2

Varieties of Greek in the Septuagint and

the New Testament
jan joosten

During the Hellenistic period, when Greek had become a world language,
the Jews produced a version in it of their sacred scriptures. The writings of
the New Testament, addressing a diverse readership that included many non-
Jews, were from the start composed in Greek. So far, so natural. Nevertheless,
the language of the Greek Bible has puzzled curious readers from Antiquity.
To many scholars, even today, it appears as a unique language. The extent
to which it is so, as well as the measure of continuity among the different
corpora, has occupied many generations of linguists and philologists.1

Biblical Greek?
Ever since the Renaissance, when western scholars regained access to the
Greek Bible – the first printed edition of the Septuagint, in the Complutensian
polyglot, was approved by Pope Leo X on 22 March 1520, but distributed
only from 1521 or 1522 onwards, while Erasmus’s edition of the Greek New
Testament dates from 1516 – the language of scripture has been observed to
differ on many points from that of the classical texts. Indeed, many words and
expressions attested in the Greek Bible are simply absent from the classical
corpus, while other words are used with a new meaning. Because some of the
most striking features are common to the Septuagint and the New Testament,
the idea that ‘biblical Greek’ was a language standing apart naturally suggested
itself. Until the end of the nineteenth century, this language was at times
conceived of as a kind of Jewish dialect. ‘The difficulty of Biblical Greek
really begins when we remember that it was Greek as spoken not merely in
a foreign country and under new circumstances, but also by an alien race’,

Thanks are due to my dear friend and colleague, Dr Philippe Le Moigne of Montpellier, for
helpful comments and reflections.
1 On the Greek language in the Old and New Testament, see Vergote, ‘Grec biblique’, cols. 1353–
60; Mussies, ‘Greek’, 195–203; Horrocks, Greek, pp. 56–9 (Septuagint), pp. 92–5 (New Testament).
For a recent survey of the history of research, see Léonas, Recherches, pp. 2–25.

22
 Varieties of Greek in the Septuagint and the New Testament

wrote Edwin Hatch.2 Biblical Greek, in this understanding, reflects a mixed

language where many words and expressions, although Greek in form, in
reality express ‘Hebrew’ meanings.
The researches of Adolf Deissmann on the vernacular background of the
Greek Bible essentially discredited this type of approach.3 Deissmann was
able to show that the linguistic basis – the morphology, basic vocabulary and
syntax – of Septuagint and New Testament Greek is the common, non-literary
language of the Hellenistic period as it was practised throughout the Greek-
speaking world at the time the writings were created. A few distinctive traits
can indeed be found in the biblical corpus, but they are of a cultural, rather
than linguistic, nature. The special vocabulary of the Greek Bible consists
almost exclusively of religious or theological terms. This does not attest the
existence of a ‘Jewish dialect’ any more than the specialised vocabulary of the
Stoics justifies speaking of ‘Stoic Greek’. Otherwise, what unites the language
of the Septuagint and that of the New Testament is not distinctively Jewish
or biblical; it is the fact that they happen to be written in an idiom usually
reserved for non-literary documents.
After Deissmann, his main views have rightly been made the starting
point of most linguistic research on the Greek Bible. If they are contested or
disregarded, as they are from time to time, this is at least partly due to a feeling
of reverence for the biblical literature.

Philologia sacra?
The religious and cultural eminence of the Greek Bible has, time and again,
led to the expectation that its linguistic quality should be highly prestigious –
and to different shades of disappointment when this turned out not to be the
case. Indeed, when measured by literary standards, even literary standards of
its own time, biblical Greek appears to fall short.
In Antiquity, most apologists simply admitted the ‘vileness and simplicity’
of the biblical texts and tried to justify it in different ways.4 From the onset
of modernity, however, the discrepancy between expectations and reality has

2 Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek, p. 10.

3 See, e.g., the following by Deissmann: Bibelstudien; Neue Bibelstudien; Licht vom Osten; The
Philology of the Greek Bible. The Bibelstudien and Neue Bibelstudien will be quoted here according
to the English translation: Deissmann, Bible Studies.
4 See the testimonies collected by Léonas, Recherches, pp. 112–20. It is interesting to note that,
while Christians tend to stress that an unadorned style has the advantage of being accessible to
all (see, e.g., Origen, Contra Celsum 7.59), Jews tend to blame the process of translation (see, e.g.,
Wisdom of Sirach, Prologue 21–2).

23
 jan joosten

been a complicating factor in the history of investigation into the language

of the Greek Bible. Scholars felt that the language of inspired writers could
not possibly be bad. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, a school of
‘purists’ tried to show that every one of the peculiarities of biblical, and in
particular New Testament, Greek could be paralleled from the best classical
writers.5 The notion of ‘Jewish Greek’, too, has often served as an excuse for
the unusual features of biblical language.6
In the present chapter, the non-literary quality of biblical Greek is viewed
as a phenomenon that does not need an excuse. The biblical writers used the
Greek language they knew. For many of them this means they tapped into
a rather colloquial register of the language. Additional features, such as the
adoption of Semitic modes of expression, do not alter the basic cast of the
language, however conspicuous they may be.

Linguistic diversity in the Greek Bible

The insistence on the vernacular component, in the line of Deissmann, is not
meant to suggest that the language of the Greek Bible is homogeneous. Along-
side the writings reflecting a relatively low stylistic register of the language
one finds a few books with a rather nice literary style, such as the Wisdom of
Solomon or the second part of the Acts of the Apostles.
In fact, due to various factors, the collection of writings making up the
Greek Bible exhibits an extraordinary amount of linguistic diversity. Some of
the texts were translated from a Semitic language while others were composed
in Greek. Some books were written in Egypt, others in Palestine or elsewhere.
The time span of the literature extends over close to four centuries. The
socio-cultural background of the writers, too, is varied. This diversity in itself
provides a strong argument against seeing the Greek of the Bible as a unity.
Nevertheless, one can make out some common traits and general tendencies
among the different books.

The Septuagint
The name Septuagint (o¬ —bdomžkonta, literally, ‘the Seventy [translators]’)
originally designated the translation of the Pentateuch only, but later came to
be used for the entire collection of Greek books making up the Christian Old

5 For a bibliographical review and examples, see Léonas, Recherches, pp. 6–10.
6 See, e.g., Vergote, ‘Grec biblique’, cols. 1359–60.

24
 Varieties of Greek in the Septuagint and the New Testament

Testament.7 In this extended sense, the Septuagint contains writings created

over a period of almost four centuries, both translations from Hebrew and
Aramaic and original Greek texts.8 The most important part of this corpus
is without contest the Pentateuch, which was translated first and decisively
influenced the later books.9

The Pentateuch
Since the earliest manuscripts of the Greek Torah date to the beginning of the
second century bc, and the earliest quotations from it are slightly older still,
there is a widespread consensus dating its creation to the first half of the third
century bc.10 This date agrees with the tradition, surfacing in the Letter of
Aristeas and other writings, which attributes the translation of the Jewish law
to the reign of King Ptolemy, probably Ptolemy II (285–247 bc). Although next
to nothing is known about the origins of the Greek Pentateuch, the available
evidence favours the view that it was produced by Alexandrian Jews for use
in their teaching and liturgy.11 The language of the Pentateuch is basically the
kind of Greek used among Hellenised Jews in Alexandria at the beginning of
the Hellenistic age. Unusual phraseology and syntax are mostly due to literal
translation from the Hebrew.

