Weinbender a Goat for Azazel
-
Upload
megasthenis1 -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
0
Transcript of Weinbender a Goat for Azazel
-
7/28/2019 Weinbender a Goat for Azazel
1/12
A GOAT FOR AZAZEL
by
Jack L. Weinbender III
A paper submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
OT 5150 Old Testament Introduction
Dr. Christopher A. Rollston
Emmanuel School of Religion
Johnson City, TN
November 17, 2009
-
7/28/2019 Weinbender a Goat for Azazel
2/12
A GOAT FOR AZAZEL
Translators and commentators have had trouble with the Hebrew phrase in
Lev 16:8 since it was first penned by the Priestly writer(s) many centuries ago. The word has
been translated variously as for the precipice, for a goat of departure, for Azazel, and
famously in the KJV, for a scapegoat. Each translation brings with it an assumption of purpose
to the so called scapegoat ritual1 with respect to both the Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) context
and to the cult of YHWH as described in the Hebrew Bible. As part of the Day of Atonement
rituals, the scapegoat plays a central role in the removal of sin from the Israelite camp.
Traditionally, scholars have approached the term in one of three ways: a) describing the
goats function in the removal of sin or impurity (as in the LXX and Vulgate), b) the name of the
cliff or precipice from which the goat is cast, and most commonly, c) the name of a demon
dwelling in the desert outside the camp.
In Lev 16:8, the LXX translates as , the one carrying away the
evil (also in 16:10; in both gen. and acc. cases), but in v. 26 as
, the goat set apart for dismissal.2 In order for this translation to make
1. For the purposes of this paper, the second goat of the ritual will be referred to as the scapegoat,
though, as described below, this most likely is not an accurate translation of .
2. A. Pinker, A goat to go to Azazel, Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 7 (2007): 3; J. W. Wevers, Notes on
the Greek Text of Leviticus, Septuagint and cognate studies series no. 44 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997) 24346; J.
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, (AB 3; New York: Doubleday,
1991): 1020.
1.
-
7/28/2019 Weinbender a Goat for Azazel
3/12
sense etymologically, the LXX translator seems to have seen the Hebrew word as a compound of
of two parts: goat and the Aramaic to depart.3 The most obvious shortcoming to this
view shows itself in the grammatical context of v. 8. Literally, the Hebrew reads, And Aaron
will place lots on the two he-goatsone lot for YHWH and one lot for Azazel. The LXX
renders the passage in a nearly word-for-word equivalent to the MT, changing only the word
. As Weavers notes, the two different translations of in vv. 8 and 10 vis--vis v. 26
show that the LXX translator saw the term as descriptive of the goats function.4 This rendering
strains the obvious parallelism between the two uses of the Hebrew preposition in the MT v. 8
and the prepositional dative phrase in the LXX. Where the first prepositional phrase to/for
YHWH clearly denotes destination or ownership, translating as for a scapegoat shifts
the lots function as a marker of destination to one of function. If were translated for a
scapegoat, we might expect the other goat to be designated for a burnt offering, or something
similar. Furthermore, post-biblical Jewish literature depicts Azazel as a desert demon equated
with Satan or a fallen angel (cf. 3 Enoch 4:6; Apocalypse of Abraham; 1 Enoch 10:4-5 Azael ).
Very little support exists for meaning the goat that departs outside of the LXX, though
even there the context betrays the clear syntactical parallelism between YHWH and Azazel.
A more convincing argument set forth by Driverthat was the name of a rocky
outcropping or precipicefits the grammatical context of the phrase more appropriately. Driver
3. Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 1020; G. R. Driver, Three technical terms in the Pentateuch, Journal of
Semitic Studies 1, no. 2 (April 1956): 98. Milgrom comments that though is an Aramaic term, it is found in the
Hebrew Bible (Cf. Prov. 20:14 and Job 14:11).
4. Wevers,Notes on the Greek Text of Leviticus, 245; also Pinker, A goat to go to Azazel, 3.
2.
