Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-6grmk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-06T03:01:22.911Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Final Judgement as Ritual Purgation of the Cosmos: The Influence of Scapegoat Traditions on Matt 25.31–46

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 March 2021

Hans M. Moscicke Open the ORCID record for Hans M. Moscicke [Opens in a new window]
Hans M. Moscicke*
Affiliation:
Saint Louis University, 1 N Grand Blvd, Saint Louis, MO 63103 USA. Email: hans.moscicke@gmail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article, I argue that Leviticus 16 and early Jewish Day of Atonement traditions have influenced the imagery of the sheep and the goats in Matt 25.31–46. The ritual shading that this judgement scene acquires in light of its use of Yom Kippur imagery fits well into Matthew's overarching interest in moral purity. The drama of moral impurity in the Gospel of Matthew concludes with the Son of Man's eschatological purgation of iniquity from the cosmos in a manner reminiscent of the yearly expulsion of moral impurity from Israel's temple by means of the scapegoat ritual. Building on the insights of scholars who have attempted to demonstrate Matthew's knowledge of Son of Man traditions attested in the Parables of Enoch, this article also contends that Azazel traditions contained in that same Enochic booklet have influenced the portrayal of the goats’ banishment in Matt 25.41, a conclusion that becomes more probable in light of Matthew's unique application of the Asael tradition attested in 1 En. 10.4 at the end of his Parable of the Wedding Feast (Matt 22.13).

Keywords

the Gospel of MatthewLeviticus 16final judgement scenethe Day of Atonementthe Sheep and the GoatsYom KippurAzazelritualEnochic Judaism

Information

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 67 , Issue 2 , April 2021 , pp. 241 - 259
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

1. Introduction

Arriving at the end of the Gospel's fifth major discourse, Matthew's final judgement account (Matt 25.31–46) depicts the Son of Man coming in glory with his angels, sitting upon the throne of his glory (v. 31) and judging all the nations gathered before him (v. 32a).Footnote 1 The Son of Man, like a shepherd, separates the sheep from the goats, placing the sheep at his right hand and the goats at his left (vv. 32b–33). Now identified as a king (v. 34a), the Son of Man invites those sheep on his right side to inherit the kingdom prepared for them (v. 34b) and those goats on his left side to depart into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels (v. 41). Both judgements are issued on the basis of the treatment of ‘the least of these/my brothers’ (vv. 40, 45), in whom, to the surprise of all who are judged, the Son of Man was mysteriously present (vv. 35–9, 42–4).Footnote 2

Given that scholars have yet to discover a satisfactory rationale for the negative valuation attributed to the ‘goats’, and that, as Kathleen Weber observes, the ‘scapegoat that carries the sins of the people off into the desert in the ritual of the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:5–22) stands as a single negative exception that does not seem to have affected the consistently positive value accorded goats in OT poetic usage’,Footnote 3 it is surprising that there has hitherto been no investigation into the potential influence of Leviticus 16 and scapegoat traditions on the Matthean judgement account. Since both scenarios involve the expulsion of cursed goats, and as Matthew displays a keen interest in the Hebrew scriptures, that early Jewish Yom Kippur traditions have influenced Matt 25.31–46 seems prima facie quite plausible. Such a theological underpinning to the climactic judgement scene would introduce into Matthew's eschatology a ritual element, wherein the final expulsion of all the unrighteous becomes a purgative event resembling the yearly expulsion of iniquity from the earthly temple by means of the goat for Azazel (Lev 16.21–2).Footnote 4

In this article, I submit that Leviticus 16 and Second Temple Yom Kippur traditions have coloured the parabolic portrayal of the sheep and especially of the goats in Matt 25.31–46.Footnote 5 While this underlying influence of the Day of Atonement is not the primary focus of the Matthean judgement episode, it sheds light on the scriptural background of the scene's imagery and brings to light a ritual component in the evangelist's eschatology. Having argued that Matt 25.41 makes use of Azazel traditions attested in the Parables of Enoch, I propose five points of correspondence between Matt 25.31–46 and early Jewish Yom Kippur traditions: (a) the imagery of goats, (b) the two opposing lots, (c) the expulsion of the goats, (d) the cursedness of the goats and (e) the antithetical destination of the two animals. By mapping these tropes onto his account, Matthew colours the Son of Man's judgement as an eschatological ritual purgation of cosmos from human and angelic moral impurity.

2. The Impact of the Azazel Traditions on Matt 25.31–46

In his important study, The Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch and in Matthew, Leslie Walck argues that the Parables of Enoch (1 Enoch 37–71) have influenced certain elements of Matt 25.31–46, especially vv. 31–4, 41, 46.Footnote 6 While he cautiously eschews positing direct literary dependence on the Parables, Walck concludes that Matthew's unique material regarding the future Son of Man, particularly Matt 13.37–43 and 25.31–46, ‘reveal[s] many characteristics of the Son of Man that are shared with the Parables. These two passages are unique to Matthew, containing the bulk of the traits attributed to the Son of Man. Of all the passages in Matthew containing “Son of Man”, these two exhibit the most traits shared with the Parables, which suggests that Matthew's concept of the Son of Man was significantly influenced by the Parables.’Footnote 7 David Catchpole had previously identified twelve points of correspondence between the Son of Man's judgement in Matt 25.31–46 and 1 Enoch 62–3.Footnote 8 Building on Catchpole's catalogue of similarities between these accounts, Walck demonstrates that Matt 25.31–46 and the Parables of Enoch share several striking similarities. In short, these are: the Son of Man coming and sitting on ‘the throne of his glory’ (Matt 25.31; 1 En. 62.5; 69.27, 29; cf. 1 En. 47.3; 60.2; 62.2, 3; 71.7), the all-inclusive nature of the judgement (Matt 25.32; 1 En. 48.5; 54.9–10; 62.3), the impossibility of reversing the verdicts of judgement (Matt 25.34, 41; 1 En. 62.9–12, 13–16; 69.27), the hiddenness of the Son of Man to the righteous and the wicked (Matt 25.40, 45; 1 En. 48.6–7; 62.5, 7), the criterion of judgement being the treatment of those with whom the Son of Man identifies (Matt 25.40, 45; 1 En. 46.8; 47; 48.7; 62.11), the fiery fate of the unrighteous (Matt 25.41; 1 En. 48.9; 54.1, 6) and the punishment prepared for the devil/Satan, his angels and the wicked of the earth (Matt 25.41; 1 En. 54.5–6; 67.4–7, 12–13).Footnote 9 Summarising his comparison between the Parables of Enoch and Matthew's future Son of Man sayings, Walck remarks, ‘The quantity and scope of these similarities together with the precise phrase “the throne of glory” strongly suggests the influence of the Parables on Matthew's conception of the Son of Man.’Footnote 10 While the question of the First Evangelist's literary dependence on the Parables remains a contentious issue, one may understand Walck's work as having satisfactorily demonstrated Matthew's knowledge of particular traditions associated with, and possibly deriving from, the Parables of Enoch.

The influence of the Parables of Enoch on Matt 25.31–46 is significant for this study, because it opens up the possibility that the Azazel traditions attested in the Parables have impacted the judgement scene as well. Having narrated the king's dealings with the righteous ‘sheep’, Matthew writes, ‘Then he will say to those at his left hand, “Depart from me, cursed ones, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels”’ (Matt 25.41). Walck draws attention to a parallel passage in 1 Enoch 54, where Enoch is shown a deep valley with burning fire, into which the kings and the mighty of the earth are thrown (1 En. 54.1–2).Footnote 11 The patriarch asks his angelus interpres about the great iron chains (1 En. 54.3–4), and the angel responds, ‘These are being prepared for the host of Azazel, that they might take them and throw them into the abyss of complete judgement’ (1 En. 54.5).Footnote 12 A chapter later, Azazel's punishment is described in more detail: ‘Mighty kings who dwell on the earth, you will have to witness my Chosen One [= Son of Man], how he will sit on the throne of glory and judge Azazel, and all his associates and all his host in the name of the Lord of Spirits’ (1 En. 55.4).Footnote 13 As Walck remarks, ‘The “Devil and all his angels” (Mt. 25:41) bears a striking resemblance to “Azazel and all his associates and all his host” (1 Enoch 55.4).’Footnote 14

In fact, one detects a cluster of parallels between 1 En. 54.1–6; 55.4 and Matt 25.41, as follows. (1) The place of eschatological punishment is fiery. In 1 En. 54.1, 6, it is described as ‘a deep valley with burning fire … the burning furnace’. In Matt 25.41, Matthew designates it as ‘the eternal fire’. (2) The punishment is one that is ‘prepared’. Enoch asks the angel, ‘For whom are these chains being prepared?’ (1 En. 54.4). The Son of Man identifies the eternal fire as ‘prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Matt 25.41). (3) The punishment is for a malevolent spiritual leader. In 1 En. 55.4, the punishment is for Azazel. In Matt 25.41, it is for the devil. (4) The punishment is also for that leader's compatriots. It is for ‘the host of Azazel’ in 1 En. 54.5. It is for ‘his angels’ (the devil's angels) in Matt 25.41. (5) The earthly counterparts of these inimical powers suffer the same punishment. In 1 En. 54.2, ‘the kings and the mighty’ are condemned alongside Azazel's host. In Matt 25.42–5, the goats on the Son of Man's left side are judged alongside the devil and his angels. (6) In both 1 En. 55.4 and Matt 25.31, 41, the punishment of these malevolent powers occurs immediately after the Son of Man/Chosen One sits upon the ‘throne of glory’. Noting just a few of these correspondences, Walck remarks, ‘These similarities are striking and extensive.’Footnote 15

Matthew's awareness of these Azazel traditions becomes almost certain in light of the fact that the redactional statement in Matt 22.13 appears to be a verbal allusion to the Asael tradition of Greek 1 En. 10.4:Footnote 16 ‘Go, Raphael, and bind Asael hand and foot, and cast him into the darkness (δῆσον τὸν Ἀζαὴλ ποσὶν καὶ χερσίν, καὶ βάλε αὐτὸν εἰς τὸ σκότος).’Footnote 17 It is important to note that, in certain early Jewish apocalyptic circles, the fallen angel Asael came to be associated with Azazel of Leviticus 16 and conflated with the figure of the scapegoat.Footnote 18 In the Matthean parable, an intruder at the messianic banquet wearing garments of unrighteousness recapitulates the fate of this cosmic antagonist:Footnote 19 ‘Then the king said to his servants, “Bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness” (δήσαντες αὐτοῦ πόδας καὶ χεῖρας ἐκβάλετε αὐτὸν εἰς τὸ σκότος τὸ ἐξώτερον)’ (Matt 22.13).Footnote 20 According to Ryszard Rubinkiewicz, Matthew draws upon the same vein of the scapegoat tradition attested in the Apocalypse of Abraham 13–14, where the patriarch's unclean garments symbolising iniquity are given to Azazel, who is then banished to the nether regions of the earth.Footnote 21 This is a fascinating parallel, since the contexts of Matt 22.13 and 25.41 – two texts unique to the Gospel of Matthew – are essentially the same: at the eschatological judgement, a divine king banishes the unrighteous into perdition in a manner reminiscent of Asael/Azazel's expulsion.

It is therefore very likely that Matt 25.31–46 has been influenced not only by the conception of the Son of Man as attested in the Parables of Enoch, but also by the Azazel traditions attested within that same Enochic booklet. One need not posit direct literary dependence in this case, though this possibility cannot be ruled out. Instead, it will be safer to conclude that the same tradition concerning Azazel found in 1 En. 54.1–6 and 55.4 appears to have influenced the composition of Matt 25.41. This conclusion becomes even more certain given Matthew's unique application of the Asael/Azazel tradition attested in 1 En. 10.4 in his Parable of the Wedding Feast (Matt 22:13).

3. The Influence of Yom Kippur on Matt 25.31–46

Turning to a broader analysis of Matt 25.1–46, I propose five points of correspondence between the Matthean judgement account and early Jewish Yom Kippur traditions: (a) the imagery of goats, (b) the two opposing lots, (c) the expulsion of the goats, (d) the cursedness of the goats and (e) the antithetical destinations of the two animals. The mapping of these tropes associated with Israel's high holy day onto the judgement scene suffuses it with ritual undertones.

3.1 The Imagery of Goats

Scholars remain perplexed about the origin and purpose of the imagery of the sheep and the ‘young goats’,Footnote 22 and about why it is that the goats are chosen to be the recipients of divine wrath in Matthew's judgement scene. Weber's extensive research on the image of sheep and goats in Matt 25.32–3 demonstrates that virtually nothing in Matthew's cultural milieu would suggest such a negative attitude towards goats.Footnote 23 She concludes that ‘the author of the Gospel according to Matthew expects his audience to have a basically positive attitude toward goats that will make the absolute condemnation of Matt 24:31–46 surprising’.Footnote 24 Noting that the Hebrew Bible portrays goats predominantly in a positive light, Weber makes the following important observation: ‘The scapegoat that carries the sins of the people off into the desert in the ritual of the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:5–22) stands as a single negative exception that does not seem to have affected the consistently positive value accorded goats in OT poetic usage.’Footnote 25 Students of Matthew have not considered whether early Jewish scapegoat traditions have contributed to the construction of the agricultural scene in Matt 25.32–3. However, there might be a good explanation for this.

The LXX employs χίμαρος for ‘goat’ (Lev 16.8, 9, 10, 15, 18, 20, 21, 22, 26, 27), not ἔριφος or ἐρίφιον, which are the terms used in Matt 25.32–3. At first glance, this discrepancy in vocabulary seems like an insurmountable challenge to the thesis that the Matthean judgement scene draws upon scapegoat traditions. Upon closer inspection, this challenge fades away. The term χίμαρος was not a terminus technicus for the goats of the Yom Kippur ritual. While the LXX uses χίμαρος, Philo, the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Epistle of Barnabas employ τράγος (Philo, Her. 179; Leg. 2.52; Heb 9.12, 13; Barn. 7.4, 6, 8, 10). Josephus uses ἔριφος, the same term as that found in Matt 25.32. Describing the customs of the Day of Atonement, he writes: ‘On the tenth of the same lunar month they fast until evening; on this day they sacrifice a bull, two rams, seven lambs and a kid (ἔριφον) as a sin-offering. But besides these they offer two kids (δύο ἐρίφους), of which one is sent alive into the wilderness beyond the frontiers, being intended to avert and serve as an expiation for the sins of the whole people.’Footnote 26 The Book of Jubilees also affirms that the goats of Yom Kippur were young goats. In its second aetiology of the high holy day, Jubilees grounds the Day of Atonement in the occasion of Jacob's sons’ betrayal of Joseph and their need for expiation. The pseudepigraphon reads: ‘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 … For this reason, it has been ordained regarding the Israelites that they should be distressed on the tenth of the seventh month … in order to make atonement for themselves on it with a kid.’Footnote 27 In the Septuagint of Genesis 37, the biblical passage on which Jubilees bases its aetiology, Jacob's sons stain Joseph's coat with the blood of an ἔριφος: ‘And having taken the coat of Joseph, they slew a kid of the goats (ἔριφον αἰγῶν; MT: שעיר עזים), and they stained the coat with blood’ (Gen 37.31).

