A brown-and-white goat standing on a tree stump
13 October 2021
[14 October 2021: added the Voltaire quotation.]
A scapegoat is one who is punished for the sins or mistakes of others. It’s an odd word, and one would not guess its meaning from understanding the elements of the compound, a goat that escapes. It arises out of biblical translation, either an error on the part of translators or an attempt to make comprehensible something that the translators assumed their readers would not understand.
The biblical passage in question is Leviticus 16:7–10, which describes a rite of atonement. In present-day translation, in this case the New Revised Standard Version, it reads:
He [i.e., Aaron] shall take two goats and set them before the Lord at the entrance of the tent of meeting; and Aaron shall cast lots on the two goats, one lot for the Lord and the other lot for Azazel. Aaron shall present the goat on which the lot fell for the Lord, and offer it as a sin offering; but the goat on which the lot fell for Azazel shall be presented alive before the Lord to make atonement over it, that it may be sent away into the wilderness to Azazel.
The Hebrew לַעֲזָאזֵל (for Azazel) literally means “angry/fierce god” and is understood to be a non-Hebrew god, contrasting with Yahweh or the “Lord,” prior to the development of monotheism or of a demon after that. The fate of either goat is not a good one, either sacrifice in the temple or dying alone at the paws of a predator in the wilderness.
The English word scapegoat enters into the picture with William Tyndale’s 1530 translation of the Pentateuch, in which he renders the phrase for Azazel as the word scapegoat:
And he [i.e., Aaron] shall take the two gootes and present them before the Lorde in the dore of the tabernacle of witnesse. And Aaro[n] cast lottes ouer the .ij. gootes: one lotte for the Lorde, a[n]d another for a scapegoote. And Aaron shall bringe the goote apo[n] which the Lordes lotte fell, and offer him for a synneofferynge. But the goote on which the lotte fell to scape, he shall sett alyue before the Lorde to reco[n]cyle with a[n]d to let him goo fre in to the wildernesse.
It’s a rather free translation that, while accurate enough, omits mention of a god or demon that would probably be unknown to the readership. The 1611 Authorized (King James) Bible maintained Tyndale’s use of scapegoat.
But while Tyndale was the first to use scapegoat, he was far from the first biblical translator to play fast and loose with this passage. The Septuagint, whose translation of the Hebrew Pentateuch into Greek dates to the third century BCE, translates it as τραγος αποπομπαίος (tragos apopompaios, sent-forth goat). Jerome’s Vulgate translation renders it as caper emissarius (sent-forth goat). And slightly later than Tyndale, Myles Coverdale’s 1535 translation, which is based on Latin and Dutch translations, not directly from Hebrew, renders it as fre goate (free goat).
After Tyndale, and especially after it appears in the 1611 Authorized Version, scapegoat starts to be used more widely, but for several centuries only in the context of sermons and commentaries on Leviticus. It isn’t until the late eighteenth century that we start seeing scapegoat being used generally to mean someone who is unfairly blamed.
The 1778 play The Gospel-Shop features a character named Dr. Scapegoat, described as “a rich covetous Methodist Preacher.”
And on 30 November 1778, the London newspaper the Public Advertiser published a commentary objecting to a display of four Roman lictors, attendants and bodyguards to the emperor, comparing them to civil servants in eighteenth-century England. It’s contemporary political commentary masquerading as art criticism. And the scapegoats in question are esteemed ministers and members of parliament, who are undone by their staffers:
Or could it be that eminent Tea-dealer, that Parliament-jobber, who, notwithstanding his glaring Inferiority to Mediocrity, is so very notable, such an Ar-all, so never at a Loss, to whom nothing comes amiss, who, by perking his false Importance in his Sovereign’s Face, has passed upon him all the Results of a Parliament’s systematical Servility, for HIS OWN Dexterity of Management and high Statesmanship; who, if not the primary Instigator of that calamitous Civil War, which, with so much Ease, with so much Advantage, and, above all, with so much Honour might have been avoided, has been, at least, a fribbling, officious Minister of it: Who now seems to aim at making his Master the Scapegoat of the Storm under Color of the ridiculous Flattery contained in the Attribution to him of being “his own Minister.”
