Was the Goat for Azazel Destined for the Wrath of God?

Both ancient and modern interpreters have been intrigued by the ritual of atonement found in Leviticus 16. The heart of the ritual revolves around two goats which are chosen by lot, one ‘for YHWH (hwhyl)’ and one ‘for Azazel (lz)z(l)’. The former is to be slain and offered as a sin-offering to YHWH, the latter is to be sent away alive in the wilderness ‘for Azazel’ (vv. 8-10, 26). The expression ‘for Azazel’ is puzzling and various interpretations have been given¹. These are surveyed below:

        a. The word lz)z( characterizes the goat itself and is a combination of two Hebrew words: lzw)  z( or lz)  z(² which can be rendered as ‘departing goat’, hence ‘(e)scapegoat’. This is a very early interpretation, already found in the Septuagint which translates the Hebrew word lz)z(l in Leviticus 16 as tw|= a)popompai/w| or tou= a)popompai/ou ‘for the one sent away’ (vv. 8, 10), ei)j th_n a)popomph_n a)fh/sei ‘for the one sent away for release’ (v. 10) and lz)z(l  ry(#h as to_n xi/maron to_n diestalme/non ei)j a!fesin ‘the goat which is determined for release’ (v. 26). The same interpretation is reflected in the Vulgate which renders it as caper emissarius³.

        b. The word lz)z( is the goat’s destination and means ‘a rough and difficult place’ or ‘precipice’. This interpretation is already found in Rabbinic literature (Yom 67,2)⁴. G.R. Driver suggests that lz)z( may have been derived from the Arabic ‘azâzu(n) ‘rough ground’ to which a formative lamed was added⁵.

_____________________
234

        c. The word lz)z( is a contraction of lzlz( and means ‘entire removal’, derived from the Aramaic root lz( ‘to remove’, intensified by the reduplication lz. According to this interpretation, ‘for Azazel’ signifies ‘for the entire removal of guilt’⁶.

        d. Many modern biblical scholars believe that the word lz)z( is the name of a demon on the basis of the following arguments: 1. According to Lev 16,8, Aaron is supposed to cast lots for two goats: one ‘for YHWH’ and another ‘for Azazel’. The first goat is for a supernatural being, therefore it is likely that the second one is too⁷. 2. A direct contrast seems to be made between the destinations of the two goats and between YHWH and Azazel. Demons are opponents of YHWH. 3. The goat designated for Azazel is driven into the wilderness, which is often described as the abode of demons (Lev 17,7; Isa 13,21-22; 34,11-15; Tob 8,3; Matt 12,43). 4. Post-biblical Jewish interpreters identified Azazel with Asael, the leader of the fallen angels mentioned in 1 Enoch (8,1; 9,6; 10,4-8; 13,1; compare 4Q180 1 7-8)⁸.

        e. An interesting variation of the last view discussed has been proposed by H. Tawil. He suggests that lz)z( is ‘a scribal metathesis deliberately altered to conceal the true demonic nature of this supernatural being’ and proposes the reading l)zz( on the basis of textual evidence, rendering it as ‘fierce god’ (zz( ‘fierce’ plus l) ‘god’). On the basis of comparison made with Ugaritic and Akkadian texts, Tawil identifies Azazel with ‘Môt the Canaanite god of the netherworld’⁹.

        f. B. Janowski and G. Wilhelm argue that the ‘goat for Azazel’ ritual is derived from a South Anatolian North Syrian ritual tradition in which animals, such as donkeys and birds, were used as substitutes for humans in order to appease magically an angry deity. Like Tawil, they believe lz)z( to be a metathesized form of l)zz(, but render it as ‘divine anger’ (zz( ‘anger/fierceness’ plus l) ‘of a deity’)¹⁰.

_____________________
235

        The purpose of this article is to give a plausible interpretation of the expression lz)z( on the basis of textual, semantic and contextual evidence, that is, its biblical context, rather than by comparing it to Ancient Near Eastern pagan rituals. One main question to be addressed is: How is the ‘goat for Azazel’ ritual related to the biblical concept of atonement? Moreover, an attempt will be made to explain why the interpretation proposed in this article may well have been in the mind of both Jewish and Christian post-biblical interpreters.

