SACRIFICE
315
SACRIFICE
and the poor, were admitted (Deut., xvi, 11; Lev.,
19 sqq.), and wine was freely drunk at this meal.
Whatever remained of a sacrifice of thanksgiving or
praise had to be burned on the following day; only
in the case of the vowed and entirely voluntary
sacrifices might the remainder be eaten on the second
succeeding day, but all that thereafter remained had
to be burned on the third day (Lev., vii, 15 sqq.;
xix, 6 sqq.). The idea of the peace-offering centres
in the Divine friendship and the participation at
the Divine table, inasmuch as the offerers, as guests
and table-companions, participated in a certain
manner in the sacrifice to the Lord. But, on account
of this Divine friendship, when all three classes of
sacrifice were combined, the sacrifice of expiation
usually preceded the burnt-offering, and the latter
the peace-offering.
In addition to the periodical sacrifices just de- scribed, the Mosaic Law recognized other extraordi- nary sacrifices, which must at least be mentioned. To these belong the sacrifice offered but once on the occasion of the conclusion of the Sinaitic cove- nant (Ex., xxiv, 4 sqq.), those occurring at the con- secration of the priests and Levites (Ex., xxix, 1 sqq.; Lev., viii; Num., viii, 5 sqq.), and certain oc- casional sacrifices, such as the sacrifice of purification of a healed leper (Lev., xiv, 1 sqq.), the sacrifice of the red cow (Num., xix, 1 sqq.), the sacrifice of jeal- ou.sy (Num., v, 12 sqq.), and the sacrifice of the Nazi- rites (Num., vi, 9 sqq.). On account of its extraor- dinary character one might include the yearly sacrifice of the paschal lamb (Ex., xii, 3 sqq.; Deut., xvi, 1 sqq.) and that of the two he-goats on the Day of Atonement (Lev., xvi, 1 sqq.) among this class. With the appearance of the Messias, the entire Mosaic sacrifi(!ial system was, according to the view of the Rabbis, to come to an end, as in fact it did after the destruction of the Temple by Titus (A. D. 70). Concerning the sacrificial persons see Priest- hood.
(5) Modern Criticism. — A detailed examination of modern criticism concerning Jewish sacrifice cannot be attempted here, since the discussion involves the whole Pentateuch problem (see Pentateuch). What is called the " Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis" denies that the ritual legislation in the Pentateuch comes from Moses. It is claimed that the setting down of the sacrificial legislation first began in the exilic period. From the time of Moses to the Baby- Ionian Captivity sacrifice was offered frcsely and without any legal compulsion, and always in connex- ion with a joyous sacrificial meal. The strict forms of the minutely-prescribed sacrificial rite were first established by the Priest's Code (=P), Divine authority being afterwards claimed for them by artificially projecting them into the Mosaic era. Even during the time of the Great Prophets nothing was known of a Mosaic sacrificial thora, as is proved by their disparaging remarks concerning the worthless- ness of sacrifice (cf. Is., i, 11 sqq.; Jer., vi, 19 sq.; Amos, V, 21 sqq.; Osee, viii, 11 sqq., etc.). With Ezechiel, however, a change is visible, the ritual forms of sacrifice being highly cheri.shed as a Divine law. But it is impossible to refer this law to Moses.
We may briefly reply that the disparaging .state- ments of the pre-exilic Prophets are no proof for the assertion that in their time there was no sacrificial law regarded as Mosaic. Like the Psalms (xl, 7 sqq.; 1, 8 sqq.; Ixix, 31 sq.), the Prophets emphasized only the ancient and venerable truth that Jahweh valued most highly the interior sacrifice of obodionce, and rejected as worthless purely external acts with- out pious disjjositions. He demanded of Cain the right sentiment of sacrifice (cf. Gen., iv, -1 sq.), and proclaimed through Samuel: "Obedience is better than sacrifices" (I Kings, xv, 22). This requirement of ethical dispositions is not equivalent
to the rejection of external sacrifice. Nor can one
accept the statement that Mo.ses did not legally
regulate the Jewish sacrificial system. How other-
wise could he have been regarded among the Jews
as the God-appointed founder of the religion of Jah-
weh, which is inconceivable without Divine service
and sacrifice? That during the centuries after Moses
the sacrificial cult underwent an internal and external
development, which reached its climax in the extant
priest's code, is a natural and intelligible assumption,
indications of which appear in the Pentateuch itself.
The whole reorganization of the cult by the Prophet
Ezechiel shows that Jahweh always stood above the
letter of the law, and that he was nowise bound to
maintain in unalterable rigidity the olden regula-
tions. But the changes and deviations in Ezechiel
are not of such magnitude as to justify the view that
not even the foundation of the sacrificial code origi-
nated with Moses. The further statement that a
sacrificial meal was regularly connected with the
ancient sacrifices, is an unjustifiable generalization.
