Erasmus’ error finally succeeded in ousting the Greek pronunciation of Greek.
— Chrys Caragounis
A topic that has been gaining momentum in recent years is the pronunciation of Koine Greek. For some, the pronunciation of a “dead” language is basically irrelevant, since no one uses it in normal conversation, there are no native speakers to offend, and it doesn’t affect our reading of the New Testament or other documents from the Koine period. For others, the response is the opposite. The way we choose to pronounce Koine Greek represents our respect for Greek as a real, living language. As people interested in history (after all, who reads Koine apart from some kind of interest in history?), we ought to take pronunciation seriously out of respect for historical accuracy — not to mention the fact that pronunciation can affect our understanding of text, especially in the area of textual criticism, but also in relation to the affective and aesthetic nature of Greek literature. Others remain in the middle between these two responses, perhaps somewhat unclear of the issues involved and why they really matter.
My view is that pronunciation matters. Accurate pronunciation is a sign of respect for the Greek language, its people, and its history. It also has implications for one’s enjoyment and mastery of Greek. Nevertheless, it is not an issue of the same order as, say, lexicography or verbal aspect. Those topics have potential to change our understanding of what the text means. Pronunciation does not have that potential (except perhaps in the area of textual criticism). Nevertheless, it is worth our attention, not least because it has obvious implications for the teaching and learning of Greek, but also because it is one of the areas of debate within current Greek scholarship.
The trajectory of the chapter is to demonstrate why the Erasmian pronunciation is now regarded to be incorrect, to explore the evidence for how Koine Greek was pronounced in its own time, to consider a defense of Erasmus, and to evaluate these issues and their implications. First, we turn to consider “Erasmus’ error.”
The Dutch humanist Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam (1466 – 1536) was a towering figure for the reintroduction of the Greek New Testament into western consciousness. His Novum Instrumentum omne, produced in 1516, was the first published Greek New Testament and was highly influential for the Protestant Reformation. Erasmus became a huge influence over all who studied the Greek New Testament during the Renaissance and Reformation.
Erasmus introduced a system for the pronunciation of Greek that remains the standard way in which Ancient Greek is pronounced to this day, but has (again) become highly controversial. There are at least three differing accounts of the way in which he produced this system of pronunciation, and two of these claim that Erasmus did not believe the system — which would henceforth be known as Erasmian — was accurate or useful.
The first account is recorded by Robertson, in which Erasmus promotes the new pronunciation as a joke:
Jannaris quotes the story of Voss, a Dutch scholar (1577 – 1649), as to how Erasmus heard some learned Greeks pronounce Greek in a very different way from the Byzantine custom. Erasmus published a discussion between a lion and a bear entitled De recta latini graecique sermonic pronuntiatione, which made such an impression that those who accepted the ideas advanced in this book were called Erasmians and the rest Reuchlinians. As a matter of fact, however, Engel has shown that Erasmus merely wrote a literary squib to “take off ” the new non-Byzantine pronunciation, though he was taken seriously by many.1
The second account is more credible, since it is taken directly from Voss’s Latin citation of the story,2 as Caragounis expounds:
In 1528, however, the humanist scholar Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam . . . composed a dialogue in Latin between a bear and a lion, in which he set forth a novel way of pronouncing Greek, which has since come to be called the “Erasmian pronunciation of Greek,” or “Etacism,” and to be regarded by its proponents as the scientific pronunciation of Greek. The incentive to write this book came from a practical joke that was played on Erasmus by the Swiss scholar Henricus (Loritus of Glarus, hence) Glareanus. Glareanus, who had arrived from Paris, met Erasmus, who, being “inordinately fond of novelties and credulous” . . . was eager to learn what was the latest news in the City of Lights; he told him that certain Greek scholars of stupendous erudition . . . had arrived in Paris who pronounced Greek in a different fashion than the one received in Europe, and proceeded to give him an account of the new pronunciation.3
Having promoted this pronunciation system in his De recta latini graecique sermonic pronuntiatione (the dialogue between the lion and the bear), when Erasmus learned that he had been the victim of a trick, “he desisted from using the pronunciation he had concocted,” but it was too late: “the ‘news’ spread like wildfire, and after centuries of struggle with the traditional pronunciation, Erasmus’ error finally succeeded in ousting the Greek pronunciation of Greek and in establishing itself in all countries outside Greece.”4
In both accounts, the Erasmian pronunciation is conceived as a joke, one that was either played on Erasmus, or of which he was the perpetrator. Either way, they portray an Erasmus who did not believe in the accuracy of his system of pronunciation.
