References throughout history

In Irenaeus’ magisterial five-volume work, Against All Heresies, the Jews were the first to be denounced as heretics because "they follow their father, the Devil" (4, 6). How can I find this referenced in other sources throughout history? In what sense is Devil being used here? Is that Satan, or evil in general?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Dave Hooton

In Irenaeus’ magisterial five-volume work, Against All Heresies,

Is it "Against Heresies" as per ANF1?

"they follow their father, the Devil" (4, 6). How can I find this referenced in other sources throughout history? In what sense is Devil being used here? Is that Satan, or evil in general?

"...their Father, the Devil" ---> are you quoting John 8:44 as opposed to Irenaeus in Book 4, Ch. 6? The only reference to "Jews" is in 4.6.1:

"For the Lord, revealing Himself to His disciples, that He Himself is the Word, who imparts knowledge of the Father, and reproving the Jews, who imagined that they, had [the knowledge of] God, while they nevertheless rejected His Word" Irenaeus of Lyons. (1885). Irenæus against Heresies. In The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, p. 467).

JBR

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1268992#Comment_1268992

Did a search for "devil NEAR father" in ANF1. The results most like "their father, the Devil" is the following.

If any one preaches the one God of the law and the prophets, but denies Christ to be the Son of God, he is a liar, even as also is his father the devil,⁵ and is a Jew falsely so called, being possessed of⁶ mere carnal circumcision. If any one confesses Christ Jesus the Lord, but denies the God of the law and of the prophets, saying that the Father of Christ is not the Maker of heaven and earth, he has not continued in the truth any more than his father the devil,⁷ and is a disciple of Simon Magus, not of the Holy Spirit.¹

⁵ Comp. John 8:44.

⁶ Literally, “beneath.”

⁷ Comp. John 8:44.

¹ Ignatius of Antioch, “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 83.

You'll notice that the quote includes references to John 8:44, which Dave Hooten pointed to as the possible reference in his response.

Christian Alexander

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1269003#Comment_1269003

I heard it cited in an article that Irenaeus cited John 8:44. The Jewish stories of the 'Watcher angels' from the Book of Enoch impacted Irenaeus in particular. He even refers to Satan as 'Azazel' in his Against Heretics, exactly as Enoch does, demonstrating how affected he was by the Jewish stories that Paul, Jude, and Peter had warned against embracing. Irenaeus similarly referred to his opponents as "angels of the Devil" (Against Heretics 1.15.6), demonstrating how easy it is to adapt cosmic conflict tales to one's own enemies on Earth. Instead of admitting that these were simply conjectures, Irenaeus insisted that belief in Satan was a key teaching of Christianity. How can I find the way it was cited?

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1269112#Comment_1269112

demonstrating how affected he was by the Jewish stories that Paul, Jude, and Peter had warned against embracing.

FYI a personal note (not FL policy) - when a question is asked in such a biased way, I refuse to participate. How biased?

Can you provide the scriptural evidence that Paul, Jude or Peter warned against (all) Jewish stories?
Please show this applies to stories in the Torah and Oral Torah
Can you give the reference for where Matthew refers to Jewish stories/Oral Torah?
Where does the Rabbinic canon fit in?
Can you explain why Jude quotes the Book of Enoch?
Can you tell me which historic threads of Christianity do or did consider the Book of Enoch as scripture?
If Azazel is primarily associated with the scapegoat, does typological interpretation of the scapegoat imply an inappropriate use of Jewish stories?
How does the Apocalypse of Abraham fit into the discussion?
Was Irenaeus of Lyons more influenced by the Book of Enoch than Tertullian? Origen? Athenagoras of Athens? Epiphanius of Salamis? Augustine of Hippo?

I hope these questions explain why I refuse to answer such biased questions. I would also suggest that you do a search of Azazel in Against Heresies to see the context in which the name is used. Then if you have a sensible, informed question on the relationship between Irenaeus and Enoch or unwritten Jewish tradition in early Christian writings, I'll be glad to genuinely help.

EDIT: Okay, Christian, I apologize for taking my frustration with poorly thought-out lines of reasoning on you. I've had three days in a row of excessive exposure to such questions - exposure on a number of fronts. But a serious answer would require that I ask and/or provide answers to the questions above.

