Satan as Scapegoat

[Pancho Frijoles]

Hi, @Brakelite

My apologies for not having answered before.
I have shared an alternative view on post 15.
Let's remember that not all scholars think that Azazel represents a demon or false god. For some, Azazel means "the wrath of God" or "the powerful wrath of God".

I find that hypothesis more appealing to reason, since the Israelites wouldn't have had a rite in which they "offer" something to a demon or false god. But they could have had a rite to appease the anger of YHWH.

 

[Brakelite]

Hi, @Brakelite

My apologies for not having answered before.
I have shared an alternative view on post 15.
Let's remember that not all scholars think that Azazel represents a demon or false god. For some, Azazel means "the wrath of God" or "the powerful wrath of God".

I find that hypothesis more appealing to reason, since the Israelites wouldn't have had a rite in which they "offer" something to a demon or false god. But they could have had a rite to appease the anger of YHWH.

The fact that the precise meaning of Azazel is at best dubious ought to bring a little caution to your settling on one specific meaning based on "a few scholars". That the Lord's goat and the scapegoat (Azazel) are evidently antithetical to one another according to the whole context of the ritual, and then to settle for a definitive decision that both goats represent the Lord, to me simply doesn't make sense at all.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

The fact that the precise meaning of Azazel is at best dubious ought to bring a little caution to your settling on one specific meaning based on "a few scholars". That the Lord's goat and the scapegoat (Azazel) are evidently antithetical to one another according to the whole context of the ritual, and then to settle for a definitive decision that both goats represent the Lord, to me simply doesn't make sense at all.

Good morning, my brother.
Thanks for your comment.

Indeed, I am not basing my argument on the translation of Azazel, but on the thoughts expressed in my post 15.
I mentioned the hypothesis of Azazel meaning "The wrath of God" as something that, if true, would bring further support.
I'm interested in knowing why you consider them to be evidently antithetical.

My suggestion to you is to consider the possibility that they are NOT antithetical, but two aspects of the very same thing.

Here is a further support for thinking that the scapegoat does not represent Satan:

Before the exile, the idea of Satan as a personal spirit, a fallen angel, cause of all our sins, was not developed yet.
Zoroastrianism introduced the metaphor of Satan, Angra Mainyu, to Judaism as part of the close contact during the exile.

So, it is highly unlikely that Moses and the Hebrews of that time would think in a personal spirit who were responsible for all evils of mankind. I mean... if that was the analogy, Hebrews of his time wouldn't get it.
In the book of Job, Satan is presented as a son of God who attends God's meetings, has contact with God, and performs under his authorization material damage (but not sins).

 

[Brakelite]

Good morning, my brother.
Thanks for your comment.

Indeed, I am not basing my argument on the translation of Azazel, but on the thoughts expressed in my post 15.
I mentioned the hypothesis of Azazel meaning "The wrath of God" as something that, if true, would bring further support.
I'm interested in knowing why you consider them to be evidently antithetical.

My suggestion to you is to consider the possibility that they are NOT antithetical, but two aspects of the very same thing.

Here is a further support for thinking that the scapegoat does not represent Satan:

Before the exile, the idea of Satan as a personal spirit, a fallen angel, cause of all our sins, was not developed yet.
Zoroastrianism introduced the metaphor of Satan, Angra Mainyu, to Judaism as part of the close contact during the exile.

So, it is highly unlikely that Moses and the Hebrews of that time would think in a personal spirit who were responsible for all evils of mankind. I mean... if that was the analogy, Hebrews of his time wouldn't get it.
In the book of Job, Satan is presented as a son of God who attends God's meetings, has contact with God, and performs under his authorization material damage (but not sins).

So you don't believe Satan is a real living personal being, a fallen angel, who hates Jesus with a vengeance and was the prime cause of the fall of mankind?

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

So you don't believe Satan is a real living personal being, a fallen angel, who hates Jesus with a vengeance and was the prime cause of the fall of mankind?

I don't, but the issue here is whether the Hebrews at the time of Moses believed that.