There are, however, more positive accounts of Erasmus’ contribution. Sidney Allen traces the prior contributions of two earlier figures, the Spanish humanist Antonio of Lebrixa (Antonius Nebrissensis), writing in 1486 and 1503, and the Venetian Aldus Manutius, writing in 1508.5 Their reforming movement culminated in the 1528 publication of Erasmus’ dialogue. Thus, by Allen’s account, Erasmus was not playing a joke, nor was one played on him; rather, he was influenced by Lebrixa and Manutius. It is not likely a coincidence that all three figures spent time together in Venice in 1508 in a group dedicated to reading and speaking Ancient Greek.6
Moreover, it seems that Erasmus was not wrong regarding classical Greek. Allen traces the evidence for the classical period, which demonstrates that it was pronounced differently from the Byzantine pronunciation (which is how Greeks pronounced their language in Erasmus’ day), as even Byzantine scholars such as Constantine Laskaris and Ianos Laskaris apparently acknowledged.7 Modern Greeks, such as Caragounis, reject Allen’s evidence, but it seems largely legitimate.
What Erasmus got wrong was that he did not appreciate that Koine Greek and Classical Greek were different entities — but nor did anyone else at that time. The dramatic phonetic changes that took place between 400 B.C. and A.D. 100 had yet to be appreciated. Thus, what Erasmus advocated did not fit the New Testament period, but for the most part it did fit Classical Greek.
While the Erasmian system took hold in much of Continental Europe because of his towering influence, it remained controversial, initially being rejected in Britain. Robertson refers to this fascinating example of the seriousness of the issue in the sixteenth century:
In 1542 Stephen Gardiner, Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, “issued an edict for his university, in which, e.g. it was categorically forbidden to distinguish αι from ε, ει and οι from ι in pronunciation, under penalty of expulsion from the Senate, exclusion from the attainment of a degree, rustication for students, and domestic chastisement for boys.”8
In other words, Cambridge men were to adhere to the Byzantine pronunciation of Greek (on pain of expulsion), which was similar, if not identical, to the way modern Greek is spoken today. The question remains, however, how was Greek pronounced in the first century? It is to this topic we now turn.
The immediate question to be asked is, “How would we know how Greek was pronounced two thousand years ago?” There are no recordings of the ancient Greeks speaking Greek — not even on vinyl! Do we simply take the position of some modern-day Greeks, who claim with exasperation, “This is how Greek is and always has been pronounced!”? That argument (if it is an argument) is not compelling since we know that languages often exhibit changes in their systems of pronunciation over time. If anything, it would be an exception to the rule if Greek really does sound the same today as it did two thousand years ago. Accordingly, as Caragounis acknowledges, “during its four-thousand-year-long history, Greek has not been pronounced uniformly.”9 So then, what evidence can be adduced to establish how Greek was pronounced in the period in which the New Testament was written?
It is not possible to determine the pronunciation used in the second millennium and the early part of the first millennium BC.10 However, inscriptions from the seventh century BC on and papyri from a few centuries later demonstrate how normal — often uneducated — people thought Greek sounded, due to a huge number of phonetically-based spelling mistakes.
