An Investigation of the Scapegoat Ritual of Yom Kippur

Introduction:

The book of Leviticus found in the Torah was often described by ancient rabbis as torat kohanim,
meaning “the manual of the priests.”1 This designation however, may be slightly misleading. Its primary
concerns deal with a wide variety of ritualistic interests: “sacrifices, what is clean and unclean, dietary
regulations, festival occasions, ethics, sexual relations, blasphemy, Sabbath and jubilee years, blessings
for obedience and curses for disobedience, and how one could release for common use things given or
devoted to God.”2 Because Leviticus deals with such a multiplicity of subjects, its contents influenced
aspects of the daily lives of nearly all ancient Israelites. Leviticus should thus be viewed as a book for the
people, not solely a book devoted to priestly interests. 3 This relevance to the people can readily be seen
in Leviticus 16 when the requirements of Yom Kippur, or The Day of Atonement, are presented. 4

Yom Kippur’s textual context:

Yom Kippur was considered by ancient Israel to be one of the holiest days of the year, and
represented a day on which both the tabernacle and Israel as a whole were cleansed from all impurity. 5
The most complete description of Yom Kippur is contained in Leviticus 16, but it is also mentioned briefly
in Leviticus 23:26-32 and Numbers 29:7-11. Leviticus 16:1 begins by claiming that the rituals contained in
the subsequent chapter were given to Moses by the Lord in response to the defilement which occurred
when the two sons of Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, were killed in the tabernacle for offering “unholy fire” to
the lord.6 This would chronologically place chapter 16 immediately following the narrative of chapter 10,
and suggests that chapters 11-15 were inserted by later editors as a comprehensive list of defilements
which the cleansing ritual of Yom Kippur may rectify. 7 Because the mandates of chapter 16 of Leviticus
are so closely tied to the story of Nadab and Abihu, scholars generally agree that the ritual prescribed for
this “Day of Atonement,” was originally an emergency rite, a unique procedure specifically given for the
purpose of purging a specific instance of tabernacle defilement; 8 at some point this ritual became
general in its use, a yearly occurrence utilized to cleanse both the sanctuary and the people of
“accumulated contaminants produced by severe uncleanness and deliberate sins that had not been
rectified in the course of the year.”9 Indeed, the end of the chapter, verses 29-34, which contain the
injunction that the ritual be repeated yearly, is widely considered to be an appendix added by later
editors after the ritual had become more common. 10 The text of Leviticus 16 is thus expertly demarcated,
its beginning marked by a claim that the following are the Lord’s words to Moses, and its conclusion
marked by the words: “And Moses did as the Lord had commanded him.” 11

Ritualistic Stipulations of Yom Kippur:

The ritualistic practice of Yom Kippur is clearly detailed in chapter 16, and is firmly situated as
both a restorative and festival ritual.12 Verse two begins with an injunction that Aaron is not to enter the
Holy of Holies “just at any time.”13 This should not be read as a prohibition forbidding Aaron entry into
the sanctuary except at a fixed time, but is instead most likely a warning, one which allowed Aaron to
enter the adytum (innermost sanctuary,) at any time so long as he had performed the following ritual. 14
The ritual begins with Aaron (or the high priest in subsequent generations) 15 selecting a young bull for a
sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering. 16 These initial animals selected are specifically to be utilized
for the enactors own purgation, while subsequent animals selected would be utilized for the entirety of
the Israelite community.17 A symbolic bath followed, after which Aaron would be dressed in linen
garments.18 The symbolism of the high priest beginning the ritual in linen garments rather than his
traditional vestments may be twofold: 1) To symbolize an ascension toward the divine by donning the
clothing of heavenly beings, and/or 2) To identify the priest with the common in an attempt to symbolize
the priests humility before the Lord.19

