Great Presentation!!! Finally, someone who makes sense out of a chaos! As a Greek native speaker who fights over 40 years with professors about the Erasmian vs Modern Greek approach, allow me please to add few points to your excellent presentation. Erasmian pronunciation is useful only to foreign speakers in learning the spelling of the words. My first point is that although tape and digital recorders didn't exist during Homeric, Classical or Hellenistic times up to last century, it's not true that recorders didn't exist. This is an invention which didn't need external inventor. It's called Generational Tradition. And simply is how a language is "recorded" and transferred from parents to kids in their brains through out history. The Greek Language is probably the only language in the world (along with the Chinese) that is alive and continually spoken and written for at least 4,000 and 2,800 years respectively. Maybe for a foreign speaking person the Homeric dialect of Odyssey and Iliad or the Attic dialect of Socrates, Plato, Aristotele, or our Tragic Writers to be considered by many as a dead language. WRONG!!!! In our language today we used 85% of the Homeric language with the additions and simplifications that take place in a living language. To your point that there are over 17 million Greeks today that speak the same language as St Paul in Athens and have the Bible written in their language, really don't know what is the proper pronunciation ? !!!! A third point; maybe we don't talk in our everyday life as Socrates or Demosthenes but if someone could read the text we are writing for our Saints for the liturgical life of the Orthodox Church will see that Greeks through out the centuries and the 2024 years of the NT have produced works linguistically equal or higher than that of Homer, Pindar and Demosthenes in Attic dialect. Mr. Hackett your reasoning is perfect and thank you for helping people approach this important issue finally with realism and common sense. Keep up your excellent work!
Κωνσταντίνε εύγε! Δυστυχώς προσπαθούμε ως λαός,να αποδείξουμε ότι δεν είμαστε ελέφαντες! Υπάρχει μια τάση στο εξωτερικό να πιστεύουν ότι εμείς ξαφνικά "φυτρώσαμε" σε τούτο εδώ το τόπο και μαζί με μας και η γλώσσα μας! Προφανώς αυτοί που ισχυρίζονται κάτι τέτοιο είναι ανιστόρητοι και δεν έχουν μελετήσει την Ελληνική γλώσσα έτσι όπως της αρμόζει, δηλαδή στο σύνολο της! Δεν είναι τυχαίο που η γλώσσα μας έχει αλλάξει λιγότερο από κάθε άλλη γλώσσα παγκοσμίως, κάτι που το παραδέχονται όλοι! Δεν καταλαβαίνω γιατί προσπαθούν με την λογική να αναλύσουν μια γλώσσα. Εάν στην ίδια ακριβώς θέση των Ελληνικών,στο θέμα που συζητάμε, βάζαμε τα Αγγλικά,τι θα γινόταν; Ας υποθέσουμε δηλαδή ότι είχαμε τα Αγγλικά (όπως ομιλούνται σήμερα)ως μια γλώσσα 2000 χιλιάδων ετών και προσπαθούσαν οι αναλυτές να βρούν την σωστή προφορά. Θα γινόταν χαμός! Υπήρχε ποτέ περίπτωση,για παράδειγμα,κάποιος να έβρισκε την σωστή προφορά καθεμίας λέξης από τις παρακάτω(;) though-through-enough. Ούτε στα πιο τρελά του όνειρα! Δεν υπάρχει λογική εδώ, γιατί λοιπόν να υπάρχει στα Ελληνικά ; Δεν λειτουργούν έτσι οι γλώσσες. Υπάρχουν παράδοξα σε όλες τις γλώσσες του κόσμου,στην γραμματική και στο συντακτικό κάθε γλώσσας παγκοσμίως, γιατί τα Ελληνικά να αποτελούν εξαίρεση,δεν καταλαβαίνω. Ευτυχώς όμως κάποιοι συνειδητοποιούν την αλήθεια, όπως ο κύριος στο βίντεο,κάτι που είναι πολύ θετικό! ΥΓ Συγγνώμη εάν κούρασα.
Awesome, I am glad you met this guy, he gave you great advice! I am an Eastern Orthodox Christian. I live daily in the Greek world I use Κοινή Ελληνική "Koine Greek" as well as Νέα Ελληνικά " Modern Greek". A little-known fact is the fact that a few of our very old Monasteries never ceased using Κοινή Ελληνική. We know this beyond a shadow of a doubt. Yes, there may be a couple of minor nuance pronunciations, but the language is basically the same. Not long ago, I was reading a book that belongs to a Monastery. The Book belonged to a Bishop 150 years ago it was written in Κοινή! Κοινή Greek never died, over the years some words mean the same and others took on a slightly different meaning. For example "Αἷμα Κοινή " is the same as "Αίμα Νέα ελληνικά", translation blood. I do hope that one day Historical pronunciation will be adopted in the West. When Westerners speak Greek using the Erasmian pronunciation sounds similar to someone scratching a Blackboard with their nails. Θεός να σ' ευλογεί
@@Gregori-mi2vy8nc6ythank you so much! I've fallen in love with the New Testament in Greek over the pandemic and I'm just trying to read it aloud because that's just how my mind works. However, my native tongue is Romanian and we already have most of names and words from when we were one with Constantinople and the Neoheleniki sounds so strange when it comes to EU as ev/ef or Epsilon as "I" and no hard "H"where the hard accent is. Though I can pronounce it as instructed is just strange. We already have "Paul" "Herod" "Therapeut" "Hera" "Zoie" "Priscila" "Hristos" "Crestin" "Chort" "Arhiereul" and I can go on for days. Could you please advise me on how your living Koine pronounces these?
Hi! I'm from Mexico. I've been teaching Biblical Greek since 2016. The first year I tought Greek, I used Erasmian pronunciation because it was the way I had been tought. In that same year I got the opportunity to talk with an orthodox seminarian about this topic and he told me that they only use modern Greek pronunciation. I immediately found out about Modern Greek pronunciation and learned it on the internet. From that moment on, I decided to switch from Erasmian to Modern Greek (or Historical) pronunciation. Now it's been already 8 years I've been using Modern Greek pronunciation. Erasmian pronunciation seems to me more artificial and Modern Greek pronunciation is more live.
I'm Eastern Orthodox and engage regularly with Greeks who use Greek daily. I've observed that among those who read the Bible, the consensus is to first grasp Modern Greek and then integrate the specific Biblical vocabulary and grammar on that foundation. The distinctions between the two are so minute that adopting a specialized pronunciation with limited applications seems like it could be more practical. Since most Biblical terms are still prevalent in Modern Greek, focusing on mastering the contemporary language seems more beneficial.
Dear Brother, I am Eastern Orthodox as well, and I live daily in the Greek world I use Κοινή Ελληνική "Koine Greek" as well as Νέα Ελληνικά " Modern Greek". A little-known fact is the fact that a few of our very old Monasteries never ceased using Κοινή Ελληνική. We know this beyond a shadow of a doubt. Yes, there may be a couple of minor nuance pronunciations, but the language is basically the same. Not long ago, I was reading a book that belongs to a Monastery. The Book belonged to a Bishop 150 years ago it was written in Κοινή! Κοινή Greek never died, over the years some words mean the same and others took on a slightly different meaning. For example "Αἷμα Κοινή " is the same as "Αίμα Νέα ελληνικά", translation blood. I do hope that one day Historical pronunciation will be adopted in the West. When Westerners speak Greek using the Erasmian pronunciation sounds similar to someone scratching a Blackboard with their nails. Ο Θεός να σ' ευλογεί!v
I think the main “practical” point that I would add is that you can learn Greek through the same means people learn other languages. Using modern Greek pronunciation allows me to watch movies and videos in Greek in the same pronunciation system as when I study the New Testament. Watching Aladdin or an animated Star Wars film in your target language is not possible in reconstructed or Erasmian pronunciation.
I experimented with modern pronunciation years ago but quickly switched back to Erasmian (w/stress accent) when I discovered that Modern Greek made it much harder to master the written spellings. This was impressed on my mind when I learned Spanish at the age of 34 in 1981. I was shocked to learn that I was able to spell better in Spanish than my native English. I can instantly pronounce correctly every word in Spanish, but still have to make frequent use of a dictonary for the pronunciation of unfamiliar English words. I recommend W. Sidney Allen's VOX GRAECA 3rd ed, which offers historical data and practical advice.
As a self-taught learner, I've been using modern-ish pronunciation because there are online tools where I can copy and paste individual words into the box and get the pronunciation. Also, I use Duolingo to learn modern Greek, and that obviously uses a modern translation. But as a self-taught student, I don't have to answer to anyone. I learned Hebrew first, and learned that trick for Hebrew.
I’m on a camping trip and don’t have my laptop, so I’m forced to reply using just my thumbs! 🤨 I wholeheartedly agree, brother. My introduction to NT Greek was using Machen”s text, and so I was taught Erasmian and used it for years. But then I dialogued online with a Greek soaker from Cyprus, and he made the case for Modern (Historical), so I familiarized myself with Modern. Some time after that, I encountered 3 Greeks at a coffee shop. (I think I may have told you that story before.) After chatting with them, I made the switch to Modern. Like you said, it just makes sense.
It makes sense indeed! I am Eastern Orthodox as well, and I live daily in the Greek world I use Κοινή Ελληνική "Koine Greek" as well as Νέα Ελληνικά " Modern Greek". A little-known fact is the fact that a few of our very old Monasteries never ceased using Κοινή Ελληνική. We know this beyond a shadow of a doubt. Yes, there may be a couple of minor nuance pronunciations, but the language is basically the same. Not long ago, I was reading a book that belongs to a Monastery. The Book belonged to a Bishop 150 years ago it was written in Κοινή! The language of Κοινή Greek never died, over the years some words meant the same and others took on a slightly different meaning. For example "Αἷμα Κοινή " is the same as "Αίμα Νέα ελληνικά", translation blood. I do hope that one day Historical pronunciation will be adopted in the West. When Westerners speak Greek using the Erasmian pronunciation it sounds similar to someone scratching a Blackboard with their nails. Ο Θεός να σ' ευλογεί
There are two issues at hand: 1) historical truth 2) practical choices Zachariou's thesis is absurd: he mixes up timelines and gives partial information to support the absurd thesis that Classical Greek is pronounced as Modern Greek. While many of the sounds of Modern Greek appear at different time periods and regions of Greek, claiming that the whole system of Greek (that is, that every day pronunciation for most Greeks in the 5th and 4th centuries BC) was virtually identical to that of modern Greek is simply false, and a lot of serious scholarship (Cantor's included) proves that with ample documentation. Zachariou's work isn't half as serious. However, none of that means that people shouldn't use the modern pronunciation, which has the advantage of being based on an actual spoken version of Greek, and thus sounds recognizably as a living language. The problem with most restored pronunciations is that they are based off theoretical principles and are applied by people with little talent for accents, foreign pronunciations, and so on... and end up just sounding artificial. There are many advantages to using either the restored or the modern pronunciation. Ultimately the choice is an aesthetical, ideological or political one. And also a practical one, since it's easier and less problematic to choose MG pronunciation and be done with it. Indeed it is also "close enough" to Palestinian koine that one might not see why it would be useful to make a few of those other distinctions. And yet, my quarrel is with Zachariou's main claims, which don't deserve this kind of publicity. I think I misunderstood your point that "the modern pronunciation was being used in other parts of the Mediterranean". But it's not really correct; While some vowels and consonants in some parts of the Mediterranean were being pronunced more or less the same way as they are in Modern Greek, this isn't true of the system. That is to say that, in some parts iota and eta where the same, but in those same parts ypsilon was similar to οι but not to ι, aspirates hadn't become fricative, and in other parts other statements were true. But not the whole system. This data manipulation is the basis for Zachariou's attempt at a historical refutation, but the information he gives is partial and therefore misleading. One example: saying that οι and υ are being confused (in a specific region within a specific timeframe) then stating that υ and ι are confused by speakers a century later in a different region, then concluding that υ and ι were pronounced the same. I don't know whether it's bad scholarship or just plain deceit. It's more or less like saying that 16th century English pronunciation of -ear is the same in Shakespeare's time as in modern times because somewhere in Ireland it might have been 200 years later, then claiming the same for another distinct sound in an entirely different context. It's simply nonsense. But the way we look at ancient historical data makes it seem that, because it's so ancient, 200 years or 2000 km isn't that big of a deal. Not to mention the complete disregard for contextual phonological changes. If one is to pronounce Greek with the modern pronunciation, it's easier to accept that one is using the current pronunciation to pronounce something that was necessarily different. There's no need to sugarcoat it and pretend it is actual historical fact. As I said, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with using the modern Greek pronunciation (I say this as a MG speaker who loves MG culture and literature and considers the whole of Greek culture from antiquity to the present as a continuum). But choosing to do so has no base in historical data, unless manipulated.
Thanks I appreciate your nuanced response. I’m perfectly happy with Kantor’s analysis here: “A more balanced approach in favor of the modern pronunciation accepts that although the pronunciation of Hellenistic Greek was remarkably close to Modern Greek, the pronunciation of Plato and Aristotle remains a good distance away from those on the streets of Athens today.” That’s enough for me. Again your contribution was a meaningful one and I appreciate it.
Finally! A comment based on fact and study and not on political, ideological or religious bias. So many other comments here are just rubbish! Thank you for yours! ❤
I’m only in 1st year biblical Greek, but I actually bought a modern Greek Bible and was thinking the same thing and now you’ve got me even more interested. Thank you!
Go for it! I am Eastern Orthodox as well, and I live daily in the Greek world I use Κοινή Ελληνική "Koine Greek" as well as Νέα Ελληνικά " Modern Greek". A little-known fact is the fact that a few of our very old Monasteries never ceased using Κοινή Ελληνική. We know this beyond a shadow of a doubt. Yes, there may be a couple of minor nuance pronunciations, but the language is basically the same. Not long ago, I was reading a book that belongs to a Monastery. The Book belonged to a Bishop 150 years ago it was written in Κοινή! The Κοινή language never died, over the years some words mean the same and others took on a slightly different meaning. For example "Αἷμα Κοινή " is the same as "Αίμα Νέα ελληνικά", translation blood. I do hope that one day Historical pronunciation will be adopted in the West. When Westerners speak Greek using the Erasmian pronunciation, it sounds similar to someone scratching a Blackboard with their nails! Ο Θεός να σ' ευλογεί
@@paulrudiger2552 That's an assertion. Actual Koine Greek was once considered basically a dead language. Greek changed over the years. So no lol, there aren't a bunch of schools and churches that have used Koine Greek uninterrupted for 2,000 years. Nice try... Oh and 😆🤣😂😹😆🤣😂 I can do that too...
It's interesting how the different forms of Greek resemble the different forms of English, isn't it? For contemporary Greek people, reading the Greek New Testament would be like reading Reformation-era English translations - some words may not be familiar at first, but their meaning can be easily found through their surrounding context. Also, on another note, I find that a Spanish accent comes naturally to me when I speak passages of the Greek New Testament with modern pronunciation - it's fascinating to hear how similar the two accents are.
You're absolutely right! My husband is a native Greek speaker, who also speaks Spanish, having spent a year in a Spanish speaking country a long time ago. When he attempts to order at the local Mexican restaurants in the US, he is regularly asked by the native Spanish speakers, "Which Spanish speaking country do you come from?" A lot of the pronunciation is very similar.
@@annai157 My wife and I were in Santa Fe, New Mexico, last year and went to a bakery to get some breakfast. The staff in the bakery were all Spanish-speakers who spoke with each other in Spanish, including the man who took our order and then brought us our pastries. My wife and I spoke with each other in Greek. So at some point he asked us, "what language are you speaking? I thought to myself that it was Spanish, because it sounds like Spanish, but then I realized I couldn't understand anything you were saying." And I responded, "Somos Griegos, hablamos el idioma griego. La lingua griega y la lingua espanol tienen la misma fonologia." (Sorry about my fractured Spanish.) So, yes, with a few exceptions, there are many similarities in how Spanish and "modern" Greek sound.