As Caragounis says, the letters α, ε, ι, κ, λ, μ, ν, ξ, π, ρ, ς, τ, φ, ψ are not in dispute.11 Rather, the disputed letters are the consonants β, γ, δ, ζ, θ, χ, the vowels η, υ, ω, the diphthongs αυ, ευ, ηυ, αι, ει, οι, and υι.12 The evidence for the disputed letters and diphthongs can be determined as follows:
The pronunciation of each vowel and diphthong, in particular, becomes apparent from their interchange with one another witnessed in the inscriptions and the papyri. This interchange, this writing of one letter instead of another, shows that the two letters (or diphthongs) in question were sounded identically or similarly and hence were confused by those not acquainted with historical orthography (i.e. the etymological spelling).13
Noticing these spelling mistakes and their relevance for understanding the practice of pronunciation is not novel. A hundred years ago, A. T. Robertson was able to make the following statements:
As early as the fifth century B.C. the change between η and ι is seen on vases and inscriptions.14
The interchange between these vowel-symbols [ι and ει] began very early (certainly by the sixth century B.C.) and has been very persistent to the present day.15
As early as 150 B.C. the Egyptian papyri show evidence of the use of ι for η. By the middle of the second century A.D. the confusion between η and ι, η and ει, ηι and ει is very general. By the Byzantine period it is complete and the itacism16 is triumphant in the modern Greek.17
In his monumental two-volume work, A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine Periods, Francis T. Gignac goes to great lengths to demonstrate this common interchange of Greek vowels, summarized by the following statements:
There is a very frequent interchange of ει and ι (whether long or short etymologically) in all phonetic environments throughout the Roman and Byzantine periods.18
There is a very frequent interchange of αι and ε in all phonetic environments from the beginning of the Roman period on.19
There is a frequent interchange of οι with etymologically long or short υ in various phonetic environments.20
There is a frequent interchange of ου with ω and with ο, and an occasional interchange of ου with υ and its orthographic equivalent οι, in various phonetic environments, including in accented as well as unaccented syllables.21
The process of itacism, which resulted in the eventual identification of the sounds originally represented by ι, ει, η, ηι, οι, υ, and υι in /i/, was well advanced in Egypt by the beginning of the Roman period.22
This interchange [of η and ι] occurs very frequently in all phonetic conditions throughout the Roman and Byzantine periods.23
This interchange [of η and ει] likewise occurs very frequently in all phonetic conditions throughout the Roman and Byzantine periods.24
This interchange [of υ and η] occurs frequently in all phonetic conditions throughout the Roman and Byzantine periods.25
There is an occasional interchange of η with οι, the phonetic equivalent of υ.26
This interchange [of υ and ι] occurs occasionally throughout the Roman and Byzantine periods.27
This [interchange of ω and ο] occurs very frequently in all phonetic conditions throughout the Roman and Byzantine periods.28
As Gignac’s multiple examples attest, there is a plethora of material in the papyri to demonstrate that many vowels and diphthongs were interchangeable in the way they sounded, but it’s worth exhibiting a text to further bring this reality home to the reader.
In this somewhat entertaining letter found in Oxyrhynchus (P.Oxy. 119) to a father from his young son, we see a good dose of teenage angst as well as a few phonetically based spelling mistakes.29 Note the spellings marked out:
CXIX. A Boy’s Letter
10 × 13.5 CM. Second or third century
A letter to a father from his youthful son, who begs to be taken to Alexandria. The letter is written in a rude uncial hand, and its grammar and spelling leave a good deal to be desired.
Θέων Θέωνι τῷ πατρὶ χαίρειν.
καλῶς ἐποίησες οὐκ ἀπένηχές με μετὲ
σοῦ εἰς πόλιν. ἠ οὐ θέλις ἀπενέκκειν με-
τὲ σοῦ εἰς Ἀλεχανδρίαν οὐ μὴ γράψω σε ἐ-
5 πιστολὴν οὔτε λαλῶ σε οὔτε υἱγέτω σε,
εἶτα ἂν δὲ ἔλθῃς εἰς Ἀλεχανδρίαν οὐ
μὴ λάβω χεῖραν παρὰ [σ]οῦ οὔτε πάλι χαίρω
σε λυπόν. ἂμ μὴ θέλῃς ἀπενέκαι μ[ε]
ταῦτα γε[ί]νετε. καὶ ἡ μήτηρ μου εἶπε Ἀρ-
10 χεκλάῳ ὅτι ἀναστατοῖ μὲ ἄρρον αὐτόν.
καλῶς δὲ ἐποίησες δῶρα μοι ἔπεμψες
μεγάλα ἀράκια πεπλανηκανημωσκετε[.
τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ιβ ὅτι ἔπλευσες. λύρον πέμψον εἰς
με παρακαλῶ σε. ἂμ μὴ πέμψῃς οὐ μὴ φά-
15 γω, οὐ μὴ πείνω. ταῦτα.
ἐρῶσθε σε εὔχ(ομαι).
