you learn something new every day

These cognate languages are going to be the end of me...
Akadian, Ugaritic, Aramaic -- they are so close to Hebrew, but far
away in other respects.
The grammatical structure and vocabulary are essentially the same.
However, they all have an alphabet to be learned that
is distinct from the Regal block script of modern Hebrew. Ugaritic
and Aramaic (i.e., the Assyrian style alphabet) are do-able.
The Akkadian alphabet is not realistic to learn (with some 850 characters in it),
so you have to learn the grammar, then keep a reference tool handy for the
alphabet.
Then, within the highly similar grammar, there are distinctions and differences
(an ending here, a prefix there), and this adds to the difficulty.
Finally, there is vocabulary that is distinct between them.
But it's a shame not to learn them, since all things considered they are
basically the same language.

I GOT THIS IN MY BIBLICAL GREEK INBOX, AND I THOUGHT IT SOUNDED LIKE SOMETHING I WOULD ASK.
I JUST SO HAPPENS THAT I GOT AN ANSWER BEFORE I FOUND THE QUESTION TO ASK.
THE SABBATH IS A CRUCIAL OT TOPIC, AND SEEING HOW THE LXX TRANSLATORS TREATED IT MIGHT
BE A REVEALING STUDY (RHETORICAL AND LEXICAL):

On Nov 25, 2005, at 6:58 AM, David Mooney wrote:

> I noticed Anapausis was used in Levitcus 23 three times for sabbath
> (KJV). I was curious as to whether Anapausis was used frequently in
> the LXX for sabbath day or is it just here in Lev. 23? If anapausis
> was not used for sabbath elsewhere then what was the usual word for
> sabbath in the LXX?

There are exceptions but ANAPAUSIS is typically a *translation* of
shabbaton where as SABBAT--- is a *transliteration* of shabbat. The
two words are used together:

EX. 16:23 EIPEN DE MWUSHS PROS AUTOUS TOUTO TO hRHMA ESTIN hO
ELALHSEN KURIOS SABBATA ANAPAUSIS hAGIA TWi KURIWi AURION hOSA EAN
PESSHTE PESSETE KAI hOSA EAN hEYHTE hEYETE KAI PAN TO PLEONAZON
KATALIPETE AUTO EIS APOQHKHN EIS TO PRWI
EX. 31:15 hEX hHMERAS POIHSEIS ERGA THi DE hHMERAi THi hEBDOMHi
SABBATA ANAPAUSIS hAGIA TWi KURIWi PAS hOS POIHSEI ERGON THi hHMERAi
THi hEBDOMHi QANATWi QANATWQHSETAI
EX. 35:2 hEX hHMERAS POIHSEIS ERGA THi DE hHMERAi THi hEBDOMHi
KATAPAUSIS hAGION SABBATA ANAPAUSIS KURIWi PAS hO POIWN ERGON EN
AUTHi TELEUTATW
LE. 16:31 SABBATA SABBATWN ANAPAUSIS hAUTH ESTAI hUMIN KAI
TAPEINWSETE TAS YUCAS hUMWN NOMIMON AIWNION
LE. 23:3 hEX hHMERAS POIHSEIS ERGA KAI THi hHMERAi THi hEBDOMHi
SABBATA ANAPAUSIS KLHTH hAGIA TWi KURIWi PAN ERGON OU POIHSEIS
SABBATA ESTIN TWi KURIWi EN PASHi KATOIKIAi hUMWN
LE. 25:4 TWi DE ETEI TWi hEBDOMWi SABBATA ANAPAUSIS ESTAI THi GHi
SABBATA TWi KURIWi TON AGRON SOU OU SPEREIS KAI THN AMPELON SOU OU
TEMEIS

Note the double translation in:

LE. 16:31 SABBATA SABBATWN ANAPAUSIS for shabbat shabbaton

In some texts the LXX appears to reverse the order:

EX. 16:23 ... SABBATA ANAPAUSIS ... for shabbaton shabbat

In other places shabbaton is used alone and is rendered by ANAPAUSIS

LE. 23:24 LALHSON TOIS hUIOIS ISRAHL LEGWN TOU MHNOS TOU hEBDOMOU
MIAi TOU MHNOS ESTAI hUMIN ANAPAUSIS MNHMOSUNON SALPIGGWN KLHTH hAGIA
ESTAI hUMIN
LE. 23:39 KAI EN THi PENTEKAIDEKATHi hHMERAi TOU MHNOS TOU hEBDOMOU
TOUTOU hOTAN SUNTELESHTE TA GENHMATA THS GHS hEORTASETE TWi KURIWi
hEPTA hHMERAS THi hHMERAi THi PRWTHi ANAPAUSIS KAI THi hHMERAi THi
OGDOHi ANAPAUSIS

Perhaps you have been caught off-guard here by using the KJV, note
how the RSV renders these:

Lev. 23:24 �Say to the people of Israel, In the seventh month, on
the first day of the month, you shall observe a day of solemn rest, a
memorial proclaimed with blast of trumpets, a holy convocation.
Lev. 23:39 � �On the fifteenth day of the seventh month, when you
have gathered in the produce of the land, you shall keep the feast of
the LORD seven days; on the first day shall be a solemn rest, and on
the eighth day shall be a solemn rest.




Elizabeth Kline

I learned this a year or two ago: Karl Barth was a brilliant exegete.
True, fundamentalists of the status quo stripe would paint him as one of their worst demons: "He doesn't believe the Bible is God's Word. He has heretical friends. He read Kierkegaard."
Despite the ability of men like Norman Geisler and many other to boil him down to short order heresy-soup, I find that Barth was much more than a theologian. He was a careful, respectful exegete of the same Word of God he is accused of minimizing. I found when reading his Church Dogmatics that I was breathing the same air as Calvin's "Institutes," only without all the baggage of Reformation politics. Indeed, the only politics that I can find in Barth is defiance against the false god of Nazi Germany, and his determination to serve God regardless.

Crack the "Dogmatics" open. You'll find a treasure trove of exegetical and philosophical insights. The footnotes alone are worth the reading. True, none of us will ever be able to endorse a "Barthian this" or a "Barthian that." That's beside the point. We aren't going to buy into anyone's system, not if we're careful; and we will work hard to prize the mysteries of God over the definitions of his work. I find that this is easy to do when reading Barth. His presuppositions are on his sleeve, easy to spot, which makes him the easy target that he is. "There is a notion that complete impartiality is the most fitting and indeed the normal disposition for true exegesis, because it guarantees complete absence of prejudice. For a short time, around 1910, this idea threatened to achieve almost a canonical status in Protestant theology. But now, we can quite calmly describe it as merely comical." Sure, Barth is there in his writing; but he is there educating and postulating and interpreting with the fear and awe of God before him.

I remember reading in his 2nd edition Romans commentary for a paper and finding this fetching line about the transitions that occur between Romans 7 & 8: "Thanks be to God, I am not the wretched man that I am." Somewhere else he said, "Jesus does not give recipes that show the way to God as other teachers of religion do. He is himself the way."Things like that. They sit right with me.