Talk:Azazel

Azazel In Islam

I am leaving a brief note, seeking to draw attention to the fact that there are several grammatical and syntactical errors in this section. Also, the author deviates from the subject at hand, since he/she begins to discuss angels in Islam, as though that is relevant. Please rewrite this section. It needs to be more relevant, to not go off topic and to be grammatically correct. Thank you.

Azazel as a Non-Word

I would like to suggest a greater elucidation of the idea that the link between Azazel and the "scapegoat" is a false construct because scapegoat is the result of an inaccurate handling of the translation of Azazel. Anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.189.28.190 (talk) 22:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

That would be a mistake... Any other interpretation is based on the notion that surviving transcripts are wrong. You'd be abandoning a secondary source (the scribe(s) who allotted the vowel points) for a complete hypothetical. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 03:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Original Languages

I think much of this would be clarified by using the original languages involved instead of relying on various inconsistant transliterations. This isn't difficult in the age of Unicode.--Blackjack@jolly-roger.com 22:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

What specifically are you referring to? I can't figure out what you mean. Please clarify. Makaristos 02:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Dumb Ass Newbie to wiki:talk

I don't know how to comment without editing someone else's comment.

Look, I heard one person say that this is also being confused with Azarel from the Batman comic.

I don't mean to be one of the faithful... but what are your sources? This is complete allegory compared to the KING James Auth. Version. It doesn't use Azazel as a proper or active noun, instead it speaks directly of the Scape-Goat. You can't claim to have better personal or educational wisdom than the translators of the KJV nor the editions leading up to that. If it was interesting myth worthy of association, it would be in the "Shakespeare Team" version. Shakespeare was able to rewrite the great tragedies because he researched and found a gold mine. He found myth and applied modern truth. If there was value here, it would be the KJV.

I can over turn this proganda based on Enoch not being canon for a reason from great minds. Look if you are going to use the Bible, understand the story and seek out the truth. If you weight the facts that Azazel is the scape-coat in line with considering that 'Azazel' means 'strength of the lord'... you'll find the complete story of god's love for man according to the traditional canon. God's strength is to save or forgive. You can forgive the Man and save the Goat at the same time. You might call it a demon, if you don't consider something natural. God saves the goat and forgives the man for making it a slave. At least the goat is grateful to god for the world we live in.

Blah-gaia-blah-goddess-blah... I write fiction too.

You should remove the bible verses if you can't find a reason not to include Jesus as the scape-goat. That's the story the bible tells... goat, lamb, strength of freedom, aryan promise to Abraham, pyramids, sahara desert... this entire entry in subjective and the bible connection with Leviticus should be limited due to the editorial liberties. Does the Volgate include Enoch and use Azazel in Leviticus? Sacrifice the subjective associations to Western Civilization's God and stop using it as your scapegoat and strength. Hail Satan! I am his prosecutor of fools! (The above was written by FinLives (Talk)

Please explain this better. What exactly are you trying to say? (Also, see your talk page.) Makaristos 06:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The actual identity of Azazel: Unknown

I took the liberty of rewriting the "Azazel in Leviticus" section to make it more accurate by reporting that we don't in fact know what Azazel's identity was. It could have been a person, place, or thing; the text just doesn't say. Later mythology, like the Book of Enoch, created a whole literary tradition out of Azazel, and I am not qualified to write about that. However, there are some things that I have corrected:

• The Leviticus text, though comparatively late compared to the rest of the Pentateuch, is much earlier than the Book of Enoch and the subsequent literary tradition about Azazel. I replaced the Leviticus section above the other sections to reflect this and show more clearly where the tradition grew out of.
• The scapegoat designated "for Azazel" was not called "Azazel"—Azazel is clearly something else. Why would the scapegoat and the place (or demon, or whatever) it was destined for have the same name?
• The word "Azazel" does not mean "the goat of removal". The derivation is unclear at best, possibly incorporating -el ("God", often used as a suffix in Hebrew to mean "of God"). The idea that the az part means "goat" is dubious because of the spelling in Hebrew; the az is not reduplicated (the actual spelling is ayin-zayin-aleph-zayin-aleph-lamed), so this leaves a part of the word unaccounted for.