Weber attempts to explain the unexpected choice of goats in Matt 25.31–46 by pointing to the apparent theme of surprise in all three eschatological discourses in Matthew 25.Footnote 28 The foolish virgins are surprised to find that the door to the bridegroom's wedding banquet is shut (Matt 25.10–12). The lazy servant is surprised when his master confiscates his talent and gives it to another (Matt 25.26–9). The goats are surprised to learn that the Son of Man was mysteriously present in ‘the least of these’ (Matt 25.44–5). But even if one grants this theme in Matthew 25, the judgement of the goats still lacks a rationale that accords with the discourse's parabolic imagery, unlike the other two eschatological discourses. The rationale for the foolish virgins’ punishment is their foolishness (Matt 25.8–10), and the rationale for the lazy servant's condemnation is his laziness (Matt 25.18, 26–7). But there is no explicit rationale for the judgement of the goats qua goats.

In sum, some Second Temple traditions construe the two goats of the Yom Kippur ritual as young goats or ‘kids’ (ἔριφοι), the same type of goats that appear in ‘the Sheep and the Goats’ parable of Matt 25.32–3. Virtually nothing in Matthew's Jewish milieu would suggest a harshly negative attitude towards goats, except for the scapegoat of the Yom Kippur ritual. In this ritual, the goat designated ‘for Azazel’ (Lev 16.8, 10) inherited all of Israel's sins (Lev 16.21) and was sent into the wilderness ‘to Azazel’ (Lev 16.10), in order to purge the nation's iniquity from the temple (Lev 16.22). An association between the goats of Matt 25.31–46 and the scapegoat provides a rationale for the negative appraisal of that lot of goats on the Son of Man's left side.

3.2 The Two Opposing Lots

To explain why the shepherd would separate sheep from goats (Matt 25.32–3), commentators often appeal to the alleged fact that Palestinian shepherds would customarily separate their mixed flocks at the end of the day, because sheep preferred the open air and goats were more susceptible to becoming cold and needed nightly shelter.Footnote 29 But Klaus Wengst has demonstrated that this historical notion apparently has no factual basis in ancient Palestinian practice and actually derives from a misreading of a statement in Gustaf Dalman's Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina, which has been perpetuated in modern scholarship.Footnote 30 Though other explanations have been proffered for the separation of the animals, these have proved less than satisfactory.Footnote 31 Luz therefore remarks, ‘Why a shepherd should separate the goats from the sheep thus remains a puzzle.’Footnote 32 The lack of an obvious agricultural explanation for the separation of the animals suggests that the separation is, at least in part, theologically motivated.Footnote 33

Regardless of which agricultural verisimilitude the separating in Matt 25.32–3 is intended to evoke, the outcome is the same: the shepherd generates two opposing lots, the sheep ‘at his right’ (ἐκ δεξιῶν αὐτοῦ) and the goats ‘at his left’ (ἐξ εὐωνύμων). This imagery continues implicitly throughout the judgement scene, as τοῖς ἐκ δεξιῶν αὐτοῦ (Matt 25.34) recalls the image of the lot of sheep and τοῖς ἐξ εὐωνύμων (Matt 25.41) recalls the image of the lot of goats. Such lot imagery brings to mind certain traditions associated with the Day of Atonement. In the Yom Kippur ritual, the high priest takes two goats, presents them before the Lord, and casts lots over them, ‘one lot for the Lord and one lot for Azazel’ (Lev 16.7–8).

Certain authors in the Second Temple period mapped the ‘lot imagery’ of Lev 16.8–10 onto opposing social groups. Commenting on this phenomenon in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Daniel Stökl Ben Ezra writes that ‘the people from Qumran understood their own existence through the image of the two lots – they themselves are the people of God's lot in opposition to the lot of Belial led by the wicked priest’.Footnote 34 Philo of Alexandria utilises the imagery of the two lots to link those who seek heavenly wisdom with the lot of the goat for YHWH and those who seek after carnal things with the lot of the scapegoat.Footnote 35 In the Apocalypse of Abraham, lots of humanity are associated with Abraham, whom the author typologises as the immolated goat, and with Azazel, who is portrayed as a scapegoat.Footnote 36 For example, Yahoel declares that ‘Abraham's portion is in heaven, and yours [Azazel's] is on earth’.Footnote 37 According to Andrei Orlov, ‘[t]he transference of this imagery of the two lots onto humankind is significant here, as the cultic functions of the lots are assigned not merely to eschatological or human characters, but to the social bodies themselves.’Footnote 38 Origen also applies a sociological interpretation of the lot imagery, designating Lazarus and the faithful criminal crucified with Jesus as members of the lot of YHWH, and the rich man and the criminal who reviled Jesus as affiliates of the lot of the scapegoat.Footnote 39

The two lots of Yom Kippur also became associated with the right and the left sides in early rabbinic Judaism. The Mishnah describes the lot-casting custom as involving the high priest raising his right or left hand as the lots were cast.Footnote 40 In the Babylonian Talmud, the immolated goat is associated with the right side during times of divine favour.Footnote 41 Targum Pseudo-Jonathan connects the high priest's right hand with the goat for YHWH and his left hand with the goat for Azazel, instructing the high priest to sprinkle the blood of the immolated goat with his right hand, but then to lay only his left hand directly upon the scapegoat.Footnote 42 The two eschatological lots of Abraham and Azazel in the Apocalypse of Abraham also contain right and left imagery, though these sections of the Slavonic pseudepigraphon may contain Bogomil influence.Footnote 43

In short, the imagery of two opposing lots in Matthew's judgement scene (Matt 25.32–4, 41) is congruous with the way other Second Temple authors interpreted the ‘lot for YHWH’ and the ‘lot for Azazel’ (Lev 16.8–10), mapping each lot onto antithetical social groups. The imagery of the right and left side also parallels the way the lot motif was interpreted in later Judaism, the right side being associated with the lot for YHWH and the left side with the lot for Azazel. Given the lack of an obvious naturalistic explanation for the separation of the animals into two opposing lots, this separation is plausibly seen as motivated by an underlying Yom Kippur typology.Footnote 44

3.3 The Expulsion of the Goats

Again, summarising the attitude Matthew's readers would probably have towards goats, Weber remarks, ‘Certainly, the audience of Matthew's own time could point to certain blemishes on the reputation of goats as animals … but not with negative qualities extreme enough to merit this expulsion.’Footnote 45 But if the goats in Matthew's judgement scene are intended to correspond to the sin-bearing scapegoat that was banished from Jerusalem, being sent to the nefarious desert-dwelling deity Azazel, then their expulsion in Matt 25.41 is entirely expected.

