[See page image]

Page 166

tion of a Nazirite's vow (Num. vi. 14). Turtledoves and young pigeons were used in purifications (Lev. xii. 6, xv. 14, 29; Num. vi. 10), and also served as substitutes for a lamb (Lev. v. 7, xiv. 22); while if any could not afford even a dove, he might offer, in cases of ordinary sin, a tenth of an ephah of meal. In the sin offering the blood of the victim is not simply sprinkled on the altar, but is applied to specified places. In the offering of an individual Israelite (except the high priest), and in the consecration of a priest (probably also in the case of a Levite), some of the blood of the goat or lamb was smeared on the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and the rest was poured on the ground (Ex. xxix. 12; Lev. iv. 25, 30, 34). At sin offerings for the entire people or for the high priest (except on the Day of Atonement, q.v.) the blood of the sacrificial bullock was sprinkled seven times against the veil of the sanctuary and smeared on the horns of the altar, the remainder being poured on the ground (Lev. iv. 5 sqq., 16 sqq.). The ritual of the sin offering for the Day of Atonement is elaborately described in Lev. xvi. The flesh of the sin offering was sacrosanct, and rigid regulations were laid down where and by whom it might be eaten (Lev. vi. 25-26) or burned (Ex. xxix. 14; Lev. iv. 11-12, 21, vi. 23, xvi. 27). Any one besprinkled with the blood of a sin offering must wash in a sacred place, and special provision was protection of the flesh of the sacrificial victim against defilement (Lev. vi. 27-28), and he who burned the flesh must bathe and wash his clothes before returning to the camp (Lev. xvi. 28). The exact details concerning the sin offering of doves are uncertain; but in the meal offering of the very poor the priest was to cast a handful upon the altar, taking the residue as his share (Lev. v. 12-13).

It is evident, from Lev. xvii. 11, that the blood of the sacrificial victim was held to protect the life of the sacrificer in virtue of the animal's life in the blood. The actual slaughtering of the victim was merely to obtain the blood, not to inflict upon the victim the penalty merited by the sinner, the essential basis of the act being the forfeiture of an animal instead of a human life to the deity. In the sin offering, moreover, the blood is not merely important, as in the burnt offering and the communal meal, but the one essential; and the sin offerings are, accordingly, invariably bloody, except in the case of the very poor. It must be noted, however, that only involuntary sins are atoned for by these sacrifices (cf. Lev. iv. 2-3, 22, 27, v. 15, 18, xxii. 14; Num. xv. 25-26). Accordingly, an involuntary homicide has provision made for him in the " cities of refuge " (Num. xxxv. 11, 15; Josh. xx. 3, 9), but one who commits an intentional murder must die (Num. xv. 30).

The pre-exilic ritual of sacrifice passed through a process of development, Moses adapting to the worship of Yahweh rites in use among the Israelites from times immemorial. The theory is frequently advanced, however, that all ritual developments connected with the sacrifice are post-exilic, the sacrifice having previously been purely voIun t,9ry and regularly connected with joyous sacrificial meals. Accordingly, it is held that the sole

distinctive feature in Israelite sacrifice was that it was offered to Yahweh instead of to Baal or

Moloch; the Priest Code alone stresses 6. Develop- the form of the rite; passages like ment of Amos iv. 4,5, v. 21 sqq.; Hos. vi. 6, Israelitic viii. 11 sqq.; Isa. i. 11 sqq.; Jer. vi. Sacrifice. 19-20, vii. 21 sqq. show that at the time

of the great prophets a ritual sacrificial code was unknown, Ezekiel (especially xl.-xlviii.) being the first to attach extreme importance to the sacrifice. But this theory ignores the fact that even in remotest antiquity the sacrifice is a rite of prime importance; and the Book of the Covenant itself contains ritual prescriptions concerning the sacrifice (Ex. xx. 24-26, xxiii. 18-19, cf. xxxiv. 2526) which'allow of no doubt either as regards the importance attached to the sacrifice or as to the previous existence of fully developed regulations governing the sacrificial ritual. Again, the passages just listed from the prophets neither presuppose the non-existence of such a ritual, nor do they polemize against either a liturgy of this character or against sacrifice in itself, but only against a false estimate of it, complicated by a refusal to render due obedience to God. The prophetic passages, therefore, like analogous ones which might readily be quoted from the Psalms, are to be explained in the spirit of I Sam. xv. 22. At the same time, even after Moses there was greater freedom in sacrificial ritual than is permitted by the Priest Code; and there was also no rigid adherence to the Mosaic regulations, but, on the one hand, a priestly development which finds its culmination in the Priest Code, and, on the other hand, popular deviations from the use of the priests at the central sanctuary. In the revision of the liturgy in Ezekiel, finally, the conscious and sovereign freedom of God as the lawgiver finds expression in contrast to the letter of the Mosaic code. There is, however, no reason to suppose, as is frequently held, that sin and guilt offerings are first mentioned by Ezekiel, for such a hypothesis finds immediate refutation in Hos. iv. 8; and it is equally idle to hold that, because frankincense is first mentioned (outside of the Torah) in Jer. vi. 20, it was in any sense an innovation.

For the ethnic concept and practise of sacrifice see COMPARATIVE RELIGION, VI., 1, d; for the Christian idea in connection with the death of Christ see ATONEMENT; and JESUS CHRIST, THREEFOLD OFFICE OF; and for Roman Catholic doctrines see

BIBLIOoRAPHY: On ethnic sacrifice, beside the literature adduced under COmPASATIVE RELCGIoN, consult: C. F. Nagelsbach, Homeriache Theolopie, Nuremberg, 1884; H. Zimmern, Beitrdpe zur Kenntnisa der babyloniachen Religion, Leipsic, 1896; L. R. Farnell, Cults of the Greek States, vols. i.-v., Oxford, 1896-1907; W. W. Fowler, Roman Pestivals of the Period of the Republic, London, 1899; E. B. Tylor, Primitive Culture, 4th ed., ib. 1903; E. Crawley, The Tree of Life, a Study of Religion, ib. 1905; A. Bros, La Religion des peuplez non civilisba, pp. 132 sqq., Paris, 1907; Jane E. Harrison, Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion, 2d ed., Cambridge, 1908; G. FOUCart, Methode comparative dane l'hist. des religions, chap. iv., Paris, 1909; S. Reinach, Orpheus. Hizt. pl!rr &ale des religions, ib. 1909, Eng. trans].. Orpheus, a General Hist. of Religions, London and New York, 1909; A. Is Roy, La Religion du primitife, passim, Paris, 1909; P.