Thanks for considering all this. Let's discuss. Makaristos 07:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

as far as I'm concerned, you made perfectly good edits and have improved the article. dab (ᛏ) 07:40, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Why, thank you. Makaristos 07:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Azhi Dahaka (meaning "The Big Snake") from Avestan lore may have influenced the development of Azazel in Semitic lore. ---Decius 08:54, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. I didn't know about that. Avestan is, however, an Indo-Iranian language, whereas Hebrew is Semitic, and these families aren't related. It is possible it's some kind of loanword, but the absence of other loanwords from Iranian languages as early as the Book of Leviticus is fairly telling in my opinion. On the other hand, it would be interesting to note this. Maybe I'll add a section about possible etymologies, and consolidate all the information we have come up with so far. Makaristos 15:37, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

no, come on, azhi is completely unrelated. If anything, compare Avestan *aza (Sanskrit aja) "goat"! Or rather look for a Semitic root. 'zz ""buzz? `zz "be strong"? wzz "repay"? dab (ᛏ) 16:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

or maybe, since the spelling is 'z'z'l, 'wz "to mock"? (as you see, my Semitic etymologizing skills are restricted to "ignore all weak radicals, and look for a root that looks vaguely similar" :) dab (ᛏ) 16:21, 17 Au

Hey, I've got it! I'll look on JSTOR when I get a second and come up with some actual scholarship on this, with names and articles we can cite! (-: Makaristos 16:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Azazel is not etymologically related to the Azhi element (which is from PIE *angwhi-, 'snake') in Azhi Dahaka. Etymologically, I would guess that Azaz- meant 'strong' or 'lusty', with 'lusty' resonating with 'goat'. ---Decius 17:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you believe the connection to be, or why attention should be drawn to Azhi Dahaka? I don't see the connection. Thanks. Makaristos 17:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Uzza links these threads together: power, lust (she's connected with Aphrodite, etc.), goats (the goat being a symbol of lust and associated with Aphrodite, etc.). But this is symbolism, not necessarily identical roots for the words. ---Decius 17:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Decius, I find it slightly confusing to have you change your signatures in the middle of a conversation :) ---Azazel 18:42 , 17 August 2005 (UTC)

If goats were associated with Uzza (as they were with her Roman and Greek counterpart), that might be relevant to the lore surrounding Azazel. ---Decius 18:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I was at Yom Kippur services this year and could not help but notice that there is absolutely nothing to suggest that Azazel is evil. He is simply whatever it is that takes the goat that bears the sins of the people. There is no other reference to him anywhere in the Torah, I spent weeks looking for it while I was at shul. I'm a little confused as to the demonizing of Azazel both by the Talmudic scholars and the media. I just thought that that should be mentioned. Oh, and El does not mean "of God." It's meaning is one of the mysteries of the Torah, but it proceeds the names of most of the important biblical figures. Very good information you've got there, and I have a deep respect for your skills in etymology.gust 2005 (UTC) I would like to point out, that in the first Book of Enoch, wherein a fuller account than exists in Genesis 6 is written, the name of one of the 200 angels who disobeyed God's boundaries, was Azazel. He was one of the leaders who along with Semyaza, led the other angels who fell, to have sexual relations with human women. This had been forbidden by God due to the fact the angels were immortal and had no need for procreation, and no creative abilities were given them, as they were not made in the image of God as humans were. Enoch 1 states that Azazel was also responsible for teaching humans the art of making weapons ie swords etc, and how to make war, (the males) and women the arts of beautification with an aim towards seduction and manipulation.Enoch states that they first entered into this sin, in the time of Lamech - 400 years before Noah. I am reading a book by Rabbi Ginsburgh, "The Hebrew Letters", where in the discussion of the letter zayin he states that on one level it means "sword" or "weapon" and that the first swords were made in the days of Lamech. He as a Lubavitch rebbe, wrote this book to explain certain teachings of kabbalah, but I thought it was interesting he corroborated the story in Enoch 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gitardood (talk • contribs) 03:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Roll-call

I'm going to list some Semitic demonic figures here with similar names (by the way, Decius used to study demonology but he's rusty at it now) and where they occur.