        The idea that lz)z( is a metathesized form of l)zz( is very plausible. There is indeed enough textual evidence that this could be the case. In almost all biblical manuscripts the word Azazel in Lev 16,8.10.26 is spelled lz)z(, except once in the Samaritan Pentateuch. Here the spelling of Azazel is different in one out of three cases: the aleph and the second zayin are reversed, so that it does not read lz)z(, but l)zz(. Moreover, the spelling l)zz( occurs in a paraphrase of Leviticus 16 found among the Dead Sea Scrolls (11QT 26,13). It is unlikely that this instance of metathesis is due to a copyist’s error, because the same spelling occurs twice in another Qumran document (4Q180 1 7-8)¹¹. Ancient Jewish interpreters may have changed the orthography deliberately to l)zz( in order to make sense out of the word lz)z(. However, another possibility is that l)zz( was the original spelling in Leviticus 16 which underwent metathesis at an early stage in the transmission of the Hebrew Bible, resulting in the form lz)z(. The latter seems more likely, because the etymology of lz)z( is best explained by reading it as l)zz(, both on a semantic and contextual basis.

        The expression l)zz( is made up of two words: zz( and l). The latter is clearly the noun l), meaning ‘god’. The interpretation of Azazel given in this article takes l) as a reference to God himself, rather than a god or demonic creature. Some modern interpreters draw too close parallels between the biblical ‘goat for Azazel’ ritual and Ancient Near Eastern pagan rituals. In the Hebrew Bible, the word l) never refers to a demonic creature. Besides, it is unlikely that the word l) means ‘a god’, because ‘the other gods’ the Hebrew Bible speaks about are always described as the creation of people, in other words, their true existence is not acknowledged. Repeatedly the biblical writers affirm that there is no other God besides YHWH¹². The Israelite

_____________________
236

religion as represented in the biblical text is clearly monotheistic. Moreover, the noun l) is often used as an abbreviation for Myhl) in reference to the God, i.e. YHWH, especially in compounds¹³.

        In the Hebrew Bible, many compound words consist of a construct relationship, ending in the absolute noun l), ‘God’. So the word zz( may well be a noun, standing in construct with l). The most basic meaning of the verbal root zz( is ‘to be strong’¹⁴ and of its cognate nouns z( and zwz( is ‘strength, power’. The words z( and zwz( in some cases also carry the meaning ‘fierceness, sternness’¹⁵. In a particular context, they may even acquire the sense of ‘furious power’ or ‘violent anger’. In the Hebrew Bible, the words z( and zwz( are at times used to describe the power of God’s anger. In such contexts, they take on the meaning of ‘powerful anger, wrath’, a form of divine retribution, expressed through violent force¹⁶:

The hand of our God is upon all them that seek him, for good; but his furious power (z() and his wrath is against all them that forsake him (Ezra 8,22).

Because of your intense furious power (z() your enemies cringe before you (Ps 66,3).

Who knows the furious power (z() of your anger and the dread of your wrath? (Ps 90,11)¹⁷.

He poured out upon him the fury (hmx) of his anger and the fury (zwz() of battle (Isa 42,25)¹⁸.

        It is not at all unlikely that in a compound word, especially as a construct noun, zwz( would be contracted to zz(¹⁹. In the light of the above analysis, a

_____________________
237

plausible rendering for the word zz( is ‘furious power’ or ‘powerful wrath’²⁰. Therefore, given lz)z( is a metathesized form of l)zz(, a likely rendering for the expression Azazel is ‘the powerful wrath of God’. Yet it needs to be investigated whether this interpretation of Azazel fits within its context.