I was convinced of your conclusion reading Constantine Campbell's Advances in the study of Greek. Chapter 9 it's a good concise case for this argument.
Because the Western world was taught Greek mainly by Erasmus during the Renaissance, it was natural for there to be many misunderstandings as to the correct pronunciation of the letters, because he himself had never heard Greek. So since the Greeks were absent, this mistake grew and took root as right. But who knows the language better than the people themselves who have kept it alive for at least 4000 years? Of course, I do not argue that everything has remained unchanged over the centuries - that would be unnatural - but the terrible barbarities heard today by would-be "Hellenists" are something we are now forced to constantly fight to correct. I will end by saying that Erasmus himself at the end of his life - after meeting with educated Greeks - admitted his mistakes, but the damage had been done. Modern Greek keeps the pronunciation of all the letters and the thousands of word roots of antiquity. Some differences in pronunciation appeared with the common Greek of the early Christian years and the church kept the same pronunciation for the next 2000 years (this is our main source of knowledge about the evolution of the language). Yes, we know that the letters that used to cross the point of the δασεία/daseea (Ὑὑ-Ἐἑ-Ἰἱ-ᾉᾁ, etc.) were pronounced heavier (today the same words in English still hold the letter "H" in front to indicate this difference (Ϋδρα>Hydra, Ὑποκρισία>Hypocrisy, Ἐλικόπτερο>Helicopter...
Great video, sir! I am in total agreement with you on the use of the Modern Greek/Neohellenic pronunciation, and not just because I'm Greek myself. While I respect the meticulous work behind all the various reconstructed pronunciations of Ancient Greek, to me at least, they come across as artificial and forced when put into practice. Language relies on actually hearing sounds and repeating them, the human brain is wired to do so. To extrapolate the sounds of human speech, exactly, with all the subtle nuances and inflections and tones, from written texts alone is next to impossible. So, one can never know exactly how accurate he/she is being to the original pronunciation when trying to use one of these reconstructed phonologies. One must constantly look over one's shoulder, so to speak, doubting whether or not that eta was too long, that acute accent was too high. How can you be sure without a native speaker or voice recording to correct you? I understand we have evidences from various ancient texts outlining, for example, the difference between long vowels and short vowels, the nature of voiced/unvoiced plosives and aspirates, pitch accent and meter. However, these only paint a rough picture, like disconnected pieces of a puzzle, they are simply not enough to complete said puzzle and fully restore the voices of people like Homer, Socrates, Plato and Plutarch. In my humble opinion, I think it is wiser to leave the data where they lie - in written print or carved stone etchings - appreciate them, consider them, but take them no further than that. Instead, we can use the one phonology of Greek that we have available, the one used consistently amongst all native Greek speakers, the one we have countless audio recordings of, the only verifiably correct system of pronunciation at least for one period of time in the language's long history: Modern Greek. God bless you, brother, and the whole world over. 🌎 ❤
@@Simrealism Well, if you choose to use a reconstructed pronunciation as a personal preference, that is fair enough. I respectfully disagree that Modern Greek lacks uniqueness amongst the Indo-European language family, but that is all to do with subjective opinion, of course. Objectively speaking, however, the sounds you produce utilizing a reconstructed system will never be wholly accurate to the native Greek speakers of whatever period of Ancient Greek you're trying to recreate. Essentially, what you're preferring over an authentic modern Greek pronunciation is completely your own interpretation of the prescribed "rules" of an ancient pronunciation, not the real thing. When trying to recreate phonemic vowel length, for example, you are simply making up the length of time spent on a long vowel versus a short vowel as you go along. The same goes for the degree of change in pitch as you go from high to low, low to high whilst trying to recreate the sounds of the acute, grave and circumflex accent marks. All the while, you must try to avoid switching to a stress accent by accident. This was my main point, the entire concept is artificial, unnatural and clunky. True language acquisition is impossible without constant, repeated audio exposure to the language and active attempts to reproduce the sounds heard. Everything else is just conjecture.
@@Simrealism Understandable, of course. We're all free to use whichever system of pronunciation we like. When reading ancient Greek texts, the point overall is to glean meaning from them, so pronunciation is not the be-all and end-all.
@@Simrealism Thank you for the link, however I have seen that video before and I've delved quite deeply into the evidences for the changing phonology of Greek through the millenia, just out of interest. It is just my personal view that it is counter-productive to actually try and use these clues from spelling mistakes, transliterations and the like to attempt to actually reproduce the sounds yourself. I cannot lie and say that I don't cringe when I hear it done. I applaud the speaker's efforts, I don't take issue with them personally, it's just a visceral reaction I have to hearing their recitations. I don't want to be insulting, though. I think the difference between what you're saying in your second paragraph and what I'm referring to is that foreign speakers of Greek as a lingua franca (following the Hellenistic Period) gained the language organically through hearing it spoken from the Greeks who brought it to them, namely Alexander the Great and his men. The locals would likely not have sounded exactly like native Greeks, of course, because they would have spoken it with their various accents. It might not have been "authentic" pronunciation of the Greeks back home, but it was authentic to them because they used it as a real living language. This is a far cry from the modern scholarly attempts to resurrect ancient pronunciations that they themselves have never heard or will ever hear.
@@E45F678 "authentic modern", this is the problem. you imagine that the reconstructions are by implication "inauthentic", however the reconstructions are based on the writings of greek speakers themselves, and the internal logic of Greek's spelling system. the reconstructions are not a foreign imposition, the reconstructions aim to retrieve the unique essence or spirit of the language as it would have sounded to an ancient ear, the reconstructions are not determined based the sensibilities of modern english or german speakers. it is very easy to determine pronunciation based on spelling variants. the fact that we will say there is not 100% proof is simply scientific, without an audio recording (of multiple speakers across a generation) yes we will never be completely sure, but we can be sure enough, 99% sure. we know for example that the word laugh comes from the middle english word laughen, so we know without a native speaker that the a of laugh was not pronounced long back then, because we know gh was not silent, or pronounced like an f, it was still /x/, and we know this based on spelling variations and modern dialects which still pronounce gh as /x/, so we know without a recording that laughen was pronounced /lɑxən/ which became /lɑːfən/, and then /lɑːf/, and we know the a was short then, because some dialects still have it short, but the lengthening in this case is unexplained, just like in the word father, which is short in both dutch and german. so again reconstructions can tell us how father was pronounced back in 1400 or earlier even though we dont have a time machine or a voice recording. so your arguments that the reconstructions are artificial or seem so are unwarranted, and really comes down to your own personal bias. had you been taught ancient greek differently at school you would have thought differently. Ioannis Stratakis a modern greek speaker does ancient greek reconstructions on his channel www.youtube.com/@Podium-arts. he does so fluently, because he understands how the ancient language is supposed to flow and he gets that from spending time in it. his pronunciations are as authentic as they get.
@@HenryLeslieGraham My argument was never about criticizing the linguistic evidence. As I said, I understand that we can be reasonably sure that beta, for example, was pronounced as /b/ in Classical Attic Greek, and delta was /d/ etc. My point is that gluing these pieces together by applying these rules to a Greek text and actually reading it aloud, trying to form whole sentences this way, will inevitably produce inauthentic results. The speaker will never be sure of how close or far off he/she is from the original writer and the native speakers of that time and geographical location. Let's take eta for example, which apparently was a long /ε:/ sound at one stage. How long is that "long e" sound supposed to be held for? Do we have a unit of measurement for that to be certain? Well, of course not. Have you ever heard the expression "how long is a piece of string"? How long are we supposed to hold that sound for before moving on to the next? The same goes for omega's "long o" sound. Then there is pitch accent - when spotting an acute mark, you must "raise" the pitch. To what degree, precisely? What note are we supposed to be hitting? F# 3 octaves above middle C on the piano?? Then we are supposed to lower the tone when up against a grave mark. How low are we supposed to go? Then there are the circumflexes which indicate a rise and a fall in pitch, compounding this problem further. The issue is that details like these are entirely up to the speaker's interpretation, which instantly causes it to descend into subjectivity. Even Ioannis Stratakis (with all due respect) cannot avoid that. Now, granted, we can look around to modern living speakers of any pitch-based language and they will tell us that they do not need to resort to musical notation in order for them to know how high or low in pitch they must go when speaking. This is common sense. The reason why they are able to communicate effectively is, of course, because they have been exposed to the language in audio form over an extended period of time and know instinctively and unconsciously just how to raise and lower their pitch. Just as the Ancient Greeks did. The same goes for long and short vowels in languages that make use of them. This is the key ingredient lacking in a reconstructed pronunciation. This is what I am getting at when I say inauthentic. It is simply impossible to truly master a language without ever hearing it spoken. I will try and demonstrate this a little more with a thought experiment. Imagine a theoretical person, in this case an American man, who has gone his entire life never once hearing Modern Greek spoken. Never being exposed to Greek music, news programs or Greek people for that matter. He has no idea what the language sounds like. Then he one day receives a copy of a Greek textbook written in English that outlines the rules of Greek pronunciation. Do you think that if this man were to take to studying this book night and day, thoroughly, he will gain the ability to speak to a native Greek-speaker fluently and flawlessly, well enough to convince the native Greek speaker that this man was a local Greek himself? Of course not. There is only one way to achieve that and that is through listening and repeated the sounds of the language, not extrapolating them off a page.
My Greek professor would pound the podium when he taught us and yell, "Erasmus is dead! He's dead I say!" He would always start with those two sentences. I've used the modern pronunciation since I first started learning. However, I use Kantor's with my children, or something similar to it (modern with /y/ for υ/οι and something like his η; I don't have a keymap for the IPA). The reasons are fairly simple. Modern pronunciation, while very close and grammar very close, breaks ancient grammar by making key parts of grammar indistinguishable. Modern Greek has changed those features as it evolved. To put modern Greek into the Koine era, the argument has to use a bad method of finding those dialects of ancient Greek that showed modern features, select those. Then ignore where they blatantly contradict it and pick another dialect and select those places it agrees and ignore where it doesn't. You can get modern Greek with that, but the resulting pronunciation wouldn't be intelligible. I believe that languages should be taught as a spoken language and that people who don't learn it as a spoken language end up not understanding it as well as they could with lower retention. Look at the number of seminarians who took Greek and cannot read Greek and make terrible mistakes from the pulpit, not on pronunciation but on the language itself (e.g. the sermons on the words for love in Jesus' reinstatement of Peter). I want my children to learn it, and I don't want to them to learn it as badly as pastors. That, incidentally, is Dr. Kantor's chief plug for a reconstructed pronunciation. If you have that conviction, and I do, then you must either use a reconstructed pronunciation or use modern Greek pronunciation with the demotic language and work your way back (probably through Katharevousa). If we only learn the language as a written language, then we should use modern. However, if we adopt Dr. Kantor's belief about how people best learn languages, then we should use a reconstructed pronunciation. So I use Dr. Kantor's pronunciation with them. I read the NT aloud when praying with modern pronunciation. We sing with modern pronunciation, but I teach them to speak with Kantor's, knowing full well they will eventually switch entirely to modern.
A. Haire Forster's Paper "The Pronunciation of Greek in New Testament Times" almost a hundred years ago already highlighted that the Modern pronunciation is likely close to Koine.
The Shakespeare analogy is an interesting one. Although there are some points where the analogy falls down. When one gets used to the "reconstructed" pronunciation, an interesting thing happens when you are trying to read the ancient Greek manuscripts and participate in textual criticism. I have personally noticed, having internalised the reconstructed pronunciation, that it really does create this internal question about "how do you spell that word again" and the places where spelling becomes confusing, are the same places where the scribes would tend to make scribal spelling errors. So although the spelling issue is a minor frustration, I seem to have internalised an ability to more easily "gloss over" and/or "detect" the spelling related variants. Again on the Shakespeare analogy, I do wonder if using the reconstructed pronunciation might from time to time improve our ability to better pick up where rhyme and meter appears in the biblical text, and conversely I wonder if using Erasmian might obscure our ability to pick up where ryme and meter appears in the bible. So yes, a good analogy for sure!
I would say that yes, knowing "original pronunciation" for early modern English does bring forward certain word plays in Shakespeare that are largely lost on our modern ears: there are rhymes in the OP that employ double entendres on which most don't pick up first glance. I hadn't considered this as to how it might apply to the koine Greek scriptures before watching this video, but the Shakespearean early modern English analogy has really got me thinking.
Lovely post. Of course Erasmian *was* the "Reconstructed" of its day. Booth and Cantor are just the newest brands of the same product. Like many other commenters here, I am Greek Orthodox ,and I believe that the Church has maintained the correct pronunciation. Married to a Greek. Spend lots of time with Greek relatives and friends, here and abroad. Modern Greek is the correct method, for all of the reasons you mentioned. But also, I cannot help but wonder if those who insist on speaking a language differently than the native speakers do are motivated by a personal dislike of the Orthodox Church, or of the Greek people? If you think about it, imagine how English speakers would feel about a native speaker of Tamil, Arabic, or Chinese who insisted that he or she had a *superior* pronunciation of Shakespeare as compared to the Royal Shakespeare Theater.
I think it might be because Western scholars are invested in the idea that Koine Greek is dead. They want to keep it dead because they lack real proficiency in the language and yet want to be “experts” in its nuances. I’m not sure of that but I wonder sometimes.
The best argument in favour of the modern Greek pronunciation is this: did Greek speakers of all ages accessed older Greek texts by reconstructing this older version of their language or by using the Greek pronunciation of their own current time? Did Alexander the Great read the Iliad by reconstructing Homeric Greek or did he simply use his then current version of Greek which was Attic Greek?
Yes! I've used this one myself. It's ironic, and somewhat hypocritical by the way, that so many English speakers read Shakespeare or Chaucer in their own native English accent rather than learn a reconstructed Shakespearean/Chaucerian English pronunciation, but learning Ancient Greek with a modern pronunciation is scoffed at (by some arrogant snobs). 😅
Nice! I’m glad i started studying modern Greek instead of biblical. Greeks today can somewhat read the Koine New Testament, im just gonna work backwards
I have no idea why the algorithm decided to place several videos on this topic into my feed today, but I'm so grateful that it did, and that your video was included. I've heard many arguments for the use of various pronunciations for koine Greek but your case for using the historical/modern pronunciation being centered around the fact that the modern pronunciation as we know it today was largely already coming into use in the time of the writing of the New Testament scriptures has convinced me. The only exception to this is that I think that there may be some value to knowing the historical facts of ancient pronunciation, even as knowing the facts of "original pronunciation" for early modern English language does inform us as to various word plays employed by such authors as Shakespeare, given that some of the clever rhyme-based juxtapositions that he used brings forward subtle nuances that are lost in our late modern pronunciation. In reading the scriptures in the original tongues, I've never considered how pronunciation might affect interpretative nuances and use of word play, particularly in Paul's highly educated form, and now I'll be looking out for this. Χριστός Ανέστη!
I’ve been studying Black and Munce and was thinking of pursuing the standard Erasmian/academic pronunciation. I decided a week ago to pursue Modern, simply for the reason that Erasmian or Reconstructed are purely academic, whereas I may eventually be able to speak with Grecians in the future if I learn Modern. Love this video - reaffirms my thoughts. Thanks!
Good choice! You won't regret it. Modern is the only version of pronunciation that is verifiable and truly alive. The academic reconstructions lack, if I may say so, soul. They're not only cacophonous, but change from speaker to speaker. As outlined in this brilliant video, the sounds of Modern Greek are extremely ancient, anyway, so it is not so anachronistic to apply it to Koine Greek. Enjoy your learning!
The common English word to refer to Greek people is "Greeks". Using "Grecians" is archaic. It's like calling the English people "Anglo-Saxons" or the French people "Gauls". KJV 1611, Acts 11:20 "And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the GRECIANS preaching the Lord Jesus." NIV 1984 " Some of them, however, men from Cyprus and Cyrene, went to Antioch and began to speak to GREEKS also, telling them the good news about the Lord Jesus."
