[B-Greek] Greek NT Audio

Louis Sorenson llsorenson at hotmail.com
Wed Oct 8 01:09:50 EDT 2008


Leonard,

I wanted to reply in regards to the statement I made:

Louis: "Your arguments for using Erasmian pronunciation are pedagogically utilitarian.  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. It puts on them a huge burden if they ever want to learn historical pronunciation and reap the benefits derived from reading the NT as it sounded."
 
Leonard: 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?

-------------------------------------
Louis' Response:  

I could start this answer several ways, but believe that I should restate your premise that Erasiman pronunciation SHOULD be used primarily because it will help students learn spelling (and there are more audio sources created in Erasmian).   I also stated that you thought that the METHOD a person used to learn Greek was not important.  My statement above was intended to counter these statements and my following arguments in the previous email meant to debunk those propositions.  The statements  I am making are general in nature. Specific examples, with Greek examples, of how using a restored Imperial Koine pronunciation show the value of using a restored pronunciation are not included in this email.

I totally understand your need to spell correctly. The Koine pronunciation of the 1st centuries (Imperial Koine) was on the way to the itastic changes present in modern Greek where 5 vowels/diphthongs are pronounced as [i]. A friend of mine who spent a year in Greece said that modern day Greeks are terrible spellers and suggested the reason was because of the vowels all sounding alike. (I have no idea if this is true or not, but it does support your argument of using the Erasmian spell-talk).  But there is more at play when one learns a language than just the spelling. Students learn exact spelling so that they can write or speak; exact spelling is not generally needed (except for verb endings, noun endings, etc) to read a printed text -- the words are spelled right before your eyes. The Dick and Jane Sight/See, a non-phonic method, used in the 1960's in the US works just fine for reading pre-printed texts.

I feel the greatest danger your suggestion poses is that IT WILL SEND STUDENTS IN THE WRONG DIRECTION.  Those on the list that have studied Greek for any number of years already have their basic pronunciation system set. One of the replies from one on the list said that he had no problem switching between Erasmian, modern, and Imperial Koine only after several days (or hours)? Like many of us who have been exposed to different systems, you learn to adapt. Dr. Buth, and also myself have used Homeric, Erasmian and Modern pronunciations at given times in our lives. But switching between pronunciations IS NOT EASY. 

But I would state that it is very unlikely that more than 5% of Greek students would ever consider the need to use more than a single pronunciation system. Once a new student "chooses" which system to use, they will be stuck with it for THE REST OF THEIR LIFE. If anyone reading this is a new student -- don't be fooled into thinking you can change your pronunciation like changing a skin on a media player. Switching your pronunciation does not work that way.  IF YOU DON'T USE THE ACTUAL HISTORICAL SPOKEN PRONUNCIATION NOW -- YOU MOST LIKELY NEVER WILL.  And when someone wants to become a teacher, and use a restored historical pronunciation, it takes many, many hours to corral ones pronunciations until one can become anywhere near consistent in pronunciation. Consistency in pronunciation DOES NOT HAPPEN OVERNIGHT.  This is one area where a person who adopts your "USE ERASMIAN" pronunciation is short-changed. 

I am a person who has struggled over the years to match my pronunciation to that of the actual spoken pronunciation. I believe there is value in this; there was value in reading Homer as poetry. Lately, I have been trying to record both Epictetus' Enchiridion and portions of the NT, along with the Greek examples, vocabulary and exercises in Croy's and Mounce's grammars.  It is unbelievably difficult to be consistent in both pronunciation and accents when you come from a framework of incorrect or a different pronunciation system. After about 20 recordings of Mark 1, and months of reading other passages out loud, I am finally getting close to changing my pronunciation. Correct change DOES NOT HAPPEN OVERNIGHT.  

I do not hold a PhD or a degree with gravitas. But when I was studying Koine at Universities from 1976-1986 I knew something was not right with the Erasmian pronunciation. It did not match the phonological evidence presented in Gignac's Grammar on the Papyri.  For centuries theologians and grammarians thought that the Greek of the New Testament was a special kind of Holy Ghost Greek. filled with code words and terms never used outside the Christian community. When the papyri were discovered in the late 1800's, we realized the Greek of the New Testament was not the written-only Katharevousa (like the Atticizing tendencies that did not reflect spoken Greek), but that it was the SPOKEN Greek of the common person of  Mediterranean world.  

Most of the New Testament letters were not read silently by the readers, but read aloud in congregations across Rome, Greece, Asia and Egypt. Oratory was not the unimportant, downplayed skill that it is in today's world. How words were spoken, how they sounded was important to the speakers of the first century. In fact, several excellent books have been written in the last years on this exact subject, and this is a field of ongoing, cutting-edge study.  And remember that many amanuenses and scribes wrote down/copied what "words" they heard.  We are in the exact reverse situation today. Some people are suggesting that the Greek New Testament was only meant to be read silently -- "IT IS A DEAD LANGUAGE". These people have turned the SPOKEN Koine of the New Testament into a written-only Katharevousa. 

