Questions about the Judgment at Babel

Yesterday we were asked what we thought about the origin or the source of the multiplicity of languages which somehow led to Genesis 11:9 but also to the existence of the 70 nations: Deut 32:8 "When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when He divided the sons of man, He set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.“The New American Standard Bible , "When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, When He separated the sons of man, He set the boundaries of the peoples According to the number of the sons of Israel.

There are multiple questions posed, and each can have a variety of responses.  The first item that comes up is the two citations of Deut 32:8.  This entire song has more than its share of textual variants.  Biblia Hebraica lists three variants on this verse alone, but only the last one is significant.  The MT and Vulgate have sons of Israel (בני ישראל), and the LXX and a Qumran text have αγγελων θεου, which the BH editor thinks was a corruption of some earlier text.  The LXX reading is undoubtedly not original, because there certainly more than 70 ministering spirits in God's host.   Given the context, the implied reference is likely Exodus 1:5, which indicates that 70 souls of Jacob's family went down to Egypt.  I do not know if anyone has attempted to work out a biblical chronology from the end of the flood to the events of Jacob's life, but I am sure that at least 1000 years separate the confusion of the languages and Jacob's arrival in Egypt. 

 We assume that the original eight on Noah’s arc had a common language that we may call proto-Hebrew (Genesis 8-10) until Genesis 11: „Now the whole earth used the same language and the same words.“ Genesis 11:6 says again: „Behold they are one people and they have all the same language. According to Gen 11:9 „there the Lord confused the language of the whole earth.“ That’s where it all begun.  The nations were first formed according to three different directions headed by the sons of Noah. These three developed into the 70 different languages from which all the others developed further.

It seems to me that this is a common but gratuitous assumption based on the fact that the text we have is mostly written in a version of Hebrew that is relatively uniform in expression from beginning to end.  The expanded version of this assumption is that Hebrew is the native language of Heaven.  At least one author has written a book claiming that all human languages were derived from Hebrew by means of linguistic modification.  Now, heaven as generally conceived is the abode of spirit beings (God, ministering spirits, and disembodied spirits of the redeemed humans) who have no material body.  Language as understood by the authors of scripture required a material environment to permit propagation of sound made by material beings.  (Of course, they had no idea about the actual physics of all that this entails.)  In short, language in whatever form was the gift of God that was produced to fit both the material human body and the environment in which his creatures lived.  Speculation about the immaterial spirit environment and how they communicate is unproductive.

 

Starting with the first human pair, there was obviously a single language, and the first culture was agrarian; other forms of culture developed among those who were banished from the agrarian form of life.  As you know from your linguistics background, languages are extremely fragile and tend to change due to the slightest influence.  Genesis 6 asserts that humans multiplied and spread across the face of the land.  This provides a mechanism for development of regional dialects, though there is no such indication in the preserved text.  Could Noah's sons and wives each have spoken a different regional dialect?  Yes, certainly, but that assumes that they did not all live together as a single extended family unit.  If, as commonly assumed, Noah's sons assisted him in building the arc, then the latter view is more likely.

The Question is whether the people who were scattered at Babel spoke a Hebrew Proto language or whether they had already learned several other languages. Were they multilingual already? This would call into question the assumption that the language tree spread from the original three into 70 different branches, assuming that every nation had one language of their own.  

Genesis 11:1-4 states that all the people lived together, spoke the same language, and used the same words.  Even if regional dialects had developed before the flood, this passage indicates that the same development had not happened as of the time of the construction of the Tower of Babel.  This implies that all the division of languages occurred initially at that time.  You seem to imply that the linguistic divisions were based on family linkages to Shem, Ham, and Japheth. There really is nothing in the text to support that idea.   The stated reason for confusing the languages was to disperse the people throughout the world.  The relative connection of language family groupings is not addressed, so any assertion concerning this is mere speculation.

I do not know how many base languages have been postulated by linguists, but the number of 70 nations is based on the list of family names listed for Noah's sons.  The text does not assert that each family group ended up with a different language, though this may commonly be assumed.  The text merely states that a man could not understand his neighbor with the result that the people were scattered over the surface of the whole land.  As a maximum, every family ended up with a different language, ending up with a lot more than 70 base languages.  A lot less than 70 original base languages could have produced the same result.  The details are not addressed in the biblical text, so speculation is not particularly productive. 

