mclean on the revision of scapegoat terminology

7/28/2019 McLEAN on the Revision of Scapegoat Terminology

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mclean-on-the-revision-of-scapegoat-terminology 1/7

On the Revision of Scapegoat Terminology

Author(s): Bradley McLeanSource: Numen, Vol. 37, Fasc. 2 (Dec., 1990), pp. 168-173Published by: BRILLStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3269861 .

Accessed: 14/04/2011 08:36

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Numen.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3269861?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp



http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3269861?origin=JSTOR-pdf




Numen, Vol. XXXVII, Fasc. 2

ON THE REVISION OF SCAPEGOAT TERMINOLOGY

BRADLEYMCLEAN

The word pharmakos has long been translated by the term

'scapegoat' (G.: Sindenbock/ Fr.: Bouc emissaire) in the study of

human expulsion rituals in Athens, the Ionian colonies and else-

where.' The purpose of this article is to describe the problematicnature of this translation and to suggest alternative terminology.

The term '[e]scapegoat' was invented by William Tyndale for his

1530 CE translation of the Bible.2 It has since been employed as a

technical term in the areas of Biblical, Jewish and Christian studies

for the goat which was expelled on the Day of Atonement. In addi-

tion to the book of Leviticus, there are scapegoat traditions in the

book of Jubilees, the Qumran Temple Scroll, Philo of Alexandria,numerous targums, the Mishnah, the Sifra, the Talmuds3 not to

mention several early Christian sources such as the Epistle of Bar-

nabas, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen and Clement of Alexan-dria.4 On account of this complex range of sources, the interpreta-tion of the Levitical scapegoat ritual cannot be distilled to a singleessence. One might then ask how such a term can be profitably bor-

rowed for the study of Greek religion.It is a puzzling fact that this Jewish term has been universally

employed for the description of Greekexpulsion ceremonies. I can

find no instance in any book where an author attempts to explainthe application of the term 'scapegoat' to non-Jewish rituals.

Despite the fact that not one of these Greek rites involves a goat,much less shares any genealogical connection with the Jewish cult,the intended meaning of the term is always taken to be self-evident.

Walter Burkert is aware of the degree to which this term has

become dissociated from its original meaning:

The common pattern emerging from Hittite, Greek, and Roman

ritual and myth is of course a familiar one, that of the 'scapegoat',a term which has become so familiar that some may not even

remember that it goes back indeed to a ritual, described in the OldTestament, of Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement.5



On the Revision of ScapegoatTerminology

The practice of classifying a collective group of rituals by the

name of one of that group's constituent members (i.e. the scapegoat

ritual) is both confusing and imprecise. This practice presumescommon features between the scapegoat ritual and other rituals

without specifying them or demonstrating the cogency of such

parallels. For example, there is the confusing custom amongscholars of designating Oedipus Rex as a 'scapegoat' when they

actually mean to say that he resembles a victim of one of the Greek

expulsion rituals.6 This same point could be made of the applicationof the term 'scapegoat' to Thracian nummery.7

Thisovergeneralization

is furthercomplicated by the fact thatthe contemporary understanding of what it means to be a

'scapegoat' has many connotations which are contrary to its propersense. For instance, in the volume of James Frazer's GoldenBoughentitled The Scapegoat,he includes countless instances of irrational

mass violence against individuals, from all periods of history, and

every imaginable country.8 Philip S. Alexander has cautioned that

scholarly work must be protected from exactly this sort of

"parallelomania". Simply put, "prallelomania" describes the

questionable way of picking out and comparing elements from dif-ferent religious systems without first understanding them in the

original systems in which they functioned.9 The scapegoat was not

a victim of mob feeling, but was carefully selected by a proceduresuch as the casting of lots (Lev. 16:8). The ritual was not a spon-taneous, uncontrolled, irrational act of mass aggression; it was

deliberate, disciplined and limited in scope for the achievement of

definite end.

The reason for Frazer's carelessapplication

of the term"scape-goat" is to be found in his motivation for writing. He did not write

to document rituals so much as to make a universal assertion about

the nature of all primitive religion. Frazer was trying to advance the

theory that all 'primitive' religions are based on magic as opposedto the more advanced forms of religion which are based on ethics.10

Thus Frazer evaluated the merits of all religious thought accordingto a Victorian standard of Christian ethical thinking. His peculiar

equation of the Levitical scapegoat with victims of mass violence

serves his overarching purpose of proving that primitive religionswere founded upon what he called 'the myth of the dying and rising

god'. l

169



BradleyMcLean

Mary Douglas has demonstrated that Frazer's dichotomybetween magic and ethics is based on anthropological models which

have long since been dismissed.12 Despite the fact that

anthropologists are highly critical of Frazer's theoretical model,13

the 'parallelomania' which characterized Frazer's use of the term

'scapegoat' continues to the present day. Rene Girard, in trying to

demonstrate the cogency of a anthropological theory, explains all

primitive religion in terms of the discharging of inter-societal

violence based on what he calls 'the scapegoat mechanism'.14 An

exclusive term such as 'scapegoat' ought not to be adopted

generically for the comparison of myths, concepts and languagesfrom different contexts and cultural milieux.

