SCAPEGOAT. – One of the principal rites prescribed by Moses for the great Day of Atonement (v. cf. also Lev. 16:5–26 and the tractate of the Mishnah, *Yoma* 6a). In the morning, two goats offered by the Israelite community were chosen by lot: one to be slaughtered for Yahweh, the other as the scapegoat, destined to be driven into the wilderness (Lev. 16:8: “one lot for Yahweh, the other for *‘azā’zēl*”). They constituted a single sacrifice, in which the expiatory character found its most expressive signification. Properly speaking, ritual atonement was effected through the power of the sacrificial blood (a bullock and the first goat were slaughtered for purification rites, and with the blood the Mercy Seat and the Sanctuary were sprinkled); but the rite of the scapegoat made visibly apparent to the eyes of all the people the full effect of the expiatory act, namely, the complete blotting out of sins. After completing the rites inside the Sanctuary, the high priest laid his hands upon the head of the remaining live goat, “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 the sins of all the people onto the animal, so that, having become a bearer of sins and virtually the personification of sin, it might be made to disappear, and with it the sins of the people as well (cf. Lev. 16:22).
**Goats** – Lunette fresco in the portal of the Certosa church (late 14th century); the founders, the counts of Arcucci, are depicted at the feet of St. Mary.
By this very fact, the scapegoat was rendered unclean, and all who touched it along the way became unclean; even the man assigned to drive it into the wilderness had to purify himself from the contracted impurity (ibid., 26). This legal contamination, like the rite of laying on of hands, rendered palpable to the eyes of Israel the transfer of sins and ensured their complete disappearance. Finally, the scapegoat, subjected to reproaches and curses, was driven into the wilderness over a precipice (according to *Yoma*, VI, 4–6, into the wilderness of *Ṣūq*, twelve miles from Jerusalem) and cast down from there so that it died by being dashed to pieces.
J. Wellhausen and the rationalist critics, in accordance with their well-known a priori principles, commonly relegate all the atonement rites described in Lev. 16 to the post-exilic period. Among Catholics, S. Landersdorfer holds that the part concerning the scapegoat (Lev. 16:8–12, 22, 26–28) is post-exilic. But this is mistaken, since the unity of the chapter cannot be contested; the ceremonies in Lev. 16 are closely connected with one another, and above all the scapegoat rite symbolized in the most expressive manner the expiatory power of the sacrificial rites. Moreover, this practice, which was eminently popular, finds parallels in analogous rites among many other religions. S. H. Langdon has collected and compared numerous examples of scapegoats in Babylonian religion, and J. G. Frazer among other religions. Yet the similarities to the biblical rite are merely external and superficial, while the differences—profound and substantial—serve to highlight the incomparable superiority of the biblical rite in the nobility of its symbolic meaning and the purity of its religious notions. J. D. Prince sees the prototype of the biblical scapegoat in a Sumerian magical rite in which the king, by order of Ea and Marduk, strikes a goat with an arrow, thus pouring all the afflictions afflicting his soldiers onto II. But the differences are so numerous that it is impossible to establish any dependence or connection between the two rites. Another Babylonian rite (in a ritual fragment published in 1911 by P. Dhorme) presents greater correspondences with the Levitical ceremony: at the beginning of the new year, on the 4th or 5th day, the *mašmaššu* (the priest who performs magical rites) enters the *ezida* (the most sacred part) of the temple of Nabu and performs sprinkling rites there; then he has the head of a ram cut off, using the victim to exorcise the temple; finally, he goes to cast the corpse into the river Nila; a layman performs the same operation with the head of the victim, and both must remain outside the walls for a week on account of the contracted impurity. Undeniable points of contact with the biblical ceremony are evident. Yet the differences are even more numerous upon a simple comparison of the rites (A. Médebielle, p. 111 ff.). In the Levitical ceremony, the scapegoat has only a symbolic value; this elevates it far above the crude rites of other religions, from which, moreover, the idea of collective and national expiation is entirely absent.
Where the Vulgate translates *hircus emissarius*, in the Hebrew text we read *‘azā’zēl* four times (Lev. 16:8, 10, 26). Much has been discussed about this difficult word, which does not recur elsewhere in the Bible, and no agreement has yet been reached on its meaning.