I do not suggest that there is a whole new world of passages where there are double-meanings, hidden puns, unintended allusions, etc.  But those who suggest that using modern Greek for reading Koine is no different that using a restored historical pronunciation will be unable to be aware of any instances where there are occurrences of aural ambiguities, assonance, rhyme, etc. This is another area where a person who choses the ERASMIAN ONLY system will be short-changed.  Any possible aural/audio or scribal errors relating to miswritten/misheard words will fly over their heads. 

There have been a number of posts to the fact that using Modern Greek to read the NT is no different than using Modern English to read Shakespeare, Wycliffe, or Chaucer. Most posts suggest that since modern Greeks use modern Greek when they read ancient Greek aloud, that there is NO BENEFIT from reading the NT in a historical pronunciation. I AGREE that consistency of pronunciation is the first rule of order. But no book has been analyzed more the the New Testament. The study of the New Testament has led the way in software for language study, syntax studies, and now aural word/sound associations.

One cannot insist that there is not a BEST METHOD to language learning;  that it flies in the face of language learning psychology and modern research.  Such a suggestion also gives up on any new information that could be learned. Learning a language is a package deal. You SHOULD use the best tools: the most up to date and pedagogically sound methods, and the most correct pronunciations (for an ancient language).  You DO need to ask yourself why Rosetta Stone is the most popular software and approach to learning languages. Now ask yourself, if there is a tool and methodology out there that will help you learn faster and more comprehensively, why would you not use such a tool? Or more importantly, if these tools were not available for you, but are now, why would you not avail them to your son or daughter?

You asked for specific examples of how using a pronunciation  (which models the sounds spoken by Paul, Luke, Aquila, etc.) could help give a deeper understanding of a New Testament text.  I am an educated enthusiastic layman (with 8 years of college study in Greek). Your question is valid.  Examples do need to be brought forward, and they will. But I think you need to take a broader perspective. The restored pronunciation of Imperial Koine was only finally determined about 20 years ago. I do think you need to acknowledge that this is somewhat of a new field. There are not 500 years of study in this field. Most of the low-hanging fruit (of the benefits of finding cases of assonance, homonyms, etc.) can be found in the textual apparatus. But your comments seem to not value this area. After all, I like you, like bold, clear, easily defined and straightforward examples. I'm sure in time, Dr. Buth and others will submit a number of examples.  I also believe that further studies in oratory and related studies will contribute to this area.   But don't assume that the written Greek of the NT is the sum total of all possible thoughts that would have gone through the minds of those hearing the books of the NT when they were read aloud in churches.  The vocabulary of the NT is a mere 5000 words; the vocabulary of the Greek speaking world was much larger.  A reading of any commentary which deals in depth in the Greek text is always bringing in common sayings and homonyms, antonyms and other related allegorical sayings. 

So in conclusion, for anyone who only wants a nominal understanding of the Greek aural text, Erasmian will work for them. If you are only interested in a system that will create a spell-talk Koine spelling, I recommend a hyper-Erasmian system.  There are tools and audio in the Erasmian pronunciation that are available. But for any up-and-coming student who wants to go further in Greek studies, and who  plan on going onto an M.A. or Ph.D. in Greek, modeling an historical pronunciation will provide additional avenues of study and research that open many new avenues of research and investigation into the Greek New Testament. Not everything has been "discovered" about the New testament and its context in the ancient Mediterranean world. 

Louis Sorenson

P.S.  One of the open questions I have wanted to post on the b-greek website is to ask "What new areas of study has the linguistic and modern syntactic studies of Greek in the last century changed our understanding of any significant grammar rule, understanding of any core doctrine or basic principle of Greek syntax." There are many widely read and knowledgeable people on the b-greek list. Many have a PhD, MDiv, MA, etc. Are not many of the minute, introspective and obtuse questions that are posted on the b-greek list really hair-splitting over-analyses that in the end make no difference in how we understand any given text or doctrine?  What are the things that we thought we knew about NT Greek, say, a hundred years ago, that today we know are either false, only partly true, or have been significantly altered.  I would say that in regard to language learning methodology, there is a huge difference from 19th century pedagogy. But also, as many on the list, I do believe that there is no great new doctrine or understanding of the NT that has significantly changed because of our updated and advanced understanding of Greek vocabulary, grammar and syntax (FYI - I grew up a conservative Lutheran as a child and studied at a Dispensational conservative Baptist school).  I do not place using the actual pronunciations spoken by Paul and trying to "hear the NT as it was spoken" in this category of over-analyzing.




> From: leonardj at live.com
> To: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> CC: llsorenson at hotmail.com
> Subject: RE: Greek NT Audio
> Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 16:59:36 +0600
> 
> 
> Louis Sorenson wrote:
> 
> "Your arguments for using Erasmian pronunciation are pedagogically utilitarian.  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. It puts on them a huge burden if they ever want to learn historical pronunciation and reap the benefits derived from reading the NT as it sounded."
>  
> (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?
> 
> 
> Leonard Jayawardena
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Invite your mail contacts to join your friends list with Windows Live Spaces. It's easy!
> http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us

_________________________________________________________________
Get more out of the Web. Learn 10 hidden secrets of Windows Live.
http://windowslive.com/connect/post/jamiethomson.spaces.live.com-Blog-cns!550F681DAD532637!5295.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_domore_092008


More information about the B-Greek mailing list