-
7/28/2019 Weinbender a Goat for Azazel
4/12
argues that a theme of jagged rocks exists in (admittedly late) post-biblical texts. For example,
m. Yoma 6:8 describes the scapegoat being bound and pushed off of a rocky cliff,5 just as
Azael is bound, banished to the desert, then covered with sharp rocks in 1 Enoch 10:4-5.6
Hoenig, in accord with Driver, says that Azazel cannotrefer to a demon on the precedent that in
no other culture are scapegoats offered to demons,7 therefore the word must refer to the name of
the goat (as in LXX) or in reference to a cliff. Etymologically, Driver argues that originally
came from the root , from which the Arabic azzu rough ground is derived.8 The word is
further augmented with a formative lamed, just as cloud has an intensive form in
heavy cloud.9 Ironically, Driver argues that the later Jewish writings depicting Azazel as a
demon are innovations, but at the same time forms his argument around the theme of jagged
rocks based solely on post-biblical texts. Admittedly, the incorporation of demonological
elements in the Priestly (P) writingson the Day of Atonement, no lessdoes present the reader
with considerable theological problems.10 However, these problems require considerably less
etymological maneuvering, whilst maintaining continuity with post-biblical texts.
The dominant view of Azazel in modern scholarship portrays him as a demon associated
5. Driver, Three technical terms in the Pentateuch, 97.
6. Milgrom,Leviticus 1-16, 1020
7. S. B. Hoenig, Review: The New Qumran Pesher on Azazel, The Jewish Quarterly Review 56, no. 3
(January 1966): 248, citing T.H. Gaster, Azazel, in The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, ed. G. A. Buttrick,
vol. 1 (New York: Abingdon Press, 1962), 326.
8. Driver, Three technical terms in the Pentateuch, 98.
9. Ibid. Driver also gives the example of the word terraced land terraced hill, as in Mt.
Carmel.
10. As pointed out in B. A. Levine, Leviticus: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation,
The JPS Torah commentary; (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989): 252.
3.
-
7/28/2019 Weinbender a Goat for Azazel
5/12
with the desert. This reading provides the reader with the most obvious syntactical parallelism in
16:8one lot to/for YHWH and one lot to/for Azazel.11 Rudman suggests that may
derive from the semitic root zz angry, fierce and l god and in context would mean
something like for the elimination of [divine] anger12 or fierce one of god as Barton
supposes.13 In fact, there issome textual evidence that supports this claim, as Tawil points out:
a) the Samaritan Bible in one out of three cases spells the word , b) an interpretation
on the legend of the fallen angels from Qumran cave four twice reads , c) the Peitta
renders the word three times , d) Targum Ps. J on Gen 6:4 refers to the two fallen
angels as while e) in the late Midrash is clearly interchanged with
. It seems that the identity of /// with is amplycertain.14
Milgrom and others attribute the variation in spelling to a Masoretic convention used to disguise
the name of an evil demon.15 While it does not explain the inconsistent metathesis of and , it
does provide some insight into how the name was later associated with jagged rocks.
11. Cf. D. P. Wright, The Disposal of Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and in Hittite and
Mesopotamian Literature, SBLDS no. 101 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987): 21; R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel (New
York: McGraw-Hill Co., 1965): 509; H. Tawil, Azazel, the Prince of the Steepe: a comparative study, ZAW92,
no. 1 (1980): 5859; Y. Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel, from Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile. vol. 1
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960): 11415; I. Zatelli, The Origin of the Biblical Scapegoat Ritual: The
Evidence of Two Eblaite Texts, VT48, no. 2 (April 1998): 262; Martin Noth, Leviticus: A Commentary, The Old
Testament library; (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977): 124125; N. Wyatt, Atonement theology in Ugarit and
Israel, Ugarit-Forschungen 8 (1977): 428, 29]; M. H. Segal, The Religion of Israel before Sinai (Continued), The
Jewish Quarterly Review 53, no. 3 (January 1963): 25; Milgrom,Leviticus 1-16, 1021; et al.
12. D. Rudman, A note on the Azazel-goat ritual, ZAW116, no. 3 (2004): 397. He also suggests that the
name may have an Egyptian origin from 3r/l the expelled culprit and may be associated with the god
Seth.
13. G. A. Barton, The Origin of the Names of Angels and Demons in the Extra-Canonical Apocalyptic
Literature to 100 A.D., JBL 31, no. 4 (1912): 163; also K. Kohler, The Sabbath and Festivals in Pre-Exilic and
Exilic Times,JAOS37 (1917): 222.
14. Tawil, Azazel, the Prince of the Steepe, 5859.
15. M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel(New York: Oxford University Press, 1985): 69
70; Milgrom,Leviticus 1-16, 1021; Tawil Azazel, the prince of the steepe, 58.
