{"id":{"repo_id":"cambridge","oai_identifier":"oai:www.repository.cam.ac.uk:1810/398554"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/cambridge/oai:www.repository.cam.ac.uk:1810/398554","repository":{"repo_id":"cambridge","name":"Cambridge University","base_url":"https://api.repository.cam.ac.uk/server/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"Neologisms in LXX Jeremiah: Word Formation within the History of Greek","abstract":"Neologisms remain an important topic within Septuagint scholarship. Despite their significance, very few studies devoted to the topic of “new words” have materialized. This dissertation examines the identification and interpretation of putative neologisms, Greek words allegedly coined by the translators of the Septuagint as a result of Hebrew interference, applying cognitive and constructionist linguistic theory within the history of the Greek language. Employing an eclectic linguistic approach, this study challenges the prevailing assumptions that unattested vocabulary reflects translational inadequacy or cultural subversion. Instead, it is argued that new lexical formations reflect standard Greek morphological processes, often with parallels in earlier or contemporary usage, thereby testifying to the translators’ linguistic competence and cultural integration in Hellenistic society. Chapter 1 introduces the problem by outlining the frequency and interpretive value of neologisms in the LXX, with a focus on Jeremiah. It reviews past scholarship and methodological frameworks, distinguishing between “Hebrew-priority” and “Greek-priority” approaches. These orientations are shown to underlie distinct theories of LXX lexicography, yet they adhere to a similar method for identifying and interpreting alleged neologisms. This chapter also introduces the rationale for choosing LXX Jeremiah, a book widely regarded as both literal and lexically idiosyncratic, as the central case study. Chapter 2 briefly discusses the theoretical framework and method for the dissertation, emphasizing the limitations of attestation-based approaches and instead proposing a descriptive linguistic model. After reviewing the challenge of identifying neologisms in ancient corpora, the chapter introduces categories of word formation, inflection, derivation, and compounding as the categorical delineations for analysis. It also justifies using cognitive and constructionbased morphological theories to understand how such words arise within the natural capacities of language users. Finally, the chapter explains how these frameworks allow for evaluating the probability of coinage and the nature of translator competence. Chapters 3–6 contain the core investigation of neologisms. These chapters trace consistent patterns of inflection and derivation in the translators’ language that closely align with established norms in Postclassical Greek. Many of these forms are subsequently confirmed by nonbiblical sources, reinforcing their integration within their wider linguistic environment. Emphasis is placed on the cognitive and semantic transparency of these constructions. The extensive morphological productivity observed indicates that these forms were not lexical anomalies but rather typical outputs of educated Greek usage. Furthermore, the translators’ employment of compounding aligns with established Hellenistic compositional strategies. By drawing on parallels from contemporary epigraphic and papyrological evidence, the thesis demonstrates both the plausibility and commonality of these compound forms beyond the biblical corpus. Chapter 7 concludes by synthesizing the findings and drawing out broader implications. The study shows that a significant portion of the neologisms in LXX Jeremiah have attested parallels in or before the translators’ period. The dissertation confirms that these words are not linguistic outliers but products of normal, even sophisticated, practices of word formation in Greek. In light of this, this chapter argues for a correction to the way neologisms are used to characterize the Greek of the Septuagint, proposing that the evidence points not to linguistically isolated translators but to near-native or native speakers operating with full participation in their Hellenistic linguistic and cultural world.","abstract_html":"Neologisms remain an important topic within Septuagint scholarship. Despite their significance, very few studies devoted to the topic of “new words” have materialized. This dissertation examines the identification and interpretation of putative neologisms, Greek words allegedly coined by the translators of the Septuagint as a result of Hebrew interference, applying cognitive and constructionist linguistic theory within the history of the Greek language. Employing an eclectic linguistic approach, this study challenges the prevailing assumptions that unattested vocabulary reflects translational inadequacy or cultural subversion. Instead, it is argued that new lexical formations reflect standard Greek morphological