Interpretation of the Two Goats’ Imagery in Early Jewish and Christian Materials

It appears that the striking eschatological reappropriation of the Yom Kippur rite found in the Slavonic apocalypse attempts to envision human or angelic characters in the story as the cultic animals of the atoning ritual. But how novel is this conceptual development?

In order to answer this question we must now direct our attention to some earlier Jewish interpretations of the Yom Kippur goats wherein the imagery of these cultic animals has been applied to human figures, including a number of prominent characters from biblical narratives. It is impossible to revisit all instances of such applications. We will concentrate our attention only on several conceptual developments that will be pertinent to our study of the Yom Kippur goats in the Apocalypse of Abraham.

The possibility that the typology of the two goats of the atoning rite is reflected in the stories of some human protagonists of the biblical stories, even in the Hebrew Bible, has been noted by several scholars. These studies often attempted to argue that the sacerdotal typology involving two prominent cultic animals appears to be reflected in the portrayals of various siblings found in the Genesis accounts, including, among others: Cain and Abel, Isaac and Ishmael, and Jacob and Esau.¹ According to these interpreters, in these implicit cultic reinterpretations, one of the siblings is envisioned as the goat for YHWH, who is directed into the divine presence, while the other is understood as the scapegoat predestined for exile into the wilderness. Keeping in mind the realities of the atoning rite, modern and ancient exegetes have often highlighted the twinship of these brotherly pairs, which, in their opinion, is reminiscent of the twinship of the goats. This is because these atoning goats, according to rabbinic and patristic testimonies, ought to resemble each other. Another feature that has been often noted in these interpretations is that the aforementioned human pairs represent mostly male siblings, more specifically brotherly pairs—a gender marker which, again, invokes the imagery of the Yom Kippur rite, where the goats selected for the ritual must be male.²

These connections between the pairs of brothers and the cultic animals have been noted by ancient interpreters, as well as by modern scholars. While I am not necessarily convinced by the modern scholars’ hypotheses about the presence of the two goats’ typology in some biblical materials, especially in the patriarchal narratives, their research helps to draw attention to some features of the original stories that possibly inspired later rabbinic and patristic interpretations of the biblical narratives in light of the Yom Kippur traditions. Since modern formulations often contain clearer lines of argumentation than their pre-modern counterparts, we will begin our exploration with expositions of some contemporary hypotheses. It should be noted that, in contemporary scholarship, the imagery of the brotherly pairs and their connection with the proverbial goats of the atoning rite came under scrutiny not only from biblical scholars, but also from systematic theologians as well.

Thus, while reflecting in Church Dogmatics on the description of the rituals found in the Book of Leviticus, Karl Barth draws attention to the similarities between the selection of cultic birds and goats in Lev. 14 and Lev. 16 and God’s choices in relation to the siblings of the Genesis stories.³ Barth notes that

both Lev. 14 and Lev. 16 say that one creature is to be used, and that the other is not to be used – or only used to the extent that it is, so to speak, solemnly and necessarily not used. One creature is slain, that is, and the other is allowed to go free…. we can hardly fail to recall the Genesis stories of Abel and Cain, Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau …. The ceremonies are obviously a comment on the history of Israel as a history of the different choices, and its character as witness is fixed in the legal instructions which relate to these actions.⁴

Barth suggests that the stories about two brothers that are found in Genesis might serve as a formative archetype for the cultic ceremonies found in Leviticus, which attempt to “comment on the history of Israel as a history of the different choices.”⁵ This hypothesis concerning the primacy of the narrative over the ritual was later supported by a number of other scholars, including Mary Douglas and Calum Carmichael, who suggested that “the drama of the brothers’ actions becomes a ritualized annual confession of the historical sin.”⁶ These scholars suggest that it is instructive “to treat the biblical laws as if they were framed as an ongoing commentary on the biblical narratives.”⁷

Yet, in contrast to this position that affirms the formative priority of the biblical brotherly narratives for shaping the atoning ritual, other scholars attempt to embrace a different possibility: they argue for the primacy of the ritual settings, understanding them to be the formative bedrock for the patriarchal stories. Thus, for example, Gershon Hepner suggests that the Genesis narratives were written in light of biblical laws, which serves as their Vorlage.⁸ Analyzing the Genesis narratives of human scapegoats, Hepner concludes that “they did not influence Priestly law; rather, Priestly law influenced the construction of Genesis narratives.”⁹

Establishing the primacy of the patriarchal narratives over the rituals’ descriptions, or vice-versa, is not an easy task, since it is often difficult to trace the genealogical connections between different strata of biblical materials to establish with certainty their priority in relation to one another. Fortunately, establishing the exact genealogical relationships between the patriarchal stories and the legal ordinances is not crucial for our study of the Apocalypse of Abraham, a writing composed long after the formation of the Pentateuch was completed. Our task is, therefore, more simple and straightforward; namely, it is an attempt to discern what features of the patriarchal stories of these aforementioned siblings might have provoked their later cultic interpretations and allowed later exegetes to reimagine the human characters of these stories as the proverbial goats of the atoning rite.

Keeping in mind the aforementioned scholarly hypotheses, we must now proceed to close analysis of several biblical narratives that relate the tales of these brotherly pairs, in order to explore their possible connections with the symbolism of the two emblematic cultic animals within Jewish tradition.

Cain and Abel

One of the important features of the siblings stories found in Genesis that, according to interpreters’ opinions, helps to establish a connection between these narratives and the ritual of the two goats found in Leviticus is the motif of banishment of one of the siblings – an existential and physical procession reminiscent of the cultic exile of the scapegoat. This theme is often repeated in the stories of brotherly pairs found in the Hebrew Bible, particularly manifested in the peculiar destinies of Cain, Ishmael, Esau and other biblical figures. Karl Barth interprets the motif of banishment not only in connection with the physical withdrawal of a biblical character into the desert (e.g., Cain and Ishmael), but also with the characters’ withdrawal into the “existential wilderness,” a condition represented by their non-election.¹⁰ This banishment through non-election of one of the brothers, therefore, is reminiscent of the go-away goat’s exile—a state which is usually inversely mirrored in the biblical stories by the election of the other sibling who is, in his turn, envisioned as the goat for YHWH. Already in the atoning ritual, these inversely symmetrical processions of the sacerdotal agents appear to be complimentary in their own sacerdotal task. Barth reflects on the cultic animals’ inverse mirroring by pointing to the complimentary nature of the respective destinies of both goats/brothers. He notes that

the second goat is also “placed before the Lord,” that the treatment meted out to him and the tragic record of his unusability also form an integral part of the sign and testimony set up on the Day of Atonement. Cain is just as indispensable as Abel, and Ishmael as Isaac. For the grace which makes an elect man of the first can be seen only from the second, because the first, the elect, must see in the second, the non-elect, as in a mirror, that from which he was taken, and who and what the God is who has delivered him from it. It is only as one who properly belongs to that place that God has transferred him from it.¹¹

The complimentary dynamics of banishment/election and exile from the deity/drawing near to God’s presence recall the foundational spatial dynamics of the Yom Kippur ritual with its inverse processions of the two goats. As one remembers, during this rite one cultic animal was banished into the wilderness, while the blood of the other goat was brought into the Holy of Holies.¹²

Already in the account of the first brotherly pair found in the Hebrew Bible—the story of Cain and Abel—the reader encounters the dynamics of banishment/election and exile from the deity/drawing close to him. Moreover, in some scholars’ opinion, some other features of the atoning ritual appear to be implicitly hinted at in the narrative about this first brotherly pair.

Let us reflect on some peculiar traits of the story—the features that might have drawn attention of later interpreters in their attempts to connect the story with the cultic settings of the Yom Kippur rite.

The first significant detail here is that, like the ritual of the two goats, the episode in the Genesis account of Cain and Abel begins with selection. In both cases the choice is a binary one between two very similar creatures.¹³

The figure who is making the choice is also important. In the story of the first brotherly pair, as well as in the atoning rite, it is the deity who makes the choice. While Mishnah Yoma depicts the high priest casting lots in the selection ritual between the two goats, the ultimate choice is, of course, not made by this cultic servant, but by God himself. As Jacob Milgrom rightly observes, “the purpose of the lots is clearly to leave the selection of the animals to the Lord.”¹⁴ In the story of Cain and Abel the choice is also made by God.

The second important feature is that, already in the beginning of the biblical story, the two brothers are associated with different sacrificial offerings that are both strikingly emblematic. These different gifts, one of which involves the animal’s slaughtering, might anticipate the brothers’ destinies as respective eschatological “goats.” We further learn from the biblical story that one of these offerings is accepted by God, while the other is rejected. It might allude to the nature of the two goats as two distinctive offerings¹⁵—one of which was predestined “for the Lord,” and the other “for Azazel.”¹⁶

Finally, the third important detail is the respective final destinies of the two brothers: one is killed, while the other is banished. It mirrors the peculiar cultic functions that are outlined for the two animals in the course of the atoning ritual, wherein one goat procures atoning purposes by its slaughter, and the other achieves its purposes through its banishment into the wilderness.

Now we should draw our attention to an in-depth analysis of the depictions of the respective brothers. First, in the eyes of later Jewish and Christian interpreters, Abel is, by the fact of his death, representative of the immolated goat in the atoning rite. One of the intriguing features of the Genesis story is the motif of Abel’s blood—the crucial substance that, according to the biblical narrative, provoked such a harsh response from the deity. Thus, from Gen. 4:10-11, one learns the following:

And the Lord said, "What have you done? Listen; your brother’s blood is crying out to me from the ground! And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand." (NRSV).

If Abel is indeed, as suggested by some interpreters, representative of the goat for YHWH in this story, the reference to his blood is noteworthy. As one remembers, the blood of the immolated goat played a very important role in the Yom Kippur ceremony: in the course of the ritual, it was brought in by the high priest into the very presence of the deity in the Holy of Holies. In this respect, the deity’s statement found in Gen 4:10 that Abel’s blood “crying out” to him is intriguing. Such a statement might hint to the cultic importance of the blood as a substance that somehow attracts the deity’s attention. Does the story understand the death of Abel as having atoning significance? If so, it is noteworthy that later rabbinic tradition compares the death of the righteous with the atonement obtained on Yom Kippur. Thus, from Leviticus Rabbah 20:12 one learns that “… just as Yom Kippur atones, so does the death of the righteous….”¹⁷ Abel was often included in early Jewish and Christian lists of righteous martyrs. In this respect, it is also becomes significant that some later rabbinic testimonies, including Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Gen 37:31 and Genesis Rabbah 84:31, strive to compare the blood of the male goat to human blood.¹⁸

The motif of Abel’s blood on the ground is also noteworthy. It might again hint at Abel’s role as a cultic animal because it evokes a plethora of familiar motifs, including Deut 15:23 which commands that the blood of animal should not be eaten, but instead is to be poured upon the earth like water.¹⁹

We now direct our attention to Cain’s character and his possible cultic role as the scapegoat. Interpreters have previously noticed some similarities between Cain and the go-away goat. One of the important features here is that Cain does not go into the wilderness by himself. Rather, he is directed there, as in the atoning ritual, at the deity’s command. Therefore, it is possible that the patriarchal story presupposes some atoning or purifying purposes for his exile.²⁰

It is therefore possible that Cain is envisioned in this biblical story as the bearer, or even as the remover, of sin(s). Later Jewish exegetes often hint at such a possibility. As one remembers, in Gen 4:13 Cain exclaims to God: "My punishment is greater than I can bear!” The rabbinic interpreters often read this phrase as a reference to Cain’s function as the bearer of sin(s). Thus, both the Palestinian and Babylonian targumic renderings of Cain’s story contain formulae that suggest connections with the motif of bearing sin. In this regard, it is noteworthy that Targum Onqelos to Gen 4:13 changes “punishment” to “sin,” and introduces the motifs of repentance and forgiveness,²¹ offering the following interpretation: “Then said Cain before the Lord, ‘My sin is too great to be forgiven?’”²² The themes of repentance/forgiveness are also found in the Palestinian targumic tradition, including Targum Neofiti to Gen 4:13 and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan to Gen 4:13.²³ The motif of repentance is important for our study, since it might betray sacerdotal overtones that are reminiscent of various Yom Kippur practices. Leviticus Rabbah 10 appears to bring even more forceful cultic connotations to the motif of Cain’s repentance:

R. Judah and R. Joshua b. Levi expressed differing views. R. Judah said: Repentance effects half [atonement], but prayer effects a complete [atonement]. R. Joshua b. Levi said: Repentance effects a whole, but prayer only a half. Whence is derived the view of R. Judah b. Rabbi that repentance effects only half? From the case of Cain, against whom a decree was pronounced. When he repented, half of the decree was withheld.

