John Hobbins has an interesting post today that brings up the issue of Hebraic influence on New Testament Greek. In other words, biblical Greek is not "real" Greek in the sense of Homer or Plato or Herodotus written in Greek by native speakers of Greek. Anyone who's tried to read the Septuagint and then turn to something in classical Greek should be able to detect this. The Septuagint is worse because it's a translation from Hebrew that follows the source text very closely a lot of the time in representing every word and keeping the same word order. The New Testament, on the other hand, was originally written in Greek, but Greek that was heavily influenced by the Jewish background of the writers. The quotes that John gives us from both the Geneva Bible and E.C. Hoskyns are especially good reminders of that reality.
It reminded me of the issue I brought up a little over a month ago about who was better suited to examine issues involving the Jewish background of ideas like messianic expectation before Jesus - New Testament or Hebrew Bible specialists. My conclusion is that it would really require both working together and both being committed to objectively looking at the evidence from the Second Temple Period. However, if I had to pick between them, it seems that a Hebrew Bible specialist might be better equipped to pick up on those Hebraisms in Greek, many of which are rooted in the Septuagint and Hellenistic Jewish thought. Of course, you'll say I'm biased - being a Hebrew Bible specialist and all. But it seems easier to me to start with an understanding of the Hebrew Bible as the basis for Ancient Judaism and move forward than to start with the New Testament and try to work backward to get the background. That's one of the main reasons why I'm pursuing Hebrew Bible. Everything starts there.