What made Hebrew to be the most suitable language to reveal God’s name and nature to mankind? Was there no other language that he could have been equally suitable for his purpose? It obviously was the language AND the culture that belonged to the people whom he chose out of all the nations. The question is whether the members at the top of the biblical genealogy (at the time of Jesus) would have understood the members of the bottom of the genealogical tree? Did all the patriarchs understand each other so that Moses could have spoken to Peter, James and John and they could have responded without any problem on the Mt of Transfiguration?

The base agrarian culture was generally common to the Fertile Crescent, so I do not think that was an issue.  Also, Semitic languages were spoken throughout the region, so I do not think this was an issue.  (Proto Hebrew was spoken by the Canaanites, who came from Ham.  The Gezer calendar was written in paleo Hebrew script with recognizable Hebrew words, but it was a Canaanite city at the time this text was written.)  I think that Abram was a man like any other of his day, but he retained some fragment of memory concerning YHWH from his forefather Noah.  That I think is just the point: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses were not special in human terms, but they had received promises from YHWH and trusted in those promises despite current circumstances.  The fact that they were not in themselves special means that we who are not inherently 'special' can trust in the promises of YHWH just as they did and so expect blessing from YHWH as they did.

I do not think that there was anything corresponding to the modern concept of linguistic development 2000 years ago or even 200 years ago.  The text of the gospels indicate that Moses and Elijah spoke with Yeshua at the time of the transfiguration.  If Peter, James, and John were close enough to hear, they clearly understood enough to know who was present.  From the standpoint of linguistic development, Peter, James, and John would have been native speakers of the Mishnaic Hebrew dialect common to Galilee, and other passages in the NT indicate that their dialect was different from that of Judea.  However, I do not think linguistic limitations would apply to Moses and Elijah any more than they do for the Holy Spirit and Yeshua.  As someone has said, Babel was the judgment of God whose purpose was to disburse rebellious humans over the surface of the earth; the manifestation of tongues in the first century was a sign to indicate that this disbursal was being brought to an end.  The outworking of this sign has just taken a long time.

                       

So then, what is good for a person to do

I wrote the following as an introduction for my reflections on the occasion of my 50^th year high school graduation reunion.

I no longer live in the United States, and I have not thought about high school or those I knew there for a long time.  In point of fact, I had not consciously realized that my high school experience ended 45 years ago (now more than that).  The last time I had heard from anybody in the class of 1965 was 30 years ago prior to the 20th year reunion.  I had returned from Viet Nam in 1973, and in 1975 I was two years into my second graduate program.  Though somewhat damaged as the result of my military experience, most of my life still remained in the future, and I was still trying to figure out what I was  going to do with it.  Now, in 2015, most of my life is in the past, and none of the dreams I had as a youth have been realized in anything like the way they played out in the fantasies of my mind.  Fantasies always seem to leave out the life-changing effects – good and bad – of chance occurrences and incidental choices made along the way.

This leaves the open question asked by Solomon some 3000 years ago: What really is beneficial for a person to pursue in the few years available during his life on earth under the sun?  This question remains a problem for every human alive today, and it will remain so for as far as any of us can see into the future.  Every person regularly makes choices that have long-term affects on his or her life.  At the time the choice is made, it seems to be the best alternative, or perhaps the only viable alternative.  But what insight is available from arguably the wisest person (in the Semitic sense of the term) who ever lived under the sun?

.vm,V;h' tj'T' lmo[}Y'v, /lm;[}Alk;B] μd;a;l; ˆ/rt]YIAhm' 1:3

        What benefit is there for a man in all of his toil that he does under the sun?

This rhetorical question introduces the subject that will be the primary focus of the entire book.  What is the ultimate benefit that a man derives from all his toil during this life on earth under the sun, and how can he keep his life from becoming completely meaningless while he yet lives?  The next seven verses present the problem that concerns Koheleth by means of an overview of natural occurrences, and then he begins to examine his own life experiences.  At the end of his first introspection he forms the conclusion stated at the end of chapter 2.

.vm,V;h' tj'T' lme[; aWhv, /Bli ˆ/[r"b]W /lm;[}Alk;B] μd:a;l; hw<hoAhm, yKi 2:22

        For what kind of being is there for the man in all of his toil and in the striving of his heart              that he does under the sun?

