Popular Culture Review 30.1
of scapegoat may illustrate Gadsby ’ s irresponsibility in sacrificing Nanette .
The first 15 chapters of the Bible ’ s Leviticus teach how individuals can become reconciled to God through sacrifice or how they can “ wash away their sins ” through ceremony and obedience to His laws . The Day of Atonement described in Leviticus 16 , celebrated in modern day as Jewish Yom Kippur , symbolized atonement for the entire Israelite nation as a priest officiated the personification of a goat as savior of the community by shouldering their collective sins and releasing it into the wilderness never to be seen again .
The English word for this symbolic goat was fashioned by William Tyndale in his 1530 translation of the English Bible . He translated the Hebrew word azazel , found only in connection with this Levitical ceremony , as ez azel or the goat ( ez ) which escapes ( azel ). The concept of this is that the goat represents “ one that bears the blame for others ” whether guilty or innocent ( Merriam-Webster ). Thus , we see the origins of the scapegoat archetype employed by Gadsby .
These origins surpass language and religion as seen in text archives of Jungian writings , the Torah and Qumran and in the twenty-fourth century BC Syria ( Zatelli ). The ancient Greeks had a scapegoating ritual , much like Gadsby ’ s burdening of Nanette with all society ’ s bigotry in which they cast out of the community a mendicant , cripple , or criminal , either in response to a natural disaster or calendrical crisis ; regardless of one ’ s language or religion , today this is recognized in America as abhorrent societal practice .
Why didn ’ t Gadsby converse with Nanette when she had the opportunity ? Was she too shy ? Her stage performance and celebrity shed doubt on this possibility . Who judged ? Con-
128