The Biblical Context of the Expression ‘Azazel’: The Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16

        The ‘goat for Azazel’ ritual is found in a passage which has as its main theme ‘The Day of Atonement’ (notice the recurrence of the root rpk vv. 6, 10, 11, 16, 17-18, 20, 24, 27, 30, 32-34; cf. Myrpkh  Mwy in Lev 23,27.28). Moreover, it is significant that the goat for Azazel plays a direct role in atonement:

        The goat on which the lot fell for Azazel shall be presented alive before YHWH to make atonement over it, that it may be sent away into the wilderness to Azazel (v. 10).

        Aaron is supposed to lay his hands on the head of the goat for Azazel while confessing the sins of the people, putting the sins on the goat’s head before it is driven into the wilderness (vv. 21-22). So the goat for Azazel is an important element in atoning for sin.

        The Hebrew word for ‘to make atonement’ in Lev 16,10 is rpk. Its primary meaning is uncertain²¹. Yet a case can be made that in atonement for sin God’s anger is placated, in other words, he is propitiated or appeased. Elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible making atonement is equated with turning away the wrath of God. In Numbers 16, Moses tells Aaron to make atonement for the sinful Israelites, ‘because wrath has gone out from YHWH’ in the form of a plague (v. 46). Aaron’s act of atonement stops the plague, the expression of God’s anger (vv. 47-48)²². Numbers 25, describing Phinehas’s killing of the Israelite and the Midianite woman, also clearly speaks of atonement as a means to appease God’s wrath. The mixed couple killed by Phinehas clearly symbolizes evil. In v. 11 God says about Phinehas: ‘He has turned back my wrath from the Israelites by manifesting such zeal among them on my behalf that in my jealousy I did not consume the Israelites’. In v. 13 the same thought is expressed in slightly different terms: ‘He [Phinehas] was zealous for his God and made atonement for the Israelites’. Phinehas’s zealous act is described as both turning away God’s wrath and atoning for the Israelites, showing that atonement is a way to appease God²³.

_____________________
238

        In Leviticus 16, given that atonement for sin is intrinsically related to the idea of pacifying God’s anger, the expression lz)z(l in vv. 8, 10, 26 may convey this very notion. The first goat is for YHWH: it will be offered to him as a sacrifice. The second goat is ‘for the powerful wrath of God’, that is, ‘for placating God’s anger’. The laying of hands during confession of sin and the explicit statement that the goat carries the sins of the Israelites to a barren region suggest that their sins are transferred onto the goat²⁴. The goat becomes a symbol of evil. In a barren region, the goat would die from starvation and his death would appease the anger of God²⁵.

        In the Dead Sea Scrolls, the identification made between Azazel in Leviticus 16 and the demon Asael spoken of in Enoch is very clear, because the two names are spelled in exactly the same way: l)zz( occurs both in a paraphrase of Leviticus 16 (11QT 26,13) and in an Enoch-like recounting of how the angels fell into sin (4Q180 1 7-8)²⁶.

        As mentioned before, Tawil has proposed the translation ‘fierce god’ for l)zz( and he has also drawn attention to the identification made between the Azazel of Leviticus 16 and the Asael of Enoch. He views the name Azazel given by post-biblical Jewish interpreters to the leader of the demons as a description of his fierce character, his wicked desire to destroy humans²⁷. However, such an explanation of the name Azazel does not account for the identification made.

        Instead, my interpretation of the expression Azazel may well have been in the mind of some early Jewish interpreters (such as the Qumran sectarians), because it is reconcilable with the idea that Azazel is a demon. Rather than a description of the demon’s character, the name Azazel could have been an allusion to the doom which awaited this rebellious being²⁸. The book of Enoch gives a long description of how Asael/Azazel will be punished, because he is viewed as the one responsible for all sin. The Lord tells the angel Raphael to ascribe to Azazel all sin, because the whole earth has been corrupted by his teaching through his actions (10,8-9; cf. 13,1-3). It is obvious how Jewish interpreters could easily have viewed ‘the goat for Azazel’ spoken of in Leviticus 16 as destined for the demon Asael, because he carried all the sins

