4. The son of Helchias and father of Seraias in the genealogy of Ezra (2 [Vulg. 4] Esdr. i, 1) ; the Aza- IlIAH (q. v.) of the Heb. lineage (Ezra vii, 1).
5. A name assumed by the angel Raphael (Tobit v, 12; vi, 6,13; vii, 8; ix, 2). .
. 6. The name (Song of 3 Children, ver. 2, 26, 66) of Abednego, Daniel's companion in trial, i. c. Azariah (q. v.) of Dan. i, 7. He is mentioned by this Greek appellation also in 1 Mace, ii, 59, and by Josephus (Ant. x, 10, 1). See Daniel, Additions to.
7. One of the generals under Judas Maccabeus (1 Mace, v, 18) ; he was defeated by Gorgias near Jamnia (1 Mace, v, 56, 60 ; Josephus, Ant. xii, 8, 2 and 6).
A'zaz (Heb. Azaz', TT2>, strong; Sept. 'AZavZ v. r. 'OZoii'Q, the son of Shema and father of Bela, a Reu- benite (1 Chron. v, 8). B.C. apparently ante 747.
Azazel [so Milton] (Heb. Azazel', hlXIS), a word of doubtful interpretation, occurring only in the ordi- nance of the festival of expiation (Lev. xvi. 8, 10, 26).
1. Some contend that it is the name itself of the gnat sent into the desert. So Symmachus roayog a— spvo/ffi'of, Aquila rpc'iyos cnro\i\vfxivoc, Vulgate hircus emissarius; but not the Septuagint (fur r<£ 'A7ro- Tro/(7T«(^, in ver. 8, is by no means to be explained, with Theodoret and Cyril, by T<ji cnroi7ifnroi.iii'<{>), nor the Mishna (for the expression ffiflin I"1"-, hircus emissus, of Yoma, iv, 2 ; vi, 1, 2, is only added as a gloss on account-of the occurrence of Tli'C in the Heb. text). It should also be observed that in the latter clause of Lev. xvi, 10, the Sept. renders the Hebrew term as if it was an abstract noun, translating ^TNT"b by tic ti)v a— otto/ct//?'. Buxtorf (Ileb. Lex.) and Fagius (Critici Sacii in loc.), in accordance with this view of its meaning, derived the word from T;.", a. goat, and PTX, to depart. To this derivation it has been object- ed by Bochart, Winer, and others, that 1" denotes a she-goat. It is, however, alleged that the word ap- pears to be epicene in Gen. xxx, 33, Lev. iii, 12, etc.
But the application of b"XT" to the goat itself in- volves the Hebrew text in insuperable difficulties. In ver. 10, 26, the azaz I clearly seems to be distinguished as that /wr or to which the goat is let loose. It can hardly be supposed that the prefix which is common to the designation of the two lots should be used in two different meanings, if both objects were beings.
2. Some have taken Azazel for the name of the place to which the goat was sent. (1) Aben-Ezra quotes the words of an anonymous writer referring it to a hill near Mount Sinai. Vatablus adopts this opinion (Cri- tici Sacri, in Lev. xvi). (2) Some of the Jewish writers, with Le Clerc, consider that it denotes the cliff to which the goat was taken to be thrown down. So Pseudo-Jonathan, Saadias, Arabs Erpenii and Jarchi, interpret a hard or difficult place (romp. .Mishna, Yoma, vi, 0). (3) Bochart (Hieruz. i, 740 sq.) regarded the word as a "pluralis fractus" signifying desert /dans, and understood it as a general name for any lit place to which the goat might be sent. This has the appro- bation of Hackmann (Prcecid. Sacr. i, 232-275). But Gesenius remarks that the "pluralis fractus," which exists in Arabic, is not found in Hebrew. Moreover, on this interpretation the context (ver. in) would con- tain a palpable tautology, for the goat was to be sent to Azazel in the wilderness. Moreover, no such place
as Azazel is elsewhere mentioned ; anfl had it been a mountain, *ifi would not have been omitted.