@@learnbiblicalgreek316 Thanks! The irony is that I want to use Modern pronunciation for similar reasons. I was learning Spanish a long time ago and reading the Reina Valera translation, and unwittingly was using some of the words/structures/etc in conversation with my best friend (from Uruguay). He had a very difficult time understanding me!
Why don't people simply ask the Greeks?????? They have thousands of years of philology, and an unbroken tradition. There's no need to reinvent the wheel, or build your own bicycle.
Okay, Stephen, the jury is back... I'm going with modern pronunciation from here on out. Thanks for building a great case. The only problem I had with modern pronunciation (apart from the historical correctness question) was all the EE sounds and the difficulty of remembering when to use omicron and when to use omega. But if you are saying that this pronunciation dates back that far, then I'm in.
I lived in California for 60 years and never (knowingly) met a Greek speaker, I have been a Christian for over 40 years and have never met another student of Koine Greek. Every Pastor I known uses software to use Greek on sermons and my new church in the Philippines call me a "Greek Freak" as a joke. I wish I could find a Greek speaker to share with but unless I travel to Europe from Asia it isn't likely. But I agree with using the modern pronunciation. Meanwhile I will enjoy reading Koine and translating. God bless! ❤❤❤
One argument for Erasmian is that the vowel lettera have a one to one correspondence with their sounds, making it easier to learn spelling. Today, however, I heard the word φανηροω pronounced and sounded like it could be spelled φανηραω. So the correspondence is not as tight as we may be led to believe. Homonyms may be unavoidable.
Most, if not all, languages contain homophony in words and may lead to confusion. However, most of the time context within a sentence can help clear up confusion. Modern Greek (Neohellenic) pronunciation can still be used for Ancient Greek and allow for a reasonable amount of comprehension between speakers ... BUT I personally have no problem with making some very slight, very conservative adjustments to the text itself when homophony is too confusing. For example, whilst using the modern pronunciation, I sometimes read ημείς as εμείς (which is its modern Greek equivalent) in order to differentiate it from υμείς (which I pronounce as im-ISS). This goes for all the declensions as well. So ημών I read as εμών to distinguish it from υμών. Ημέτερον I read as εμέτερον to distinguish it from υμέτερον. It isn't too far of a stretch from modern Greek either, since the Pontic Greek dialect makes use of the word εμέτερον today. This isn't necessary at all if one is just reading off a page, but when using Ancient Greek to communicate, minute changes like this keep comprehension between speakers intact without compromising too much on the modern Greek pronunciation. Just a tip if you're interested. 😊 All the best!
I read it awhile back. I’m not an expert on it myself. But I think the evidence Zachariou marshals speaks for itself, along with its endorsements. But Kantor himself inadvertently confirms the bulk of what Zachariou says in his work, in my judgment.
Pastor Green, you convinced me of this some time ago. For myself, the modern sounds have a nice flow, especially regarding the iota diphthongs and the eta-iota-upsilon equivalence. 😎👍🙏📖
The correct pronunciation of the ελληνικά / Hellenic / Greek language then and now! A/α=alfa (pron. always clear Α as in "car" - not ay) B/β=veeta (v sound) as in "valley" Γ/γ=γάμα (like y-es or w-hat) Δ/δ=thelta (like (th-e) E/ε=epsilon (e-pitaph) Ζ/ζ=zeeta (Z-oo) Η/η=eeta (pronounced ee) as "infinit-y" Θ/θ=theeta (as th-uner) Ι/ι=eeota (pronounced ee) as "infinit-y" Κ/κ=kapa /K as "c-at" Λ/λ=lamtha / L as "L-eo" Μ/μ=mee / M as "m-om" Ν/ν=nee / N as "n-ou-n" Ξ/ξ=xee / X (as on e-x-odus) Ο/ο=omikron / O "Door" Π/π=pee / P not paee but as "p-olice" Ρ/ρ=ro /R as "r-egula-r" Σ/σ/ς=siγma / S (ther's no sound like γ in latin, g is complitely wrong) as "s-ound" Τ/τ=taf / Τ as "tea" Y/υ=eepsilon (pronounced ee) as "infinit-y" Φ/φ=fee / F as "fall" Χ/χ=hee / J in spanish / He in english as "h-urry up" Ψ/ψ=psee / ps Ω/ω=omeγa / O (ther's no sound like γ in latin, g is complitely wrong) as "door" Ιι / Ηη / Υυ / ει / οι are always ee, only when εϊ = e-ee, and αϊ=a-ee Also: μπ=b / ντ=d / τζ=j / γκ=g (G-ary) / ευ=ef or ev / αυ=af or av /αι=e (end) / ου=ou or u in (Lulu) [Only when there is (¨) the pronunciation change] eg: εϋ = e-ee / αϋ = a-ee / αϊ = a-ee / οϋ = o-ee / εϊ = e-ee / οϊ = o-ee The «ευ» and «αυ», pronounced ef and af, when the letters κ, π, τ, χ, φ, θ, σ, ξ, ψ follow. eg: (εύκολο/eukolo=efkolo, αυχένας/auhenas=afhenas, αυστηρός/austeerόs=afsteerόs etc.) The «ευ» and «αυ» are pronounced "ev" and "av", when the letters β, γ, δ, ζ, λ, μ, ν, ρ and vowels follow. eg: (Ευγένιος/Eugenios=Evgeneeos>Eugene in English, ευνομία/eunomia=evnomia, ευέλικτος/eueliktos=eveliktos etc.) Let's make a few words with the correct pronunciation of the Greek letters. Ήλιος / eeleeos / sun (stress in the first e) αύριο / avrio / tomorrow (stress in a) λίθος / leethos / stone (stress in e) παραγωγή / parawowee / production (w as in why - stress in e) σήμερα / seemera / today (stress in first e αύριο / avrio (stress in a) παιχνίδι / pehneethee / toy (h as in he, th as in the - stress in the first e) ψεύτης / pseftees / liar (stress in the first e) Ωκεανός / Okeanos / Ocean (stress in the o) Ευρώπη / Evropee / Europe (stress in o) Γυμναστική / weemnasteekee / gymnastics (w as in why - stress in the last e)
Cool video, One question did they take into account regional differences in pronouncing words? The gospels note that within a one or two days walk affects one’s way of speaking. Example Peter’s dialog in the court yard during Jesus’s trial. Note words today in English like tomato got to the south in the states hear it said one way then go to London, ( perhaps 100 years ago);and compare the western side of town then to the eastern cockney accent. Just curious.
It’s a good question. I think Kantor has done the best he can to track down regional variations. But I question how fine a point we can put on some of those things.
To anyone who comments that κοινή ελληνική as you name it, is a dead language, is used from the Greek Orthodox Church every day, most high hierarchs use also to speak and write on that form even now. Practically it's been used again during the Greek dictatorship, we call it Καθαρεύουσα, it's not 100% the same as κοινή ελληνική των αλεξανδρινων χρόνων, but very similar.
Sorry for the second post, but this is different subject. I saw your 3 year old video about learning Greek. A few weeks ago, I saw someone start to teach Greek by reading the Greek Gospel of John. He showed a word, pointed out the letters and sounds, and then another word. In an hour or two I could actually read, out loud, all the words, name the letters used and what the definitions of the words were for the first verse of John. Learning the alphabet after that would be much easier than memorizing it before actually using it. Not only that, but one could learn the alphabet over time while they are still learning the words, vocabulary and grammar. Would you happen to know who might teach Greek that way? To me, it was like Dick and Jane and Dr Zeus when I was growing up. It just made sense to me. I would love to find a course that starts that way, if I could afford it. Let me know if you know. Thanks Shabbat Shalom
Luke Ranieri demonstrates errors in Dr. Zachariou's thinking in this video discussing the pre-Koine Boeotian dialect: ruclips.net/video/n1BS70EonLA/видео.htmlsi=_Cb0jbIx6k6-5MRz I'd recommend you check out more of his Greek pronunciation videos, since it gives a filter sense of how the language developed over time and across space.
Thanks for sharing. For my purposes, I do think Kantor is probably closer to the Koine pronunciation than modern. But I think that modern has historical pedigree for the vast majority of its letter pronunciations and is far more practical, which, I think, is a minimalist claim. If it is true that Dr. Zachariou, overstated his case (which I am not saying he has), I would still say the same thing here. Dr. Kantor’s work is enough evidence for me to be convinced that modern is a close enough approximation to Koine pronunciation to be viable.
Thank you for this. I’m glad I made the choice to learn modern pronunciation even if it’s less popular for theology. Do you recommend any channels that teach Biblical Greek with a modern pronunciation?
I started with Erasmian, but it never feels like a real language, no matter who reads or how quickly, so my brain rejects it. I find it pretty hard to switch, but once I got over that difficulty it my brain accepted it.
Thanks for the video, you made some great points! As an Eastern Christian, who lives daily in the Greek world I use Κοινή Ελληνική as well as Νέα Ελληνικά. A little-known fact is the fact that a few of our very old Monasteries never ceased using Κοινή Ελληνική. We know this beyond a shadow of a doubt. Yes, there may be a couple of minor nuance pronunciations, but the language is basically the same. Not long ago, I was reading a book that belonged to a Bishop 150 years ago it was written in Κοινή! The language of Κοινή never died, over the years some words meant the same and others took on a slightly different meaning. "Αἷμα Κοινή " is the same as "Αίμα Νέα ελληνικά", translation blood. I hope your videos make a difference in the Western World. By the way, I am impressed with your pronunciation of Κοινή. Ο Θεός να σ' ευλογεί
I'm not a Greek Student, yet. I have tinkered with learning it on my own a few times, but that's not the point here. When I first heard a friend/Greek teacher talk about how the NT Greek was pronounced differently from today's Greek, I had to ask "Why?" It had something to do with "preserving" the old sounds? Again, Why? Do Greek scholars ever get together for a day of "Greek-Speek" where they do not speak English, but Greek only? After all, the purpose of the language is not to speak communicate in it, but to understand how to READ it. Having traveled over half of the Northern Hemisphere, I recognize the need that if someone learns a language, to learn the modern use of it. It's like the KJ Onliests having a big conference. The only time one or two of them spoke Shakespearean English was in their prayer. Otherwise, they all spoke modern, American English to each other. Today, when I start learning Greek, the only pronunciation I am interested in is whatever the people helping me learn use. Because I'm not going back to Greece, and the next American language is much more likely to become Spanish rather than Greek. It just makes sense to me that the definitions are what has to be accurate, not the pronunciation. After all, I live in the south and just up the road, in the mountains, I have to take an interpreter because my southern accent doesn't drawl that much.
Good case if you want to speak Biblical Greek. But who does? I tried to learn modern pronunciation and was confused and distracted by multiple letters having the same sound, and other issues. To the person in the pew, Erasmian pronunciation is preferred because (1) easier to learn, (2) most easily available Greek resources use Erasmean pronunciation, (3) easier pronunciation scheme, and (4) easier to learn English words derived from Greek. I want to read the Bible in Greek, and for that, Erasmian is the best option.
But who does? Who wants to speak Biblical Greek? Rogelio Toledo Martin; Christophe Rico of @poliskoine; @learnbiblicalgreek373; @triodostrivium; Luke Ranieri of Polymathy; Benjamin Kantor of @KoineGreek "Koine Greek is not a dead language”; Jordash Kiffiak; Paul Nitz @PaulNitz; Randall Buth; Michael W. Halcomb of GlossaHouse; Academy of Classical Greek @sebastiancarnazzo7191; Beta with Brett @betawithbrett7068 etc Check them out. They all want to learn to speak Koine Greek, though most aren't using Modern Greek pronunciation. Some use Erasmian, others use a pronunciation which is half-way between Modern and Erasmian. I use Modern Greek pronunciation because I'm a native Greek-speaker.
I could imagine the use of Greek in church has helped to slow language changes in Greek. Interesting that English more or less stabilized after the Reformation, when the vernacular started to be used in church.
How can you say what is the exact pronunciation anyway. How is English pronounced today? Like in America or England or Australia or South Africa or Ireland or Jamaica, all over people pronounce it differently.
Why not Erasmian, for its pedagogical advantages and its widespread use? I don’t expect to run into any first century Greeks who would find my pronunciation confusing
I just noticed a typo: Recontructed should be Reconstructed. Have you seen "NT Greek Pronunciation: Why I'm switching from Erasmian" by Biblical Mastery Academy? Dr. Darryl Burling is switching to Modern Greek pronunciation.
The Orthodox Church has letters and prayers (not all of which are in the Bible) written in Koine back to the time of the Patristic Fathers. They've been saying and chanting them NON STOP this whole time, and the Greek priests were the language teachers who kept the language alive during the Ottoman occupation. This is a no-brainer.
Erasmian pronunciation sounds like an English speaker learning Spanish for the first time. It does not roll off the tongue naturally. The words should flow together like modern pronunciation.
If you want to hear a fluent historical pronunciation, lookup "Polis Institute 1 John" on RUclips. There Dr. Christophe Rico reads 1 John fluently, and has videos of reading through the gospel of John, Galatians, James, and Revelation. Alpha with Angela also teaches Biblical Greek with a historical pronunciation fluently. Yes, there are some inaccurate "American" erasmian examples, but there are good examples like Polis Institute a s Alpha with Angela as well.
American Erasmian = pronounce vowels like American English. Australian Erasmian = pronounce vowels like Australians English. The term "Historical Pronunciation" is unhelpful, because it does not make it clear which point in History it references. The Kantor/Buth pronunciation is also "Historical." The problem with Modern is, it really doesn't work in a class setting when you are reading text out loud and speaking sentences to one another. There are just too many words that are ambiguous when read out loud using the Modern pronunciation. I don't just mean the υμις ημις problem. Koine Era pronunciation is extremely beneficial for those who wish to engage in textual criticism and analysis of first century writing style. If you internalize the historical first century pronunciation, then it is possible to completely understand when spelling mistakes occur and why they occur. Finally, duolingo is good, but at the start you are taken straight into a whole lot of modern vocabulary which is not helpful (initially) for reading the Bible. Using alternate apps such as "Scripturial" then you are taken straight into vocabulary from the Greek New Testament.
On the ι η distinction, Im not disagreeing with the fact that it was in flux from quite early on, but try using it in a class setting. Honestly, it is really not overly practical. Consider, "ιν αρχι ιν ο λογος," I don't think a case can be made that this was predominant in the first century. You have to look not just at spelling changes, but the vocabulary changes that occurred as a result of the shift. For example, υμις ημις were clearly still predominant in the first century. The pronunciation shift had not yet caused υμις ημις to drop out of the language. I also want to add, at the end of the day, In my personal experience, both Modern and Reconstructed are usable, and they are both usable in a mixed setting where some people use Modern and some people use Reconstructed. So it's definitely not something we should fight or war over. If an American can understand an Australian when they pronounce "Melbourne" as "Melbon" or "Pastor" as "Pasta" then we can certainly get with two different "Historical" pronunciations in the same room :)
@@jay.rhoden I typed out “exactly” before I read your whole post 😂. I don’t think Kantor makes a strong distinction between υμις and ημις like Buth did. The distinction is slight in Kantor, if I’m not mistaken. I also think that there is potential for word confusion in any system. This even happens in modern English. Are you following Kantor or Buth?
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews I've not read Ben's book yet. I think I probably sound more like Ben than Booth though. I listen to both BLC and Ben's audio for practice, and although the rough breathings are gone for υμις / ημις in both Buth's and Ben's audio the υ/η distinction is always clear to me. But yes I do think removing the rough breathing decreases the time spent on the υ/η, so I agree the difference would be less clearly pronounced. In my reading/speaking practice group, the υμις/ημις distinction is really not so much of a big problem in my personal experience, I have more difficulty with the iotisation to the shorter words, I.e. εν/ην. Not insurmountable, but it does cause me a headache from time to time.
I think that Erasmian adapts quite decently to English learners; but I would not teach Erasmian to Spanish learners, I think modern greek sounds are easier and more similar to Spanish. So that's a fair point to consider.