_____________________
239

of the Israelites²⁹. In Leviticus 16 it is clear that the carrying away of sin ‘for Azazel’, ‘for the powerful wrath of God’ has a remedial function: it is a way to atone for (to cover) the sins of the people by destroying them through death in order to appease God’s anger. Likewise, in Enoch the punishment Azazel will receive for the sin ascribed to him will redeem the earth, that is, humanity:

The Lord said to Raphael: ‘Bind Azazel hand and foot [and] throw him into the darkness!’ And he made a hole in the desert which was in Dudael and cast him there; he threw on top of him rugged and sharp rocks. And he covered his face in order that he may not see light; and in order that he may be sent into the fire on the great day of judgment. And give life to the earth which the angels have corrupted. And he will proclaim life for the earth: that he is giving life to her [Greek fragments read: ‘that he may heal the plague’]. And all the children of the people will not perish through all the secrets [of the angels] which they taught to their sons (10,4-8)³⁰.

        Azazel and his hosts will be consumed, destroyed by fire on the day of judgment (10,12-14). Ascribing the sins of the people to Azazel and punishing him and his followers for them on the day of judgment will get rid of iniquity and injustice and cleanse the land (10,15-22). So the destruction of the cause and symbol of evil, that is, Azazel, will destroy sin and its detrimental effects. The wrath of God is poured out on Azazel and his hosts in the form of fire and torment (10,13-14), so that his anger toward humanity may subside. As mentioned above, in its original biblical context the goat for Azazel is likely to be ‘the goat for the powerful wrath of God’. By identifying Azazel with the leader of the demons, Jewish interpreters took the goat for Azazel to be ‘the goat carrying God’s wrath’ by carrying away the people’s sin, bringing them back to their author, the demon Azazel. According to this interpretation, the name Azazel signifies the demon’s destiny, which is that the wrath of God will be poured out on him, rather than his identity, his fierce nature.

        Nowhere in the New Testament is the goat for Azazel identified with Christ. However, two early Christian interpreters, the author of the Epistle of Barnabas and Tertullian, make this identification. They believe that both goats referred to in Leviticus 16 are representations of Christ³¹. Tertullian explicitly states: ‘The two goats which were offered at the Fast, are not these also figures of Christ’s two activities?’ The goats have to be alike, because

_____________________
240

both represent Christ. According to Tertullian, the goat ‘driven into perdition’ (a clear reference to the goat for Azazel) marks the Lord’s suffering: he was ‘cursed and spit upon and pulled about and pierced’. The other goat symbolizes Christ’s offering for sin³².

        Likewise, Barnabas states that both goats were types of Christ and, therefore, had to look identical (7,10). The author makes an intriguing statement concerning the second goat: ‘The first goat is for the altar, but the other is accursed (e)pikata/ratoj)’ (7,9; cf. 7,7). The accursed goat is a clear reference to ‘the goat for Azazel’ which, according to Barnabas, represents Jesus. The identical word e)pikata/ratoj ‘cursed’ also occurs in Gal 3,13 in reference to Christ: ‘Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone that hangs on a tree"’. Here Paul is alluding to Deut 21,23. Of course, it is difficult to say whether the author of the Epistle of Barnabas (which could be as early as late first century AD) would have had access to Paul’s writings. Yet we may assume that he would have been familiar with many of the ideas conveyed by Paul³³. Paul’s notion of Jesus being accursed is clearly echoed in Barnabas 7,7.9. The question arises: How is the expression ‘for Azazel’ interpreted in the Epistle of Barnabas? The interpretation found in the Septuagint (see discussion above) does not seem to be reflected in this early Christian letter. Instead, the exegesis of Leviticus 16 given in this article may have been in the mind of the apostolic father, because in the book of Deuteronomy, to which Paul in Gal 3,13 alludes, ‘to be accursed’ is equated with ‘experiencing the wrath of God’:

The anger of YHWH and his jealousy will burn against that man, and every curse which is written in this book will rest on him (Deut 29,19; in English 29,20).