processes, often with parallels in earlier or contemporary usage, thereby testifying to the translators’ linguistic competence and cultural integration in Hellenistic society. Chapter 1 introduces the problem by outlining the frequency and interpretive value of neologisms in the LXX, with a focus on Jeremiah. It reviews past scholarship and methodological frameworks, distinguishing between “Hebrew-priority” and “Greek-priority” approaches. These orientations are shown to underlie distinct theories of LXX lexicography, yet they adhere to a similar method for identifying and interpreting alleged neologisms. This chapter also introduces the rationale for choosing LXX Jeremiah, a book widely regarded as both literal and lexically idiosyncratic, as the central case study. Chapter 2 briefly discusses the theoretical framework and method for the dissertation, emphasizing the limitations of attestation-based approaches and instead proposing a descriptive linguistic model. After reviewing the challenge of identifying neologisms in ancient corpora, the chapter introduces categories of word formation, inflection, derivation, and compounding as the categorical delineations for analysis. It also justifies using cognitive and constructionbased morphological theories to understand how such words arise within the natural capacities of language users. Finally, the chapter explains how these frameworks allow for evaluating the probability of coinage and the nature of translator competence. Chapters 3–6 contain the core investigation of neologisms. These chapters trace consistent patterns of inflection and derivation in the translators’ language that closely align with established norms in Postclassical Greek. Many of these forms are subsequently confirmed by nonbiblical sources, reinforcing their integration within their wider linguistic environment. Emphasis is placed on the cognitive and semantic transparency of these constructions. The extensive morphological productivity observed indicates that these forms were not lexical anomalies but rather typical outputs of educated Greek usage. Furthermore, the translators’ employment of compounding aligns with established Hellenistic compositional strategies. By drawing on parallels from contemporary epigraphic and papyrological evidence, the thesis demonstrates both the plausibility and commonality of these compound forms beyond the biblical corpus. Chapter 7 concludes by synthesizing the findings and drawing out broader implications. The study shows that a significant portion of the neologisms in LXX Jeremiah have attested parallels in or before the translators’ period. The dissertation confirms that these words are not linguistic outliers but products of normal, even sophisticated, practices of word formation in Greek. In light of this, this chapter argues for a correction to the way neologisms are used to characterize the Greek of the Septuagint, proposing that the evidence points not to linguistically isolated translators but to near-native or native speakers operating with full participation in their Hellenistic linguistic and cultural world.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Keenan, Andrew T"],"institution":"University of Cambridge","degree_name":"Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)","degree_level":"Doctoral","degree_discipline":null,"degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":["Dhont, Marieke","Aitken, James"],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2025,"date_issued":"2025-01-16","date_published":"2025-01-16","updated_at":"2026-07-24T01:33:05Z","subjects":["Early Judaism","Hellenistic Judaism","Lexicography","Morphology","Neologisms","Postclassical Greek","Septuagint","Word Formation"],"languages":["eng"],"rights":[],"rights_urls":["https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstreams/4262197e-6ea5-46ab-a6fb-2e2f4d194ded/download","http://purl.org/NET/rdflicense/allrightsreserved"],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.127384","outbound_label":"DOI","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.doi"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.advisor","label":"Advisor","values":["Dhont, Marieke","Aitken, James"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Keenan, Andrew T"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["2025-01-16"]},{"key":"dc:publisher.institution","label":"Dc Publisher Institution","values":["University of Cambridge"]},{"key":"dc:relation.isreferencedby.uri","label":"Dc Relation Isreferencedby URI","values":["https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/398554"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Thesis"]},{"key":"dc:type.qualificationlevel","label":"Dc Type Qualificationlevel","values":["Doctoral"]},{"key":"dc:type.qualificationname","label":"Dc Type Qualificationname","values":["Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Early Judaism","Hellenistic Judaism","Lexicography","Morphology","Neologisms","Postclassical Greek","Septuagint","Word