surface, then, it would seem that the spirit of the Scriptures is not supportive of scientific rationality. I suppose then that Girards claim is not directly related to science in modernity, but to the ideas of objectivity and truth seeking generally, and of the objective and universal character of moral values more specifically, both of which do find expression in biblical texts, although often beneath the surface. As I dont know Girards personal view of Catholic traditional doctrines, I cant critique them. I would assume, however, that he believes that papal statements of doctrine are fallible, and that any pronouncements of church leaders must stand on the authority of scriptural sources, and the confirmation of rational argument and scientific knowledge (i.e.what can be confirmed from experience.) It is clear that Girard doesnt hesitate to support ideas that are unpopular with liberal Catholics, or those that are not politically correct. For instance, he thinks it is appropriate for Catholic church leaders, as well as ordinary church members, to believe and say their religion is superior to other religions; and in fact Girard says this belief is sound.18 And he thinks the present Popes conservatism is appropriate, and can accommodate historical realities. And the

Pope (Ratzinger) is correct in his general critique of the spirit of modernity, which he judges to be relativistic, opposed to spiritual values, and over-emphatic of individualism. If I am correct in these assessments of Girards view of modernity and of the spirit of Judeo-Christian thought, then it can be argued that our modern world has indeed been affected by demythologizing forces that are rooted in biblical scriptures. But as said above, it is a spirit which has perhaps already gone past its full fruition, and in post-modernism has in some ways started to decay. My own view is that the spirit of modernity, as I suggested above, is best represented by the development of the scientific world view, which started in Greek philosophy, expanded in the Renaissance, and became global in the 17th and 18th centuries, in what is commonly called the Enlightenment, or Age of Reason. One of the characteristics of this Enlightenment view - perhaps the primary one - was a belief in truth, together with the confidence that objective reason could test ideas and decide their degree of acceptability (i.e. their truth), at least in principle. Since nature is lawful, truth about nature can be discovered through experience and rational analysis. If there are realities that transcend nature - e.g. a spiritual realm - that are beyond scientific confirmation, claims about them are still subject to critical analysis and judgment, in a spirit of tolerant skepticism. The philosophy of Socrates illustrates this kind of thought.19 Even todays scientists make claims about invisible realities, e.g. in sub-atomic physics and astrophysics, whose truth can only be tested by reasoning about experience, but not by experience directly. Another aspect of Enlightenment thinking was a belief that values are universal, and might be derived from rational consideration. This found expression in such ideas as the moral law (e.g. Kant), natural rights (e.g. Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu, Condorcet and Rousseau), human rights (e.g. Paine, and The Declaration of Independence), justice (e.g. Voltaire), and the importance of virtuous character traits, like honesty, courage, trustworthiness and civility (which recent generations of thinkers might reject as relics of a snobbish noble class).20 This is not to say there was full agreement about what such values are, where they reside, or how to discover them. Certainly the traditional belief in God was not widely received in traditional form during the Enlightenment, although a belief in a highest good was not uncommon. Most enlightenment writers were skeptical about religious beliefs, and deism may have been a short-lived effort to avoid the popular disapproval that a godless world view might bring. Yet another characteristic of Enlightenment thought was tolerance, and openness to new ideas, and opinions differing from ones own, with the proviso that any opinion should be subject to cross-examination by persons of ordinary rational ability. This was a spirit which led to skepticism about traditional - i.e. religious - authority and about unproven claims to truth. And these in turn led to the demise of inherited monarchies, and the rise of democracy. Skepticism of royal rights to power is clearly expressed in the Declaration of independence, together with the respect for rational justification of rights. And the spirit of tolerance was expressed by the socalled Founding Fathers of the United States, especially Jefferson, Adams, Franklin and Washington, in their deliberations about the relation of religion to governmental power.21 My teacher cousin used to remind us of these values in high school history class, allegedly quoting Voltaire: I hate what you say, but I will defend with my life your right to say it.