4.
-
7/28/2019 Weinbender a Goat for Azazel
6/12
However, the identity of Azazel as a demon becomes a problem in light of Lev 17:7a,
which commands that they [the congregation of Israel] may no longer offer their sacrifices for
goat-demons ( ).16 This problem, like Gasters assertion that in no other culture are
scapegoats offered to demons, assumes that the scapegoat ritual would be a sacrifice or offering
for propitiation if Azazel were a demon.17
Although the scapegoat ritual was part of the ritual for the forgiveness/propitiation
of sins, the goat for Azazel was not, in the proper sense of the word, a sacrifice.18 In fact, that
Aaron both makes the goat stand alive before YHWH (16:10) and that he lets the goat go free
into the desert augments rather than opposes the prohibition from sacrificing to demons in 17:7.
After all, what better way to show obedience to YHWHs command than to designate an animal
as an offering to a demon, but instead of sacrificing it, placing it before YHWH alive? Wright
doubts that P thought of Azazel as a potent spirit at all. He says, depreciatory use of demonic
terminology is found outside of the Priestly writings and thus gives indirect support to the
forgoing skepticism about rm being real evidence of active demons in Priestly thought.19
In fact, scapegoats (and other scapegoat-like rituals)20 generally function as purification
16. Lexically, (here translated goat-demon) is identical to goat used in 16:8, though it clearly has
a different meaning in this context.
17. Gaster affirms that the scapegoat was only a vehicle, and not for propitiation. However, that he states
the fact that no other culture offers scapegoats to demons seems to confuse his distinction between sacrifice and
elimination. Sendingthe scapegoat (rather than sacrificing it) to a demon is precisely why the scapegoat ritual was
an elimination rite.
18. J. Milgrom, Two Kinds ofat, VT26, no. 3 (July 1976): 335; Contra, E. Gerstenberger, Leviticus:
A Commentary, The Old Testament library; (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996): 221.
19. Wright, The Disposal of Impurity, 23.
20. For a cross-cultural analysis of scapegoat practices, see Book three of J. G. Frazer, The Golden Bough
a Study in Magic and Religion, Oxford world's classics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998).
5.
-
7/28/2019 Weinbender a Goat for Azazel
7/12
rites, rather than for propitiation.21 This describes precisely the second half of the ritual in
Lev 16. Milgrom and Wright both advocate for the scapegoat part of the ritual as a disposal of
impurity similar to the purification of those with skin diseases in ch. 14.22 In this case, the
person afflicted with a skin disease brings two clean birds to a priest. The priest proceeds to kill
one bird, wringing-out its blood into an earthen vessel, then dunking the live bird into the bloody
water. After flinging the bloody water from the living bird at the the leprous person, he then
releases the bird into the field. In both rites there are two elements to the rituala sacrifice and
a vehicle. After killing the sacrifice, the priest sends the vehicle away into the uninhabited desert
(or in the case of the bird, to the field) carrying the impurity with it. 23 The later description, as
described in m. Yoma, of the priest killing the goat by pushing it goat over a cliff most likely was
a later innovation24
The desert was associated with demons elsewhere in the OT as well (e.g. Isa 13:21,
34:14, Bar 4:35; and Tob 8:3).25 One particularly interesting line of reasoning, championed by
Tawil, renders as fierce one of Elan epithet of the Canaanite god Mt.26 He also shows
21. This explains Gasters statement that in no other culture are scapegoats offered to demons. Scapegoat
rituals generally are not offerings at all.
22. Wright, The Disposal of Impurity, 7586; Milgrom,Leviticus 1-16, 104445.
23. Wright gives an in-depth study of hand placement in the Hebrew Biblearguing that the two-handed
gesture of Lev 16 indicates a placement of the confessed sins on the head of the scapegoat, though does not think
that the sins are transferredin any ontological sense. D. P. Wright, The Gesture of Hand Placement in the Hebrew
Bible and in Hittite Literature,JAOS106, no. 3 (September 1986): 436; see also, Milgrom,Leviticus 1-16, 1041.
24. T.H. Gaster, Sacrifices and Offerings, OT, in IDB, ed. G. Arthur Buttrick, vol. 4 (New York,
Abingdon Press, 1962):153.