Christophe Rico, from the Polis Institute in Jerusalem, advocates a living language approach with early high koine pronunciation. Early high koine is close to erasmian except for 3 consonants. Early high koine is a historical pronunciation at the beginning of the koine era when the pronunciation matched the spelling. In modern pronunciation the word for you plural (ὑμεῖς) is pronounced the same as we (ἡμεῖς). In modern Greek, they invented a different word for you (εσείς) to solve this ambiguity. Choosing a pronunciation has benefits and drawbacks. It seemed to me that early high koine had the most advantages.
Randall Buth from the Biblical Languages Center promotes the reconstructed koine from the 1st century AD. Early High Koine, from Polis Institute, is a historical pronunciation from the early koine period, from around 200 BC. Both are historical pronunciations, but from different periods of history. RUclips channel Alpha with Angela uses the early high koine/Polis pronunciation. The main factor given by Polis for early high koine is pedagogical, with the unique vowel diphthongs having unique sounds. In contrast, modern Greek pronunciation has many different diphthongs having identical sounds. It is a matter of opinion and goals. I was trying to give the other "side" of the Greek pronunciation viewpoint.
@@veritas399 yes, I can understand people preferring that. I think one of the issues I have is there are so many variations on reconstructed pronunciation. It makes me lean more towards modern pronunciation, but I don’t think it’s a big deal either way honestly.
@biblicalstudiesandreviews Yes, choosing a pronunciation is a matter of opinion. I view early high koine like erasmian done right. In my opinion, there are 3 main pronunciation systems: erasmian/early high koine, reconstructed koine, and modern. But the most important thing is to study the language, to study the Bible, to know God and His will and His ways. I appreciate your RUclips channel. How is the new Testament majority text project with an apparatus coming along? Will you have an update on that?
@@veritas399 Amen. I have the first proof printed for proofreading. Sent it off this morning. Mostly proofreading left. This proof edition is just a cheap glued binding to review before we invest in a sewn binding.
Hello, I realise you posted this video more than 10 months ago now but I wanted to ask you if you would take this kind of approach with Hebrew? Seems like an awful waste to know biblical Hebrew at any level and not know or be able to communicate in modern Hebrew or just use it as a guide. Hopefully you can respond. All the best and every blessing.
I was screwed at seminary learning erasmian. How should I go about learning Modern/Neohellenic? What books and websites and RUclips videos do you recommend to learn modern greek pronunciation? Did Steven Anderson's going back to the Greek documentary help you reach this conclusion, Stephen?
You ask, "How should I go about learning Modern/Neohellenic? What books and websites and RUclips videos do you recommend to learn modern greek pronunciation?" A similar question was asked earlier in the comments by @carlostoro9986 1 month ago, "Thank you for this. I’m glad I made the choice to learn modern pronunciation even if it’s less popular for theology. Do you recommend any channels that teach Biblical Greek with a modern pronunciation? The replies given were: @BiblicalStudiesandReviews 1 month ago Dr. Philemon Zachariou has an excellent channel I would recommend. AND @Hadoramu 1 month ago I also recommend youtube.com/@learnbiblicalgreek373?si=ebTzlDdpcSoinXKb Regarding your question on "Steven Anderson's going back to the Greek documentary", I cannot answer for Stephen H. but I think that it gives a false impression. It errs on the side that NT Koine is easily understood by Modern Greeks. Of course, at the other end of the spectrum, there are those who advocate a false dichotomy between Modern and Koine Greek making out that they are completely different languages and mutually unintelligible. The truth is somewhere in the middle. If interested, see the video: "Can Present Day Greeks Understand the Greek of the New Testament?"
Hmm. I agree with you regarding biblical greek pronunciation as I completely despise the Erasmian pronunciation. However, I do have to mention one issue with you assertion about Shakespeare. It is difficult to say that someone should only learn modern english version of shakespeare, because much is lost in terms of the poetry. Considering the fact that Shakespeares purpose was art, rather than transmitting a spiritual truth, there is certainly value in learning Shakespeare in the original pronunciation. The same is even more true for middle english, such as Chaucer. The modern english versions simply don't do it justice. It's an interesting topic though.
Chaucer would be a better example than Shakespeare, as his work was written before the Great Vowel Shift in English, unlike Shakespeare, who lived at the tail end of that Shift. Understanding how the shift happened makes it easier to reconstruct intuitively, and it brings Chaucer's poetry to life. Likewise Greek has undergone several significant vowel shifts and the spelling differences between Greek vowels reflects real historical differences in pronunciation, differences elided by the vowel mergers of Modern Greek. I am for reform of the inaccuracies of "Erasmian" pronunciation, but been with its flaws, it's a better pedagogical tool to learners who are not already familiar with modern Greek and it better allows use of lost features of the Greek language, like pitch accent, than a Modern (falsely called historical) pronunciation can give. I personally try to use a reconstructed pronunciation after learning from an instructor trying to teach from a modern pronunciation, and I find the modern pronunciation more a hindrance than a help.
Still stuck on choosing a pronunciation. It seems like erasmian would be the choice if I were to go to seminary. I know you don’t look down on erasmian pronunciation but man when you read the comments on this the modern pronunciation crowd are very territorial in some case rude.
They can be. Not sure why except it’s a little offensive to Greek speakers. I would go with modern if you can. You can switch it pretty easily to Erasmian in seminary, but I think many professors would not make you switch.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Not sure why. I can tell you why. Even better, I'll let Michael Halcomb tell you why. Regarding the pronunciation of Koine Greek please listen to this: "I get schooled by a Greek linguist! (Dr. T. Michael W. Halcomb enters the Dojo!)" @DiscipleDojo 01:08:56 - How Western academia stole Greek from Greeks…and why you’re probably pronouncing it wrong! He explains how Western Academia stole Greek from the Greeks declared Greek as a dead language. This was a socio-political move. Academics drove a wedge between Ancient and Modern Greek which never existed before. Pronouncing Koine Greek in the Erasmian perpetuates this false historical dichotomy. Western Academics had (and some still have) a low view of Greeks and saw / see them as barbarians.
When I traveled to Greece I tried to use my Koine Greek and it didn't work for me. When I was in Israel my biblical Hebrew was an asset. I could talk and read some. Just some personal observations; not conclusive.
@@paulrudiger2552 That's a good question. I wish I remembered something. It was several times that I tried to communicate with them. I also traveled to the Islands via ferries. It was a great experience. Even in Israel I don't remember what specific things I said or read. But it was more understandable to me.
@@mrtdiver I assume you just know a few words, the thing is that if you used a kind of Erasmian pronunciation, of course nobody will understand what you say
Evidence of ancient latin transcription, internal poetry rhyming, and human sounds such as the plosive "phew!". About same across cultures. But pronounced "phev" today. Imagine this scene: an illiterate Greek merchant is chating with a Phonecian merchant. What are those scribles? Well i wrote what you said and how many products i sold. After explaining how shapes represent sound, he writes down each of his sounds as letters. Each letter had its sound, including diphthongs. Did he hear " ee" and wrote i, u, h, oi for the same sound? Of course not. Latins wrote what they heard also. Modern Greeks have a hard time spelling. Also tones ( sometimes found as fossils in church), vowel length, a bit like Norwegian as are/as were many IE brother tongues, one can not get the true sense of Greek Classic works. Certainly some areas/ dialects were different from Attic at the time of Christ. Then post Alexander many were overwhelmed, mixed among Greeks as well as non-Greeks trying to learn the new pan- east Medeterranean tongue ( and likely having a hard time). We see many verb forms fading from common street speakers, preserved among the well educated only. The Greek of Paul and Luke is more polished than some Biblical writers. There is well established scholarship detailing the gradual simplification of Koine. Byzantine writers struugled to keep Greek true to the older standard. Modern (demotic is worse than katherevousa in placing barriers to todays Greeks and their heritage. Lost tone and vowel length, o and w, hides much of the beauty of classics and perhaps some of the OT and NT too. Rhymes often dont work, or appear where tbere was none once. I believe the 500 year Turkish occupation had a great deletorius effect as well. Erasmus was not always correct, especially in his NT readings, but he made a great start.at the very least a student can at least learn to spell. O, years in Greece , Turkey and Jordan among churchmen and Turkish speakers. Pilgrimages to most if Turky ,Greece and the islands. Former clergy ( illness stopped me). & GO
modern pronunciation (whatever that means), or more accurately "the phonetic system of Modern Greek" is stable, or has been stabilised in various ways IN the modern Greek state, however it is not stable in the sense that it continues to evolve. and will continue to evolve. if the phonetic system of Modern Greek is used for Ancient Greek, the present phonetic system of Modern Greek will not be the same as the phonetic system of Modern Greek in 200 years. Modern Greek is unlike Ancient Greek, they are different languages. the use of Modern Greek pronunciation for Ancient Greek is really a matter of convenience and style.
14:56 a critical failure to understand the scope and scale of the phonetic changes - specifically iaticism - within the Greek speaking world. as even a cursory look at the data available (even on Wikipedia) will show that there were various pronunciations in use throughout the empire and that the pronunciation which predominated in one area would not (and evidentially could not without the help of modern broadcast media) would not be the same as that in another area, for each area of the empire was subject to differing linguistic influences, coptic in egypt or illarian in the Balkans (neighbouring greece proper), kartvelian languages in the pontus region, etruscan and latin influence on Greek speakers in today's Italy, and Scythian influence on Greek speakers in today's Crimea. Eta was pronounced as i(:), but also as e:, e̝ and ε:, all the way till the 2nd C AD in learned pronunciation. e̝ used in Egypt, and in most popular pronunciation systems until 3rd C AD, while eː with phonemic length was used in Schooling and educated speech, with i only appearing in the 4th century AD, and ε: being used in remote dialects.
I totally reject your assertion that a "historically reconstructed pronunciation" approach (whatever that means, if anything) to koine over Erasmian is preferable. That argument is void of substance and logic. How many thousand page books pushing your position that exist is entirely irrelevant. Sorry.
Hi my friend, I’m not mad at you for sticking with Erasmian. I just think that the research shows that modern pronunciation more closely resembles how Greek was pronounced in the time of Jesus. But if you are happy with Erasmian, it won’t bother me
Erasmus spearheaded reconstructed pronunciation. So confused. Modern Greek is very different from ancient. It’d be like saying Latin grammar is the same as Spanish grammar. Language change in Greek was very different. This is so wrong! Modern is just as made up if not more! Polybius wrote Koine: Koine is Attic. Stop misleading! (I was harsh here. But, as they say ‘quot magistri tot sententiae. I rather err on the skeptical side, because any theory will eventually be superseded.) Blessings.
I agree with you on Erasmus. But no one that I’m aware of refers to Erasmian pronunciation as “reconstructed”. This is a matter of nomenclature. Having spoken to native speakers of modern Greek, I think it’s fair to say that they understand a good deal of Koine Greek. And even myself having studied Koine Greek can understand some modern Greek. “Very close” is a relative term. There is a lot of overlap in vocabulary etc. The scale of change over the centuries is nothing like English.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews There’s a general oversimplification, in my view, when it gets to adopting one or another practical approach to phonology. Language change is real, and that’s the subject of historical linguistics. It is true that any language conserves features of its parent language, but there are always variations, which go from extreme to less extreme. Eg: all Romance languages have some Latin in them, from phonology to syntax, but they also have extreme deviations from the root language. The language of the NT has more in common with Polybius & Diodorus Siculus, Appian, or Plutarch, than with modern Greek. Or to give the obvious examples: John Chrysostom.
@@Moliere1000 I have no problem with that. The misimpression that many English only speakers have is that languages as old as Greek have changed so much that they are completely un-intelligible to modern speakers and my experience is that that is not the case with Greek, at least.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews To summarize: I find it extremely biased to choose one ‘school’ over the others. I speak one of the Romance languages as a mother tongue, & I have low & high degrees in Classics: I would never claim that my pronunciation is the right one, or that that of any of the other Romance languages (French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese or Romanian) is ‘the one’, because of language change. I would also definitely not choose the so-called ‘Ecclesiastical pronunciation’ for the same reason. I will now read the source you mention. (Is he Greek?) And I’ll try to come up with a more nuanced argument. Of course there are phonological features that are common between older and newer versions of the language, BUT, how on earth would one read Homer or Apollonios of Rhodes with modern (lack of) vowel quantity? For example? A priori I’m suspect of anyone who disqualifies any previous attempt to reconstruct the ancient phonology. He’s probably selling me something.
@@Moliere1000 Zachariou is Greek. And you might get the sense that he is an evangelist for the position. Kantor is purely an academic. His claim is more modest. He says that modern pronunciation is remarkably close to the way Greek was pronounced in the Hellenistic period, but quite a bit different for some of the classical period. I think I said in the video that I’m not too dogmatic. But I think modern makes sense for the reason I outlined. But I don’t think it’s “the only correct pronunciation”.
![Natanael Cano - Amor Eterno [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EO4prCs6WpM/mqdefault.jpg)
Great Presentation!!! Finally, someone who makes sense out of a chaos! As a Greek native speaker who fights over 40 years with professors about the Erasmian vs Modern Greek approach, allow me please to add few points to your excellent presentation. Erasmian pronunciation is useful only to foreign speakers in learning the spelling of the words. My first point is that although tape and digital recorders didn't exist during Homeric, Classical or Hellenistic times up to last century, it's not true that recorders didn't exist. This is an invention which didn't need external inventor. It's called Generational Tradition. And simply is how a language is "recorded" and transferred from parents to kids in their brains through out history. The Greek Language is probably the only language in the world (along with the Chinese) that is alive and continually spoken and written for at least 4,000 and 2,800 years respectively. Maybe for a foreign speaking person the Homeric dialect of Odyssey and Iliad or the Attic dialect of Socrates, Plato, Aristotele, or our Tragic Writers to be considered by many as a dead language. WRONG!!!! In our language today we used 85% of the Homeric language with the additions and simplifications that take place in a living language. To your point that there are over 17 million Greeks today that speak the same language as St Paul in Athens and have the Bible written in their language, really don't know what is the proper pronunciation ? !!!! A third point; maybe we don't talk in our everyday life as Socrates or Demosthenes but if someone could read the text we are writing for our Saints for the liturgical life of the Orthodox Church will see that Greeks through out the centuries and the 2024 years of the NT have produced works linguistically equal or higher than that of Homer, Pindar and Demosthenes in Attic dialect. Mr. Hackett your reasoning is perfect and thank you for helping people approach this important issue finally with realism and common sense. Keep up your excellent work!
Thanks for your encouragement! This is a very good comment with much thought provoking material
Πολύ καλά δηλωμένο
@@konstantinosS300 Έχετε δίκιο ἐν παντί!
Κωνσταντίνε εύγε!
Δυστυχώς προσπαθούμε ως λαός,να αποδείξουμε ότι δεν είμαστε ελέφαντες!
Υπάρχει μια τάση στο εξωτερικό να πιστεύουν ότι εμείς ξαφνικά "φυτρώσαμε" σε τούτο εδώ το τόπο και μαζί με μας και η γλώσσα μας!
Προφανώς αυτοί που ισχυρίζονται κάτι τέτοιο είναι ανιστόρητοι και δεν έχουν μελετήσει την Ελληνική γλώσσα έτσι όπως της αρμόζει, δηλαδή στο σύνολο της!
Δεν είναι τυχαίο που η γλώσσα μας έχει αλλάξει λιγότερο από κάθε άλλη γλώσσα παγκοσμίως, κάτι που το παραδέχονται όλοι!
Δεν καταλαβαίνω γιατί προσπαθούν με την λογική να αναλύσουν μια γλώσσα.
Εάν στην ίδια ακριβώς θέση των Ελληνικών,στο θέμα που συζητάμε, βάζαμε τα Αγγλικά,τι θα γινόταν;
Ας υποθέσουμε δηλαδή ότι είχαμε τα Αγγλικά (όπως ομιλούνται σήμερα)ως μια γλώσσα 2000 χιλιάδων ετών και προσπαθούσαν οι αναλυτές να βρούν την σωστή προφορά.