For the burnt-offering {holocaustum, 'olah), with
which no meal was associated, belonged to the most
ancient sacrifices (cf. Gen., viii, 20), and is at least
as old as the peace-offering (shelamim), which always
terminated with a meal. Again, it is antecedently
at least improbable that the older sacrifices always
had, as is asserted, a gay and joyous character,
since the need of expiation was not less, but rather
more seriously felt by the Israelites than by the
pagan nations of antiquity. Where there was a
consciousness of sin, there must also have been
anxiety for expiation.
LiGHTFOOT, Ministerium templi (Rotterdam, 1699) ; Bahr, Symbolik des mosaischen Kultus, II (HcidelberK, 1839); Thal- HOFER, Die unblutigtn Opfer des mosaischen Kultus (Ratisbon, 1848); RiEHM, Der Begriff der Silhne im A. T. (Gotha. 1876); Idem, Handworterbuch des biblischen Altertums (Leipzig, 1884 — ) ; Idem, Alltestamentl. Theologie (Halle, 1889); Kurtz, Sacrificial Worship of the Old Testament, tr. (Edinburgh, 1863); Wanqe- MANN, Das Opfer nach der hi. Schrift (1866) ; Scholz, Die hi. Alter- tiimer des Volkes Israel (Ratisbon, 1868); Idem, GOtzendienst u. Zauberivesen bei den alien Hebrdern (Ratisbon, 1877) ; Hane- BERO, Die religidsen AllertUmer der Bibel (Munich, 1869) ; Schegg, Biblisehe Archdologie (Freiburg, 1887) ; Laouenan, Du Brahma- nisme et ses rapports avec le Judaisme et le Christianisme (Paris, 1888) ; Cave, Scriptural Doctrine of Sacrifice and Atonement (Edinburgh, 1890); Schafer, Die religiosen Alterttimer der Bibel (1891); Schmoller, Das Wesen der Silhne in der alltestamentlich. Opferthora in Studien u. Kriliken (1891); Nowack, Hebraische Archdologie (Freiburg, 1894); Volck, De nonnullis V. T. prophet, locis ad sacrificia spectantibtis (Leipzig, 1893) ; Scott, Sacrifice, its Prophecy and Fulfilment (Edinburgh, 1894) ; Baxter, Sanctu- ary and Sacrifice (London, 1895) ; Schultz, Old Testament Theol- ogy, tr. (Edinburgh, 1898); Frey, Tod, Seelenglaube u. Seelen- kult im alten Israel (1898) ; Matthieu, La notion de sacrifice dans I'ancien Testament et son evolution (Toulouse, 1902); Gold, Sac- rificial Worship (New York, 1903); NiKt^h, Genesis u. Keilschrift- forschung (Freiburg, 1903) ; Schrader, Die Keilinschriften u. das A. T. (3rd ed., Berlin, 1903) ; Zapletal, Alttestamentliches (Frei- burg, 1903) ; KoBERLE, SUnde u. Gnade im religidsen Leben des Volkes Israel bis auf Christus (Munich, 1905); Herrmann, Die Idee der Siihne im A. T. (Leipzig, 1905); Schopfer, Gesch. des A. T. (4th cd., 1906); Kent, Israel's Laws and Legal Preced<^nts (New York, 1907); Benzinger, Ilebrditche Archdologie (Frei- burg, 1907) ; Mader, Die Menschenopfer der alten Hebrder u. der benachbarten Vdlker (Freiburg, 1908); Engblkemper, Heiliglum u. Opferstdtten in den Gesetzen des Pentateuch (Miinster, 1908); Smith, The Biblical Doctrine of Atonement in Biblical World, XXXI (1908), 22 sqq.; Kittel, Gesch. des Volkes Israel, II (Gotha, 1909); Peters, Die jUdische Gemeinde von Elephantine- Syene u. ihr Tempel im 5. Jahrh. vor Chr. (Freiburg, 1910) ; All- GEiER, Ueber Doppelberichte in der Genesis. Eine kritische Unter- suchung u. eine primipielle Priifung (Freiburg, 1911).
III. Christian Sacrifice. — Christianity knows but one sacrifice, the sacrifice which was once offered by Christ in a bloody manner on the tree of the Cross. But in order to apply to individual men in sacrificial form through a constant sacrifice the merits of redemption d(;finitively won by the sacrifice of the Cross, the Redeemer Himself instituted the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to be an unbloody continuation and representation of the bloody sacrifice of Calvary. Concerning this eucharistic sacrifice and its relation to the sacrifice on the Cross, see the article Mass. In view of the central position which the sacrifice
