For the Hebrew Scholars: Who is Azazel?

nleshelman · #1 (**permalink**) 09-22-2008, 09:17 PM

Leviticus 16:8 And Aaron shall cast lots over the two goats, one lot for the LORD and the other lot for Azazel.

or

Leviticus 16:8 "Then Aaron shall cast lots for the two goats: one lot for the LORD and the other lot for the scapegoat.

The term azazel in Hebrew seems to be an obscure term. The first goat is obviously 'for YHWH', but the second goat 'for the scapegoat' does not seem to make much sense in light of the first goat. I see some commentators mention a tradition of him being a demon of some sort. What should we make of this term as we take its obscurity into consideration?

vagabond · #2 (**permalink**) 09-22-2008, 09:28 PM

"Scapegoat" is a shortened form of "the goat that escapes," coined, as I understand it, by William Tyndale (then followed by AV translators), who split the word azazel into two parts, generating this translation.

But the word appears in extra-canonical books (one of the Enochs and Abraham, I believe) referring to some sort of evil spiritual entity.

As far as I know, some pagans worship(ed) a being named Azazel.

You're right, it's obscure, and past my limited Hebrew knowledge.

**armourbearer** · #3 (**permalink**) 09-22-2008, 09:35 PM

The next chapter, verse 7, shows clearly that the mythological interpretation cannot be correct.

vagabond · #4 (**permalink**) 09-22-2008, 09:38 PM

I don't want to contradict...but I fail to see why it shows that "clearly." The Azazel goat isn't sacrificed, after all.

VirginiaHuguenot · #5 (**permalink**) 09-22-2008, 10:01 PM

John Brown of Haddington:

Quote:

AZAZEL, scapegoat

Our KJV translation rightly makes the Hebrew word scapegoat, which was driven into the wilderness on the great day of the Feast of Expiation. Some think, it refers to a horrible precipice, over which the female goat was thrown headlong. Herman Witsius, Johannes Cocceius, and others, think this signifies Satan, for, they say, this goat was abandoned in the wilderness, or as a type of Christ led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil, or led by Pilate and the Jews to have his heel bruised, and his life taken away outside the gate. (Lev. 16:8, 10, 26 compare with Heb. 13:12-13)

nleshelman · #6 (**permalink**) 09-22-2008, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

The next chapter, verse 7, shows clearly that the mythological interpretation cannot be correct.

"Those who adopt this interpretation [of him being a demon] insist that the goat was not viewed as a sacrifice or a gift to Azazel. The sins of Israel were simply being sent back to the author, Azazel, who lived in the desert. Despite this disclaimer, it is not difficult to see the rite being misinterpreted as a gift to the demon, if Azazel is a demon's name." Wenham, p.234.

I am not sold on any interpretation just yet, I have just begun to work through the Hebrew chapter. Very interesting though. I would appreciate any more thoughts on who he/it is.

**armourbearer** · #7 (**permalink**) 09-22-2008, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nleshelman

"Those who adopt this interpretation [of him being a demon] insist that the goat was not viewed as a sacrifice or a gift to Azazel. The sins of Israel were simply being sent back to the author, Azazel, who lived in the desert. Despite this disclaimer, it is not difficult to see the rite being misinterpreted as a gift to the demon, if Azazel is a demon's name." Wenham, p.234.

It seems to me to be a distinction without a difference because the sins of the people were confessed over the scapegoat, hence it was acting in a sacrificial capacity to some extent -- at the very least it was vicarious. I'm also inclined to think that the law's insistence on Israel being a completely separated people, shunning all the rites of their heathen neighbours, points us away from associating devilish customs with Israel's worship. They were not permitted to take up the names of foreign gods on their lips, so it is difficult to conceive how the name of Azazel should come to be incorporated into the yearly sacrifice, if it has a mythological context.

vagabond · #8 (**permalink**) 09-22-2008, 11:05 PM

I agree that the demonic context seems to be unsettlingly atypical. If it's the correct interpretation, I'll accept that, but I would take some serious convincing. I know of 4 possible interpretations (cf. NBD)

1) "the goat that escapes," (ez ozel)
2) an infinitive meaning "to remove," (see BDB; "entire removal")
3) a desolate region or "precipice," to which the goat was to be taken (the rabbinic interpretation, according to TWOT), or
4) a demon haunting that desert region (whose name draws from azaz "strong" and el "god").

Modern scholars seem to prefer the last option of the four I noted.

NET says:

Quote:

Perhaps a play on words between the proper name and the term for "goat" has occurred so that the etymology has become obscure. Even if a demon or the demonic realm is the source for the name, however, there is no intention here of appeasing the demons. The goal is to remove the impurity and iniquity from the community in order to avoid offending the LORD and the repercussions of such (see esp. vv. 16:21-22, 15:31).

Both Holladay and the massive HALOT only offer the option of "a desert demon."

I, however, like the other 3 options better. As a point of interest, compare the striking parallel in Lev 14:1-9, involving two birds and the cleansing of lepers.

Acronyms:
NBD: New Bible Dictionary
BDB: Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon
TWOT: Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament
NET: New English Translation, translation notes (www.bible.org)
HALOT: Hebrew-Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament

Pergamum · #9 (**permalink**) 09-23-2008, 07:32 AM

We just had a thread on this - do a search.

Todd Peddler I think - in that previous thread that I started - sent some excellent links that were really helpful.

Rev. Todd Ruddell · #10 (**permalink**) 09-23-2008, 08:06 AM

I'm with Gesenius:

only found in the law of the day of atonement (Lev. 16:8, 10, 26), respecting which many conjectures have been made. I have no doubt that it should be rendered averter, ἀλεξίκακος (עֲזָאזֵל for עֲזַלְזֵל, from the root עָזַל, عزل to remove, to separate;