The anger of YHWH burned against this land, to bring upon it every curse which is written in this book (Deut 29,26; in English 29,27).

        Therefore, Barnabas 7,7.9 may well reflect the idea that ‘the goat for Azazel’ was accursed in the sense of destined ‘for the powerful wrath of God’.

        Although the New Testament writers never mention explicitly that God’s anger was upon Jesus, this idea seems to be implied. Shortly before his suffering and death, Jesus begs his Father ‘remove this cup from me’ (Matt 26,39; Mark 14,36; Luke 22,42; John 18,11), the cup signifying in all likelihood ‘the cup of God’s wrath’ spoken of by the prophets (Isa 51,17.22; Jer 25,15), and used as ‘a metaphor for punishment and divine retribution for sin’³⁴. Moreover, it can be argued that Paul in Rom 3,24-25 speaks of Christ’s death as a propitiation (i(lasth/rion), that is, his death appeased the anger of God against sin, resulting in the sinner’s deliverance from God’s wrath (cf. 1 Thess 1,10)³⁵. These implied references in the New Testament

_____________________
241

to God’s wrath upon Jesus strengthen the possibility that Barnabas interpreted ‘the goat for Azazel’ as a type of Christ who bore the wrath of God as a divine retribution for sin.

*
* *

        This article has been a proposal to read the enigmatic word lz)z(, occurring in Lev 16,8.10.26, as a metathesized form of l)zz( on the basis of textual, semantic and contextual evidence, and to interpret it as a reference to ‘the powerful wrath of God’. The spelling l)zz( occurs in the Samaritan Pentateuch and in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The most basic meaning of the word z(w)z( and its synonym z( is ‘strength, fierceness’, which, in particular contexts, becomes an expression to describe God’s powerful wrath as a retribution for sin (Ps 66,3; 90,11; Isa 42,25; Ezra 8,22). The word l) is more likely to be taken as a reference to YHWH than to some other deity, since Israelite religion as represented in the Hebrew Bible is clearly monotheistic. This interpretation of the expression Azazel fits its biblical context, because ‘the goat for Azazel’ evidently had an atoning function (Lev 16,10), it was a means to atone for sin (vv. 21-22). Elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, making atonement for sin is equated with appeasing God’s wrath (Num 16,46-48; 25,6-13). Likewise, ‘the goat for Azazel’, carrying the sins of the people, is for ‘the powerful wrath of God’, to placate his anger. The proposed interpretation of the ‘goat for Azazel’ ritual may also have been in the mind of some post-biblical interpreters, both Jewish and Christian. The identification made between the Azazel of Leviticus 16 and the Asael of Enoch in Enoch-like stories may well reflect a Jewish interpretation of the demon’s name as a description of his destiny: God’s wrath will be poured out on the author of sin. Moreover, it is likely that the author of the Epistle of Barnabas, who identifies the goat for Azazel with Christ while calling it accursed, viewed the ritual as foreshadowing God’s wrath upon Jesus in order to deliver humans from the guilt of sin.

_____________________
242

SUMMARY

        This article is a proposal to read the enigmatic word lz)z(, occurring in Lev 16,8.10.26, as a metathesized form of l)zz( on the basis of textual, semantic and contextual evidence, and to interpret it as a reference to ‘the powerful wrath of God’. This interpretation of the expression Azazel fits its biblical context, because the ‘goat for Azazel’ evidently had an atoning function (Lev 16,10), it was a means to atone for sin (vv. 21-22). Elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, making atonement for sin is equated with appeasing God’s wrath (Num 16,46-48; 25,6-13). Likewise, ‘the goat for Azazel’, carrying the sins of the people, is for ‘the powerful wrath of God’, to placate his anger. The proposed interpretation of the ‘goat for Azazel’ ritual may also have been in the mind of some post-biblical interpreters, both Jewish and Christian.