3. Many of those who have studied the subject very closely take Azazel for a personal being to whom the goat was sent. (1 ) Gesenius gives to b"TXT" the same meaning as the Sept. has assigned to it, if aironofi- Tralog is to be taken in its usual sense ; but the being so designated he supposes to be some false deity who was to be appeased by such a sacrifice as that of the goat. He derives the word from a root unused in He- brew, but found in Arabic, Pt2J, to remove or take a wag (Heb. Lex. s. v.). Ewald agrees with Gesenius, and speaks of Azazel as a daemon belonging to the pre- Mosaic religion. (2) But others, with scarcely less su- perstition, have regarded him as an evil spirit, or the devil himself. So, among the rabbins, Menahem, who mentions the four arch-daemons Sammael. Azazel, Aza- 61, and Machazecl. In Pirke Elieser, c. 46, it is stated that Azazel, for the propitiation of which the goat was let loose, is the same daemon with Sammael (compare Eisenmenger, L'n/d. Judenth. ii, 157 ; Zohar, ad Gen. ii, in Castell, Opp. Posth. p. 309). In the apocryphal book of Enoch, Azazel (not Azazyel) is among the chief of the spirits by whose doctrine and influence the earth was corrupted (viii, 1 ; x, 12 ; xiii, 1 sq. ; xv, 9) , and among the Greek writers the same name (Azalzel, 'A'£a As'yA) occurs (Fabric. Cod. pseudepigr. i, 18, 183 ; sometimes Azt'el, 'AZa>)\, but this by confusion for an- other daemon, Asael); and in Syrian authors (Cod. Xasur. i, 240) it is the name of an evil spirit otherwise called Barbag. The same title ('A£a£»;X) among the Gnostics signified either Satan or some other daemon (Epiphan. Hcer. 34); on which account Origen (contra Cds. vi, p. 305, ed. Spenc.) did not hesitate, in the pas- I sage of Leviticus in question, to understand the devil \ as meant. From the Jews and Christians, the word passed over to the Arabians (see Relandj De Rel. Mo- hammed, p. 189); and so, in later magical treatises, j Azazel and Azael are reckoned among the genii that j preside over the elements. Among moderns this view- has been copiously illustrated by Spencer (De legibus j Hebrceorum ritualibus, iii, diss. 8, p. 1039-1085), and has been assented to by Rosenmuller (ad Lev. in loc), Amnion (Bill. Theol i, 360), Von Coin (Bibl. Theol. i, 199), Hengstenberg (Christol. I, i. 36). The following are the arguments used in its support : («) The con- trast of terms ("to the Lord," ''to Azazel") in the text naturally presumes a person to be intended, in opposition to and contradistinction from Jehovah. (b) The desert, whither the consecrated goat of Azazel was sent away, was accounted the peculiar abode of | daemons (sec Isa. xiii, 21 ; xxxiv, 13, 14 ; Baruch iv, 135; Tobit viii, 3; Matt, xii, 43; Lev. xviii, 2; Mai- ! monid. Nevoch. iii, 30). (c) This interpretation may j be confirmed by the early derivation of the word, i. q. I bx~TT", signifying either strength of God (comp. Ga- j briel), if referred to a once good but now fallen angel, or powerful against God, as applied to a malignant daa- I mon. Spencer derives the word from 1$,jbrtis, and ; PTX, explaining it as cito recedens, which he affirms to | be a most suitable name for the evil spirit. He sup- j poses that the goat was given up to the devil, and j committed to his disposal. Hengstenberg affirms with great confidence that Azazel cannot possibly be any thing but another name for Satan. He repudiates the conclusion that the goat was in any sense a sacrifice to Satan, and does not doubt that it was sent away laden with the sins of God' a people, now forgiven, in order to mock their spiritual enemy in the desert, his proper abode, and to symbolize by its free gambols their ex- ulting triumph. He considers that the origin of the rite was Egyptian, and that the Jews substituted Satan for Typhon, whose dwelling was the desert.