Gradually, the ideas of tolerance of opinions, and skepticism of authority seem to have undermined the original Enlightenment confidence in objective truth, and universal values. This is seen in the rise of romanticism. Although the extreme sentimentality of early 19th century fiction was soon ridiculed and rejected in the name of realism, romanticism remained dominant until the present, but in different guises. Whatever names one might chose to describe it, later trends in modern thought contain two romantic characteristics relative to our discussion. The first is extreme skepticism, both in its denial of objective values (as in Nietzsche), and in its belief that truth is subjective or at best a matter of a consensus. In its more radical (i.e. academic) forms, this skepticism brings even science and mathematics into question. Such is the postmodern development of the late 20th century. The other trend of modern thought is individualism, together with the belief in the authority of feeling. This is what Girard has called the romantic lie. The objective and subjective fallacies are one and the same; both originate in the image which we all have of our own desires. Subjectivisms and objectivisms, romanticisms and realisms, individualisms and scientisms, idealisms and positivisms appear to be in opposition but are secretly in agreement to conceal the presence of the mediator. They all depend directly or indirectly on the lie of spontaneous desire. They all defend the same illusion of autonomy to which modern man is passionately devoted.22

Is it possible to show which, if any of these aspects of modernity is the result of the Judeo-Christian spirit? Perhaps not; but one can see a close correspondence of certain major themes in biblical and Enlightenment world views. I want to be careful not to misread Girards claim. I dont think he meant to suggest that the Holy Spirit, or Divine Providence has directly caused the development of modern evolution. The evolution of western culture has been through dissemination of ideas, whether or not they originated in direct revelation. And the passing on of ideas is always subject to reinterpretation, misunderstanding and rejection. If humans have free will in matters of spiritual significance, what anyone will accept as truth is not a function of divine will so much as of human choice. Some form of skepticism is proper to all forms of rational thought. This is true in the case of Biblical ideas, as well as to the periods or western history leading to modern thinking Perhaps the most significant commonality between biblical and Enlightenment thought is the belief in absolute, objective reality, and the confidence that words or ideas are true insofar as they mirror or represent that reality. Biblical scriptures emphasize the absolute necessity of truth. Not only does truth represent reality. It allows us to overcome the delusions that our desires make us believe. If evil has any power, it lies in deception - its ability to subvert truth. Suffering always results from rejecting truth, which is equivalent to listening to Satan, who is a liar and the father of lies.23 A less biblical way of putting it might be that learning the truth is the way of happiness. After all, that is the point of science, and its application to daily existence. In the spiritual realm, Jesus said, If you abide in my words, you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.24 Our natural tendency (which Girard calls the romantic lie) is to believe we are different from others, and that our desires are superior to theirs. It is this belief that makes people 7

compete, and seek vengeance if others frustrate their desires. As Girard says of the Scriptures, their difference from all primal religions, whatever the superficial similarity may be, is that they demythologize the traditional views of sacred life. They show that sacrifice is unjust violence, which always works against - not in support of - the kingdom of peace and happiness. So Jesus says, I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit, when he, the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all truth.25 I understand this to mean that when people finally come to understand the message, they will follow what truth tells them about finding happiness. So confidence in truth and its saving power is one aspect that Scripture and western thinking share. But I think it is a message also very much emphasized in Greek philosophy, and South Asian religion, which appear to be independent of biblical influence. Enlightenment and biblical thought also share the belief that truth is not obvious. There is the seen world, and the unseen world. Truth requires the willingness to dig beneath the surface. The natural world and the spiritual world are distinct, although related. And if the secrets of happiness in either realm are sought, it requires dedicated and disciplined work. Since nature is lawful, truth about nature can be discovered through experience and rational analysis. But whether ultimate reality can be known, and in what sense, has always been a question. In Biblical writings, in South Asian philosophical religions, in Greek philosophy, in late Renaissance thought and in the Enlightenment, wisdom demanded modesty, and the recognition that some realities are beyond words, and so, in a sense, beyond reasoning. Their reality might better be expressed in parables, or in stories that point the hearer toward an experience of the hidden reality. One final similarity between biblical and Enlightenment thought has to do with materialism, and attitudes towards worldly life. I think it is clear that people in every time and culture are concerned with their material well-being. The Jewish scriptures emphasize the worldly happiness that will come to those who follow the commandments, e.g. Honor thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.26 There is little in the Jewish testament to show a concern for eternal happiness in heaven. And similarly, the Christian scriptures emphasize loving ones neighbor as oneself, and to seek the kingdom of love, presumably here and now. Even though Jesus says his kingdom is not of this world, I think the meaning is not that worldly life should be rejected, but that it should not obscure the spiritual and eternal values. Even capitalism is encouraged to a point, as in the Parable of the Talents.27 In both Jewish and Christian teachings, then, there is a positive attitude towards worldly success. But later developments in Christianity led to a society that was heaven-centered. The humanism of the Renaissance, and the fascination with this world and its enjoyment, and later on the Enlightenment interest in nature and its laws, required a rejection of that other-worldly orientation. So modern scientific rationalism shares with the scriptures a positive view of the world, but it certainly rejected the Churchs medieval extremism and irrationality. On the other hand, Enlightenment (and Renaissance) thinkers shared with the Scriptures a belief that materialism is wrong, if worldly success crowds out interests in higher values that characterize a full human development. The promises of a peaceable kingdom in Isaiah,28 as 8

