Witch Hunts, Scapegoating, and Upheaval

[Rev. Edward Engelbrecht]

Jerome has capro emissario, "sent-out goat," which is likely the influence for "scapegoat." Luther transliterated the term from Hebrew without trying to define it.

One theory is that azazel comes from `az another word for "goat" + 'zal "to go away," "disappear." The numerous theories about the meaning(s) of this word indicate that no one is sure where it came from or what it means in this context. We make educated guesses.

As I noted, we do know that it is the name of rebellious angel in 1 Enoch. The idea that it is the name of a desert demon/god in Leviticus is possible.

Deriving it from 'az (goat) and 'azal (go away) is the simplest explanation and finds support in both the LXX rendering and the Vulgate. We can do little better than this unless new texts come to light.

[peter_speckhard]

Jerome has capro emissario, "sent-out goat," which is likely the influence for "scapegoat." Luther transliterated the term from Hebrew without trying to define it.

One theory is that azazel comes from `az another word for "goat" + 'zal "to go away," "disappear." The numerous theories about the meaning(s) of this word indicate that no one is sure where it came from or what it means in this context. We make educated guesses.

As I noted, we do know that it is the name of rebellious angel in 1 Enoch. The idea that it is the name of a desert demon/god in Leviticus is possible.

Deriving it from 'az (goat) and 'azal (go away) is the simplest explanation and finds support in both the LXX rendering and the Vulgate. We can do little better than this unless new texts come to light.

I tend to trust the LXX. Since so many words and phrases can have multiple meanings, a text translated by the ancients gives far better insight into how the people who understood the language as native speakers understood things, as opposed to people who learned the language as a subject in school thousands of years later. Not foolproof or guaranteed, but certainly a good bet.

[Rev. Edward Engelbrecht]

Jerome has capro emissario, "sent-out goat," which is likely the influence for "scapegoat." Luther transliterated the term from Hebrew without trying to define it.

One theory is that azazel comes from `az another word for "goat" + 'zal "to go away," "disappear." The numerous theories about the meaning(s) of this word indicate that no one is sure where it came from or what it means in this context. We make educated guesses.

As I noted, we do know that it is the name of rebellious angel in 1 Enoch. The idea that it is the name of a desert demon/god in Leviticus is possible.

Deriving it from 'az (goat) and 'azal (go away) is the simplest explanation and finds support in both the LXX rendering and the Vulgate. We can do little better than this unless new texts come to light.

I tend to trust the LXX. Since so many words and phrases can have multiple meanings, a text translated by the ancients gives far better insight into how the people who understood the language as native speakers understood things, as opposed to people to learned the language as a subject in school thousands of years later. Not foolproof or guaranteed, but certainly a good bet.

Agreed. LXX is often helpful but can suffer from allegory and spiritualizing (not in this case). Jerome was in Bethlehem with access to Hebrew manuscripts and scholarship so also helpful for that reason.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Agreed. LXX is often helpful but can suffer from allegory and spiritualizing (not in this case). Jerome was in Bethlehem with access to Hebrew manuscripts and scholarship so also helpful for that reason.

Below are the translations from the ESV, the New English Translation of the Septuagint [NETS], and the Greek of the LXX, so you might compare. Oops, the software doesn't support Greek letters. Just a bunch of confused emoticons. So I deleted it.

Leviticus 16:7-10
ESV
⁷Then he shall take the two goats and set them before the Lord at the entrance of the tent of meeting. ⁸And Aaron shall cast lots over the two goats, one lot for the Lord and the other lot for Azazel.^{[a] 9}And Aaron shall present the goat on which the lot fell for the Lord and use it as a sin offering, ¹⁰but the goat on which the lot fell for Azazel shall be presented alive before the Lord to make atonement over it, that it may be sent away into the wilderness to Azazel.

