ARTICLE VI. AZAZEL, OR THE LEVITICAL SCAPE-GOAT; A Critical Exposition of Leviticus 16: 5-10. By George Bush, Professor of Hebrew in the New York City University. If there be any thing calculated to diminish the pleasure or damp the ardor of the Biblical expositor in his researches, it is the stern necessity under which he sometimes finds himself placed, of putting new interpretations upon familiar texts. The deeper he penetrates into the mine of Scriptural wealth, and the wider the excavation which he makes on either hand, the greater is the probability of his here and there undermining the adjacent surface and causing it occasionally to fall in. But this will be little to be regretted if the chasms thus made only open new avenues to treasures below vastly more precious than any which had lain above. Still it is always more or less painful to an ingenuous mind to disturb, in any degree, a "throned opinion," even though that opinion be founded in error, and he be able to substitute in place of it an irrefragable truth. Knowing with what fond tenacity men cling to their ancient and accredited forms of belief, he does not like rudely to assail them, and it is only a very rampant spirit of innovation that can take delight in breaking up the time-hallowed associations with which certain phrases and sentences of holy writ uniformily come before the mind. Yet it is certain that this result is in many cases absolutely inevitable. It is the invariable law of human progress, whether in the department of nature or revelation, that as the light breaks forth upon our previous darkness, new modifications should come over established ideas. It would therefore be the height of injustice to ascribe, in all cases, to a rage of novelty in those who suggest them the new interpretations which an advanced state of science or philology, or a more extended and critical inter-collation of passages, may force upon their convictions. It is to be remembered that they too have known what it is to be wedded to favorite interpretations, and can tell of the struggle which it cost them to give them up. But they yielded to the force of evidence, and embraced the views which, it may be, they at first strenuously withstood. If then they become the patrons of these views, and with all the requisite array of learning and logic, endeavor to make good their access to other minds, let it be presumed it is not owing merely to a prurient prompting to obtrude a novel exposition upon the mind of the Christian community, but to the stern behests of the spirit of homage to truth, which will not let them forbear to utter what they sincerely and solemnly believe to be the sense of revelation. These remarks will no doubt be perceived to have a direct and prominent bearing upon the task which we have imposed upon ourselves, in the somewhat elaborate investigation of the passage quoted at the head of this article. The typical institution of the Scape-goat is one of the most striking features of the Levitical system, and its import as a symbol has been so long rested in as shadowing forth the grand doctrine of the economical transfer of sin and guilt from believers to Christ, that one would almost as soon think of doubting the fact of such a ceremony, as of calling in question the established sense which common theological consent has attached to it. Indeed, it has been remarked that while other types receive light from their accomplishment in Christ, this is intrinsically so apt, so felicitous, so obvious, that it reflects light upon the Gospel itself. The imposition of hands and the confession of sins on the head of the emissary goat, and his subsequent discharge and escape into the wilderness, seem to afford so fit an emblem of the bearing and carrying away of the sins of believers by the substituted divine victim, that it would appear to be no less a violence done to the pious sentiments, than to the pondering reason, of the Christian, to attempt to divert the spiritual application of the symbol to any other subject. But fealty to truth must predominate over every other sentiment in the bosom of the humble disciple of revelation. Under its guidance we are to shrink from no results to which we are legitimately brought. And in this spirit of supreme deference to the dictates of truth, we would enter upon the critical exposition of the passage before us. We first give it in the English version. Lev. 16: 5-10. "And he shall take of the congregation of the children of Israel two kids of the goats for a sin offering, and one ram for a burnt-offering. "And Aaron shall offer his bullock of the sin-offering, which is for himself, and make an atonement for himself, and for his house. "And he shall take the two goats, and present them before the LORD at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. "And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the LORD (3 laihovah, for Jehwah) and the other lot for the scape-goat, ( la-azazel, for Azazel.) "And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the LORD's lot fell, and offer him for a sin-offering. "But the