of opinion as to the siffniJicaJice of Sacrifice. The primitive interpretation of the rite as cementing the religious relation- ship through the eating of the sacred animal disappeared when the people reached the pastoral stage, although the idea lingered that food of any kind had a unitint; virtue, and the illicit mystic forms of cultus which continued to be practised to some extent embodied the original idea. A new interpret tation gained ground with the rise of the institution of pro- perty. The worshipper now had somewhat whereof he waa absolute disposer, not joint-trustee along with tlie Deit}', and it had thus become possible for him to confer on the latter a favour by the bestowal of what the worshipper was person- ally entitled to enjoy. In this way the Gilt theory, whicb is imbedded in so many terms of the sacrificial vocabulary, came into existence. The institution of property, in fact, from the first exercised an influence that on the whole has worked for religious deterioration. At a later stage the gift was understood to be in some sense a substitute for the wor- shipper.
The Welihausen - Smith contribution to the evolutionary account of Semitic sacrifice is a brilliant piece of work which has profoundly influ- enced research in cojj:nate fields. Hut the attrac- tiveness of the ingenious combinations, supported as they are by vast and rechercM erudition, neces- sitates a reminder of the extremely speculative and precarious character of many of the positions. The theory credited to Semitic heathenism in its primi- tive stage, as already pointed out, is highly proble- matical. The construction in question postulates the idea of a communion between the gt>d and the worshippers due to their assimilating the same food, but it cannot be held to be proved that this natural enough idea sprang ultimately from a theory that the sacritice was ethcacious because the victim was akin to both. Further, if the god and his votaries were already kin, it is not clear that their union could be more closely cemented by eating an animal which imported into the union no more than was already found in it. As regards the genealogical scheme, while Smith makes the holocaust a late derivative, and bj* a complicated process, from the sacramental meal, the truth is that the two types are always found existing side by side — among the Phcenicians as well as among the Hebrews; and, so far as historical evidence goes, there is no strong reason for according priority to either (Hubert et Mauss, p. 32 ti'.). A weakness of SfnitVs position is that his exposition of primi- tive Semitic ideas is largely based on late Arab practice ; and the next stage must be to test his speculations by the results of the researches now being activelj* pro.secutcd in the older iicld of Babylonian and Assj-rian worship (Zimmern, Beit- rdqe ztir Kennt, der hab. Relig.).
Iv. Sacrifice ix Ancient Israel.— From the speculative iield of preliistoric evolution we ad- vance to the period wliich extends from the Kxodua to the rise of the 8th cent, prophets. The question which encounters us on the threshold is whether, and to what extent, Moses organized a system of sacrificial worship. The Pentateuch, in its main body, represents the work of Moses in this depart- ment as epoch-making and final. The Priestly Narrative, in the first place, makes no mention of a use of sacritice anterior to Moses, and thua suggests, not indeed that it was not previously practised, but that it had then no place in the re- ligion of the chosen line, and that it had no Divine sanction. In the next place it ascribes to Moses, as the instrument of God, an elaborate code which preciselj', and with an aspect of finality, deter- mines * the when, the where, the by whom, and in a very special manner the how * of sacrifice ( Wellh. Uist. Isr. p. 52). Hut the representation is in both particulars unhi.storicaI. Tlie use of sacrihce in primitive Israel, antecedently more than probable, IS vouched for by independent tradition. The promuljjiation by Moses of an elaborate sacrificial code, wnich treats ritualistic correctness of detail as of paramount importance, is in itself improbable, and is Inconsistent with tlie highly flexible practice
SACRIFICE
SACEIFICE
333
under the Judges and the early nionarcliy, as well as with the prophetic conceptions of tlie nature of the Mosaic legislation (see below). It is indeed diilicult to believe that Moses left no iiiijiress upon the forms of the relit;ious life of the people wliich remembered him not only as emancipator, but as prophet (Dt 34'"), and it may well be hupiio.-.ed that he stands for an early stage in the evolution of the in.siitution which culminated in the system of the l^riestly Code ; but it would be a hopeless task to try to disengage the Mosaic element in the archaic usages which P certainly embodies. In these circumstances it is desirable to base the account of ancient Heb. sacrifice on another group of sources. Foremost among these is JE, whose patriarchal narratives illustrate a comiiaratively early cycle of ideas, and the Cook of tlie Covenant (Kx 20^-23"), which clironicles or corrects certain features of ritual practised down to the 9th century. In addition, great value attaches to the incidental references in Judges, in the hooks of Samuel, and in the early Projiliets.