In my opinion, greater precision and clarity of thought would

result if culturally inclusive terms were adopted. For instance, the

term 'scapebeast' was aptly coined by David Jones to describe

soldiers sent out to the trenches of the Western front:

But these [soldiers] sit in the wilderness, pent up like lousy rodents

all the day long; appointed scape-beasts,ome to the waste-lands, to

grope; to stumble at the margin of familiar things-at the place of

separation.15Though the allusion is obviously to the Levitical 'scapegoat', his

use of such a generic term still evokes the chief characteristics of the

general paradigm such as selection, degradation and alienation.

Indeed, such an inclusive term as 'scapebeast' is able to encompass

many other similar animal expulsion rites besides that of Levitical

scapegoat, including steers (Egypt),16 sheep (Assyria),17 rams (Hit-

tites),'8 and swine.19

In the case of Greek ritual, the term scapebeastdoes not lend itself

to the application to human beings such as the pharmakoi.However,the ancient texts themselves do not suggest an alternative term for

this purpose. Though the two most common terms are cpapliax6oS20

and x&o9ap.La,many other terms are used such as aup&xxoS,21

7Clp47inl0a,22 xaOapLov, 23 xa0o0appo6,24aaOxplcpaL6625and iqXO6alto.26Moreover, there are also a number of similar but distinct rituals in

places such as Marseille,27 Leukas28 and Chaeronea29 which employno denominative term, nor do other examples such as the annual

expulsion of Old Mars30 and the ritual self-offering of Romansoldiers.30

170




I suggest that the term 'scapeman' could be adopted to describe

the victims of all such rites. This term would diminish the tempta-

tion to colour the analysis of Greek ritual by association with the

Jewish scapegoat ritual. A case in point is Lewis Farnell's inter-

pretation of the expulsion of the pharmakoion the Thargelia in

Athens which seems to be strongly influenced by his prior under-

standing of the Levitical scapegoat rite. He describes the pharmakosas "an abject sin-carrier" and comments:32

More primitive and more akin to animistic demonology than to

religion is the idea that one's sins, like one's diseases might be taken

from one's own person and, by certain ritual, planted in some otherliving being, animal or man, and if this creatureby magical or higherritual could be discharged with all the sins of the community and

could be safely put away; here was a literal and almost mechanical

expulsion of sin, and there is hardly any need for a high god in the

matter.

Though the precise meaning of this civic purification remains in

some doubt, it is a fact that the word 'sin' does not occur in anytextual source. Though Farnell's analysis may be correct, he offers

no explanation or textual support. In light of this, Farnell's inter-

pretation, which narrowly focuses upon the atonement of sin seems

to be inferred by analogy with the Jewish scapegoat rite where the

concept is dominant.

The use of the term 'scapeman' has several advantages: first of

all, it is free of the confused and value oriented connotations which

scholars such as Frazer and Girard have attached to the term

'scapegoat'. Secondly a generic term is more suitable for the

analysisof

tragedy,as in the case of

OedipusRex. Most

importantly,it is able to encompass a broad range of human expulsion rituals

whereas the term 'scapegoat', properly speaking, applies only to

one instance of this shared paradigm. Therefore I suggest that in

the interest of the accuracy and clarity of future scholarship, the

term 'scapeman' be adopted in place of 'scapegoat'.

University of Toronto, BRADLEY MCLEAN

Trinity College

171



172 BradleyMcLean

Eg. Wilhelm Mannhardt, 'Mythologische Forschungen' (Quellen und

Forschungen;Strassburg1884), 124-138; Lewis R. Farnell, The Cults of the GreekStates

(Oxford 1896-1909), IV 270-284; Jane E. Harrison, Prolegomenao theStudyof Greek

Religion (Cambridge 1908), 95-104; Gilbert Murray, The Rise of the GreekEpic4

(Oxford 1907/1934), 33-35, 227, 326-321; Martin P. Nilsson, GriechischeFeste von

religioserBedeutungmit Ausschluss der attischen (Darmstadt 1906), 105-113; Ludwig

Deubner, Attische Feste (Berlin 1932), 179-188; Viktor Gebhard, Die Pharmakoiin

lonien unddie Sybakchoi n Athen (Diss. Munich, 1926); James G. Frazer, The Golden

Bough3: IV. The Scapegoat(London 1913), 229-273.2 "And Aaron cast lottes over the gootes: one lotte for the Lorde and another

for a scape goote" (Le. 16:8).3 The Jewish source are Le. 16,7-10.20-22; ub. 34,18-19; 1lQTemple col. 25-

27; Ph. Spec. 1.188; L.A. 2,51-52; Plant. 60-61; Her. 179; a Qumran targum to

Leviticus (R. de Vaux and J.T. Milik, Discoveries n theJudeanDesert: Pt. 6, Qumran

Grotte4 [Oxford 1977] II, 156 [P1. XXVIII], 86-88; Appendix, 92-93); MishnahYoma. 3,8; 4,1; 6,1-8; 8,8-9; Shebu. 1, 6-7; Men. 3,6; 9,7; Sifra 60,1,2-3; 181,2,9;