Hellenistic Greek
The language of the Pentateuch is the Greek language as spoken and written
throughout the Mediterranean world in the early Hellenistic period. Rather
strikingly, the stylistic register of the version does not correspond to what one
expects from a literary writing. The Greek used in the Septuagint Pentateuch
has little in common with the literary language of the great classical authors
such as Plato or Thucydides, and is only slightly closer to the language of

7 The name derives from the tradition according to which seventy or seventy-two translators
produced the Greek version of the Pentateuch. The tradition underlies the Letter of Aristeas
and surfaces also in many other sources; see Wasserstein and Wasserstein, The Legend of the
Septuagint.
8 For the extent of the Septuagint canon, see Swete, Introduction, pp. 197–288; Karrer and Kraus,
‘Umfang und Aufbau der Septuaginta’, pp. 8–63.
9 For the language of the Septuagint in general, see Swete, Introduction, pp. 289–314; Thackeray,
Grammar, pp. 1–55; Harl, ‘La langue de la Septante’, pp. 223–66.
10 See Harl, Dorival and Munnich, Bible grecque, pp. 39–110.
11 For other theories on the original setting of the Septuagint Pentateuch, see Dorival, ‘La
traduction de la Torah’, pp. 31–41. In recent years, van der Kooij and Pietersma have argued that
the Septuagint was originally meant to function as an aid in the study of the Hebrew Bible, as a
kind of interlinear ‘crib’; see van der Kooij, ‘Origin and Purpose of Bible Translations’, 204–14,
at p. 214; Pietersma, ‘A New Paradigm’, pp. 337–64. See the criticisms of this hypothesis in Dines,
The Septuagint, pp. 52–4.

25
 jan joosten

Hellenistic writers like Polybius.12 The greatest similarity is to the vernacular

koine found in non-literary documents, inscriptions, ostraca and papyri.

Use of the vernacular

Although the vernacular, non-literary character of Septuagint Greek had
been recognised by earlier scholars, definite proof was first provided by
Deissmann.13 With a wealth of evidence he demonstrated the particular illu-
mination biblical Greek receives from close study of the papyri.14 Among his
examples, many came from the Pentateuch. Words and usages that had been
thought to be exclusively biblical turned up in documentary texts roughly
contemporaneous with the translation. Since Deissmann, this line of investi-
gation has been followed up particularly by Thackeray for the grammar and
by Lee for the vocabulary.15 The accidence, word formation, basic vocabulary
and syntax of the Greek Pentateuch find their closest parallels in the language
of Egyptian documentary papyri of the Ptolemaic age. Examples:

r The defective verb ¤kw ‘to have arrived’ is formally a present but expresses
the meaning of a perfect. In the Pentateuch it is conjugated as follows: ¤kw
¤keiv ¤kei ¤kamen ¤kate (once ¤kete) ¤kasin. This suppletive paradigm is
alien to literary texts (where ¤komen ¤kete ¤kousin are used), but attested
in exactly the same form in the papyri.16
r Verbs in -mi assimilated to verbs in -w during the history of the Greek
language. The process is well under way in the early Hellenistic period, as
shown in the Ptolemaic papyri: while middle forms still follow the old -mi
paradigm, active forms tend to conform to the -w paradigm. In the Greek
Pentateuch, the same evolution is attested by such forms as active ˆnistän
(present participle of ˆnist†w; in classical Greek: ˆnist†v) versus middle
dianist†menov (as in classical Greek).17
r For ‘ass, donkey’ the translators most often use the classical Greek word
Ànov. Alongside this term, however, they also use ËpozÅgion. The latter
word is well known in the meaning ‘beast of burden’, but unattested in the
meaning ‘ass’ in literary texts, from whatever period. In documentary papyri
from the Ptolemaic period, the word ËpozÅgion ‘ass’ occurs frequently.18

12 For a comparison of the Septuagint and Polybius on one point of syntax, see Allen, Use of the
Infinitive.
13 For precursors of Deissmann, see Vergote, ‘Grec biblique’, col. 1325.
14 See the studies of Deissmann quoted above in n. 3.
15 See Thackeray, Grammar; Lee, Lexical Study. 16 See Thackeray, Grammar, p. 269.
17 See Thackeray, Grammar, pp. 247–8. 18 See Lee, Lexical Study, pp. 140–4.

26
 Varieties of Greek in the Septuagint and the New Testament

r The genitive absolute is properly restricted to expressions whose subject has

no role in the main sentence. Even in classical Greek, some exceptions to this
rule are tolerated.19 In Hellenistic Greek, the construction is used relatively
often where its subject plays a grammatical role in the main sentence. In the
Greek Pentateuch, this wider usage of the genitive absolute is surprisingly
frequent, as it is in the Ptolemaic documentary papyri. Especially revealing
are the examples where the subject of the genitive absolute is also the
subject of the main clause: Num. 4:19 kaª –teleÅthsen Nadab kaª Abioud
›nanti kur©ou prosjer»ntwn aÉtän pÓr ˆll»trion ›nanti kur©ou, ‘And
Nadab and Abiud died before the Lord when they were bringing strange
fire before the Lord’; see also Gen. 44:4; Exod. 2:10, 4:21, 16:1, 34:29; Num.
3:4.20

Features of this kind, instances of which could easily be multiplied, are highly
remarkable in a literary text.21 Some of them must have been almost intol-
erably colloquial for cultivated readers.22 They owe nothing to the Hebrew
source text, however. Indeed, they are not due to the translational process at
all. Rather, they appear to reflect the social background of the translators.23
The ‘Seventy’, it seems, had not studied Greek letters, but wrote the language
more or less the way they spoke it. They are never at a loss for a word and are
able to vary their language depending on the context. The idiomatic quality
of their Greek – although masked to a certain extent by the tendency towards
literal translation – suggests native proficiency.24 But the kind of Greek they
know so well is not that of the school, of philosophers and historians, or of
the royal court. It is the Greek of the barracks and the marketplace.

19 See the examples quoted in Conybeare and Stock, Grammar, §58, p. 58.
20 Note also the following examples where the subject of the genitive absolute occurs in other
grammatical functions in the main sentence: Gen. 18:1, 24:30, 30:38, 44:14; Exod. 5:20, 14:18, 16:13;
Num. 6:7; Deut. 4:45.
21 The examples could easily be multiplied, particularly in the areas of morphology and vocab-
ulary. Of course, stylistic register is a matter of degree; the distinction between spoken and
written language is a gradual one.
22 Pagan critics of the Greek Bible must have been rather strident in their remarks on its stylistic
quality, but their writings generally have not survived. Only the defence of Jewish and Christian
apologists has been preserved, see above, n. 4. Note that Jewish Hellenistic writers themselves
tend to correct the phrasing of the Septuagint when they quote it, see examples in Swete,
Introduction, p. 370.
23 It was unusual in Antiquity to employ colloquial language in literary works except in comedy,
where the characters’ discourse imitated real speech. The closeness of the vocabulary of the
Septuagint to that of Aristophanes and other comics was noted by Kennedy, Sources, p. 42 and
passim.
24 See Lee, Lexical Study, pp. 24–9, 34–40.

