Did the Hebrews give the scapegoat to a demon Azazel? Why is this demon seemingly associated with the Day of Atonement?

__________________
Pergamum


"If a commission by an earthly king is considered a honor, how can a commission by a Heavenly King be considered a sacrifice?"
-- David Livingstone

And there, my friend, you've hit on one problem with the ESV.

From Wikipedia:

__________________
The man who is disposed to think of his sin as a great calamity, rather than as a heinous crime, is not likely either to reverence God or to respect His law. - John Kennedy, 1873
Meg
Blog
Member, Intown Presbyterian Church,PCA, Portland, OR

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

What does the Hebrew and the Greek Septuagint say for Azazel? Is it ez ozel, the goat that departs, or did the english translators falsely split the word? Anyone know the textual evidence or why the ESV did this?

a. The word lz)z( characterizes the goat itself and is a combination of two Hebrew words: lzw) z( or lz) z(2 which can be rendered as ‘departing goat’, hence ‘(e)scapegoat’. This is a very early interpretation, already found in the Septuagint which translates the Hebrew word lz)z(l in Leviticus 16 as tw|= a)popompai/w| or tou= a)popompai/ou ‘for the one sent away’ (vv. 8, 10), ei)j th_n a)popomph_n a)fh/sei ‘for the one sent away for release’ (v. 10) and lz)z(l ry(#h as to_n xi/maron to_n diestalme/non ei)j a!fesin ‘the goat which is determined for release’ (v. 26). The same interpretation is reflected in the Vulgate which renders it as caper emissarius3.
Biblica 81 (2000) Jacqueline C.R. DE ROO

__________________
Tim Vaughan
Member, Redeemer Presbyterian, OPC,
Santa Maria
California

Why the resurgence of scholars saying that this is Azazel?

Many modern biblical scholars believe that the word lz)z( is the name of a demon on the basis of the following arguments:

1. According to Lev 16,8, Aaron is supposed to cast lots for two goats: one ‘for YHWH’ and another ‘for Azazel’. The first goat is for a supernatural being, therefore it is likely that the second one is too7.

2. A direct contrast seems to be made between the destinations of the two goats and between YHWH and Azazel. Demons are opponents of YHWH.

3. The goat designated for Azazel is driven into the wilderness, which is often described as the abode of demons (Lev 17,7; Isa 13,21-22; 34,11-15; Tob 8,3; Matt 12,43).

4. Post-biblical Jewish interpreters identified Azazel with Asael, the leader of the fallen angels mentioned in 1 Enoch (8,1; 9,6; 10,4-8; 13,1; compare 4Q180 1 7-8)




If this translation IS correct what it give us any major theological problems, especially in light that in church discipline an unrepetnant sinner is said to be turned over to Satan?

Did any of the medieval theologians who believed in the ransom theory of the atonement (the Christ paid a debt to Satan in His atonement) use this concept as evidence for advancing their false view?


Also, is this another reason why Enoch was counted as non-canonical. Enoch writes about Azazel and Jude quotes Enoch when Enoch is true, but apparently not everything Enoch said was true. I find it curious that these strange writings of Enoch were revered by the Jews but never counted as Scripture.

I think it is a reflection of hyper-BT and liberal attitudes about the Bible and its "construction." Liberal BTers believe in multiple "theologies" of many writers and persons in the Bible. They believe that biblical religion in its final, canonical form is the product of development and borrowing. Noah? Just Enuma Elish rewritten for a Jewish audience, or both a product of an earlier myth. Etc.

Seems to me that this is one of many verbal plays or puns that the Bible is riddled with. Suppose there was some ages-old myth about some desert-demon named of Azazel. Who CARES if it has any basis in spirit-reality? Moses mocks and belittles every false religion he knows of, all under inspiration. God mocks the gods of Egypt in the plagues.

So, would it be odd if Moses made a play on words here (assuming he did... what if the Azazel myth is "younger" than Moses and the Exodus?!?), and gave the second goat a designation that sounded like a false god or demonic power? The text tells us there were two goats. It seems to me that assuming Moses would give some "claim" to a demon or the Prince of demons goes contrary to the very thing biblical religion was designed to do--reduce the power and claims of any other god or power to zero.

So, let's assume for a moment that this is a word play. Lets assume that Moses may have even had THE Azazel in mind. When "Azazel" has been obliterated by time and the power of Jehovah, is it more, or less, explanatory of the biblical text to render the language according to the "meaning" of Azazel, or with some obscure Denominative?

I think the KJV translators, even if they didn't know about this twist at all--a big assumption if you ask me--did everyone a favor.

__________________
Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI


When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:
Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us.
--Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? --

It does seem that Moses consciously made many parrelells with ancient near east myths around him. Was this an ancient example of contextualization or, as you say, mocking the falsity around him. Go ahead and have your sea-God, Jehovah will crush Leviathan?