After being cleansed and clothed, the priest would select from the Israelite community two male
goats for a sin offering, and a ram for a burnt offering. 20 The two male goats underwent a unique
procedure before the ritual was to proceed any further. Aaron was to take the two goats and present
them “before the Lord at the entrance of the tent of meeting.” 21 Aaron then would cast lots to determine
which goat was to be offered to the Lord as a sin offering, and which would be loosed into the wilderness
“for Azazel.”22 The term “Azazel” is only used in the Bible four times, and all uses are contained within
Leviticus 16.23 Because of its sparse usage the noun has caused translation difficulties for hundreds of
years, and continues to be a disputed topic. 24 Traditional translations such as the King James Version or
William Tyndale’s translation of the Bible rendered the noun “scapegoat,” while most modern
translations leave the term Azazel.25 The nuances of the argumentation surrounding its translation will be
discussed later in this work.

Before performing any of the sacrifices for the people, Aaron is first commanded to offer his own
sin offering for “himself and for his house.”26 Aaron’s “house,” should be read as both his traditional
household, as well as the entirety of the priestly clan, extending the scope of this offering to cover the
sins of all the priests who participate in the daily functions of the temple. 27 The order of sacrifice must be
seen as significant. First the priests are cleansed of impurity to make certain they are spotless so that
they may act as intermediaries between the people and the Lord. It is only after Aaron has been
cleansed of impurity that he lights the incense whose cloud of smoke may symbolize the presence of the
Lord.28 This spreading of Incense within the inner sanctuary marks the first of three times Aaron is to
enter the holy of holies on The Day of Atonement. 29 After Aaron has filled the holy of holies with a cloud
of incense, he returns with the blood of his slaughtered bull and sprinkles the blood both on the front of
the ark, as well as seven times in front of the ark. 30 Aaron then exits the adytum and performs the
sacrifice of the goat on which the lot fell for it to be offered as a sin offering. 31 He then was directed to
renter the holy place and sprinkle the blood of the goat offered for the people in the same manner he
previously sprinkled the blood of his own sin offering. 32 The symbolism of both these acts of sprinkling is
stated to be an attempt to purify the tabernacle itself, presumably from the defilement of Nadab and
Abihu.33 The tabernacle is further cleansed as Aaron is commanded to exit the adytum and place blood
from both his own bull and from the community’s goat upon the horns of the Altar. 34

The cleansing of the tabernacle complete, Aaron proceeds with a completion of the ritual to
cleanse the people of Israel.35 Aaron brings forth the live goat, places both his hands upon its head, and
confesses the sins and transgressions of all of Israel, presumably transferring the sin of Israel onto the
goat.36 A preselected individual is then to lead the goat into the wilderness leaving it to “bear on itself all
their iniquities to a barren region.”37 Both Aaron and the individual who led the goat into the wilderness
are to then bathe, Aaron in an attempt to return to his ordinary role as priest, and the individual to
remove impurity acquired through handling the sin laden goat. 38 Aaron then dons his typical priestly
vestments and performs a burnt offering for himself and for Israel with the remaining rams. 39 The Day of
Atonement ritual reaches its final conclusion when the remains of both the bull and the goat used for sin
offerings are taken outside the camp and burned, the individual who performs such reenters the camp
only upon completing a purification process.40
Azazel and the “Scapegoat”:

Perhaps the most problematic issue to arise from Leviticus 16 is the translation of the term
“Azazel.”41 The term itself is a noun of unknown etymological origins, but four major interpretations of its
meaning have been proposed: 1) It is the name of a demon, 2) it refers to a “rough” or “difficult” place to
which the goat was being sentenced, 3) it is an abstract noun meaning “destruction” or “entire removal,”
or 4) it is a corruption of two Hebrew words which mean something like “goat that goes away.” 42 Of these
four major theories the first, that the word is the proper name of a demonic entity, is preferred by the
majority of biblical scholars.43 This interpretation seems most plausible as the text specifies that two lots
are to be cast, one for Yahweh, and the other for Azazel. If one lot is being cast for an actual entity (the
Lord,) it is only reasonable that the other lot too is being cast for such. 44 Additionally the wilderness, to
which the goat is sent, was traditionally held to be the abode of demons. 45 Lastly, Azazel is portrayed as a
demonic figure in both midrashic and pseudepigraphical writings. 46