In the Babylonian Talmud and Midrash Rabbah the theme of Cain’s sin is further elaborated.²⁴ As b. Sanh. 101b reads:

Our Rabbis taught: Three came with a circuitous plea … Cain, Esau and Manasseh. Cain — for it is written, [And Cain said unto the Lord.] is my sin too great to be forgiven? He pleaded thus before Him: “Sovereign of the Universe! Is my sin greater than that of the six hundred thousand [Israelites] who are destined to sin before Thee, yet wilt Thou pardon them!”²⁵

Finally, Genesis Rabbah 22:11 brings another portentous link by connecting the sin of Cain with the transgression of Adam:

And Cain said unto the Lord: My sin is too great to bear. Thou bearest the heavenly and the earthly, yet Thou canst not bear my transgression! [Another interpretation]: My sin is greater than my father’s. My father violated a light precept and was expelled from the Garden of Eden; this is a grave crime, to wit, murder; how much greater then is my sin!²⁶

This motif of the removal of sin, which now pertains to—and even supersedes—Adam’s original transgression, appears to also be assumed in the atoning program of the Yom Kippur ritual. There the high priest’s entrance into the Holy of Holies was often envisioned, by later interpreters, as a return to the protoplast’s prelapsarian condition.²⁷

Another important feature that appears to connect Cain’s story with the atoning rite is the fact that he was cursed before his journey into an inhabitable realm. From Gen 4:10-11 one learns the following tradition of cursing: “And the Lord said, ‘What have you done? Listen; your brother’s blood is crying out to me from the ground! And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand.’”²⁸ Cursing Cain is noteworthy, since it is reminiscent of the symbolism of ritual curses that were placed on the go-away goat immediately before its exile into the inhabitable realm. From the description of the atoning ritual found in Mishnah Yoma, we learn about the ritual curses imposed on the go-away goat before its banishment into the wilderness. Thus, m. Yoma 6:4 relates the following:

And they made a causeway for it because of the Babylonians who used to pull its hair, crying to it, “Bear [our sins] and be gone! Bear [our sins] and be gone!”²⁹

Although the cursing of the scapegoat is not openly mentioned in the biblical version of the ritual, it might have its antecedent in Lev 16:21, which depicts the imposition of sins on the head of the scapegoat before his departure into the wilderness: “… and Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins; and he shall put them upon the head of the goat, and send him away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who is in readiness.” The Apocalypse of Abraham further develops the theme of the scapegoat’s curses by depicting the heavenly high priest, Yahoel, imposing rebukes onto the fallen angel, Azazel. In light of these connections, it is noteworthy that both Cain and the scapegoat then appear to be envisioned as accursed creatures.

Another important feature of Cain’s story is a reference to a mark imposed on him by the deity.³⁰ Later rabbinic testimonies often interpret Cain’s mark as an endowment of the antagonist with the divine Name. The possibility of such an interpretation appears to be present in Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer 21, where the following passage can be found:

… further, Cain said before the Holy One, blessed be He: Now will a certain righteous one arise on the earth and mention Thy great Name against me and slay me. What did the Holy One, blessed be He, do? He took one letter from the twenty-two letters, and put (it) upon Cain’s arm that he should not be killed, as it is said, And the Lord appointed a sign for Cain….³¹

This passage appears to suggest the practice of the imposition of the divine Name on Cain, since the text mentions both the motif of the divine Name, along with the theme of putting a letter on the antagonist. Although the conventional rendering of the divine Name was routinely executed by four Hebrew consonants, in rabbinic literature we find various abbreviations of the Tetragrammaton. Oftentimes the abbreviation is rendered by only one letter of the Hebrew alphabet.

In Targum Pseudo-Jonathan the motif of endowment is even more evident, as this text interprets the mark of Cain as the divine Name placed on him. Thus, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan to Gen 4:15 reads: "Then the Lord traced on Cain’s face a letter of the great and glorious Name, so that anyone who would find him, upon seeing it on him, would not kill him."³²

It is intriguing that Pseudo-Jonathan is the same targum that relates a similar imposition of the divine Name on the scapegoat. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan to Lev 16:21 reads:

Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, in this fashion: his right hand upon his left. He shall confess over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel and all their rebellions, whatever their sins; he shall put them on the head of the goat with a declared and explicit oath by the great and glorious Name….³³

Here, during the rite of the hand-laying, the high priest was not only obliged to transfer to the scapegoat the iniquities of the children of Israel, but also to seal the head of the cultic animal with a great oath containing the divine Name. This placement of the divine Name both on Cain and the scapegoat is noteworthy, since in various apocalyptic scapegoat traditions the imposition of the cultic curses was often linked to endowment with the divine Name.³⁴

The peculiar destination of Cain’s exile is also noteworthy. From Gen. 4:16 one learns that “Cain went away from the presence of the Lord, and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden.” The destination of Cain’s exile “away from the divine presence … in the land of Nod” is reminiscent of the antagonistic movement of the go-away goat. As one remembers, in the course of the ritual the two goats went in opposite directions: while the blood of the immolated goat was brought into God’s very presence in the Holy of Holies, the scapegoat was heading away from the divine presence, carrying the people’s sins outside the realm of human habitation. In this respect, it is significant that, in some Jewish traditions, while Eden was often understood as the Holy of Holies, the land of Nod came to be understood as opposed to the paradisal location.³⁵ Moreover, the land of Nod was also often envisioned, by later interpreters, as the wilderness.³⁶

Isaac and Ishmael

In later Jewish, Christian, and Muslim interpretations, the story of Abraham and his two sons often receives sacerdotal significance, as it is often tied to various Jewish festivals, including the Yom Kippur ordinance. Thus, later rabbinic traditions often envision Abraham’s sacrificial attempt on Mount Moriah as an episode that pertains to the atoning rite. These traditions often represent the patriarch as a priestly figure, performing familiar cultic actions.³⁷ Thus, both Genesis Rabbah 55:7³⁸ and Pesikta Rabbati³⁹ recount that God himself affirmed Abraham’s priestly status during the binding of Isaac. In Genesis Rabbah this is recounted directly, and in Pesikta Rabbati it is depicted through the promise. Moreover, in these traditions Abraham was often envisioned not just as an ordinary priest, but as the high priest celebrating the Yom Kippur rites in their distinctive geographical locale, where the Holy of Holies would be erected in the future. This later cultic perspective provides us with some important conceptual lenses through which we might look at another brotherly dyad in Genesis: Ishmael and Isaac. These two can also be understood as agents exemplifying the goats of the Yom Kippur rite. In such a sacerdotal perspective, Abraham can be envisioned not simply as a family man, managing domestic conflicts, but as the high priestly figure who performs familiar cultic actions by dispatching one “goat” (Ishmael) into the wilderness and preparing another “goat” (Isaac) as a sacrificial goat for YHWH. Daniel Stökl Ben Ezra suggested that Pirke Rabbi Eliezer 31 connects the Aqedah with Yom Kippur by placing Isaac’s binding at the Holy of Holies itself.⁴⁰ It offers the following striking interpretation of the familiar scene:

Rabbi Jehudah said: When the blade touched his neck, the soul of Isaac fled and departed, (but) when he heard His voice from between the two Cherubim, saying (to Abraham), "Lay not thine hand upon the lad" (Gen. xxii. 12), his soul returned to his body, and (Abraham) set him free, and Isaac stood upon his feet. And Isaac knew that in this manner the dead in the future will be quickened. He opened (his mouth), and said : Blessed art thou, O Lord, who quickeneth the dead.⁴¹

The connection with Yom Kippur, however, is not entirely explicit in this passage. Yet, Stökl Ben Ezra noted that such a link may be deduced since “Abraham is likened to the high priest and the heavenly voice comes from between the two Cherubim (on the ark of the covenant), i.e. in the holy of holies.”⁴²

The question, however, remains: which particular features of the original biblical story provoked later cultic allusions and helped Jewish interpreters to shepherd the story of the brotherly pair into the confines of the atoning ritual?

Mary Douglas’s research draws attention to one such important feature of Ishmael’s biblical story, namely, his exile into the wilderness. This exile, in her opinion, is reminiscent of the scapegoat’s banishment into the desert. Here again the destinies and progressions of the respective brothers are closely tied to the theme of election—a crucial choice made in our narrative by the deity even before the birth of the protagonists.⁴³ In this respect, Douglas notes that

the two goats on the Day of Atonement stand for the two pairs of brothers; in each pair only one becomes a patriarch of Israel. Isaac was chosen before he was born, it was no merit on his part that earned him God’s choice, and no lack of merit caused the unborn Ishmael to be sent away. … The strong parallel confirms that the wilderness in the rite of the Day of Atonement means precisely what is said, a place outside the habitations of Israel.⁴⁴

Douglas’s reflection helps underline the significance of the sacred geography both in patriarchal story and in the ritual. In both of these, the animal and human “scapegoats” are forced into exile in those places that are beyond the sacred oikoumene, the places surrounded by wilderness. This connection between Ishmael’s exile and the banishment of the scapegoat might already be hinted at in the biblical narrative. Douglas notices distinct terminological similarities between the formulae used in the Genesis description where Hagar and Ishmael are sent into the wilderness⁴⁵ and the account of the scapegoat’s dispatch found in the Book of Leviticus.⁴⁶ In relation to these parallels, Douglas notes that, “after Isaac was born, Sarah wants to get rid of Ishmael lest he prejudice the rights of her son. Abraham does not want to cast him out, but the Lord promises to look after the mother and child. Accordingly Abraham ‘sent her away’ to the wilderness, the same word as that in Leviticus for ‘sending away’ (xl#) and the same place as the scapegoat went to.”⁴⁷

Jacob and Esau

As we have already learned from our study of the brotherly dyads found in Genesis, scholars often attempt to connect the motif of election of biblical siblings with the selection of the cultic animals at Yom Kippur. In a manner similar to Karl Barth, Mary Douglas sees the motif of election as one of the most crucial links that connects the stories of the brotherly pairs with the two goats’ ritual, wherein one animal was selected for the Lord and the other for Azazel. She argues that, in the Book of Genesis, “the theme of conspicuously uneven destinies occurs prominently. Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau, of two brothers one is chosen and the other is not.”⁴⁸ The mystery of election is paradoxically highlighted by a role reversal, as the expected recipient of the blessing, the elder son, is rejected, and the younger sibling somewhat unexpectedly receives the blessing. In this respect, Douglas further notes that:

the Leviticus rite of atonement points to the central theological theme of the Pentateuch, a chosen people and the contrast with the people who have not been chosen. The Genesis stories are about the eldest sons, for example, Ishmael and Esau, being superseded. Their respective younger brother, Isaac and Jacob, destined before birth to the disciplines of the Covenant, would parallel the goat on which the lot of the Lord fell. Ishmael and Esau would parallel the bird and the goat not chosen, set free in a remote uncultivated land.⁴⁹

This theme of election would eventually become a very important motif in a later eschatological reinterpretation of the Yom Kippur ritual found in the Apocalypse of Abraham. In this text, the celestial scapegoat will be associated with the lot of Azazel and the patriarch with the lot of the deity.

As has been already noticed in the course of our investigation, the biblical accounts of the two siblings repeatedly portray one of the brothers as being forced into exile from the divine presence, while the other sibling is drawn into the center of the sacred geographical realm. Gershon Hepner draws his attention to the similar spatial dynamics taking place in the biblical story of Jacob and Esau, where the peculiar destinations of both brothers are overlaid with some conspicuous allusions to the atoning rite. One of the important locales involves the conceptual developments found in Gen 33. Thus, Herper notices that when Jacob and Esau are separated in Genesis 33, Esau is there depicted as leaving Canaan forever, heading to Seir: “So Esau returned that day on his way to Seir (hry(#).”⁵⁰ Hepner suggests that the mysterious place of Esau’s permanent departure from Canaan “echoes the ry(#, goat, that is dedicated to Azazel, the scapegoat.”⁵¹ While one brother, like the proverbial scapegoat, departs from the sacred geographical habitat, the other, like the immolated goat, is drawn into this locale. In this respect, Hepner notes that, in contrast to Esau, who is leaving the Holy Land, Jacob returns to Canaan. Gen 33:17-18 reports the following:

But Jacob journeyed to Succoth, and built himself a house, and made booths for his cattle; therefore the place is called Succoth. Jacob came safely to the city of Shechem, which is in the land of Canaan, on his way from Paddan-aram; and he camped before the city. (NRSV).

Hepner argues that the two movements, as in the atoning rite, are interrelated, and Esau’s exile to Seir allows Jacob to enter into the sacred realm. He argues that “unlike Esau, he [Jacob] escapes the role of scapegoat. Jacob receives expiation when Esau departs to Seir, because his journey to Succoth, narratively foreshadows the expiation obtained by Israelites on Yom Kippur (Lev. 23:26-33).”⁵² Hepner sees in the stories of Jacob and Esau the reenactment of the atoning rite. He does so by arguing that

the partial reconciliation between Jacob and Esau echoing the reconciliation between God and the Israelites after the ry(#, he-goat, designated to Azazel has been sent out to the wilderness in a ritual that occurs five days before the festival of Succoth – “Booths” (23:33-34). The fact that he returns to the place from which he was expelled implies that he follows the ostracism paradigm rather than that of the scapegoat….⁵³

The similarities between the biblical features of Esau’s story and the details of the scapegoat ritual might not be limited solely to the theme of the final destination of Jacob’s brother. John Dunnill draws his attention to the red color of Esau, seeing in that attribute a possible connection with the red color of the scapegoat’s band.⁵⁴ He also brings his attention to another brotherly pair in the Genesis narrative: Zerah and Perez, where the color symbolism of the red band also appears to suggest a connection with the scapegoat imagery.⁵⁵ He notes that

the story of the birth of Zerah and Perez, sons of Judah and Tamar, has similarities to that of Esau and Jacob – Perez like Jacob supplanting his elder brother in the womb itself—with the curious addition that when Zerah puts out his hand from the womb the midwife ties round it a scarlet thread (Gen. 38:28), such a scarlet threat (κόκκινος) as was to be used in the leper-cleansing and the red-heifer rite (Lev. 14:4, Numb. 19:6), and which, according to Mishnah Yoma 4.2,20 was to be tied around the head of the scapegoat (and around the throat of the other goat) on the Day of Atonement; it was also what Rahab tied in her window (Josh. 2:18).⁵⁶

Dunnill further suggests that “the significance of this blood-symbol attached to extremities is not the rejection of the bearer, however, but the setting-apart by God of this particular liminal object or figure as the means for the reaffirming of the covenant: as such it may entail divine protection.”⁵⁷ Indeed, as in the aforementioned story of Cain where the endowment with the role of the human scapegoat grants the antagonist the special protected status, in other biblical scapegoat stories we can see similar connections.