27
 jan joosten

Where the translators of the Pentateuch use an idiomatic expression known

also from classical authors, or where they employ a word otherwise attested
mainly or exclusively in poetic writings, the prudent approach will be to sup-
pose that these features were known to them from the spoken language.25
With regard to grammatical constructions, too, one should consider the pos-
sibility that they reflect normal koine Greek of the period before explaining
them as archaisms or ‘Homerisms’.26

Egyptian elements
As a world language, Hellenistic Greek did not have clearly differentiated
local varieties, let alone dialects. Much of the koine basis of the Septuagint
will have been representative of the kind of Greek that was spoken throughout
the eastern Mediterranean, even if the specific documentation comes from
Egypt. One should keep in mind that almost all documentary papyri happen
to have been preserved in Egypt. Nevertheless, a number of Greek words used
in the Septuagint do appear to be specifically Egyptian. Deissmann already
signalled many possible examples, some of which remain convincing, notably
–ntajiastžv ‘embalmer’ and –rgodiÛkthv ‘taskmaster’.27 More recently, Lee
has added other instances, as has Passoni dell’Acqua.28
Particularly interesting in this regard are Greek words borrowed from the
Egyptian language: q±biv ‘basket’, Šcei, ‘reeds’, o«j© ‘ephah’ (a dry measure).29
The Egyptian element in the Greek of the Pentateuch is hardly compatible
with the notion expressed in the Letter of Aristeas according to which the

25 See Lee, Lexical Study, p. 35, on Lev. 13:23 kat‡ cÛran m”nw ‘remain in place’, an expression
attested in Herodotus and other classical writers: ‘The translators can have used such an
expression only because it was familiar to them in the language that they were accustomed
to speak.’ Similarly, Kennedy, Sources, p. 34, writes on words like qÅella (Deut. 4:11) that are,
outside the Septuagint, attested only in poetry: ‘It seems by no means unlikely that many of the
words, though confined to a particular type of literature within the compass of our knowledge,
really formed part of the regular vocabulary in particular regions.’
26 Evans has argued that the use of the optative in similes, attested about ten times in the
Pentateuch, is due to imitation of Homer, see Evans, ‘The Comparative Optative’, 487–504.
The hypothesis is unlikely, however; see Joosten, ‘Elaborate Similes’, 227–36, at pp. 232–3. Other
putative Homerisms in the grammar of the Septuagint have been identified by Usener, ‘Die
Septuaginta im Horizont des Hellenismus’, pp. 78–118, at p. 92. All his examples can be paralleled
from Hellenistic Greek, as one can easily find out from Thackeray’s Grammar.
27 See Deissmann, Bible Studies, pp. 120 and 122.
28 See, e.g., Lee, Lexical Study, p. 116; Passoni dell’Acqua, ‘Ricerche’, 173–94; Passoni dell’Acqua
‘Terminologia’, pp. 335–50; Passoni dell’Acqua, ‘Von der Kanzlei der Lagiden zur Synagoge’,
pp. 216–27; see also Dorival, ‘La traduction de la Torah’, p. 34.
29 All three of them are attested in Greek documentary papyri from Egypt; see Fournet, ‘Les
emprunts du grec à l’égyptien’, 55–80, at pp. 73, 68 and 71. For q±biv, see also Lee, Lexical Study,
p. 115. The Greek words were not borrowed from Hebrew, as is shown by their form.

28
 Varieties of Greek in the Septuagint and the New Testament

translators were Palestinian Jews. It indicates rather that the translators were
of Egyptian origin.

The Jewish sociolect

Not all the special features of the language of the Greek Pentateuch can be
paralleled from the papyri. Partly this will be due to the hazards of attestation.
One should remember that the papyri deal with only a small part of the subject
matter prominent in the Pentateuch. Many words not attested in Greek
writings older than the Pentateuch must nevertheless have been common in
the language of the period.
A small number of words and usages of the Greek Pentateuch do not
reflect the Alexandrian koine, however, but the language spoken among Jews.
Religious concepts and realia important for Jewish life are designated by words
that are proper to Greek-speaking Jews. The words geiÛrav ‘proselyte’,30
p†sca ‘Pesach’, s†bbata ‘Sabbath’, m†nna ‘manna’ and s©kera ‘strong
drink’ certainly belong to this category. These terms are not originally Greek,
of course, but neither are they Hebrew. They are not ad hoc transcriptions
of words in the Hebrew source text for which the translator could not find
an equivalent. As is shown by the final alpha, reflecting the emphatic state,
these words were borrowed from Aramaic. They almost certainly existed in
the Jewish Greek idiom of the translators.31 Indeed, these elements suggest
that, before the adoption of Greek, Aramaic may have been the language
spoken by the community to which the translators belong.32 As shown by the
Elephantine documents and other epigraphic remains, Aramaic-speaking Jews
had been present in Egypt for a long time before the country was conquered
by the Greeks.
Some Greek words employed in the Septuagint may reflect the idiom of this
Jewish group as well. This is a possibility, at least, for the terms prosžlutov
‘proselyte’, ˆkrobust©a ‘foreskin’, Šzuma ‘unleavened bread’, e­dwlon ‘idol’
and eÉlog”w ‘to bless’. Perhaps cases such as diaqžkh ‘covenant’ and n»mov
‘Jewish law’ – words that are systematically used in the Greek version to render
specific Hebrew terms (in casu-‫ בדית‬and ‫ – )תודה‬should also be included here.

30 For the attestation and variant forms of this word, see Walters, The Text of the Septuagint,
pp. 33–4.
31 Note that s†bbata is attested in the Zenon papyri (third century bc); see Tcherikover,
Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum, p. 136 (no. 10).
32 There are many other indications of Aramaic influence on the Septuagint translators; see
Joosten, ‘The Septuagint as a Source of Information’, pp. 93–105.

29
 jan joosten

Admittedly, some of these words may have been coined by the translators
themselves.
Even on a maximal assessment, such features reflecting the speech of Hel-
lenistic Jews will never suffice to reinstate the hypothesis of a special language
or dialect. The basic grammar and vocabulary of the Septuagint Pentateuch
are those of Hellenistic Greek. The special features merely characterise a
peculiar sociolect.

Influence from the Hebrew

The translators of the Pentateuch inaugurated a method of translation that was
rather literal. Each Hebrew word of the source text tends to be represented
by one Greek word, the word order is generally the same and a measure of
lexical stereotyping is observed.33 The motivation for this literal approach is
debated. Some scholars think the main reason for word-for-word translation
is theological: the translators wanted to diverge from the source text as little
as possible – in scripture, ‘even the word order is a mystery’ as Jerome says.34
Somewhat similarly, the idea has been defended that the unusual idiom of the
Greek Bible was created as a form of ‘hieratic style’ adequate to the sacred
content of the writings.35 Others invoke more down-to-earth explanations.
The literalism of the Pentateuch may be due mainly to the inexperience
of the translators.36 The latter hypothesis is probably closer to the mark. For
the seventy translators, literal translation was the easiest way to produce a
version of the Hebrew text.
Whatever its raison d’être, the literal translation technique has led to a lot of
carry-over from the source language to the target language. The most striking
cases occur where a Hebrew word is not translated but simply transcribed
into Greek. In the Pentateuch, the examples of this procedure are not many:
ceroubim ‘cherubim’, man ‘manna’, and the measures in and gomor. The
reason these words were transcribed seems to be that the translators found no
precise equivalent in Greek. They knew what were cherubim, manna, hin and

33 For an analysis of literalism in the Septuagint, see Barr, Typology, pp. 279–325; Tov, The
Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint, pp. 17–29. Many aspects of Septuagint translation technique
have been treated extensively by scholars belonging to the Finnish school, notably I. Soisalon-
Soininen, R. Sollamo, A. Aejmelaeus, S. Sippilä and A. Voitila.
34 See Jerome, Ep. 57.5.2. On the background of Jerome’s dictum, see Brock, ‘The Phenomenon
of the Septuagint’, 11–36, at p. 21.
35 See Léonas, Recherches, pp. 85–6.
36 See, e.g., Barr, Typology, p. 26; van der Louw, ‘Approaches in Translation Studies’, pp. 17–28,
at pp. 20–1.