Θα γινόταν χαμός!
Υπήρχε ποτέ περίπτωση,για παράδειγμα,κάποιος να έβρισκε την σωστή προφορά καθεμίας λέξης από τις παρακάτω(;) though-through-enough.
Ούτε στα πιο τρελά του όνειρα!
Δεν υπάρχει λογική εδώ, γιατί λοιπόν να υπάρχει στα Ελληνικά ;
Δεν λειτουργούν έτσι οι γλώσσες.
Υπάρχουν παράδοξα σε όλες τις γλώσσες του κόσμου,στην γραμματική και στο συντακτικό κάθε γλώσσας παγκοσμίως, γιατί τα Ελληνικά να αποτελούν εξαίρεση,δεν καταλαβαίνω.
Ευτυχώς όμως κάποιοι συνειδητοποιούν την αλήθεια, όπως ο κύριος στο βίντεο,κάτι που είναι πολύ θετικό!
ΥΓ Συγγνώμη εάν κούρασα.
I met a Christian about two months ago who is fluent in modern Greek. He convinced me to change to modern pronunciation.
It makes the most sense to me.
Awesome, I am glad you met this guy, he gave you great advice! I am an Eastern Orthodox Christian. I live daily in the Greek world I use Κοινή Ελληνική "Koine Greek" as well as Νέα Ελληνικά " Modern Greek". A little-known fact is the fact that a few of our very old Monasteries never ceased using Κοινή Ελληνική. We know this beyond a shadow of a doubt. Yes, there may be a couple of minor nuance pronunciations, but the language is basically the same. Not long ago, I was reading a book that belongs to a Monastery. The Book belonged to a Bishop 150 years ago it was written in Κοινή! Κοινή Greek never died, over the years some words mean the same and others took on a slightly different meaning. For example "Αἷμα Κοινή " is the same as "Αίμα Νέα ελληνικά", translation blood. I do hope that one day Historical pronunciation will be adopted in the West. When Westerners speak Greek using the Erasmian pronunciation sounds similar to someone scratching a Blackboard with their nails. Θεός να σ' ευλογεί
Modern Greek sounds like Spanish
@@Gregori-mi2vy8nc6ythank you so much! I've fallen in love with the New Testament in Greek over the pandemic and I'm just trying to read it aloud because that's just how my mind works. However, my native tongue is Romanian and we already have most of names and words from when we were one with Constantinople and the Neoheleniki sounds so strange when it comes to EU as ev/ef or Epsilon as "I" and no hard "H"where the hard accent is. Though I can pronounce it as instructed is just strange. We already have "Paul" "Herod" "Therapeut" "Hera" "Zoie" "Priscila" "Hristos" "Crestin" "Chort" "Arhiereul" and I can go on for days.
Could you please advise me on how your living Koine pronounces these?
Modern Greek, for political reasons and motivations, has consciously separated itself from ancient Greek. They really are different languages.
Hi! I'm from Mexico. I've been teaching Biblical Greek since 2016. The first year I tought Greek, I used Erasmian pronunciation because it was the way I had been tought. In that same year I got the opportunity to talk with an orthodox seminarian about this topic and he told me that they only use modern Greek pronunciation. I immediately found out about Modern Greek pronunciation and learned it on the internet. From that moment on, I decided to switch from Erasmian to Modern Greek (or Historical) pronunciation. Now it's been already 8 years I've been using Modern Greek pronunciation. Erasmian pronunciation seems to me more artificial and Modern Greek pronunciation is more live.
Totally agree! My wife is from Victoria Mexico 🇲🇽
I'm Eastern Orthodox and engage regularly with Greeks who use Greek daily. I've observed that among those who read the Bible, the consensus is to first grasp Modern Greek and then integrate the specific Biblical vocabulary and grammar on that foundation. The distinctions between the two are so minute that adopting a specialized pronunciation with limited applications seems like it could be more practical. Since most Biblical terms are still prevalent in Modern Greek, focusing on mastering the contemporary language seems more beneficial.
Dear Brother, I am Eastern Orthodox as well, and I live daily in the Greek world I use Κοινή Ελληνική "Koine Greek" as well as Νέα Ελληνικά " Modern Greek". A little-known fact is the fact that a few of our very old Monasteries never ceased using Κοινή Ελληνική. We know this beyond a shadow of a doubt. Yes, there may be a couple of minor nuance pronunciations, but the language is basically the same. Not long ago, I was reading a book that belongs to a Monastery. The Book belonged to a Bishop 150 years ago it was written in Κοινή! Κοινή Greek never died, over the years some words mean the same and others took on a slightly different meaning. For example "Αἷμα Κοινή " is the same as "Αίμα Νέα ελληνικά", translation blood. I do hope that one day Historical pronunciation will be adopted in the West. When Westerners speak Greek using the Erasmian pronunciation sounds similar to someone scratching a Blackboard with their nails. Ο Θεός να σ' ευλογεί!v
Wouldn't it be a lot harder to learn modern Greek since there's so much more than the Koine of the New Testament?
Thank you. I lived in Cyprus for over 6 years and was often told by brothers there that the Cypriot Greek is closer to the ancient.
I think the main “practical” point that I would add is that you can learn Greek through the same means people learn other languages. Using modern Greek pronunciation allows me to watch movies and videos in Greek in the same pronunciation system as when I study the New Testament. Watching Aladdin or an animated Star Wars film in your target language is not possible in reconstructed or Erasmian pronunciation.
I experimented with modern pronunciation years ago but quickly switched back to Erasmian (w/stress accent) when I discovered that Modern Greek made it much harder to master the written spellings. This was impressed on my mind when I learned Spanish at the age of 34 in 1981. I was shocked to learn that I was able to spell better in Spanish than my native English. I can instantly pronounce correctly every word in Spanish, but still have to make frequent use of a dictonary for the pronunciation of unfamiliar English words. I recommend W. Sidney Allen's VOX GRAECA 3rd ed, which offers historical data and practical advice.
I agree entirely with you concerning Erasmian being the preferable way to pronounce koine. I can not speak to you concerning your Spanish remarks.
As a self-taught learner, I've been using modern-ish pronunciation because there are online tools where I can copy and paste individual words into the box and get the pronunciation. Also, I use Duolingo to learn modern Greek, and that obviously uses a modern translation. But as a self-taught student, I don't have to answer to anyone.
I learned Hebrew first, and learned that trick for Hebrew.
I’m on a camping trip and don’t have my laptop, so I’m forced to reply using just my thumbs! 🤨
I wholeheartedly agree, brother. My introduction to NT Greek was using Machen”s text, and so I was taught Erasmian and used it for years.
But then I dialogued online with a Greek soaker from Cyprus, and he made the case for Modern (Historical), so I familiarized myself with Modern.
Some time after that, I encountered 3 Greeks at a coffee shop. (I think I may have told you that story before.) After chatting with them, I made the switch to Modern. Like you said, it just makes sense.
It makes sense indeed! I am Eastern Orthodox as well, and I live daily in the Greek world I use Κοινή Ελληνική "Koine Greek" as well as Νέα Ελληνικά " Modern Greek". A little-known fact is the fact that a few of our very old Monasteries never ceased using Κοινή Ελληνική. We know this beyond a shadow of a doubt. Yes, there may be a couple of minor nuance pronunciations, but the language is basically the same. Not long ago, I was reading a book that belongs to a Monastery. The Book belonged to a Bishop 150 years ago it was written in Κοινή! The language of Κοινή Greek never died, over the years some words meant the same and others took on a slightly different meaning. For example "Αἷμα Κοινή " is the same as "Αίμα Νέα ελληνικά", translation blood. I do hope that one day Historical pronunciation will be adopted in the West. When Westerners speak Greek using the Erasmian pronunciation it sounds similar to someone scratching a Blackboard with their nails. Ο Θεός να σ' ευλογεί
What's a Greek soaker?
@@christopherskipp1525 "speaker" not "soaker." Durned auto-co-wrecked!
@@larryg.overton2951 Understood. Thank you.
Very good presentation, with a straightforward common sense analysis. I was taught using Erasmian and am now transitioning to modern.
Good move!!
There are two issues at hand: 1) historical truth 2) practical choices
Zachariou's thesis is absurd: he mixes up timelines and gives partial information to support the absurd thesis that Classical Greek is pronounced as Modern Greek. While many of the sounds of Modern Greek appear at different time periods and regions of Greek, claiming that the whole system of Greek (that is, that every day pronunciation for most Greeks in the 5th and 4th centuries BC) was virtually identical to that of modern Greek is simply false, and a lot of serious scholarship (Cantor's included) proves that with ample documentation. Zachariou's work isn't half as serious.
However, none of that means that people shouldn't use the modern pronunciation, which has the advantage of being based on an actual spoken version of Greek, and thus sounds recognizably as a living language. The problem with most restored pronunciations is that they are based off theoretical principles and are applied by people with little talent for accents, foreign pronunciations, and so on... and end up just sounding artificial. There are many advantages to using either the restored or the modern pronunciation. Ultimately the choice is an aesthetical, ideological or political one. And also a practical one, since it's easier and less problematic to choose MG pronunciation and be done with it. Indeed it is also "close enough" to Palestinian koine that one might not see why it would be useful to make a few of those other distinctions. And yet, my quarrel is with Zachariou's main claims, which don't deserve this kind of publicity.
I think I misunderstood your point that "the modern pronunciation was being used in other parts of the Mediterranean". But it's not really correct; While some vowels and consonants in some parts of the Mediterranean were being pronunced more or less the same way as they are in Modern Greek, this isn't true of the system. That is to say that, in some parts iota and eta where the same, but in those same parts ypsilon was similar to οι but not to ι, aspirates hadn't become fricative, and in other parts other statements were true. But not the whole system. This data manipulation is the basis for Zachariou's attempt at a historical refutation, but the information he gives is partial and therefore misleading. One example: saying that οι and υ are being confused (in a specific region within a specific timeframe) then stating that υ and ι are confused by speakers a century later in a different region, then concluding that υ and ι were pronounced the same. I don't know whether it's bad scholarship or just plain deceit. It's more or less like saying that 16th century English pronunciation of -ear is the same in Shakespeare's time as in modern times because somewhere in Ireland it might have been 200 years later, then claiming the same for another distinct sound in an entirely different context. It's simply nonsense. But the way we look at ancient historical data makes it seem that, because it's so ancient, 200 years or 2000 km isn't that big of a deal. Not to mention the complete disregard for contextual phonological changes.
If one is to pronounce Greek with the modern pronunciation, it's easier to accept that one is using the current pronunciation to pronounce something that was necessarily different. There's no need to sugarcoat it and pretend it is actual historical fact.
As I said, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with using the modern Greek pronunciation (I say this as a MG speaker who loves MG culture and literature and considers the whole of Greek culture from antiquity to the present as a continuum). But choosing to do so has no base in historical data, unless manipulated.
Thanks I appreciate your nuanced response. I’m perfectly happy with Kantor’s analysis here: “A more balanced approach in favor of the modern pronunciation accepts that although the pronunciation of Hellenistic Greek was remarkably close to Modern Greek, the pronunciation of Plato and Aristotle remains a good distance away from those on the streets of Athens today.”
That’s enough for me. Again your contribution was a meaningful one and I appreciate it.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Thank you! Yours is a great video.
Finally! A comment based on fact and study and not on political, ideological or religious bias. So many other comments here are just rubbish! Thank you for yours! ❤
I’m only in 1st year biblical Greek, but I actually bought a modern Greek Bible and was thinking the same thing and now you’ve got me even more interested. Thank you!
Go for it! I am Eastern Orthodox as well, and I live daily in the Greek world I use Κοινή Ελληνική "Koine Greek" as well as Νέα Ελληνικά " Modern Greek". A little-known fact is the fact that a few of our very old Monasteries never ceased using Κοινή Ελληνική. We know this beyond a shadow of a doubt. Yes, there may be a couple of minor nuance pronunciations, but the language is basically the same. Not long ago, I was reading a book that belongs to a Monastery. The Book belonged to a Bishop 150 years ago it was written in Κοινή! The Κοινή language never died, over the years some words mean the same and others took on a slightly different meaning. For example "Αἷμα Κοινή " is the same as "Αίμα Νέα ελληνικά", translation blood. I do hope that one day Historical pronunciation will be adopted in the West. When Westerners speak Greek using the Erasmian pronunciation, it sounds similar to someone scratching a Blackboard with their nails! Ο Θεός να σ' ευλογεί
@@Gregori-mi2vy8nc6yHello. Do you have sources that mention that Koine Greek remained in use?
Sources 😂It's been used every day in churches and schools
@@paulrudiger2552 That's an assertion. Actual Koine Greek was once considered basically a dead language. Greek changed over the years. So no lol, there aren't a bunch of schools and churches that have used Koine Greek uninterrupted for 2,000 years. Nice try...
Oh and 😆🤣😂😹😆🤣😂 I can do that too...
@@Michael_Chandler_Keaton OK make a school to teach me my language
It's interesting how the different forms of Greek resemble the different forms of English, isn't it? For contemporary Greek people, reading the Greek New Testament would be like reading Reformation-era English translations - some words may not be familiar at first, but their meaning can be easily found through their surrounding context. Also, on another note, I find that a Spanish accent comes naturally to me when I speak passages of the Greek New Testament with modern pronunciation - it's fascinating to hear how similar the two accents are.
You're absolutely right! My husband is a native Greek speaker, who also speaks Spanish, having spent a year in a Spanish speaking country a long time ago. When he attempts to order at the local Mexican restaurants in the US, he is regularly asked by the native Spanish speakers, "Which Spanish speaking country do you come from?" A lot of the pronunciation is very similar.
@@annai157 My wife and I were in Santa Fe, New Mexico, last year and went to a bakery to get some breakfast. The staff in the bakery were all Spanish-speakers who spoke with each other in Spanish, including the man who took our order and then brought us our pastries. My wife and I spoke with each other in Greek.
So at some point he asked us, "what language are you speaking? I thought to myself that it was Spanish, because it sounds like Spanish, but then I realized I couldn't understand anything you were saying." And I responded, "Somos Griegos, hablamos el idioma griego. La lingua griega y la lingua espanol tienen la misma fonologia." (Sorry about my fractured Spanish.)
So, yes, with a few exceptions, there are many similarities in how Spanish and "modern" Greek sound.
I was convinced of your conclusion reading Constantine Campbell's Advances in the study of Greek. Chapter 9 it's a good concise case for this argument.
I pinned your comment. I wasn’t aware of Campbell’s case being put in print. Thanks
Currently facing this very question myself - really glad I cam across this, ever so timely! Thank you for your hard work and service.
Glad it was helpful!
Thank you for your studious endeavors toward a plain argument that seamlessly combines historical evidence and common sense!
Thank you brother! You are welcome on my channel any time!
100% agreement here! And the modern pronunciation has a nice flow to it. Thanks!😊👍🙏📖
@zaddiq5068 Yes. No reason to argue over "dialects." Whatever helps you best to aquire the Greek. Peace!🙏😊📖
Because the Western world was taught Greek mainly by Erasmus during the Renaissance, it was natural for there to be
many misunderstandings as to the correct pronunciation of the letters, because he himself had never heard Greek. So since
the Greeks were absent, this mistake grew and took root as right. But who knows the language better than the people
themselves who have kept it alive for at least 4000 years?
Of course, I do not argue that everything has remained unchanged over the centuries - that would be unnatural - but the
terrible barbarities heard today by would-be "Hellenists" are something we are now forced to constantly fight to correct.
I will end by saying that Erasmus himself at the end of his life - after meeting with educated Greeks - admitted his mistakes,
but the damage had been done.
Modern Greek keeps the pronunciation of all the letters and the thousands of word roots of antiquity. Some differences in
pronunciation appeared with the common Greek of the early Christian years and the church kept the same pronunciation for the next 2000 years (this is our main source of knowledge about the evolution of the language).