• Auza---Alternate form of Azza (see below).
• Aza---Alternate form of Azza (see below).
• Azza---Mentioned in Rabbinic lore, Solomonic lore. In the Talmud, Azza and Azael are said to have fathered the Sedim upon Naamah, before the Flood.
• Azael---"In Midrash Petirat Mosheh, Azael is mentioned as one of two angels (the other being Ouza) who came down from heaven and was corrupted."---Gustav Davidson, A Dictionary of Angels including the Fallen Angels.
• Azazel
• Aziel
• Azzael
• Azzazel
• Oza
• Ouza
• Uzza

All these forms are Shem ('name') compounded to Aza (Yaza, Iaza, etc.):

• Semiaza
• Semjaza
• Semyaza
• Shemhazai
• Shem-Yaza

---There's too much stuff to quote from my references now, but Davidson regularly states that Uzza (in these sources depicted as male not female) and Aza were interchangeable in the literature, so they may have the same etymology. It's pretty clear from this list (they are almost all interchangeable and may refer to the same or similar figure) that it is useless to just isolate Azazel and examine the etymology on its own. ---Decius 19:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

well, I cannot rule out that popular etymologies between Azazel and Uzza, Azazel and serpents etc. were at play, but we have to clearly separate this from the actual etymology. Azazel appears in Exodus, in a goat-connection. Even if you think that Exodus was written in the sixth century, it is highly unlikely that Azazel is a hybrid Persian-Hebrew compound. Connection with Uzza is also impossible (where is the `ayin?). But sure, demonology is basically free association, I agree that such parallels have almost certainly been drawn before. dab (ᛏ) 08:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I made clear above that I don't connect the Leviticus Azazel to PIE *angwhi-, 'snake' (from which comes Persian azhi). But I doubt that Semitic Azza and Azael have a different etymology from the duplicated Azazel. I maintain that one should be aware of the forms Azael, Azza, etc., when considering the etymology of Azazel. None of those forms I listed above are Persian, they are all from a Semitic source. It may be popular etymology (as I indicated when I said may have the same etymology) that developed a progression from Auza, Ouza, Azza, Uzza, but I haven't seen evidence that they are definitely not sharing the same etymology. The phonetics involved make Uzza and Azza unlikely, but I see nothing preventing Azazel and Azza (unduplicated) from being connected. Azael in my reference is said to be a compound of strength (aza) and god (el); Semyaza means "He who is named Aza (strength)". Azza on its own is said to mean 'strong', etc. So it's not just Azazel on his own here. ---Decius 08:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I dropped in on you guys (Makristos and Dab) discussing the etymology of Azazel, and noticed no mention of Azael (Semitic), Azza (Semitic), Aza (Semitic), Azzael (Semitic), and all the other forms known, that may have the same etymology. I admit I threw in Azhi Dahaka because I felt like "fucking around" with you guys while at the same pointing to a mythological parallel. ---Master Killer 09:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Azarel

Azarel redirects here, but as far as I know these names have nothing to do with one another. Anyone know better? BeavisSanchez 10:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Forty days and nights

The bottom of the third paragraph in the main article includes the phrase "escaped destruction by living for forty days and forty nights on an ark". The forty days and forty nights was only how long it rained (Gen. 7:12). The occupants of the ark lived in it for one year and ten days (compare Gen. 7:11 with 8:13 ff.) The text should be corrected accordingly. 65.135.87.11 05:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)GRR

Reorganization

Rewrote in a way that separates out what the original sources stated from what (some) scholars interpreting those sources said later. Also distinguished literal meaning of original from interpretations. --Shirahadasha 04:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced Statements

Right now virtually all the interpretave material is unsourced. Where did this material come from? Right now large portions of the article are out of compliance with WP:Verifiability and WP:RS and this material will need to be deleted if sources can't be found. --Shirahadasha 01:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Renewing call for sources, will delete unsourced material in a week or so. --Shirahadasha 09:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"Jewish legend" Edit

Removed this edit to the "In the Hebrew Bible" section here:

Jewish legend speaks of Azazel as the angel who refused to bow down before Adam.