well as Jesus promise of Gods kingdom of love on earth as it is in heaven29 have their humanistic counterparts in the long evolution of the modern mind. Think of the pictures of utopian society in Plato, Cicero, More, Montaigne, Bougainville, Rousseau, etc. Recent generations of western thought seem to have abandoned these moral and spiritual traits of modernity, and the result is an explosion of triviality, distraction, self-interest, and sound-bite thinking that cant follow or generate a reasonable, civil argument. Rationality and respect for the truth have lost their standing in popular culture. Sadly, it seems that the traditional humanizing institutions of western society - religion, academia, the press, the arts, and government - have in one way or another been submerged in money interests.30 Hopefully the answer is not, as some religious fundamentalists suggest, a return to Jesus, but rather a return to the rational and balanced ideas of a full and happy life that are to be found both in the humanistic periods we have mentioned here, and in the spirit of Judeo-Christian scriptures we have compared to them.
1

Rene Girard, Des choses caches depuis la fondation du monde (Paris: Grasset & Fasquelle, 1978), translated as Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World (Stanford, CA: Stanford U. Press, 1987). 2 I would characterize modern as western, scientific, humanistic, individualistic, democratic and capitalistic. 3 Things Hidden, p. 177. 4 Emanuel Swedenborg, True Christianity, original Vera Christiana Religio, self-published, Amsterdam, 1771 . 5 E.g. Jn 13:34. 6 Mt 7:12. 7 Mt 22:37-40, Dt 6:5, Lv 19:19. 8 Gn 12:3. 9 Mc 6:6-8. 10 E.g. Tyler, Frazer, Durkheim, Levy-Bruhl, Boas, Evans Pritchard, Freud, Campbell, taking various standpoints as structuralist, functionalist, diffusionist, psychoanalyst, economist, evolutionist, etc. See D. Padgetts 1998 webpage from Indiana U, Anthropology of Religion: www.indiana.edu/~wanthro/religion.htm#web. 11 See, for instance, J.G. Williams (ed), The Girard Reader (New York: Crossroad Publ. Co, 1996), Pt. I. 12 Mimetic rivalry is Girards term for the universal fact that members of a group mimic each others desires, and compete for the same objects, which leads to reciprocal violence, and the breakdown of order in any primal group. 13 The Girard Reader, p. 12-13, taken from The Berkshire Review (1979): 9-19. 14 Emanuel Swedenborg, Heavenly Secrets, in various English translations, published originally in Latin, as Arcana Coelestia, London, 1749 - 1756. 15 He was elected to membership of the Academie Francaise in 2005, one of the forty immortals serving presently. 16 See, e.g. Rene Girard, Achever Clausewitz (Paris: CarnetsNords, 2007) pp. 13, and 359. 17 Jon D. Miller at the University of Michigan has become well respected for his research in this area. 18 )Ratzinger is right, interview with Girard by Nathan Gardels (ed), New Perspectives Quarterly, Summer 2005. 19 E.g. see Plato, Euthyphro. 20 E.g. see Enlightenment article in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, August 2010. 21 Steven Waldman, The Founding Faith (New York: Random House, 2008). 22 Rene Girard, Deceit, Desire and the Novel (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1965) p.16, translated from French, Mensonge romantique et verite romanesque (Paris: Editions Bernard Grasset, 1961). 23 Jn 8:44. 24 Jn 8:32. 25 Jn 16:12, 13. 26 Ex 20:12. 27 Mt 25:14. 28 Is 11:1-9. 29 Mt 6:10. 30 See Christopher Hedges, Death of the Liberal Class (New York.: Nation Books, 2010).