[a] Leviticus 16:8 The meaning of Azazel is uncertain; possibly the name of a place or a demon, traditionally a scapegoat; also verses 10, 26

NETS
⁷And he shall take the two goats and set them before the Lord at the door of the tent of witness, ⁸and Aaron shall place lots on the two goats, one lot for the Lord and one for the one to be sent off. ⁹And Aaron shall present the goat which the lot fell on for the Lord and offer for sin, ¹⁰and the goat which the lot fell on the one to be sent off shall set it alive before the Lord to make atonement over it, to sent it away into the place for sending away – he shall let it go into the wilderness.

Leviticus 16:26
ESV
²⁶And he who lets the goat go to Azazel shall wash his clothes and bathe his body in water, and afterward he may come into the camp.

NETS
²⁶And the one who sends off the goat set apart for release shall wash his clothes and bathe his body in water and afterward shall come into the camp.

Especially in v. 26, they don't really have a Greek word for the Hebrew azazel. The words in vv. 8 & 10 are cognates of the verb: apopempo. The Greek-English supplement I have for the LXX says that they refer to the act of casting out but also raises the possibility that it could be the place where it is cast out.

[Rev. Edward Engelbrecht]

I was reading Joshua 7 this morning. The story of Achan looks to me like an example of "scapegoating" in the disciplinary sense rather than the sacrificial sense.

When Joshua enquires of the Lord about what is wrong, the Lord tells him Israel has sinned (v. 11). The ordeal is experienced by the whole group. But when punishment is meted out, it is ultimately focused on an individual/household (v. 25).

Scapegoating as discipline is about urging people to self-regulation by holding a whole group responsible for the actions of an individual. So if the group fails to pass because one person fails, the group will ensure that no one fails in the next evaluation. That's the theory. In the case of Israel, it seemed to work.

[Rob Morris]

I was reading Joshua 7 this morning. The story of Achan looks to me like an example of "scapegoating" in the disciplinary sense rather than the sacrificial sense.

When Joshua enquires of the Lord about what is wrong, the Lord tells him Israel has sinned (v. 11). The ordeal is experienced by the whole group. But when punishment is meted out, it is ultimately focused on an individual/household (v. 25).

Scapegoating as discipline is about urging people to self-regulation by holding a whole group responsible for the actions of an individual. So if the group fails to pass because one person fails, the group will ensure that no one fails in the next evaluation. That's the theory. In the case of Israel, it seemed to work.

I think you have this backwards... scapegoating is when one innocent (or relatively innocent) member of a group is made to bear the punishment for the actions of an entire group.

In the case of Achan, the entire group was being held responsible for the actions of a single member until that member (in this case, an entire family unit) was removed from their midst.

So, this wasn't scapegoating. Maybe goatscaping?

[Brian Stoffregen]

I was reading Joshua 7 this morning. The story of Achan looks to me like an example of "scapegoating" in the disciplinary sense rather than the sacrificial sense.

When Joshua enquires of the Lord about what is wrong, the Lord tells him Israel has sinned (v. 11). The ordeal is experienced by the whole group. But when punishment is meted out, it is ultimately focused on an individual/household (v. 25).

Scapegoating as discipline is about urging people to self-regulation by holding a whole group responsible for the actions of an individual. So if the group fails to pass because one person fails, the group will ensure that no one fails in the next evaluation. That's the theory. In the case of Israel, it seemed to work.

I think you have this backwards... scapegoating is when one innocent (or relatively innocent) member of a group is made to bear the punishment for the actions of an entire group.

In the case of Achan, the entire group was being held responsible for the actions of a single member until that member (in this case, an entire family unit) was removed from their midst.

So, this wasn't scapegoating. Maybe goatscaping?

I'm thinking that the death of David & Bathsheba's son because of David's sins (2 Samuel 12) is an example of a scapegoat. This foreshadows Jesus' death for the sins of humanity.

[Rev. Edward Engelbrecht]

In a military setting, an entire platoon may get "smoked" (an ordeal) when the failure of one member leads to platoon failure. Most members of the platoon learn not to be the guy who causes the group to get smoked, leading to greater unit cohesion. But some don't learn from the experience. Such persons are eventually eliminated/discharged. The punishment for Achan was more severe.

[Brian Stoffregen]

This picture was recently posted on Facebook. Apparently, it is what someone thinks angels in heaven look like (and what they do?)