30
 Varieties of Greek in the Septuagint and the New Testament

gomor.37 The phenomenon encountered in Kingdoms and some other books,

which consists in transcribing difficult words the meaning of which appears
to have escaped the translators, is not attested in the Pentateuch.
Much more frequently the translation technique results in a text whose
words are Greek while the phraseology, syntax or style are to varying degrees
unexpected.38 Examples:
r At times a Greek equivalent that fits certain usages of the Hebrew word
will be used in passages where it is not appropriate. The word ›leov ‘pity’ is
a reasonable rendering of the Hebrew word ‫‘ חסד‬goodwill’ where the one
who receives the ‘goodwill’ is in a pitiful situation, as in Gen. 39:21 ‘The
Lord . . . poured down compassion upon Joseph [who had been unjustly
imprisoned].’ Where the Hebrew word refers to a basic attitude character-
ising partners in a covenant, however, ›leov is somewhat odd. Nevertheless,
it is used in such contexts as well (see Deut. 7:9, 12).39
r Where an idiomatic expression is rendered literally, the result is often dis-
concerting. In Hebrew, ‘to fill someone’s hands’ means ‘to ordain someone
to a cultic office’. In Exod. 28:41 (43), this is rendered literally into Greek:
kaª –mplžseiv aÉtän t‡v ce±rav ‘you will fill their hands’. What a reader
who had no Hebrew was to make of this expression is unclear. In other
passages, the same Hebrew expression is decoded more helpfully (see, e.g.,
Lev. 21:10).
r In Hebrew narrative, new episodes are often introduced by an ostensibly
otiose ‫‘ ויהי‬and it happened’. In the Septuagint this is usually rendered
literally as kaª –g”neto. The turn of phrase is not hard to understand, but it
is unattested in non-biblical Greek texts.
Some scholars have taken these various instances of ‘Hebraism’ as evidence
that there existed a Jewish Greek that was spoken and used in religious
circles.40 The inference is neither necessary nor likely. The Hebraisms of the
Septuagint are sufficiently accounted for by the principle of literal translation.
Admittedly, Hellenistic Jews may in religious discourse have used phrases
from the Septuagint in conscious allusion to scripture. Such cases of borrowing
are found also in written texts.41 But they do not affect the basic cast of the

37 Perhaps the word k»rov ‘kor [a dry measure]’ should also be included here. The Graecised
form of the word may indicate, however, that it had been borrowed, perhaps from Aramaic,
into the Egyptian koine. The word is attested in a papyrus dated 259/8 bc (LSJ).
38 See Voitila, ‘La Septante’, pp. 17–35; Lust, ‘La syntaxe grecque’, pp. 37–55.
39 See Joosten, ‘Hesed “bienveillance” et éleos “pitié”’, pp. 25–42.
40 See notably, Gehman, ‘Hebraic Character’, pp. 163–73.
41 See Walser, The Greek of the Ancient Synagogue.

31
 jan joosten

language any more than occasional allusions to the King James Version alter
the English of a modern day preacher.

Conclusion
With little literary schooling and, probably, negligible previous experience,
the translators of the Torah approached their gigantic task with optimism
and ingenuity. Although faithfulness to the Hebrew source was their first
imperative, they by no means neglected the exigencies of the target language.
The Greek, if not elegant, is almost always correct. In many passages one
observes that the choice of words is varied so as to avoid repetition.42 In other
passages, there are attempts to create stylistic effects such as alliteration.43
With the resources at their disposal, and within the limits imposed by their
translation technique, the translators were at pains to produce a text that
would be pleasing to the reader.
Notwithstanding the translators’ attention to questions of style, the Greek
language of the Septuagint Pentateuch remains a very remarkable phe-
nomenon. While in regard to its cultural importance, the Greek Pentateuch
is a writing second to none, it is presented in non-literary language. This fact
can hardly be explained otherwise than by supposing that the translators were
unable to write polished literary Greek. They did not belong to the cultural
elite. They were far removed from the royal court and had little idea of what
went on in the world of learning. They represent a middle class where literacy
was well developed, but literary training remained out of reach.

The other books

The discussion of the other books of the Septuagint will be much briefer, not
only because there is less to say but also because the language of the other
books has not been the focus of scholarly research to the same extent as the
language of the Pentateuch has been. What can be said in general is that the
influence of the Greek Pentateuch on the other books is very great. Notably,
the basic religious and theological terminology of the later books links up
with that of the Law.44

Books translated from Hebrew and Aramaic

The later translators, it appears, were steeped in the language of the Penta-
teuch and saw their own efforts as a continuation of that first great attempt

42 See, e.g., Leiter, ‘Assimilation and Dissimilation Techniques’, pp. 79–95.

43 See Lee, ‘Translations of the Old Testament’, pp. 775–84.
44 See Tov, ‘Impact’, pp. 183–94.

32
 Varieties of Greek in the Septuagint and the New Testament

to provide a Greek version of the Jewish Bible. Schematically, it is possible to

recognise two large groups among the other books: on the one hand, a collec-
tion of writings characterised by an increasingly strict translation technique,
on the other hand, a few books evincing a much freer attitude towards the
source text.

Books translated literally

Psalms, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the Twelve, as well as most of the histori-
cal books, were translated word for word. One observes a gliding scale of
literalness, from the relative freedom of Joshua, through the more decided
literalness of the prophetical books and Psalms, to the ‘unintelligent’ calquing
of the kaige sections of Kingdoms (2 Kgd. 11–3 Kgd. 2:11; 3 Kgd. 22–4 Kgd. 25).45
Ecclesiastes is translated in a way that reminds one of Aquila.
To all appearances, the literal approach in most of these books has moved
on from being an ‘easy technique’ to reflecting a theoretical stance.46 Out
of reverence for the sacred text, the translators decided to adhere as closely
as possible to their source, including its formal characteristics. Techniques
were developed to render aspects of the source text that one would normally
consider to be untranslatable. A good example is the translation of the first
person singular personal pronoun. In Hebrew, two forms exist, ‫ אני‬and ‫אנכי‬,
both meaning ‘I’. In the Pentateuch, both forms are usually translated with
–gÛ or with forms of the verb ‘to be’ as required by the context. In some
of the later books, however, ‫ אני‬is rendered with –gÛ, while ‫ אנכי‬is rendered
systematically with –gÛ e«mi ‘I am’. The latter rendering is used even where
the pronoun combines, as it often does, with a finite verb. As a result, one
finds sentences of the type: –gÛ e«mi ›cris† se e«v basil”a –pª Israhl kaª
–gÛ e«mi –rrus†mhn se –k ceir¼v Saoul ‘I am I have anointed you king over
Israel and I am I have rescued you out of the hand of Saul’ (2 Kgd. 12:7). The
translator willingly sacrificed both syntactic elegance and semantic precision
in order to give an indication as to which of the two first person singular
pronouns was used in the Hebrew source text.
Another remarkable phenomenon encountered in some of the books ren-
dered very literally is that of transcriptions of Hebrew words contained in
the source text.47 Thus Ezek. 40:48b is rendered kaª diem”trhsen t¼ ail toÓ
ailam ‘he measured the ail of the ailam’. The transliterated words here cor-
respond to Hebrew architectural terms meaning ‘pillar’ (‫ )אל‬and ‘vestibule’