Yes, we know that the letters that used to cross the point of the δασεία/daseea (Ὑὑ-Ἐἑ-Ἰἱ-ᾉᾁ, etc.) were pronounced heavier
(today the same words in English still hold the letter "H" in front to indicate this difference (Ϋδρα>Hydra, Ὑποκρισία>Hypocrisy, Ἐλικόπτερο>Helicopter...
Greetings from Athens Greece!!Thank you for the detailed presentation!!!Very accurate, indeed!!
Thank so much
Great video, sir!
I am in total agreement with you on the use of the Modern Greek/Neohellenic pronunciation, and not just because I'm Greek myself. While I respect the meticulous work behind all the various reconstructed pronunciations of Ancient Greek, to me at least, they come across as artificial and forced when put into practice. Language relies on actually hearing sounds and repeating them, the human brain is wired to do so. To extrapolate the sounds of human speech, exactly, with all the subtle nuances and inflections and tones, from written texts alone is next to impossible. So, one can never know exactly how accurate he/she is being to the original pronunciation when trying to use one of these reconstructed phonologies. One must constantly look over one's shoulder, so to speak, doubting whether or not that eta was too long, that acute accent was too high. How can you be sure without a native speaker or voice recording to correct you? I understand we have evidences from various ancient texts outlining, for example, the difference between long vowels and short vowels, the nature of voiced/unvoiced plosives and aspirates, pitch accent and meter. However, these only paint a rough picture, like disconnected pieces of a puzzle, they are simply not enough to complete said puzzle and fully restore the voices of people like Homer, Socrates, Plato and Plutarch. In my humble opinion, I think it is wiser to leave the data where they lie - in written print or carved stone etchings - appreciate them, consider them, but take them no further than that. Instead, we can use the one phonology of Greek that we have available, the one used consistently amongst all native Greek speakers, the one we have countless audio recordings of, the only verifiably correct system of pronunciation at least for one period of time in the language's long history: Modern Greek.
God bless you, brother, and the whole world over. 🌎 ❤
@@Simrealism Well, if you choose to use a reconstructed pronunciation as a personal preference, that is fair enough. I respectfully disagree that Modern Greek lacks uniqueness amongst the Indo-European language family, but that is all to do with subjective opinion, of course. Objectively speaking, however, the sounds you produce utilizing a reconstructed system will never be wholly accurate to the native Greek speakers of whatever period of Ancient Greek you're trying to recreate. Essentially, what you're preferring over an authentic modern Greek pronunciation is completely your own interpretation of the prescribed "rules" of an ancient pronunciation, not the real thing. When trying to recreate phonemic vowel length, for example, you are simply making up the length of time spent on a long vowel versus a short vowel as you go along. The same goes for the degree of change in pitch as you go from high to low, low to high whilst trying to recreate the sounds of the acute, grave and circumflex accent marks. All the while, you must try to avoid switching to a stress accent by accident. This was my main point, the entire concept is artificial, unnatural and clunky. True language acquisition is impossible without constant, repeated audio exposure to the language and active attempts to reproduce the sounds heard. Everything else is just conjecture.
@@Simrealism Understandable, of course. We're all free to use whichever system of pronunciation we like. When reading ancient Greek texts, the point overall is to glean meaning from them, so pronunciation is not the be-all and end-all.
@@Simrealism Thank you for the link, however I have seen that video before and I've delved quite deeply into the evidences for the changing phonology of Greek through the millenia, just out of interest. It is just my personal view that it is counter-productive to actually try and use these clues from spelling mistakes, transliterations and the like to attempt to actually reproduce the sounds yourself. I cannot lie and say that I don't cringe when I hear it done. I applaud the speaker's efforts, I don't take issue with them personally, it's just a visceral reaction I have to hearing their recitations. I don't want to be insulting, though.
I think the difference between what you're saying in your second paragraph and what I'm referring to is that foreign speakers of Greek as a lingua franca (following the Hellenistic Period) gained the language organically through hearing it spoken from the Greeks who brought it to them, namely Alexander the Great and his men. The locals would likely not have sounded exactly like native Greeks, of course, because they would have spoken it with their various accents. It might not have been "authentic" pronunciation of the Greeks back home, but it was authentic to them because they used it as a real living language. This is a far cry from the modern scholarly attempts to resurrect ancient pronunciations that they themselves have never heard or will ever hear.
@@E45F678 "authentic modern", this is the problem. you imagine that the reconstructions are by implication "inauthentic", however the reconstructions are based on the writings of greek speakers themselves, and the internal logic of Greek's spelling system. the reconstructions are not a foreign imposition, the reconstructions aim to retrieve the unique essence or spirit of the language as it would have sounded to an ancient ear, the reconstructions are not determined based the sensibilities of modern english or german speakers.
it is very easy to determine pronunciation based on spelling variants. the fact that we will say there is not 100% proof is simply scientific, without an audio recording (of multiple speakers across a generation) yes we will never be completely sure, but we can be sure enough, 99% sure.
we know for example that the word laugh comes from the middle english word laughen, so we know without a native speaker that the a of laugh was not pronounced long back then, because we know gh was not silent, or pronounced like an f, it was still /x/, and we know this based on spelling variations and modern dialects which still pronounce gh as /x/, so we know without a recording that laughen was pronounced /lɑxən/ which became /lɑːfən/, and then /lɑːf/, and we know the a was short then, because some dialects still have it short, but the lengthening in this case is unexplained, just like in the word father, which is short in both dutch and german. so again reconstructions can tell us how father was pronounced back in 1400 or earlier even though we dont have a time machine or a voice recording. so your arguments that the reconstructions are artificial or seem so are unwarranted, and really comes down to your own personal bias. had you been taught ancient greek differently at school you would have thought differently. Ioannis Stratakis a modern greek speaker does ancient greek reconstructions on his channel www.youtube.com/@Podium-arts. he does so fluently, because he understands how the ancient language is supposed to flow and he gets that from spending time in it. his pronunciations are as authentic as they get.
@@HenryLeslieGraham My argument was never about criticizing the linguistic evidence. As I said, I understand that we can be reasonably sure that beta, for example, was pronounced as /b/ in Classical Attic Greek, and delta was /d/ etc. My point is that gluing these pieces together by applying these rules to a Greek text and actually reading it aloud, trying to form whole sentences this way, will inevitably produce inauthentic results. The speaker will never be sure of how close or far off he/she is from the original writer and the native speakers of that time and geographical location. Let's take eta for example, which apparently was a long /ε:/ sound at one stage. How long is that "long e" sound supposed to be held for? Do we have a unit of measurement for that to be certain? Well, of course not. Have you ever heard the expression "how long is a piece of string"? How long are we supposed to hold that sound for before moving on to the next? The same goes for omega's "long o" sound. Then there is pitch accent - when spotting an acute mark, you must "raise" the pitch. To what degree, precisely? What note are we supposed to be hitting? F# 3 octaves above middle C on the piano?? Then we are supposed to lower the tone when up against a grave mark. How low are we supposed to go? Then there are the circumflexes which indicate a rise and a fall in pitch, compounding this problem further.
The issue is that details like these are entirely up to the speaker's interpretation, which instantly causes it to descend into subjectivity. Even Ioannis Stratakis (with all due respect) cannot avoid that.
Now, granted, we can look around to modern living speakers of any pitch-based language and they will tell us that they do not need to resort to musical notation in order for them to know how high or low in pitch they must go when speaking. This is common sense. The reason why they are able to communicate effectively is, of course, because they have been exposed to the language in audio form over an extended period of time and know instinctively and unconsciously just how to raise and lower their pitch. Just as the Ancient Greeks did. The same goes for long and short vowels in languages that make use of them. This is the key ingredient lacking in a reconstructed pronunciation. This is what I am getting at when I say inauthentic. It is simply impossible to truly master a language without ever hearing it spoken.
I will try and demonstrate this a little more with a thought experiment. Imagine a theoretical person, in this case an American man, who has gone his entire life never once hearing Modern Greek spoken. Never being exposed to Greek music, news programs or Greek people for that matter. He has no idea what the language sounds like. Then he one day receives a copy of a Greek textbook written in English that outlines the rules of Greek pronunciation. Do you think that if this man were to take to studying this book night and day, thoroughly, he will gain the ability to speak to a native Greek-speaker fluently and flawlessly, well enough to convince the native Greek speaker that this man was a local Greek himself? Of course not. There is only one way to achieve that and that is through listening and repeated the sounds of the language, not extrapolating them off a page.
Ευχαριστώ! Εκτιμώ πολύ το βίντεό σας. Καλή δουλειά!!
My Greek professor would pound the podium when he taught us and yell, "Erasmus is dead! He's dead I say!" He would always start with those two sentences. I've used the modern pronunciation since I first started learning.
However, I use Kantor's with my children, or something similar to it (modern with /y/ for υ/οι and something like his η; I don't have a keymap for the IPA).
The reasons are fairly simple. Modern pronunciation, while very close and grammar very close, breaks ancient grammar by making key parts of grammar indistinguishable. Modern Greek has changed those features as it evolved. To put modern Greek into the Koine era, the argument has to use a bad method of finding those dialects of ancient Greek that showed modern features, select those. Then ignore where they blatantly contradict it and pick another dialect and select those places it agrees and ignore where it doesn't. You can get modern Greek with that, but the resulting pronunciation wouldn't be intelligible.
I believe that languages should be taught as a spoken language and that people who don't learn it as a spoken language end up not understanding it as well as they could with lower retention. Look at the number of seminarians who took Greek and cannot read Greek and make terrible mistakes from the pulpit, not on pronunciation but on the language itself (e.g. the sermons on the words for love in Jesus' reinstatement of Peter). I want my children to learn it, and I don't want to them to learn it as badly as pastors.
That, incidentally, is Dr. Kantor's chief plug for a reconstructed pronunciation. If you have that conviction, and I do, then you must either use a reconstructed pronunciation or use modern Greek pronunciation with the demotic language and work your way back (probably through Katharevousa). If we only learn the language as a written language, then we should use modern. However, if we adopt Dr. Kantor's belief about how people best learn languages, then we should use a reconstructed pronunciation.
So I use Dr. Kantor's pronunciation with them. I read the NT aloud when praying with modern pronunciation. We sing with modern pronunciation, but I teach them to speak with Kantor's, knowing full well they will eventually switch entirely to modern.
Interesting!
Please can you throw more light on that sermon on love?
A. Haire Forster's Paper "The Pronunciation of Greek in New Testament Times" almost a hundred years ago already highlighted that the Modern pronunciation is likely close to Koine.
The Shakespeare analogy is an interesting one. Although there are some points where the analogy falls down. When one gets used to the "reconstructed" pronunciation, an interesting thing happens when you are trying to read the ancient Greek manuscripts and participate in textual criticism. I have personally noticed, having internalised the reconstructed pronunciation, that it really does create this internal question about "how do you spell that word again" and the places where spelling becomes confusing, are the same places where the scribes would tend to make scribal spelling errors. So although the spelling issue is a minor frustration, I seem to have internalised an ability to more easily "gloss over" and/or "detect" the spelling related variants.
Again on the Shakespeare analogy, I do wonder if using the reconstructed pronunciation might from time to time improve our ability to better pick up where rhyme and meter appears in the biblical text, and conversely I wonder if using Erasmian might obscure our ability to pick up where ryme and meter appears in the bible. So yes, a good analogy for sure!
I would say that yes, knowing "original pronunciation" for early modern English does bring forward certain word plays in Shakespeare that are largely lost on our modern ears: there are rhymes in the OP that employ double entendres on which most don't pick up first glance. I hadn't considered this as to how it might apply to the koine Greek scriptures before watching this video, but the Shakespearean early modern English analogy has really got me thinking.
😮Every native Greek speaker can understand the Bible, except let's say from few words, very very few. Greek speaker here!
Lovely post. Of course Erasmian *was* the "Reconstructed" of its day. Booth and Cantor are just the newest brands of the same product. Like many other commenters here, I am Greek Orthodox ,and I believe that the Church has maintained the correct pronunciation. Married to a Greek. Spend lots of time with Greek relatives and friends, here and abroad. Modern Greek is the correct method, for all of the reasons you mentioned. But also, I cannot help but wonder if those who insist on speaking a language differently than the native speakers do are motivated by a personal dislike of the Orthodox Church, or of the Greek people? If you think about it, imagine how English speakers would feel about a native speaker of Tamil, Arabic, or Chinese who insisted that he or she had a *superior* pronunciation of Shakespeare as compared to the Royal Shakespeare Theater.
I think it might be because Western scholars are invested in the idea that Koine Greek is dead. They want to keep it dead because they lack real proficiency in the language and yet want to be “experts” in its nuances. I’m not sure of that but I wonder sometimes.
The best argument in favour of the modern Greek pronunciation is this: did Greek speakers of all ages accessed older Greek texts by reconstructing this older version of their language or by using the Greek pronunciation of their own current time?
Did Alexander the Great read the Iliad by reconstructing Homeric Greek or did he simply use his then current version of Greek which was Attic Greek?
Yes! I've used this one myself. It's ironic, and somewhat hypocritical by the way, that so many English speakers read Shakespeare or Chaucer in their own native English accent rather than learn a reconstructed Shakespearean/Chaucerian English pronunciation, but learning Ancient Greek with a modern pronunciation is scoffed at (by some arrogant snobs). 😅
Nice! I’m glad i started studying modern Greek instead of biblical.
Greeks today can somewhat read the Koine New Testament, im just gonna work backwards
I am 100% a promoter of using "modern" pronunciation or Reconstructed Living Koine pronunciation as the second option.
I have no idea why the algorithm decided to place several videos on this topic into my feed today, but I'm so grateful that it did, and that your video was included. I've heard many arguments for the use of various pronunciations for koine Greek but your case for using the historical/modern pronunciation being centered around the fact that the modern pronunciation as we know it today was largely already coming into use in the time of the writing of the New Testament scriptures has convinced me. The only exception to this is that I think that there may be some value to knowing the historical facts of ancient pronunciation, even as knowing the facts of "original pronunciation" for early modern English language does inform us as to various word plays employed by such authors as Shakespeare, given that some of the clever rhyme-based juxtapositions that he used brings forward subtle nuances that are lost in our late modern pronunciation. In reading the scriptures in the original tongues, I've never considered how pronunciation might affect interpretative nuances and use of word play, particularly in Paul's highly educated form, and now I'll be looking out for this. Χριστός Ανέστη!
So encouraging to hear! Thanks so much for your kind words!
I’ve been studying Black and Munce and was thinking of pursuing the standard Erasmian/academic pronunciation. I decided a week ago to pursue Modern, simply for the reason that Erasmian or Reconstructed are purely academic, whereas I may eventually be able to speak with Grecians in the future if I learn Modern. Love this video - reaffirms my thoughts. Thanks!
Good choice! You won't regret it. Modern is the only version of pronunciation that is verifiable and truly alive. The academic reconstructions lack, if I may say so, soul. They're not only cacophonous, but change from speaker to speaker. As outlined in this brilliant video, the sounds of Modern Greek are extremely ancient, anyway, so it is not so anachronistic to apply it to Koine Greek. Enjoy your learning!
@@E45F678 Thanks!
The common English word to refer to Greek people is "Greeks". Using "Grecians" is archaic. It's like calling the English people "Anglo-Saxons" or the French people "Gauls". KJV 1611, Acts 11:20 "And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the GRECIANS preaching the Lord Jesus." NIV 1984 " Some of them, however, men from Cyprus and Cyrene, went to Antioch and began to speak to GREEKS also, telling them the good news about the Lord Jesus."
@@learnbiblicalgreek316 Thanks! The irony is that I want to use Modern pronunciation for similar reasons.
I was learning Spanish a long time ago and reading the Reina Valera translation, and unwittingly was using some of the words/structures/etc in conversation with my best friend (from Uruguay). He had a very difficult time understanding me!
@@JTamilioSo what is your native language?
Why don't people simply ask the Greeks?????? They have thousands of years of philology, and an unbroken tradition. There's no need to reinvent the wheel, or build your own bicycle.
Amen
Thank you! Well said.