© 2000 Biblica

________________________________

NOTES

¹ Several commentaries on Leviticus give an overview of the various interpretations proposed for the word Azazel. For a succinct summary, see J. MILGROM, Leviticus 1–16 (AB 3; New York 1991) 1020-1021; G.J. WENHAM, The Book of Leviticus (NICOT 3; Grand Rapids 1979) 234-235; D.P. WRIGHT, "Azazel", Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York 1992) I, 536-537; B. JANOWSKI, "Azazel", Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (ed. K. VAN DER TOORN – B. BECKING – P.W. VAN DER HORST) (Leiden 1995) 240-248. For an excellent, but more elaborate and detailed overview, see B. JANOWSKI – G. WILHELM, "Der Bock, der die Sünden hinausträgt. Zur Religionsgeschichte des Azazel-Ritus Lev 16,10.21f", Religionsgeschichtliche Beziehungen zwischen Kleinasien, Nordsyrien und dem Alten Testament. Internationales Symposion Hamburg 17.-21. März 1990 (ed. B. JANOWSKI – K. KLAUS – G. WILHELM) (OBO 129; Freiburg – Göttingen 1993) 109-169.

² The Qal masculine singular participle of the verb lz) ‘to depart’ occurs also in Prov 20,14.

³ MILGROM, Leviticus 1–16, 1020; WENHAM, Leviticus, 234; WRIGHT, "Azazel", 536.

⁴ H. TAWIL, "Azazel the Prince of the Steepe: A Comparative Study", ZAW 92 (1980) 44.

⁵ In order to justify the possibility of a formative lamed, Driver draws attention to the Akkadian word karmu ‘ruined heap’ and the Hebrew word Mrk ‘terraced land’ from which the name lmrk ‘Carmel’ is derived. See G.R. DRIVER, "Three Technical Terms in the Pentateuch", JSS 1 (1956) 97-98.

⁶ BDB, 481; D. HOFFMAN, Das Buch Leviticus 1–11 (Berlin 1905/1906) 444.

⁷ WRIGHT, "Azazel", 536.

⁸ MILGROM, Leviticus 1–16, 1020-1021; JANOWSKI – WILHELM, "Der Bock, der die Sünden hinausträgt", 113-133. R. Helm, referring to BDB, makes the interesting observation that the Hebrew word ry(# used in Leviticus 16 in reference to the goat can mean both male goat and demon. See R. HELM, "Azazel in Early Jewish Tradition", AUSS (1994) 221. This identification naturally leads to the image of a demon in the form of a goat. The interpretation of Azazel as a demon-goat has been proposed by several scholars, including: T. STAUBLI, Das Image der Nomaden im Alten Israel und in der Ikonographie seiner sesshaften Nachbarn (OBO 107; Freiburg – Göttingen 1991) 177; H. WOHLSTEIN, "Zur Tier-Dämonologie der Bibel", ZDMG 113 (1963) 487.

⁹ TAWIL, "Azazel the Prince", 58-59.

¹⁰ JANOWSKI – WILHELM, "Der Bock, der die Sünden hinausträgt", 109-169. A great variety of theses have been proposed concerning the identity of the character Azazel and the understanding of the Azazel ritual. Janowski and Wilhelm classify them as three groups: the nomadic, the Egyptian and the South Anatolian-North Syrian models. Examples of proponents of the nomadic model are: H. DUHM, Die böser Geister im Alten Testament (Tübingen – Leipzig 1904) 56; K. ELLIGER, Leviticus (HAT I/4; Tübingen 1966) 212;L. ROST, "Weidewechsel und altisraelitischer Festkalender", Das Kleine Credo und andere Studien zum Alten Testament (ed. L. ROST) (Heidelberg 1965) 101-112; A. STROBEL, "Das jerusalemische Sündenbock-Ritual. Topographische und landeskundliche Erwägungen zur Überlieferungsgeschichte von Lev. 16,10.21f.", ZDPV 103 (1987) 141-168; W. THIEL, Die soziale Entwicklung Israels in vorstaatlicher Zeit (Neukirchen-Vluyn 1985) 46. An Egyptian model was proposed by M. GÖRG, "Beobachtungen zum sogenannten Azazel-Ritus", BN 33 (1986) 10-16. Proponents of the South Anatolian-North Syrian model are: H.M. KÜMMEL, "Ersatzkönig und Sündenbock", ZAW 80 (1968) 289-318; JANOWSKI – WILHELM, "Der Bock, der die Sünden hinausträgt", 129-162; D.P. WRIGHT, The Disposal of Impurity. Elimination Rites in the Bible and in Hittite and Mesopotamian Literature (SBLDS 101; Atlanta 1987) 15-74.

