Lost in Translation: the true origin of the Beale saga

In Leviticus, it speaks of Aaron with two goats to make an offering. As long as the people continually sinned, they constantly needed atonement. Hence the sacrifice.

Aaron had to draw lots as to how the goats were sacrificed. One goat would be an offering to God and the other to what is called in Hebrew, Azazel.

The latter term exists nowhere else in the Bible. It probably refers to the utterly banished demon, the prince of evil spirits who occupied all desolate places such as the desert.

The word, however, was mistranslated in 1530 by William Tyndale. He mistook Azazel for ez ozel, which means the goat that escapes.

As the pardon of sin is often represented in the Bible by its being banished into the uttermost parts of the earth, nothing could convey this idea of forgiveness better than a goat laden with the sins of the people cast out into the wilderness.

It makes no sense, though, to speak of a goat going to a scapegoat. Nonetheless, this is how the word scapegoat came about and was an error repeated in other languages. From this we would eventually derive the meaning of scapegoat as it is used today. Yet this usage was not first used until the 19th century.

As of yet, there have been no reports of Kurtley Beale and escaping goats on that flight to Argentina. We have heard a lot of salacious rumors mixed in with so-called facts in the ensuing days, and it seems some people think the matter warrants sufficient gravity to put ‘gate’ as a suffix.

Much has been said on this topic and I do not wish to throw more coals on the fire. Beale-gate will be judged on its own terms.

I certainly do not wish to paint Beale as a scapegoat judging by the scraps of truths that have been fed to us. As I said, his case will be judged by the relevant authorities.

The point of my initial wandering down the lane of etymology is that I think we have lost sight of why so many people have been incensed by this story and why it is receiving such scrutiny in contrast to a misdemeanor by Aaron Cruden. In short, the origin of this story has been lost in translation, so to speak.

The media frenzy runs deeper than either Kurtley Beale or Ewen McKenzie. There is sin and a need for atonement but I believe that it is the Wallabies that are asking for forgiveness and the offerings of Beale and McKenzie are not enough to appease the gods.

Think back to the aftermath of Sydney. That result was disappointing in that it was a game New Zealand should have lost. The confidence that came from the consistent and generally impressive showing in the France series and the Super 15 drove that performance.

It probably drove McKenzie to goad Hansen into getting his players to being on their A game. There was genuine hope that he could finally deliver on his promise to beat New Zealand.

The fact that Australia went from likely heroes to humiliated zeroes in the space of a week should not be understated.

Scratchy wins against South Africa and Argentina were not enough to wipe the memories of that bitter defeat.

The two subsequent away losses just brought them back stronger. The saga that occurred in the middle was not the cause of such ire that came out in the media.

It was a manifestation of the deep frustrations over the fact that Australia had once again failed to deliver on its promise and had cruelly dashed aspirations of improving on Mackenzie’s first year after taking over Robbie Deans.

The 2011 Rugby World Cup provides another example. Contrast the media coverage over Israel Dagg and Corey Jane with the England team’s antics ranging from dwarf tossing to ferry jumping.

The former saw the All Black pair caught drinking and smoking the night before the semi final against Australia.

The latter saw the English media lambast the players and manager over their unprofessional conduct.

What was really at the heart of the matter? Not the misguided behaviour of a few players. Both teams were guilty of that. The difference was New Zealand won the semi final and the final and England were bundled out in the quarters.

History is written by the winners. Scapegoats are written by the losers. Something has to explain poor results. The hysteria and white rage by the English media were really directed at the quarter final exit by England. If they had won, the misdemeanors would have been forgotten.

The fixation on Beale and McKenzie is really a sideshow. Both will come under scrutiny but for separate issues. Their judgement day will come.

What is really driving this story is that the goat, which represents the Wallabies and their poor showing, is trying to escape out into the Australian desert and the fans and media want to drag it back to the major cities and fry it up as an offering to appease the rugby gods.

That is not the true meaning of scapegoat but that is exactly what this story has come to mean.