And a bit later we have Admiral John Byng being labeled a scapegoat. Byng was held responsible for the 1756 loss of Minorca to the French during the Seven Years’ War. Byng was court-martialed and executed. This passage appears in a multi-volume set, The Naval and Military History of the Wars of England. The volumes were produced between 1795–1807, but the individual volumes are, for the most part, not dated, so we don’t know the exact year this was published:
They ridiculed and refuted the reasons he had given for returning to Gibraltar, after his scandalous encounter with the French squadron; and, in order to exasperate them to the most implacable resentment, they exagggerated [sic] the terrible consequences of losing Minorca, which must now be subdued through his treachery or want of resolution. In a word, he was devoted as the scapegoat of the ministry, to whose supine negligence, ignorance, and misconduct, the loss of that important fortress was undoubtedly owing.
Byng was executed on 14 March 1757, and two years later, in his novel Candide, Voltaire makes reference to Byng’s execution. Candide and his traveling companion Martin, upon their arrival in England, witness the execution of an admiral, who is not named but clearly represents Byng. In an exchange that perfectly sums up the concept of scapegoating, Candide asks Martin:
“Et pourquoi tuer cet amiral?”
“C'est, lui dit-on, parcequ'il n'a pas fait tuer assez de monde; il a livré un combat à un amiral français, et on a trouvé qu'il n'était pas assez près de lui.”
“Mais,” dit Candide, “l'amiral français était aussi loin de l'amiral anglais que celui-ci l'était de l'autre!”
“Cela est incontestable, lui répliqua-t-on; mais dans ce pays-ci il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres.”
("And why kill this Admiral?"
"It is because he did not kill a sufficient number of men himself. He gave battle to a French Admiral; and it has been proved that he was not near enough to him."
"But," replied Candide, "the French Admiral was as far from the English Admiral."
"There is no doubt of it; but in this country it is found good, from time to time, to kill one Admiral to encourage the others.")
Sources:
The Bible. Authorized King James Version with Apocrypha. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1997. Leviticus 16:7–10.
Bible, Pentateuch. William Tyndale, trans. Antwerp: Johan Hoochstraten, 1530, Leviticus 16, fol. 29v. Early English Books Online (EEBO).
Biblia. Myles Coverdale, trans. Cologne: E. Cervicornus and J. Soter, 1535, Leviticus 16, fol. 49r. Early English Books Online (EEBO).
Biblia Sacra Vulgata, fifth edition. Robert Weber and Roger Gryson, eds. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2007, Liber Levitici 16:7–10.
Hill, R. The Gospel-Shop, a Comedy of Five Acts. London: Fielding and Walker, 1778. Eighteenth Century Collections Online (ECCO).
Merriam-Webster New Book of Word Histories. Springfield, Massachusetts: Merriam-Webster, 1991, 411–12, s.v. scapegoat.
The Naval and Military History of the Wars of England, vol. 6. London: Lewis and Co., 1795–1807, 57. Eighteenth Century Collections Online (ECCO).
The New Oxford Annotated Bible, third edition. Michael D. Coogan, ed. New Revised Standard Version. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2007, Leviticus 16:7–10, 165.
Oxford English Dictionary, second edition, 1989, s.v. scapegoat, n., scapegoat, v.
“Ulterior Remarks.” Public Advertiser (London), 30 November 1778, 2. Gale Primary Sources: Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century Burney Newspapers Collection.
Voltaire. Candide (1759). Paris: Chez Lefèvre, 1829. Project Gutenberg.
———. Candide (1759). New York: Boni and Liveright, 1918. Project Gutenberg.
Image credit: Armin Kübelbeck, 2010. Used under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.