AZAZEL עזאזל
I. Both the etymology and the meaning of the name ʿazāʾzēl, which appears in the Old Testament only in Lev 16:8, 10 [twice], 26, are not completely clear. Although the etymological hypothesis ʿzʾzl < *ʿzzʾl < ʿzz (‘to be strong’) + ʾl (‘god’), i.e. the result of a consonantal metathesis, appears to be the most likely explanation (JANOWSKI & WILHELM 1993:128 with n. 98, cf. the form ʿzzʾl in 4Q 180, 1:8; 11QTemple 26:13f etc., see TAWIL 1980:58–59), the meaning of the name ʿzʾzl remains controversial. In the main the following possibilities are under discussion (cf. also HALAT 762): 1) ‘Azazel’ is the name or epithet of a demon. 2) ‘Azazel’ is a geographical designation meaning ‘precipitous place’ or ‘rugged cliff’ (DRIVER 1956:97–98; cf. Tg. Ps.-J. Lev 16:10, 22 etc.). 3) ‘Azazel’ is a combination of the terms ʿēz (‘goat’) + ʾozēl (‘to go away, disappear’, cf. Arabic zl) and means ‘goat that goes (away)’, cf. ἀποπομπαῖος (Lev 16:8, 10a LXX), ἀποπομπή (v 10b LXX), ὁ διεσταλμένος εἰς ἄφεσιν (v 26) or caper emissarius (Lev 16:8, 10a, 26 Vg), English scapegoat, French bouc émissaire.
In order to define the word as the name or epithet of a demon one could refer primarily to the textual evidence: according to Lev 16:8, 10 a he-goat is chosen by lot ‘for Azazel’ in order to send it into the desert (v 10, 21) or into a remote region ‘for Azazel’. Since lâăzāʾzēl corresponds to lĕYHWH (v 8), ‘Azazel’ could also be understood as a personal name, behind which could be posited something such as a ‘supernatural being’ or a ‘demonic personality’. However, one should be cautious of too hasty an ascription.
II. Various theses have been proposed in recent scholarly discussion concerning the identity of the figure of Azazel, as well as concerning the understanding of the Azazel rite (Lev 16:10, 21–22). These can be classified as the nomadic, the Egyptian and the South Anatolian-North Syrian models.
The underlying assumption of the nomadic model is that the ‘scapegoat’ is not only chosen by lot ‘for Azazel’ (Lev 16:8, 10, cf. mYom III:9-IV:2), but is also sent ‘to him’ into the desert or a remote region (Lev 16:10, 21–22, cf. 11QTemple 26:11–13; mYom VI:2–6). The result of this combination was the positing of a ‘desert demon’ Azazel. In other words, it was assumed that Azazel lived in the desert and was a demon. DUHM and others spoke of a ‘Kakodämon der Wüste’, who was to be appeased through the offering of a he-goat (śāʿîr; DUHM 1904:56, cf. Ges.17 576; HALAT 762). This thesis is, however, to be viewed skeptically, since the goat chosen ‘for Azazel’ (v 8, the second goat is chosen ‘for YHWH’) is not sent ‘to’ (ʾel [or something similar]) Azazel but ‘for Azazel into the desert’ (laʿăzāʾzēl hammidbārâ). The central issue is the explanation of the expression ‘for (lĕ) Azazel’; the solution should lie in the original meaning of the ritual.
Nevertheless the thesis of a ‘desert demon’ Azazel has found acceptance and has been advocated until the present day. Variations of this thesis have been proposed by L. Rost (Passover ritual in the spring and ‘scapegoat’ ritual in the autumn as corresponding early Israelite rituals) and recently by A. Strobel (the integration of a pre-Israelite [El-]ritual into the Palestinian calendar and into the celebration of the Day of Atonement). In addition the original demonic character of Azazel was always underlined by positing a connection between the goat (śāʿîr) chosen for Azazel with the *śĕʿîrîm (‘demons’; Isa 13:21; 34:14, cf. Lev 17:7; 2 Chr 11:15), which naturally results in the image of a demon in goat form for the ‘scapegoat’. Finally, since the time of Eissfeldt the ivory plaque from Megiddo (LOUD, The Megiddo Ivories [OIP 52; Chicago 1939] Pl.5, 4.5) has been viewed as an iconographic proof of the demon hypothesis (for a critique see JANOWSKI & WILHELM 1993:119–123).
Recently an Egyptian explanation has been proposed, which bases itself on the Egyptian ʿḏʒ ‘injustice; evil-doer, culprit’ and Egyptian ḏr ‘to expel’ or dr ‘to keep at a distance, remove’. According to this theory an original ritual of elimination has been enriched through the addition of the concept of a ‘scapegoat’-receiver in the form of a demon, who bears traits of the Egyptian god →Seth, the classic ‘God of Confusion’. This relationship is expressed in his name. According to Görg the name ʿzʾzl < Eg. ʿḏʒḏr/l (< ʿḏʒ + ḏr/l) means ‘the expelled or removed culprit’ and is an expression of the interpretative model ‘the guilty one belongs there whence his guilt ultimately comes’ (GÖRG 1986:13), namely from the (eastern) desert. This is where the Egyptian model comes into contact with the nomadic one. This thesis is, however, inacceptable, since it neither accords with the perspective of Lev 16 nor is it supported by the adduced Egyptian comparative material (JANOWSKI & WILHELM 1993:123–129).
