^{page 104 note 1} Weinreich, Uriel, Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems (The Hague, 1953), p. 56: ‘The vocabulary of a language, considerably more loosely structured than its phonemics and its grammar, is beyond question the domain of borrowing par excellence.’ For a criticism of the term ‘interference’ seeGoogle ScholarFishman, Joshua A. et al. Bilingualism in the Barrio (Language Science Monographs 7) (Bloomington, 1971) pp. 561–3.Google Scholar

^{page 104 note 2} We may thus speak respectively of phonological, morphological and semantic loans. This threefold classification of lexical loans, though not free from difficulties, appears to me more intelligible than Haugen's (which brings together loan translations and semantic loans under the rubric of ‘loanshifts’, even though these two groups are hardly homogeneous) and more rigorous than Weinreich's (which has, nevertheless, some pedagogical value). For a comparison of these classifications see Table 2 in Oksaar, Els, ‘Bilingualism’, Current Studies in Linguistics, IX (The Hague, 1972), 476–511.Google Scholar

^{page 104 note 3} Weinreich, p. 48.

^{page 104 note 4} See Black, Matthew, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (3rd ed.Oxford, 1967), p. 133. It is essential to notice the difference between the absolute usage (e.g. Matt. viii. 24), a true semantic loan, and names like ‘Sea of Galilee’.Google Scholar

^{page 105 note 1} Indeed, it is ironic that the general subject of Semitic influence on the New Testament language is an open field from the point of view of linguistic science. E.g. the bibliography to Beyer's, Klaus valuable work, Semitische Syntax im Neuen Testament, I/I (Göttingen, 1962), includes no references to linguistic authorities. Even the recent work byGoogle ScholarMussies, G., The Morphology of Koine Greek as Used in the Apocalypse of St. John: A Study in Bilingualism (Suppl. N.T. XXVII) (Leiden, 1971), in spite of its title, makes relatively little use of modern studies in bilingualism.CrossRefGoogle ScholarNotice, however, Vergote's, J. old but significant article, ‘Grec biblique’, in Dictionnaire de la Bible, Supplement 3 (Paris, 1938), columns 1320–1370, as well as the recent and fully informed work of Umberto Rapallo (dealing with all kinds of linguistic imitation), Calchi ebraici nelle antiche versioni del ‘Levitico’ (Studi Semitici 39) (Rome, 1971).Google Scholar

^{page 105 note 2} This article is a brief summary of my doctoral thesis, Semantic Change and Semitic Influence in the Greek Bible (The University of Manchester, 1972), to which the reader is referred for a more detailed analysis of the material.Google Scholar

^{page 105 note 3} See Hope, T. E., Lexical Borrowing in the Romance Languages: A Critical Study of Italianisms in French and Gallicisms in Italian from 1100 to 1900 (Oxford, 1971), p. 644. It is well known, of course, that some of the LXX translators, as part of their technique, exploited resemblances when they could (and notice the use of σκηνο⋯ν, reminiscent of הניכש, in John i. 14), but this is quite a different phenomenon; cf. nowGoogle ScholarWalters, Peter, The Text of the Septuagint: Its Corruptions and Their Emendations (Cambridge, 1973). ch. 9.Google Scholar

^{page 105 note 4} Cf. Fitzmyer's, Joseph A. valuable survey, ‘The languages of Palestine in the first century A.D.’, C.B.Q. XXXII (1970), 501–31; the concluding words inGoogle ScholarKutscher's, E. Y. first article on the Bar Cochba letters, Lešonenu XXVI (1961–2), 7–23; appendix VII inGoogle ScholarYalon, Hanoch, Introduction to the Vocalization of the Mishna (Jerusalem, 1964, in Hebrew), pp. 204–8; and most recentlyGoogle ScholarEmerton's, J. A. significant article, ‘The Problem of Vernacular Hebrew in the First Century A.D. and the Language of Jesus’, J.T.S. n.s. XXIV (1973), 1–23.Google Scholar

^{page 106 note 1} See Black, p. 140.