Our study so far has been drawing on the insights of a relatively small group of modern scholars who attempted to uncover a set of illusive connections between the brotherly pairs of Genesis and the goats of the atoning rite. Yet, by leaning on the arguments of Barth, Douglas, Hepner, and Dunnill, we should not assume that these conceptual links were only recognized in the modern exegetical enterprise. Already in pre-modern exegesis such correspondences between the siblings’ narratives and the ritual became a prominent line of interpretation. In rabbinic literature, the story of Jacob and Esau has been repeatedly placed in the context of the Yom Kippur rite and interpreted through the two goats’ imagery. One of these instances can be found in chapter 65 of Genesis Rabbah, a text that relays the following tradition:

And Jacob said to Rebekah his mother: Behold, Esau my brother is a hairy man – ish sa ^cir (XXVII, 11): he is demonic, as in the verse, And satyrs (se ^cirim) shall dance there (Isa. XIII, 21). And I am a smooth man-halak as in the verse, For the portion (helek) of the Lord is His people (Deut. XXXII, 9). R. Levi and R. Isaac. R. Levi said: This may be illustrated by two men, one possessing a thick head of hair and the other bald-headed, who stood near a threshing-floor. When the chaff flew into the locks of the former, it became entangled in his hair; but when it flew on to the head of the bald man, he passed his hand over his head and removed it. Even so, the wicked Esau is polluted by sin throughout the year and has nought wherewith to procure forgiveness, whereas Jacob is defiled by sin throughout the year, but has the Day of Atonement wherewith to procure forgiveness. R. Isaac observed: This interpretation is farfetched [but the same idea may be deduced from this verse]: And the goat (sa ^cir) shall bear upon him (Lev. XVI, 22) — this alludes to Esau, as it says, Behold, Esau my brother is a man a sa ^cir. All their iniquities unto a land which is cut off (Lev. 16:22).

Reflecting on this passage David Halperin notes that “this midrash carries us, if the attributions to Rabbi Levi and Rabbi Isaac are to be trusted back to Palestine at the end of the third century. Both these Amoraim … make a connection between Yom Kippur and the conflict between Jacob and Esau."⁵⁸ Halperin further argues that "Rabbi Isaac understands one of the goats, the ‘goat for Azazel,’ as a representation of Esau himself."⁵⁹ Moreover, it appears that the aforementioned passage from Gen. Rab. 65:15 operates with the imagery of not one, but two sacerdotal agents. Halperin therefore suggests that the implicit affirmation of Jacob as the immolated goat might also be present in this passage, as well. He offers the following hypothesis:

Does he take the other goat, the "goat for the Lord," as a parallel representation of Jacob? He does not say so explicitly. But this seems a plausible understanding of Rabbi Isaac’s words, for two reasons. First, the anonymous midrash at the beginning of the passage seems to point in this direction. The words se ^cir and halaq are understood to refer, not to the physical characteristics of Esau and Jacob-as in Rabbi Levi’s parable-but to their being a "demon-man" and the Lord’s portion, respectively. This seems to run parallel to the casting of the lots on the two goats, in Leviticus 16:8: one for the Lord, one for Azazel. If we will allow ourselves to interpret Rabbi Isaac’s midrash in accord with the anonymous preface, we can hardly avoid the conclusion that just as Esau corresponds to Azazel’s goat, so Jacob corresponds to the Lord’s.⁶⁰

Halperin notes that “by equating Azazel’s goat with Esau (and presumably the Lord’s goat with Jacob), Rabbi Isaac finds a meaning in the scapegoat ritual that goes beyond its statutory obligation.”⁶¹ He further argues that the ritual itself represents “a metaphysical commentary on the relation between Jacob and Esau, and therefore presumably between the two peoples who derive from them.”⁶² Halperin concludes his argument by observing that “Rabbi Isaac makes no attempt to explicate the details of the ritual on the basis of this premise; but, obviously, has opened the possibility of doing so.”⁶³

In his short study, Halperin offers a set of illuminating remarks on the broader biblical context of Esau and Jacob’s story by noting some suggestive allusions to the two goats’ imagery. One of these allusions is the twinship of the two brothers, which is, in Halperin’s opinion, reminiscent of the twinship of the two goats of the atoning rite.⁶⁴

It appears that the sacerdotal reinterpretation of the story of Jacob and Esau was a quite prominent line of interpretation in the midrashic literature. Thus, another testimony found in Leviticus Rabbah 21:11 again strives to overlay the story of the two brothers with distinctive cultic allusions. It offers the following interpretation:

A goat was brought in order to recall the merit of Jacob; as it is written, And fetch me from thence two good kids of the goats (ib. XXVII, 9). They are ’good’, explained R. Berekiah in the name of R. Levi, for yourself, and they are ‘good’ for your descendants. They are good for yourself, for by their means you will receive the blessings, and they are good for your descendants, for by their means atonement will be made for them on the Day of Atonement, as is proved by the text, For on this day shall atonement be made for you (Lev. XVI, 30). I now know that allusion was made to the merit of the Patriarchs.⁶⁵

In this rabbinic testimony, the reader again encounters peculiar animal imagery. It refers to Jacob’s account found in Gen 27:9, where Rebecca tells her son to bring out two young animals in order to prepare a savory meal for Isaac. Yet, the rabbinic passage appears to connect these “two kids of the goats” with the cultic animals of Lev 16. Commenting on this passage, Halperin argues that here the two goats of Yom Kippur, the one “for the Lord” and the one “for Azazel,” are linked to the two goats that Jacob used in order to take for himself Esau’s blessing.⁶⁶

Halperin also brings his attention to another rabbinic passage found in the additional chapters of Seder Eliyyahu Zuta, additions, which were “made to that text at an unknown date from an equally unknown source.”⁶⁷ In this passage it appears that Esau is portrayed as the go-away goat, bearing the iniquities of Jacob-Israel. Seder Eliyyahu Zuta 19 reads:

But when Esau spoke up to the Holy One, saying, "Master of the universe, is my strength such that I can bear all of Jacob’s iniquities that You load upon me?" The Holy One took all of Jacob’s sins and put them on His own garments, so that their crimson became an intense scarlet. He will wash the garments, however, until they are made white as snow, as is said, His raiment was as white snow (Dan. 7:9). All the foregoing discourse was initiated by the question Who is this that cometh from Edom? (Isa. 63:1).⁶⁸

In this passage, one can find additional markers that are likewise noticeable in the scapegoat ordinance—most prominently, the reference to the crimson color of the scapegoat’s band. The passage also seems to understand this scarlet band as the attire of human transgressions, purged during the atoning rite. Halperin sees this cultic interpretation as dependent on the previously mentioned statement of R. Isaac from Gen. Rab. 65:15. He argues that:

it is entirely obvious that the author of our midrash has made use of Rabbi Isaac’s midrash, in Gen. Rab. 65:15. It is also clear that he has effected a stunning reversal of the message of his source. Rabbi Isaac’s midrash had made Esau, in his role as "goat for Azazel," the permanent repository of "honest" Jacob’s sins. Our midrash indeed goes this far, with Rabbi Isaac. But he takes the additional step-wholly unprecedented, in the aggadic tradition on the scapegoat ritual–of having God yield to Esau’s pleas, and relieve him of his burden of sin. God then takes that burden upon Himself; or, strictly speaking, upon His clothing.⁶⁹

Later Jewish testimonies reflected in a prominent Jewish mystical compendium, known to us as the Book of Zohar, also attempt to connect Jacob and Esau with the two goats of the atoning rite. There one can find familiar interpretive lines, prominent also in Midrash Rabbah, including a reflection on Esau’s designation as a hairy man – r(# #y).⁷⁰ Thus, at Zohar I.65a the following passage can be found:

Consider this. At every New Moon the “End of all flesh” is given a portion over and above that of the daily offering, so as to divert his attention from Israel, who are thus left entirely to themselves and in full freedom to commune with their King. This extra portion comes from the he-goat (sa ^cir), being the portion of Esau, who is also called sa ^cir, as it is written, “Behold Esau my brother is a hairy (sa ^cir) man” (Gen. XXVII, 11). Esau thus has his portion and Israel their portion. Hence it is written, “For the Lord hath chosen Jacob unto himself, and Israel for his own treasure” (Ps. CXXXV, 4). Consider this point. The whole desire of this “End of all flesh” is for flesh only, and the tendency of flesh is ever towards him; it is for this reason that he is called “End of all flesh”. Such power, however, as he does obtain is only over the body and not over the soul. The soul ascends to her place, and the body is given over to its place, in the same way as in an offering the devotion of him who offers ascends to one place, and the flesh to another. Hence the righteous man is, of a truth, himself an offering of atonement. But he who is not righteous is disqualified as an offering, for the reason that he suffers from a blemish, and is therefore like the defective animals of which it is written, “they shall not be accepted for you” (Lev. XXII, 25). Hence it is that the righteous are an atonement and a sacrifice for the world.⁷¹

The Zoharic passage adds some new conceptual dimensions to patterns that are already familiar. Thus, similar to the mishnaic descriptions of Yom Kippur, this passage mentions that two lots or portions are variously assigned: one to Esau and the other to Jacob. Esau is associated with the portion given to the Other Side, in order to pacify it, which is how the scapegoat ritual is understood in this mystical compendium. Association of the human scapegoat with the portion given to the Other Side is especially noteworthy, since it becomes an emblematic feature of the Zoharic understanding of the scapegoat ordinance as a distraction for the demonic side during the Yom Kippur festival.

In another speculation found in Zohar 1.138a-b, Esau is directly named as the scapegoat and becomes understood as an agent of the Adversary:

Observe that Jacob knew that Esau was destined to ally himself to that tortuous serpent, and hence in all his dealings with him he conducted himself like another tortuous serpent, using all cunning devices; and so it was meet. The same idea was expressed by R. Simeon when, in expounding the verse, “And God created the great fishes, and every living creature that creepeth” (Gen. I, 21), he said: ‘The “great fishes” are symbolic of Jacob and Esau, and “every living creature that creepeth” symbolizes all the intermediate grades.’ Verily Jacob was endowed with cunning to enable him to hold his own with that other serpent; and so it was meet. For the same reason every New Moon a goat is to be offered up so as to draw the serpent to his own place and thus keep him away from the moon. The same applies to the Day of Atonement, when a goat is to be offered. All this is cunningly devised in order to gain dominion over him, and make him impotent to do mischief. So Scripture says: “And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities into a land which is cut off” (Lev. XVI, 22), where the goat (sa ^cir = Seir), as already explained, symbolizes Esau.⁷²

In this passage, as in the narrative found in Zohar I.65a, the scapegoat ritual is also understood to play a role in the deception of the Other Side; it is devised in order to distract the negative forces’ attention during the yearly atoning rite.⁷³ The popular biblical tricks of Jacob against Esau therefore receive a new sacerdotal meaning here: they are understood as the deceptive tools Israel uses against the powers of the Other Side, which are represented by Esau.⁷⁴

Joseph

From our previous investigation, we learned that, in the rabbinic materials, some stories concerning biblical siblings became the focus of intense cultic reinterpretations as they were connected with Yom Kippur imagery. Yet, compared to the aforementioned biblical accounts of brotherly pairs that received their sacerdotal reinterpretation only in the later rabbinic materials, the story of Joseph was already placed in the context of the atoning rite in the Second Temple period. It has been previously noted by scholars that chapter 34 of the Book of Jubilees envisions the establishment of Yom Kippur as a punishment for Jacob’s sons’ actions against Joseph, the very actions that caused their father so much suffering. Jubilees 34:12-19 narrates the following tradition:

Jacob’s sons slaughtered a he-goat, stained Joseph’s clothing by dipping it in its blood, and sent (it) to their father Jacob on the tenth of the seventh month. He mourned all that night because they had brought it to him in the evening. He became feverish through mourning his death and said that a wild animal had eaten Joseph. That day all the people of his household mourned with him. They continued to be distressed and to mourn with him all that day. His sons and daughter set about consoling him, but he was inconsolable for his son. That day Bilhah heard that Joseph had perished. While she was mourning for him, she died. She had been living in Qafratefa. His daughter Dinah, too, died after Joseph had perished. These three (reasons for) mourning came to Israel in one month. They buried Bilhah opposite Rachel’s grave, and they buried his daughter Dinah there as well. He continued mourning Joseph for one year and was not comforted but said: “May I go down to the grave mourning for my son.” For this reason, it has been ordained regarding the Israelites that they should be distressed on the tenth of the seventh month — on the day when (the news) which made (him) lament Joseph reached his father Jacob — in order to make atonement for themselves on it with a kid — on the tenth of the seventh month, once a year — for their sins. For they had saddened their father’s (feelings of) affection for his son Joseph. This day has been ordained so that they may be saddened on it for their sins, all their transgressions, and all their errors; so that they may purify themselves on this day once a year.⁷⁵

Daniel Stökl Ben Ezra suggests that, while this passage from Jubilees does not directly mention Yom Kippur, "the date identifies the festival beyond doubt."⁷⁶ Other peculiar features of Jubilees’ account also point to the atoning rite. But the main question, as in the other accounts, remains: what features of the original biblical narrative provoke such cultic interpretation?

