To show that the word means victim sacrifice or victim offering, which is different from other types of offerings. Thysia/zhertva is used when an innocent dies, because a death of an innocent is unjust, no matter what reason, and an innocent offered to be slaughtered for the sins of others is a victim.
It makes no difference if the innocent volunteered to be killed for someone else. The principle of injustice is still there and so is the victimhood.
Other types of offerings do not involve slaughter of an innocent and therefore there is no victim. I gave you examples of such, namely prosphora and or voznesheniye (also prinosheniye) in Slavonic, along with Eph 5:2 where both type of offerings appear in the same verse.
However, English does not differentiate, but Greek does. And now you are using English to "correct" Greek, as if Greek were the translation of English instead of vice versa! Amazing.
Would you say "...they gave a grain sacrifice to God" or "...they gave a grain victim to God"?
Grain is not an innocent living being that must die for the wrongdoing of others. If you think that Christ deserved to die, then I suppose his offering was just because he got what he "deserved".
The differentiation between thysia and anaphora is that one is tragic and the other one is not. The subtlety that is lost in translations eventually led to a distorted picture which, after centuries, steered the west to "understand" that Christ's death was the ultimate "justice" satisfying to God—a complete opposite of the original Christian understanding of it as the ultimate injustice.
I hoped Epaphroditus didn't grow too fond of the victim from the Philippians when he brought him to Paul. It sounds like something from Hamlet. No wonder you don't like Paul.