Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

Scapegoat or Azazel in Leviticus 16:8, 10, 26

by Leave a Comment

Introduction

Commentators debate the meaning of the Hebrew word עֲזָאזֵל as applied to the goat that was sent into the wilderness. This word occurs only in Leviticus 16:8, 10, 26.

Proposed Solutions

1. עֲזָאזֵל refers to “the goat that departs” (Rooker 216; cf. ABD, 1:536; Morales, 178),or the “scapegoat” (KJV, NIV).

a. This word is made up of the terms for “goat” (`ēz) and “depart” (’āzal) (EDBT, 253; cf. Sklar, 209; Vasholz, 188).

b. This understanding is reflected in the ancient Greek translations and the Vulgate (Bonar, 303; Vasholz, 188).

c. This meaning tracks closely with what was done with the goat (Vasholz, 188) and thus draws the understanding of the obscure term from what is clear in the text (EDBT, 253).

2. עֲזָאזֵל means “entire removal” (Feinberg, 331)or “total destruction” (Wenham, 235).

a. The word is derived from a word for “removal” (‘zl), reduplicated to indicate intensification, “entire removal.”

b. The LXX rendering, using the word ἀποπομπή, “sending away” supports the idea of removal (Feinberg, 331-32; Harrison, 173).

c. The phrase “land of cutting off” in v. 22 could interpret the term עֲזָאזֵל, and support the idea that the term means “total destruction” (Wenham, 235).

3.  עֲזָאזֵל refers to the wilderness terrain.

a. The word could be related to “the Arabic word ‘azâzu (‘rough ground’)” (Sklar, 209).

b. The phrase “land of cutting off” in v. 22 could interpret the term עֲזָאזֵל, and support the idea that the term refers to the “land of cutting off.” (Wenham, 235).

c. The phrase “into the wilderness” could be “an appositional explanation of” עֲזָאזֵל (Rooker, 217).

d. This view is found in the Talmud (Feinberg, 325; Milgrom, 1020) and held by Rashi (Wenham, 235).

4.  עֲזָאזֵל refers to demon in the wilderness.

a. By metathesis, the name could be understood to have been based on words meaning “fierce god” (AB, 1:536; Milgrom, 1021).

b. עֲזָאזֵל best parallels  לַיהוָ֔ה (vv. 9-10) because on this view both would be supernatural beings (AB, 1:536; Milgrom, 1020).

c. The Bible presents the wilderness as the dwelling place of demons (Isa. 13:21-22; 34:11-15; Matt. 12:34; Luke 11:24; Rev. 18:2; cf. Bar. 4:35; Tob. 8:3) (Milgrom, 1020; Hartley, 238).

d. This interpretation appears in intertestamental literature (1 Enoch 8:1; 9:6; 10:4–8; 13:1; cf. 54:5–6; 55:4; 69:2; Apoc. Ab. 13:6–14; 14:4–6; 20:5–7; 22:5; 23:11; 29:6–7; 31:5) (AB, 1:536; Milgrom, 1020-21; Hartley, 238).

e. This does not imply a sacrifice to a demon since it was not slain. Nor does it have any propitiatory role (Milgrom, 1021). It could just be a way of indicating that the sins were returned to the demon (Hartley, 238).

Rejected Solutions:

2. עֲזָאזֵל means “entire removal”  or “total destruction.”

a. The LXX doesn’t truly establish this position; it refers to “to the one carrying away” (cf. Hartley, 222).

b. The lack of parallelism between  לַיהוָ֔ה (“for Yhwh,” v. 9) as parallel to לַעֲזָאזֵ֔ל (“for entire removal,” v. 10) tells against this view (Hartley, 237), though it is not decisive.

3.  עֲזָאזֵל refers to the wilderness terrain.

a. The lack of parallelism between  לַיהוָ֔ה (“for Yhwh,” v. 9) as parallel to לַעֲזָאזֵ֔ל (“to a rough place,” v. 10) tells against this view (Hartley, 237-38), though it is not decisive.

b. Though “into the wilderness” could be appositional, it would also be redundant on this view. It is unclear why two terms would be needed here.

4.  עֲזָאזֵל refers to demon in the wilderness.

a. The intertestamental literature at this point is fanciful, and it cannot be relied on to give an accurate interpretation of Lev. 16 (cf. Feinberg, 328-29; Vasholz, 188).

b. Leviticus 17:7 forbids sacrifices to goat demons, which makes a practice that could be construed that way unlikely (EDBT; 253; Feinberg, 329; Vasholz, 188; Wenahm, 234). Despite a construal that clearly disclaim the sending of a goat is a sacrifice (Milgrom, 1021; Hartley, 238), it is unlikely that something akin to an offering to a demon would be part of the central act of atonement in Israel (cf. Wenham, 234). As Sklar says, “the Lord typically tells his people to have absolutely nothing to do with false gods (Exod. 23:24; 34:13; Deut. 12:3), as he in fact does in the very next chapter (17:7). One wonders whether he would involve a demon in this rite, even in such a negative way, and risk the Israelites turning the rite into some form of appeasement to this demon” (Sklar, 209).

c. This view is too easily construed as teaching that Satan must be paid something as part of atonement (EDBT, 253).