Issues: a. Content is in the wrong place, this doesn't appear in the Hebrew Bible. b. Need to source Aggadah and Midrash as other edits. What book is it in? c. Aggadah and Midrash should be referred to as such (with a link), not by a POV term like "legend" or "myth". Many Haredi Jews believe all or some of this material and do not regard it, or some of it, as legend. Best, --Shirahadasha 09:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"Hebrew Bible/Rabbinic Literature" Content

Removed the following material to talk:

Traditionally the word "Azazel" has been translated as "scapegoat" because the Masoretic texts read ‘ēz’ōzēl (rather than ‘ăzā’zēl), "goat which removes [sins]". However, more recent findings of older Hebrew texts (see Dead Sea scrolls) read ‘ăzā’zēl and ‘ăzaz’ēl, "Azazel". The confusion of the word is due to the Hebrew niqqudoth, vowels represented separately from consonants (‘ăzā’zēl and ‘ēz’ōzēl share the consonantal base ‘z’zl).

The "scapegoat" referred to in many translations of Leviticus (here translated as Azazel) most likely does not refer to either of the two goats mentioned in the chapter ("the goat for a scapegoat" is often changed to "the goat as a scapegoat"), but more probably refers to someone or something (see cliff theory below) that is a scapegoat — therefore, possibly a demon Azazel.

The first goat (for Yahweh) was to be used as a sacrifice, while "the goat chosen by lot for Azazel must be presented alive before Yahweh to be used for making atonement by sending it into the desert for Azazel" (Lev. 16:10, niv).

This is not to say that the goat being sent to "Azazel" is a sacrifice to the demon (if Azazel is, indeed, a demon) — the Torah itself explicitly says not to worship anyone but Yahweh (Exodus 20:3-6). The goat (instead of the Israelites) is being sent to be forsaken by God, a point made clearer in Leviticus 16:21-22, when Aaron was to "lay both hands on the head of the live goat and confess over it all the wickedness and rebellion of the Israelites — all their sins — and put them on the goat's head." He would then "send the goat away into the desert in the care of a man appointed for the task." The goat would "carry on itself all their sins to a solitary place; and the man must release it in the desert" (niv). Leviticus also says that "the man who releases the goat for Azazel must wash his clothes and bathe himself with water; afterward he may come into the camp" (16:26, niv)

THis material clearly does not come from either the Hebrew Bible or Rabbinic literature as claimed. Wikipedia should not misrepresent or misattribute the contents of the Hebrew Bible or Rabbinic literature. If some of this material is commentary from one or more contemporary sources, these sources must be attributed. Unattributed claims that a particular interpretation is "most probable" or similar are particularly problematic, as they violate WP:SOAP. --Shirahadasha 12:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Good that you removed those parts, I thought they were a bit problematic. I think the last part of the section In First Enoch actually takes care of the confusion there. It seems the person who wrote it finds the article in confliction with their inherent dogma. -- Kerowren (talk • contribs • count) 17:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I suspect much of this is likely perfectly legitimate material from modern commentators, and the difficulty is most likely attribution and sourcing. Perhaps sources will surface and this material can be put in an appropriate section. It's fine to present e.g. Nancy Pelosi's opinion of George Bush, but there's a problem if someone tries to present it unsourced in a section entitled "In George Bush's writings". --Shirahadasha 23:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

scapegoat

Why is William Tyndale's translation of "scapegoat" definitely incorrect? It seems like it could be true to me. 68.239.71.45 18:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, especially based on the Masoretic Text, which spells it `Z'Z'L (I'm using ' to indicate alef, and ` for ayin). How does the "correct" etymology ("strong of god," "impudent to god" etc.) account for the first alef? It's an unusual matris lexionis. 69.203.64.233 05:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Azazel3.jpg

Image:Azazel3.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

In Islam?

Hey there. I was recently cleaning up the previously disastrous Iblis article, and in this process I came upon a source which stated that Azazel was the original name possessed by the Islamic version of the devil, Iblis, before his disobedience to God earned him condemnation and his new name (which etymologically relates to "despair"). I'm wondering if this information can (or even should) be worked into the article; I don't see enough information to start a solitary section, and the given sections don't seem like welcome homes, either.--C.Logan 20:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

And at my school, my religion teacher said that before it names is Iblis, they name were Azazel Muhammad Azmi 01:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Tekken 6

The main antagonist of the video game Tekken 6 is a demon named Azazel. I'll make a note of it in the Popular Culture part. Jienum (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

In Music

Hello, just wanted to add a note about bands that use the name Azazel. Morbid Angel used in the lyrics of Brainstorm on their second album, Blessed Are The Sick. "Azazel, lend to me your wings of twelve, I shall fly into the storm". There is also a band from New Zealand that goes by the name Dawn of Azazel.

