Another objection, founded on the belief that Satan nowhere appears in the Pentateuch will not in this country be deemed to require mud; answer. It is entertained chiefly by those who believe that the presence of Satan in Scripture is °wino. to the influence of a foreign (Babylonian and 'Persian) theology upon Hebrew opinions ; and it is an swered by a reference to the book of Job, in which Satan appears distinctly, while even the objectors admit that this book was written long before the assigned influence existed. And if it were indeed necessary to refer the knowledge of Satan to a foreign influence, it rnight be perceived that quite as much is accomplished by mferring to the Egyp tian Typhon as to the Persian Ahreinan. Hengs tenber,g also points to the intimations of the doc trine of Satan, which appear in Gen. iii., and re roarks—` From a theological point of view, as well as front the nature of the case, it will be found al most impossible that a dogma which, in the later period uf the revelation, holds so important a place, shad not at least be referred to in the statement of the first principles of that revelation.
After exhibiting the positive reasons for this ex planation and disposing of the objections to it, Hengsten'berg subjects to examination those among the various explanations that have been given, which are now current ; and makes out that they are either philologically untenable with reference to the word Azazel, do not agree with the context, or are unsatisfactory in the result to which they con duct us.
If it has been thus established that Satan is to be understood by the term Azazel, then, argues Hengstenberg, an allusion to Egypt in the whole rite cannot be mistaken. In that country every bad influence or power of nature, and generally the bad itself, in a physical or ethical respect, was personified under the name of Typhon. The doc trine of a Typhon among the Egyptians is as old as it is firmly established. Representations of him are found on numerous monuments as old as the time of the Pharaohs. Ileroclotus speaks of Typhon (ii• 144, 156, and iii. 5). But Plutarch gives the most accurate and particular account, with, indeed, many incorrect additions.
The barren regions around Egypt generally be longed to Ty-phon. The desert was especially assigned to him as his residence, whence he made his wasting inroads into the consecrated land. • Ile is,' says Creuzer, the lover of the degenerate Neplithys, the hostile Libyan desert, and of the sea-shore. There is the kingdom of Typhon. On the, contrary, Egypt the blessed, the Nile-valley glittering with fiesh crops, is the land of Isis.' Herodotus ascribes a shnilar dwelling to Typhon.
By a strange but very natural alteration, the Egyptian sought sometimes to propitiate the god whom they hated, but feared, by offerings, and indeed by those which consisted of sacred animals. , Sometimes, again, when' they supposed that the power of the gods was prevalent and sustained them against him, they allowed themselves in every species of mockery and abuse. The obscured and broken power of Typhon,' says Plutarch, even now, in the convulsions of death, they seek some times to propitiate by offerings, and endeavour to persuade him to favour them ; but at other times, on certain festival occasions, they scoff at and insult him. Then they cast mud at those who are of a red complexion, and throw down an ass from a preci pice, as the Coptites do, because they suppose that Typhon was of the colour of the fox and the a.ss.'
The most important passage on the vvorship of Typhon is found in De is. et Osir. p. 3So But when a great and troublesome heat prevails, which in excess either brings along with it destructive sickness or other strange or extraordinary misfor tunes, the priests take some of the sacred animals, in profound silence, to a dark place. There they threaten them first and terrify them ; and when the , calamity continues, they offer these animals in sacri- I fice there.' Now, the supposition of a reference to these Ty 25honia sacra Hilsius considers as a profanation. 'But it is seen at once that the reference contended for by him is materially different from that adopted by our author. The latter is a controversial one. In opposition to the Egyptian view. which implierl the necessity of yielding respect even to bad beings generally, if men would insure themselves against them, it was intended by this rite to bring Israel to the deepest consciousness that all trouble is the punishment of a just and holy God, whom they, through their sins, have offended ; that they must reconcile themselves only with him ; that when that is done, and the forgiveness of sins is obtained, the bad being can harm no farther.
flow very natural and how entirely in accord ance with circumstances such a reference was, is evident from the facts contained in other passages of the Pentateuch, which shew how severe a con test the religious principles of the Israelites had to undergo with the religious notions imbibed in Egypt. This is especially exhibited in the regula tions in Leviticus xvii., following directly upon the law concerning the atonement-day, which prove that the Egyptian idol-worship yet continued to be I practised among the Israelites. The same thing is also evident from the occurrences connected with ' the worship of the golden calf.
The assumption of a reference so specially con troversial might indeed be supposed unnecessary., since in a religion, which teaches generally the ex istence of a powerful bad being, the error here combated, the belief that this being possesses other than derived power, will naturally arise in those who have not found the right solution of the riddle of human life in tbe deeper knowledge of human sinfulness.
But yet the whole rite has too direct a reference to a prescribed practice of propitiating the bad being, and implies that former offerings were made to him—a thing which could never be the natural product of Israelitish soil, and could scarcely spring up tkre, since such an embodying of error contradicts fundamental principles among the Ismel ites respecting the being of Jehovah, which, indeed, allows the existence of no other power with itself.
And, finally, there exists here a peculiar trait, which in Hengstenberg's opinion makes it certain that there is an Egyptian reference, namely, the circumstance that the goat was sent to Azazel into the desert. The special residence of Typhon was in the desert, according to the Egyptian doctrine, which is most intimately connected with the natu ral condition of the country. There, accordingly, is Azazel placed in our passage, not in the belief that this was literally true, but merely symbolically (Hengstenberg, Egypt and the Books of Moses).