[B-Greek] Listening to Romans 5:1 (Greek NT Audio)

Randall Buth randallbuth at gmail.com
Tue Oct 7 12:56:01 EDT 2008


Leonard egrapse
>> (1) Could you please expand on your statement "While there are early gains
>> in learning spelling, the long-term consequences are that such an approach
>> short-changes the student who wants to go further" with practical examples
>> showing how the student is short-changed?
>>
>> (2) What are the benefits derived from reading the NT as it sounded? Can
>> you provide at least two solid examples to illustrate your point?
>>
>> (3) Does using the assumed historical pronunciation help us to understand
>> the message of the NT better? An example?>>

kai Barry proseQhke
> I'd also like to see these questions answered.

I was impressed with Louis Sorenson's long, organizing email, and think that
it would be a nice service if he could follow up on some of these.
Leonard's first question is rightly for Louis. The last two questions
are really
the same question stated twice.
Ultimately, one could even write a monograph, and I don't have the
time to do that
systematically on this list. I suspect that the monograph could be boring, too.
Better to read the NT for oneself in the pronunciation.

I will start with a well-known problem and explain how its perception
is altered
when looked at with a sensitivity to the original language situation,
including its
sounds. That will be long enough for now.

Romans 5:1 in B*, alef*, A, C, D, K, L reads
δικαιωθεντες ουν εκ πιστεως
ειρηνην εχωμεν προς τον θεον

DIKAIWQENTES OYN EK PISTEWS
EIRHNHN EXWMEN PROS TON QEON

"let us have peace with God"

and equally well known
Romans 5:1 in B(corr), alef(corr), most minuscules, UBS and NestleAland, reads
δικαιωθεντες ουν εκ πιστεως
ειρηνην εχομεν προς τον θεον

DIKAIWQENTES OYN EK PISTEWS
EIRHNHN EXOMEN PROS TON QEON

"we have peace with God"

Greek is good, with expected word orders of clauses and of verb phrase
with EXEIN.

Metzger's commentary ('71 edition) says "since the difference in pronunciation
between ο O and ω W in the Hellenistic age was almost non-existent, when
Paul dictated εχομεν EXOMEN, Tertius, his amanuensis (16:22), may have
written down εχωμεν EXWMEN."

First of all, "almost" might imply to an Erasmian that some
distinction did exist,
if Tertius was listening carefully.  That of course, is false. Tertius
would have
relied on context for the understanding. Someone using  a Koine pronunciation
can better appreciate how the language was able to work, despite the sound
equivalence.
(Of course, Tertius could have queried Paul
TO EXWMEN WS DEI HMAS H TO EXOMEN WS YPARXON HMIN?
"...like 'we need to' ... or ... as 'existing for us'"? YPOTAKTIKH H ORISTIKH?
subordinate [subjunctive] or specifying [indicative]? A query could have led
to a re-wording, if serious enough.)

Communication did take place, and certain principles of
relevance theory are relevant here. Paul thought he had communicated, and
Tertius thought he had understood. The audience is justified in drawing their
first, most obvious understanding.
Furthermore, with experience in communication with this language, one does
not need to become pessimistic and throw up one's hands, as if all meaning
is now out the window and unrecoverable.
It is recoverable on exactly the terms that the ancient audience recovered
the meaning.
A KOINH pronunciation puts a reader in exactly that position,
which is where we should be, neither artificially confident
(through Erasmianism), nor artificially pessimistic
(through an Erasminian learning that there is "no" distinction). We are also
able to be more sensitive in evaluating the manuscripts on this issue, and
should not be too swayed by orthographical evidence of any one scribe, knowing
that a scribe could theoretically have written EXWMEN while thinking
indicative,
or vice versa. Again, we must fall back on context to be the guide, and to have
some confidence that the context will lead to a more probable
reading/listening,
and that that is probably the intention of Paul. (Textcritically, the
question of the
stability of the orthography in any one tradition is something that
still needs to
be worked out. It bothered Hort no end.)
So what does KOINH offer? Better senstivity to the issue, since it is something
that a person can have some personal experience with in communication with
a similar phonology where W=O.

ERRWSQE
IWANHS

-- 
Randall Buth, PhD
www.biblicalulpan.org
randallbuth at gmail.com
Biblical Language Center
Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life


More information about the B-Greek mailing list