?and hence is a so-called neologism, and that it is also a ‘deformation of ἀκροποσθία’. Even in relatively recent reference works, we find this idea reproduced more pronouncedly as a key example of neologisms in LXX Genesis (Companion to the Septuagint 2015, 17).
The paper will proceed in three parts. First, by means of several criteria—phonology, morphology, semantics, inter alia—this paper will show that the claim that this word is a Hebrew loan of any sort is severely improbable. Second, by using external developments in the field of Ancient Greek dialectology, this paper will show that one may arrive at the form ἀκροβυστία from the form ἀκροποσθία by regular sound change. Such a set of sound changes would entail that ἀκροβυστία is a loanword from the Greek dialect of Ancient Macedonian rather than from Hebrew. Third, given a) that it is severely improbable that ἀκροβυστία is a Hebrew loan of any sort and b) that the form can be explained by regular sound change within the spectrum of Greek dialects, this paper will close by exploring scenarios for how an Ancient Macedonian word for ‘foreskin’ could have become a key term in Hellenistic Judaism. For example, we know from Hellenistic Egyptology that the Ptolemaic royals continued to speak their native Ancient Macedonian amongst themselves right up to the last Cleopatra—what connection might the Ptolemies have ,’בשׁת LEH attempts to posit both of these, that it ‘= ἀκρο + . בֹּ שֶׁ ת This paper challenges past interpretations and explores a new angle on the origin of the word ἀκροβυστία. It has long been observed that the word could be connected somehow with ἀκροποσθία; it has also long been put forward that the word is connected with Hebrew