Popular culture section

I added a popular culture section, and reference to a book that is based specifically on the Azazel story. This reference is important here because it would otherwise be lost to English speakers. The reason for this is that the book title was translated as 'devil' instead of 'Azazel'. I am not sure if I formatted the popular culture section correctly. I will make sure and fix it if I need to. Yeshuahasochek (talk) 14:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

"Old Pagan religions" ?

The first paragraph of the "In Pagan Religions" section is vague as to the specific religions in question referring. The number of ancient religions in question that predate Christianity is pretty extensive. Also the paragraph doesn't cite any sources.

Anyone know which religions are being referred to in particular? Or where this information came from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter K. (talk • contribs) 11:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The section appears to be original research making many unlikely claims, for example, implying that Satan was worshiped by pre-Christian pagans. Unless somebody can step forth with a reliable source, I'd recommend just deleting it. - Augustgrahl (talk) 23:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Any writings on where Azazel was/is buried?

If we accept the info given by the Book of Enoch, then Michael bound Azazel and threw him into an unbreakable tomb grave. Now if thats the case, then where is the location of the grave? Has there been any study into where Michael buried Azazel? Where did the Grigori/Watchers reside before the war?

Azrael is not Azazel

The reference to Azrael (the Angel of Death) mentioned in the Discworld is not Azazel. Recommend removal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.173.245 (talk) 05:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC) i would like to know if there are any egyptian references to azazel.Theycallmethebreeze (talk) 06:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC) I thought the article said he was buried at the site of the azazel mountainsTheycallmethebreeze (talk) 06:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge Azazel in rabbinic literature back into this article?

I do not think that the Azazel in rabbinic literature article is noteworthy or interesting enough to support itself as a separate article; besides, it seems to be riddled with information that duplicates information on this page. Merging the page would also provide a good opportunity to clean up the problems with the subordinate article, which has been tagged for several months now as needing fact-checking. Thoughts? --Makaristos (talk) 15:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

movia fanatic

hi there, I was looking up Azazel due to the mention of him in the movie Fallen, and I know movies arent correct at all, but nothing in there mentions all this here. although one of the comments says it was Lucifers first name?

maybe we can add in there that he is mentioned in Fallen.

and are we totally sure that this is him and his role? as it seems to be in dispute —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.32.190.4 (talk • contribs)

Merge Azazel in popular culture back into the article.

As Makaristos, I believe Azazel in popular culture is not worthy or interesting enough to support itself as a separate article; If nobody objects, I'll be moving back the above-mentioned page into Azazel in a week. EOZyo (мѕğ) 03:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I object strongly. If you don't think it's a worthy article, delete it. Don't stuff it back in here. The popular culture section has little to do with the original mythological analyzed here, and is considerably more at home with all the other articles in Category: In popular culture (the types of references, how they're made). If you look at a couple of the demon IPC articles, you'll see patterns repeated quite obviously. Mintrick (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Do it. I don't know why it's separate to begin with. That's absurd. Mintrick clearly has an ulterior motive. It has to be moved back. It's unsustainable as a separate article. It's just a list of references in popular culture. Why wouldn't that belong with the main article like every other list of references for something in popular culture. I'm confounded. Just do it. Jiminezwaldorf (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

And what sort of ulterior motive might that be? Perhaps my chain of popular culture-related stores will flourish if I can advertise that Wikipedia has hundreds of different in Popular culture articles? Doubtless that is it.

The material from the pop culture doesn't belong here because it's just a long laundry list of simple allusions to a common mythological figure, while this article has a serious discussion of founding and cultural significance.Mintrick (talk) 19:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

A concise summary is needed and are clearly related as all are about some diabolic creature. Yes to the merge. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

A fallacy. If Abraham Lincoln is deeply significant to my life, does that affect encyclopedic coverage of him? No, of course not. It affects me. And would belong at my article. Just like none of these things have been shown to be essential to an understanding of the mythological aspects of the entity in question. As for a "concise summary": What exactly would that contain? Is there any evidence that any of these allusions has particular significance, and should be included? Because if there's one, the rest will creep in over time, I assure you, and you soon have no summarization going on at all. Or did you imagine some useless fluff like "Azazel has appeared many times in works of popular media".? Because I can assure you that 90% of Wikipedia mythology articles could carry the exact same, utterly uninformative statement.