Τῦβι ιη
On the verso
ἀπόδος Θέωνι [ἀ]πὸ Θεωνᾶτος υἱῶ.
Line 3: ἠ for εἰ / θέλις for θέλεις
Line 4: σε for σοι30
Line 5: υἱγένω for ὑγιαίνω
Line 8: λυπόν for λοιπόν
Line 15: πείνω for πίνω
The consonants in question are the mediae Β, Γ, Δ, the aspirates Θ, Φ, Χ, as well as Ζ.31 There is limited evidence of interchange between consonants, unlike vowels, such that it is difficult to determine much by way of their pronunciation. So Randall Buth says, “Consonants are trickier to evaluate than the vowels because they tended to remain phonemic and are often preserved with a correct spelling regardless of how they were pronounced.”32 Caragounis suggests the principle of syllabification as a way forward; “the rule that these consonants build syllables together with the vowel following them, and this determines their sound.”33 He argues that, while we may not be sure of the exact quality of each of these letters, there is sufficient evidence “to know that the present Greek pronunciation was in all essentials establishing itself already in the Vth and IVth c. B.C.”34
The evidence strongly suggests that a pronunciation that is essentially the same as that of modern Greek today was in place by the time the New Testament was written. Some scholars, such as Caragounis and John Lee, have therefore simply adopted the pronunciation of modern Greek for the Koine period. Other scholars, such as Randall Buth, prefer a slightly tweaked version of the modern pronunciation. Drawing on Gignac’s papyrological evidence, Buth concludes that the letter η had not yet merged with the other i sounds (ι, υ, ει, οι, υι): “It appears to have still had popular phonemic status in the early Roman period,” but merges with the i vowels in the late second century A.D.35 For Buth, η retains an e sound, like ε and αι, but apart from that his approach is essentially the same as the pronunciation of modern Greek.
John A. L. Lee is one of those scholars for whom the modern Greek pronunciation is regarded as more or less accurate for the Koine period, and his pronunciation guide is reproduced below.
9.4 Guide to Pronunciation of Koine Greek
By John A. L. Lee.36 22 May 2014
The following pronunciation, which is essentially that of Modern Greek, is recommended even though it involves some anachronism. The phonetic developments involved were completed at different times in the Koine period, and a small number not until the end of, or even after it. But the arguments in favour of following the model of the modern language are: 1) It is less anachronistic than the Classical pronunciation of say 400 BC, which underwent rapid change in the Koine period. By I AD the pronunciation was closer to that of Modern Greek than to Classical. 2) It accords with the non-standard phonetic spellings frequently encountered in Koine Greek documents and is indispensible to reading them. 3) It is the same as a living system of pronunciation, i.e., the modern language, which can be accessed orally and used as a model. 4) To attempt a fully accurate synchronic pronunciation would involve producing different pronunciations for different dates in the 900-year history of Koine Greek.
| VOWELS | ||
| Letter | Sound | Examples |
| α | like a in away, or u in luck (NOT like a in cat) | λάβετε = lávete παραλαμβάνω = paralamváno |
| ε | like e in get, egg | πατέρα = patéra |
| αι | " | λύεται = líete |
| ι | like i in spit | τιμή = timí |
| ει | " | γράφει = ghráfi |
| οι | " | σοι = si οἰκεῖ = ikí |
| υ | " | θυσία = thisía |
| η | " | γραφή = ghrafí ἤδη = ídi |
| υι | " | υἱός = iós ὑγιαίνω = iyéno |
| ο | like o in on | σόν = son ἄνθρωπος = ánthropos |
| ω | " | πάντων = pándon παντός = pandós |
| ου | like oo in soon, or ou in you | σου = soo οὗτος = óotos |
| αυ, ευ | → consonants | |