Once he deposited Israel's sins upon the scapegoat, the high priest banished the goat for Azazel into the wilderness, where those sins could pose no further threat: ‘The goat shall bear all their iniquity to a remote area, and he shall release the goat into the wilderness’ (Lev 16.22).Footnote 46 This became a memorable trope in early Jewish thought. Philo reports that the scapegoat ‘was to be sent out into a trackless and desolate wilderness’.Footnote 47 He allegorises the Septuagint's term for the scapegoat, ἀποπομπαῖος (Lev 16.8, 10), underlining that the goat ‘is removed, caused to live apart, and driven away’.Footnote 48 According to Josephus, the scapegoat ‘is sent alive into the wilderness beyond the frontiers’.Footnote 49 In apocalyptic appropriations of the scapegoat ritual, the celestial scapegoat Asael/Azazel is cast into the cosmic wilderness. Raphael is told to ‘bind Asael hand and foot, and cast him into the darkness; and make an opening in the wilderness that is in Doudael. Throw him there …’Footnote 50 In the Apocalypse of Abraham, Azazel becomes ‘the firebrand of the furnace of the earth’ and is banished ‘into the untrodden parts of the earth’, that is to say, into the cosmic wilderness.Footnote 51

While one wishes for a verbal parallel between Matthew's πορεύεσθε ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ (Matt 25.41) and the term for the scapegoat's ‘sending’ in Lev 16.21–2 LXX (ἐξαποστέλλω), the conceptual parallel between the goats’ expulsion in Matt 25.41 and the scapegoat's expulsion in early Judaism is quite strong. The correspondence between Matthew's judgement scene and apocalyptic applications of the scapegoat ritual is more striking, since in both scenarios the banished subjects are personified scapegoats and severe perpetrators of evil.

3.4 The Cursedness of the Goats

The presence of the Matthean hapax legomenon καταράομαι (Matt 25.41) has puzzled some scholars, since this word occurs in a verse that otherwise bears the mark of the evangelist's editorial hand. Yet it is perfectly fitting that ‘those at his left hand’, that is, the lot of goats, should be identified as ‘cursed’, since the scapegoat was also an inheritor of curses in early Jewish traditions.

Philo reports that the scapegoat was sent into the wilderness ‘bearing on itself the curses (τὰς ἀράς) for those who have erred’.Footnote 52 The Epistle of Barnabas’ halakhic source employs a close cognate to Matthew's καταράομαι to call the scapegoat ‘cursed’: ‘Pay attention: “The one they take to the altar, but the other is cursed (ἐπικατάρατον)”, and the one that is cursed (τὸν ἐπικατάρατον) is crowned.’Footnote 53 Tertullian similarly writes that the scapegoat was ‘surrounded with scarlet, cursed and spit upon’.Footnote 54 The Mishnah reports that the scapegoat was effectively the recipient of verbal cursing: ‘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!”’Footnote 55 Yahoel similarly curses Azazel in the Slavonic apocalypse: ‘This is iniquity, this is Azazel! … Reproach is on you, Azazel! Since Abraham's portion is in heaven, and yours is on earth.’Footnote 56

The goats of Matt 25.31–46 suffer a similar cursed status as the goat for Azazel. Such cursedness was a natural extension of the notion that the scapegoat bore upon itself the sins of the people (Lev 16.21–2). One may rightfully object that the goats in Matthew's judgement scene do not bear the sins or curses of others, but neither does Asael/Azazel obviously bear others’ iniquity in the Enochic tradition – he appears to be punished primarily for his own transgressions.Footnote 57 This is an important transformation in the scapegoat tradition, which seems to have allowed Matthew to map a scapegoat typology onto the goats of Matt 25.31–46.

3.5 The Antithetical Destinations of the Two Animals

The destinations of the sheep and goats are antithetical, the righteous entering into the Father's kingdom and the wicked being cast into eternal punishment: ‘Then the king will say to those at his right hand, “Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world” … Then he will say to those at his left hand, “You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels” … And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life’ (Matt 25.34, 41, 46). Such stark contrasting destinations evoke the spatial movement of the two goats on Yom Kippur.

Lev 16.8 commands that Aaron ‘cast lots on the two goats, one lot for the Lord, and one lot for Azazel’. The parallelism in the phrase גורל אחד ליהוה וגורל אחד לעזאז, highlighted by the preposition ל, suggests the contrary movements of the two animals: one will go ‘to the Lord’ beyond the inner veil, and the other will go ‘to Azazel’ in the wilderness. Summarising this phenomenon, Stökl Ben Ezra writes: ‘This Temple ritual consisted of two antagonistic movements … As the first movement, the holiest person, the High Priest, entered the most sacred place, the Holy of Holies of the Jerusalem Temple … As a second movement, the scapegoat burdened with the sins of the people was sent with an escort to the desert.’Footnote 58 The halakhic material utilised in the Epistle of Barnabas alludes to the antithetical destinations of the two animals: ‘The one they take to the altar, but the other is cursed.’Footnote 59 This binary-movement motif seems to be reflected in the apocalyptic imaginaire of Yom Kippur as well. In the Book of Watchers, Asael is banished like a scapegoat into an abyss in 1 Enoch 10, and then Enoch experiences the opposite cosmic movement, ascending into the heavenly temple in 1 Enoch 14.Footnote 60 In the Animal Apocalypse, Enoch experiences an ascent into a high tower symbolic of the cosmic sanctuary (1 En. 87.3), after which he beholds Azazel's judgement (1 En. 88.1). Similarly, Azazel is banished as a scapegoat in Apocalypse of Abraham 14 before the patriarch ascends into the celestial sanctuary, becoming a sacrifice to God (Apoc. Ab. 15–32).Footnote 61

Matthew thus appears to map the antithetical destinations of the two goats of Yom Kippur onto the two lots of humanity in the judgement scene. As with the apocalyptic Yom Kippur traditions, the respective movements of both entities become cosmic and acquire eschatological significance.

4. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing analysis, it is highly probable that Leviticus 16 and Second Temple Yom Kippur traditions have influenced the composition of Matt 25.31–46, suffusing it with ritual undertones. There are at least five points of correspondence between the Matthean account and early Jewish Yom Kippur traditions: (a) the imagery of goats, (b) the two opposing lots, (c) the expulsion of the goats, (d) the cursedness of the goats and (e) the antithetical destinations of the two animals. The noticeable effect of the Azazel traditions attested in the Parables of Enoch (1 En. 54.1–6; 55.4) on the evangelist's climactic episode, especially on Matt 25.41, lends compelling support to this thesis.Footnote 62

What Lester Grabbe claims regarding the conflation of Azazel and Satan traditions in the description of the dragon's punishment in Revelation 20 seems to hold true for Matt 25.41:

Whatever the original significance of the Azazel goat, it became a demonological figure in Judaism. To many Jews in the last century or so before the fall of the Second Temple, the mention of the name Azazel was likely to evoke this entire developed demonic tradition. A reference to Satan did not necessarily suggest the Day of Atonement ceremony, yet it was always available in the background and its symbolism could be called on when needed … Thus, the punishment of Satan has been assimilated to the Asael tradition of 1 Enoch.Footnote 63

That is to say, Matthew has apparently assimilated aspects of Asael/Azazel's profile to that of the devil in Matt 25.41. Scholars should further investigate the impact of Enochic demonological traditions on the Gospel of Matthew.

The ritual shading that Matt 25.31–46 acquires in light of its use of Yom Kippur imagery fits exceptionally well into Matthew's overarching interest in moral purity. As Anders Runesson observes, ‘Matthew operates fully within a Jewish interpretive paradigm in which both ritual and especially moral purity concerns are active and affect how the story is being told’.Footnote 64 The logical conclusion to the drama of moral impurity in Matthew's theological imagination involves the Son of Man's eschatological purgation of iniquity from the cosmos in a manner reminiscent of the yearly expulsion of moral impurity from Israel's temple by means of the scapegoat ritual.

