Invariably, scholars of early Christianity need to interact with the Septuagint (LXX), since it was the Greek-speaking Church's official version of the Old Testament, copiously cited and commented upon in patristic writings. Until recently, scholars have relied on lexica ill-suited for the task of deciphering its occasionally perplexing Greek. A Greek-English lexicon compiled by H. G. Liddell, R. Scott and H. S. Jones has deficiencies that were only partially corrected by later supplements (incomplete coverage, inconsistent lexicographical principles and, at times, suspect definitions). More helpful is the latest edition of the standard lexicon for the New Testament, A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature edited by W. Bauer, W. F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich and F. W. Danker, though this work is also not explicitly devoted to the vocabulary of the LXX. In recent years significant steps have been taken to remedy this deficiency with the publication of two (more or less) comprehensive lexica of the LXX: the Greek-English lexicon of the Septuagint (rev. edn, 2003), edited by J. Lust, E. Eynikel and K. Hauspie (LEH), and the work under review, the similarly titled, A Greek-English lexicon of the Septuagint (2009; two earlier, less complete editions, were published in 1993 and 2002), edited by T. Muraoka. LEH is based upon Rahlfs's edition of the LXX, whereas the textual basis of Muraoka is not uniform. Where available, Muraoka relies on the new Göttingen edition; otherwise it draws upon Rahlfs and an assortment of other important editions (pp. vii–ix).

Muraoka offers an informative introduction orienting readers to its layout and principles of lexicography. There follows a list of abbreviations, a bibliography, entries that are alphabetically organised and, finally, a list of lexemes not included in the lexicon (primarily variant readings and transliterations of Semitic words). There are three sections for each entry: (1) the headword, followed by its morphology (missing here is the useful statistical information that LEH provides on the frequency and distribution of a given lexeme in the LXX); (2) the definition of the headword in italics, followed by a description of usage, the sorts of contexts in which the word occurs and biblical illustrations; (3) a list of semantically-related words (far less frequent in LEH) and an occasional bibliographical notice. Previous editions of this lexicon, with LEH, included a final section on the relationship between the Greek word and its Semitic original. This feature has been dropped from the latest version of the lexicon, a decision some will lament.

Arguably the most important difference between LEH and Muraoka is the scope of their respective definitions. Muraoka is a more expansive, and thus, I think, a more useful lexicon, since it offers fuller definitions and not simply short, translational equivalents. Two quick examples will illustrate this point. LEH translates πταισμα as ‘mistake, error, fault, offence’, whereas Muraoka elaborates: ‘failure to achieve an aim: on battlefield, euphemistically for defeat’. The verb ʼησυΧαζω is rendered ‘to keep quiet, to be at rest’ in LEH, whereas Muraoka offers four distinct definitions: ‘to be or become restful, free from turbulence’ (and under this definition follows a dozen or so descriptions of the sorts of peaceful situations that this verb indicates); ‘to fall silent’; ‘to refrain from speaking’; ‘to refrain from doing’. On the whole, Muraoka is an excellent lexicon of the LXX and the best choice for scholars with little need to examine its Semitic background.