Scholars have reflected on several peculiar motifs in Genesis 37 that might have inspired the author of Jubilees to connect the Joseph story with the atoning rite. In this regard, Anke Dorman attempts to summarize previous scholarly hypotheses concerning the possible links between the Jubilees and the Genesis account. The first important feature is Jacob’s grief over his beloved son, a motif already found in Gen 37.⁷⁷ Dorman suggests that “this element of mourning seems to be the most important aspect of the festival in Jubilees.”⁷⁸ While noting that the motif of mourning does not loom large in the description of the ritual found in Leviticus, Dorman suggests that the elaboration on mourning may have been reinforced by the somewhat ambiguous rulings in Leviticus and Numbers (Lev 16:29-31; 23:27-32; Num 29:7) that one has “to deny oneself.”⁷⁹

The second important feature of Joseph’s story that alludes to the Yom Kippur symbolism is “the fact that the brothers kill a goat and dip Joseph’s coat in its blood⁸⁰ in Gen 37:31.”⁸¹ James VanderKam has suggested that “the reference to a goat in Gen. 37:31 (Jub. 34:18) triggered the association of this event and Yom Kippur.”⁸² Here one can find a familiar interpretive strategy already known to us from our analysis of the cultic reinterpretation of the Jacob and Esau story where various biblical goats that were initially unrelated to the atoning rite became refashioned into the cultic animals of the Yom Kippur rite.⁸³

It should be noted that, while in the Genesis account the slaughtering of a goat is merely a part of the cover up wherein the animal’s blood is used to deceive Jacob, in Jubilees this event receives a portentous cultic significance, as it is now understood as a sacrifice to procure atonement.⁸⁴ Therefore, the slaughtering of the goat by the brothers was often seen by interpreters as a performance of the atoning ritual and even as the establishment of that rite. Thus, Calum Carmichael suggests that:

the author of Jubilees inserts this account of the origin of the Day of Atonement into his presentation of the story of Joseph in Genesis 37. He does so in such a way as to suggest that the offending brothers themselves had to institute the ritual. “They should make atonement for themselves with a young goat… on the tenth of the seventh month, once a year, for their sins; for they had grieved the affection of their father regarding Joseph his son” (Jub. xxxiv 18).⁸⁵

This ritual of the goat’s slaughtering and the subsequent manipulation with its blood recalls some allusions to cultic actions related to the immolated goat, a portentous sacerdotal agent that, according to biblical and mishnaic testimonies, has to be slaughtered on Yom Kippur in order that its blood might be applied to the adytum. In view of these connections, it is possible that staining the patriarch’s garment with the goat’s blood might hint at Joseph’s role as the immolated goat. Although in the biblical story Joseph is not slaughtered and his blood is not used for cultic purposes, his role as the goat for YHWH appears to be symbolically affirmed through the transference of the goat’s blood onto his attire.⁸⁶

Further, scholars also point to another important cultic connection: the parallelism between the offence and the subsequent act of purging the iniquity. Carmichael suggests that “the ritual slaughter of the goat serves both to recall the offense and to purge iniquity.”⁸⁷

Before we proceed to other cultic features of the Joseph story, one important observation must be made. Our previous analysis of the patriarchal stories involved the imagery of siblings assuming the roles of the two goats of the atoning rite. In Joseph’s story, however, there is no sibling that serves as the conceptual counterpart to the hero. Because of this, in Joseph’s story the reader encounters a novel strategy of cultic reinterpretation not found in the previous patriarchal narratives, namely the protagonist’s adoption of the functions of both goats of the atoning rite.

It is therefore possible that, along with assuming the symbolic role of the goat for YHWH, Joseph is understood as another cultic animal of the atoning rite – the scapegoat. As Dorman notes “the sending away of Joseph into a foreign land … reminds the reader of the sending away of the goat to Azazel.”⁸⁸ Mary Douglas also suggests that Joseph’s exile is reminiscent of the scapegoat’s banishment. She argues that “Joseph is a better parallel to the go-away goat…. the brothers got rid of him to Egypt, a land which was certainly very remote, though not inhospitable to him.”⁸⁹

There are also some other details of the patriarch’s biblical story that provide interpretive possibilities for Joseph’s role as the scapegoat; these features, unfortunately, do not often receive scholars’ attention. For example, another theme that seems to evoke an allusion to the scapegoat ritual is the fact that Joseph is placed in a pit.⁹⁰ Apocalyptic and rabbinic materials that describe the final moments of the atoning rite often mention the fact that the scapegoat is pushed from a mountainous cliff by its handlers. The antagonist’s descent into the pit receives its new eschatological reinterpretation in the Book of the Watchers, where the fallen angel, Asael, envisioned in the apocalypse as the eschatological scapegoat, is placed by his angelic handler into the subterranean abyss located in the desert.

Another important feature of the biblical story that alludes to the atoning rite is the event of Joseph’s disrobing by his brothers.⁹¹ It is well-known that the disrobing and re-robing rituals play a prominent role in the Yom Kippur ordinance, wherein the chief priestly celebrant of the rite, represented by the high priest, as well as his infamous counterpart, represented by the scapegoat, change their garments. More specifically, in mishnaic passages, a great deal is made about the handlers disrobing the scapegoat of its “garment,” which is represented by the crimson band. In such texts, there is a striking mirroring of the attributes of the sacerdotal animal with the high priest. Such mirroring might also be present in Joseph’s story, who is one of the most enigmatic and complex biblical characters, and was predestined to assume a plethora of sacerdotal roles. In this respect, it appears that the details of Joseph’s profile found in the biblical and extra-biblical accounts maintain allusions not only to the scapegoat and the goat for YHWH, but also to the chief sacerdotal celebrant of the Yom Kippur ritual—the high priest.⁹² This has led Dorman and other scholars to suggest that “Joseph’s coat could refer to the tunic of the high priest….”⁹³ It should be noted that interpreters often associate both the patriarch’s coat of many colors, as well as his coat dipped in blood, with the high priestly garments. This connection of the patriarch’s garments with the high priestly accoutrement is not a modern invention. Later rabbinic materials would link Joseph’s coat dipped in blood with the high priestly garment— the attire that enabled the procuring of atonement. Yet it should not be forgotten that, like the priestly celebrant of the atoning rite, the infamous scapegoat also had its own “garment” that served as the counterpart to the priestly vestment—the crimson band tied around its horns. Elsewhere, I have explored the striking parallelism between the garments of the high priest and the crimson band of the scapegoat. These vestments appear to be paradoxically reflecting each other through the metamorphoses of their colors, indicating the forgiveness of Israel’s transgression.⁹⁴ In light of the symbolism of the scapegoat’s crimson band, it is possible that Joseph’s coat dipped in blood might also allude to this cultic item that has the same color as the patriarch’s bloody garment. With reference to these connections, Joseph’s character, which attempts to bring together features and functions of several “actors” of the Yom Kippur rite, seems in itself to represent an important conceptual nexus that paradoxically underlines a striking parallelism with the attributes of these sacerdotal agents.

The sacerdotal reinterpretation of the Joseph story, as outlined in Jubilees, would not be forgotten by later Jewish interpreters who would also attempt to connect the story of Joseph with Yom Kippur imagery. Thus, for example, in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan to Leviticus 9:3, which deals with the motif of the offerings for Aaron’s ordination, the following tradition is found:

And you shall speak to the children of Israel, saying: “You also are to take a male goat and offer it as a sin offering, lest Satan who is comparable to it1 speak with a slanderous tongue against you over the affair of the male goat which the tribes of Jacob slaughtered in order to deceive their father; (Take) as a burnt offering a calf— because you worshiped the calf-—and a lamb, a year old, that the merit of Isaac, whose father tied him like a lamb, may be remembered on your behalf Both of them (shall be) without blemish.⁹⁵

Scholars have previously noted some allusions to the Yom Kippur symbolism that appear to be present in this passage.⁹⁶ For example, Daniel Stökl Ben Ezra observes that while Targum Pseudo-Jonathan to Leviticus 9:3 “is not directly linked to Yom Kippur, all of the traditions contained in this passage are sometimes associated with the Day of Atonement. First, the male goat is sacrificed to the lord of the evil powers, Satan, to keep him from accusing Israel in the heavenly court for the vending of Joseph. The vending of Joseph was connected with Yom Kippur in Jubilees, but it also appears in the Palestinian Talmud as a rationale for the atoning power of the high priest’s tunic.”⁹⁷ The second feature noticed by Stökl Ben Ezra is that “a calf is offered to atone for the sin of the golden calf. As noted above, Yom Kippur commemorates the second giving of the Torah on a day of repentance after the sin of the golden calf and the breaking of the first tablets.”⁹⁸ The final feature is that “a lamb is sacrificed to evoke God’s mercy by reminding him of the merits of the lamb-like Isaac…."⁹⁹

Ra^canan Boustan also argues for the presence of the Yom Kippur tradition in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan to Leviticus 9:3. He observes that

it is not surprising, then, that the Palestinian targumic tradition, which, like piyyut, belongs to the institutional sphere of the late antique synagogue, also attests to the vibrancy of this motif in late antique Jewish literature. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, in its expansive rendering of Lev 9:3, similarly likens the blood of the “goat” that Joseph’s brothers spread on Joseph’s garment to the sin offering sacrificed on Yom Kippur….¹⁰⁰

As we can see, many connections with the atoning rite that were already hinted at in the Jubilees’ account receive further elaboration in the targumic, mishnaic, and talmudic materials. One of the prominent lines here is the association of Joseph’s garment with the high priestly attire. Scholars often suggest that, in some rabbinic materials, Joseph’s story was used as "a rationale for the atoning power of the high priest’s tunic."¹⁰¹ One of these passages is found in the Jerusalem Talmud. Y. Yoma 7:5, 44b relates the following tradition:

Rebbi Simon said, just as sacrifices atone, so the garments atone, shirt, trousers, turban, and vest. The shirt was atoning for [wearers of kilaim. There are those who want to say,] for spillers of blood, as you are saying, they dipped the shirt in blood.¹⁰²

Here, the high priest’s accoutrement is tied to Joseph’s coat, which is destined to procure atonement. In the Babylonian Talmud, the speculation about the atoning powers of the high priestly garments is again linked to Joseph’s coat dipped in blood. Thus, b. Zevachim 88b reads:

R. ‘Inyani b. Sason also said: Why are the sections on sacrifices and the priestly vestments close together? To teach you: as sacrifices make atonement, so do the priestly vestments make atonement. The coat atones for bloodshed, for it is said, And they killed a he-goat, and dipped the coat in the blood."¹⁰³

A similar tradition that attempts to connect the high priestly vestments to Joseph’s clothes can be also found in Midrash Rabbah. There, however, it is not the patriarch’s bloody attires, but rather his multicolored coat, that becomes the center of cultic speculation. Thus, Leviticus Rabbah 10:6 states:

R. Simon said: Even as the sacrifices have an atoning power, so too have the [priestly] garments atoning power, as we have learnt in the Mishnah1: The High Priest officiated in eight garments, and an ordinary priest in four, namely in a tunic, breeches, a mitre, and a girdle. The High Priest wore, in addition, a breastplate, an ephod, a robe, and a head-plate; the tunic to atone for those who wear a mixture of wool and linen, as it is said, And he made him a coat [tunic] of many colours (Gen. XXXVII, 3).

It is clear that the sacerdotal reinterpretation attempting to weave Joseph’s story into the fabric of the atoning ritual enjoyed immense popularity in rabbinic materials, as it was even shepherded into the vast body of martyrological materials.

Ephraim Urbach, Ra^canan Boustan, and others, have demonstrated that Joseph’s story became appropriated in materials associated with the so-called Story of Ten Martyrs. These accounts of the martyrdom of ten prominent rabbis are “profoundly indebted to literary traditions and even liturgical practices that are associated with the Day of Atonement."¹⁰⁴

A passage found in Hekhalot Rabbati demonstrates that these Yom Kippur connections were not forgotten even in later mystical compendiums where the martyrological traditions are linked both with Joseph’s story and with the cultic realities of the Day of Atonement:

The law court on high wrote ten and gave (them) to Sammael, the prince of Rome, saying: Go and destroy every good piece, thigh and shoulder (Ezek 24:4) to complete the decree: and whoever steals a man, whether he sells him or is found in possession of him, shall be put to death (Exod 21:16); and vengeance was kept for him so as to take vengeance on him, until it arrives: YHWH will deal with the host of the height on high (Isa 24:21) so that he be slaughtered and hurled down along with all of the princes of his kingdom on high, like the young goats and lambs of the Day of Atonement.¹⁰⁵

Midrash Proverbs also recounts the martyrdom of ten prominent rabbis; it also envisions them as the expiation for the sin of selling Joseph:¹⁰⁶

R. Joshua ben Levi said: the ten martyrs were seized [and slain] just for the sin of selling Joseph. R. Abun said: you must conclude that ten [are martyred] in each and every generation – and still this sin remains unexpiated.¹⁰⁷

To conclude our investigation of Joseph’s tradition, we should again draw our attention to an important conceptual tendency found in these materials: in comparison with other previously explored brotherly pairs, Joseph’s story does not operate with a brotherly counterpart who would function as the other “goat.” Rather, a single patriarchal figure now represents a complex amalgam of features of both of the goats of Yom Kippur: the scapegoat and the immolated goat. The former is represented by virtue of his exile to Egypt and the latter is signified by his blood-dipped coat. This conflation of features of the two goats and its application to one person would come to play a prominent role in the application of the goats’ imagery to Jesus in early Christian materials.