¹¹ S.B. HOENIG, "The New Qumran Pesher on Azazel", JQR (1965/1966) 248-253; TAWIL, "Azazel the Prince", 58-59; JANOWSKI, "Azazel", 240-241; S.M. OLYAN, A Thousand Thousands Serve Him. Exegesis and the Naming of Angels in Ancient Judaism (TSAJ 36; Tübingen 1993) 110.

¹² See Deut 4,35.39; 1 Kgs 8,60; Isa 45,5.14.18.21. The ‘other gods’ are merely graven images of wood and stone (Deut 28,36; 2 Kgs 17,37-41). In Isa 41,21-29, the worship of the other gods beside YHWH is ridiculed, because they are simply images which are unable to either speak or act.

¹³ E.g., Gen 33,20; Num 23,8; 2 Sam 23,5; Ps 118,27; Job 5,8; Isa 7,14; 40,18; Hos 11,9. For many more examples, see BDB, 42-43; W.L. HOLLADAY, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden – Grand Rapids 1991 [1971]) 15-16.

¹⁴ The cognate verb ezêzu in Assyrian means ‘to be furious’. See BDB, 738.

¹⁵ E.g., Deut 28,50; Ps 59,4; Eccl 8,1; Isa 19,4; 42,25; Dan 8,23.

¹⁶ Likewise, in Qumran literature, the words xwk and hrwbg, whose basic sense is ‘strength, might’, are used as an expression of divine anger, clearly standing in parallel to hmx ‘wrath’ and taking on the same meaning: ‘He (God) is very patient and forgiving, covering the sin of those who repent of wrongdoing, but raging strength (xwk), furious might (hrwbg), and great wrath in the flames of fire with all the angels of destruction shall come against all who rebel against the proper way and who despise the law, until they are without remnant or survivor’ (CD 2,4-7). Translation (slightly altered) by E.M. COOK, "The Damascus Document. Geniza A + B, 4Q266-272", The Dead Sea Scrolls. A New Translation (ed. M.O. WISE – M.G. ABEGG, JR – E.M. COOK) (San Francisco 1996) 52-53.

¹⁷ In Ps 68,28-30, God’s power (z() is also clearly described as an expression of rightful anger, a form of holy vengeance: ‘Summon your might (z(), O God; show your strength, O God, as you have done for us before [...]. Rebuke the wild animals that live among the reeds, the herd of bulls with the calves of the peoples. Trample under foot those who lust after tribute; scatter the peoples who delight in war’. The close association between z( and anger is also evident from Prov 21,14: ‘A gift in secret averts anger; and a bribe in the bosom, fierce wrath (hz(  hmx)’.

¹⁸ Here the parallelism suggests that zwz( is used as a synonym for hmx.

¹⁹ Unlike its synonym z(, the noun zwz( does not occur frequently in the Hebrew Bible, only three times (Ps 78,4; 145,6; Isa 42,25). Two of these occurrences are in construct, spelled as zwz(. However, there are not enough occurrences in the Hebrew Bible to conclude that zwz( could not have been contracted to z(.

²⁰ Concerning zz( JANOWSKI –WILHELM, "Der Bock, der die Sünden hinausträgt", 158, comment: ‘Im Westsemitischen, so im Ugaritischen und Hebräischen, bezeichnet die Wurzel ebenfalls oft eine göttliche Qualität, die aber nicht in der Weise des Akkadischen negativ festgelegt ist, sondern auf die Macht und Stärke abhebt, die sich freilich auch hart und zornig veräußern kann’. Yet Janowski and Wilhelm do not give any evidence in support of the idea that z( or zz( can express God’s powerful wrath, as I have attempted to do above.