Okay, Stephen, the jury is back... I'm going with modern pronunciation from here on out. Thanks for building a great case. The only problem I had with modern pronunciation (apart from the historical correctness question) was all the EE sounds and the difficulty of remembering when to use omicron and when to use omega. But if you are saying that this pronunciation dates back that far, then I'm in.
You’ll be happy you made the switch!
I lived in California for 60 years and never (knowingly) met a Greek speaker, I have been a Christian for over 40 years and have never met another student of Koine Greek. Every Pastor I known uses software to use Greek on sermons and my new church in the Philippines call me a "Greek Freak" as a joke. I wish I could find a Greek speaker to share with but unless I travel to Europe from Asia it isn't likely. But I agree with using the modern pronunciation. Meanwhile I will enjoy reading Koine and translating.
God bless! ❤❤❤
One argument for Erasmian is that the vowel lettera have a one to one correspondence with their sounds, making it easier to learn spelling. Today, however, I heard the word φανηροω pronounced and sounded like it could be spelled φανηραω. So the correspondence is not as tight as we may be led to believe. Homonyms may be unavoidable.
I agree completely
Most, if not all, languages contain homophony in words and may lead to confusion. However, most of the time context within a sentence can help clear up confusion. Modern Greek (Neohellenic) pronunciation can still be used for Ancient Greek and allow for a reasonable amount of comprehension between speakers ... BUT I personally have no problem with making some very slight, very conservative adjustments to the text itself when homophony is too confusing.
For example, whilst using the modern pronunciation, I sometimes read ημείς as εμείς (which is its modern Greek equivalent) in order to differentiate it from υμείς (which I pronounce as im-ISS). This goes for all the declensions as well. So ημών I read as εμών to distinguish it from υμών. Ημέτερον I read as εμέτερον to distinguish it from υμέτερον. It isn't too far of a stretch from modern Greek either, since the Pontic Greek dialect makes use of the word εμέτερον today.
This isn't necessary at all if one is just reading off a page, but when using Ancient Greek to communicate, minute changes like this keep comprehension between speakers intact without compromising too much on the modern Greek pronunciation. Just a tip if you're interested. 😊 All the best!
Thank you for the link to Zachariou’s book. Please read Prometheus’ longish review. I should be interested in your view.
I read it awhile back. I’m not an expert on it myself. But I think the evidence Zachariou marshals speaks for itself, along with its endorsements. But Kantor himself inadvertently confirms the bulk of what Zachariou says in his work, in my judgment.
The Greek Orthodox Church has been speaking it non-stop, they would know best.
Ha! I've been using modern pronunciation ever since my Greek pastor made fun of my for Erasmian.
I heard your Greek. It's sounds messed up. 😁
Pastor Green, you convinced me of this some time ago. For myself, the modern sounds have a nice flow, especially regarding the iota diphthongs and the eta-iota-upsilon equivalence. 😎👍🙏📖
@@mrtdiver Hahaha, my pronunciation is MOSTLY modern, but there are some sounds I've retained.
@@rosslewchuk9286 So what you're saying is, I'm a bad influence 🤣
A reasonable influence.🙂 @@Dwayne_Green
The correct pronunciation of the ελληνικά / Hellenic / Greek language then and now!
A/α=alfa (pron. always clear Α as in "car" - not ay)
B/β=veeta (v sound) as in "valley"
Γ/γ=γάμα (like y-es or w-hat)
Δ/δ=thelta (like (th-e)
E/ε=epsilon (e-pitaph)
Ζ/ζ=zeeta (Z-oo)
Η/η=eeta (pronounced ee) as "infinit-y"
Θ/θ=theeta (as th-uner)
Ι/ι=eeota (pronounced ee) as "infinit-y"
Κ/κ=kapa /K as "c-at"
Λ/λ=lamtha / L as "L-eo"
Μ/μ=mee / M as "m-om"
Ν/ν=nee / N as "n-ou-n"
Ξ/ξ=xee / X (as on e-x-odus)
Ο/ο=omikron / O "Door"
Π/π=pee / P not paee but as "p-olice"
Ρ/ρ=ro /R as "r-egula-r"
Σ/σ/ς=siγma / S (ther's no sound like γ in latin, g is complitely wrong) as "s-ound"
Τ/τ=taf / Τ as "tea"
Y/υ=eepsilon (pronounced ee) as "infinit-y"
Φ/φ=fee / F as "fall"
Χ/χ=hee / J in spanish / He in english as "h-urry up"
Ψ/ψ=psee / ps
Ω/ω=omeγa / O (ther's no sound like γ in latin, g is complitely wrong) as "door"
Ιι / Ηη / Υυ / ει / οι are always ee, only when εϊ = e-ee, and αϊ=a-ee
Also: μπ=b / ντ=d / τζ=j / γκ=g (G-ary) / ευ=ef or ev / αυ=af or av /αι=e (end) / ου=ou or u in (Lulu)
[Only when there is (¨) the pronunciation change] eg: εϋ = e-ee / αϋ = a-ee / αϊ = a-ee / οϋ = o-ee / εϊ = e-ee / οϊ = o-ee
The «ευ» and «αυ», pronounced ef and af, when the letters κ, π, τ, χ, φ, θ, σ, ξ, ψ follow. eg:
(εύκολο/eukolo=efkolo, αυχένας/auhenas=afhenas, αυστηρός/austeerόs=afsteerόs etc.)
The «ευ» and «αυ» are pronounced "ev" and "av", when the letters β, γ, δ, ζ, λ, μ, ν, ρ and vowels follow. eg:
(Ευγένιος/Eugenios=Evgeneeos>Eugene in English, ευνομία/eunomia=evnomia, ευέλικτος/eueliktos=eveliktos etc.)
Let's make a few words with the correct pronunciation of the Greek letters.
Ήλιος / eeleeos / sun (stress in the first e)
αύριο / avrio / tomorrow (stress in a)
λίθος / leethos / stone (stress in e)
παραγωγή / parawowee / production (w as in why - stress in e)
σήμερα / seemera / today (stress in first e
αύριο / avrio (stress in a)
παιχνίδι / pehneethee / toy (h as in he, th as in the - stress in the first e)
ψεύτης / pseftees / liar (stress in the first e)
Ωκεανός / Okeanos / Ocean (stress in the o)
Ευρώπη / Evropee / Europe (stress in o)
Γυμναστική / weemnasteekee / gymnastics (w as in why - stress in the last e)
Εὖγε ἀδελφέ, χαίρω ὅτι εὐδοκεῖς χρῆσθαι τῇ νεοελληνικῇ λαλιᾷ.
Superb presentation
Thank you
Nice vid & looking sharp 👍👍
Thanks
Cool video, One question did they take into account regional differences in pronouncing words? The gospels note that within a one or two days walk affects one’s way of speaking. Example Peter’s dialog in the court yard during Jesus’s trial.
Note words today in English like tomato got to the south in the states hear it said one way then go to London, ( perhaps 100 years ago);and compare the western side of town then to the eastern cockney accent. Just curious.
It’s a good question. I think Kantor has done the best he can to track down regional variations. But I question how fine a point we can put on some of those things.
To anyone who comments that κοινή ελληνική as you name it, is a dead language, is used from the Greek Orthodox Church every day, most high hierarchs use also to speak and write on that form even now. Practically it's been used again during the Greek dictatorship, we call it Καθαρεύουσα, it's not 100% the same as κοινή ελληνική των αλεξανδρινων χρόνων, but very similar.
Sorry for the second post, but this is different subject. I saw your 3 year old video about learning Greek. A few weeks ago, I saw someone start to teach Greek by reading the Greek Gospel of John. He showed a word, pointed out the letters and sounds, and then another word. In an hour or two I could actually read, out loud, all the words, name the letters used and what the definitions of the words were for the first verse of John.
Learning the alphabet after that would be much easier than memorizing it before actually using it. Not only that, but one could learn the alphabet over time while they are still learning the words, vocabulary and grammar.
Would you happen to know who might teach Greek that way? To me, it was like Dick and Jane and Dr Zeus when I was growing up. It just made sense to me. I would love to find a course that starts that way, if I could afford it.
Let me know if you know. Thanks
Shabbat Shalom
Luke Ranieri demonstrates errors in Dr. Zachariou's thinking in this video discussing the pre-Koine Boeotian dialect:
ruclips.net/video/n1BS70EonLA/видео.htmlsi=_Cb0jbIx6k6-5MRz
I'd recommend you check out more of his Greek pronunciation videos, since it gives a filter sense of how the language developed over time and across space.
Thanks for sharing. For my purposes, I do think Kantor is probably closer to the Koine pronunciation than modern. But I think that modern has historical pedigree for the vast majority of its letter pronunciations and is far more practical, which, I think, is a minimalist claim. If it is true that Dr. Zachariou, overstated his case (which I am not saying he has), I would still say the same thing here. Dr. Kantor’s work is enough evidence for me to be convinced that modern is a close enough approximation to Koine pronunciation to be viable.
Thank you for this. I’m glad I made the choice to learn modern pronunciation even if it’s less popular for theology.
Do you recommend any channels that teach Biblical Greek with a modern pronunciation?
Dr. Philemon Zachariou has an excellent channel I would recommend.
I also recommend
youtube.com/@learnbiblicalgreek373?si=ebTzlDdpcSoinXKb
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews thanks a lot!
I started with Erasmian, but it never feels like a real language, no matter who reads or how quickly, so my brain rejects it. I find it pretty hard to switch, but once I got over that difficulty it my brain accepted it.
Good move!
You make a very good case. The value of having millions of living, native speakers of Modern Greek shouldn't be dismissed.
loved top hear this I've recently started using Duolingo to learn greek in modern pronunciation.
Thanks for the video, you made some great points! As an Eastern Christian, who lives daily in the Greek world I use Κοινή Ελληνική as well as Νέα Ελληνικά. A little-known fact is the fact that a few of our very old Monasteries never ceased using Κοινή Ελληνική. We know this beyond a shadow of a doubt. Yes, there may be a couple of minor nuance pronunciations, but the language is basically the same. Not long ago, I was reading a book that belonged to a Bishop 150 years ago it was written in Κοινή! The language of Κοινή never died, over the years some words meant the same and others took on a slightly different meaning. "Αἷμα Κοινή " is the same as "Αίμα Νέα ελληνικά", translation blood. I hope your videos make a difference in the Western World. By the way, I am impressed with your pronunciation of Κοινή. Ο Θεός να σ' ευλογεί
Wow I didn’t know that! Thank you so much for such an encouraging comment!
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews You are welcome, continue the good work and your journey in all truths. God bless you!
I'm not a Greek Student, yet. I have tinkered with learning it on my own a few times, but that's not the point here. When I first heard a friend/Greek teacher talk about how the NT Greek was pronounced differently from today's Greek, I had to ask "Why?" It had something to do with "preserving" the old sounds?
Again, Why? Do Greek scholars ever get together for a day of "Greek-Speek" where they do not speak English, but Greek only? After all, the purpose of the language is not to speak communicate in it, but to understand how to READ it.
Having traveled over half of the Northern Hemisphere, I recognize the need that if someone learns a language, to learn the modern use of it.
It's like the KJ Onliests having a big conference. The only time one or two of them spoke Shakespearean English was in their prayer. Otherwise, they all spoke modern, American English to each other.
Today, when I start learning Greek, the only pronunciation I am interested in is whatever the people helping me learn use. Because I'm not going back to Greece, and the next American language is much more likely to become Spanish rather than Greek.
It just makes sense to me that the definitions are what has to be accurate, not the pronunciation. After all, I live in the south and just up the road, in the mountains, I have to take an interpreter because my southern accent doesn't drawl that much.
Good case if you want to speak Biblical Greek. But who does? I tried to learn modern pronunciation and was confused and distracted by multiple letters having the same sound, and other issues. To the person in the pew, Erasmian pronunciation is preferred because (1) easier to learn, (2) most easily available Greek resources use Erasmean pronunciation, (3) easier pronunciation scheme, and (4) easier to learn English words derived from Greek. I want to read the Bible in Greek, and for that, Erasmian is the best option.
But who does? Who wants to speak Biblical Greek? Rogelio Toledo Martin; Christophe Rico of @poliskoine; @learnbiblicalgreek373; @triodostrivium; Luke Ranieri of Polymathy; Benjamin Kantor of @KoineGreek "Koine Greek is not a dead language”; Jordash Kiffiak; Paul Nitz @PaulNitz; Randall Buth; Michael W. Halcomb of GlossaHouse; Academy of Classical Greek @sebastiancarnazzo7191; Beta with Brett @betawithbrett7068 etc Check them out. They all want to learn to speak Koine Greek, though most aren't using Modern Greek pronunciation. Some use Erasmian, others use a pronunciation which is half-way between Modern and Erasmian. I use Modern Greek pronunciation because I'm a native Greek-speaker.
Agreed
I could imagine the use of Greek in church has helped to slow language changes in Greek. Interesting that English more or less stabilized after the Reformation, when the vernacular started to be used in church.
How can you say what is the exact pronunciation anyway. How is English pronounced today? Like in America or England or Australia or South Africa or Ireland or Jamaica, all over people pronounce it differently.
Why not Erasmian, for its pedagogical advantages and its widespread use? I don’t expect to run into any first century Greeks who would find my pronunciation confusing
I just noticed a typo: Recontructed should be Reconstructed.
Have you seen "NT Greek Pronunciation: Why I'm switching from Erasmian" by Biblical Mastery Academy? Dr. Darryl Burling is switching to Modern Greek pronunciation.
Indeed. Thanks for the catch on the typo.
The Orthodox Church has letters and prayers (not all of which are in the Bible) written in Koine back to the time of the Patristic Fathers. They've been saying and chanting them NON STOP this whole time, and the Greek priests were the language teachers who kept the language alive during the Ottoman occupation. This is a no-brainer.
Amen
Erasmian pronunciation sounds like an English speaker learning Spanish for the first time. It does not roll off the tongue naturally. The words should flow together like modern pronunciation.
If you want to hear a fluent historical pronunciation, lookup "Polis Institute 1 John" on RUclips. There Dr. Christophe Rico reads 1 John fluently, and has videos of reading through the gospel of John, Galatians, James, and Revelation. Alpha with Angela also teaches Biblical Greek with a historical pronunciation fluently. Yes, there are some inaccurate "American" erasmian examples, but there are good examples like Polis Institute a s Alpha with Angela as well.
American Erasmian = pronounce vowels like American English. Australian Erasmian = pronounce vowels like Australians English. The term "Historical Pronunciation" is unhelpful, because it does not make it clear which point in History it references. The Kantor/Buth pronunciation is also "Historical."
The problem with Modern is, it really doesn't work in a class setting when you are reading text out loud and speaking sentences to one another. There are just too many words that are ambiguous when read out loud using the Modern pronunciation. I don't just mean the υμις ημις problem.
Koine Era pronunciation is extremely beneficial for those who wish to engage in textual criticism and analysis of first century writing style. If you internalize the historical first century pronunciation, then it is possible to completely understand when spelling mistakes occur and why they occur.
Finally, duolingo is good, but at the start you are taken straight into a whole lot of modern vocabulary which is not helpful (initially) for reading the Bible. Using alternate apps such as "Scripturial" then you are taken straight into vocabulary from the Greek New Testament.
On the ι η distinction, Im not disagreeing with the fact that it was in flux from quite early on, but try using it in a class setting. Honestly, it is really not overly practical. Consider, "ιν αρχι ιν ο λογος," I don't think a case can be made that this was predominant in the first century. You have to look not just at spelling changes, but the vocabulary changes that occurred as a result of the shift. For example, υμις ημις were clearly still predominant in the first century. The pronunciation shift had not yet caused υμις ημις to drop out of the language.