The Angel of the Divine Name and Satan in the Book of Zechariah

Our previous investigation dealt mainly with the patriarchal stories found in the Book of Genesis. We explored how features of the brothers’ stories attested in this biblical book anticipated future Jewish interpretations that attempted to envision human agents as the goats of the atoning rite. The proclivities of the Jewish cult appear also to be present in some prophetic accounts found in the Hebrew Bible, including the Book of Zechariah. There, however, the eschatological interpretation of the goats imagery reaches another new conceptual level: the cultic animals become associated not merely with human subjects, but also with spiritual beings, both angelic and demonic. As will be demonstrated later in our study, this transition, which envisions the proverbial cultic animals as creatures of other realms, will come to play a prominent role in later apocalyptic reinterpretations of the Yom Kippur imagery found in the early Enochic materials and also in the Apocalypse of Abraham.

In Zech 3:1-10, the prophet receives a vision of the following eschatological scene:

Then he showed me the high priest Joshua standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him. And the Lord said to Satan, “The Lord rebuke you, O Satan! The Lord who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is not this man a brand plucked from the fire?” Now Joshua was dressed with filthy clothes as he stood before the angel. The angel said to those who were standing before him, “Take off his filthy clothes.” And to him he said, “See, I have taken your guilt away from you, and I will clothe you with festal apparel.” And I said, “Let them put a clean turban on his head.” So they put a clean turban on his head and clothed him with the apparel; and the angel of the Lord was standing by. Then the angel of the Lord assured Joshua, saying "Thus says the Lord of hosts: If you will walk in my ways and keep my requirements, then you shall rule my house and have charge of my courts, and I will give you the right of access among those who are standing here. Now listen, Joshua, high priest, you and your colleagues who sit before you! For they are an omen of things to come: I am going to bring my servant the Branch. For on the stone that I have set before Joshua, on a single stone with seven facets, I will engrave its inscription, says the Lord of hosts, and I will remove the guilt of this land in a single day. On that day, says the Lord of hosts, you shall invite each other to come under your vine and fig tree" (NRSV).

In comparison with the accounts previously explored, this narrative brings into interaction not only human, but also spiritual beings of the highest level, including the Angel of the Lord and Satan. These otherworldly creatures are acting together with the human protagonist within cultic settings. Moreover, the sacerdotal realities outlined in the text appear to be quite distinctive. As previous studies have suggested, the depiction demonstrates some marked connections with the Yom Kippur ritual.¹⁰⁸

The first important theme that is relevant to this study involves the high priestly garment, which is changed during the course of the story.¹⁰⁹ Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer notes that “the Torah legislates that the high priest should change garments on two occasions: at his inauguration and at the Day of Atonement.”¹¹⁰ She further argues that there is support for identifying the ceremony in Zech 3 with the Day of Atonement as it is described in Lev 16 rather than with the ceremony of inauguration, as it described in Exod 28-29 and Lev 9.¹¹¹ Concluding her analysis of Joshua’s investiture, Tiemeyer argues that “the cleansing of Joshua and his symbolic change of clothes (Zech 3:3-5) are … the vital preparations for celebration of the Day of Atonement and its resulting removal of sin from the land (3:9).”¹¹²

There is another important feature of the prophetic passage that relays possible connections to the accoutrement of the high priest. It involves an enigmatic reference to the engraved stone with seven facets found in Zech 3:9. It is noteworthy that this item is mentioned in the context of the removal of guilt from the land. In view of these features, several scholars have suggested a possible connection¹¹³ between the mysterious stone found in Zechariah’s passage and the high priest’s front-plate (Cyc) worn on his forehead during the Yom Kippur rituals.¹¹⁴ Several similarities between the symbolism of the front-plate and the enigmatic stone have been noted. One of them is that both the front plate¹¹⁵ and Zechariah’s stone are engraved.¹¹⁶

The second important feature is that both the Cyc and Zechariah’s stone are connected with the motif of the removal of guilt. As we remember from Zech 3, the stone is mentioned in the context of the removal of guilt from the land. Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer notes that, similar to Zechariah’s stone, the high priestly front plate was also “instrumental in removing the guilt,”¹¹⁷ according to Exod 28.¹¹⁸ This text informs us that the front plate “shall be upon Aaron’s forehead, and Aaron shall take upon himself any guilt incurred in the holy offering ….” Tiemeyer further notes that the link between the stone and the front plate “is strengthen[ed] by the additional connection between Pync in Zech 3:5 and the tpncm in Exod 28:37.”¹¹⁹

Another possible link with the Yom Kippur ritual includes the expression “I (God) will remove the guilt of this land in a single day (dx) Mwyb)” found in Zech 3:9. Scholars previously noted that this statement “is important for the understanding of the Sitz-im-Leben of Zech 3 as whole.”¹²⁰ Tiemeyer argues that “the expression dx) Mwyb = ‘in one day’ points to a ceremony which takes place in one day. Based on this definition, the only day known in the OT when God removes the sins of His people is the annual Day of Atonement.”¹²¹ She further suggests that “assuming that this feast was known to the people at the time of Zechariah, it seems likely that the original audience of this material associated dx) Mwyb with this festival.”¹²² Tiemeyer adds that “the Nw( in verse 9 is naturally connected with Joshua’s Nw( in v.4, pointing to a link between the removal of Joshua’s guilt and of that of the land.”¹²³ She also notes that “Joshua’s impurity represents his own guilt, something which must have rendered him unable to carry the guilt of the people on the Day of Atonement. Thus, Joshua’s cleansing prepares the way for the Day of Atonement and the cleansing of the land.”¹²⁴

As we can see, the prophetic account offers not just one, but several possible cultic allusions that point to the atoning rite. Daniel Stökl Ben Ezra concisely summarizes these important details that have previously been noted by a number of scholars. He suggests that

the protagonist is a high priest. He stands at a special place where only he, God, a defending angel and the accusing Satan are present. The right of access to this place is dependent on observance of certain regulations and a moral code. This evokes the holy of holies. The central act is a symbolic change of vestments. The soiled high priest’s vestments symbolize his sins. Exchanging these soiled clothes for clean ones signifies atonement. The "single day" of purification of the land evokes Yom Kippur and gives it an eschatological ring. The cultic scene alluded to could be the picture of a high priest who changes his linen vestments, which have become stained from sprinkling the blood on Yom Kippur.¹²⁵

His summative assessment is as follows: "regarding the number of corresponding elements, a connection to Yom Kippur is probable."¹²⁶

Indeed, the prophetic passage portrays several characters who hold familiar cultic roles, and it evokes attributes of the atoning rite: a human high priest who is re-clothed during the ceremony, a character bearing the divine Name, and an accursed antagonist.¹²⁷

While most scholarship has concentrated on the high priestly symbolism of the passage and the clothing metaphors that are associated with it, it appears that the narrative contains not only allusions to the high priestly figure, but also to the imagery of the goats. What first catches the eye is that, in a manner similar to the Yom Kippur goat ritual, the passage contains a familiar sacerdotal structure: the high priest, Joshua, finds himself in the company of a distinctive pair: a celestial being endowed with the divine name (Angel of YHWH) and an antagonistic creature that is accursed (Satan).¹²⁸ This peculiar constellation of the eschatological triad is reminiscent of the three main celebrants of the Yom Kippur ordinance: the high priest, the goat for YHWH, and the accursed scapegoat. The peculiar sacerdotal agents this time participate not in an earthly ritual, but an eschatological one.

Concluding this section of our study, we should note that if the imagery of the two goats is indeed present in Zechariah’s account, it represents a significant and novel step in the long and complex history of the two goats’ interpretation: here the proverbial cultic animals have become, for the first time, associated with spiritual beings. This conceptual turn will be crucial for angelological developments found in the Book of the Watchers, the Animal Apocalypse, and the Apocalypse of Abraham. In all of these texts, the symbolism of the scapegoat undergoes remarkable demonological reshaping.

Asael in the Book of the Watchers

In the Book of Zechariah, the angelological and demonological reinterpretation of the goats’ imagery was still clouded with some uncertainty. However, the conceptual trend that depicts the cultic animals as spiritual beings received a more distinctive embodiment in the early Enochic circle, as is reflected in the composition known to us as 1 (Ethiopic) Enoch.

One of the earliest Enochic booklets of this composition, the Book of the Watchers, reinterprets the scapegoat rite by incorporating certain details of the sacrificial ritual into the story of its main antagonist, the fallen angel Asael. 1 Enoch 10:4-7 constitutes an important nexus of this conceptual development, which describes Asael’s punishment:

And further the Lord said to Raphael: “Bind Azazel by his hands and his feet, and throw him into the darkness. And split open the desert which is in Dudael, and throw him there. And throw on him jagged and sharp stones, and cover him with darkness; and let him stay there forever, and cover his face, that he may not see light, and that on the great day of judgment he may be hurled into the fire. And restore the earth which the angels have ruined, and announce the restoration of the earth, for I shall restore the earth ….¹²⁹

As in the aforementioned prophetic account, the role of the scapegoat is taken on by the leader of the fallen angels, who also becomes the celestial adversary. Unlike Zechariah’s account, though, even the name of the antagonist brings to memory the atoning rite in this text. Other details of Asael’s punishment also evoke the scapegoat ritual. For example, just like the proverbial scapegoat, Asael’s punishment occurs in the desert. While many actions in biblical history occur in the wilderness, the place of Asael’s punishment is designated in 1 Enoch as Dudael. This is, no doubt, reminiscent of the terminology used for the designation of the ravine of the scapegoat (wdwdh / wrwdh tyb) in later rabbinic interpretations of the Yom Kippur ritual.¹³⁰ This tradition is reflected both in m. Yoma and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan.¹³¹

Atoning overtones that overshadow the story of the celestial rebel are also noteworthy. Thus, one of the significant outcomes of the fallen angel’s punishment is the healing or “restoration” of the earth—a motif that is also prominent in the scapegoat ordinance.¹³²

Another important detail that appears to pertain to the scapegoat rite is the antagonist’s placement into a pit situated in the wilderness. In 1 Enoch 10, the deity orders Raphael to open the pit in the desert and throw Asael into the darkness. The account further portrays the angelic scapegoat’s fall into the depths of the abyss.¹³³ This detail evokes the description of the scapegoat’s descent, which is found in rabbinic materials where, in the final moments of the atoning rite, the go-away goat is pushed off a mountainous cliff into the abyss. Thus, m. Yoma 6:6 offers the following portrayal of the violent descent of the cultic animal:

What did he do? He divided the thread of crimson wool and tied one half to the rock and the other half between its horns, and he pushed it from behind; and it went rolling down, and before it had reached half the way down the hill it was broken in pieces. He returned and sat down beneath the last booth until nightfall. And from what time does it render his garments unclean? After he has gone outside the wall of Jerusalem. R. Simeon says: From the moment that he pushes it into the ravine.¹³⁴

In the Talmudic account, the cliff from which the scapegoat falls is designated as the Zok (Heb. qwc).¹³⁵ An example is found in b. Yoma 67a:

What did he do? He divided the thread of crimson wool, and tied one half to the rock, the other half between its horns, and pushed it from behind. And it went rolling down and before it had reached half its way down hill it was dashed to pieces. He came back and sat down under the last booth until it grew dark. And from when on does it render his garments unclean? From the moment he has gone outside the wall of Jerusalem. R. Simeon says: from the moment he pushes it into the Zok.¹³⁶

Y. Yoma 6:3 also contains this tradition:

All during Simeon the Just’s lifetime he [the scapegoat] did not fall down half the mountain before he dissolved into limbs; after Simeon the Just’s death he fled to the desert and was eaten by the Saracens.¹³⁷

As shown above, both the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds make reference to high places as the animal’s final destination. Both accounts also portray its violent descent, culminating in the dramatic disintegration of the scapegoat’s body.