Accepted Solution:

1. עֲזָאזֵל refers to “the goat that departs” or the “scapegoat.”

a. Despite the objection that this view does not treat לַיהוָ֔ה (“for Yhwh,” v. 9) as parallel to לַעֲזָאזֵ֔ל (“as the scapegoat,” v. 10 NIV) (DOTP, 59; Feinberg, 327), this solution is still grammatical. Further, there is still a parallelism: one lot is “in relation to Yhwh” and the other lot is “in relation to the scapegoat” (cf. EDBT, 253; Sklar, 209).

b. The claim that this view requires the translations “to send the goat to the scapegoat in the wilderness” (v. 10) and “and he who taketh away the goat to the scapegoat” (v. 26) (Feinberg, 327) is incorrect. The NIV translations, “by sending it into the wilderness as a scapegoat” (v. 10) and “The man who releases the goat as a scapegoat,” are acceptable (Sklar, 209).

c. There is little dispute that this goat symbolized the taking away of the sin of the people, and this view captures this message most clearly (Sklar, 210).

Bibliography: Dictionaries: “Garrett, “Feasts and Festivals of Israel,” EDBT; Hartley, “Atonement, Day of,” DOTP; D. Wright, “Azazel,” ABD; Commentaries: Bonar; Harrison, TOTC; Hartley, WBC; Milgrom, AYB; Rooker, NAC; Sklar, TOTC; Vasholz, Mentor; Wenham, NICOT; Other: Feinberg, “The Scapegoat of Leviticus Sixteen,” BibSac 115 (1958): 320-33; Morales, Who Shall Ascend the Mountain of the Lord? A Biblical Theology of the Book of Leviticus, NSBT.

Thoughts on the Translation of Leviticus 26:40–42

by Leave a Comment

The ESV provides a typical translation of Leviticus 26:40–42:

But if they confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers in their treachery that they committed against me, and also in walking contrary to me, so that I walked contrary to them and brought them into the land of their enemies—if then their uncircumcised heart is humbled and they make amends for their iniquity, then I will remember my covenant with Jacob, and I will remember my covenant with Isaac and my covenant with Abraham, and I will remember the land.

Since the KJV, English translations have tended to translate these verses as conditionals (“but if they”), and since the RSV, English translations have tended to translate a key phrase in verse 41, “and they make amends for their iniquity,” or some variant of the same.

A better translation is as follows. Here I use the CSB as main translation, but the bold text is brought over from the NKJV:

40 “But when they confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their ancestors—their unfaithfulness that they practiced against me, and how they acted with hostility toward me, 41 and I acted with hostility toward them and brought them into the land of their enemies—and when their uncircumcised hearts are humbled and they accept their guilt, 42 then I will remember my covenant with Jacob. I will also remember my covenant with Isaac and my covenant with Abraham, and I will remember the land.

The CSB, along with the Geneva Bible and the NET Bible, rightly recognize that there is no conditional particle in the Hebrew (as there is earlier in the chapter when the blessings and curses of the Mosaic covenant are outlined). Thus, it is best to translate, as the CSB does, “But when they confess their iniquity” and “when their uncircumcised hearts are humbled.”

Regarding the contested phrase in verse 42, the key verb in the sentence (רצה), translated “make amends” by the ESV and “accept” by the NKJV,” is commonly understood be from one of two identically spelled roots. The first means “to be pleased with, to enjoy, to accept.” The second means “to pay for, to restore.” However, I wonder if the second root with its meaning is necessary to posit. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew cites texts in support of this sense the verse under consideration (Lev 26:41) as well as earlier verses in Leviticus 26 which state (in common translation) that the land will “enjoy its Sabbaths.” In fact, the few other verses cited in support of the second root could be translated in line with the first root and its senses.

In addition, the Hebrew word translated by the ESV as “iniquity” can also be understood to indicate “guilt” (as in the NKJV) or “punishment.” Thus, the translation of the NKJV, “and they accept their guilt.”

The UBS Handbook on Leviticus advocates the same translation I’m advocating in this post:

 Make amends for their iniquity: this phrase presents difficulties with regard to the understanding of both the verb, make amends, and the noun, rendered iniquity in RSV, and consequently for the interpretation of the whole. A number of versions have adopted essentially the same interpretation as RSV (NIV, NJV, and NAB). But the noun used here may mean either “guilt” or “punishment for guilt.” The idea of punishment seems more probable in this context, as in 5:1, 7; 10:17; and 16:22; as well as Gen 4:13. The verb translated make amends in RSV is sometimes used in the sense of “accept.” An example of this in Leviticus is God’s accepting a sacrifice in 1:4. MFT translates the whole phrase “submit to be punished for their sins,” while NEB has “accept their punishment in full,” leaving the idea of guilt implicit. It is especially significant that, while JB (1966) rendered the whole phrase “atone for their sins,” the more recent NJB (1985) has “accept the punishment for their guilt.” The latter interpretation is therefore recommended to translators.

René Péter-Contesse and John Ellington, A Handbook on Leviticus, UBS Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 1992), 420.

What is the theological significance of these translation differences? Leviticus 26 (much like Deuteronomy 28) outlines the covenant blessings and curses of the Mosaic covenant. If Israel kept the covenant, it would enjoy the blessings of the covenant (26:1–13). If Israel spurned and loathed the covenant, and if Israel thus broke the Mosaic covenant and its laws, then all the covenant curses would come upon Israel (26:14–39). But Leviticus 26:40–45 (like Deuteronomy 30) looks ahead to the new covenant. These verses predict Israel’s repentance. Someday Israelites will confess its guilt and the guilt of their fathers, and they will accept their guilt. At that point God will bring to pass the promises of the Abrahamic covenant.