μd:a;l; hw<hoAhm, yKi     Verses 22 and 23 both begin with the conjunction yKi, indicating that these verses provide the reason for Solomon’s assessment of this man’s condition as stated in the previous verses.  The verb form hw<ho is a ms participle of the root hwh, which is either a rare synonym of hyh or else an Aramaism.  In either case, the participle form is not equivalent to the present tense of the verb, though it is frequently translated in that way.  Syntactically, it is the subject of a verbless clause.  Semantically, the participle in classical Hebrew is a verbal adjective and can have the same syntactic relationships as any other adjective.  In this case, it represents a condition or state of being.  This semantic content has been represented by the phrase ‘kind of being’ in the translation above.  The term μd:a;l; is definite, indicated that the man in the first clause of verse 21 is the specific man in question, not generic mankind.

/Bli ˆ/[r"b]W /lm;[}Alk;B]     This string clearly consists of two adjectival prepositional phrases.  The force of the preposition B is to describe the state or condition that habitually characterizes the man’s life. 
 

.aWh lb,h, hz<AμG" /Bli bk'v;Aalo hl;y“L'B'AμG" /ny:n“[i s['k'w: μybiaok]m' wym;y:Alk; yKi 2:23

         For all of his days bring pains, and his task is a vexation.  Even by night his heart has             no rest.  This too is an illusion.

/ny:n“[i s['k'w: μybiaok]m' wym;y:Alk;     This string is composed either of one verbless clause with a compound predicate or of two verbless clauses.  If this is taken as a single verbless clause, then wym;y:Alk serves as subject, and /ny:n“[i s['k'w: μybiaok]m' forms a compound predicate.  μybiaok]m' refers to either physical or mental pain; the fact that this form is plural indicates that each day is filled with pain of its own.  s['k' refers to an irritant that provokes one to anger.  In this case, his task or occupation is itself the irritant.  However, should /ny:n“[i s['k'w: be interpreted as a construct chain (and the vexation of his toil) or as a second verbless clause?  The Masoretic tradition presents s['k'w: with the vowel for a definite article, indicating that it cannot be the governing word in a construct chain.  If one accepts the Masoretic vowels, then wym;y:Alk is the subject of one verbless clause, and /ny:n“[i must be taken as the subject as the subject of a second: ‘All of his days bring pains, and his occupation is the vexation.’  (However, neither of these alternatives can be definitely established.  The vowel pointing for a compound predicate should be /ny:n“[i s['k'w“; the vowel pointing for a separate verbless clause should be /ny:n“[i s['K'h'w“.)

  hzoAμG" /lm;[}B' b/f /vp]n"Ata, ha;r“h,w“ ht;v;w“ lk'aYov, μd:a;B; b/fAˆyae 2:24

.ayhi μyhiloa‘h; dY"mi yK  ynIa; ytiyair: i 

There is no good in the man that he should eat and drink and cause his soul to see the good in his
toil.  Also, this I have seen is from the hand of God.

μd:a;B; b/fAˆyae     The ordinary English translation of this clause runs ‘There is nothing better among men…’  There are two problems with this rendering.  First, μd:a;B; is singular and definite, not generic.  The definite string μd:a;l; was used in verse 22 to refer to a specific human taken by me to be a reference to Solomon himself.  If the vowel pointing is correct, it would seem most natural to continue that force here.  Second, although the preposition B] can express the sense ‘among’ a group, there is no parallel to this specific context.  Taken as rendered above, the clause asserts that there is no legitimate basis or good resident within the man (possibly Solomon himself) that provides the basis for his enjoyment of the activities that make up his life.  (Note:  The LXX rendering agrees with the translation I have given above.)

/lm;[}B' b/f     The use of the preposition B in this phrase does not clearly fit any of the standard categories (position, proximity, accompaniment).  The following list indicates a range of senses that might be possible: 

·      Position:             Cause his soul to see the good aspect of his toil (the good in his toil).

·      Instrumental:      Cause his soul to see the good by means of his toil.

·      Causal:               Cause his soul to see the good because of his toil.

Of these possibilities, I think that the first fits the present context best.

ayhi μyhiloa‘h; dY"mi yKi ynIa; ytiyair: hzoAμG"     This is the first completely positive statement in the book.  Taking himself as the prime example, no man has the resident goodness that makes enjoyment of life due to him by right.  All mankind along with the entire creation exist under the consequences of God’s curse, and the fruits of one’s efforts under the sun have no capacity to reduce the impact of that curse for any human being.  However, the capacity to enjoy life and to see good in one’s occupation is a gift God has granted on an individual-by-individual basis.

