| re: .0 Richard
The NWT does not have "Azazel" at Le. 16:20, but it has a marginal
reference to Le. 16:8, 10 where it does appear. Since the NWT is a
largely literal translation, I would have to assume that it didn't
appear in most (or any) existing Hebrew texts.
Steve
|
| The RSV doesn't say anything about Azazel in 16:20 but does mention it in
16:8. The TEV (as you probably know) translates the verse as:
When Aaron has finished performing the ritual to purify the Most
Holy Place, the rest of the Tent of the LORD's presence, and the
altar, he shall present to the LORD the live goat chosen for
Azazel.
A footnote to Levitucus 16:8 says:
AZAZEL: The meaning of this Hebrew word is unknown; it may be the
name of a desert demon.
"Asimov's Guide to the Bible" says this about Azazel (pages 158-159):
Yet if the Day of Atonement is itself a post-Exilic development,
some of the rites associated with it must be old indeed. As part
of the ritual two goats must be selected:
Leviticus 16:8 And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats,
one lot for the Lord, and the other lot for the scapegoat.
The goat upon whom the Lord's lot fell (and here one might
expect the Urim and Thummim would be used) would be sacrificed to
the Lord as atonement for the sins of the nation. The other would
be led into the wilderness bearing with it all those sins, so that
punishment might befall it rather than the nation of Israel and
its people. Because the second goat escapes into the wilderness
and is not sacrificed, the King James Version refers to it as a
"scapegoat" ("escaped goat"). It is for this reason that the word
has come to be applied to any person or object who, himself
innocent, suffers vicariously for the deeds of another.
However, the Hebrew word that is translated as "scapegoat" in
the King James Version is actually Azazel. The Revised Standard
Version does not translate the word but makes the verse read: "And
Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats, one lot for the Lord and
the other lot for Azazel."
Azazel is mentioned nowhere else in the Bible save for this one
chapter, but it seems quite likely that it is the name of a demon
thought of as dwelling in the wilderness. It might be pictured as
an evil spirit that is the source of sin. In sending the second
goat into the wilderness, the sins it carries could be viewed as
returning to their source.
Later legends elaborated on Azazel. He was supposed to be one
of the fallen angels, exiled from Heaven because he would not
accept newly created man as superior. An alternative suggestion
involves a rather obscure passage in the Book of Genesis:
Genesis 6:2.... the sons of God saw the daughters of men that
they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
....
Genesis 6:4.... and they bare children to them, the same
became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
This remnant of primitive mythology, lingering on in the Bible,
was interpreted literally by the later Jews. They thought the
angels, deliberately rebelling against God, chose to corrupt
themselves with mankind out of lust for women and that this act
helped bring on the Flood. Some versions of this legend made
Azazel the chief of these angels.
-- Bob
|
| .1 & .2,
Interesting. It leads me to suspect that we have a piece of the complete
picture missing, not neccesarily an important piece, but a piece nevertheless.
Very likely, the ancients would have been familiar with Azazel, would have
had an immediate grasp this section, now not entirely clear.
Peace,
Richard
|