Formation"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language","label":"Dc Language","values":["eng"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstreams/4262197e-6ea5-46ab-a6fb-2e2f4d194ded/download","http://purl.org/NET/rdflicense/allrightsreserved"]},{"key":"dc:rights.embargodate","label":"Dc Rights Embargodate","values":["2027-02-18"]},{"key":"dc:rights.embargotype","label":"Dc Rights Embargotype","values":["embargo"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.doi","label":"DOI","values":["https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.127384"]},{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstreams/45347cec-b5af-400a-98e6-ef578f318556/download"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["Neologisms remain an important topic within Septuagint scholarship. Despite their significance, very few studies devoted to the topic of “new words” have materialized. This dissertation examines the identification and interpretation of putative neologisms, Greek words allegedly coined by the translators of the Septuagint as a result of Hebrew interference, applying cognitive and constructionist linguistic theory within the history of the Greek language. Employing an eclectic linguistic approach, this study challenges the prevailing assumptions that unattested vocabulary reflects translational inadequacy or cultural subversion. Instead, it is argued that new lexical formations reflect standard Greek morphological processes, often with parallels in earlier or contemporary usage, thereby testifying to the translators’ linguistic competence and cultural integration in Hellenistic society. Chapter 1 introduces the problem by outlining the frequency and interpretive value of neologisms in the LXX, with a focus on Jeremiah. It reviews past scholarship and methodological frameworks, distinguishing between “Hebrew-priority” and “Greek-priority” approaches. These orientations are shown to underlie distinct theories of LXX lexicography, yet they adhere to a similar method for identifying and interpreting alleged neologisms. This chapter also introduces the rationale for choosing LXX Jeremiah, a book widely regarded as both literal and lexically idiosyncratic, as the central case study. Chapter 2 briefly discusses the theoretical framework and method for the dissertation, emphasizing the limitations of attestation-based approaches and instead proposing a descriptive linguistic model. After reviewing the challenge of identifying neologisms in ancient corpora, the chapter introduces categories of word formation, inflection, derivation, and compounding as the categorical delineations for analysis. It also justifies using cognitive and constructionbased morphological theories to understand how such words arise within the natural capacities of language users. Finally, the chapter explains how these frameworks allow for evaluating the probability of coinage and the nature of translator competence. Chapters 3–6 contain the core investigation of neologisms. These chapters trace consistent patterns of inflection and derivation in the translators’ language that closely align with established norms in Postclassical Greek. Many of these forms are subsequently confirmed by nonbiblical sources, reinforcing their integration within their wider linguistic environment. Emphasis is placed on the cognitive and semantic transparency of these constructions. The extensive morphological productivity observed indicates that these forms were not lexical anomalies but rather typical outputs of educated Greek usage. Furthermore, the translators’ employment of compounding aligns with established Hellenistic compositional strategies. By drawing on parallels from contemporary epigraphic and papyrological evidence, the thesis demonstrates both the plausibility and commonality of these compound forms beyond the biblical corpus. Chapter 7 concludes by synthesizing the findings and drawing out broader implications. The study shows that a significant portion of the neologisms in LXX Jeremiah have attested parallels in or before the translators’ period. The dissertation confirms that these words are not linguistic outliers but products of normal, even sophisticated, practices of word formation in Greek. In light of this, this chapter argues for a correction to the way neologisms are used to characterize the Greek of the Septuagint, proposing that the evidence points not to linguistically isolated translators but to near-native or native speakers operating with full participation in their Hellenistic linguistic and cultural world."]