45 See the table in Thackeray, Grammar, p. 13. 46 Barr, Typology, p. 26.

47 See Thackeray, Grammar, pp. 31–4; Walters, The Text of the Septuagint, pp. 155–96.

33
 jan joosten

(‫ )אלם‬respectively. Again, such transliterations do nothing for the Greek style

of the version, nor do they contribute anything to a correct understanding
of the passage. But they present the advantage of providing the reader with
exact information on the form of the Hebrew source text.
Literal translation obscures the linguistic quality of these books to a certain
extent. Even where the translators do not resort to extreme measures, the
successive calquing of Hebrew words leads in many places to insipid Greek.
The morphology and the basic vocabulary show that the language of the
translators is Hellenistic Greek of the same general type as that of the Pen-
tateuch. Tell-tale indications suggest that their level of literary training may
actually be a bit higher. In Ezek. 27:5 the expression ¬stoÆv –lat©nouv ‘masts
of fir’ seems to be a literary allusion to Homer (Od. 2.424).48 In Hos. 4:16, the
rendering Þv d†maliv paroisträsa ‘like a heifer stung by a gadfly’ may
attest familiarity with the myth of Io.49 Cases like these are rare. They could
only come about where the translator abandoned the literal rendering of the
Hebrew.

Books translated freely

Among the translated books of the Septuagint, Isaiah, Job, Proverbs, Daniel,
Esther and 1 Esdras stand out for the freedom taken by the translators. Of
course, these translations are not all to be put in one bag: in Isaiah, the
rendering remains faithful verse by verse if not word for word; in the book
of Job, many verses were left aside by the Old Greek translator; in Proverbs,
on the contrary, a number of passages were added that seem to have been
composed originally in Greek, and the same is true, though in a different way,
for Daniel and Esther. What characterises all these books, however, is that
their translators did not slavishly follow the formal aspects of the Hebrew
source text. The word order is routinely adapted to the requirements of the
Greek language. No consistent effort at representing each element of the
Hebrew text by one and only one element is in evidence. There is room for
Greek idioms and turns of phrase. All these features make it much easier
to study the quality of the translators’ Greek than is the case for the books
translated literally.
Among the free translations, the Greek of the books of Job and Proverbs
definitely stands on a higher level than that of the Pentateuch. Thus Job

48 This example was presented by Knut Usener at the IOSCS conference in Ljubljana, Slovenia.
The paper will be published in a volume on the style of the Septuagint to be edited by E. Bons
and Th. Kraus, and published by Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.
49 See Bons, ‘Une vache folle dans la Bible?’, pp. 30–7.

34
 Varieties of Greek in the Septuagint and the New Testament

13:20 has the only dual form, due±n ‘two’, in the entire corpus of translated
books.50 The form seems to have been chosen for poetic effect, for the normal
Hellenistic form, dÅo, occurs in 42:7, in the prose part of the book. The same
book also uses the poetic verb ½l”kw ‘to destroy’, alongside the more prosaic
Àllumi.51 The name of Job’s daughter, Keren-happuch, is rendered %malqe©av
k”rav ‘Horn of Amaltheia’ (Job 42:14), after the horn of plenty created by
Zeus from the she-goat who had nursed him when he was small. Many other
linguistic phenomena show that the translator of Job had received a good
Greek education.52 The same can be said for the translator of Proverbs. In
several passages, one can find attempts at creating metre, a typically Greek
poetic device.53 In Prov. 30:19, the rare verb pontopor”w ‘sailing the sea’
is probably a reminiscence of Homer (Od. 11.11).54 Note also the use of the
potential optative in Prov. 20:24.55

Books composed in Greek

The Septuagint canon transmits a number of books that probably never had
a Hebrew source text but were directly written in Greek. Sure examples
are 2 Maccabees and the Wisdom of Solomon. For other writings either the
canonicity of the book within the Greek canon is in some doubt (e.g. 3 and
4 Maccabees) or the original language of the book is subject to discussion
(e.g. the Letter of Jeremiah). Some books translated from Hebrew were
supplemented with parts written in Greek: Proverbs, Esther, Daniel and
perhaps Baruch.
Globally speaking, the non-translated books reflect a good literary style.56
The Greek is post-classical. Only the book of 4 Maccabees, on the borderline
of the Septuagint canon, shows signs of Atticism, the movement towards
classical models, marking particularly the first and second century ad.
The level of style in 2 Maccabees and the Wisdom of Solomon is comparable
to that of some translated books, such as Job and Proverbs. The higher literary

50 Thackeray, Grammar, pp. 92 and 187. The form is found also in 4 Macc. 1:28, 15:2. As Thackeray
points out, this is not the classical form of the dual, which would be duo±n, but the form used in
late Attic inscriptions and in Hellenistic writers like Polybius and Strabo.
51 Thackeray, Grammar, p. 279. 52 See, e.g., Cox, ‘Tying It All Together’, 41–54.
53 See Thackeray, ‘The Poetry of the Greek Book of Proverbs’, 46–66; d’Hamonville, Proverbes,
pp. 92–9.
54 For other possible references to Greek literature in Greek Proverbs, see d’Hamonville,
Proverbes, p. 103.
55 For other instances of the potential optative, see: Gen. 23:15, 44:8; Ezek. 15:2; Job 25:4, 41:5;
Sir. 25:3; non translated: Esth. B 3 (13:3). See the study of the optative by Evans, Verbal Syntax,
pp. 175–97.
56 With regard to the Wisdom of Solomon, see Reese, Hellenistic Influence, pp. 3–25.