^{page 106 note 2} See Behm, T.D.N.T. 1, 477.

^{page 106 note 3} So Weinreich, Languages in Contact, p. 60.

^{page 106 note 4} Ibid. p. 54.

^{page 106 note 5} See McNamara, Martin, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (Analecta Biblica 27) (Rome, 1966), pp. 145–9.Google Scholar

^{page 107 note 1} Bauer, W., A Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, 1957), p. XX.Google Scholar

A study of the semantic field of ‘mind’ in the Greek Bible and in Epictetus may be found in my thesis, Semantic Change, pp. 141 ff.

^{page 107 note 2} Since a Hebraism is by our definition a ‘Septuagintalism’, it is a simple matter to verify whether the Hebrew equivalent of a particular Greek word is used in a given manner in the Old Testament. Our ‘doubtful’ cases can therefore only be ‘Aramaisms’; i.e. we suspect, but cannot verify, that the native language of the New Testament writers is responsible for a Semitism.

^{page 107 note 3} Black, pp. 240–3. On p. 243 he speaks of mistranslation; however, he had earlier (p. 241) allowed for the possibility of ‘the hampering influence of a foreign idiom’ (i.e. a semantic loan).

^{page 107 note 4} It is interesting to notice that Torrey and Wellhausen used examples of this sort as proofs that such meanings did exist in Palestinian Aramaic! See especially Torrey, C. C., ‘Studies in the Aramaic of the first century A.D.’, Z.A.W. LXV (1953), 228–47.Google Scholar

Some possibilities not noticed previously (which I hope to publish in the near future) may be found in my dissertation, Semantic Change, p. 58.

^{page 107 note 5} Cf. Black, pp. 133 f.

^{page 107 note 6} See Fitzmyer, Joseph A., The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave I: A Commentary, 2nd ed. (Biblica et Orientalia 18 A) (Rome, 1971), pp. 150 f.Google Scholar

^{page 107 note 7} Nägeli, Cf. Theodor, Der Wortschatz. des Apostels Paulus. Beitrag zur sprachgeschichtlichen Erforschung des Neuen Testament (Göttingen, 1905), p. 52.Google Scholar

^{page 108 note 1} So Nägeli, p. 35; contrast F. Büchsel, T.D.N.T. II, 167. Notice also διακρίνεσθαι, ‘to doubt’, after Aramaic גלפ, according to Büchsel, T.D.N.T. III, 948 f.

^{page 108 note 2} Sa‘id, Majed F., Lexical Innovation through Borrowing in Modern Standard Arabic (Ph.D. thesis, Princeton University, 1964), p. 103: ‘Loanshift extension is one of the normal semantic changes that take place in language contact situations, and it is the type of change that most often goes unnoticed.’ Cf. also Hope, Lexical Borrowing, p. 645. In contrast, notice the scepticism already aired byGoogle ScholarWackernagel, J., ‘Lateinisch–Griechisches’, Indogermanische Forschungen XXXI (1912–13), 251–71, especially p. 263.Google Scholar

^{page 108 note 3} 1st s. impf. of ךה = ךלה (Levy, Chaldärsches Wörterbuch, p. 198.)

^{page 109 note 1} Thus, for example, Gustaf Stern spoke of these changes as ‘substitutions’ which are due to external, non-linguistic causes, all Other changes being due to linguistic causes (Meaning and Change of Meaning, With Special Reference to the English Language, Göteborgs Högskolas Arsskrift 37, Göteborg, 1931, p. 192). See also Ullmann, Stephen, The Principles of Semantics, 2nd ed. (New York, 1957), p. 211.Google Scholar

^{page 109 note 2} Hope, Lexical Borrowing, p. 727.

^{page 109 note 3} Besides Fitzmyer's article (above, p. 105 n. 4) notice Gundry, Robert H., ‘The language milieu of first-century Palestine’, J.B.L. LXXXIII (1964), 404–8.Google Scholar