The third model is the South Anatolian-North Syrian one. It appears to be the most plausible one, both conceptually and philologically. It holds that the Azazel rite is a type of elimination rite (spatial removal [eliminatio] of a physically understood pollution through the agent of a living substitute), for which there are parallels both within (Lev 14:2b–8, 48–53; Zech 5:5–11) and outside the OT. The extra-biblical parallels point to an origin in the South Anatolian-North Syrian ritual tradition, whence this rite spread on the one hand into the Palestinian-Israelite (‘scapegoat’ ritual, Lev 16) and on the other into the Ionian-Greek sphere (Pharmakos-rites in Kolophon, Abdera, Athens and Massalia/Marseille). Its home is to be found most probably in Southern Anatolia-Northern Syria, as has become increasingly evident in recent years. In support of this conjecture the relevant Hurrian material from Kizzuwatna as well as the Canaanite ‘scapegoat’ ritual (KTU 1.127:29–31), which may form a missing link between the South Anatolian-North Syrian and the Palestinian-Israelite ritual traditions, can be adduced. How this transfer of ritual proceeded has not yet been worked out in detail. Just as questionable is whether there are analogies for the name and person of Azazel in Ugarit; LORETZ (1985) postulates a ‘lesser divinity’ ʿzzʾl analogous to Ugaritic ʿzbʿl (KTU 1.102:27).
III. The decisive question in the interpretation of Lev 16:10, 21–22 in the context (!) of Lev 16 is whether the figure of Azazel is original to the chapter or has ‘developed’ in connection with the composition/redaction of Lev 16. In order to answer this question, it is necessary to differentiate between the religious history of Lev 16:10, 21–22 and the tradition/redaction history of Lev 16.
In its ritual-historical aspect the Azazel rite belongs to the oldest core of the ritual and represents a type of ritual (the elimination rite), which is at home in South Anatolia-North Syria and is also known in Mesopotamia (WRIGHT 1987:31–74). The ‘motif of the scapegoat’ in its various manifestations is well attested particularly in the Hittite-Hurrian rituals from Kizzuwatna in southeast Anatolia (KÜMMEL 1968; JANOWSKI & WILHELM 1993:134–158). Various animals, such as cattle, sheep, goats, donkeys or mice, can be the bearers of the pollution which is magically eliminated by means of a living substitute. The term ʿzʾzl could be interpreted against the background of these Hurrian ritual traditions. JANOWSKI & WILHELM have proposed tying the term in with the Hurrian azus/zḫi. The latter is known in the form azas/zḫu(m) already in the Akkadian language oath ritual from north Syrian Alalaḫ (AlT 126:17.24.28), and in the form azus/zḫi it appears frequently in the great itkalzi-ritual in connection with sacrificial terms with negative connotations (e.g. arni ‘sin’ [< Akk arnu] etc.). The root can be assumed to be azaz-or azuz-, for which, however, only a Semitic etymology (root ʿZZ < Akk ʿezēzu ‘be angry’, Heb ʿāzaz ‘be strong’, etc.) but no Hurrian one can be posited. Since the ‘anger of the divinity’ in this ritual tradition can be understood as an impurity which is ritually redeemable, the expression lʿzʾzl (< *lʿzzʾl) could then be derived from an original definition of the elimination-rite, whose meaning one could then transcribe as ‘for ʿazāzʾēl = for [the elimination of] divine anger’ (for a critique see DIETRICH & LORETZ 1993: 106–115).
The question of the integration of the Anatolian-North Syrian material of the second millennium BCE and in particular of the expression *ʿzzʾl (> ʿzʾzl) into the tradition of the Day of Atonement in Lev 16 cannot be simply resolved. The following development, however, would appear to be possible:
Azazel belongs to the oldest core of the ritual tradition of Lev 16. It is a part of the religious-magical conceptual world of North Syria, as becomes evident in the ritual tradition borrowed from there (Alalaḫ) and brought to Anatolia (Kizzuwatna). The Ugaritic religion possibly played the role of mediator in this process (see esp. KTU 1.127:29–31). At an early date the term azaz/azuz, also borrowed in this connection, would have been misunderstood (for a critique see DIETRICH & LORETZ 1993:115–116). In the attempt to understand the term, the pattern of El-names used to describe demonic beings may have been influential, and may have determined the interpretation in the sense of a ‘desert demon’. The adaptive process took place in the context of the tradition formation of Lev 16, when one was able to view ‘Azazel’ as the name of a demon according to genuine Israelite interpretative presuppositions, i.e. from the perspective of post-exilic monotheism. The integration of the figure named ‘Azazel’ into the tradition of Lev 16 was occasioned by the motive of the ‘desert/steppe’ or the ‘remote region’ (v 10, 21–22) into which the goat is sent to remove the impurity. The concept of the ‘desert demon’ Azazel was born together with the desert motif.
Characteristic of the final form of Lev 16 is the symmetry of the two goats, the one for →Yahweh and the one for Azazel (v 8–10). The rituals tied in with them (the atonement rites v 11–19 and the elimination rite v 10, 21–22) are to be understood as complementary acts, which have given the complex construction of Lev 16 its unmistakable form.
IV. The Jewish and Christian history of interpretation of the figure of Azazel stands in no relationship to its laconic treatment in Lev 16. In the latter Azazel receives no sacrifices (the ‘scapegoat’ is no sacrificial animal), nor are any (demonic) actions ascribed to him. The eliminatory function of the Azazel-rite stands in the foreground.
The process of the demonization of Azazel was intensively pursued in early Judaism under the influence of dualistic tendencies (1 Enoch 8:1; 9:6; 10:4–8; 13:1; cf. 54:5–6; 55:4; 69:2; Apoc. Abr. 13:6–14; 14:4–6 etc.; see HANSON 1977:220–223; NICKELSBURG 1977:357–404; GRABBE 1987: 153–155; JSHRZ V/6 [1984] 520–521). Azazel taught human beings the art of working metal (1 Enoch 8:1), enticed them to injustice and revealed to them the primordial divine secrets (1 Enoch 9:6; cf. 69:2). As an unclean bird he is the personification of ungodliness (Apoc. Abr. 13:7; 23:9) and the lord of the heathens (Apoc. Abr. 22:6). As a serpentine creature he tempted Adam and Eve in paradise (Apoc. Abr. 23:5, 9); the Messiah will judge him with his cohorts (1 Enoch 55:4; cf. 54:5 and RAC 5 [1962] 206f). In rabbinic Judaism the name is only rarely to be found (RAC 9 [1976] 684).
V. Bibliography
M. DIETRICH & O. LORETZ, Der biblische Azazel und AlT *126, UF 25 (1993) 99–117; G. R. DRIVER, Three Technical Terms in the Pentateuch, JSS 1 (1956) 97–105, esp. 97–100; H. DUHM, Die bösen Geister im Alten Testament (Tübingen & Leipzig 1904); *M. GÖRG, Beobachtungen zum sogenannten Azazel-Ritus, BN 33 (1986) 10–16; GÖRG, Asasel, NBL 1 (1991) 181–182; GÖRG, “Asaselologen” unter sich—eine enge Runde?, BN 80 (1995) 25–31; L. L. GRABBE, The Scapegoat: A Study in Early Jewish Interpretation, JSJ 18 (1987) 152–167; P. D. HANSON, Rebellion in Heaven, Azazel, and Euhemeristic Heroes in 1 Enoch 6–11, JBL 96 (1977) 195–233; *B. JANOWSKI & G. WILHELM, Der Bock, der die Sünden hinausträgt. Zur Religionsgeschichte des Azazel-Ritus Lev 16, 10.21f, Religionsgeschichtliche Beziehungen zwischen Kleinasien, Nordsyrien und dem Alten Testament (OBO 129; Fribourg & Göttingen 1993) 109–169 [& lit.]; H. M. KÜMMEL, Ersatzkönig und Sündenbock, ZAW 80 (1968) 289–318; *O. LORETZ, Leberschau, Sündenbock, Asasel in Ugarit und Israel. Leberschau und Jahwestatue in Ps 27, Leberschau in Ps 74 (UBL 3; Altenberge 1985) 35–57; J. MILGROM, Leviticus 1–16 (AB 3; New York etc. 1991) 1071–1079; G. W. E. NICKELSBURG, Apocalyptic and Myth in 1 Enoch 6–11, JBL 96 (1977) 383–405; S. M. OLYAN, A Thousand Thousands Served Him. Exegesis and the Naming of Angels in Ancient Judaism (TSAJ 36; Tübingen 1993); A. STROBEL, Das jerusalemische Sündenbock-Ritual. Topographische und landeskundliche Erwägungen zur Überlieferungsgeschichte von Lev 16, 10.21f., ZDPV 103 (1987) 141–168; H. TAWIL, Azazel. The Prince of the Steppe: A Comparative Study, ZAW 92 (1980) 43–59; D. P. WRIGHT, The Disposal of the Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and in Hittite and Mesopotamian Literature (SBLDS 101; Atlanta 1987) 15–74; *WRIGHT, Azazel, ABD 1 (1992) 536–537.
B. JANOWSKI