35
 jan joosten

level is probably an indication of the fact that the Jewish community reading
and producing the Greek Bible was moving up in society.
A very special place is taken by the book of Judith. Until recently, this book
was widely believed to have been translated from Hebrew. Indeed, its style
is heavily Hebraised. One finds such typically Hebraistic turns of phrase as
kaª –g”neto ‘and it happened’ (reflecting Hebrew ‫)ויהי‬, kaª «doÅ ‘and behold’
(‫ )והנה‬and many more. As in the translated books, some of the typical features
of Greek writing are either completely absent or very rare: there are no cases
of oÔn, te or Šra, and only one of m”n. The style is mainly paratactic, the
storyline consisting principally of kaª with aorist indicative.
More recently, however, the scholarly consensus has started to shift towards
the idea that Judith was written in Greek from the start.57 Alongside the
Hebraisms, one also finds idiomatic Greek features, such as the use of the
future infinitive, an element that has no equivalent in Hebrew.58 The strongest
argument in favour of a Greek origin is the fact that, where the book quotes
the Bible, it follows the Septuagint. This happens even with passages, like
Num. 23:19, where the Greek version diverges completely from the Hebrew
text.
If Judith was composed in Greek, its Hebraising style would not be due to
literal translation, but to imitation of the Septuagint. A Greek author, intending
to create a ‘biblical’ story, adopted the biblical style he knew from the Greek
version. This hypothesis would explain the book’s occasional ‘lapses’ into
good Greek: since the writer was composing the text freely, he tended to
fall back on his own Greek idiom. Judith would be an early example of a
phenomenon that has left its mark also on some New Testament writings
(notably Luke–Acts, see below).

The New Testament

The New Testament is much shorter than the Septuagint and came into
being over a much briefer period of time. It has also been researched far
more intensively.59 It is probably fair to say that it is better understood or, at

57 See, e.g., Engel, ‘“Der Herr ist ein Gott, der die Kriege zerschlägt”’, pp. 155–68; Rakel, Judit,
pp. 33–40; Schmitz, Gedeutete Geschichte, pp. 2–3.
58 Note also the cases where a relative clause precedes the nominal head, as in Jdth. 5:3, 8:15.
This elegant Greek construction is hardly attested in the translated books of the Septuagint (but
see Dan. 1:8; Lam. 3:57).
59 See the extensive review by Voelz, ‘The Language of the New Testament’, pp. 893–977; see
also Porter, ‘The Greek Language of the New Testament’, pp. 99–130.

36
 Varieties of Greek in the Septuagint and the New Testament

the least, that its problems have been better charted. Enough open questions
remain, however, for linguists and philologists to debate.
Without putting too fine a point on it, New Testament Greek is Hellenistic
Greek tainted by Semitic influences.60 A crucial problem, particularly in the
Gospels, is the categorisation of the Semitisms: do they reflect interference
from a Semitic substratum, or are they due to influence from the Septu-
agint? Decisions are not always easy to make, and some Semitisms may owe
something to both factors. Nevertheless, the options should be clearly distin-
guished on the theoretical level. In what follows, the three main ‘ingredients’
of New Testament Greek will first be presented. Thereafter, the writings will
be grouped according to their salient characteristics.

The main ingredients of New Testament Greek

Grossly speaking, there are three components in New Testament Greek, the
one dominant and the other two subsidiary. The dominant factor is Hellenistic
Greek, the subsidiary ones are influence from the Septuagint and interference
by a Semitic substratum.

Hellenistic Greek
For the most part, the Greek of the New Testament writings is of the same
general quality as that of the Septuagint: it is Hellenistic Greek reflecting a
rather low stylistic register, of the kind no cultivated writer would ever have
used for literary purposes.61 The closest analogue is found in the language of
contemporary non-literary papyri, as Deissmann was able to show.62 To be
sure, one encounters different levels of style in the pages of the New Testament
(as well as in the papyri).63 In all its diversity, however, New Testament Greek
receives crucial illumination from the non-literary Greek documents.64
The reason for the use of this type of language appears to be the same as for
the Septuagint. New Testament writers wrote Greek as well as they were able.
Nothing in their Greek education had prepared Mark, say, or Paul, to make
a major contribution to world literature. For some authors, the authority of
the Septuagint may also have played a role. The use of vernacular Greek was
felt to be warranted in ‘biblical’ literature.

60 See Silva, ‘Bilingualism’, pp. 205–26; Horsley, New Documents, pp. 5–40.
61 See, however, n. 22, above. 62 See the publications of Deissmann, above in n. 3.
63 Rydbeck has pointed out that one should not reckon with ‘literary’ and ‘popular’ Greek only.
There are intermediate stages, e.g. the language of scientific treatises. See Rydbeck, Fachprosa.
64 A useful collection of material is Moulton and Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament.
Updates can be found in the series New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity (volumes i–ix)
published by Macquarie University in Australia.

37
 jan joosten

Differences between the Septuagint and the New Testament are due in part
to the passing of time. Koine Greek had evolved between the third century bc
and the first century ad. Words and forms that are frequent in the Septuagint
had fallen from use by the time the New Testament was committed to writing,
and other elements had taken their place.65

The Septuagint
Among New Testament writings there is no central subcorpus as there is
for the Septuagint. Instead, the New Testament itself continues the literary
tradition of the Septuagint. The New Testament writers belong to a milieu
where the Bible was read in Greek. Practically all New Testament books give
evidence of this. Old Testament quotations usually follow the Septuagint, and
allusions to the Old Testament too are most often based on the Greek text
form.
The language of religion used by Greek-speaking Jews and Christians is
coloured by the Septuagint. A large part of the religious vocabulary of the
New Testament reflects this circumstance: examples are words like ˆg†ph
‘love’, diaqžkh ‘covenant’, crist»v ‘Christ’, ˆkrobust©a ‘foreskin’, di†bolov
‘devil’, d»xa ‘glory’ and kt©zw ‘to create’.66
Besides, several New Testament authors appear to imitate the syntax of the
Septuagint, probably in order to lend their text a ‘biblical ring’. This explains
phrases like kaª –g”neto . . . kaª «doÅ ‘and it happened . . . and behold’ and
idioms like lamb†nw pr»swpon ‘to lift up the face’.

The Semitic substratum

The New Testament writings were probably all composed originally in Greek.
Although translation from Aramaic or Hebrew has been suspected for some
books, notably the Gospels, Acts 1–15 and Revelation,67 no convincing evidence
has been submitted to this effect. Indeed, historical-critical study has made the
idea ever more difficult to maintain. Specifically, the Gospels of Matthew and
Luke can hardly have been written in a Semitic language if they were based
on a Greek text of Mark and a Greek text of Q, as appears to be the case.
Nevertheless, the New Testament texts are rooted in a world where Semitic
languages dominated social and religious life. The original teaching of Jesus

65 See the examples studied in Lee, Lexical Study, pp. 131–44; see also Lee, ëExapost”llw’,
pp. 99–113.
66 For a recent collection of words like these, see Joosten and Tomson, Voces biblicae.
67 See Torrey, Our Translated Gospels, and other studies by Torrey.

38
 Varieties of Greek in the Septuagint and the New Testament

and the first accounts of his deeds were formulated in Hebrew or Aramaic.68
The Semitic substratum has affected the Greek of the New Testament in
different ways:
r Some of the sources of the Gospels, and perhaps Acts as well, probably go
back to Semitic traditions, whether oral or written. When these Semitic
materials were translated into Greek, this was sometimes done in a literal
way, leading to unidiomatic Greek. Semitic source material is expected
particularly, though not exclusively, in words of Jesus and similar material.
r The fact that some of the New Testament writers were bilingual could
account for some peculiarities of the Greek – a good example may be the
book of Revelation.69
r In addition, the Greek language used among Jews in Palestine may have
had some peculiar features due to influence from Hebrew and Aramaic.

The question of the Semitic substratum is the most controversial one when it
comes to defining the problems of New Testament Greek. It is also the hardest
to investigate. The retranslation of New Testament terms and expressions into
Hebrew and Aramaic can never be entirely free of speculation. The principle,
however, upon which such retranslation is attempted is sound.