25. Milgrom,Leviticus 1-16, 1021.
26. Tawil Azazel, the Prince of the Steepe, 58. See also Wyatt, Atonement theology in Ugarit and
Israel, 429. Wyatt argues that Azazel is should be identified with Atar, also citing the epithet mighty one of El.
6.
-
7/28/2019 Weinbender a Goat for Azazel
8/12
a rather convincing parallel between 1 Enoch and several Akkadian magical texts. More
convincing, however, is his analysis of the Ugaritic Baal Cycle which shows the obvious cultural
dependence of the Israelite scapegoat ritual on the larger ANE culture and mythology.27 Toward
the end of the Baal Cycle Mt devours Baal (the storm god who brings rain for the crops)
bringing death to the entire world.28 The desert would therefore make a perfect dwelling place
for such a god. As Tawil puts it, The steepe/desert referring to a chaotic location symbolic of
the netherworld where demons freely roam is precisely also the natural domain of Mt the god of
death and Hades, the god of all that lacks life and vitality.29
I find it unlikely that the Priestly writings would incorporate even a masked ritual
involving a god other then YHWH. However, as products of their ANE culture, the desert as a
chaotic and impure place surely was at the forefront of the Preistly writer(s) mind. Davies
proposes that the atonement ritual stood between the order of the temple and the chaos of the
wilderness.30 While one goat is sent to YHWHthe epitome of holinessthe other goat is sent
away into the chaotic wilderness. Regardless of the specific identity of Azazel, the thrust of the
ritual was to remove the impure sin from the holy camp and put it back into the chaotic
wilderness. This supports the idea that Azazel was not seen as an effectual demon by P, but was
27. Tawil Azazel, the Prince of the Steepe,56. Milgrom also points out that the HB uses the term zmwt
Mot is fierce in 2 Sam 23:21 as a theophoric name and as a place name in Neh 7:28; 12:29, byt zmwt in
Leviticus 1-16, 1021.
28. For a full text and commentary on the Baal Cycle, see Mark S Smith, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle,
Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, v. 55, (Leiden ; New York: E.J. Brill, 1994).
29. Tawil Azazel, the Prince of the Steepe, 56. I also find it interesting that in the NT, the heard of
demon-possessed swine are driven into the sea,Ym who also is a chaotic god in Canaanite mythology.
30. D. Davies, Interpretation of sacrifice in Leviticus.,ZAW89, no. 3 (1977): 394.
7.
-
7/28/2019 Weinbender a Goat for Azazel
9/12
more likely an artifact from an earlier form of Israelite religion that had been depersonalized as
Israelite religion became more monotheistic.31
We can now summarize the findings of this paper. It seems that at some point in Israelite
history there existed a scapegoat-like ritual that involved sacrificing or sending away a goat to a
god known (probably epithetically) as fierce one of Elmost likely Mt or some
derivative deity or demon. Over time, out of pious concern for YHWH, the name of the demon
was obscured and rendered impersonal but remained in the religious traditions of Israel. The
Priestly writer, while most likely aware of its demonic origin, incorporated the ritual into the Day
of Atonement ceremony and adapted it to fit his Priestly sensibilities toward YHWH.32 In
practice, sending the scapegoat to Azazel more likely would have meant to the desert [where
dwells], using the name synonymously with the desert as shown by the gloss in 16:10, to
Azazel, the wilderness. The wilderness, then signifies the place that Azazel livedperhaps
even where he was imprisoned.33 We should not assume simply because rituals involving
demons were strictly anathematized in Second Temple Judaism that they were somehow lost to
the social memory of Israel. On the contrary, later Jewish literature clearly shows some
knowledge of a connection between Azazel and demonic forces as demonstrated in 1 Enoch, 3
Enoch and Apocalypse of Abrahamthough none connect explicitly to Canaanite religion.
Clearly, no other interpretation of the Azazel passage accounts for the syntactical,
31. Wright, The Disposal of Impurity, 7274.
32. Perhaps the Priestly obscured the name to Azazel as a way of dissociating from earlier forms. More
likely, however, it was a Masoretic change, since seems to be the root of the LXX rendering.
33. Segal, The Religion of Israel before Sinai (Continued), 251.
8.
-
7/28/2019 Weinbender a Goat for Azazel
10/12
etymological, cultural, and theological evidence of the passage as completely as presented above.
