[B-Greek] Listening to Romans 5:1 (Greek NT Audio)
Carl Conrad
cwconrad2 at mac.com
Wed Oct 8 15:52:44 EDT 2008
On Oct 8, 2008, at 2:52 PM, Mark Lightman wrote:
> 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?
No, nor do we know how many English-speaking NT readers today
pronounce "although" as "althuff" and "rough" as "row" either. I think
it might be a salutary experience for readers of the GNT to read
through a few chapters of the earliest Greek MSS or some of the
significant early papyrus fragments of the GNT to look at the
orthographical variation and ponder what that means with regard to the
pronunciation of these copyists -- especially if we assume, as I think
we should, that they wrote while listening to a reader rather than by
copying from one written document to a second one.
> #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.
I don't understand what's being argued here. In terms of ordinary
rules of accentuation, the subjunctive form ECWMEN (ἔχωμεν) and
the indicative form ECOMEN (ἔχομεν) are both accented on the
initial Epsilon. It is not the quantity of the penult that governs
here but the quantity of the ultima, which is identical (-MEN -μεν)
in both forms.
> #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
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list