Do liberal scholars rightly claim Azazel in Leviticus 16 was another god?
A viewer notes that many liberal scholars maintain the Israelites believed Azazel in Leviticus 16 to be another god besides Yahweh, and asks Robert to address it.
Answer
No, that is not how you interpret this. If you read the whole context, plus Leviticus 17, which says offering sacrifices to other gods is anathema, you have to take that into account. The confusion arises mainly from the Book of Enoch, which identifies Azazel as a fallen angel who corrupted mankind, and somehow that gets read back into Leviticus 16:8. This is another reason I am turned off by the Book of Enoch. The text of Leviticus distinguishes the two goats very carefully: one is offered as a sin offering to Yahweh, and the other is presented alive before Yahweh, not to Azazel. Nothing is ever slaughtered or burned for Azazel; there is no altar for Azazel and no worship directed to him. The word applied to the goat simply meant removal, the goat that was removed from the camp carrying the sins of Israel. So there is no sacrifice to Azazel here, and no reason to say he was another god that Israel worshiped. Leviticus 17:7 confirms it: they shall no more offer their sacrifices to the satyrs, after whom they have played the harlot. The satyr there is the Azazel of the context.