References

1 Interpreters have variably understood πάντα τὰ ἔθνη to mean (1) all human beings, (2) only Christians, (3) all non-Christians or (4) all non-Jews. In his comprehensive history of interpretation, Sherman W. Gray concludes that, of those who discuss the meaning of the phrase, the majority of commentators in every historical era take a universalist interpretation, that is to say, option 1 (The Least of my Brothers, Matthew 25:31–46: A History of Interpretation (SBLDS 114; Atlanta: Scholars, 1989), 348; see also U. Luz, Matthew: A Commentary (trans. J E. Crouch; 3 vols.; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001–7) iii.267–74; idem, ‘The Final Judgment (Matt 25:31–46): An Exercise in “History of Influence” Exegesis’, Treasures New and Old: Contributions to Matthean Studies (ed. D. R. Bauer and M. A. Powell; Atlanta: Scholars, 1996) 271–310). The second most common reading is option 2. The last two readings did not emerge until the modern era, and even then, they are minority interpretations (Gray, Least of my Brothers, 349). The standard universalist interpretation seems most likely, given that (a) πάντα τὰ ἔθνη elsewhere includes non-Christians (Matt 24.9, 14; 28.19), ruling out option 2, (b) ‘one expects here a solemn appeal to those within the church … [given that] the passage belongs to a long section which is full of paraenesis for believers [Matt 24:36–25:30]’ (W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, The Gospel according to Matthew, ICC (3 vols.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988–97) iii.422), which makes option 3 unlikely, and (c) Jews are the object of (eschatological) judgement throughout the Gospel (Matt 3.7–10; 5.20; 12.34–7, 41–2; 21.41–5; 23.1–39), casting doubt on option 4. In further support of option 1, (d) the righteous and unrighteous are judged simultaneously in the redactional Parable of the Wheat and the Tares (Matt 13.31–43), (e) though ἔθνη (plural) usually refers to pagan gentiles in the First Gospel (Matt 4.15; 6.32; 10.5, 18; 12.18; 20.19, 25; 21), ἔθνη embraces Christians in Matt 12.21 and ἔθνος (singular) indicates Christians in Matt 21.43 and (f) πάντα τὰ ἔθνη seems to include Christians in Acts 15.17; Rom 15.11; 16.26; Rev 12.5. Space does not allow a more in-depth discussion on this topic.

2 The phrase ἑνὶ τούτων/τῶν ἀδελφῶν μου τῶν ἐλαχίστων (Matt 25.40, 45) has historically been understood as (1) people in general or (2) Christians only (or some subset thereof, such as Christian missionaries). According to Gray (Least of my Brothers, 349–50), the particularist reading (option 2), when compared to the universalist reading (option 1), occurs at a ratio of about two to one throughout the history of interpretation. However, the number of interpreters, ancient and modern, who are neutral with regard to ‘the least of these’, when compared to the particularist reading, occurs at a ratio of about three to two (ibid.). It is unclear whether such neutrality should be construed as affirming a universalist reading. From a literary perspective, a particularist reading of ‘the least of these’ (Matt 25.40, 45) seems most probable, since Matthew uses a similar phrase, εἷς/ἓν τῶν μικρῶν τούτων, in reference to Jesus’ disciples in Matt 10.42; 18.6, 10, 14 (see also Matt 11.11; cf. Mark 9.37–42) (G. Stanton, A Gospel for a New People: Studies in Matthew (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1992) 214–18). Matt 10.42 is a particularly striking parallel, since, (a) not only is ἕνα τῶν μικρῶν τούτων similar to εἷς τούτων τῶν ἐλαχίστων (Matt 25.45), but (b) there is also an act of mercy resulting in a reward, as in Matt 25.34–6, and (c) two verses earlier, in Matt 10.40, Jesus explicitly identifies himself with his disciples in a manner similar to Matt 25.40, 45 (cf. J. Lambrecht, Out of the Treasure: The Parables in the Gospel of Matthew (Louvain: Peeters, 1991) 278–9). Space does not allow for a more thorough analysis of this subject.

3 Weber, K., ‘The Image of the Sheep and the Goats in Matthew 25:31–46’, CBQ 59 (1997) 657–78Google Scholar, at 670. See further below.

4 Scholars typically propose one of several possibilities with regard to the origin and tradition history of ‘Azazel’ (Lev 16.8, 10 and 26) in ancient Israel: (1) ‘Azazel’ was the name of a supernatural deity, (2) ‘Azazel’ was the name or description of the (type of) place where the scapegoat was sent, (3) ‘Azazel’ was an abstract noun indicating the sacerdotal function of the scapegoat, or (4) ‘Azazel’ denoted the act of sending away the scapegoat. For a recent summary of these viewpoints, see Pinker, A., ‘A Goat to Go to Azazel’, JHebS 7 (2007) 2–25Google Scholar, at 4–13; see also B. Janowski and G. Wilhelm, ‘Der Bock, der die Sünden hinausträgt’, Religionsgeschichtliche Beziehungen zwischen Kleinasien, Nordsyrien und dem Alten Testament (ed. B. Janowski et al.; OBO 129; Freiburg: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993) 109–69, at 119–29, 134–58; Janowski, B., ‘Azazel’, Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (ed. van der Toorn, K., Becking, B. and van der Horst, P. W.; Leiden: Brill, 1999 2) 128–31Google Scholar, at 128–9. Most scholars affirm the supernatural identity of Azazel at some point in Israel's history. Jacob Milgrom, whom most scholars follow on this point, argues that Azazel was originally conceived as a wilderness deity but was later eviscerated of his supernatural identity in the Priestly redaction of the Pentateuch (Leviticus: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (3 vols.; AB; New York: Doubleday, 1991–2001) i.1021). David P. Wright agrees with Milgrom, adding that in Leviticus 16 the scapegoat ‘does not appear to be a propitiary offering to Azazel, but only serves as a vehicle for transporting the sins’ (The Disposal of Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and in Hittite and Mesopotamian Literature (SBLDS 101; Atlanta: Scholars, 1986) 21–5, 30). Janowski reverses the position of Milgrom and Wright, arguing that Azazel only came to possess a celestial identity in post-exilic Judaism (Janowski and G. Wilhelm, ‘Der Bock’, 130). Pinker proposes that Azazel was originally a name for the pre-Temple desert-dwelling God of Israel (i.e. YHWH), whose identity was transformed to a deity when the Temple was constructed (‘Goat to Go to Azazel’, 19–25).