No, the Pop culture material has the most in common with its category brethren as an article. And that is where it should remain. Mintrick (talk) 22:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Azazel in the Septuagint

καὶ ἐπιθήσει Ααρων ἐπὶ τοὺς δύο χιμάρους κλῆρον ἕνα τῷ κυρίῳ καὶ κλῆρον ἕνα τῷ ἀποπομπαίῳ. καὶ προσάξει Ααρων τὸν χίμαρον ἐφ᾽ ὃν ἐπῆλθεν ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν ὁ κλῆρος τῷ κυρίῳ καὶ προσοίσει περὶ ἁμαρτίας. καὶ τὸν χίμαρον ἐφ᾽ ὃν ἐπῆλθεν ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν ὁ κλῆρος τοῦ ἀποπομπαίου στήσει αὐτὸν ζῶντα ἔναντι κυρίου τοῦ ἐξιλάσασθαι ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ὥστε ἀποστεῖλαι αὐτὸν εἰς τὴν ἀποπομπήν ἀφήσει αὐτὸν εἰς τὴν ἔρημον (LXX Lev 16:8-10)

The ancient writers of the Septugint (1st century BC), both in Israel and in the Diaspora apparently understood Azazel to be the "the goat that is sent away." As they were native speakers of the language, I should think that they are to be trusted more than Nachmanides or other much later commentators. Nachmanides, though a scholar was not a native speaker. By his lifetime (ca. 1200 AD) Hebrew was long a dead language existing in scholarly use only. It is reminiscent of the debate over whether or not Isaiah prophesied that a virgin would give birth. Many claim that "almah" simply meant "young girl" but the LXX witers translated it as "parthenos" clearly meaning virgin in Greek. It is imperative not to try to guess at meanings of ancient words, but, whenever possible, to find out how the speakers themselves understood them.

Furthermore, it makes no sense that a jealous God who tolerated no rivals would command sacrifice to a rival demon named Azazel. It would have been such a glaring inconsistancy that it surely would have caused the Israelites much concern and would have generated much debate. There is no evidence of any such debate.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Danwaggoner (talk • contribs) 03:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be great if there was some scholarly discussion supporting these points. I have little knowledge in the subject area but hwat you say seems to make sense. Just making sure we follow policy of no original research. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not new research. In addition to the LXX writers, Josephus described it in his "Jewish Antiquities" in which he described the azazel as "a goat that was sent in the wilderness as as Averter of evil." The idea of azazel being a demon or other being is the new idea. Origen understood it that way, as well, and it was translated as "caprus emissarius" in the Vulgate by Jerome.Danwaggoner (talk) 02:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Hebrew is not a dead language and is still in use today. Biblical Hebrew is somewhat different from modern Hebrew; however, it is very much alive in Rabbinic work. The Septuagint and other translations deviate from the Hebrew meaning, if for no other reason than words do not have the exact same meaning and inferences when translated to different languages. In Judaism, the Hebrew text always defines cannon. No exceptions. To classify the Septuagint as Jewish cannon is flat out incorrect, it is merely a translation of the true text (regardless of what a legend might say about how it was translated.) You reference scholarly discussion as the only place Hebrew is alive. I assume you are referring to Biblical Hebrew in Rabbinic work. Since Rabbis are and have been the spiritual leaders of Judaism since the destruction of the Temple, classifying their work as scholarly is misleading. Their work may be scholarly, but it is also the only spiritual/religious work. Separating the scholarly work from the religious work of Rabbis cannot be done and, when done, demonstrates a lack of understanding on how Judaism functions. I know I'm making some assumptions here, but the tone of the Hebrew Bible section of this article relates to Jewish thoughts/observance.

All that being said, I agree with the point of Danwaggoner's comments. Creating a demon is inconsistent with Judaism and not found in the Jewish texts. It is found in the book of Enoch, which is not included in Jewish scripture for a variety of reasons. Most importantly for this section, the Book of Enoch is not a Hebrew text nor is it in the Hebrew Bible.