.yNIM,mi 6Wj vWjy: ymiW lk'ayo ymi yKi 2:25

   For who can eat and who can perceive joy apart from him (lit., me)?

This verse provides the basis for the previous assertion.   The text as it stands states ‘For who should eat and who should enjoy other than me?’  This reading asserts that no human more deserves to enjoy his life than Solomon himself; however, this translation does not fit the context.  If one assumes that yNIIM,mi is a scribal error for /NM,mi, the disruption to the contextual flow is immediately resolved: The capability of enjoying life despite the consequences of the global curse comes from the hand of God as a gift to those who serve and worship him.  (Note: The confusion of the vav for the yod is a relatively common scribal error for the Hebrew square script but not any form of the paleo-Hebrew script.)  This understanding of the text is supported by the LXX, targums, the Peshita, and the Vulgate texts, and it is validated by the following verse. 

ˆt'n: af,/jl'w“ hj;m]ciw“ t['d"w“ hm;k]j; ˆt'n: wyn:p;l] b/Fv, μd:a;l] yKi 2:26

.j'Wr tW[r“W lb,h, hz<AμG" μyhiloaÖh; yn´p]li b/fl] ttel; s/nk]liw“ 5/saÖl, ˆy:n“[i

  For to a man who is good before him he gives wisdom and knowledge and joy, but to the sinner  
  he has given the task of gathering and collecting in order to give to the one who is good before     God.  This too is an illusion and a striving after wind.

hj;m]ciw“ t['d"w“ hm;k]j; ˆt'n: wyn:p;l] b/Fv, μd:a;l] yKi   This verse begins with yK indicating that it provides the explanation for the previous statement in verse 25.  The clause itself is a simple declarative sentence: God is the subject (he), ‘wisdom, knowledge, and enjoyment’ is the compound direct object, and ‘a man who is good before him’ is the indirect object (recipient, beneficiary).  Note that the indirect object is indefinite, indicating that Solomon did not have himself specifically or uniquely in mind in this instance.

af,/jl'w … wyn:p;l] b/Fv, μd:a;l] yKi    The verse establishes a strong contrast between two different kinds of people under the sun: those who are pleasing to God and those who are not.  Solomon clearly does not intend to suggest that some people are without fault or sin in all their ways (c.f., Ecc 7:20); neither does the term af,/jl'w  identify a person who is always evil in every aspect of his life.  Both the ‘one who is good in God’s sight’ and the ‘sinner’ live in the same world and both have been affected by the common curse (Ecc 1:13, 15).  Both have sin in their lives, but both retain the image of God in their being which they had from their original creation, though this image has been marred by sin.  The difference is that one retains an essential reverence for God, and the other does not.  This difference establishes a corresponding difference both in their lives under the sun and in their ultimate destinies (cf. Ecc 8:12, 13).  One will receive the capacity to enjoy this present life despite the curse and his particular circumstances; the other will bear the futility of becoming the channel for blessing to the former without being able to truly enjoy the fruit of his own toil.

.wyY:j'B] b/f t/c[}l'w“ j'/mc]liAμai yKi μB; b/f ˆyae yKi yTi[]d"y: 3:12

I know that there is nothing good in them except to enjoy and to practice goodness in his life.

μB; b/f ˆyae yKi yTi[]d"y:     This verse almost repeats the content of verse 2:24a, but there are several significant differences.  My translation of the former passage is: ‘There is no good in the man that he should eat and drink and cause his soul to see the good in his toil.’  This passage reads, ‘There is nothing good in them (μB;) except (Aμai yKi) to rejoice and to do good in his life.’  The major interpretive problem is that μB; has no plural antecedent in the previous context.  Three possibilities exist:

1)   The existing text is a scribal error that should really read μd:a;B] -- ‘I know that there is nothing good among men (or in man) except to …’ 

2)    μB; is referring to the list of life experiences listed in verses 3:2 through 3:8 – ‘I know that there is nothing good in the vagaries of life except to…’

3)    μB; could be understood as a forward reference to wyY:j'B].  The noun has a plural form though a singular meaning, but the suffix is ms not mp in form – ‘I know that there is nothing good in one’s (his) life except to…’

The first possibility fits the context very well, and it certainly is within the range of potential scribal errors, but there is no textual evidence for it either in the Hebrew manuscripts or in the early translations.  The second two possibilities end up expressing a similar meaning.  Statements like this occur in 2:24, 3:12, 3:22, 5:18, 8:15, and 9:7-9.  Each one expresses a slightly different meaning, thereby forming one of the major developing themes through the course of the book.