With Azazel most likely being some demonic entity, one must ask what bearing, if any, this
information has on modern understanding of ancient Israelite monotheism. Before suggesting that a
ritual which admits another divine entity jeopardizes true “monotheism,” it should be acknowledged
that how those entities are treated is far more important to a definition of monotheism than abstract
belief.47 Indeed, the way in which Israel responds to the existence of Azazel places Azazel strikingly
submissive to Yahweh. This is evidenced by the placement of both of the goats before the Lord leaving
the selection process strictly in his hands. 48 Furthermore, the goat sent to Azazel is not treated as an
offering:
It is not treated as a sacrifice, requiring slaughter, blood manipulation, and the like, nor does it
have the effect of a sacrifice, namely, propitiation, expiation, and so on. Moreover, an animal
laden with impurities would not be acceptable as an offering either to God or to a demon.
Second, the goat is not the vicarious substitute for Israel because there is no indication that it was
punished (e.g. put to death) or demonically attacked in Israel’s place. Instead of being an offering
or a substitute, the goat is simply the vehicle to dispatch Israel’s impurities and sins to the
wilderness/netherworld. The banishment of evil to an inaccessible place is a form of elimination
amply attested in the ancient Near East.49

Thus, while Azazel was undoubtedly believed to be an actual entity, Israel takes great pains to avoid
anything that could be construed as worship on its behalf. 50 Some scholars even argue that Azazel held
so little sway in the Israelite community that the goat was not sent back to him but was instead sent into
a state of nullification or chaos, the wilderness being the home of such. 51 Whatever Israelite beliefs were
about Azazel and his function in the known world, it is clear that they took great pains to constrain their
worship to Yahweh alone. As such, the existence of evidence that Israel may have “believed” in divine
entities other than Yahweh should be contextualized within the practices that Israel enacted; displaying
that, in practice, Israel attempted to maintain monotheistic tendencies.

Bibliography
Allegro, John M., “The New Qumran Pesher on Azazel ‘Some Unpublished Fragments of
Pseudepigraphical Literature from Qumran's Fourth Cave,’" The Jewish Quarterly Review, (Vol.
56:3, Jan. 1966).

Blair, Judit M., De-Demonising the Old Testament: An Investigation of Azazel, Lilith, Deber, Qeteb and
Reshef in the Hebrew Bible, (University of Edinburgh, 2008).

Gilchrest, Eric, “For the wages of sin is… banishment: An unexplored substitutionary motif in Leviticus 16
and the ritual of the scapegoat,” Evangelical Quarterly, (85:1 January 2013).

Hanson, Paul D., “Rebellion in Heaven, Azazel, and Euhemeristic Heroes in 1 Enoch 6-11,” Journal of
Biblical Literature, (Vol. 96:2 1977).

Hayes, John H., Introduction to Leviticus, in The New Interpreter’s Study Bible, (Abingdon Press,
Nashville, 2003).

Helm, Robert, “Azazel in Early Jewish Tradition,” Andrews University Seminary Studies, (Vol. 32:3, Autumn
1994).

Kiuchi, Nobuyoshi, “Living Like The Azazel-goat in Romans 12:1,” Tyndale Bulletin (Vol. 57:2, 2006).

Mcolley, Grant, “The Book of Enoch and Paradise Lost,” Harvard Theological Review, (Vol. 31:1, 1938).

Milgrom, Jacob, Leviticus 1-16: a new translation with introduction and commentary, vol. 3 of The
Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1991).

Moberly, R.W.L., Old Testament Theology: Reading the Hebrew Bible as Christian Scripture, (Baker
Academic, Grand Rapids, 2013).