While the LXX rendering of fits most easily etymologically, syntactically it forced the
translator to fudge his grammar to make it fit. Similarly, though Drivers connection with
jagged rocks is compelling and addresses the etymology well, it doesnt take into account the
historical/cultural milieu out of which Israelite religion emerged, nor does it explain the
development of demonic associations with Azazel in post-biblical literature. But even as we
affirm that Azazel (or more probably ) was most likely a demon or epithet for the Canaanite
god Mt, we have to acknowledge the incompatibility of such a claim with Priestly sensibilities.
While the pre-biblical scapegoat ritual may have originally had propitiationary elements, by the
time of the Priestly author, the ritual had been absorbed into the Day of Atonement ceremony
and had dropped any sacrificial elements that it may have existed. Though Azazel was at one
time associated with a demon, in Lev 16 the name was most likely merely an epitheta
synonym for the desert into which the Israelites were expelled to wonder aimlessly for forty
years and into which the scapegoat would wander indefinitely.
9.
-
7/28/2019 Weinbender a Goat for Azazel
11/12
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barton, George A. The Origin of the Names of Angels and Demons in the Extra-Canonical
Apocalyptic Literature to 100 A.D.. Journal of Biblical Literature 31, no. 4 (1912):
156-167.
Davies, Douglas. Interpretation of Sacrifice in Leviticus. Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft89, no. 3 (1977): 387-399.
Driver, Godfrey Rolles. Three Technical Terms in the Pentateuch. Journal of Semitic Studies
1, no. 2 (April 1956): 97-105.
Fishbane, Michael. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1985.
Frazer, James George, The Golden Bough: a Study in Magic and Religion. Oxford world's
classics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Gaster, T.H. Azazel. in The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, ed. G. A. Buttrick, 1:325-26.
New York: Abingdon Press, 1962.
______. Sacrifices and Offerings, OT. in The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, ed. G. A.
Buttrick, 4:147-59. New York: Abingdon Press, 1962.
Gerstenberger, Erhard. Leviticus: A Commentary. The Old Testament Library. Louisville:
Westminster John Knox Press, 1996.
Hoenig, Sidney B. Review: The New Qumran Pesher on Azazel. The Jewish Quarterly Review
56, no. 3. (January 1966): 248-253.
Kaufmann, Yehezkel. The Religion of Israel, from Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile.Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960.
Kohler, K. The Sabbath and Festivals in Pre-Exilic and Exilic Times. Journal of the American
Oriental Society 37 (1917): 209-223.
Levine, Baruch A. Leviticus: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation. The
JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989.
-
7/28/2019 Weinbender a Goat for Azazel
12/12
Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 1-16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. vol 1 of
Leviticus. Anchor Bible 3. New York: Doubleday, 1991.
______. Two Kinds ofat. Vetus Testamentum 26, no. 3 (July 1976): 333-337.
Noth, Martin. Leviticus: A Commentary, The Old Testament library. Philadelphia: WestminsterPress, 1977.
Pinker, Aron. A Goat to go to Azazel.Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 7 (2007).
Rudman, Dominic. A note on the Azazel-goat ritual. Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft116, no. 3 (2004): 396-401.
Segal, M. H. The Religion of Israel before Sinai (Continued). The Jewish Quarterly Review
53, no. 3. (January 1963): 226-256.
Smith, Mark S. The Ugaritic Baal Cycle. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, 2 vols. New
York: E.J. Brill, 1994.
Tawil, Hayim. Azazel, the Prince of the Steepe: a Comparative Study. Zeitschrift fr die
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft92, no. 1 (1980): 43-59.
de Vaux, Roland.Ancient Israel. New York: McGraw-Hill Co., 1965.
Wevers, John William. Notes on the Greek Text of Leviticus. Septuagint and Cognate Studies
Series; no. 44;. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997.
Wright, David P. The Gesture of Hand Placement in the Hebrew Bible and in Hittite
Literature. Journal of the American Oriental Society 106, no. 3 (September 1986):
433-446.
______. David P. The Disposal of Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and in Hittite and
Mesopotamian Literature. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series; no. 101;
Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987.
Wyatt, Nicolas. Atonement theology in Ugarit and Israel. Ugarit-Forschungen 8 (1977):
415-430.
Zatelli, Ida. The Origin of the Biblical Scapegoat Ritual: The Evidence of Two Eblaite Texts.
Vetus Testamentum 48, no. 2 (April 1998): 254-263.