Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

"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 ( laihovah, for Jehwah) and the other lot for the scape-goat, (IN 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."

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. After the presentation, he was to cast lots upon them, one lot being for Jehovah (3), and the other for what in the original is termed Azazel (3) The goat on which the lot of Jehovah 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-), 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

of the goat; fit man

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

children of Israel, putting them upon the head after which he was to send it by the hand of a (" ish itti) that it might bear upon it all their iniquities 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.

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 ανερμενεύτον,” 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.

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 Tsùk." 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 לַעֲזָאזֵל

to the Mount Azaz, or to the rough mountain, as azaz properly signifies. And to give still more color to this interpretation, R. Saadias Gaon supposes the word to be compounded of and y, so that the mountain Azazel is by transposition equivalent to Azzael, i. e. rough mountain of God, just as David, Ps. 36: 7, speaks of lofty mountains, as "mountains of God." But to say nothing of the license of alteration which appears in these readings, we find no intimation of any mountain thus denominated, either in Palestine or out of it, to which the scape-goat was led. We are simply informed that the animal was to be conveyed into the wilderness, without any specification of the place." Besides, had Moses intended to have designated a particular mountain, he would doubtless have employed the common. adjection "Mount," and we should have had "Mount Azazel" just as we now have "Mount Horeb," "Mount Ebal," "Mount Gerizim," &c. Rejecting this interpretation therefore as untenable, we come upon another which unites the suffrages of a large class of the more modern commentators.

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 :— "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 ez, a goat, and by azal, 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," gayos megxuevos, the departing goat; Aquila gayos añoλeλuμevos, the goat set free or let

* Lightfoot Temp. Ser. p, 177 vol. IX. Pitman's Ed.

[ocr errors]

loose; and the Sept. ȧroroμraios, which Theodoret and some other of the Greek fathers interpret as equivalent to άTOTEμTÒμevos, sent away. But as we shall show in the sequel that there is great reason to question the correctness of this interpretation, the rendering of the LXX must be taken here as important rather for the sense which has been put upon it, than for its own direct and positive testimony to the meaning of the Hebrew original.

The terms, however, above quoted, are freely used by the ancient Greek writers, Theodoret, Cyril of Alexandria, and others, in reference to the same subject, and the Latin vulgate accords with them by adopting the rendering, "hircus emissarius," the emissary goat. Guided by the same authorities, our translators have rendered the original by "scape-goat." But to this view of the origin and import of the Hebrew term, it must be admitted that there are serious objections, among which are the following.

(1.) It does not appear why such a singular and anomalous term should have been employed to express an idea so simple as that of a goat sent away. The Hebrew has an appropriate word for the subject, viz., 1 ez or sair, goat, and another,

meshullah, from shala'h, to dismiss or send away, for the predicate. Why then should such a strange compound word be introduced in this connexion, especially when it is well known that although, in Hebrew, proper names are often compounded, yet appellatives very seldom are? The presumption from the genius of the language is most unquestionably in favor of "Azazel's " being a proper name. The force of this objection is greatly enhanced by the fact that neither Onkelos, Jonathan, nor the Samaritan, have attempted to translate or paraphrase the term, which they undoubtedly would have done, had they considered it merely as an appellative.

(2.) It is objected to this explication by Bochart, that it involves a grammatical anomaly. Each of the goats was obviously required to be a male; but ez, in the sense of goat, more appropriately signifies a female; and yet it is here represented as compounded with the masculine brazal. We do not indeed consider this objection as insuperable, as there is some reason to rank among the epicene or hermaphrodite nouns; but we may still say that we should more natural

uous

ly have expected, that for the purpose intended, the unambigSeïrazel would have been employed, especially Seirim, is used in speaking of the two goats in the words immediately preceding.

as

(3.) But a far more serious difficulty incumbers the proposed interpretation from the structure of the sentence. The direction in the text is thus worded:-" One lot shall be

for Jehovah, and the other lot for Azazel." Now the obvious impression on reading this would be, that a personal antithesis was intended. Jehovah certainly, the first party, is a person; and as precisely the same formula. of expression occurs in regard to the other, why should we not consider that also as a person? But according to the present rendering, the preposition for, in the two successive clauses, is made to bear two entirely different significations. In the former it denotes to in the sense of appropriation-in the latter, it denotes for in the sense of designation to a particular purpose. Is this probable? Indeed, we see not why, if "Azazel" is to be understood as the name of one goat, "Jehovah" is not as properly to be understood as the name of the other. But from this alternative the mind instinctively shrinks back.

As then the objection to this theory of the derivation and meaning of the word appears to be sufficiently valid to warrant its rejection; and as we seem forced, at the same time, to adopt only such an exposition as shall assume the personality of the "Azazel" of the text, the question at once arises, what person can we suppose to be intended by the appellation? This is indeed a question of very grave import, and we feel a strong necessity laid upon us of making peace with the pre-possessions of our readers, when we announce our firm conviction, that not only a personal being, but an evil demon, real or imaginary, is signified by this unique and anomalous term.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

In presenting our purposed array of authorities in support of this opinion, we begin with the translation of the Seventy. The words of our English version, One lot for the Lord and the other lot for the scape-goat"-they have thus rendered ;—κλῆρον ἕνα τῷ Κυρίῳ και κλῆρον ἕνα τῷ ἀποπομπαίῳ, one lot to the Lord, and one lot to the Apopompeus, or sender-away. The Greek word àToroμTalos, though rendered passively in

« PoprzedniaDalej »