Nickelsburg, George W. E., “Apocalyptic And Myth in 1 Enoch 6-11,“ Journal Of Biblical Literature, (Vol.
96:3, 1977).

Orlov, Andrei A., “’The Likeness of Heaven’: Kavod of Azazel in the Apocalypse of Abraham,” With Letters
of Light: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Early Jewish Apocalypticism, Magic and Mysticism, eds.
D. Arbel and A. Orlov; (Berlin; N.Y., de Gryeter, 2010).

Pinker, Aron. “A Goat to Go to Azazel,” Journal of Hebrew Scriptures, (Vol. 7:8, 2007).

Rudman, Dominic, “A Note on the Azazel-goat Ritual,” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft.
(Vol. 116:3).

Shea, William H., “Azazel in the Pseudepigrapha,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, (Vol. 13:1,
2002).

Tawil, Hayim. “Azazel The Prince of the Steppe: A Comparative Study,” Zeitschrift für die
Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, (92, 1980).

Wright, D., "Azazel" The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Ed. David Noel Freedman. (Vol. 1. New York: Doubleday,
1992).
1
John H. Hayes, “Introduction to Leviticus,” in The New Interpreter’s Study Bible, (Abingdon Press, Nashville, 2003,) 145
2
Ibid.
3
“In spite of its title, the Levites are mentioned in only one passage in the book (25:32-34). Most of the contents of the
book were addressed to and concerned the people as a whole. The book treats subjects of interest to the life and practice
of all Israelites.” Ibid.
4
“This shall be a statute to you forever: In the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall deny yourselves,
and shall do no work, neither the citizen nor the alien who resides among you. For on this day atonement shall be made
for you, to cleanse you; from all your sins you shall be clean before the Lord.” Leviticus 16:29-30 NRSV
5
“Leviticus 16 is appropriately situated at the center of the book…because it describes an ancient Israelite ritual, the
importance of which rivals all other rituals and traditions for both Jewish and Christian believers. This central chapter
contains legislation for the Day of Atonement, a bipartite ritual in which blood manipulation of the purification offering
cleanses the tabernacle from impurity and a scapegoat sent to the wilderness removes the iniquities of the Israelites.” Eric
Gilchrest, “For the wages of sin is… banishment: An unexplored substitutionary motif in Leviticus 16 and the ritual of the
scapegoat,” Evangelical Quarterly, 85:1 (January 2013,) 36
6
“Now Aaron’s sons, Nadab and Abihu each took his censer, put fire in it, and laid incense on it; and they offered unholy
fire before the Lord such as he had not commanded them. And fire came out from the presence of the Lord and consumed
them, and they died before the Lord.” Leviticus 10:1-2 NRSV
7
“According to this initial verse, chap. 16 follows upon chap. 10. Thus chaps. 11-15 are an insert specifying the impurities
that can pollute the sanctuary (15:31), for which the purgation rite of chap. 16 is mandated. From the point of view of the
redactor, the connection of chap. 16 to chap. 10 makes sense. Nadab and Abihu had polluted the sanctuary doubly, in life
by their sin and in death by their corpses.” Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16: a new translation with introduction and
commentary, vol. 3 of The Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1991) 1011
8
”Yet chap. 10 has said nothing about the procedure for purging the sanctuary, which in such a case of severe pollution—
the sin and subsequent death of Nadab and Abihu occurred in the sacred precincts—the entire sanctuary, including the
adytum, would need to be purged. This procedure is detailed in chap. 16. Indeed, the fact that the rite described here
could be regarded as an emergency measure originally fits the case of Nadab and Abihu perfectly.” Ibid.
9
Hayes, Introduction, 169
10
“This shall be a statute to you forever: In the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall deny yourselves.”
Leviticus 16:29; “Verses 29-34 are widely considered to be an appendix added by later editors, often referred to by scholars
as the Holiness School.” Hayes, Introduction, 169
11
Leviticus 16:34 NRSV
12
“Rituals function in three ways in Leviticus. (1) Some are the unrepeatable acts of inauguration or founding that
