A mimetic rivalry, as asserted by René Noël Théophile Girard, the French philosopher of social science, can be described as a competition in which the ultimate reward is the mimicry, or emulation, of one’s movements, by other people. Often times, two or more competing parties attain positions or status in society that attract attention, and ultimately, mimicry, meaning that people want to become like these parties in some form or fashion. Ultimately, the people in that society will aspire to be *more *like one party or the other. This effect causes a rivalry between the competing parties to becoming the dominant party so that more people will desire to mimic them as opposed to their competitor. René Girard asserted that the narrative of the Bible is aimed at denouncing mimetic rivalries and the scapegoat mechanisms that accompany it. To me, the most prevalent examples of mimetic rivalries in the Bible are that of Cain and Abel, King Saul and David, and the Pharisees and Jesus Christ.
In the Cain and Abel story, (Gen. Ch 4), we see where Cain and Abel both presented offerings unto God; Cain brought vegetation but Abel brought the firstlings of his flock, namely, livestock. God honored Abel’s offering but did not honor Cain’s namely, because of unknown reasons concerning the initial dispositions of both Cain and Abel when making their offering. This offering was not made to God in private as it appears in the Bible. As evidenced in verses 14 and 15, there were other people in the earth at this time (an argument against Adam and Eve as the progenitors of all mankind; see
The Origins of Man: Scientific and Biblical Examinations by Emmanuel Isaiah Smith on Bible Discourses . What this means, is that there was an audience to the leadership capacities of Cain and Abel. The offering that Cain made was thus rejected by God in the presence of the people, and Abel’s offering was accepted by God in the presence of the people. This meant that more people, in the society in which Cain and Abel lived, would attempt to mimic Abel’s movements rather than Cain’s, on account of Abel’s movements being sustained by Almighty God. What Cain did next, was the result of the mimetic rivalry that existed between Cain and Abel. Cain, desiring the kind of influence in society that would inspire mimicry in others and while scapegoating Abel for his own jealousy, shame, and embarrassment, slew Abel, his mimetic rival, eliminating the possibility of others mimicking Abel any further. I should note that the Cain and Abel story is foreshadowing of the death of Jesus Christ, Cain being the example of the Pharisees’ mimetic rivalry with Christ, and Abel being the example of Christ’s “living sacrifice.”
In the story of King Saul and David (1 Sam. Ch 18-27), we see David, after having killed Goliath, and having become a hero in the eyes of the Israelite people, so much so, that the people of Israel chanted during a celebration that “Saul hath killed his thousands and David his tens of thousands,” sparked what would become a mimetic rivalry between King Saul and David. Saul, hearing these chants, feared that the people would eventually prefer to mimic the movements of David, the young hero, and eventually prefer David’s kingship to his town. This sparked, in the mind of King Saul, a desire to eliminate David as his rival by murdering him. From that point on, King Saul, scapegoating David for his own jealousy, shame, and embarrassment, tried many different times to execute David, and he even tracked David with up to three-thousand soldiers in what can only be described as an assassination mission (1 Sam. 24:1–2). Eventually, Saul and David would call a truce (1 Sam. 24:17–22), only to see King Saul break that truce and try to have David killed again, only to call another truce with him (1 Sam. Ch 26), of which, he finally honored (1 Sam. 27:4).
The story of Jesus and the Pharisees, which is told in the Four Gospels, also displays a mimetic rivalry. By the time Jesus had begun his ministry in A.D. 31, the Law of Moses had been the supreme law of the land of Israel for 1400 years. Jesus taught that the law of Moses was no longer the ultimate way to salvation, but his own words (Matt. 5:17, John 1:17). Furthermore, Jesus taught that observing the Sabbath day was no longer a consequential requirement for salvation but that Christ himself was “Lord of the Sabbath,” further establishing that he, himself, and the Gospel that he preached were the prime standards by which the Jews of Palæstine and the citizens of the Levant should mimic. Jesus was open in his condemnation of the chief priests, scribes, and elders (Matthew 23:23), he chastised them in the temple (Mark 11:15–19), and told them that they could not escape Hell (Matthew 23:33). Furthermore, Jesus healed people on the Sabbath day (Mark 3:1–6), a direct infraction against the Law of Moses (Exodus 31:14). All of these things made Jesus Christ the mimetic rival of the Pharisees. People from all over Palæstine came to hear Jesus preach and be healed by him (Luke 4:40). The Pharisees originally sought to eliminate their mimetic rival, Jesus Christ, who was the scapegoat for their jealousy, shame, and embarrassment, by killing him covertly (Matthew 26:4), but ultimately decided instead, to deliver him to Pontius Pilate for arraignment on charges of sedition, namely, for claiming to be the King of the Jews, a title held by Tiberius Caesar alone. Jesus’ subsequent crucifixion was simply the result of the Pharisees ridding themselves of their mimetic rival. Jesus had converted thousands of Palæstinians and inspired the mass-mimicry of his gospel, of which, had emerged as a formidable rival to the Pharisees and the Law of Moses.
One thing that can be said about the malicious actors in all of these Bible stories, namely, Cain, King Saul, and the Pharisees, is, that rather than improve themselves and abandon their corrupt ways, they unleashed their self-pity and malice upon their reprovers, namely Abel, David, and Jesus Christ, all in ways that should have silenced them from ever reproving them again while asserting themselves as the prime standard for mimicry and imitation.
