[B-Greek] Listening to Romans 5:1 (Greek NT Audio)
Leonard Jayawardena
leonardj at live.com
Thu Oct 9 03:59:33 EDT 2008
My thanks to Randall Ruth for responding to my query addressed to Louis Sorenson.
In view of the statement "Leonard's first question is rightly for Louis," I assume that RB is responding to the second and the third question (which, I would agree, are basically one question).
The example that RB mentions, Romans 5:1, ECOMEN vs. ECWMEN, is a concern of NT textual criticism, and I have acknowledged in my previous posts that a knowledge of the historical pronunciation is helpful in evaluating variant readings. Indeed not only that, but a knowledge of also the vowel changes that took place after that leading to the modern pronunciation is also necessary when evaluating textual variants involving possible errors of hearing, as RB himself says in his article H KOINH PROFORA: "A full modern pronunciation is useful for texts from the mid-first millennium CE, meaning that [OI, U, and H] had joined [EI, I] by that time and were often confused by scribes."
Therefore a knowledge of both the assumed historical pronunciation *and* the modern pronunciation is part of the equipment for NT textual criticism. But surely this knowledge can be separately imparted to the student of NT Greek at some stage and the need for this knowledge in textual criticism in evaluating variants involving errors of hearing does not justify subjecting beginning students of Greek to the disadvantages inherent--from a pedagogical point of view--in learning Greek from alpha, beta and gamma with either the historical or the modern pronunciation? RB's exmple, Romans 5:1, must be treated in virtually every introductory book on NT textual criticism. In his "Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism" (a copy of which is in my possession), J. Harold Greenlee mentions Romans 5:1 under "Errors of Hearing," and also the other variant mentioned by RB in another post: KAUQHSOMAI/KAUCHSWMAI in 1 Corinthians 13:3. For an extensive treatment of variant readings, Metzger's Textual Commentary and other commentaries can be consulted. All such commentaries inform the reader of the possible reasons giving rise to the set of variant readings available for a given case. Equipped with a knowledge of the vowel confusions that occurred at the time the NT was written and later, the intelligent student should be able to identify even by himself an error of hearing as the possible cause for a set of variant readings without much difficulty. Then if, as RB says, the context is the decisive factor when choosing between variant readings involving errors of hearing, it is just a matter of selecting the reading that fits the context best.
Is the necessity for a knowledge of the historical and the modern pronunciation of Greek in evaluating textual variants involving error of hearing per se a compelling reason for adopting either in teaching beginning students of NT Greek?
Leonard Jayawardena
> 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
_________________________________________________________________
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
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list