n. note
HALAT W. BAUMGARTNER et al., Hebräisches und Aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament
Tg. Ps.-J. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan
LXX Septuagint
LXX Septuagint
Vg Vulgate
Ges. W. GESENIUS, Hebräisches und aramäisches Handwörterbuch, (17th. ed.)
HALAT W. BAUMGARTNER et al., Hebräisches und Aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament
OIP Oriental Institute Publications
Eg Egyptian
KTU M. Dietrich, O. Loretz & J. Sanmartín, Die keil-alphabetische Texte aus Ugarit (AOAT 24)
KTU M. Dietrich, O. Loretz & J. Sanmartín, Die keil-alphabetische Texte aus Ugarit (AOAT 24)
AlT D. J. Wiseman, Alalaḫ Texts
Akk Akkadian
Akk Akkadian
Heb Hebrew
KTU M. Dietrich, O. Loretz & J. Sanmartín, Die keil-alphabetische Texte aus Ugarit (AOAT 24)
JSHRZ Jüdische Schriften aus Hellenistisch-Römischer Zeit
RAC Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum
RAC Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum
AlT D. J. Wiseman, Alalaḫ Texts
UF Ugarit-Forschungen
JSS Journal of Semitic Studies
BN Biblische Notizen
NBL Neues Bibel-Lexikon, ed. M. Görg & B. Lang
BN Biblische Notizen
JSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Periods
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
OBO Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis
ZAW Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
UBL Ugaritisch-Biblische Literatur
AB Anchor Bible
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
TSAJ Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum
ZDPV Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästinavereins
ZAW Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series
ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary

That should be a sufficient caution to indicate that reading too much into Irenaeus of Lyons' single use of the term is a trap unless you have a comprehensive academic paper on the topic to justify the position.

IIRC the warnings are over traditions of men not Jewish stories - after all Jesus himself was a master teller of Jewish stories most of which were non-canonical. Jesus' reference to the seat of Moses is, in itself, evidence that Jesus drew from the Judaism around him not just the future Masoretic canonical scriptures. Finally, given the debates over the canonical status of the book of Enoch and the number of Church Fathers who reference it, being aware of or influenced by it simply tells us something about the period and the place the church fathers were living. Nothing more or less than knowing I read Dag Hammarskjöld as a child and was suitably impressed.

As for how strongly Irenaeus held the position or if he abused the strength of his arguments, I don't know. But because of how poorly the lead up to the accusation is presented, I would seriously suggest you not waste your time on it. I would suggest that you read more broadly so that you recognize when an argument is poorly presented and seek other sources for the information you hoped to glean from the article.

Quick Links

Recent Posts
Activity
Unanswered