SCAPEGOAT. - One of the principal rites prescribed by Moses for the great day of atonement (v.; cf. also Lev. 16:5-26 and the treatise of the Mishnah Yoma). In the morning two goats offered by the Israelite community were chosen by lot: one to be sacrificed to Yahweh, the other as the scapegoat, that is, destined to be driven out into the desert (Lev. 16:8: "one lot for Yahweh, the other for 'ăzā'zēl"). They constituted a single sacrifice, in which the expiatory character had its most expressive signification. Properly speaking, the ritual atonement was due to the power of the sacrificial blood (for the rites of purification a young bull and the first goat were immolated, and with the blood the Mercy Seat and the Sanctuary were sprinkled); but the rite of the scapegoat expressed perceptibly, in the eyes of all the people, the full effect of the expiatory act, that is, the complete cancellation of sins. The high priest, having completed the rites inside the Sanctuary, laid his hands on the head of the goat that remained alive, "confessing over it all the iniquities and all the sins of the Israelites" (Lev. 16:21; cf. the formula in Yoma, VI, 2). By this act it was intended to transfer onto the animal the sins of all the people, so that, having become laden with sins and almost the personification of sin, it might be made to disappear and with it the sins of the people might likewise disappear (cf. Lev. 16:22).
For this very reason the c. was contaminated, and all those who touched it along the way remained contaminated, and even the man whose task it was to drive it into the desert had to purify himself from the impurity he had contracted (ibid., 26): this legal contamination, like the rite of the imposition of hands, made the transfer of sins palpable to the eyes of Israel and guaranteed their complete disappearance. Finally the c., made the target of insults and curses, was driven into the desert onto a cliff (according to Jōmā', VI, 4-6 in the desert of Šūq, 12 miles from Jerusalem) and from there hurled down, so as to die dashed to pieces.
J. Wellhausen and the rationalist critics, by their well-known a priori principles, commonly refer all the rites of expiation described in Lev. 16 to the post-exilic age. Among Catholics, S. Landersdorfer holds that the part concerning the c. e. (Lev. 16, 8-12, 22, 26-28) is later than the exile. But wrongly, since the unity of the chapter cannot be contested; the ceremonies in Lev. 16 are closely connected with one another, and above all the c. e. symbolized in the most expressive way the expiatory virtue of the sacrificial rites. Add that this eminently popular practice finds a counterpart in analogous rites in many other religions. S. H. Langdon has collected and compared numerous examples of the c. e. in the Babylonian religion, and J. G. Frazer in the other religions. But the similarities with the biblical rite are only external and superficial, while the differences, deep and substantial, bring out the incomparable superiority of this one for the nobility of its symbolic meaning and the purity of its religious notions. J. D. Prince sees the prototype of the biblical c. e. in a Sumerian magical rite, in which the king, by order of Ea and Marduk, strikes a goat with an arrow, thereby pouring onto it all the misfortunes that afflict his soldiers. But the differences are so many that it is impossible to establish a dependence or a link between the two rites. Another Babylonian rite (in a fragment of a Ritual published in 1911 by P. Dhorme) presents greater parallels with the Levitical ceremony: at the beginning of the new year, on the 4th or 5th day, the mašmašu (priest who performs the magical rites) enters the ezida (the most sacred part) of the temple of Nebo and there performs the rites of aspersion; then he has the head of a ram cut off, using the victim to exorcise the temple; finally he goes to throw the carcass into the river Nala: a man of the people performs the same operation with the head of the victim, and both must remain outside the walls for a week because of the impurity contracted. The points of contact with the biblical ceremony are undeniable. But the differences are even more numerous, on a simple comparison of the rites (A. Médebielle, p. 111 ff.). In the Levitical ceremony the c. e. has only a symbolic value: this raises it far above the crude rites of other religions, from which moreover every idea of collective and national expiation is absent.
Where the Vulgate translates hircus emissarius, in the Hebrew we read 4 times 'džā'zēl (Lev. 16, 8, 10, 26). Much has been discussed about this difficult word, which does not occur elsewhere in the Bible; and there is still no agreement on its meaning.
The explanations can be reduced substantially to three: 1) Some rabbis thought that 'Ažā'zēl was the name of a locality near Sinai, where the c. would have been driven the first time the rite was instituted: the designation would then have remained to indicate the place destined for the sending out of the c.; this opinion is commonly discarded (S. Landersdorfer still admits it), also because in the Bible there is no trace of a locality of this name. - 2) 'Ažā'zēl would designate a cacodemon, an evil principle or even Satan prince of demons, opposed to God and dwelling in the desert: also in the apocryphon Enoch, 'Ažā'zēl is the name of a demon or of Satan (8, 1; 12, 13; 13, 1; 15, 9); add that in Sacred Scripture the desert is often depicted as an image of desolation and death and as the dwelling of demons (Is. 13, 21; Bar. 4, 35; Tob. 8, 3; Mt. 12, 43; Apor. 18, 2; cf. Enoch, 10, 4; 'Ažā'zēl bound in the desert of Dudael). This opinion, which is already found in Origen (Contra Celsum, VI, 43) and in the Gnostics (cf. Epiphanius, Haer., 36), has met with the favor of numerous exegetes, Catholic and rationalist, who however disagree about the meaning of the destination of the c. "to 'āzā'zēl". Lev. 16, 6 seems to support this explanation: for it is said there that in casting lots over the two goats, one was "for Jahweh", the other "for 'āzā'zēl": now the opposition between Jahweh and 'āzā'zēl seems to require that the second term be, like the first, a personal being. The argument, however, is not compelling, and from the doctrine of the apocryphon Enoch (later by ca. 15 centuries) one cannot deduce that the Hebrews at the time of Moses designated under that name a demon or Satan. In any case, even granting the identification, it would be absurd to think, as many rationalist critics claim (K. Martí, A. Sabatier, B. Stade, B. Duhm, etc.) that the c. was offered in sacrifice to 'Aza'zēl: since by the imposition of hands even the c. e., like the first goat, was sacred to Jahweh, and both were part of the same rite of expiation. One may nevertheless admit, with several Catholic exegetes (L. C. Fillion, F. X. Kortleitner, B. Welte, J. Smith, etc.) that the c. e., laden with the sins of all the people, was transferred as to its own master to 'Aza'zēl: therefore no homage or tribute to Satan, but rather an anathema or a screen: a vile prey, worthy of him, was released to him. In this sense the most varied etymologies have been devised: for example, "strong God", from 'āzāz 'ēl, a remnant of a divine name that had fallen into disuse and used in a pejorative sense; "fallen strong one", from 'az 'āzal; "failed strong one", from the transcription of the Pēšittā, 'azzā zajel, etc. (cf. A. Médebielle, p. 155 ff.). - 3) As a concrete or abstract noun, 'āzā'zēl would mean "emissary", or "removal", "sending out": the Vulgate is based on the etymology 'ēz ("she-goat" or "he-goat") and 'āzal ("to go" or "to lead away"). Thus in substance the Septuagint (ἀποπομπάιος, 2 times) and, with other words, Aquila and Symmachus; the other 2 times the Septuagint translates with the noun (εἰς ἀποπομπήν, εἰς ἄφεσιν: "for the removal, the sending away": cf. Flavius Josephus, Antiq. Jud., III, 10, 3). Thus the ancient versions stand for the sense of "sending out", "removal". One may only discuss whether the word must be derived from a double root ('ēz and 'āzal) or from the single root 'āzal ("to go away") or 'āzal (Arabic: "to remove", "to carry away"); likewise one may discuss whether it is a substantive form or a verbal form: according to W. Gesenius it may be an intensive form, pilpel, of 'āzal, with intransitive meaning ("that which is carried away", "emissary") or transitive ("that which removes", "carries away", with "the sins" understood). And this explanation, especially according to the interpretation of the Vulgate, still seems the most probable. Therefore Lev. 16, 8 can be translated thus: "...and he shall cast lots upon them, one for Jahweh, the other for the emissary" (that is, to constitute the goat in this quality of emissary): in this sense verses 10 and 26 are also easily explained.
St. Paul (Hebr. 9) sets out in detail the figurative sense of the rites of expiation, with reference to the sacrifice of Christ: but he does not mention the c. e., while he expressly alludes to the first goat (9, 12 ff.; 13, 11). But perhaps he has in mind the image of the c. e. when he writes of Jesus: "Him who knew no sin, (God) made to be sin for us" (II Cor. 5, 21).
Bibliography14 works
Gaetano Stano