.ayhi μyhiloa‘ tT'm' /lm;[}Alk;B] b/f ha;r:w“ ht;v;w“ lk'aYOv, μd:a;h;AlK; μg"w“ 3:13

And moreover, any human who eats and drinks and sees good in all of his labor – it is a gift of 
God.

μd:a;h;AlK;     This passage repeats 2:24b with development.  The previous verse asserts that there is nothing good in the man (probably, Solomon himself) that produces the capacity to enjoy life in general and the fruits of his own labor in specific.  This verse is inclusive. μd:a;h;AlK; refers to all of mankind.  Each and every human who has this life experience has received it as a gift from God.  This is a development from a specific example (stated negatively) to a general principle stated positively.

WNM,miW 5ysi/hl] ˆyae wyl;[; μl;/[l] hy<h]yI aWh μyhilaoh; hc,[}y" rv,a}AlK; yKi yTi[]d"y: 3:14

;

.wyn:p;WNM,miW 5ysi/hl] ˆyae wyl;[ L]mi WarYIv, hc;[; μyhiloa‘h;w“ ['rog“li ˆyae

    I know that everything that God does will be for eternity.  Nothing is to be added to it, and            nothing will be taken from it; and God has done (this) so that they (men) might fear (before)          him.

μyhilaoh; hc,[}y" rv,a}AlK;     The fundamental interpretive problem is whether the expression hc,[}y" rv,a}AlK; should be understood in its collective (everything God does) or its distributive (all things of a particular sort or type) sense.  The earth and the entire physical universe are works of God, yet we know that they had a beginning, and God himself stated that this present creation will end.  Clearly, not everything God has done or made will last eternally.  So, what is the point?  Verse 3:11 introduces the idea that God’s purpose encompasses eternity, but that purpose cannot be discovered by man.  This present creation has been bent by a curse because of rebellion by God’s own human creatures, yet both the human and the spirit beings (now called angels by us) will prove to be eternal whether they like it or not, but the material heaven and earth will have an end so that it can be made new.  Rather, the wording ['rog“li ˆyae WNM,miW 5ysi/hl] ˆyae wyl;[; reflects the commands in Deut 4:2 and 12:32 – neither add to or take from what God has specifically commanded.  (This is echoed by Yeshua – heaven and earth will pass away but my words will remain forever – see Mat 24:35 and 5:19 -- as well as in Revelation 21:19.)  Since God’s character is immutable, his judgments, his purposes, and his standards remain unchanged from eternity past to eternity future.

So, then, what is good for a man to do?  The book of Ecclesiastes offers one primary answer as well as a secondary answer.  The primary answer is addressed above: A person should strive to find enjoyment with contentment in his present circumstances.  Everyone who can do so receives this capacity as a gift from God.  Anyone who cannot do so has a fundamental problem:  If present contentment demands obtaining more, then obtaining more will not bring contentment either.  People with this attitude always want a little more than they presently have, whatever it may be.  Some of the most miserable people on earth today are those with massive wealth and posessions.

The second half of the book (ch 6-11) focuses on a secondary answer without losing sight of the primary answer.  Life under the sun is filled with chance circumstances, good and bad, and nobody is exempt.  However, if a person conducts himself with wisdom (Hebrew חכמה), he can avoid becoming the cause of the calamities that enter his life.  The Hebrew concept of wisdom is different from that of Greek, Latin, or modern western thought.  It is fundamentally a practical skill in conducting oneself in life, and it encompasses skill in performing life tasks like work.  A skilled workman may be said to possess חכמה in his task; a person who possesses knowledge of much information may be a total klutz in doing anything practical.  From the Semitic perspective as preserved in the Hebrew bible, that is the difference between one with wisdom and one designated as a fool.

