[B-Greek] Listening to Romans 5:1 (Greek NT Audio)
Mark Lightman
lightmanmark at yahoo.com
Wed Oct 8 14:52:31 EDT 2008
Randall
If this is the best example you can come up,
I think you better write that monograph.
# 1 Phonology changes faster
than morphology. Yes, at a certain point, omega
and omicron were pronounced alike. This caused
TEMPORARY confusion in the language, like
ECWMEN for ECOMEN. As Greek continued to
evolve, morphological changes made this confusion
less. hUMIN and hHMIN were at a certain point
pronounced alike, which is a fatal confusion for
a language, so Modern Greek developed new words
(SAS and MAS, I think, or something like that. Remember
I don't know Modern Greek) You seem to be saying
that we should routinely pronounce omicron like omega
so that we sympathize with and repeat the confusion that
koine had for a brief period of time. This is like saying that
we should pronounce the name of every American General
McClellan, so that we can understand Governor Palin's
recent slip of McClellan for McClairan, or whatever it was.
#2. We don't KNOW, do we, how many NT readers and writers
would have pronounced omega and omicron alike? Could not
some of them have had fancy, affected classical accents?
#3 Would not ECWMEN and ECOMEN have been accented
differently? And does not pronouncing both letters long make
the accent rules impossible? I'm sure you've addressed this
elsewhere, but I've missed it.
#4. The WORST part of your system is pronouncing these two
letters the same. But this does not make Erasmus better, because
you point out the pronouncing omicron and alpha the same (which
most Erasmians do) causes much more havoc with the language.
This havoc is not a badge of honor in either system, as your
example tries to make it out to be.
#5 The BEST part of your system is that it sounds smuch better than
Erasmus and yet distinguishes between letters better than Modern
Greek.
I'm sure you or someone else can give us a better example of how
your system helps us understand the NT better. Let's keep on looking.
--- On Tue, 10/7/08, Randall Buth <randallbuth at gmail.com> wrote:
From: Randall Buth <randallbuth at gmail.com>
Subject: [B-Greek] Listening to Romans 5:1 (Greek NT Audio)
To: "Barry Hofstetter" <nebarry at verizon.net>, "greek B-Greek" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>, "Leonard Jayawardena" <leonardj at live.com>, "Louis Sorenson" <llsorenson at hotmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2008, 10:56 AM
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
---
B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
B-Greek mailing list
B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list