The explanations can essentially be reduced to three:
1) Some rabbis thought that *‘azā’zēl* was the name of a locality near Sinai, where the goat was first driven in the institution of the rite; the name would then have remained to indicate the place destined for the sending away of the goat. This opinion is commonly rejected (it is still admitted by S. Landersdorfer), also because there is no trace in the Bible of a locality by this name.
2) *‘Azā’zēl* would designate a cacodemon, an evil principle or even Satan, prince of demons, opposed to God and dwelling in the wilderness. In the apocryphal *Enoch*, *‘azā’zēl* is the name of a demon or of Satan (8:1; 12:13; 13:1; 15:9). It may be added that in Sacred Scripture the wilderness is often depicted as an image of desolation and death and as the abode of demons (Isa. 13:21; Bar. 4:35; Tob. 8:3; Matt. 12:43; Apoc. 18:2; cf. *Enoch* 10:4: *‘azā’zēl* bound in the wilderness of Dudael). This opinion, already found in Origen (*Contra Celsum*, VI, 43) and among the Gnostics (cf. Epiphanius, *Haer.*, 36), has found favor with
Numerous exegetes, both Catholic and rationalist, are divided over the meaning of the goat’s destination “to ‘Azaz’el.”
Lev. 16:6 seems to support this explanation: it is stated there that when the lots were cast over the two goats, one was “for Jahweh,” the other “for ‘Azaz’el”; now the opposition between Jahweh and ‘Azaz’el’ would seem to require that the second term, like the first, be a personal being. The argument, however, is not compelling, and from the doctrine of the apocryphal Enoch (later by about 15 centuries) one cannot deduce that the Jews at the time of Moses designated under that name a demon or Satan. In any case, even if the identification be admitted, it would be absurd to think, as many rationalist critics (K. Marti, A. Sabatier, B. Stade, B. Duhm, etc.) maintain, that the goat was offered in sacrifice to ‘Azaz’el’: for by the laying on of hands the goat, like the first goat, was consecrated to Jahweh, and both formed part of the same rite of atonement. It may nevertheless be admitted, with several Catholic exegetes (L. C. Fillion, F. X. Kortleitner, B. Welte, J. Smith, etc.), that the goat, bearing the sins of all the people, was transferred as to its proper master to ‘Azaz’el’: thus no homage or tribute to Satan, but rather an anathema or a mockery—he was given an ignoble prey, worthy of him. In this sense the most varied etymologies have been devised:
for example, “strong god,” from ‘azaz’el’, a residual divine name fallen into disuse and used contemptuously; “fallen strong one,” from ‘azaz’el’; “failed strong one,” from the Peshitta’s transcription, ‘azaz’el’, etc. (cf. A. Médebielle, p. 155 ff.).
3) As a concrete or abstract noun, ‘azaz’el’ means “fortification and removal” or “removal,” “sending away.” The Vulgate bases itself on the etymology ‘az’ (goat) and ‘az’el’ (to go) or “to lead away.” Thus essentially the Septuagint (ἀποπομπαῖος, twice) and, in other words, Aquila and Symmachus; the Septuagint twice elsewhere renders it with the substantive (εἰς ἀποπομπήν, εἰς ἄκραν): “for removal, for sending away” (cf. Flavius Josephus, Antiquitates Iudaicae, III, 10, 3). Thus the ancient versions favor the sense of “sending away,” “removal.” Only one may debate whether the word should be derived from a double root (‘az’el) or from the single root ‘az’el’ (“to go away”) or ‘az’el’ (Arabic: “to remove,” “to carry away”); likewise one may debate whether it is a substantive form or a verbal form. According to W. Gesenius it can be an intensive, pilpel, form of ‘az’el’, with intransitive meaning (“that which is carried away,” “sending away”) or transitive (“that which removes,” “carries away,” implying “sins”). And this explanation, especially according to the Vulgate’s interpretation, still seems the most probable. Thus Lev. 16:8 may be translated: “…and he shall cast lots over them, one for Jahweh, the other for the sending away” (i.e., to constitute the goat in the quality of a scapegoat); in this sense vv. 10 and 26 are also easily explained.