כפר – Atone, Make Atonement

The concept of atone, atonement is central to the message of the Hebrew scriptures as well as to the New Covenant scriptures.  People in both the synagogue and church behave as if they know what it means, but the original meaning is somewhat hard to grab hold of.  The meaning of atonement has sometimes been described as an Old or Middle English derivative from at-one-ment.   In fact the first known use of atone is in 1574, and its various forms were consistently used in the 1611 KJB for the כפר word group.  The base meaning for the Middle English term is be reconciled, be in harmony with.  The fundamental question is this: How well does the Middle English term represent the meanings of the Hebrew word group or the current usage in English?

Word Group

BDB lists four different homonyms for the for the root כפר.  The first of these is the root of interest, and the latter three are semantically unrelated.  This root constitutes the semantic base for four different words found in the Hebrew text.

כפר         This root occurs occurs 142 times and is attested in Aramaic, Syriac, Arabic, and later Hebrew.  The suggested original root meaning is cover; subsequent meaning in the cognate languages are  hide, wash away, obliterate.

rp,Ko          This is a masculine noun meaning ransome price for a life.  The term occurs 13 times.  The Greek term used in the LXX for this noun as well as several others is λυτρον, which was the common term for the purchase price needed to free a slave.

כפר          The root forms a denominative verb that occurs 102 times in the bible.  The root is attested four different stems:

·       Piel stem – cover over, pacify, make propitiation (92 times)

·       Pual stem – passive of piel (8 times)

·       Hitpael stem – similar to pual (1 time)

·       Nitpael stem – similar to pual (1 time)

µyrIPuKi     Abstract plural noun for that which covers or makes propitiation.  The term is usually translated as sin offering of the atonement, Day of Atonement. (8 times)

tr<PoK'        This is the name for the lid for the ark of the covenant.  The term occurs 27 times, and its meaning is explained as being derived from cover, place of propitiation.  The term is often translated into English by mercy seat, but this has no semantic connection with the Hebrew term.

The following terms are most commonly used in the LXX and Vulgate to translate this word group:

ιλασκομαι  This verb has both transitive and intransitive senses.  The transitive sense expresses conciliate, appease, propitiate.  The intransitive sense expresses be propitious, merciful, expiate for, make propitiation for.

ιλασμος      This masculine noun form is derived from the above verb and means means of appeasing, means of propitiation.

ιλαστηριον This neuter noun is used as the translation for tr<PoK', and it is also used adjectivally to mean propitiatory.  The nominal meaning evidently is place of propitiation or place of expiation.

The terms expiate and propitiate are both derived directly from Latin, but many English speakers have no clear understanding of what either term means.  The Latin expio (verb) and expiation (noun) both relate to actions done by a guilty party to make satisfaction or amends for some fault or transgression.  The Latin propitio (verb) and propitius (adjective) relate to the one wronged and expresses the meaning render favorable, appease.  Thus, the transgressor takes some action to expiate the one wronged that renders the one wronged well-disposed to the transgressor.

Significance

The root significance of the Hebrew word group appears most closely related to cover with the exception of rp,Ko, which is used as the term for a ransom price.  Thus the general ritual as described in the Hebrew bible presents a guilty person bringing an animal as substitute for himself, and other forms of restitution may also be required, depending on the type of transgression.  The animal is killed, blood collected, and applied to the horns of the altar.  (Additional details vary depending on the type of transgression and the position of the guilty party.)  Symbolically, the guilty person is killed and placed on the altar, and the resulting smoke goes up before YHWH for assessment.  The result of the ritual activity is that YHWH forgave (סלח) the person guilty of an inadvertent transgression – that is, the transgression was covered, and YHWH would see it no more.  The details for Yom Kippur are much more elaborate, and the blood is poured on the tr<PoK', but the symbolism is similar.

The Greek and Latin terms used to translate the Hebrew words were taken from the cultic experiences used by their cultures.  At that time essentially all cultures of the region used animal sacrifice for worship and for expiation of personal sin.  Within the scope of their formal religious activity, a guilty party performed expiation based on the nature of the fault, and when the ritual was done that rendered the god propitious toward the person.  The external physical actions were not much different from those of the Jews, but the cultural attitude was very different.  From the standpoint of the English term atone, the culture of the time (1574 CE) was separated from any use of animal sacrifice by at least 1000 years.  The basic meaning of the Middle English term misses most of the significance behind the כפר word group as used in the Hebrew bible, but atone has become the standard English term for the concept.