Overview of New Testament writings

The linguistic diversity among the books of the New Testament is equal to
that among the books of the Septuagint. The following comments are meant
to highlight a number of striking characteristics of New Testament writings.

Mark
The Gospel of Mark is characterised by a colloquial style that shows no
regard for the canons of literary composition. An interesting indication of
this is the frequent use of lexical Latinisms: dhn†rion (denarius), kentur©wn
(centurio),70 knson (census), kodr†nthv (quadrans), legiÛn (legio), x”sthv
(sextarius), spekoul†twr (speculator), jragell»w (flagellare). Note also the
phraseological Latinisms: t¼ ¬kan¼n poi”w (satisfacere) ‘to satisfy’, çap©s-
masin lamb†nw (verberibus accipere) ‘to give a beating’. Since borrowings

68 Since the end of the nineteenth century, scholars have usually held that the Semitic back-
ground of the Gospels is Aramaic. More recent research indicates, however, that Hebrew should
be taken into account as well. See Joosten, ‘Aramaic or Hebrew behind the Gospels?’, 88–101.
69 See Mussies, Morphology.
70 See Mark 15:39. Both Matthew and Luke correct the Latinism, see Matt. 27:54 —kat»ntarcov,
Luke 23:47 —katont†rchv.

39
 jan joosten

from Latin were widespread in the vulgar Greek of the first century ad, they
should not be used to argue that the Gospel was written in Rome. What they
do show is that the evangelist, although a gifted story-teller, has no feeling
for belles lettres. In literary texts, the use of foreign words was considered a
blemish.71
Other items of vocabulary also indicate the colloquial quality of Mark’s
Greek: kr†batton ‘bed’ in Mark 2:4 (note that Matthew and Luke use the
more literary term kl©nh, Matt. 9:2 and Luke 8:18); t¼ kor†sion ‘the girl’ in
Mark 5:41 (also in Matt. 9:24, 25, but Luke 8:54 corrects to ¡ pa±v).
The grammar, too, is sometimes rather rough and ready: Mark 16:6 ­de ¾
t»pov ‘look, the place’ (corrected to the expected accusative, ­dete t¼n t»pon
‘see the place’, in Matt. 28:6); Mark 11:2 pälon dedem”non –jì Án oÉdeªv oÎpw
ˆnqrÛpwn –k†qisen ‘a colt that has never been ridden by no one’ (corrected
in Luke 19:30, –jì Án oÉdeªv pÛpote ˆnqrÛpwn –k†qisen ‘that has never been
ridden by anyone’).72 These grammatical features find parallels in the papyri.
They do not indicate imperfect mastery of language. Although the evangelist
may have been bilingual, his Greek is entirely fluent. The grammar of Mark
is not faulty as much as it is substandard.73
Other features are due to the interference of a Semitic language. Mark
quotes a number of Aramaic phrases, such as ejjaqa and taliqa koum.74
These expressions probably were handed down to him by a tradition of
words and deeds of Jesus. Some Greek words and expressions reflect literal
translation of Semitic sources. Thus the Lake of Tiberias is systematically
referred to as q†lassa ‘sea’, and Mark 2:19 speaks of wedding guests as o¬
u¬oª toÓ numjänov ‘sons of the bridal chamber’. Neither usage finds parallels
in Greek texts, but both are readily understood as translations from Hebrew
or Aramaic.
Grammatical Semitisms also occur. In Mark 4:8 it is said that the seed that
fell on the good soil brought forth grain šn tri†konta kaª šn —xžkonta kaª šn
—kat»n, literally ‘one thirty and one sixty and one a hundred’.75 This probably

71 See Norden, Kunstprosa, vol. ii, p. 60.

72 Note, however, that the vulgarism remains uncorrected in Luke 23:53 (without parallel). For
other examples of harsh or incorrect language in Mark, see Hawkins, Horae synopticae, pp. 131–8.
73 In words of Jesus one sometimes finds features of a higher level of style, e.g. the unique
occurrence of the optative in Mark in 11:14. It may be, however, that these features were added
later by a corrector, see Lee, ‘Some Features’, pp. 1–26.
74 Cf. Rüger, ‘Die lexikalischen Aramaismen im Markusevangelium’, pp. 73–84.
75 Variant readings in manuscripts show that the Greek phrase was hard to understand for
copyists.

40
 Varieties of Greek in the Septuagint and the New Testament

reflects an Aramaic idiom meaning: ‘thirty-fold, sixty-fold and hundredfold’.76

Other Semitisms of this kind can be found, although each one needs to be
discussed on its own merits.77
The Gospel of John is close to that of Mark in its linguistic register. What
distinguishes John from the other gospels is not so much the measure or
quality of its Semitisms, but the inimitable style of the fourth Gospel.
Matthew
Matthew corrects the more egregious vulgarisms of Mark and generally aspires
to write correct Greek.78 Since the actual teaching of Jesus takes a more promi-
nent place in Matthew than it does in Mark, the number of suspected Semitisms
due to translation increases proportionally.79 An interesting example, because
it appears to indicate that the original formulation was Hebrew and not Ara-
maic, is the allusion to the ‘evil eye’ in Matt. 6:23, –‡n d• ¾ ½jqalm»v sou
ponhr¼v §‚ ‘if your eye is bad’. In Hebrew idiom, the ‘badness of the eye’
refers to stinginess, while the ‘good eye’ is a synonym of generosity.80 The
contrast between generosity and stinginess is indeed the theme dealt with in
this part of the Sermon on the Mount.81
A possible example of a Palestinian Greek idiom is the use of the verb
–pijÛskw ‘to shine forth’ with reference to sunset.82 Matt. 28:1 reads: ‘On
the evening [½y”] of the Sabbath [t –pijwskoÅs e«v m©an sabb†twn], at
the hour shining towards the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the
other Mary went to see the tomb.’ The verse is often incorrectly interpreted
as referring to the first hour of dawn. The adverb ½y” shows, however, that
Matthew thinks of the evening. The women visit the grave as soon as they
are permitted to. The verb –pijÛskw is used in reference to the evening
also in Luke 23:54. Its background is probably a curious expression, attested
in Hebrew as well as Aramaic, which speaks of the evening as ‘shining’ (Heb.
‫אור‬, Ar. ‫ )נגה‬towards the next day.
Luke
The Greek writing of Luke is one of the most intriguing phenomena encoun-
tered in the New Testament. Luke treats his sources, which can be identified

76 For this and other examples, see Wellhausen, Einleitung, pp. 26–7.
77 See also Moulton and Howard, Grammar, pp. 411–85; Beyer, Semitische Syntax; Black, Aramaic
Approach.
78 See the examples above in the section on Mark. 79 See the work cited in n. 76.
80 See Deut. 15:9; Prov. 22:9, 23:6–7; Sir. 14:10, 32:12; Mishnah Avot 5:13.
81 Cadbury, ‘The Single Eye’, 69–74. 82 See Burkitt, ‘ëEPIFSK’, 538–46.