establish a status or inaugurate a condition, such as the ordination of the priesthood and the consecration of the cult. (2)
Other rituals are concerned with the maintenance of established order and thus are enacted over and over, as in daily
sacrifices and the annual festival cycle. (3) A third function of ritual is restoration—rituals that return conditions to their
normal, divinely appointed order after disruption, as in actions used to cleanse the Temple or to reintegrate a previously
unclean person or thing. Many rituals, such as the Day of Atonement (or Purification), share both of the latter two
functions.” Hayes, Introduction, 146
13
Leviticus 16:2 NRSV
14
“It should be noted that nothing is said concerning a fixed time. This fact is observed by the midrash, which makes this
striking comment: ‘He (Aaron) may enter any time he chooses as long as he follows this procedure,’ from which Elijah of
Vilna concludes that Aaron could enter the adytum whenever he chose but his successors could do so only on the annual
Day of Purgation. His observation, I believe, is correct.” Milgrom, Leviticus, 1012-1013
15
This is not to say that the ritual, clearly prescribed to be carried out by Aaron, functioned in exactly the same manner for
subsequent high priests as it did for Aaron. In fact, while most rabbis accept that Aaron could enter the sanctuary anytime
he performed the given ritual, later high priests were constrained to entering the Holy of Holies only one day a year, on the
day set apart as the Day of Atonement. See footnote 14 above. Also, many changes were made to the ritual of the
scapegoat in later times, such as casting the goat from a cliff rather than releasing it into the wilderness.
16
“Thus shall Aaron come into the holy place: with a young bull for a sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering.” Leviticus
16:3 NRSV
17
See Leviticus 16:6, 11, 24 for instances of the priests own cleansing ritual.
18
“He shall put on the holy linen tunic, and shall have the linen undergarments next to his body, fasten the linen sash, and
wear the linen turban; these are the holy vestments. He shall bathe his body in water, and then put them on.” Leviticus
16:4 NRSV
 19
“Why these simple linen vestments? Three answers are given in the early sources. (1) ‘Like the ministration on
high so was the ministration below.’ For biblical evidence that the angels were dressed in linen, see Ezek. 9:2-3, 11; 10:2;
Dan. 10:6; Mal. 2:7. (2) The clothing should indicate that the high priest is humble, stripped of all pretense; he therefore
dons the vestments of the ordinary priest; thus, as befits a person in the liminal state during a rite of passage, he is
stripped of all emblems of his former status.” Milgrom, Leviticus, 1016
“Preparations for the observance called for the high priest to dress in linen garments rather than his usual vestments.
Whether the use of linen represented his identity with the whole community, thus a ‘common’ status or his identity with
heavenly figures, like angels, who wear linen, remains uncertain.” Hayes, Introduction, 169
20
“He shall take from the congregation of the people of Israel two male goats for a sin offering, and one ram for a burnt
offering.” Leviticus 16:5 NRSV These animals selected should not be confused with the animals previously selected by the
priest for his own cleansing rite; this second group of animals selected from the community are utilized for the cleansing of
Israel at large.
21
Leviticus 16:7 NRSV
22
Leviticus 16:8-10 NRSV
23
“Scholars focused their attention mostly on understanding the term Azazel, which occurs only in Lev 16:8, 10 (2t), and
26, and on the occurrence of similar rituals in other ancient Near-East cultures to reveal its origins and purpose.” Aron
Pinker, “A Goat to Go to Azazel,” Journal of Hebrew Scriptures, 7:8 (2007) 2
24
“The ritual of the scapegoat is described in Lev 16:5–26. Each step of the ritual is clear, yet it remains enigmatic to this
day. Ehrlich succinctly summarized the situation saying, ‘Azazel—No one knows who he is or what he is. What previous
scholarship said about him has no substance and cannot be relied upon.’ This is also true at the present time, almost a
