Prior Studies Referenced¶

atone-04 — Asham Distinctive Mechanics¶

Established: The asham's four distinctive features: 1. Two offense categories (trespass against God's holy things; trespass against neighbor classified as trespass against YHWH) 2. Mandatory restitution-plus-one-fifth (chamishith) 3. Unique zaraq blood procedure (dashing on altar walls, never entering sanctuary) 4. ONLY offering legislating both Godward and humanward dimensions in single procedure NT echoes noted: Philemon, Zacchaeus (Luk 19:8-9), Mat 5:23-24, Rom 5:15-17 — but NOT systematically cataloged

atone-05 — Isaiah 53:10 Asham into NT Surplus Vocabulary¶

Established: STRUCTURAL but not LEXICAL correspondence between chamiyshiy and NT "much more" language - perisseuo (G4052), perisseia (G4050), huperperisseuo (G5248) in Rom 5:15-20 - cheirographon (G5498) in Col 2:14 confirms NT treatment of sin as concrete, documentable obligation - opheilemata (G3783) in Mat 6:12 is asham-framework language

atonement-frameworks — Offering Distinctions in NT¶

Established: The asham is "the most dependent on Hebrew for its distinctiveness" - NT authors preserve offering distinctions through context and formula-usage: - peri hamartias for chattat - "much more" for asham surplus - katara for curse - anaphero for priestly bearing - The asham has NO dedicated Greek formula — preserved only structurally

sanc-17-atonement-vocabulary — LXX Bridge Vocabulary¶

Established: Translation fidelity comparison: - kapporeth→hilasterion: PMI 9.75 (SUCCESS) - kopher→lytron: PMI 8.83 (SUCCESS) - kaphar→hilaskomai: PMI 6.47 (MODERATE) - asham→???: NO dedicated Greek equivalent (FAILURE) The kopher→lytron bridge succeeded; the asham bridge FAILED.

jesus-guilt-vs-sin-offering — Three Non-Collapsing Frameworks¶

Established: - logizomai (G3049) as "ledger language" consistent with asham's concrete-debt framework - Three frameworks converge on Christ's death without collapsing: chattat (Rom 8:3; 2 Cor 5:21), asham (Isa 53:10), Deuteronomic curse (Gal 3:13)