| CONSONANTS | ||
| Letter | Sound | Examples |
| β | like v in van | βλέπω = vlépo |
| γ | 1) before e or i sound: like y in yet | γίνομαι = yínome ἐγένετο = eyéneto |
| 2) before a, o, or u sound, or a consonant: a sound not found in English, similar to g, but with vibration. One kind of French r is the same. | μέγα = mégha γόνυ = ghóni γέγονα = yéghona | |
| δ | like th in this, other | δύναμις = dhínamis |
| ζ | like z in gaze | ζωή = zo-í κράζω = krázo |
| θ | like th in thing | θέλω = thélo |
| κ | like k in kick | καί = ke κάππα = káppa |
| λ | like l in lick | ἔλεος = éleos |
| μ | like m in me | ἐμοῦ = emóo |
| ν | like n in not | ἐνύπνιον = enípnion νῦν = nin |
| ξ | like x in six, or ks | δόξα = dhóxa ξένος = ksénos |
| π | like p in spot | πόλις = pólis |
| ρ | like r in thrill | θύρα = thíra |
| σ, ς | like s in sit (not like z, except before m or r → σμ, σρ) | εἰς = iss στάσις = stásis |
| τ | like t in still | τήν = tin τέταρτος = tétartos |
| φ | like f in fill | σοφία = sofía |
| χ | 1) before e or i sound: like h in huge, or ch in German ich | χεῖρα = hyíra χαίρετε = hyérete |
| 2) before a, o, or u sound or consonant: like ch in Scottish loch, or ch in German ach | χάρις = háris χοῦς = hoos | |
| ψ | like ps in apse | ψυχή = psihyí |
| ντ | like nd in and | πάντες = pándes ὄντως = óndos |
| μπ | like mb in timber | ἄμπελος = ámbelos |
| εἰς τὴν πόλιν = istimbólin | ||
| γκ | like ng in finger | ἄγκυρα = ángira εἰσενέγκῃς = isenéngis |
| γγ | " | ἄγγελος = ángelos |
| γχ | like ng + χ | συγχωρῶ = sinhoró |
| γξ | like nx in sphinx | σφίγξ = sfinx |
| σμ | like sm in spasmodic | ἐσμέν = ezmén πρός με = prózme σμύρνα = zmírna |
| σρ | like sr in Israel | Ἰσραήλ = Izraíl |
| αυ | 1) before unvoiced sound: like uff | αὐτός = aftós αὐξάνω = afxáno |
| 2) before voiced sound: like uvv | σταυρός = stavrós αὔριον = ávrion | |
| ευ | 1) before unvoiced sound: like ef | εὐχαριστῶ = efharistó ἐλευθερία = elefthería |
| 2) before voiced sound: like ev | κελεύω = kelévo πνεῦμα = pnévma | |
| ηυ | 1) before unvoiced sound: like if | ηὔξατο = ífxato |
| 2) before voiced sound: like iv | ηὐδόκησε = ivdhókise | |
| ου | sometimes like w | Οὐαλέριος = Walérios |
| ι | sometimes like y | Ἰωσήφ = Yosíf Ἰουλιανός = Youlianós |
Diacritical marks
Breathings and iota subscript. These have no effect on the pronunciation and are ignored.
Iota adscript. This iota is often found written, but in pronunciation it is treated the same as iota subscript, i.e., ignored. So αι = a, ηι = i, ωι = o. But note in the case of αι the need to distinguish αι = ᾳ (= a) from αι (= e). E.g., τῆι αἰτίαι (dat.) = ti etía, but αἱ αἰτίαι (nom.) = e etíe.
Accents. Stress the syllable marked with an accent, whether a circumflex, acute, or grave (but some graves are not stressed). Placing the accent correctly is an essential part of the pronunciation. When a word has two accents on different syllables, the second has the main stress if they are in this pattern: τὸ ὄνομά σου = to onomá soo. But if the pattern is τὸν οἶκόν σου, the first is stressed and the second not, i.e., ton íkon soo.
Diaeresis. Indicates that the vowel so marked is not to be combined with the preceding vowel. E.g., λαϊκός = la-ikós (not lekós).
9.5 An Argument for the Erasmian Pronunciation of New Testament Greek
It is difficult to mount a serious argument in favor of the Erasmian pronunciation of New Testament Greek, at least as far as its accuracy goes. In modern times, I doubt there is a serious Greek scholar who thinks that the Erasmian system reflects the way people actually spoke Greek in the first century. Erasmus may have been largely correct about the pronunciation of Classical Greek, but the papyrological evidence demonstrates how Koine Greek was pronounced.