I recommend removing the comment "Most scholars accept the indication of some kind of demon or deity." Most Jewish scholars do not accept this, and it is a statement in the Hebrew Bible section. Further, I can't verify the source for this comment (maybe it's incorrectly sourced?), but the Anchor Bible Dictionary is not a Jewish source, it's a compilation of various religions. I recommend moving the discussion of the Septuagint out of the Jewish section, as it implies that the Septuagint is a Jewish source work, which it is not. Also, the King James bible is certainly not an authority on the Hebrew Bible. Further, the general term Septuagint can often be associated with the broader work than the original 5 Books of Moses, many of which were translated by individuals, with varying degrees of quality, and by authors who were not, themselves, Jewish. --Lamber111 (talk) 14:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Previous merge from another work

Most of what's now in this article is a copy and paste from the Jewish Encyclopedia, which although its WP article says it's now a public domain work, still has a copyright notice at the bottom: [1]. This seems to have been done in this edit [2], and good previous work seems to have been pasted over in the process. Per Ardua (talk) 10:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, nothing in the previous version of the article was eliminated, just moved around. As for the copyright notice, http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/terms.jsp says that "2.1 You will use the Service and any content, material, or information found on the Service solely for lawful, non-commercial purposes." Wikipedia is lawful and non-commercial, most of the copyright stuff is meant to prevent folks from wholesale printing the site and claiming it is their publication. Plus, the Jewish Encyclopedia is public domain, so this means that we can use the actual text. JewishEncyclopedia.com can only copyright the presentation of this information, so we can't just have a bot copy the stuff from their site to ours like Indopedia, Experiance festival, and other websites do to Wikipedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merger

Shouldn't this page be merged with Azazel in popular culture? I don't see how Azazel in popular culture should stand on it's own as a separate article since there isn't enough content for that. Swollenfish (talk) 11:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

No, those ...in popular culture articles exist for all subjects of this sort and separate entertainment from Ancient Near East religion. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Concurs, not confers.

"Gesenius in his Hebrew lexicon confers with this." No he doesn't. He concurs. Hypercallipygian (talk) 06:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Please leave chronological order intact

Editors, please follow normal Bible topic chronological order : Bible, Judaism, Christianity, Islam. Thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Gadriel

Gadriel redirects to this page, but this page does not contain the word "gadriel" at all. What's going on? Tiggum (talk) 02:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It appears to be an OR identification of the two due to Gadreel/Gadriel and Azazel both teaching weapons manufacture in 1 Enoch. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I've temporarily turned it into a dab. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Absolute: Use of language is asimetric.

The rites:

For absolution removal

For absolution

The use of the term absolute is incorrect, the more correct term in english is absolution.

Absolute absolution corrupts absolution absolutely.

Misinterpretation: corrupted their manners.

Have some respect.

I agree that if you where the recipient of this, that you would whine no end. However, I assure you that if, then you would wish that siding to be in favour of your own side. (WITH the implications that my previous statement would have for those of mid level peters principled wanna be the lord whom would give/provide for that particular ordering). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.92.204.150 (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

In the Apocalypse of Abraham

And the lord said: ´you would have my head´.

And Azazel retorted: ´so I will, you have become degenerative, playing with your poker and rear end both at the same time, with YOUR priests aplauding laughable, stating: ´and so, you have become like us, a half this a half that, and nothing of that other´, and the chorus of their ranks chanted: ´We shall reign supreme, the whuzz has reached ascendency and will not counter, the fear of the populace itself, if heareth of his surrender and be branded traitor, being sufficient´.

Know your theology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.92.204.150 (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

In Islam... again

Could someone with the appropriate knowledge please clear up the "in Islam" section? I'm Muslim and can navigate my way around the topic, but it really needs to be cleaned up by someone with an understanding of the topic. I'm not sure how many of those there are on Wikipedia, so I'll clean it up myself if someone doesn't come around in a few weeks... so long as someone reminds me. The Ibn Abbas section especially is abysmal.