St. Paul (Heb. 9) expounds in detail the figurative sense of the rites of atonement with reference to the sacrifice of Christ, but he makes no mention of the scapegoat, while expressly alluding to the first goat (9:12 ff.; 13:11). Yet he may have had the image of the scapegoat in mind when he writes of Jesus: “Him who knew no sin, for us (God) made sin” (2 Cor. 5:21).
CAPSA. — From the Greek καύφη, properly a case for books; it could also be called a book-box; usually circular, if very small a capella, if in bronze a cista. In the passio of the Scillitan martyrs of 17 July 180, the judge Saturninus asks: “quae sunt res in capsa vestra?” (cf. BHL, 7527). Wilpert has recognized a representation of a c. for books in a painting from the cemetery of Praetextatus (Wilpert, 19).
C. was also the name given to the small container that held the elements to be used for the celebration of the Eucharist: capsa cum sanctis apertas (but V. PISSIDE). Archaeologists have applied the name capsellae to the numerous reliquaries of wood, ivory, terracotta, stone, and silver found in altars and containing relics.
Such, for example, are the reliquaries of Brescia, Grado, etc., and the Egyptian workmanship of the first half of the 6th century from the Sancta Sanctorum, now in the Museo Sacro of the Vatican Library (C. R. Morey, Gli oggetti di avorio e di osso del museo Sacro Vaticano, Vatican City 1936, p. 58, no. A. 59). Typical is the reliquary illustrated by G. B. De Rossi, found in the little basilica of Ain Zirara, 8 km from Ain-Beida in Numidia between Tebessa and Constantine. It is of silver, elliptical in shape; on the lid a martyr is depicted holding in his hands a jeweled laurel wreath; above him the hand of God emerges from the clouds and is about to place a crown on the saint’s head. At the martyr’s feet the four rivers of paradise flow forth, while on either side two torches burn. On the outer faces of the c. on one side eight sheep emerge from two cities and move toward the center where the divine Lamb stands behind which is a Latin cross. On the other side, above a rock, stands the Signum Christi; beneath it the four rivers flow, to which two stags come to drink (G. B. De Rossi, La
Capsella argentea africana
A silver casket offered to His Holiness Pope Leo XIII by His Eminence Cardinal Lavigerie, Archbishop of Carthage, Rome 1889.
The reliquaries discovered at Henchir-Akhrib in Numidia can be dated between 580 and 581 (S. Gsell, *Chapelle chrétienne d'Henchir-Akhrib*, in *Mélanges d'archéologie et d'histoire*, 23 [1903], pp. 3-25).
Africa has yielded very many such caskets, which are true reliquaries. Indeed, in the humble terracotta reliquary found in the territory of ancient Lamasha in Numidia, near the present-day indigenous village of Kṣar-Belezma in Algeria, the inscription reads: *in isto vaso congregabuntur membra Christi* (J. Gagé, *Église et reliquaire d'Afrique*, in *Mélanges d'archéologie et d'histoire*, 44 [1927], pp. 103-18).
CAPUA, ARCHDIOCESE OF
In Campania, a short distance from the point where the Via Latina joins the Appian Way, Capua must have received the Christian message at a very early date.
The church of Capua had its martyrs, recorded in the *Martyrologium Hieronymianum*: Priscus, Lupulus, Sinotus, Marcellus, Rufus, Augustinus, and Felicitas; the last two are said to have suffered martyrdom under Decius. In the present-day town of S. Prisco, near Capua, numerous Christian sepulchral inscriptions from the second half of the 4th century were discovered, and nearby was the Via Aquaria, along which St Priscus was celebrated on 1 September, traditionally regarded as the first bishop of Capua. The *Liber Pontificalis* informs us that Constantine founded a basilica in Capua, endowing it with liturgical furnishings and rich properties.
In the church of S. Prisco there were preserved, until 1766, the 5th-century mosaics that decorated the apse and the dome. In the apse were depicted, in the act of bearing crowns, apostles, martyrs, and the local saints Priscus, Sinotus, Lupulus, Rufus, Marcellus, Augustinus, and Felicitas; in the vault, the symbolic dove amid eight volumes symbolizing the Gospels and four prophets. In the dome, at the centre,