5 The quest to determine precisely which elements of Matt 25.31–46 comprise tradition and which consist of redaction remains largely inconclusive. We certainty know that this episode occurs in no gospel besides Matthew. Beyond this, opinions widely diverge, some taking Matt 25.31–46 to be mostly traditional (e.g. R. Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition (trans. J. Marsh; New York: Harper & Row, 1963 [1921]) 123–4; J. Friedrich, Gott im Bruder? (CTM 7; Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1977) 45–6) and others taking it to be primarily a Matthean creation (e.g. R. H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on his Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 19942) 511; Lambrecht, Out of the Treasure, 275). Indeed, the evangelist is most likely responsible for Matt 25.31–32a (Luz, Matthew, 265). His hand is evident in Matt 25.32b–46 as well, though to a lesser degree, as is evidenced by the presence of Matthean parallelisms (v. 34 // v. 41, vv. 35–6 // vv. 42–3, vv. 37–9 // vv. 44, 40 // v. 45) and vocabulary, such as τότε (vv. 31, 34, 37, 41, 44, 45), πατήρ μου (v. 34), δίκαιος (vv. 37, 46) and perhaps ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν (vv. 40, 45) (Lambrecht, Out of the Treasure, 268; Davies and Allison, Matthew, iii.418; Luz, Matthew, iii.265 n. 20; L. W. Walck, The Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch and in Matthew (London: T&T Clark, 2011) 198). Yet several Matthean hapax legomena – ἔριφος (v. 32), ἐρίφιον (v. 33), γυμνός (vv. 36, 38, 43, 44), ἐπισκέπτομαι (vv. 36, 43), καταράομαι (v. 41) and κόλασις (v. 46) – possibly betray the traditional material that the gospel writer has adapted. Scholars have proposed various editorial seams in an attempt to recover the original form of the tradition that Matthew has inherited: (a) the switch from ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (v. 31) to ὁ βασιλεύς (v. 34), (b) the change from the neuter πάντα τὰ ἔθνη (v. 32) to the masculine αὐτούς (v. 32), (c) the transition from shepherd/animals (vv. 32–3) to king/people (vv. 34–45) and (d) the shift from nations (v. 32) to individuals (vv. 34–45). However, none of these proposals has proved satisfactory (Lambrecht, Out of the Treasure, 274; Luz, Matthew, iii.265; Walck, Son of Man, 195–7). It therefore seems prudent to affirm what Ulrich Luz deems the majority position regarding the Matt 25.31–46 complex, namely, ‘that the evangelist took it over from his special material tradition and reworked it with varying degrees of intensity’ (Matthew, iii.264). However, given the unique position of these verses within Matthew's discourse structure, John Nolland's conclusion may be more likely: ‘Probably the level of Matthean intervention here is unusually high since Matthew uses this final piece to provide a climax for and to draw together not just the Eschatological Discourse but the whole set of five linked discourses’ (The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005) 1023).

6 Walck, Son of Man, 194–225. Similarly, see Tödt, H. E., The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition (trans. Barton, D. M. (London: SCM, 1965)Google Scholar; Theisohn, J., Der auserwählte Richter (SUNT 12; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975) 149–201Google Scholar. Against Matthew's dependence on the Parables, see P. M. Casey, Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7 (London: SPCK, 1979); D. R. A. Hare, The Son of Man Tradition (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991); idem, The Solution to the ‘Son of Man’ Problem (London: T&T Clark International, 2007) 91–111. On the dating of the Parables of Enoch, see R. H. Charles, The Book of Enoch or I Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon, 1912) liv–lv; J. C. Hindley, ‘Towards a Date for the Similitudes of Enoch’, NTS 14 (1968) 551–65; Milik, J. T., The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976) 89–107Google Scholar; J. C. Greenfield and M. E. Stone, ‘The Enochic Pentateuch and the Date of the Similitudes’, HTR 70 (1977) 51–65; M. A. Knibb, ‘The Date of the Parables of Enoch: A Critical Review’, NTS 25 (1978–9) 344–59; C. L. Mearns, ‘Dating the Similitudes of Enoch’, NTS 25 (1978–9) 360–9; J. J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination (New York: Crossroad, 19982 [1984]) 177–8; the articles by D. W. Suter, M. E. Stone, J. H. Charlesworth, D. D. Hannah, L. Arcari, H. Eshel and D. C. Olson in G. Boccaccini, ed., Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007) 415–98; Walck, Son of Man, 15–23. Paolo Sacchi, by way of summarising the results of the Third Enochic Seminar in 2005, states: ‘[W]e may observe those scholars who have directly addressed the problem of dating the Parables all agree on a date around the time of Herod … given the impressive amount of evidence gathered in support of a pre-Christian origin of the document. The burden of proof has now shifted to those who disagree with the Herodian date. It is now their responsibility to provide evidence that would reopen the discussion’ (‘The 2005 Camaldoli Seminar on the Parables of Enoch’, Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, 499–512, at 510–11). James H. Charlesworth remarks that ‘dating the Parables of Enoch to the time of Herod the Great and the Herodians has become conclusive’, noting that ‘this conclusion was shared by almost every leading specialist on 1En or Second Temple Judaism’ in the present colloquium, except for Michael A. Knibb (‘The Date and Provenience of the Parables of Enoch’, Parables of Enoch: A Paradigm Shift (ed. J. H. Charlesworth and D. L. Bock (London: Bloomsbury, 2013) 37–57, at 56 with n. 47).

7 L. W. Walck, ‘The Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch and the Gospels’, Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, 299–337, at 330. According to Adela Yarbro Collins, ‘Walck rightly concludes that most of the Son of Man sayings in the Gospels are not dependent on the Parables. He has made a good case, however, for the conclusion that there is a relationship of literary dependence between the Matthean redactions of certain Son of Man sayings from the Synoptic sayings source (Q) and the Parables. It is more likely that the author of Matthew is dependent on the Parables than vice versa. The link between the epithet “Son of Man” and the precise phrase “the throne of his glory” in Matt 19:28 and 25:31 probably derives from 1 En. 62.5, 69.27, and/or 69.29’ (‘The Secret Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch and the Gospel of Mark: A Response to Leslie Walck’, Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, 338–51, at 339). In fact, Walck seems to equivocate on the question of literary dependence with regard to the First Gospel. While he writes that ‘literary dependence may not be claimed’ (Walck, Son of Man, 249), he then remarks, ‘Because so many features Matthew has incorporated do not appear in other contemporary literature, it is likely that he knew and used Par. En. in particular, along with his other sources for the story of Jesus’ (loc. cit., 250).

8 D. R. Catchpole, ‘The Poor on Earth and the Son of Man in Heaven: A Re-Appraisal of Matthew 25:31–46’, BJRL 61 (1979) 378–83, at 380–1.

9 Walck, Son of Man, 216–19; idem, ‘Son of Man’, 329–30.

10 Walck, ‘Son of Man’, 330.

11 Walck, Son of Man, 219.

12 G. W. E. Nickelsburg and J. C. VanderKam, eds., 1 Enoch: The Hermeneia Translation (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012) 68.

13 Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch, 69 (emphasis added).

14 Walck, Son of Man, 219.

15 Walck, Son of Man, 219.

16 R. Rubinkiewicz, Die Eschatologie von Henoch 9–11 und das Neue Testament (trans. H. Ulrich; ÖBS 6; Klosterneuburg: Österreichisches Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1984) 98–100; D. C. Sim, ‘Matthew 22.13a and 1 Enoch 10.4a: A Case of Literary Dependence?’, JSNT 47 (1992) 3–19, at 6–13; Davies and Allison, Matthew, iii.206; G. W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 81–108 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001) 84; C. S. Hamilton, The Death of Jesus in Matthew: Innocent Blood (SNTSMS 167; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017) 171–2.

17 Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch, 28. Thus reads Codex Panopolitanus. Syncellus reads slightly differently. See M. Black and A.-M. Denis, eds., Apocalypsis Henochi Graece (FPQSG; Leiden: Brill, 1970) 24–5.

