THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
A. A. Hodge, The Atonement (Philadelphia, 1867; new ed., 1S77); George Smeaton, The Doctrine of the Atonement as Taught by Christ Himself (Edinburgh, 186S; 2d ed., 1871); idem, The Doctrine of the Atonement as Taught by the Apostles (1870); T.J. Crawford, The Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures Respecting the Atonement (London, 1871; 5th ed., 1SSS); Hugh Martin, The Atonement in its Relations to the Covenant, the Priesthood, the Intercession of our Lord (London, 1870). See Satisfaction.
Benjamin B. Warfield.
Bibliography: The more important treatises on the Atonement have been named in the body of the article. The history of the doctrine has been written with a fair degree of objectivity by Ferdinand Christian Baur, Die Christliche Lehre von der Versohnung in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwickelung, Tubingen, 1838; and with more subjectivity by Albrecht Ritschl in the first volume of his Rechtfertigung und Versohnung, 3d ed., Bonn, 1889, Eng. transl. from the first ed., 1870, A Critical History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification and Reconciliation, Edinburgh, 1872. Excellent historical sketches are given by G. Thomasius, in the second volume of his Christi Person und Werk, pp. 113 sqq., 3d ed., Leipsic, 1886, from the confessional, and by F. A. B. Nitzsch, in his Lehrbuch der evangelischen Dogmatik, pp. 457 sqq., Freiburg, 1892, from the moral influence standpoint. More recently the history has been somewhat sketchily written from the general confessional standpoint by Oscar Benson as the first part of his Die Lehre von der Versohnung, Giitersloh, 1904, and with more fulness from the moral influence standpoint by G. A. F. Ecklin, in his Erlosung und Versohnung, Basel, 1903. Consult also E. Menegoz, La Mori de Jesus et le Dogme de V Expiation, Paris, 1905. The English student of the history of the doctrine has at his disposal not only the sections in the general histories of doctrine (e.g., Hagenbach, Cunningham, Shedd, Harnack) and the comprekensive treatise of Ritschl mentioned above, but also interesting sketches in the appendices of G. Smeaton's Doctrine of the Atonement as Taught by the Apostles, Edinburgh, 1870, and J. S. Lidgett's The Spiritual Principle of the Atonement, London, 1898, from the confessional standpoint, as well as H. N. Oxenham's The Catholic Doctrine of the Atonement, London, 1865, 3d ed., 1881, from the Roman Catholic standpoint. Consult also: J. B. Remensnyder, The Atonement and Modern Thought, Philadelphia, 1905; D. W. Simon, The Redemption of Man, London, 1906; C. A. Dinsmore, Atonement in Literature and Life, Boston, 1906; L. Pullan, The Atonement, New York, 1906. An interesting episode is treated by Andrew Robertson, History of the Atonement Controversy in the Secession Church, Edinburgh, 1846.
ATONEMENT, DAY OF: The great Hebrew and Jewish fast-day, occurring annually; called in Lev. xxiii, 27-28 yom ha-kippurim, in the Talmud simply yoma, " the day "; in vulgar Hebrew yom kippur. The legal provisions are given in Lev. xvi (cf. Ex. xxx, 10); xxiii, 26-32; Num. xxix, 7-11. Since these enactments, in spite of their relative differences, are not sufficient to define the very important ritual in all details, a supplementary tradition became necessary; the Mishnaic treatise Yoma is devoted to the celebration of the day during the Second Temple. According to "Lev. xvi, 29, xxiii, 27, Num. xxix, 7, Institution the day fell on the tenth of the seventh and Ritual, month (Tishri); it was to be a sabbath of rest (" sabbath of sabbaths," Lev. xvi, 31), on which all labor was prohibited, and the congregation had to meet in the sanctuary (Lev. xxiii, 27-28). A general fast— the only one enjoined in the Mosaic law — was prescribed for the day. By this fast, the " afflicting of the soul," the members of the congregation were to bring
themselves into a penitential mood appropriate to the serious atonement act. The day is therefore called sometimes simply " the fast-day " (Josephus, Ant., XIV, iv, 3, where, however, as in XIV. xvi, 4, the " third month " causes some difficulty; Philo, De septenario, 296 M) or " the fast " (Philo, 278 M; Acts xxvii, 9); by the rabbis also " the great fast " to distinguish it from the fast-days which were introduced after the Exile. The stranger who dwelt in the land was also obliged to rest from work, but he was not obliged to fast (Lev. xvi, 29).
The rite to be performed in the sanctuary is described in Lev. xvi, 3-28. Aaron (i.e., the high priest), attired in plain priestly clothing is to offer, first for himself and his house, a young bullock for a sin-offering. He is to bring its blood into the Holy of Holies and sprinkle with it the Kapporeth, the expiatory covering of the ark. In the same manner he has to deal with the blood of the goat, appointed as a sin-offering for the people. With this blood the other vessels of the sanctuary also were afterward sprinkled. Two goats were presented before God for the people, and the high priest cast lots, designating the one goat " for Yahweh " as a sin-offering, the other " for Azazel " (A. V. " scapegoat;" see Azazel); on this second goat the high priest laid his hands and confessed the sins of the people, which the goat was to carry away into the wilderness. Thither it was led by a man, so that it could not return (with the two goats compare the two birds, Lev. xiv, 4-7). The sin is to remain in the territory of the unclean desert-demon Azazel (cf. Zech. v, 5-11). When this act was over the burnt offering for the high priest and the people and other offerings were brought. The great importance of this day is seen from the fact that the high priest officiates personally, and his functions are mostly performed in the Holy of Holies, which he could enter only on \his 3ay; furthermore, from the purpose of the whole, to purify priest and congregation, and the habitation of God and its vessels, from all defilement. On this account this day is also referred to as a type in the New Testament (cf. especially Heb. ix, 7, 11 sqq., 24 sqq.; also the Epistle of Barnabas vii).
The antiquity of this fast-day, its Mosaic origin, and even its preexilic existence, is denied by Vatke (Bihlische Theologie, i, Berlin, 1835, 548), George (Feste, Berlin, 1835, 200 sqq.), Graf, Wellhausen, Kuenen, Reuss, and others. It is indeed strange that this important festival is nowhere mentioned in preexilic writings except in the Law. But this may be accidental. At all events it is a rash inference that so solemn a festival must be of late origin, because the old festivals of the Hebrews were of a joyous character. In favor of the higher antiquity of this usage is the fact that the entire action takes place by the
Date of ark of the covenant, which did not
Origin. exist after the Exile and of whose absence nothing is said in the Law. The desert-demon Azazel (for which in later times one would rather expect Satan as opposed to Yahweh) also points back to the Mosaic time of the abode in the wilderness. It may, however, rightly