186,2,2-3.5; other targums on Lev. 16 include TargumPseudo-Jonathan Ps.-Jon.),

Targum Onkelos(Onk.), Targum Neophyti I, Samaritan Targum.4 The earliest Christian sources are Ep. Barn. 7,4-11; Just. M. Dial. 40,4; 95,2;

Tert. Adv. Marc. 7,7-8; Orig. Homilies on Le. 10, 1-2; Clem. A Str. 7,33.5 Walter Burkert, Structureand History in GreekMythology and Ritual (Sather

Classical Lectures 47; Berkeley-Los Angeles 1979), 65.6

Eg. J.E. Harrison, Epilegomenato theStudyof GreekReligion (Cambridge 1921),xli, 25; Rene Girard, The Scapegoattrans. Y. Freccero (Baltimore 1986), 89-91;

Jean P. Vernant, TragedyandMyth in AncientGreece(Sussex 1973), 114-131; Burkert

(n. 5), 65.7 R.M. Dawkins, JHS 26 (1906), 191-206, esp. 203-204.

8 J.G. Frazer (n. 1).9

Philip S. Alexander, 'Rabbinic Judaism in the New Testament', ZNW 74

(1983), 237-46. Steven Fraade warns of this same danger when he says that pearlsshould not be "removed too quickly from the medium of their literary shells"

(Quoted by Geza Vermes, 'Methodology in the Study of Jewish Literature in the

Graeco-Roman Period,' JJS 36/2 [1985], 145-158, esp. 145).10 Frazer's devaluation of non-ethical religion is apparent in the change of the

subtitle of the Golden Bough. The original subtitle, 'A Study of Comparative

Religion' was changed in the third edition to 'A Study in Magic and Religion'.1 Frazer discloses the strong prejudice with which he uses this idea of myth in

the preface: "The aspect of the subject with whch we are here chiefly concernedis the use of the Dying God as a scapegoat to free his worshippers from the troubles

of all sorts with which life on earth is beset... When we survey the history of this

pathetic fallacy from its crude inception in savagery to its full development in the

speculative theology of civilized nations, we cannot but wonder at the singular

power which the human mind possesses of transmuting the leaden dross of

superstition into a glittering semblance of gold. Certainly in nothing is the

alchemy of thought more conspicuous than in the process which has refined the

base and foolish custom of the scapegoat into the sublime conception of a God who

dies to take away the sins of the world" J.G. Frazer [n. 1], v).12 Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger (N.Y. 1966), 7-28, 58-72.13 E. Evans-Pritchard, A HistoryofAnthropologicalThought N.Y. 1981), 132-152;

M. Harris, The Rise of AnthropologicalTheory N.Y. 1968), 204-208; E. Leach, Cur-

rentAnthropology7 (1966), 560-567; E.J. Sharpe, ComparativeReligion (N.Y. 1975),




87-94; J.Z. Smith, Historyof Religions12 (1973), 342-371; W. Burkert(n. 5), 35-

36, 99-122; Douglas (n. 12), 28.14 Rene Girard

(n. 6), 39-41;R.

Girard,La Violenceet le Sacre

(Paris 1972);R.

Girard, Des chosescacheesdepuislafondationdu monde(Paris 1978); R. Girard, La route

antiquedes hommespervers (Paris 1985).15 David Jones, In Parenthesis(London 1937), 70.16 Hdt. 2.39; G. Wilkinson and Alan B. Lloyd comment on the close similarity

between this rite and that of the scapegoat (GardenerWilkinson, TheManners ndCustomsof the Ancient Egyptians Including Their Private Life, Government,Laws, Arts,

Manufactures,Religion, Agriculture,and Early History [London 31847], II, 378; Alan

B. Lloyd, Herodotus. ook2 [Leiden 1976], II, 178.)17 Robert Wm. Rogers, CuneiformParallels to the Old Testament(N.Y. 1912), 197.18 O.R. Gurney, SomeAspects of Hittite Religion (Oxford 1977), 47-52.19 Ev. Marc. 5,1-14; Ev. Matt. 8,23-34; Ev. Luc 8,26-39.

20 (pqapAaxoSn Ionic (cf. Hippon. Fr. 5-9).21 Hellad. in Phot. Bibl. 534a.22 Phot. s.v.Cplqlla..23 Istros in Harp. s.v. cpapuaox6o;iegesis on Call. (Fr. 90), 1,31.24 Hellad. (n. 21); Tz. H. 730.25 Schol. on Ar. Pl. 454-455.26 Schol. on Ar. Eq. 1136.27 Petr. (= frg. 1) in Serv. on Verg. A. 3.57.28 Serv. on Verg. A. 3.279; Str. 10.2.9; Ampel. 8.4; Phot. AeuxaxrlS.29 Plut. M. 693-694.30 Serv. on Verg. A. 7.188.31 Liv. viii

9,3-10,7 (the self-offeringof Marcus Valerius to the

Latins);x

28,12-29,20 (the self-offeringof the consul, Publius Decius [340 BCE] to the Gauls and

Samnites).32 Farnell (n. 1), 280.

173

mclean on the revision of scapegoat terminology

Documents