Yet the Erasmian pronunciation of Koine Greek remains dominant among universities and seminaries, is commonly heard at scholarly conferences, and is still taught in the majority of Greek grammars. Some of this is simply due to the fact that things can move slowly in the academic world. Even if everyone agrees that a modern pronunciation is more accurate for the Koine period, that is not how modern scholars know how to speak Greek. It’s not the way they learned Greek, it’s not the way they’re used to teaching, and it’s not the way they’re comfortable reading out loud. Something that is ingrained so deeply at the level of habit is difficult to overturn.
Then there are others who defend the Erasmian pronunciation of New Testament Greek. At the 2011 Society of Biblical Literature conference in San Francisco, the Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics section cohosted a session on Greek pronunciation with the Applied Linguistics for Biblical Languages Group. The presenters were Oliver Simkin, Daniel Wallace, Randall Buth, and Michael Theophilos. Simkin simply offered an overview of Greek phonology. Buth presented his reconstructed Koine pronunciation, and Theophilos argued for a “modern” pronunciation for the Koine period. Wallace, however, defended Erasmus.
Wallace did not attempt to defend the accuracy of the Erasmian system, though he did reveal that he finds the usual criteria for determining pronunciation (such as we have explored in this chapter) inconclusive and would rather remain agnostic regarding first-century pronunciation. His main argument in defense of the Erasmian system was pedagogical. Its chief advantage is that all the vowel and diphthong sounds are distinct. This means that phonetic spelling is easier to achieve, memorization is theoretically simpler, and confusion between letters that otherwise would sound the same is minimized if not eliminated. In addition, the vast majority of Greek classes around the world use the Erasmian pronunciation, and that reality is unlikely to be overturned. In other words, adopting a modern pronunciation (or a version of it, like Buth’s Koine system) would make life more difficult for the student both in terms of their learning of the language and their interaction with others who study Koine Greek.
These SBL conference papers, and responses to them, will be published in a forthcoming volume edited by Randall Buth.
It ought to be clear that I regard the Erasmian system of pronunciation to be inaccurate for Koine Greek. While Erasmus was most likely correct for Classical Greek pronunciation, his accuracy is not the real issue. What matters is the abundant evidence from papyri and inscriptions that reveal how people thought the language sounded. There is so much evidence (see Gignac’s copious examples) pointing in the same direction that it is difficult to conceive of a sensible argument for the accuracy of Erasmus on Koine Greek. The evidence allows some wriggle room on one or two sounds, so that there is a slight distinction between Buth’s Koine system and the current modern Greek pronunciation, but both are plausible options considering the evidence, and each represents a major improvement on the Erasmian system.
But what should we make of Wallace’s pedagogical defense of Erasmus? Most purists will no doubt reject it out of hand — accuracy is the only thing that matters, so down with Erasmus! But many Greek teachers will sympathize with the strength of the pedagogical argument. For many students, Greek is already difficult. There is so much to be learned, memorized, and absorbed. Do we really want to add to that burden the fact that six or seven vowels and diphthongs now sound exactly the same? The pedagogical case should not be dismissed quickly; it is a live issue in a day when fewer and fewer students are bothering with Greek, with fewer universities and seminaries demanding its acquisition.
Nevertheless, we might wonder: Would anyone deliberately invent a system of pronunciation simply for pedagogical reasons? Maybe that would be acceptable to some who regard Greek a “dead” language. But surely a modern pronunciation would reinforce the fact that Greek is not a dead language! It is a changed language, to be sure, but one that has been spoken continuously for four thousand years. Furthermore, use of the Erasmian system may lead to unforseen negative consequences, especially in the field of textual criticism. Misunderstanding how certain letters sounded could have a serious effect on one’s ability to understand scribal errors and corrections, not to mention any sense of rhyme, tonality, and cadence of Greek sentences and poetry.
Another question to ask is how serious are the negative pedagogical consequences of abandoning the Erasmian pronunciation system? After all, when it comes to learning languages, having a distinct phonology for each letter is an incredible luxury. It’s not the case for Hebrew, and it’s certainly not the case for English. But then it might be countered that those are both difficult languages to learn, and this is partly why. But then again, most students are learning to read Greek, not speak it. And they are often not required to write it either. Reading the Greek on the page means that you are not trying to guess which i is being used this time, because the ι, ει, υ, or η is right there in the correctly spelled word you are reading.