Kaos-Industries (talk) 06:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

That exactly are you objecting? I hope it is something else than the usual "Iblis-Angel/Jinn"-Thing. If it is this again, I would like to recommand to read through the sources and also check a discussion i recently had on the Jinn article. Otherwise, if interested in primary literature, I woudl recommand, Classical sources not modern, since modern sources (usually) agree with this disagreement, but this is a rather modern phenomen. By the way, the tradition of Ibn Abbas is famous (and probably the authority for this tradition) for assueming that Iblis was once the angel Azazel (the angel itself, not the rank. The idea with "rank of an angel is newer. Further, there had never been a tradition in which Jinn could be rewarded by ascending to the "rank of angels" since an "angel" is not a rank. Jinn, shayatin, angels are three distinct creatures in Classical Islam (By that I mean non-Salafi puritanians, excluding Ibn Taimiya and Ibn Kathir, although they lived in the Classical era too), while the first two at least overlap and were often confused (just like the Marid and the Ifrit). The only reference known to me, there Azazel himelf (not Iblis) is called a Jinn, is according to a reinterpretation of Ikhwan al Safa (Brethren of Purity). There, Azazel is a jinn, who lived on earth and was taken captive by angels and elevated to heaven (with no further support by Quran or Hadith by the way). We could add it here again, but I would not, otherwise it ends again in endless dicusion regarding the essence if Iblis/Azazel, we already have on this article Iblis. Since calling Iblis "Azazel" derives from traditions attributed to ibn Abbas, and he always regarded him as "the leader and teacher of angels and ruler over the lower heavens and the earth" I think we can just skip the notion of the Ikhwan al Safa (espeially since they had no significant impact. Classical scholars, as you can read in the article, since it is explained and cited there, depicted Azazel as an angel (here Thalibi). When Ibn Abbas refered to Iblis as Jinn, he explicitdly means "whose who guards jannah". If you object the secondary source, you can also read the Original Tafsir, you would find it in Tabari, his history also available in English. One should not mistake the "tooken" "jinn" here refering to angels, to be "jinn" (the creature). They are still ditinct, one of the reasons I would recommand not to explain the issue here much further.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Christian Translations Used in Judaism Sections?

At current, parts of this article talking about Azazel's origins and significance in Judaism reference Christian translations of the texts. This is incorrect, in that Jewish scholars and Christian ones have different biases and understandings when they come to translations of the same texts, and even if the translations are some of the new ones that go back to the original Aramaic and Hebrew sources. Jewish sources translated by Jewish scholars should be used when discussing Jewish liturgy and belief, just like Christian sources should be used for Christian beliefs, Muslim for Muslim, etc. 2601:602:8A00:50E0:0:0:0:3 (talk) 07:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, Yahweh is not the Jewish name for the Abrahamic God. The word Adonai or G-d, or the transliterated YHWH should be used. YHWH is not said aloud in the Jewish tradition (the alternate name Adonai is what is actually said); the idea of pronouncing that name is a Christian convention, not a Jewish one. 2601:602:8A00:50E0:0:0:0:3 (talk) 08:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Azazel, the misunderstood HaSatan

Hashem's love for His General, Azazel was unmatched in the heavenly realm. Hashem, who had only good in Him, relied on Azazel's wit and ability to present counter balance in their times together. Thus, upon announcing the creation of man, Hashem and Azazel stood together, and Hashem spoke, "Let us create them in our image, and in our likeness." And it was so. Hashem understood that Azazel would be tasked with the most difficult job Hashem required of a General: Azazel must go to the creation and bring fire. He must teach them to make weapons of war, and he must show women the practice of using makeup, jewelry, sultry garments and how to dye their hair. And he must leave them and take his place in desolation, for HaShem commanded it. From there Azazel would challenge the good in Hashem in order to create balance among the children. All things thal shalt not commit were the fire separated from Heaven, meant only to lead the children astray, and test both Hashem and the children. And Hashem on Yom Kippur ordered the sacrifice of 2 goats. One for Azazel, who, by terrible means, creates balance, and this sacrifice is a symbol, commanded by Hashem to remind the children that from Azazel their sins are originated, and that he is doing his job commanded by Hashem. And he does so because he loves us, as we were created partly in his image, we must represent our acceptance of his work, and his position, by sending not grief, regret or resentment through the goat, but for the sins that he provides to challenge us to praise Hashem's plan and His mercy. Azazel is happy to serve his Master, and we should show gratitude that Hashem loves us enough, and trusts us enough, that he would send His most beloved Angel to provide a path of salvation for the children. 2601:2C1:8C00:5D00:750B:AD74:2B69:FEA7 (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)