century later.” Pinker, Goat, 2
25
“The goat dedicated to Azazel was known as ‘the scapegoat’ in both William Tyndale’s translation and in the King James
Version of the Bible.” Hayes, 169. The NIV also renders “Azazel” as “scapegoat.” The noun is left “Azazel” in the ASV, RSV,
NRSV, and JPS.
26
Leviticus 16:6 NRSV See also 16:11
27
“His household. In other words, all of the priests. The high priest is considered the chieftain of the priestly clan and,
hence, all his personal sacrifices are also on behalf of his fellow priests unless he alone has erred… The rabbis explain this
apparent redundancy as the need for the high priest to lay his hands twice over the bull and recite a short confession, first
for himself and his family and then for the rest of the priests.” Milgrom, Leviticus, 1019, 1024
28
“For by means of the cloud I shall appear… Which cloud is meant, the cloud of incense the high priest raises in the
adytum or the divine firecloud that, according to P, descends upon the Tabernacle as a sign that Israel is to make camp and
rests upon the Ark whenever God speaks to Moses? Rabbinic exegesis splits on the question, the former view advocated
by the majority…” Milgrom, Leviticus, 1015
29
“Aaron enters the adytum three times during the course of the ritual: to create the cloud of incense (vv 12-13), to
asperse the adytum with the blood of his purification bull (v 14), and then to asperse it with the blood of the people’s
purification goat (v 15).” Ibid.
30
“He shall take some of the blood of the bull, and sprinkle it with his finger on the front of the mercy seat, and before the
mercy seat he shall sprinkle the blood with his finger seven times.” Leviticus 16:14 NRSV
31
Leviticus 16:15 NRSV
32
Ibid.
33
“He shall slaughter the goat of the sin offering that is for the people and bring its blood inside the curtain, and do with its
blood as he did with the blood of the bull, sprinkling it upon the mercy seat and before the mercy seat. Thus he shall make
atonement for the sanctuary, because of the uncleannesses of the people of Israel, and because of their transgressions, all
their sins; and so he shall do for the tent of meeting, which remains with them in the midst of their uncleannesses.”
Leviticus 16:15-15 NRSV
34
“Then he shall go out to the altar that is before the Lord and make atonement on its behalf, and shall take some of the
blood of the bull and of the blood of the goat, and put it on each of the horns of the altar. He shall sprinkle some of the
blood on it with his finger seven times, and cleanse it and hallow it from the uncleannesses of the people of Israel.”
Leviticus 16:18-19 NRSV
35
The offering of one goat as a sin offering is just a portion of the ritual by which impurity is purged from the Israelite
ranks. The second goat, the one selected for Azazel plays a pivotal role in the removal of uncleanness from Israel.
“Purgation and elimination rites go together in the ancient world. Exorcism of impurity is not enough; its power must be
removed. An attested method is to banish it to its place of origin (e.g., the wilderness of the netherworld,) or to some
place where its malefic powers could work in the interest of the sender.” Milgrom, Leviticus, 1044-1045
36
“The Azazel rite of Leviticus 16 represents a simple transference ritual whereby the sins of Israel are laid upon a goat.”
Dominic Rudman, “A Note on the Azazel-goat Ritual,” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. (Vol. 116:3,) 397
37
Leviticus 16:22 NRSV
38
“The service is completed after the high priest divests himself of the linen vestments, which shared in the sanctity of the
Holy of Holies, bathes to signify the return to everyday life, and adorns his normal, priestly vestments that indicate his role
as mediator between humans and God. The man who led away the goat and the one who burned the purification offerings
outside the camp had been contaminated by uncleanness and thus must launder their clothes and bathe before reentering
the camp. As the officiant in these rituals, the high priest was immune to contamination.” Hayes, Introduction, 170
39
“Then he shall come out and offer his burnt offering and the burnt offering of the people, making atonement for himself
and for the people.” Leviticus 16:24 NRSV