Also on the pedagogical side, it can be argued that abandoning Erasmus could have several positive outcomes. The students to whom I have taught a modern pronunciation (after they already knew the Erasmian system) often comment that they feel more connected to a real language; it sounds like a real language. There is a connection with a living people and culture who call this language their own, and they need not be embarrassed if they ever pronounce Greek in front of a live Greek speaker. They will certainly save themselves from immediate chastisement from such people! To be able to pick out a word here or there on the Greek news on television or in a Greek newspaper is a great thrill for the Greek student. They can practice Greek pronunciation with their Greek grandmother, neighbor, or local fish and chip storeowner. In my view, these experiences far outweigh any difficulty that may or may not be added by using a modern Greek pronunciation.
It is rather ironic that ancient misspelling is the means by which we might put our mispronunciation to death. But from an academic point of view, that is precisely what has happened. Thousands of phonetically based spelling mistakes in the papyri demonstrate beyond doubt that the Erasmian system of pronunciation was not how Koine Greek was pronounced in the first century. Unfortunately, that error has persisted in the study of Greek for nearly five hundred years. Now, at last, a growing consensus among Greek scholars against Erasmus is taking hold.
The pedagogical issues may keep the Erasmian pronunciation alive for some time yet to come in classrooms around the world, but I predict that as it becomes clearer to all that Erasmus represents a misstep and puts Greek pedagogy increasingly out of step with Greek scholarship, this will eventually be corrected too. A positive sign in this direction is the publication of two new major Greek grammars.
Porter, Reed, and O’Donnell’s Fundamentals of New Testament Greek presents both the Erasmian and the modern systems of pronunciation and allows the student (or teacher, as the case may be) to choose which will be adopted.37 Rodney Decker’s Reading Koine Greek likewise presents two systems of pronunciation, but alongside the Erasmian is Buth’s Reconstructed Koine system. Decker freely acknowledges that the Erasmian system is inaccurate for Koine Greek and is only useful from a pedagogical point of view.38 Following the publication of these two Greek grammars, it is likely that any subsequently published Koine grammar that promotes only the Erasmian pronunciation system will be seen to be out of step with current trends. We still await a New Testament Greek grammar that completely abandons Erasmus, but no doubt that day will come.
In the meantime, my preference is to see the teaching of Koine Greek adopt one of the “modern” systems of pronunciation, whether that is straight from Modern Greek or from Buth’s Reconstructed Koine system. As for institutions that are not yet willing to move fully in that direction, there is some benefit in adopting a compromise position if possible. For the past several years, I have taught some students the modern pronunciation of Greek. These students had all learned Greek with the Erasmian system, so the modern system represented a number of changes and some adjustment was required. Contrary to popular expectation, they have always coped with the transition well. Generally, students have enjoyed the experience of pronouncing Greek in this way, and they share with me in the sense that the modern pronunciation treats Greek like a real language. It sounds like something that might be heard in a café or on Greek TV.
A by-product of this is that my students learn to pronounce Greek two ways. Since they begin by learning the Erasmian approach, they do not quickly forget it. In fact, once they have learned the modern pronunciation, they are able to switch between the two approaches (as am I). While this was not my original intention — since I would prefer all students to learn the modern pronunciation from the beginning — I now see that there are some benefits this way. First, students are able to understand and “converse” with all “Erasmian – pronouncers,” which is still virtually everyone. If they study or teach in other institutions, they will be able to use the Erasmian pronunciation if need be. Second, any pedagogical advantage in using an Erasmian approach is maintained. In the long term, I would prefer to see all Greek students and teachers using a modern pronunciation, but it may take some time for that to become a reality. In the meantime, we find ourselves in an intermediate period — the age of the now and the not yet. As such, it is not a bad thing for students to be proficient in both Erasmian and modern pronunciations.
Allen, W. Sidney. Vox Graeca: A Guide to the Pronunciation of Classical Greek. Third edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
Buth, Randall. “Ἡ Κοινὴ Προφορά: Notes on the Pronunciation System of Koiné Greek.” Available at www.biblicallanguagecenter.com/koine-greek-pronunciation.