goat on which the lot fell to be the scape-goat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scape-goat into the wilderness." After In order that the particular point which we now propose to consider may stand out in its full relief before the mind of the reader, we will briefly advert to the leading ceremonies of that solemn festival in which the rite before us held such a conspicuous place. It was the day of Annual Expiation of the sins of the people. The high priest on this day, having first carefully bathed in water, and arrayed himself in his linen vestments, was to draw near to the altar with a young bullock for a sin-offering, and with a ram for a burntoffering. These were the customary victims, but on the present occasion he was to take, in addition, of the congregation two kids of the goats for a sin-offering, and present them before the Lord at the door of the tabernacle. the presentation, he was to cast lots upon them, one lot being for Jehovah (i), and the other for what in the original is termed Azazel (3) The goat on which the lot of Jehoval fell was to be brought and offered up for a sin-offering, but the goat on which the lot of Azazel fell was to be "presented alive before Jehovah to make an atonement with him (or, upon or over him-3), to let it go for Azazel into the wilderness." Of the former, the blood was to be carried within the vail, and to be sprinkled upon the mercy seat, and before the mercy-seat, in order that atonement might be made for the holy place because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel. When on the other hand the live goat was brought, the High Priest was to lay both his hands upon its head and to confess over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel, putting them upon the head after which he was to send it by the hand of ("ish itti) that it might bear upon it quities unto a land not inhabited. Such was the ceremony, and we are now to endeavor to ascertain its typical or symbolical scope, and especially what is to be understood by the different treatment of the two goats. But in order to this, we must in the outset institute a careful enquiry into the meaning of the remarkable term Azazel," which occurs in this connexion for the first and last time, and on the true sense of which it is evident that every thing depends. 46 Etymology and Meaning of the term 5 Azazel. To the eye of the Hebrew scholar, this word presents itself at once as a compound, but its constituent elements, and consequently its true significancy, have long been the theme of learned debate. Nearly every critical commentator opens his peculiar scholium upon the text, with a kind of preliminary groan of " locus vexatissimus !" and some are disposed to give it up in despair. Bochart, whose stupendous erudition is seldom baffled by the most formidable difficulties, is here forced to the humble confession-" Me de hac voce Azazel nihil habere satis certum ;" and moreover that-" prudentiores vocem Hebræam relinquunt ἀνερμενεύτον,” the more prudent leave the Hebrew word uninterpreted. Under these circumstances it can be little discredit for one to fail of entire success in his attempts to illustrate the genuine import of the term. The failure of our predecessors affords us a kind of testudinal panoply against the shame of a defeat in a field where so many men of prowess have been worsted. We shall first state the principal explanations which have been given of the term. T-: I. Several of the Rabbinical writers, including the Targumists, understand by Azazel, the name of the place to which the scape-goat was conducted. Thus Jonathan, in his Targum on v. 10 of this chapter, renders the last clause"to send him away to death in a rough and rocky place in the desert of Tsuk." Here it was supposed by the Talmudists, that the goat was thrown down a steep precipice of the mountain called Azazel, and dashed to pieces.* This is favored by the Arabic versions which have for the Hebrew ,legebel al-azaz לגבל אלעזאז to Azazel every where לַעֲזָאזל to the Mount Azaz, or to the rough mountain, as azaz pro- II. This supposes that the term is the name, not of a mountain or place, but of the scape-goat itself. This, it is contended, is obvious from the structure of the word, taken in connexion with the structure of the sentence: 66 Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats, one lot for the Lord," i. e. for the goat which was to be sacrificed to the Lord; " and the other lot for Azazel," i. e. for the goat which was to be sent away into the wilderness. The word itself, it is maintained, is easily and legitimately resolved into ëz, a goat, and 3 âzal, to go away, to depart, which gives us the exact idea of the ceremonial use of the scape-goat, viz., that of being formally sent away into the wilderness. The rendering of several of the ancient versions gives, it is said, not a little confirmation to this sense of the term. Symmachus has for "Azazel," rgayos ȧregxòμevos, the departing goat; Aquila «gayos àñoλeλuμšvos, the goat set free or let Lightfoot Temp. Ser. p, 177 vol. IX. Pitman's Ed. |