It is also important that 1 Enoch 10 narrates the detail that the antagonist is covered in darkness. As has been already noted in our study, the clothing metaphors are highly significant in the descriptions of Yom Kippur, where the high priestly figure undergoes a series of changes in garments during the course of the atoning ritual. Mishnaic and early Christian testimonies bring important additions into this panoply of cultic pageantry, extending these clothing metaphors to the scapegoat. Thus, from rabbinic and early Christian depictions of the scapegoat ritual, one learns about the symbolism of the crimson band. Tied around the cultic animal’s head, the ribbon was said to change colors miraculously at the climax of the atoning ceremony, which signified the forgiveness of Israel’s sins. Early interpretations suggest that the scarlet band adorning the scapegoat’s head was intended to be a garment—the attire of human sins—carried by the animal into the uninhabitable desert. There, according to Christian and mishnaic testimonies, the cultic animal was “disrobed” by its handlers when its ribbon was either fully or partially removed.¹³⁸

In light of these clothing metaphors applied to the scapegoat, the covering of Asael with darkness is noteworthy. But does this covering with darkness represent an allusion to the endowment of the scapegoat with a garment of human “darkness” – namely the transgressions and sins of the Israelites? The symbolism of the scapegoat’s covering, enhanced by the dichotomy of light and darkness, seems to parallel another cluster of clothing metaphors often found in Jewish apocalyptic accounts: namely, the imagery of the seer’s endowment with the garment of light, which was received upon his entrance into the upper realm. Asael undergoes a similar, albeit reverse, transformation when he is covered with darkness and prepared for his forced exile into the subterranean realm.

In view of these transformational correspondences, it is especially significant that Asael’s face is covered. It appears that, here, like in the metamorphoses of the Jewish patriarchs and prophets, the term “face” serves as a terminus technicus for designating the character’s entire “extent.” Moreover, the ontological refashioning of the visionary’s “face” leads to his new status vis-à-vis the deity, as his face literally becomes the reflection of the glorious Face of God. Covering the antagonist’s “face” leads to the opposite metamorphosis. In this context, therefore, the covering of Asael’s “face” may suggest that he receives a new ontological garment that deprives him from access to, or vision of, the deity.¹³⁹

Asael’s special execution in 1 Enoch 10, especially in comparison with the undifferentiated punishment of the other leader of the fallen angels, Shemihazah, which simply takes place with the rest of the celestial rebels,¹⁴⁰ strengthens the cultic interpretation of his punishment. It portrays him as an expiatory sacrifice for the sins of the giants and the fallen angels,¹⁴¹ and a remedy to remove the impurity and defilement caused by the celestial rebels and their offspring.¹⁴² Józef Tadeusz Milik draws attention to one such motif found in fragments from the Book of Giants (4Q203), in which Asael/Azazel seems to be an expiatory agent. It reads:¹⁴³

…and [yo]ur power […] Blank Th[en] ’Ohyah [said] to Hahy[ah, his brother …] Then he punished, and not us, [bu]t Aza[ze]l and made [him … the sons of] Watchers, the Giants; and n[o]ne of [their] be[loved] will be forgiven […] … he has imprisoned us and has captured yo[u]. (4Q203, frag. 7, col I).¹⁴⁴

Moreover, some Qumran materials appear to be aware of the angelological interpretation of the scapegoat figure. In particular, they depict Azazel as the eschatological leader of the fallen angels,¹⁴⁵ incorporating him into the story of the Watchers’ rebellion.¹⁴⁶ All these strands of evidence demonstrate that the conceptual link between the scapegoat and the fallen angel is documented in a number of important materials across a substantial span of history.

A large number of scholars now affirm this connection by arguing that “a comparison of 1 Enoch 10:4-8 with the Day of Atonement ritual (cf. Lev 16:8-26), where we find a goat sent off ‘to Azazel,’ leaves little doubt that Asael is indeed Azazel.”¹⁴⁷ Indeed, the similarities can be found on several levels since “the punishment of the demon resembles the treatment of the goat in aspects of geography, action, time and purpose.”¹⁴⁸

It is intriguing that, while the main antagonist of the Book of the Watchers is envisioned as the eschatological scapegoat, the main protagonist of the story—the patriarch Enoch—appears to be understood as the high priestly figure who is destined to enter into the celestial Holy of Holies. This dynamic once again mimics the peculiar processions of the protagonist and the antagonist on the Day of Atonement, wherein the high priest enters the divine presence, and the scapegoat is exiled into the wilderness.¹⁴⁹ The Book of the Watchers reflects the same cultic pattern as its hero, Enoch, progresses in the opposite direction of his antagonistic counterpart Asael. Enoch ascends into heaven and acquires a special priestly status that allows him to enter into the celestial sanctuary. Enoch’s procession into the heavenly sanctuary has been previously noted by several scholars.¹⁵⁰

1 Enoch 14 unveils the following tradition:

And I proceeded until I came near to a wall which was built of hailstones, and a tongue of fire surrounded it, and it began to make me afraid. And I went into the tongue of fire and came near to a large house which was built of hailstones, and the wall of that house (was) like a mosaic (made) of hailstones, and its floor (was) snow. Its roof (was) like the path of the stars and flashes of lightning, and among them (were) fiery Cherubim, and their heaven (was like) water. And (there was) a fire burning around its wall, and its door was ablaze with fire. And I went into that house, and (it was) hot as fire and cold as snow, and there was neither pleasure nor life in it. Fear covered me and trembling, I fell on my face. And I saw in the vision, and behold, another house, which was larger than the former, and all its doors (were) open before me, and (it was) built of a tongue of fire. And in everything it so excelled in glory and splendor and size that I am unable to describe to you its glory and its size. And its floor (was) fire, and above (were) lightning and the path of the stars, and its roof also (was) a burning fire. And I looked and I saw in it a high throne, and its appearance (was) like ice and its surroundings like the shining sun and the sound of Cherubim.¹⁵¹

Commenting on this enigmatic depiction, Martha Himmelfarb draws attention to the peculiar description of the celestial edifices that Enoch encounters in his approach to the Throne. According to the Ethiopic text, on his route to the divine presence, the seventh antediluvian patriarch passes through three celestial constructions: a wall, an outer house, and an inner house. In contrast to the Ethiopic version, the Greek version mentions a house instead of a wall. As Himmelfarb observes, “more clearly in the Greek, but also in the Ethiopic, this arrangement echoes the structure of the earthly temple with its vestibule, sanctuary, and the Holy of Holies.”¹⁵² God’s throne is situated in the innermost chamber of this heavenly tripartite structure and is represented by a throne of cherubim (14:18). This celestial entity holding the deity’s presence can be compared to the cherubim found in the Holy of Holies in the Jerusalem Temple. It appears that Enoch’s entrance into the heavenly adytum is endowed with sacerdotal significance. Enoch’s priestly functions have been previously noted by several scholars. Thus, Himmelfarb suggests that in the Book of the Watchers the patriarch himself, in the course of his ascent, becomes a priest¹⁵³ in a manner similar to the angels.¹⁵⁴ Moreover, if the seer does indeed enter the celestial Holy of Holies, this entrance once again points to the Yom Kippur setting, since the high priest alone had the privilege of entering into the inner chamber of the Temple and only on the Day of Atonement. In view of the peculiar cultic details of the description found in 1 Enoch 14, some scholars have argued for a Yom Kippur origin of this chapter. Thus, Daniel Stökl Ben Ezra argues that “many details attest to a major priestly component in the apocalyptic thought of 1 Enoch 14. The white garment is best understood as referring to the linen vestments worn daily by the priests – and worn, too, by the high priest, on Yom Kippur. Enoch’s intercessory prayer on behalf of the Watchers matches the high priest’s actions on Yom Kippur.”¹⁵⁵

The connection of Enoch’s story with the Yom Kippur ritual is important for our study of the eschatological scapegoat Asael. It demonstrates that the symbolism of Yom Kippur is not only confined to the portrayal of the antagonist’s punishment in 1 Enoch 10, but permeates other parts of the pseudepigraphon, revealing persistent cultic tendencies of this early apocalyptic work.

Barabbas and Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew

The appropriation of the two goats’ typology to both human and otherworldly characters continued on into early Christian traditions. Although it received its most lucid and unambiguous expressions in second-and third-century Christian writings, especially in the Epistle of Barnabas, Justin Martyr, and Tertullian, some scholars have suggested that traces of the goats typology, as applied to human subjects, can be noticed as early as the canonical gospels.¹⁵⁶ Matthew 27:15-26 is one text where the typology can be possibly found:

Now at the festival the governor was accustomed to release a prisoner for the crowd, anyone whom they wanted. At that time they had a notorious prisoner, called Jesus Barabbas. So after they had gathered, Pilate said to them, "Whom do you want me to release for you, Jesus Barabbas or Jesus who is called the Messiah?" For he realized that it was out of jealousy that they had handed him over. While he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent word to him, "Have nothing to do with that innocent man, for today I have suffered a great deal because of a dream about him." Now the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowds to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus killed. The governor again said to them, "Which of the two do you want me to release for you?" And they said, "Barabbas." Pilate said to them, "Then what should I do with Jesus who is called the Messiah?" All of them said, "Let him be crucified!" Then he asked, "Why, what evil has he done?" But they shouted all the more, "Let him be crucified!" So when Pilate saw that he could do nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took some water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, "I am innocent of this man’s blood; see to it yourselves." Then the people as a whole answered, "His blood be on us and on our children!" So he released Barabbas for them; and after flogging Jesus, he handed him over to be crucified. (NRSV).

Here, the Jewish crowd demands that Pilate release Barabbas and crucify Jesus. Scholars note that it is difficult to ascertain the historicity of the release of a prisoner in this manner. Raymond Brown purports that "…there is no good analogy supporting the historical likelihood of the custom in Judea of regularly releasing a prisoner at a/the feast [of Passover]."¹⁵⁷ Scholars often assume that this episode is present in the gospel for "theological-literary reasons."¹⁵⁸

Some details of the story appear to be linked to various Jewish sacerdotal traditions, and more specifically to the realities of the Yom Kippur ritual. Thus, it has been noted that the Barabbas episode can be illuminated by a comparison with the lottery of the goats that occurred on the Day of Atonement.¹⁵⁹ These sacerdotal allusions did not escape notice from early Christian exegetes. For example, Origen attempts to interpret the Barabbas narrative in light of the scapegoat ritual. In his Homily on Leviticus 10:2 he offers the following striking cultic interpretation of the Barabbas passage:

Nevertheless, since the word of the Lord is rich and, according to the opinion of Solomon "must be written on the heart" not once but also twice and "three times," let us also now attempt to add something to what was said long ago to the best of our ability, that we may show how "as a type of things to come" this one he-goat was sacrificed to the Lord as an offering and the other one was sent away "living." Hear in the Gospels what Pilate said to the priests and the Jewish people: "Which of these two do you want me to send out to you, Jesus, who is called the Christ, or Barabbas?" Then all the people cried out to release Barabbas but to hand Jesus over to be killed. Behold, you have a he-goat who was sent "living into the wilderness," bearing with him the sins of the people who cried out and said, "Crucify, crucify." Therefore, the former is a he-goat sent "living into the wilderness" and the latter is the he-goat which was offered to God as an offering to atone for sins and he made a true atonement for those people who believe in him. But if you ask who it is who led this he-goat "into the wilderness" to verify that he also was washed and made clean, Pilate himself can be taken as "a prepared man.” Certainly he was the judge of the nation itself who sent him by his sentence "into the wilderness." But hear how he was washed and made clean. When he had said to the people, "Do you want me to release to you Jesus, who is called the Christ," and all the people had shouted out, saying, "If you release this one, you are not a friend of Caesar," then it says "Pilate demanded water and washed his hands before the people, saying, I am clean from his blood; you should see to it." Thus, therefore, by washing his hands he will appear to be made clean.¹⁶⁰

Here, both Jesus and Barabbas are compared to the two goats of the atoning rite. As was the case with the patriarchal brotherly pairs that we have already explored, both members of the male dyad found in the Gospel are endowed with peculiar functions and traits that relate to the cultic animals of the atoning ritual. Thus, according to Origen’s interpretation, Jesus assumes the role of the immolated goat that must be “offered to God as an offering to atone for sins.” In contrast, Barabbas is given the role of the scapegoat—the one sent "living into the wilderness." The release of Barabbas is, therefore, equated with the release of the scapegoat into the desert.

Another striking sacerdotal feature found in Origen’s interpretation is the portrayal of Pilate as a cultic servant. It is not entirely clear if Pilate is to be understood here as a high priest who, according to mishnaic testimonies, was responsible for making the goats’ selection, or if he is merely understood as a handler of the scapegoat who leads the animal into the wilderness. One of the key cultic elements to the passage, according to Origen, is Pilate’s hand-washing. This purification ritual can relate to either the washing done by the high priest after his handling of the scapegoat¹⁶¹ or to the handler(s) who accompany the animal into the desert.¹⁶² This again makes it unclear what specific cultic role Pilate is performing. What is significant, however, is that he is indeed functioning in some cultic role.

Another early Christian interpreter, Jerome, conveys a similar interpretation of the episode with Barabbas. He also compares Jesus to the immolated goat and Barabbas to the scapegoat in Homily 93:

They have rejected Christ, but accept the Antichrist; we have recognized and acknowledged the humble Son of God, that afterwards we may have the triumphal Savior. In the end, our he-goat will be immolated before the altar of the Lord; their buck, the Antichrist, spit upon and cursed, will be cast into the wilderness. Our thief enters Paradise with the Lord; their thief, a homicide and blasphemer, dies in his sin. For them, Barabbas is released; for us, Christ is slain.¹⁶³

Here, however, additional anti-Jewish polemics are present. These nuances attempt to separate further the two goats’ cultic functions and place them in differing confessional camps. From this perspective, the release of the human scapegoat, Barabbas, is identified with the Antichrist and represents the offering for the Jews. The immolated goat, represented by Christ, is understood as the sacrifice for the Christians.