18 While the influence of the Yom Kippur ritual on 1 Enoch 10 is debated, there is wide scholarly support for this position (for a bibliography, see A. A. Orlov, Divine Scapegoats: Demonic Mimesis in Early Jewish Mysticism (Albany, NY: SUNY, 2015) 202 n. 87). Daniel Stökl Ben Ezra provides a compelling argument for the influence of scapegoat traditions on 1 Enoch 10, concluding that the ‘elements of Yom Kippur are so numerous and central in this chapter that the Yom Kippur background could be recognized even without exact identity of the names [Asael and Azazel]’ (‘Yom Kippur in the Apocalyptic Imaginaire and the Roots of Jesus’ High Priesthood’, Transformations of the Inner Self in Ancient Religions (ed. J. Assmann and G. Stroumsa; Leiden: Brill, 1999) 349–66, 353). For the influence of the Day of Atonement on 4Q180 1 7–10 and 4Q203 7 i, 5–7, see D. Stökl Ben Ezra, The Impact of Yom Kippur on Early Christianity: The Day of Atonement from Second Temple Judaism to the Fifth Century (WUNT i/163; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003) 87; A. A. Orlov, The Atoning Dyad: The Two Goats of Yom Kippur in the Apocalypse of Abraham (Studia Judaeoslavica; Leiden: Brill, 2016) 87–8. On the Yom Kippur typology in the Apocalypse of Abraham, see Rubinkiewicz, Die Eschatologie von Henoch 9–11, 101; L. Grabbe, ‘The Scapegoat Tradition: A Study in Early Jewish Interpretation’, JSJ 18 (1987) 152–67, at 156–8; Orlov, Divine Scapegoats; idem, Atoning Dyad, 81–160.

19 On the garment imagery, see J. P. Meier, Matthew (NTM 3; Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1981) 248; Rubinkiewicz, Die Eschatologie von Hen 9–11, 109.

20 Davies and Allison suspect that Matt 22.11–14 is a free Matthean composition (Matthew, iii.194).

21 Rubinkiewicz, Die Eschatologie von Hen 9–11, 97–113.

22 The term ἔριφος (Matt 25.32b; ἐρίφιον in 25:33) means ‘kid’ (LSJ s.v.) and not ‘he-goat’ (K. Wengst, ‘Wie aus Böcken Ziegen wurden (Mt 25, 32–33)’, EvT 54 (1994) 491–501, at 497–8; cf. BDAG, 392). Ἔριφος is used twenty-six times in the LXX, usually translating the Hebrew גדי (‘kid’) and almost always referring to a kid of a ‘goat’ (שעיר ,עז): Gen 27.9, 16; 37.31; 38.17, 20, 23; Exod 12.5; Lev 1.10; Judg 6.19; 13.15, 19; 15.1; 1 Sam 16.20; 2 Chr 35.7, 8; Jer 51.40 (in reference to עתוד); Ezek 43.22, 25; 45.23. Gen 27.9 is a pertinent example: ‘And go to the flock (πρόβατα) and take for me thence two young goats (ἐρίφους; MT: שני גדיי עזים).’ Here the term ἔριφοι is used with no modifiers (such as αἰγῶν) but clearly refers to goat-kids, and the ἔριφοι are taken directly from Isaac's πρόβατα. The word ἔριφος is used with reference to a different animal species only once in the LXX (Amos 6.4, which translates כר, ‘lamb’). Ἔριφος occurs without reference to an animal species only in Judg 14.6; Song 1.8; Isa 11.6. Luz notes, ‘For ἔριφοι (young sheep) there is not a single source [in the LXX]; however, the frequent appearance together of ἄρνες and ἔριφοι in the Bible and in Greek probably shows that the latter could not be lambs. Thus ὁ/ἡ ἔριφος also means not “young animal”, as Wengst (‘Böcken’, 498) surmises, but “young goat”’ (Matthew, iii.277). Given the LXX's usage, ‘young goat’ is the best rendering of ἔριφος in Matt 25.32–3.

23 Weber, ‘Image of the Sheep and the Goats’, 657–78. Weber carefully considers evidence from four distinct cultural milieus. In her examination of modern twentieth-century Greece, she indicates that goats have a very negative connotation among the Greek Sarakatsan transhumant pastoralists, but beyond this social group, attitudes towards goats in the modern Mediterranean basin vary widely (op. cit., 662–4). In the ancient Greco-Roman world, while sheep were generally deemed more valuable than goats, and while goats often symbolised sexual promiscuity, one ‘would still be surprised at the contrast of sheep with goats in Matt 25:31–46, because nothing in the Greco-Roman symbolic repertoire makes goats the plausible target of the extreme animus exhibited by the divine judge’ (op. cit., 665–67; quotation at 667). In terms of twentieth-century Palestine, Weber finds no negative valuation of goats, noting that their rambunctious personality and lesser value than sheep provide no grounds for such vitriol against them (op. cit., 667–9). With regard to first-century Jewish Syria and Palestine, Weber observes that (a) many animals, but never goats, are contrasted with sheep or symbolise evil (Jer 2.24; Hos 8.9; Sir 26.25; 1 En. 83–90), (b) the Hebrew Bible consistently portrays goats in a positive light (Gen 15.9; 32.14–15; Num 7.12–88; Deut 32.14; Judg 13.15; 15.1; 1 Sam 25.2; Isa 11.6; Song 4.1; 5.1; 6.5) and (c) Ezek 34.17 probably bears little relationship to Matt 25.32–3 (op. cit., 669–73).

24 Weber, ‘Image of the Sheep and the Goats’, 673. She adds a notable caveat: ‘Certainly, the audience of Matthew's own time could point to certain blemishes on the reputation of goats as animals, less valuable and more demanding than others, and possibly (if Hellenistic attitudes had their influence) as animals closely associated with sexual excess, but not with negative qualities extreme enough to merit this expulsion’ (ibid.).

25 Weber, ‘Image of the Sheep and the Goats’, 670. On the positive portrayal of goats in the Old Testament, see the note above.

26 Josephus, Ant. 3.240–1 (Thackeray).

27 Jub. 34.12, 18 (VanderKam, Jubilees, 228–9) (emphasis added). While in this typology, the slaughtered kid most obviously corresponds to the immolated goat, whose blood is manipulated by the priests (Lev 16.15–19), Daniel Stökl Ben Ezra observes a parallel to the scapegoat as well, as the garment dipped in the kid's blood is sent to Jacob, as the scapegoat is sent to Azazel (Lev 16.21–2) (Impact of Yom Kippur, 96). More importantly, since in Second Temple tradition the two goats of Yom Kippur were required to be similar in appearance (m. Yoma 6.1; Barn. 7.6, 10; Justin, Dial. 40.4–5; Tertullian, Marc. 3.7.7; Adv. Jud. 14.9–10), it is implied that the scapegoat was also a young goat, even if the kid in Jubilees only corresponds to the immolated goat.

28 Weber, ‘Image of the Sheep and the Goats’, 658–9, 673–5.

29 J. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1972) 206; Gundry, Matthew, 512; D. Senior, Matthew (ANTC; Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1998) 281; Davies and Allison, Matthew, iii.423; C. S. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999) 603; Weber, ‘Image of the Sheep and the Goats’, 670. Weber observes that, in ancient and modern times, a cultural boundary lies between Greece and Syria, wherein ‘[w]est of this line, sheep and goats are kept in separate herds … East of this line, sheep and goats are kept in mixed herds’ (‘Image of the Sheep and the Goats’, 673).

30 Wengst, ‘Böcken’. Gustaf Dalmn's infamous statement, based on contemporary, not ancient, Palestinian customs, is as follows: ‘Die Schafe wollen frische Luft haben, die Ziegen sollten wärmer stehen, weil Kälte ihnen schadet. Nach dem Sprichwort gilt von ihnen’ (Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina, vol. iv (Hildesheim: Olms, 1964 [1939] 276).