I also want to add, at the end of the day, In my personal experience, both Modern and Reconstructed are usable, and they are both usable in a mixed setting where some people use Modern and some people use Reconstructed. So it's definitely not something we should fight or war over. If an American can understand an Australian when they pronounce "Melbourne" as "Melbon" or "Pastor" as "Pasta" then we can certainly get with two different "Historical" pronunciations in the same room :)
@@jay.rhoden I typed out “exactly” before I read your whole post 😂. I don’t think Kantor makes a strong distinction between υμις and ημις like Buth did. The distinction is slight in Kantor, if I’m not mistaken. I also think that there is potential for word confusion in any system. This even happens in modern English. Are you following Kantor or Buth?
@@jay.rhoden I totally agree with both modern and reconstructed being usable. Blessings!
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews I've not read Ben's book yet. I think I probably sound more like Ben than Booth though. I listen to both BLC and Ben's audio for practice, and although the rough breathings are gone for υμις / ημις in both Buth's and Ben's audio the υ/η distinction is always clear to me. But yes I do think removing the rough breathing decreases the time spent on the υ/η, so I agree the difference would be less clearly pronounced.
In my reading/speaking practice group, the υμις/ημις distinction is really not so much of a big problem in my personal experience, I have more difficulty with the iotisation to the shorter words, I.e. εν/ην. Not insurmountable, but it does cause me a headache from time to time.
Totally agree
I think that Erasmian adapts quite decently to English learners; but I would not teach Erasmian to Spanish learners, I think modern greek sounds are easier and more similar to Spanish. So that's a fair point to consider.
Christophe Rico, from the Polis Institute in Jerusalem, advocates a living language approach with early high koine pronunciation. Early high koine is close to erasmian except for 3 consonants. Early high koine is a historical pronunciation at the beginning of the koine era when the pronunciation matched the spelling. In modern pronunciation the word for you plural (ὑμεῖς) is pronounced the same as we (ἡμεῖς). In modern Greek, they invented a different word for you (εσείς) to solve this ambiguity. Choosing a pronunciation has benefits and drawbacks. It seemed to me that early high koine had the most advantages.
This is essentially Randall Burg’s approach, no?
Randall Buth from the Biblical Languages Center promotes the reconstructed koine from the 1st century AD. Early High Koine, from Polis Institute, is a historical pronunciation from the early koine period, from around 200 BC. Both are historical pronunciations, but from different periods of history. RUclips channel Alpha with Angela uses the early high koine/Polis pronunciation. The main factor given by Polis for early high koine is pedagogical, with the unique vowel diphthongs having unique sounds. In contrast, modern Greek pronunciation has many different diphthongs having identical sounds. It is a matter of opinion and goals. I was trying to give the other "side" of the Greek pronunciation viewpoint.
@@veritas399 yes, I can understand people preferring that. I think one of the issues I have is there are so many variations on reconstructed pronunciation. It makes me lean more towards modern pronunciation, but I don’t think it’s a big deal either way honestly.
@biblicalstudiesandreviews Yes, choosing a pronunciation is a matter of opinion. I view early high koine like erasmian done right. In my opinion, there are 3 main pronunciation systems: erasmian/early high koine, reconstructed koine, and modern. But the most important thing is to study the language, to study the Bible, to know God and His will and His ways. I appreciate your RUclips channel. How is the new Testament majority text project with an apparatus coming along? Will you have an update on that?
@@veritas399 Amen. I have the first proof printed for proofreading. Sent it off this morning. Mostly proofreading left. This proof edition is just a cheap glued binding to review before we invest in a sewn binding.
Glad I found this, common sense.
Hello, I realise you posted this video more than 10 months ago now but I wanted to ask you if you would take this kind of approach with Hebrew? Seems like an awful waste to know biblical Hebrew at any level and not know or be able to communicate in modern Hebrew or just use it as a guide. Hopefully you can respond. All the best and every blessing.
Yep I agree. Modern for Greek. Modern for Hebrew.
I was screwed at seminary learning erasmian. How should I go about learning Modern/Neohellenic? What books and websites and RUclips videos do you recommend to learn modern greek pronunciation?
Did Steven Anderson's going back to the Greek documentary help you reach this conclusion, Stephen?
You ask, "How should I go about learning Modern/Neohellenic? What books and websites and RUclips videos do you recommend to learn modern greek pronunciation?" A similar question was asked earlier in the comments by @carlostoro9986 1 month ago, "Thank you for this. I’m glad I made the choice to learn modern pronunciation even if it’s less popular for theology. Do you recommend any channels that teach Biblical Greek with a modern pronunciation?
The replies given were: @BiblicalStudiesandReviews 1 month ago Dr. Philemon Zachariou has an excellent channel I would recommend. AND @Hadoramu 1 month ago
I also recommend youtube.com/@learnbiblicalgreek373?si=ebTzlDdpcSoinXKb
Regarding your question on "Steven Anderson's going back to the Greek documentary", I cannot answer for Stephen H. but I think that it gives a false impression. It errs on the side that NT Koine is easily understood by Modern Greeks. Of course, at the other end of the spectrum, there are those who advocate a false dichotomy between Modern and Koine Greek making out that they are completely different languages and mutually unintelligible. The truth is somewhere in the middle. If interested, see the video: "Can Present Day Greeks Understand the Greek of the New Testament?"
The only reasonable and vise decision!
👏👏👏 Thank you! ευχαριστώ!
Hmm. I agree with you regarding biblical greek pronunciation as I completely despise the Erasmian pronunciation. However, I do have to mention one issue with you assertion about Shakespeare. It is difficult to say that someone should only learn modern english version of shakespeare, because much is lost in terms of the poetry. Considering the fact that Shakespeares purpose was art, rather than transmitting a spiritual truth, there is certainly value in learning Shakespeare in the original pronunciation. The same is even more true for middle english, such as Chaucer. The modern english versions simply don't do it justice. It's an interesting topic though.
Chaucer would be a better example than Shakespeare, as his work was written before the Great Vowel Shift in English, unlike Shakespeare, who lived at the tail end of that Shift.
Understanding how the shift happened makes it easier to reconstruct intuitively, and it brings Chaucer's poetry to life.
Likewise Greek has undergone several significant vowel shifts and the spelling differences between Greek vowels reflects real historical differences in pronunciation, differences elided by the vowel mergers of Modern Greek.
I am for reform of the inaccuracies of "Erasmian" pronunciation, but been with its flaws, it's a better pedagogical tool to learners who are not already familiar with modern Greek and it better allows use of lost features of the Greek language, like pitch accent, than a Modern (falsely called historical) pronunciation can give.
I personally try to use a reconstructed pronunciation after learning from an instructor trying to teach from a modern pronunciation, and I find the modern pronunciation more a hindrance than a help.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Blessings!
Thank you
Are you talking about Dr Daniel Zacharias? Thanks for reading my comment.
Dr. Philemon Zachariou here youtube.com/@PhilemonZachariou?si=7KimWwhLhvpZR3uC
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews ευχαριστω
Still stuck on choosing a pronunciation. It seems like erasmian would be the choice if I were to go to seminary. I know you don’t look down on erasmian pronunciation but man when you read the comments on this the modern pronunciation crowd are very territorial in some case rude.
They can be. Not sure why except it’s a little offensive to Greek speakers. I would go with modern if you can. You can switch it pretty easily to Erasmian in seminary, but I think many professors would not make you switch.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews thank you!
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Not sure why. I can tell you why. Even better, I'll let Michael Halcomb tell you why. Regarding the pronunciation of Koine Greek please listen to this:
"I get schooled by a Greek linguist! (Dr. T. Michael W. Halcomb enters the Dojo!)" @DiscipleDojo
01:08:56 - How Western academia stole Greek from Greeks…and why you’re probably pronouncing it wrong!
He explains how Western Academia stole Greek from the Greeks declared Greek as a dead language. This was a socio-political move. Academics drove a wedge between Ancient and Modern Greek which never existed before. Pronouncing Koine Greek in the Erasmian perpetuates this false historical dichotomy. Western Academics had (and some still have) a low view of Greeks and saw / see them as barbarians.
@@learnbiblicalgreek316 I suspect Luke Ranieri fits into this category. He often speaks negatively about modern Greeks in his videos.
Here's what I recommend, find a Greek. That is a modern Greek in Athens, New York or Sydney and study how they pronounce things!!!! YASSAS 🇬🇷 🇬🇷 🇬🇷
Right!
When I traveled to Greece I tried to use my Koine Greek and it didn't work for me.
When I was in Israel my biblical Hebrew was an asset. I could talk and read some.
Just some personal observations; not conclusive.
Interesting! Thanks for sharing
I am Greek, can I ask you, what you said to those Greeks you came across?
@@paulrudiger2552 That's a good question. I wish I remembered something. It was several times that I tried to communicate with them.
I also traveled to the Islands via ferries. It was a great experience.
Even in Israel I don't remember what specific things I said or read. But it was more understandable to me.
@@mrtdiver I assume you just know a few words, the thing is that if you used a kind of Erasmian pronunciation, of course nobody will understand what you say
@@paulrudiger2552 yes, I used Erasmian pronunciation. That's what we were taught.
Evidence of ancient latin transcription, internal poetry rhyming, and human sounds such as the plosive "phew!". About same across cultures. But pronounced "phev" today. Imagine this scene: an illiterate Greek merchant is chating with a Phonecian merchant. What are those scribles? Well i wrote what you said and how many products i sold. After explaining how shapes represent sound, he writes down each of his sounds as letters. Each letter had its sound, including diphthongs. Did he hear " ee" and wrote i, u, h, oi for the same sound? Of course not. Latins wrote what they heard also. Modern Greeks have a hard time spelling. Also tones ( sometimes found as fossils in church), vowel length, a bit like Norwegian as are/as were many IE brother tongues, one can not get the true sense of Greek Classic works. Certainly some areas/ dialects were different from Attic at the time of Christ. Then post Alexander many were overwhelmed, mixed among Greeks as well as non-Greeks trying to learn the new pan- east Medeterranean tongue ( and likely having a hard time). We see many verb forms fading from common street speakers, preserved among the well educated only. The Greek of Paul and Luke is more polished than some Biblical writers. There is well established scholarship detailing the gradual simplification of Koine. Byzantine writers struugled to keep Greek true to the older standard. Modern (demotic is worse than katherevousa in placing barriers to todays Greeks and their heritage. Lost tone and vowel length, o and w, hides much of the beauty of classics and perhaps some of the OT and NT too. Rhymes often dont work, or appear where tbere was none once. I believe the 500 year Turkish occupation had a great deletorius effect as well. Erasmus was not always correct, especially in his NT readings, but he made a great start.at the very least a student can at least learn to spell.
O, years in Greece , Turkey and Jordan among churchmen and Turkish speakers. Pilgrimages to most if Turky ,Greece and the islands. Former clergy ( illness stopped me). & GO
modern pronunciation (whatever that means), or more accurately "the phonetic system of Modern Greek" is stable, or has been stabilised in various ways IN the modern Greek state, however it is not stable in the sense that it continues to evolve. and will continue to evolve. if the phonetic system of Modern Greek is used for Ancient Greek, the present phonetic system of Modern Greek will not be the same as the phonetic system of Modern Greek in 200 years. Modern Greek is unlike Ancient Greek, they are different languages. the use of Modern Greek pronunciation for Ancient Greek is really a matter of convenience and style.
Thanks for watching and engaging!
14:56 a critical failure to understand the scope and scale of the phonetic changes - specifically iaticism - within the Greek speaking world. as even a cursory look at the data available (even on Wikipedia) will show that there were various pronunciations in use throughout the empire and that the pronunciation which predominated in one area would not (and evidentially could not without the help of modern broadcast media) would not be the same as that in another area, for each area of the empire was subject to differing linguistic influences, coptic in egypt or illarian in the Balkans (neighbouring greece proper), kartvelian languages in the pontus region, etruscan and latin influence on Greek speakers in today's Italy, and Scythian influence on Greek speakers in today's Crimea. Eta was pronounced as i(:), but also as e:, e̝ and ε:, all the way till the 2nd C AD in learned pronunciation. e̝ used in Egypt, and in most popular pronunciation systems until 3rd C AD, while eː with phonemic length was used in Schooling and educated speech, with i only appearing in the 4th century AD, and ε: being used in remote dialects.
I appreciate both your comments that you’ve left. Do you have a preferred pronunciation system?
I use reconstructed pronunciation. There is literally no credibility for Erasmian lol. I’m not sure why it’s still the standard
Agreed!
Modern is the way to go. I switched to modern after 15 years of Erasmian and it was hard at first but it now seems foolish to use Erasmian.
3:00
6:27
9
Ο ψαλμός 67 στα ελληνικά:
ruclips.net/video/Bo8mkuuWsKs/видео.htmlsi=3Wn47Dk3d6W7dExe
I totally reject your assertion that a "historically reconstructed pronunciation" approach (whatever that means, if anything) to koine over Erasmian is preferable. That argument is void of substance and logic. How many thousand page books pushing your position that exist is entirely irrelevant. Sorry.
Hi my friend, I’m not mad at you for sticking with Erasmian. I just think that the research shows that modern pronunciation more closely resembles how Greek was pronounced in the time of Jesus. But if you are happy with Erasmian, it won’t bother me
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews I appreciate your flexibility.
Erasmian, only. Thank you.
I started like that but it just feels as if someone would read aloud all the written letter from a French text 😅
Erasmus spearheaded reconstructed pronunciation. So confused.
Modern Greek is very different from ancient. It’d be like saying Latin grammar is the same as Spanish grammar.
Language change in Greek was very different.
This is so wrong! Modern is just as made up if not more!
Polybius wrote Koine: Koine is Attic. Stop misleading! (I was harsh here. But, as they say ‘quot magistri tot sententiae. I rather err on the skeptical side, because any theory will eventually be superseded.) Blessings.
I agree with you on Erasmus. But no one that I’m aware of refers to Erasmian pronunciation as “reconstructed”. This is a matter of nomenclature.
Having spoken to native speakers of modern Greek, I think it’s fair to say that they understand a good deal of Koine Greek. And even myself having studied Koine Greek can understand some modern Greek. “Very close” is a relative term. There is a lot of overlap in vocabulary etc. The scale of change over the centuries is nothing like English.
You’re obviously NOT a linguist and you’re making very broad and unscientific assumptions.
No I’m not a linguist. Feel free to correct any errors I made. Blessings :)
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews There’s a general oversimplification, in my view, when it gets to adopting one or another practical approach to phonology. Language change is real, and that’s the subject of historical linguistics. It is true that any language conserves features of its parent language, but there are always variations, which go from extreme to less extreme. Eg: all Romance languages have some Latin in them, from phonology to syntax, but they also have extreme deviations from the root language.
The language of the NT has more in common with Polybius & Diodorus Siculus, Appian, or Plutarch, than with modern Greek. Or to give the obvious examples: John Chrysostom.
@@Moliere1000 I have no problem with that. The misimpression that many English only speakers have is that languages as old as Greek have changed so much that they are completely un-intelligible to modern speakers and my experience is that that is not the case with Greek, at least.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews To summarize: I find it extremely biased to choose one ‘school’ over the others. I speak one of the Romance languages as a mother tongue, & I have low & high degrees in Classics: I would never claim that my pronunciation is the right one, or that that of any of the other Romance languages (French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese or Romanian) is ‘the one’, because of language change. I would also definitely not choose the so-called ‘Ecclesiastical pronunciation’ for the same reason.
I will now read the source you mention. (Is he Greek?) And I’ll try to come up with a more nuanced argument. Of course there are phonological features that are common between older and newer versions of the language, BUT, how on earth would one read Homer or Apollonios of Rhodes with modern (lack of) vowel quantity? For example? A priori I’m suspect of anyone who disqualifies any previous attempt to reconstruct the ancient phonology. He’s probably selling me something.
@@Moliere1000 Zachariou is Greek. And you might get the sense that he is an evangelist for the position. Kantor is purely an academic. His claim is more modest. He says that modern pronunciation is remarkably close to the way Greek was pronounced in the Hellenistic period, but quite a bit different for some of the classical period. I think I said in the video that I’m not too dogmatic. But I think modern makes sense for the reason I outlined. But I don’t think it’s “the only correct pronunciation”.