},{"key":"dc:format.checksum.md5","label":"Dc Format Checksum Md5","values":["da74484495e19e69b7cd4f0fd35c8e13","87eda9de84448d1f82354d60eee3eb5f"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Neologisms in LXX Jeremiah: Word Formation within the History of Greek"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.advisor":["Dhont, Marieke","Aitken, James"],"dc:creator":["Keenan, Andrew T"],"dc:date.issued":["2025-01-16"],"dc:description.abstract":["Neologisms remain an important topic within Septuagint scholarship. Despite their significance, very few studies devoted to the topic of “new words” have materialized. This dissertation examines the identification and interpretation of putative neologisms, Greek words allegedly coined by the translators of the Septuagint as a result of Hebrew interference, applying cognitive and constructionist linguistic theory within the history of the Greek language. Employing an eclectic linguistic approach, this study challenges the prevailing assumptions that unattested vocabulary reflects translational inadequacy or cultural subversion. Instead, it is argued that new lexical formations reflect standard Greek morphological processes, often with parallels in earlier or contemporary usage, thereby testifying to the translators’ linguistic competence and cultural integration in Hellenistic society. Chapter 1 introduces the problem by outlining the frequency and interpretive value of neologisms in the LXX, with a focus on Jeremiah. It reviews past scholarship and methodological frameworks, distinguishing between “Hebrew-priority” and “Greek-priority” approaches. These orientations are shown to underlie distinct theories of LXX lexicography, yet they adhere to a similar method for identifying and interpreting alleged neologisms. This chapter also introduces the rationale for choosing LXX Jeremiah, a book widely regarded as both literal and lexically idiosyncratic, as the central case study. Chapter 2 briefly discusses the theoretical framework and method for the dissertation, emphasizing the limitations of attestation-based approaches and instead proposing a descriptive linguistic model. After reviewing the challenge of identifying neologisms in ancient corpora, the chapter introduces categories of word formation, inflection, derivation, and compounding as the categorical delineations for analysis. It also justifies using cognitive and constructionbased morphological theories to understand how such words arise within the natural capacities of language users. Finally, the chapter explains how these frameworks allow for evaluating the probability of coinage and the nature of translator competence. Chapters 3–6 contain the core investigation of neologisms. These chapters trace consistent patterns of inflection and derivation in the translators’ language that closely align with established norms in Postclassical Greek. Many of these forms are subsequently confirmed by nonbiblical sources, reinforcing their integration within their wider linguistic environment. Emphasis is placed on the cognitive and semantic transparency of these constructions. The extensive morphological productivity observed indicates that these forms were not lexical anomalies but rather typical outputs of educated Greek usage. Furthermore, the translators’ employment of compounding aligns with established Hellenistic compositional strategies. By drawing on parallels from contemporary epigraphic and papyrological evidence, the thesis demonstrates both the plausibility and commonality of these compound forms beyond the biblical corpus. Chapter 7 concludes by synthesizing the findings and drawing out broader implications. The study shows that a significant portion of the neologisms in LXX Jeremiah have attested parallels in or before the translators’ period. The dissertation confirms that these words are not linguistic outliers but products of normal, even sophisticated, practices of word formation in Greek. In light of this, this chapter argues for a correction to the way neologisms are used to characterize the Greek of the Septuagint, proposing that the evidence points not to linguistically isolated translators but to near-native or native speakers operating with full participation in their Hellenistic linguistic and cultural world."],"dc:format.checksum.md5":["da74484495e19e69b7cd4f0fd35c8e13","87eda9de84448d1f82354d60eee3eb5f"],"dc:identifier.doi":["https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.127384"],"dc:identifier.uri":["https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstreams/45347cec-b5af-400a-98e6-ef578f318556/download"],"dc:language":["eng"],"dc:publisher.institution":["University of Cambridge"],"dc:relation.isreferencedby.uri":["https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/398554"],"dc:rights":["https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstreams/4262197e-6ea5-46ab-a6fb-2e2f4d194ded/download","http://purl.org/NET/rdflicense/allrightsreserved"],"dc:rights.embargodate":["2027-02-18"],"dc:rights.embargotype":["embargo"],"dc:subject":["Early Judaism","Hellenistic Judaism","Lexicography","Morphology","Neologisms","Postclassical Greek","Septuagint","Word Formation"],"dc:title":["Neologisms in LXX Jeremiah: Word Formation within the History of Greek"],"dc:type":["Thesis"],"dc:type.qualificationlevel":["Doctoral"],"dc:type.qualificationname":["Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T01:33:05Z"}