SCAPEGOAT

The goat, chosen by lot, upon whom the sins of the people, deliberate and indeliberate, were transferred by the high priest on the Day of Atonement. Bearing the sins of the people, it was led into the desert, into the domain of the demon Azazel [Lv 16.5, 7–10, 20–22; see atonement, day of (yom kippur)].

The English term, scapegoat, connoting in general usage the idea of a substitute victim, is actually derived from a faulty translation of the Hebrew phrase "for Azazel" in Leviticus (16.8, 10, 26). The Latin Vulgate version, following the erroneous Greek translation in the Septuagint, rendered this expression caper emissarius (emissary goat), which became in English the "escaping goat" or scapegoat.

The notion of transmitting evil arising from sin, disease, or even demons to animals is an ancient practice and was fairly widespread among primitive peoples. Relics of this practice are found in some cultures to the present day. Significant parallels in the ancient Orient have been found in Babylonian and Hittite sources. An analogous case in the Bible itself is that of the bird liberated at the time of the leper's purification (Lv 14.7). The extra-Biblical evidence is sufficient to see that the Israelite rite was a purified adaptation of prevailing pagan custom. In Israel the act was not demon worship; the animal was not sacrificed to Azazel but, becoming impure, was rendered unfit for any future use. The rite was, moreover, divested of any magical connotation; God Himself prescribed and alone effected the sin transfer through the priestly action. In the expiation ritual [see expiation (in the bible)], the blood of the sacrificial goat, sprinkled on the propitiatory (the top of the ark), purified from sin (see Lyonnet, 35–36); the scapegoat was not a sacrifice. Since sin was conceived of as an almost tangible reality, a symbolic assurance of its removal and proper consignment was realized in the scapegoat rite.

Because the scapegoat was never viewed as an offering to God, this concept received no development in New Testament soteriology. The reference to Christ's "becoming sin for us" (2 Cor 5.21) in describing His atoning action means that He became a sin offering for man, i.e., a sacrifice that atones for sin; the New Testament word ἁμαρτία, following the Hebrew ḥaṭṭā‘t, can mean either "sin" or "sin offering," depending on context. It is to be noted that the scapegoat was not sacrificed; its blood was not shed; it was not a sin offering. To interpret Christ's role as analogous to that of the scapegoat on the basis of His having "suffered outside the gate" (Heb 13.12–13) is contrary to the inspired author's intention (see Lyonnet, 37). As the passage itself indicates, the analogy is between Christ and those Old Testament sacrificial offerings that required the transfer of the victim's remains to a place outside the camp, the present reference suggested to the author of Hebrews by the parallel found in Christ's death outside of Jerusalem.

Bibliography: s. lyonnet, "De munere sacrificali sanguinis" with appendix "De ritu capri emissarii," Verbum Domini (Rome 1921–) 39 (1961) 18–38. c. l. feinberg, "The Scapegoat of Lev 16," Bibliotheca Sacra 115 (1958) 320–333. s. landersdorfer, "Keilinschriftliche Parallelen zum biblischen Sündenbock," Biblische Zeitschrift 19 (1931) 20–28. j. g. frazer, The Golden Bough (abr. ed. New York 1952) 651–675. r. de vaux, Ancient Israel, Its Life and Institutions, tr. j. mchugh (New York 1961) 508–509.

[r. j. faley]