40
“The bull of the sin offering and the goat of the sin offering, whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the holy
place, shall be taken outside the camp; their skin and their flesh and their dung shall be consumed in fire. The one who
burns them shall wash his clothes and bathe his body in water, and afterward may come into the camp.” Leviticus 16:27-28
NRSV
41
“The identification as well as the etymological origin of ‘Azazel’ has been the subject of much debate from the Post
Biblical period and on. Jewish and non-Jewish scholars alike, from the medieval period till the modern times, argued the
term being unable to form a unified opinion as to the precise mythological nature and the philological affinities that the
term exhibits.” Hayim Tawil, “Azazel The Prince of the Steppe: A Comparative Study,” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft, 92 (1980) 43
42
“Scholars believed that if the meaning of Azazel could be deciphered all would fall in place. However, to this day the
meaning of Azazel eludes categorical definition. The approaches that have been adopted for interpreting the term Azazel
essentially fell into four types: name of a supernatural entity, name or description of a place, abstract noun, description of
the dispatched goat, and, miscellaneous opinions.” Pinker, Goat, 4
43
“Of the four possibilities, the majority of scholars favour the idea that the term Azazel is a proper name belonging to
some form of wilderness demon (cf. ASV, RSV, NRSV, JPS).” Rudman, Note, 1
44
“The parallel syntactic structures of this verse by which one goat is designated ‘for the Lord,’ the other ‘for Azazel,’ which
imply that Azazel is the personal name of a divine being.” Milgrom, Leviticus, 1020
45
“The wilderness to which the goat is dispatched is the habitation of demons (e.g., Isa 13:21; 34:14; Bar 4:35; Tob 8:3;
Matt 12:34; Luke 11:24; Rev 18:2).” Ibid.
46
“Finally, it could be the name of a demon. This is the dominant view in midrashic literature, dating back to the early
postbiblical period.” Milgrom, 1020; “Thirdly, in later extrabiblical literature, Azazel is understood as a demonic being (1
Enoch 8,1; 9,6; 10,4-8; 13,1; 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).” Rudman,
Note, 397
47
“The modern Western tendency is to regard the difference between ‘monotheism’ and ‘polytheism’ and ‘atheism’ as a
matter of deciding, in essence, how many invisible beings of theoretical potency should be recognized to exist (or not)…But
part of the point of starting the studies in this book with the Shema is to see that issues of allegiance and life priorities
together with corresponding moral and symbolic practices are at the heart of what it means to understand, and be able to
appropriate, the Old Testament’s portrayal of God.” R.W.L. Moberly, Old Testament Theology: Reading the Hebrew Bible as
Christian Scripture, (Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, 2013) 40
48
“The purpose of the lots is clearly to leave the selection of the animals to the Lord. Otherwise, if the high priest chose
the animals, it would appear that he and the people he represented were offering an animal to Azazel. Thus the text takes
pains to state that both animals were placed ‘before the Lord,’ that both were designated a purification offering, and that
the goat of Azazel will be placed alone ‘before the Lord.’” Milgrom, Leviticus, 1020
49
Milgrom, Leviticus, 1021
50
“Azazel suffers the fate of all angels and spirits in Scripture. They can represent the powers of the physical world but they
are not deified and their worship is prohibited.” Ibid.
51
“If we extend this conception of chaos and creation to the ritual of the Azazel-goat, and accept the hypothesis that P
does not envision an active role for a demon called Azazel in the proceedings, then it seems clear that the significance of
the goat’s release into the wilderness is that by so doing, the sin of the community is nullified. Not only is the goat with its
burden of sin removed from the camp of Israel (and creations microcosm thereby purified of chaos), it is removed from
Creation proper. The chaos of sin and wickedness has found its appropriate home in the chaotic wilderness.” Rudman,
Note, 400