31 One theory is that ἔριφοι means ‘bucks’, which are separated from the females, so that the latter may be milked (Lambrecht, Out of the Treasure, 261). But Luz notes that ἔριφος rarely means ‘buck’, despite BAGD's incorrect gloss (Matthew, iii.276–7). Nolland adds that ‘LXX usage offers no encouragement … to this alternative’ (Matthew, 1025). Following Wengst (‘Böcken’, 499–500), Luz proposes that the young goats are separated to be slaughtered, since ‘[i]n almost all texts where ἔριφοι appear, they are slaughtered, eaten, or sacrificed.’ (Matthew, iii.277). Yet this suggestion faces three difficulties. First, Luz overstates his case, as ἔριφοι are not slaughtered nor sacrificed in Gen 38.17, 20, 23; Judg 15.1; 1 Sam 16.20; Isa 11.6; Song 1.8; 1 Esd 1.7; Sir 47.3. Second, in many instances where ἔριφοι are slaughtered, they are done so in sacrifice to God (e.g. Lev 1.10; Judg 13.19; Ezek 43.22, 25; 45.23), which carries a positive, not negative, connotation. Third, as Nolland notes, Luz's proposal ‘would be more attractive if the text had “the kids” being separated from “the flock” and not the reverse, and if the diminutive form ἐρίφιον had been used in Mt. 25:32 and not only later’ (Matthew, 1026).

32 Luz, Matthew, iii.276.

33 I say ‘at least in part’, because the phrase ὥσπερ ὁ ποιμὴν ἀφορίζει τὰ πρόβατα ἀπὸ τῶν ἐρίφων (Matt 25.32) suggests that the evangelist is assuming the plausibility of such an agricultural custom. Admittedly, this phrase makes the interpretation set forth in this article more difficult to accept. Yet it is not an insurmountable challenge. Matthew possibly retains this agricultural verisimilitude because it derives from his special source, or perhaps his community was already familiar with the image of a shepherd separating sheep from goats by means of an earlier Christian tradition. This plausible scenario would explain why Matthew preserves this image and yet blends it with imagery from the Yom Kippur ritual.

34 Stökl Ben Ezra, Impact of Yom Kippur, 98. There may be a hint in 4Q418 81 4–5 that such ‘lot’ imagery bore a direct relationship to the Yom Kippur ritual: ‘he has placed you as a holy of holies [over all] the earth, and among all the [g]o[ds] he has cast your lot (הפיל גורלכה)’ (F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, 2 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 1997–8) ii.871–72).

35 Philo, Her. 179. See also Philo, Leg. 2.52; Post. 70.

36 Although the figure ‘Azazel’ in the Apocalypse of Abraham is a celestial entity and not a goat per se, this figure is depicted as a scapegoat in terms of form and function. See the section in Orlov (Atoning Dyad, 81–129) entitled ‘Azazel as an Eschatological Scapegoat in the Apocalypse of Abraham’.

37 Apoc. Ab. 13.7 (A. Kulik, Retroverting Slavonic Pseudepigrapha: Toward the Original of the Apocalypse of Abraham (Leiden: Brill, 2005) 18). See also Apoc. Ab. 10.15; 14.6; 20.5 (this verse may be a Bogomil interpolation). Orlov notes that ‘it is certainly significant that the Slavonic term for “lot” (часть) found in the Apocalypse of Abraham appears to be connected to the Hebrew גורל, a notion prominent in many of the cultic descriptions found in biblical and rabbinic accounts, as well as in the eschatological developments attested by the Qumran materials’ (Atoning Dyad, 92–3).

38 Orlov, Atoning Dyad, 91.

39 Origen, Hom. Lev. 9.3.2; 9.4.2; 9.5.2.

40 M. Yoma 4.1.

41 B. Yoma 39a–b.

42 Tg. Ps.-J. Lev 16.18–19, 21.

43 Apoc. Ab. 22.4–5; 27.1–2; 29.11. See Orlov, Divine Scapegoats, 103–26; idem, Atoning Dyad, 133–5.

44 One might reasonably object that, if a Yom Kippur typology underlies the imagery of the two opposing lots in Matt 25.32–3, then the righteous lot ought also to be a lot of (righteous) goats to match the two goats of the Day of Atonement ritual. However, the evangelist may have been stubbornly attracted to the image of sheep, since ‘sheep’ (πρόβατα) is a common metaphor for God's people (e.g. Jer 23.1–2; 27.6, 17 LXX; Ezek 34 LXX; Zech 11 LXX; Matt 9.36; 10.6; 15.24; 18.12; 26.31; John 10). Moreover, he may have reckoned the characteristics of sheep and goats ‘close enough’ to apply Yom Kippur imagery to both. As Nolland remarks, ‘The dominant impression created by a survey of OT uses of “sheep” and “goat” is the degree to which they are interchangeable … However important the difference between them might have been for certain purposes … the animals are first and foremost thought of together. In their normal dirty state, it might even have been considered wise to leave it to the skilled shepherd to distinguish with confidence the sheep from the goats’ (Matthew, 1026).

45 Weber, ‘Image of the Sheep and Goats’, 673.

46 Wright, Disposal of Impurity, 29–30.

47 Philo, Spec. 1.888 (Colson).

48 Philo, Her. 179 (Colson and Whitaker).

49 Josephus, Ant. 3.241 (Thackeray).

50 1 En. 10.4–5 (Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch, 28).

51 Apoc. Ab. 14.5–6 (Kulik, Slavonic Pseudepigrapha, 21).

52 Philo, Spec. 1.888 (Colson).

53 Barn. 7.9 (Ehrman); see also Tertullian, Marc. 3.7.7.

54 Tertuallian, Marc. 3.7 (E. Evans, Tertullian: Adversus Marcionem: Books 1–3 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972) 191).

55 M. Yoma 6.4 (H. Danby, The Mishnah: Translated from the Hebrew with Introduction and Brief Explanatory Notes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933) 169).

56 Apoc. Ab. 13.7 (Kulik, Slavonic Pseudepigrapha, 20).

57 It is not clear whose sins are ‘written upon Asael’ in 1 En. 10.8: the sins of Asael himself, the Watchers, the Giants, humanity or some combination of the above? There is a similar ambiguity in 4Q180 1 7–9 and 4Q203 7 i, 5–7.

58 D. Stökl Ben Ezra, ‘The Biblical Yom Kippur: The Jewish Fast of the Day of Atonement and the Church Fathers’, SP 34 (2002) 493–502, at 494.

59 Barn. 7.9 (Ehrman). See also Philo, Her. 179; Origen, Hom. Lev. 9.4.2; 9.5.2.

60 Orlov, Atoning Dyad, 55.

61 Orlov, Atoning Dyad, 128–57.

62 One weakness of this reading is that the early church fathers do not appear to have commonly linked Matt 25.31–46 and Leviticus 16. The earliest Christian witness to connect these two passages of which I am aware is Cyril of Alexandria in Letter 41.8: ‘Accordingly, the goat, or the he-goat, or the kid was the sacrifice for sin according to the decision of the law, for the divinely inspired Scripture in very many places compares the just to sheep and the lover of iniquity to a goat … For this reason, also, our Lord Jesus Christ says, “But when the Son of Man will sit on the throne of his glory; and he will set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left”’ (J. I. McEnerney, St. Cyril of Alexandria: Letters 1–50 (FC 76; Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1987) 173).

63 Grabbe, ‘The Scapegoat Tradition’, 166.

64 A. Runesson, ‘Purity, Holiness, and the Kingdom of Heaven in Matthew's Narrative World’, Purity and Holiness in Judaism and Christianity: Essays in Memory of Susan Haber (ed. C. Ehrlich, A. Runesson and E. Schuller; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013) 144–80, at 157.