2

A member by the name Jas 3.1 in his list of false doctrines against the Book of Enoch in "Why is the Book of Enoch not regarded as canonical?" stated:

"Ascribes all the sin of the fallen angels to one named Azazel - not scriptural"

From a commentary on the Book of Enoch in a Wordpress blog article by the name Piper Michael, he mentioned that this doctrine with the name Azazel as scapegoat was mentioned in Leviticus chapter 16. So, I went to pull out the chapter from the BLB that mentioned about sacrificial offerings of two goats (Lev 16:7) in which " one lot for the LORD, and the other lot for the scapegoat." (Lev 16:8)

Then from the same BDB I clicked on for the Masoretic text and here's what I found:

16:8 וְנָתַן אַהֲרֹן עַל־שְׁנֵי הַשְּׂעִירִם גֹּורָלֹות גֹּורָל אֶחָד לַיהוָה וְגֹורָל אֶחָד לַעֲזָאזֵֽל׃

Reading from right to left as the way of Hebrew language, the last word (just before the colon looking sign) is לַעֲזָאזֵֽל, which reads la-`aza'zel.

The prefix לַ is a preposition "for" and the "a" vowel is the definite article "the". Therefore the prefix "la" means "for the". The main word here is a masculine noun זָאזֵֽל `aza'zel *Strong's H5799 which according to Strong's Concordance means:

  1. entire removal, scapegoat
  2. refers to the goat used for sacrifice for the sins of the people

So, זָאזֵֽל `aza'zel or Azazel as mentioned in the Book of Enoch for the fallen angel Azazel simply means a sacrificial scapegoat for the sins of the people. In the Book of Enoch, the fallen angel Azazel was a scapegoat for the sins of the rest of the fallen angels.

Leviticus 16:10 also mentioned that the scapegoat "shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness. After completing the sacrificial ritual as commanded by Elohim, Lev 16:21 then stated:

"And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness:"

It seems to me that the doctrine of ascribing all the sin of the fallen angels to one named Azazel as mentioned in the Book of Enoch has a corresponding basis in the Bible. So, how is this particular doctrine in the Book of Enoch not scriptural?

  • @ShanLim With your understanding of Enoch, can you explain what is meant by 'ascribe'? There are two possibilities: it says that even though we think of there being many fallen angels, actually there was only one. Or, it says that the sin of the fallen angels was transferred to the one angel. – curiousdannii Jan 29 '15 at 1:32
  • @curiousdannii. I don't know the original language the Book of Enoch was written and don't have the text with the original text. So, my understanding of the word "ascribe" is just mere speculation based on the English definition of the word which basically means "attributing something to something". I'm just guess Jas 3.1 might subscribe to similar definition. Here's the translation of the verse in the Book of Enoch X.8: – user18426 Jan 29 '15 at 2:08
  • 3
    I think this is off-topic because it is asking us to confirm or refute a doctrine which might or might not be implied by a text which isn't even considered inspired by almost every Christian group in the world. Perhaps the question could be redeemed by focusing either on the meaning of the passage, or by focusing on the belief but not the passage. – curiousdannii Jan 29 '15 at 12:08
  • 1
    @curiousdannii Yes, I think I agree with curiousdanni. Please see the Types of questions that are within community guidelines to help you edit this. – fredsbend Jan 29 '15 at 17:16
  • 1
    I'm voting to close this as off-topic because it is asking us to confirm or refute a doctrine which might or might not be implied by the text. – curiousdannii Apr 16 '15 at 10:39

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy