The present discussion advances the following thesis: exegetes through the centuries have recognized that Genesis functions as the narrative prologue to the Mosaic covenant, yet commentators and translators often look only to usage within the covenant materials of Exodus through Deuteronomy in order to define the technical use of key terms such as כפר. This study will argue based upon the concept of a schema from cognitive semantics that the Genesis narratives may entrench a new semantic frame contrasting with popular usage or contextual usage evidenced in cognate-language literature from the ANE. This schema functions as the interpretive lens for understanding technical usage within the overall macrostructure of the Mosaic covenant.
In particular, Jay Sklar (2005/2015; 2023) argues that the technical use of כִּפֵּר should be defined primarily based upon use in Exodus through Numbers, and he then relates this technical usage to the noun כֹּפֶר, “ransom,” as well as other near-synonyms within the semantic field. He concludes that usage in Genesis 32:21remains ancillary. However, commentators recognize the prominent use of רֵיחַ נִחוֺחַ in Genesis 8:21, as well as the legal terms צְדָקָה, מִשְׁפָּט, מִצְוָה, חֻקָּה, and תּוֺרָה in Genesis 18:19 and 26:5 as key for understanding their later usage within the covenant materials in Exodus through Deuteronomy. This investigation argues that the definition of כִּפֵּר follows the same pattern of other key covenant terminology in Genesis that is structurally significant for interpreting the following technical usage.
Toward this end, first, the concept of schema semantics will be described and applied to an analysis of כִּפֵּר, “to make atonement,” within the Pentateuch (Gen 32:21 and recurrently in Exodus–Numbers; Schank 1977; Croft and Cruse 2004; Evans 2019). It will be argued that the prominent use in Genesis informs the interpretation of “atonement” as a concept within the ritual system as a whole. Individual occurrences within Exodus through Numbers then augment the overall understanding of this concept.
Second, the contrastive semantic background for biblical words may be found through the investigation of ANE cognate materials. Analysis will focus on select occurrences of kapāru from Old Babylonian through neo-Assyrian in order to sketch the cultural background against which biblical usage may be compared and contrasted (CAD 8:198–200).
Third, discussion turns to the methodological boundaries of Wenham’s (1981) use of anthropological studies (e.g. Douglas 1966; 1999) for understanding the ritual system in ancient Israel. This application influences exegetes following in his wake. It will be argued that anthropological study may be helpful for understanding the overall system or its background, yet primacy should be given to the overt, contextual, and prominent definition of sacrificial terminology occurring within the Pentateuch as a structured work.
In terms of contribution, this paper refines several recently published lexical treatments of כִּפֵּר used by pastors and translators, and it attempts to reorient the discussion to the author-intended and prominent semantic associations. Moreover, the narrative definition of “atonement” provides a simple and inspired illustration for understanding a complex concept for preaching and teaching.