Caragounis, Chrys. The Development of Greek and the New Testament: Morphology, Syntax, Phonology, and Textual Transmission. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004].
Gignac, Francis T. A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine Periods. Volume I: Phonology. Milano: Istituto Editoriale Cisalpino, La Goliardica, 1976.
1. Robertson, Grammar, 237.
2. The story is dated 27th October 1569 and is cited in Gerardi Ioannis Vossii, Aristsarchus, sive de arte grammatica libri septem etc., (Amstelædami: I. Blaev 1635, Editio secunda 1662), 106ff. See Caragounis for the Latin text cited in full; Caragounis, Development of Greek, 342, fn. 7.
3. Caragounis, Development of Greek, 341.
4. Ibid., 341 – 42.
5. W. Sidney Allen, Vox Graeca: A Guide to the Pronunciation of Classical Greek (3rd ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 141 – 42.
6. Matthew Dillon, “Erasmian Pronunciation,” in EAGLL.
7. Ibid.
8. Robertson, Grammar, 237, citing F. Blass, Pronunciation of Ancient Greek (trans. W. J. Purton; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1890), 3.
9. Caragounis, Development of Greek, 350.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid.
12. Ibid., 351.
13. Ibid., 364.
14. Robertson, Grammar, 191.
15. Ibid., 195.
16. Regarding itacism, “the term specifically refers to the change of /ε/ (H ēta) into /i/. However, itacism was a process of much wider scope, since it affected the vowel system as a whole, and a series of vowels and diphthongs merged with /i/” (Sven-Tage Teodorsson, “Attic,” in EAGLL).
17. Robertson, Grammar, 191.
18. Francis T. Gignac, A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine Periods, Volume I: Phonology (Milano: Istituto Editoriale Cisalpino, La Goliardica, 1976), 189; see pp. 189 – 91 for examples.
19. Gignac, Greek Papyri, 191; see pp. 192 – 93 for examples.
20. Ibid., 197; see pp. 197 – 99 for examples.
21. Ibid., 208; see pp. 208 – 15 for examples.
22. Gignac, Greek Papyri, 235.
23. Ibid.; see pp. 235 – 39 for examples.
24. Ibid., 239; see pp. 239 – 41 for examples.
25. Ibid., 262; see pp. 262 – 65 for examples.
26. Ibid., 265; see pp. 265 – 67 for examples.
27. Ibid., 267; see pp. 267 – 71 for examples.
28. Ibid., 275; see pp. 276 – 77 for examples.
29. Taken from Bernard P. Grenfell and Arthur S. Hunt, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri: Part I (Egypt Exploration Society, 1898), 185 – 86. Grenfell and Hunt offer the following translation: Theon to his father Theon, greeting. It was a fine thing of you not to take me with you to the city! If you won’t take me with you to Alexandria I won’t write you a letter or speak to you or say goodbye to you; and if you go to Alexandria I won’t take your hand nor ever greet you again. That is what will happen if you won’t take me. Mother said to Archelaus, “It quite upsets him to be left behind (?).” It was good of you to send me presents . . . on the 12th, the day you sailed. Send me a lyre, I implore you. If you don’t, I won’t eat, I won’t drink; there now! It is noted that, since Grenfell and Hunt’s publication of this letter, the papyrus has been reread and improved, making their translation a little out of date in various places (according to John Lee, via personal correspondence).
30. This could be a syntactical use of the accusative for dative (John Lee).
31. Caragounis, Development of Greek, 377.
32. Randall Buth, “Ἡ Κοινὴ Προφορά: Notes on the Pronunciation System of Koiné Greek.” www.biblicallanguagecenter.com/koine-greek-pronunciation/, 222.
33. Caragounis, Development of Greek, 377.
34. Ibid., 391.
35. Buth, “Pronunciation,” 221 – 22.
36. The guide was provided by John Lee via personal correspondence and is used with permission. It should be noted that, while Lee recommends a modern pronunciation for Koine Greek, he regards Allen’s reconstructed pronunciation system to be accurate for Classical Greek (see Allen, Vox Graeca).
37. Porter, Reed, and O’Donnell, Fundamentals of New Testament Greek, 2 – 5.
38. Decker, Reading Koine Greek, xxi-xxii, 13-14