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

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.

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.

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 cannot refer 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.

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 is some 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 amply certain.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, ZAW 92, 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, VT 48, 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, ZAW 116, 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, JAOS 37 (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.

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 purication
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. Sending the scapegoat (rather than sacrificing it) to a demon is precisely why the scapegoat ritual was an elimination rite. 18. J. Milgrom, Two Kinds of at, VT 26, 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.

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 transferred in any ontological sense. D. P. Wright, The Gesture of Hand Placement in the Hebrew Bible and in Hittite Literature, JAOS 106, 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.

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., ZAW 89, no. 3 (1977): 394.

7.

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.

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.

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 Wissenschaft 89, 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.

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 of at. Vetus Testamentum 26, no. 3 (July 1976): 333-337. Noth, Martin. Leviticus: A Commentary, The Old Testament library. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 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 Wissenschaft 116, 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 Wissenschaft 92, 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.