The term ‘Semitism’ has long accompanied analyses of the language of the Septuagint and, by extension, of the New Testament. However, the criteria for determining a Semitism are unclear. For Moulton, Semitisms of vocabulary are nothing more than ‘correct Greek’ used with greater frequency than normal owing to ‘the accident of their answering to Hebrew or Aramaic phrases,’ whereas Semitisms of syntax are ‘sins against native Greek style and idiom’ and Semitisms due to translation are the over-literal rendering of semitic idioms into ‘abnormal Greek’ (1906: 11–19). Thackeray largely agreed with Moulton, though he further qualifies Semitisms as ‘unidiomatic’ in Greek, even if tolerable (1909: 29). Jobes and Silva define Semitism as a ‘word or expression borrowed from a Semitic language or used in a way that reflects the influence of such a language’ (2015: 374). In his Ancient Greek Grammar, von Siebenthal describes Semitisms as ‘linguistic phenomena that cannot be explained in terms of normal Greek usage, but are thought to go back to Hebrew or Aramaic uses’ (2019: 6). More definitions could be offered, but already the issue of criteria is clear: Are Semitisms ‘correct’ Greek? Are they unidiomatic and, if so, in what way (particularly if still ‘tolerable’)? Do different types of phenomena (e.g., vocabulary vs. syntax) require different definitions of Semitism? If an instance of linguistic borrowing can nevertheless be explained in terms of normal Greek usage, is it a Semitism?
Two further issues arise in Septuagint scholarship. First, the value of labeling a linguistic phenomenon a ‘Semitism,’ whatever definition one uses, is not always apparent. Most so-called Semitisms in Greek still convey their intended meaning, achieving their communicative purpose. In such cases, the label, at best, only describes one aspect of how the phenomenon emerged but does not provide an understanding of the linguistic mechanisms or cognitive factors that allowed for its emergence and ability to convey its meaning. At worst, it encourages one to assume a prescriptivist perspective, viewing an instance of Greek in use that achieves its communicative goal as somehow unGreek. Second, there is rarely consideration given to how and why languages naturally change. Linguistic phenomena regularly gain novel meanings or uses, new forms and expressions are coined frequently, constructions at every level of language can emerge and extend in varied but motivated ways. Such evolutions can happen organically within a language and can be motivated by contact with other languages, but in either case, it is a natural process.
Given the issues above, there is a need for an approach to Semitisms that is more informed linguistically, providing explanations that go beyond their supposed origins and instead consider how they were adopted within the language by Greek speakers to communicate effectively to Greek speakers. Therefore, in this paper, I investigate so-called Semitisms by utilizing research in linguistic typology and language variation and change. In so doing, I intend to propose a more robust framework for understanding the emergence and adoption of novel meanings and forms.