|
HOME | GREEK LANGUAGE |
LIBRARIES |
BLOG | HELP | SEARCH | BOOKSTORE | FREEWARE |
|
|
Translated by R. Payne Smith
St Cyril of Alexandria Resources Online and in Print
|
This Part: 128 Pages
Page 128
The mystery of the passion may be seen also in another instance. For according to the Mosaic law two goats were offered, differing in nothing from one another, but alike in size and appearance. Of these, one was called "the lord:" and the other, the "sent-away." [14] And when the lot had been cast for that which was called "lord," it was sacrificed: while the other was sent away from the sacrifice: and therefore had the name of the "sent-away." And Who was signified by this? The Word, though He was God, was in our likeness, and took the form of us sinners, as far as the nature of the flesh was concerned. The goat, then, male or female, was sacrificed for sins. But the death was our desert, inasmuch as by sin we had fallen under the divine curse. But when the Saviour of all Himself, so to speak, undertook the charge, He transferred to Himself what was our due, and laid down His life, that we might be sent away from death and destruction.
The mystery, therefore, was revealed to the Jews, by what was shadowed in the law, had they only been acquainted with the sacred Scriptures. But, as the blessed Paul wrote, "Blindness in part hath happened unto Israel;" and "even to this day, when Moses is read, the veil is laid upon their heart: nor is it unveiled, because in Christ it is done away." They then boast indeed of the law, but its purpose is entirely hidden from them; for it leads us to the mystery of Christ. But that they were without understanding our Saviour shews, saying; "Search the Scriptures: for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they it is that testify of Me. And ye desire not to come unto Me, that ye may have life." For the divinely-inspired Scriptures conduct him who has understanding to an accurate knowledge of the doctrines of the truth: but they do not at all benefit the unwise, the ignorant, and the careless. Not because they cannot do so, but because the infirmity of their mind renders them incapable of receiving the light which the Scriptures give. For just as the light of the solar radiance is useless to those deprived of sight; not as though it cannot shine, but because their eyes are incapable of admitting and receiving it; so the holy Scriptures, though inspired by God, profit nothing the unlearned and foolish.
Our duty, therefore, is to draw near unto God, and say; "Open mine eyes: and I shall perceive the wondrous things of Thy law." So He will reveal Christ to us: by Whom and with Whom to God the Father be praise and dominion with the Holy Ghost, for ever and ever, Amen.
14. [s] This translation of Lev. xvi. 8. was apparently adopted by S. Cyril to escape from an objection brought against the passage by Julian, as proving the existence of a Deus Averruncus, "an evil-averting demon." For the text is rightly translated by the Sept. κλῆρον ἕνα τῷ κυρίῳ καὶ κλῆρον ἕνα τῷ ἀποπομπαίῳ : "one lot for the Lord, and the other lot for the scapegoat," as the A. V. renders it. But as ἀποπομπαῖος in classical Greek signifies a "demon who averts evil," Julian inferred from it the existence of these inferior powers, unto one of which he supposed the second goat was offered: and therefore Cyril, not being acquainted with Hebrew, gives it another meaning, of which the Greek may possibly admit: namely, that two lots were written for the goats, inscribed with these two names, conf. Lib. ix. contra Jul. vi. 301. E. So again in his Epistle to Acacius, V. pt. ii. 224. arguing against a faction, who had adopted the same opinions, he says, "He commanded therefore two goats to be offered, and two lots to be written for them, so as for the one goat to be called Lord, and the other goat ἀποπομπαῖος. These therefore were the names of the goats." In modern times, Bochart, Suicer, and Gesenius, all adopt Julian's view, that ἀποπομπαῖος is equivalent to ἀποτροπαῖος, though it draws but slight confirmation from Josephus, who says, indeed, that the goat was an ἀποτροπιασμὸς, an averting of evil, but evidently is referring to v. 21. where Aaron is commanded to lay the sins of the people upon the goat's head. That Cyril had never heard of this meaning of ἀποπομπαῖος is plain; for he calls it ὄνομα τοι-ς μὲν ἱεροῖς νόμοις οὐκ ἐγνωσμένον, ἐντριβὲς δὲ ἴσως ἑαυτῷ, i. e. to Julian : and nothing could be more unsafe than to interpret the language of the Sept. by classical Greek usage. That the Jews of the second century understood it in a passive sense is plain from Aquila, who renders it ἀπολελυμένος, and Symmachus who gives ἀπερχόμενος: while the Greek fathers always treat it as equal to ἀποπεμπόμενος, and the Latins as Emissarius, i. e. the goat sent away. Besides, it is quite impossible to suppose that either the Sept., or Aquila and the other Greek translators of the O.T., meant their renderings as an equivalent of the Hebrew [Hebrew], any more than our own translators their word "scapegoat:" for there is not the most distant connection between the Hebrew and any of these significations. They are mere substitutions of the general sense of the passage for a word confessedly untranslatable; for Jonathan, Onkelos, the Samaritan, and most other versions, retain the original word, as does also the A. V. in the margin: or perhaps, they may have supposed it to be explained by [Hebrew], as it occurs in vv. 10. 21. 22. As regards the meaning of [Hebrew] Azazel, some consider it to be the name of a mountain; Bochart, "the wastes:" others, one of the four chiefs of the devils, whose names Menachem on Lev. assures us are Sammael, Azazel, Azael, and Machazeel: others, that it is Satan's lieutenant, so called in the hymn against Marcion cited by Epiphanius from Irenaeus:----
ἅ σοι χορηγεῖ σὸς πατὴρ Σατὰν ἀεὶ δἰ ἀγγελικῆς δυνάμεως Ἀζαζὴλ ποιεῖν.
Upon the whole, I think Ewald's opinion, Krit. Gr. p. 243, is the most defensible, that Azazel means "total separation or removal;" for Gesenius' objection, that Moses would not have used so hard a word when simpler expressions were at hand, has little force, since possibly Moses may have preserved in this rite some patriarchal observance: and nothing is so retentive of ancient words,----as well as also of customs and ideas,----as the ritual of a nation.
Reference address : https://www.elpenor.org/cyril-alexandria/luke-commentary.asp?pg=128