41
 jan joosten

from a comparison with Mark and Matthew, with respect, thus incorporating
many colloquialisms and Semitisms. He nevertheless corrects some of the
coarser linguistic features used in his sources.83 Latinisms are avoided, as is
the quotation of Aramaic words and phrases. Moreover, in the prologue to his
Gospel and in the second part of Acts, Luke shows that he is perfectly capable
of writing polished koine Greek.
He willingly abandons this higher Greek style, however, through the bor-
rowing of elements from the Septuagint. Words, expressions and syntactical
constructions are used in imitation of the Old Greek version:
r The Greek word ›leov designates an emotion evoked by the suffering of
others. As was already stated above, the Septuagint translators chose this
word to render most cases of Hebrew ‫‘ חסד‬goodwill, kindness’. One effect
of this decision was the frequent use of ›leov in covenantal contexts. Luke
reproduces this peculiar usage in Luke 1:72, ‘Thus he has done mercy with
our fathers and has remembered his holy covenant’.84
r Luke 20:21 uses the expression lamb†nw pr»swpon ‘to lift up the face’
instead of bl”pw e«v pr»swpon ‘to look at the face’ as found in the parallels,
Mark 12:14 and Matt. 22:16. It appears Luke introduced this expression in
reference to the Septuagint, where it occurs often as a literal rendering of
the Hebrew ‫‘ נשא פנים‬to favour, to show partiality’.
r In the introduction of new narrative units, Luke often uses the peculiar kaª
–g”neto that is so well known from the Septuagint. Interestingly, this non-
Greek element is often, and progressively, adapted to Greek sensitivities,
notably by using d” instead of ka© and by making the next clause dependent
by putting the verb in the infinitive.85

Such Septuagintisms are very frequent in the Gospel and prominent even in
the first part of Acts (Acts 1–15). They appear to have been adopted by Luke
in order to show that his account links up with the biblical story begun in the
Septuagint.86

83 See the many instances of this phenomenon collected by Norden, Kunstprosa, vol. ii, pp. 486–
92; Pernot, Études, pp. 1–22.
84 See Gerber, ‘Emplois’, pp. 81–95. 85 See Plummer, Gospel, p. 45.
86 Compare what has been said above on the book of Judith. It has often been pointed out that
this stylistic procedure is in keeping with Greek models. See, e.g., Moulton, ‘New Testament
Greek’, pp. 60–97, at p. 75: ‘The reading of the classics soon shows us how the several literary
forms attached themselves to dialects associated with their earliest exemplars. Epic poetry, even
down to Nonnus, must endeavour to follow the nondescript dialect into which Ionic rhapsodists
had transformed the Achaian of Homer. Choral odes in tragedy and comedy must preserve the

42
 Varieties of Greek in the Septuagint and the New Testament

The Epistles
The language of Paul is that of a tentmaker, not that of a writer or philosopher.
He uses many words avoided in contemporary literature.87 His rhetoric, too,
is more spontaneous than learned.88 There is no reason to doubt, however,
that Paul is writing in his mother tongue. His Greek is fluent and idiomatic. If
the Pauline Epistles are at times difficult to understand this is not because he
writes in a Greek idiom that is insufficiently known, nor because his mastery
of Greek is hesitant.
The influence of the Septuagint can be felt in many passages. Thus Paul
uses not only the expression pr»swpon lamb†nw, but also the neologism
proswpolhmy©a ‘partiality’ derived from it (but unattested in the Septu-
agint). Since the noun is found also in Jas. 1:2, it is probable that Paul found
it ready-made in Jewish religious discourse. Note also the similar derivation
proswpolžmpthv in Acts 10:34.
In the epistles generally, there is little reason to suspect the use of Semitic
source material. Nor are there other signs of a Semitic substratum. The letters
of Peter, James and John give no evidence of having been written by a bilingual
author whose native language was not Greek.
Among the other epistles, two deserve a special mention. Hebrews is
written in a fine Hellenistic Greek of high quality. The author pays attention
to such niceties as the avoidance of hiatus.89 The only Hebraisms in this text
are the ones quoted from the Septuagint.
2 Peter is the only writing of the New Testament that gives witness to
Atticism – the tendency that became strong in the first and second centuries
to write Greek after classical Attic models. It is not, however, a particularly
felicitous attempt, and the author trips up rather often in producing his
elaborate sentences (his Greek has even been qualified as ‘baboo Greek’,
which is an exaggeration).
Revelation
The last book of the New Testament is written in very strange Greek. The basic
vocabulary and the grammar reflect the vernacular koine, but the frequent

broad long alpha which witnesses to the origin of drama in some region outside the area of the
Ionic-Attic eta. We can therefore understand the instinct that would lead the educated Greek
Evangelist to suit his style under certain conditions to the book which held the same relation to
his Gospel as the Iliad held to subsequent experiments in epic verse.’
87 See Nägeli, Der Wortschatz. 88 Norden, Kunstprosa, vol. ii, p. 493.
89 See Blass, Debrunner and Rehkopf, Grammatik, pp. 416–517, §486.2.

43
 jan joosten

occurrence of grammatical mistakes shows that the author is not writing in

his mother tongue.90 Revelation is a mosaic of biblical allusions and close
study seems to indicate that the author has used both the Septuagint and the
Hebrew text. The work appears to be the product of a bilingual (or trilingual)
milieu.

Conclusion: Varieties of Greek in the Greek Bible

As was already intimated at the outset of this chapter, a close look at the
Greek Bible (in the form of its Christian canon) does not confirm the idea that
‘biblical Greek’ was ever a distinct language or dialect. A great deal of linguistic
variety characterises the biblical corpus, and each writing has to be studied
for itself. Nevertheless, there are some commonalities and continuities in the
language of the Greek Bible.
First, the bulk of both the Septuagint and the New Testament is written in
a kind of Greek that was not normally used in literary composition, but stands
closer to the vernacular. Because they are practically the only sizeable works
produced during the Hellenistic and early Roman periods that reflect this
rather low stylistic register, the Septuagint and the New Testament present a
striking similarity to modern scholars of Greek literature. When their language
is compared to that of the papyri and the inscriptions, however, the similarity
dissolves. The use of non-literary Greek by the translators of the Pentateuch
on the one hand, and by the New Testament writers on the other, is due to a
historical accident. It so happened that the groups standing behind these two
collections of writings did not belong to the Hellenised elite of their time,
but to a more modest social stratum. A close look also reveals that the koine
basis of Septuagint and New Testament Greek is not exactly the same, due,
particularly, to the continuing development of the language between the third
century bc and the first century ad.
A second element of continuity is more substantial: the earlier parts of
the Greek Bible exerted strong influence on the later parts. This can be seen
within the Septuagint itself, where the translators of the other books borrow
terms and techniques from the Pentateuch. And the influence continues in the
writings of the New Testament. The New Testament authors refer constantly
to the Greek Old Testament. Some features of their language appear to reflect
a sort of ‘language of Canaan’ that was probably in use in the synagogue:
a religious terminology adopting and freely developing elements from the

90 See Mussies, Morphology.

44
 Varieties of Greek in the Septuagint and the New Testament

Septuagint. A few writers consciously imitate the Hebraising style of the Old
Greek. From the strictly linguistic point of view, the Septuagintal component
in New Testament Greek remains peripheral: it does not really touch the core
system of the language. To the casual reader, however, it may appear rather
dominant. The exegete, too, must constantly be aware of possible connections
to the Septuagint.

45