This line of interpretation attempts to place the Barabbas episode in the context of Yom Kippur traditions, and would be taken up by several other pre-modern Christian exegetes¹⁶⁴ who tried to discern the two goats’ imagery within the canonical gospels themselves.¹⁶⁵ Moreover, the hypothesis that the two goats’ typology was present in the gospels has not escaped notice even in modern biblical exegesis. The revival of interest in the Yom Kippur interpretation of the Barabbas’ tradition can be traced to the works of Albert Wratislaw.¹⁶⁶ Daniel Stökl Ben Ezra concisely summarizes Wratislaw’s argument, highlighting five important conceptual points:

a) Two "victims" are presented (Jesus-Barabbas);

b) They are similar to each other (both are named Jesus and Son of the Father);

c) They symbolize opposed powers (Jesus, the peaceful Messiah God; Barabbas, the murderer, as Messiah of the people);

d) There is a lottery/election between the two as to who is to be released and who is to be killed;

e) A "confession" is pronounced ("His blood be on us").¹⁶⁷

Wratislaw’s proposal has not enjoyed a high level of scholarly acceptance. Yet, Stökl Ben Ezra notes that if Wratislaw’s suggestion concerning the influence of the two goats’ tradition were to be applied only to the Matthean pericope, and not to all three synoptic accounts, the plausibility of the argument improves considerably. Indeed, the comparison between Matthew’s episode and its Vorlage, Mark, demonstrates intriguing redactional changes. In respect to these differences, Berenson Maclean notes that Matthew supplements Mark’s story in three ways: (1) by making the two prisoners more similar (as required of the goats in the Mishnah); (2) by narrating the ritual action upon the scapegoat/φαρμακóς; and (3) by hinting that disaster has been averted. More specifically, for Berenson Maclean, the key redactional elements include the following features:

a) The ambiguity of Barabbas;

b) The specification of Barabbas’s first name as “Jesus” (27:16);

c) Pilate’s explicit presentation to the crowd of a choice between two prisoners (27:17, 21);

d) The portrayal of the crowd as on the verge of rioting (27:24a);

e) Pilate’s declaration of his own innocence (27:24b);

f) Pilate’s challenge to the crowd when he says, “See to it yourselves” (27:24);

g) The crowd’s acceptance of blood guilt (27:25).¹⁶⁸

Important Matthean additions also include Pilate’s hand-washing at the end of the scene and the double confession that announces Pilate’s innocence and the guilt of the people. These features, in Stökl Ben Ezra’s opinion, may also be connected to the Yom Kippur ordinance.¹⁶⁹ Regarding Pilate’s hands washing, he notes that, “among the biblical descriptions of temple rituals, Yom Kippur stands out as the only ritual with a washing after the procedures.”¹⁷⁰

Scrutinizing the Matthean version of the Barabbas story, Stökl Ben Ezra suggests that five important features of Yom Kippur appear to be playing a role in Matthew’s narrative:

a) The lottery of the two goats;

b) The similarity of these goats;

c) Their contrasting destinations;

d) The confession spoken over the scapegoat;

e) The washing of the hands at the end of the ritual.¹⁷¹

The immediate literary context of the Barabbas’s episode in the Gospel of Matthew also deserves our attention, since it provides additional striking sacerdotal connections. The mocking of Jesus in the Matthean version, which follows the Barabbas’ narrative, appears also to contain some allusions to the scapegoat ritual. Matthew 27:27-31 reads:

Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the governor’s headquarters, and they gathered the whole cohort around him. They stripped him and put a scarlet robe (χλαμύδα κοκκίνην) on him, and after twisting some thorns into a crown, they put it on his head. They put a reed in his right hand and knelt before him and mocked him, saying, "Hail, King of the Jews!" They spat on him, and took the reed and struck him on the head. After mocking him, they stripped him of the robe and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him away to crucify him. (NRSV).

Regarding this passage, Helmut Koester notes that “in Mark 15:17, Jesus is dressed with a royal purple (πορφύρα); Matt 27:28, reproducing this Markan passage, substitutes the garment that was developed in the exegetical/scapegoat tradition and replaces Mark’s royal robe with scarlet garment (χλαμὺς κοκκίνη).”¹⁷² This change represents an allusion to the scapegoat’s crimson band that is envisioned in the atoning ritual as the garment of the cultic animal. Commenting on Jesus’ conspicuous attire, Daniel Stökl Ben Ezra notes that "…the expression χλαμὺς κοκκίνη is an exceptional combination of words appearing only in Matthew 27:28 and its commentaries."¹⁷³

In conclusion to this section, it is important to note that, despite the fact that the Barabbas’ episode assigns the scapegoats’ features and functions to Barabbas, the broader context of the gospel attempts to simultaneously envision Jesus as both the immolated goat and the scapegoat. This tendency to apply the features of both cultic animals to a single protagonist in the story was previously noted in our analysis of Joseph’s story. This strategy would remain an influential trait in later Christian interpreters, including the Epistle of Barnabas, Justin Martyr, and Tertullian, who envisioned Jesus as both the immolated goat and as the go-away goat.¹⁷⁴

Jesus as the Immolated Goat in the Epistle to the Hebrews

With reference to the Epistle to the Hebrews, it has become common in scholarship to highlight Jesus’s portrayal as the high priest of the Yom Kippur rite.¹⁷⁵ What has escaped notice, however, is Jesus’s possible identification with the goats of the atoning rite. Because the text possesses such a complex Christological agenda that attempts to reinterpret the atoning ritual in light of the Jesus story, it makes it all the more difficult for scholars to establish allusions to the goats’ typology in the Epistle.¹⁷⁶ In preceding scholarly interpretive endeavors, some features of the Yom Kippur ritual have received enormous attention, while other characteristics have been, for the most part, ignored. This is likely because the Epistle itself seems to hone in on a limited number of aspects of the atoning rite. It has been previously noted that the Epistle mainly “focuses on the blood ritual of the Day of Atonement and not the whole feast….”¹⁷⁷ Moreover, some reinterpretations found in the Epistle attempt to bring in familiar cultic motifs, but with novel conceptual dimensions.¹⁷⁸ It has also been suggested that Jesus’s sacrifice is described in terms that are inconsistent with the blood ritual(s) outlined in Leviticus.¹⁷⁹

Hebrews’ strong emphasis on the atoning power of blood is significant for our study. Because of the prominent role the blood ritual holds in this text, it has been suggested that the Epistle might attempt to portray Jesus as the immolated goat, an animal whose blood was so significant in the purgation ritual on Yom Kippur.¹⁸⁰ In relation to the blood motif, Berenson Maclean has suggested that the identification of Christ as the immolated goat “has a very early precedent in the Book of Hebrews. Without any mention of the scapegoat, the author of Hebrews presents Jesus’ death in light of the goat’s sacrifice in the purgation ritual …. Christ’s entry into Holy of Holies in Heb 9:11- 14 is explicitly modeled upon the high priest’s presentation of blood in that inner sanctuary.”¹⁸¹ She further argues that “although Hebrews does not mention the pair of goats, the implication is that Christ’s blood corresponds to that of the immolated goat.”¹⁸² Berenson Maclean then concludes that “Jesus’ death must have been modeled on the goat’s sacrifice in the purgation ritual.”¹⁸³

If Jesus is indeed identified with the immolated goat in the Epistle to the Hebrews in some fashion, it is possible that the allusions to the goat are present not only in the later chapters of the Epistle—those that deal explicitly with the priestly traditions and the blood rituals – but also in the early chapters of the text. These early chapters have often escaped notice of those who try to discern possible allusions to the immolated goat imagery. One of the intriguing cultic loci in this respect appears to be situated in the first chapter of the Epistle.¹⁸⁴ Heb 1:3-4 reads: "When he had made purification for sins (καθαρισμὸν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν), he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs." Several scholars have noticed that the expression καθαρισμὸν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν (purification for sins) is similar to the formula present in the Septuagint version of Exod 30:10, the passage that describes some of the actions of the high priest that take place on Yom Kippur: “Once a year Aaron shall perform the rite of atonement on its horns. Throughout your generations he shall perform the atonement for it once a year with the blood of the atoning sin offering. It is most holy to the Lord.”¹⁸⁵ Because of this important terminological connection, scholars traditionally include Heb 1:3-4 as one of the “Yom Kippur passages” found in the Epistle.¹⁸⁶

The affinities of Heb 1:3-4 with Yom Kippur traditions have been often noted in previous studies. However, scholars have not investigated this narrative closely for its possible allusions to the other cultic animal of the atoning rite: the goat for YHWH. This passage, however, appears to possess several striking details that evoke the memory of the immolated goat ritual and especially the version of this cultic ordinance reflected in the Mishnah. It is surely significant that this compilation of Jewish legal traditions were codified close to the time that the Epistle to the Hebrews was written. The first important detail that reflects the immolated goat tradition is the purification of sins, which we have already briefly noted. It is well known that the goat for YHWH played a significant role in the purification rites performed on the Day of Atonement. The Book of Leviticus presents the immolated goat’s blood as the cultic detergent that removes pollution from the sanctuary. Lev 16:15-16 reads:

He shall slaughter the goat of the sin offering (t)+xh) that is for the people and bring its blood inside the curtain, and do with its blood as he did with the blood of the bull, sprinkling it upon the mercy seat and before the mercy seat. Thus he shall make atonement for the sanctuary, because of the uncleannesses of the people of Israel, and because of their transgressions, all their sins; and so he shall do for the tent of meeting, which remains with them in the midst of their uncleannesses. (NRSV)

The passage puts the immolated goat in the category of the t)+x, the purification/sin offering detailed in Lev 4:1-5:13 and 6:24-23.¹⁸⁷ Because of these unambiguous functions of the immolated goat, scholars often label this cultic agent the “purification goat.”¹⁸⁸

The expression καθαρισμὸν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν found in Heb 1:3 combines the formula of purification with the concept of sin. In this respect, it is noteworthy that removal of sins represents a crucial function of the immolated goat, who is named as the “sin offering” in Lev 16:5 and other passages.¹⁸⁹

There is another possible cultic connection in Heb 1:3, since it assigns an atoning function to the cultic agent situated on the right side. Jesus, who accomplished purification for sins, is placed at the right side of the deity. Although the right and left sides are not mentioned at the goats’ selection in Lev 16:7-10, the symbolism of the two sides becomes highly significant in later mishnaic and talmudic portrayals of the ritual. There, the immolated goat is repeatedly associated with the right side, while the scapegoat is consistently associated with the left. For example, in m. Yoma 4:1 the following tradition is found:

He shook the casket and took up the two lots. On one was written “For the Lord,” and on the other was written “For Azazel.” The prefect was on his right and the chief of his father’s house on his left. If the lot bearing the Name came up in his right hand the Prefect would say to him, “My lord High Priest, raise thy right hand”; and if it came up in his left hand the chief of the father’s house would say to him, “My lord High Priest, raise thy left hand.” He put them on the two he-goats and said “A sin-offering to the Lord.”¹⁹⁰

Although the passage from the Mishnah does not openly identify the right side with the immolated goat, the Babylonian Talmud makes this connection explicit. Thus, b. Yoma 39a reads:

Our Rabbis taught: Throughout the forty years that Simeon the Righteous ministered, the lot [“For the Lord”] would always come up in the right hand; from that time on, it would come up now in the right hand, now in the left. And [during the same time] the crimson-colored strap would become white. From that time on it would at times become white, at others not.¹⁹¹

In view of these traditions, it is likely that Jesus’ placement at the right hand of the deity takes on sacerdotal significance.

The fact that Jesus is given a name superior to the angels in Heb 1 is also an important detail that alludes to the goat for YHWH in the Yom Kippur tradition. Interpreters of this passage often argue that the Epistle is attempting to make a reference to the divine Name.¹⁹² If the protagonist is indeed endowed with the divine Name, we might presume that this naming takes on sacerdotal significance. It raises the question: where else in Jewish cultic traditions can one find this peculiar endowment to an atoning agent? The list of such characters remains rather limited. However, it does immediately bring to mind the Yom Kippur festival, where the immolated goat responsible for sins’ purifications is also endowed with the divine Name, and is specifically called the goat for YHWH.

Yet, the manner in which the sacerdotal symbolism in Heb 1:3-4 unfolds might appear to be inconsistent with the manner in which the imagery unfolds during the immolated goat ritual: during the atoning rite, the goat for YHWH was first selected and assigned to the right lot associated with the divine Name. Only after this was the goat used in the purification ritual. In Heb 1:3-4 there seems to be an inversion of this traditional order: the cultic agent first makes purification for sins and only then is he placed at the right hand of the deity and endowed with the divine Name. Scholars have noted this inversion of the sacerdotal events in Heb 1:3-4, arguing that the passage “turns upside down Leviticus 16…”¹⁹³ However, it appears that the author of the Epistle rearranges the Yom Kippur tradition according to his Christological agenda. He attempts to fit the progression of events in Jesus’ story into the logic of the atoning ritual. In light of these Christological developments, Stökl Ben Ezra proposes that the “inversions of the ritual sequence demonstrate that the typology is subject to the main aim of Hebrews.”¹⁹⁴

There is another important dimension that makes the sacerdotal elements of Heb 1:3-4 even more complex; namely, the author’s tendency to simultaneously assign several cultic roles to Jesus. Jesus not only takes on the functions of the goats of the atoning rite, but also that of the High Priest. This is clearly evidenced by his ability to execute purification for sins through use of the divine Name and his progression into the heavenly Holy of Holies, as these are reminiscent of the actions of the high priest, who happens to be decorated with the Tetragrammaton. Therefore it seems likely that Heb 1:3-4 endows Jesus with multiple sacerdotal functions. These include both the tasks of the high priest and the immolated goat. This strategy is very similar to a conceptual amalgam used later in Heb 9:11-12.

Other aspects of the immolated goat ritual also appear to have received attention from the Epistle’s author(s). As we have already learned from the descriptions of the atoning rite, the blood of the immolated goat was brought into the adytum, and the animal’s body was destroyed. Lev 16:27 offers specific instructions about the destruction of the immolated goat’s carcass.¹⁹⁵ In order to further develop the cultic profile of Jesus as the immolated goat, the author of the Epistle attempts to weave this part of the ritual into the fabric of Jesus’s story. This is evident in Heb 13:11-12, which reports the following about the cultic meaning of Christ’s Passion: "For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest as a sacrifice for sin are burned outside the camp. Therefore Jesus also suffered outside the city gate in order to sanctify the people by his own blood."¹⁹⁶ According to some scholars, the suffering and death endured by Jesus is here compared with the destruction of the immolated goat’s body. Daniel Stökl Ben Ezra notes that “according to Leviticus 16:27, the remains of the sacrificial goat are burned outside the camp in order to preserve its sanctity. Hebrews applies this to Jesus, who sanctified the people (in the camp) by suffering outside it.”¹⁹⁷

In conclusion to our reflections on the Yom Kippur traditions as they are found in the Epistle to the Hebrews, we must again draw our attention to one striking tendency of its cultic interpretation: the intertwining roles of the one who makes the sacrifice and the sacrifice itself – that is, the high priest and the immolated goat. It appears that this amalgamation of multiple roles further obscures the sacerdotal universe of the Epistle, preventing its readers from discerning Jesus’ role as the immolated goat. Yet, this peculiar sacerdotal mirroring that attempts to blur the sacerdotal lines of the Epistle might not stem only from the Christological agendas of the text’s authors, but they may also derive from the realities of the original ritual itself.

Scholars have previously noted that the main actors of the sacerdotal drama that takes place on Yom Kippur are mysteriously mirroring each other. In my previous studies, I have explored a paradoxal mirroring of the attributes of the high priest and the scapegoat. I argued that in the cultic framework of the atoning rite the high priest and the go-away goat are standing in inverse opposition.¹⁹⁸ The symmetry of the cultic attributes appears to be also present in another sacerdotal pair of Yom Kippur—the high priest and the immolated goat, as they both enter the adytum of the sanctuary—one as the servant and the other as the purifying offering. Unlike the scapegoat, the symmetrical correspondences between the high priest and the immolated goat are not inverse, which makes their discernment even more difficult. Indeed, some features of both sacerdotal agents are very similar, if not identical. Unlike the scapegoat, who is moving from the sacred center to the periphery (represented by the wilderness,) both the high priest and the immolated goat share the same direction of sacred progression. They are both predestined to enter the divine presence represented by the Holy of Holies. Both cultic agents also share an important common attribute: they both are endowed with the divine Name. It has already been mentioned that the immolated goat bears the divine Name by being designated as the goat for YHWH. The high priest is also endowed with the divine Name, as the letters of the Tetragrammaton shine on the golden plate of his headgear. This mirroring of attributes, progressions, and destinations, which are shared by both cultic agents, appears to provide an important interpretive framework for the portrayal of the cultic functions of Jesus in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where he is envisioned as both the sacerdotal servant, who is bringing the atoning sacrifice and as the offering itself.¹⁹⁹ This strategy, which depicts the simultaneous assumption and execution of several cultic roles, also plays a prominent role in second- and third-century Christian appropriations of the Yom Kippur typology.

Jesus as the Scapegoat and the Immolated Goat in Second- and Third-Century Christian Materials

While the connections with the Day of Atonement imagery are only implicitly hinted at in certain New Testament texts, they are unambiguously expressed in second- and third-century Christian writings. These texts openly attempt to weave the details of Jesus’ Passion and his second coming into the very fabric of the Yom Kippur rite. In these Christian re-appraisals, Jesus was simultaneously depicted as the scapegoat of the atoning rite, who took upon himself the sins of the world during his Passion, as well as the goat for YHWH, which is demonstrated most clearly by his glorious Parousia. In what follows, we will overview, outline, and highlight the sacerdotal reappropriations and reinterpretations of the Yom Kippur ritual by three important early Christian authors.

One of the earliest explicit applications of the goat imagery from Yom Kippur to Jesus can be found in the Epistle of Barnabas, a text that scholars usually date to the end of the first century or the beginning of the second century CE.²⁰⁰ The Epistle of Barnabas 7:6-11 reads:

Pay attention to what he commands: “Take two fine goats who alike and offer them as a sacrifice; and let the priest take one of them as a whole burnt offering for sins.” But what will they do with the other? “The other,” he says, “is cursed.” Pay attention to how the type of Jesus is revealed. “And all of you shall spit on it and pierce it and wrap a piece of scarlet wool around its head, and so let it be cast into the wilderness.” When this happens, the one who takes the goat leads it into the wilderness and removes the wool, and places it on a blackberry bush, whose buds we are accustomed to eat when we find it in the countryside. (Thus the fruit of the blackberry bush alone is sweet.) And so, what does this mean? Pay attention: “The one they take to the altar, but the other is cursed,” and the one that is cursed is crowned. For then they will see him in that day wearing a long scarlet robe around his flesh, and they will say, “Is this not the one we once crucified, despising, piercing, and spitting on him? Truly this is the one who was saying at the time that he was himself the Son of God.” For how is he like that one? This is why “the goats are alike, fine, and equal,” that when they see him coming at that time, they may be amazed at how much he is like the goat. See then the type of Jesus who was about to suffer. But why do they place the wool in the midst of the thorns? This is a type of Jesus established for the church, because whoever wishes to remove the scarlet wool must suffer greatly, since the thorn is a fearful thing, and a person can retrieve the wool only by experiencing pain. And so he says: those who wish to see me and touch my kingdom must take hold of me through pain and suffering.²⁰¹

Here we find a complex mix of cultic traditions that surely reflects the atoning ritual in Leviticus 16. However, the tradition, in its new form, is quite different than its predecessor in Leviticus. Some striking new details are added that reveal our author’s familiarity with later elaborations on the atoning rite—additions also found in the mishnaic Yom Kippur testimonies. The reference to the crimson band on the go-away goat—an attribute absent in Leviticus 16, but one that later became a crucial symbol of the scapegoat ritual—is a prime example of this development. The ritual abuses that the go-away goat endures during its exile into the wilderness is another innovation added to the classic description of the atoning rite found in Leviticus 16. These abuses are also prominent in Mishnah Yoma. It is surely not coincidental that the Epistle of Barnabas emphasizes these novel features of the ritual, since they enable the author to make important connections between the atoning ordinance and the story of Jesus: Christ’s suffering during the Passion is here compared with the abuses that scapegoat endures on Yom Kippur.²⁰² It is also significant that the Epistle of Barnabas depicts the scapegoat alongside another important animal of the atoning rite: the sacrificial goat for YHWH.²⁰³ Barnabas makes the point that the goats are quite similar, perhaps evoking the concept of twinship, as they are “alike, fine, and equal.”

The depiction of the scapegoat’s crowning and his investiture is yet another important feature of the passage from the Epistle of Barnabas.²⁰⁴ Here again we can find an artistic and skillful application of the conceptual blend drawn from the various details of the atoning rite to Jesus’ Passion and his Parousia. In the Barnabas text, the scarlet wool from the atoning rite is endowed with sacerdotal significance as it is portrayed as Jesus’s high priestly robe that is worn at the second coming.²⁰⁵

It is important to recognize that the Epistle of Barnabas is not a totally unique extrabiblical testimony in its attempt to apply the goats’ typologies of Jesus. In fact, this trope was quite common. A close analysis of the Christian literature of the second and third centuries CE shows that this interpretation was popular among a number of Christian sources from the period. Another good example of this application comes from the 40^th chapter of Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho, a text written in the middle of the second century CE. Here, Justin also compares Jesus with the scapegoat:

Likewise, the two identical goats which had to be offered during the fast (one of which was to be the scapegoat, and the other the sacrificial goat) were an announcement of the two comings of Christ: Of the first coming, in which your priests and elders send him away as a scapegoat, seizing him and putting him to death; of the second coming, because in that same place of Jerusalem you shall recognize him whom you had subjected to shame, and who was a sacrificial offering for all sinners who are willing to repent and to comply with that fast which Isaiah prescribed when he said, loosing the strangle of violent contracts, (διασπῶντες στραγγαλιὰς βιαίων συναλλαγμάτων)²⁰⁶ and to observe likewise all the other precepts laid down by him (precepts which I have already mentioned and which all believers in Christ fulfill). You also know very well that the offering of the two goats, which had to take place during the fast, could not take place anywhere else except in Jerusalem.²⁰⁷

While Justin’s text is written after the Epistle of Barnabas, it is not a reworking of Barnabas’s tradition; instead, it represents an independent attestation of a traditional typology.²⁰⁸ Regarding this, John Dominic Crossan observes that:

[T]here are significant differences between the application in Barnabas 7 and Dialogue 40 that indicate that Justin is not dependent on Barnabas. The main one is the divergent ways in which each explains how two goats can represent the (two comings of) the one Christ. For Barnabas 7 the two goats must be alike. For Dialogue 40 the two goats and the two comings are both connected to Jerusalem. They represent, therefore, two independent versions of a traditional typology foretelling a dual advent of Jesus, one for Passion and death, the other for Parousia and judgment.²⁰⁹

Justin’s understanding of the scapegoat ritual reveals striking similarities with the interpretation of the Yom Kippur imagery that is found in extra-biblical Jewish materials.²¹⁰ This points to the strong possibility that early Christian interpretations were developed in dialogue with contemporaneous Jewish traditions.

While we saw that the Epistle of Barnabas introduced new features to the ritual, Justin makes several other new and interesting appropriations of the biblical traditions that the Epistle of Barnabas does not make. One of these is his usage of the tradition from Isaiah 58:6 to elaborate on the symbolism of the messianic scapegoat. It is significant that Justin’s use of this passage is the first time that this text is reinterpreted using Yom Kippur imagery, as Daniel Stökl Ben Ezra has observed.²¹¹ It is also of interest that the Septuagint version of this passage from Isaiah uses the language of “loosing,”²¹² which is similar to some formulae from the Apocalypse of Abraham. We will return to this and its significance later in our study.

Yet another messianic reinterpretation of the scapegoat imagery is present in Tertullian’s Against Marcion 3:7 and also his Against the Jews 14:9.²¹³ Both of these texts were written in the beginning of the third century CE. Against Marcion 3:7 reads:

If also I am to submit an interpretation of the two goats which were offered at the Fast, are not these also figures of Christ’s two activities? They are indeed of the same age and appearance because the Lord’s is one and the same aspect: because he will return in no other form, seeing he has to be recognized by those of whom he has suffered injury. One of them however, surrounded with scarlet, cursed and spit upon and pulled about and pierced, was by the people driven out of the city into perdition, marked with manifest tokens of our Lord’s Passion: while the other, made an offering for sins, and given as food to the priests of the temple, marked the tokens of his second manifestation, at which, when all sins have been done away, the priests of the spiritual temple, which is the Church, were to enjoy as it were a feast of our Lord’s grace, while the rest remain without a taste of salvation.²¹⁴

In his testimonies about the messianic scapegoat, Tertullian appears to rely on the traditions conveyed by both the Epistle of Barnabas and Justin.²¹⁵ We cannot be certain whether or not he would have been familiar with the earlier typology.

By way of conclusion to this section, let us again underline the similarities between the reinterpretations of the goats typology as they are found in the Epistle of Barnabas, Justin, and Tertullian along with the conceptual developments that we found in the Old and New Testaments. Not unlike the aforementioned biblical developments, these early Christian writings attempted to intertwine the imagery of the two goats chosen during the Yom Kippur ceremony, and they applied this conceptual amalgam to Jesus. This generated utterly paradoxical descriptions. For example, the goat’s humiliation, much like Jesus’s humiliation, is paradoxically juxtaposed in these texts with its exaltation. The goat’s curses are elided with its crown. This exaltation is interwoven with a number of significant cultic features, including the motif of worship and the motif of transference. These sacerdotal features of the various characters involved in the Yom Kippur ceremony then applied to the Christian Messiah.

There is one last significant way that these early Christians reappropriate the Yom Kippur imagery and apply it to Jesus. They depict the two emblematic animals of the Yom Kippur ceremony as the two manifestations of Christ: one in its suffering and the other in its victory. Justin effectively summarizes this idea when, at the beginning of his passage, he suggests, “the two identical goats which had to be offered during the fast (one of which was to be the scapegoat, and the other the sacrificial goat) were an announcement of the two comings of Christ.”²¹⁶ That both of the goats’ features in this complex amalgam are applied to one human character is surely reminiscent of the Joseph story explored earlier. There, as here, the human character simultaneously stands for both the scapegoat and the immolated goat.