²¹ In BDB the following meanings for rpk are listed: 1. ‘to cover over, pacify, make propitiation’; 2. ‘to cover over, atone for sin’, without sacrifices; 3. ‘to cover over, atone for sin and persons by legal rites’ (497-498).

²² P.J. BUDD, Numbers (WBC 5; Waco 1984) 196.

²³ Contra WRIGHT, Disposal of Impurity, 49, who states that in Leviticus 16, ‘there is no angry deity to appease’. He views this as one of the main differences between the Hittite rites and the ‘goat for Azazel’ ritual, while comparing the latter to the former.

²⁴ The transference of sin has already been observed by MILGROM, Leviticus 1–16, 1042.

²⁵ Contrast WRIGHT, Disposal of Impurity, 49, who does not view the goat as the object of God’s wrath, but merely as ‘a transporter of impurity’. Again, Wright sees this as an important difference between the Hittite rites and the ‘goat for Azazel’-ritual.

²⁶ In late Midrash this identification is also made. For a discussion, see TAWIL, "Azazel the Prince", 46-47.

²⁷ TAWIL, "Azazel the Prince", 52-53, 58-59.

²⁸ In the Hebrew Bible, names can describe people’s character. A humorous example is found in 1 Sam 25,25 where Abigail excuses her husband and explains to David: ‘As his name is, so is he; Nabal (lbn) is his name, and folly is with him’. However, at times a name signifies a person’s destiny. For instance, the name Hannah (hnx) clearly symbolizes God’s grace which he bestows on her by giving her a child (1 Sam 1–2, see especially 1,17-18 where the noun Nx ‘grace’ occurs).

²⁹ P.D. HANSON, "Rebellion in Heaven, Azazel, and Euhemeristic Heroes in 1 Enoch 6–11", JBL 96 (1977) 222.

³⁰ Translation of the Ethiopic version of Enoch by E. ISAAC, "I (Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch", The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (ed. J.H. CHARLESWORTH) (London 1983), I, 17-18. Isaac also refers to the Greek fragments.

³¹ This has already been observed by L.L. GRABBE, "The Scapegoat Tradition: A Study in Early Jewish Interpretation", JSJ 18 (1987) 161-163. It should not surprise us that both the author of the Epistle of Barnabas and Tertullian identify the second goat with Christ, because in the New Testament Christ is spoken of as bearing the sins of the people (see Heb 9,28).

³² Adv. Marc. 3.7.7; Adv. Jud. 14.9 (cf. TERTULLIANUS, Adversus Marcionem. Ed. and transl. by E. Evans [OECT; Oxford 1972] 191).

³³ For a succinct overview on these issues, see J.C. TREAT, "Epistle of Barnabas", ABD (New York 1992) I, 611-614.

³⁴ G.E. LADD, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids 1989 [1974]) 191.

³⁵ It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss the meaning of i(lasth/rion which is very controversial and has been the subject of much debate. C.H. Dodd is well-known for his refutation of the idea that i(lasth/rion in Rom 3,24-25 means ‘propitiation’. He suggests the rendering ‘expiation’, the removal of guilt or defilement. See C.H. DODD, The Bible and the Greeks (London 1935) 82-95. Several scholars have examined and refuted Dodd’s interpretation of i(lasth/rion, including: L.L. MORRIS, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (London 1955) 125-185; ID., "The Meaning of Hilasterion in Romans 3:25", NTS 2 (1955) 33-43; ID., "The Use of Hilaskesthai in Biblical Greek", ExpTim 62 (1950-1951) 233; R. NICOLE, "C.H. Dodd and the Doctrine of Propitiation", WTJ 17 (1955) 117-157. For brief and succinct overviews on the issue, see J.A. FITZMYER, S.J., Romans. A new translation with introduction and commentary (AB 33; London 1993) 349-350; LADD, Theology, 429-433.