OPEN ACCESS AND THE BIBLE: The Bible And Interpretation

OPEN ACCESS AND THE BIBLE: The Bible and Interpretation

This is Eli Kittim’s academic monograph——published in the Journal of Higher Criticism, vol. 13, no. 3 (2018), page 4—-entitled, "The Birth, Death, and Resurrection of Christ According to the Greek New Testament Epistles."

To view or purchase, click the following link:

https://www.amazon.com/Journal-Higher-Criticism-13-Number/dp/1726625176

_______________________________________________

Are the So-Called “gods” of the Old Testament Angels or Men?

By Author Eli Kittim 🎓

“Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are

gods'? “ (Jn 10.34).

Are the gods Human?

First, whatever the exegesis might be, and regardless of the diverse interpretations, it is certainly NOT the case that we’re all gods, equal to Jesus and God the father, the co-creators (Jn 1.1-3; Heb. 1.1-2).

That is not the authorial intent of the term “gods” in Jn 10.34, nor Jesus’ explanation of it, where he actually appeals to the Old Testament terminology regarding the “sons of god” (vv. 34-36) in order to apply it to his particular status as the unique Son of God (Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ SBLGNT).

Second, the notion that the term “gods” refers to men is refuted by both the Masoretic and LXX texts which suggest that these are rulers and powers in God’s kingdom, namely, the angelic host. For instance, in Genesis 6.2, “the sons of god” (בְנֵי־ ḇə·nê הָֽאֱלֹהִים֙ hā·’ĕ·lō·hîm) are clearly fallen angels.

Third, Ephesians 3.10 speaks of “rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms.” Ephesians 6.12 says:

our struggle is not against flesh and blood,

but against the rulers, against the

authorities, against the powers of this dark

world and against the spiritual forces of evil

in the heavenly realms.

Ephesians 1.21 differentiates Jesus (God) from all other heavenly powers, indicating that he’s “above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that is invoked, not only in the present age but also in the one to come.” These then are the rulers and powers in high places, the sons of Elohim who are called “gods” in Ps 82.6, not men.

Psalm 82

The Greek text of the Septuagint from the LCL Brenton edition/“translation” of Psalm 82 (Ps. 81 LXX) reads as follows:

1 Ο ΘΕΟΣ ἔστη ἐν συναγωγῇ θεῶν, ἐν μέσῳ δὲ θεοὺς διακρινεῖ. . . . 6 ἐγὼ εἶπα· θεοί ἐστε καὶ υἱοὶ ῾Υψίστου πάντες· 7 ὑμεῖς δὲ ὡς ἄνθρωποι ἀποθνήσκετε καὶ ὡς εἷς τῶν ἀρχόντων πίπτετε. 8 ἀνάστα, ὁ Θεός, κρίνων τὴν γῆν, ὅτι σὺ κατακληρονομήσεις ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ἔθνεσι.

NRSV translation

1 God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment: . . . 6 I say, "You are gods, children of the Most High, all of you; 7 nevertheless, you shall die like mortals, and fall like any prince." 8 Rise up, O God, judge the earth; for all the nations belong to you!

First, notice that just like the angelic host who are called “sons of God” in Gen. 6.2, in Ps. 82 the term “gods” does not imply deity but rather being “children of the Most High” (v. 6) or υἱοὶ ῾Υψίστου (LXX). Second, if they are in fact “gods,” divine as it were, why then will they “die like mortals” (v. 7)? That would contradict their divine status. What is more, the text DOES NOT say that they ARE mortals, but that they will die AS IF they were mortals. The text seems to be addressing the evil angelic host that rebelled against God the most high. Besides, if they were in fact mortals, why would they die “like” mortals? The analogy only works if they were something other than mortals and are being compared to mortals. You don’t say to a mortal that you’re going to die like a mortal. That’s a given if he’s a mortal. You can only use this language if the person is something other than a mortal.

Question: So if these beings are neither divine nor mortal, then what are they?

Answer: part of the angelic hierarchy of rulers and powers.

The clue is given in the very first verse of Psalm 82:

Ο ΘΕΟΣ ἔστη ἐν συναγωγῇ θεῶν, ἐν μέσῳ

δὲ θεοὺς διακρινεῖ (LXX).

Translation:

God has taken his place in the divine

council; in the midst of the gods he holds

judgment.

Question: When did God Almighty ever summon the judges & rulers of Israel in his presence for a divine council?

Answer: Never!

The phrase συναγωγῇ θεῶν (divine council; in the midst of the gods) can only refer to heavenly places. Thus, the idea that the term “gods” refers to men is unwarranted and without merit!

It’s also important to note that the use of the word “gods” as a reference to human beings in the Old Testament is rare.

God versus gods: Elohim versus elohim

The language of 1 Chronicles 5.25 is one which pits “God” against “gods,” which in the Hebrew language is actually Elohim versus elohim. Since Biblical Hebrew is an “aspectual” language, it’s the *context* that determines the meaning:

But they transgressed against the God

[Elohim] of their ancestors, and prostituted

themselves to the gods [elohim] of the

peoples of the land, whom God [Elohim]

had destroyed before them.

The Septuagint sets it up as the God of their fathers (ἐν Θεῷ/ὁ Θεὸς πατέρων αὐτῶν) versus the gods of the peoples of the earth (θεῶν τῶν λαῶν τῆς γῆς).

In 2 chron. 32.17, “the Lord the God of Israel [Yahweh Elohim]” or the “God [Elohim] of Hezekiah” is pitted against the “gods [elohim] of the nations.” The LXX distinguishes the terms as the Lord God of Israel/God of Hezekiah (Κύριον Θεὸν ᾿Ισραὴλ/Θεὸς ᾿Εζεκίου) versus the gods of the nations of the earth (οἱ θεοὶ τῶν ἐθνῶν τῆς γῆς). So despite the fact that identical words are used for both one God and many gods, the difference is clear based on the context. For example, in Deuteronomy 12.31, “the Lord your God [Yahweh Elohim]” is distinguished from “their gods [elohim].” Similarly, the LXX differentiates the terminology as your God (Θεῷ σου), which refers to the true God, versus their gods (θεοῖς αὐτῶν), which is elsewhere depicted as the false gods or idols. Notice that the designation “gods” in all these examples is not a reference to humans.

Another way to distinguish Yahweh Elohim from all the other elohim is that he is addressed as the “God of gods” (Θεὸς θεῶν LXX) in Dan 2.47, and elsewhere as the “creator” or the “most high” (Deut. 32.15; Gen. 14.22). Even though the Hebrew term elohim is sometimes translated as “judges” in Exodus 22.8, 9, nevertheless the LXX clarifies that those who are said to judge do so in the presence of God (ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ). Hence the reference is to God, not men.

Eloha Versus El

Eloha could refer to a True or a false god. To determine which is which, it all depends on the context. For example, Deut. 32.15 is clear that this is a reference to (אֱל֣וֹהַ ’ĕ·lō·w·ha), the God of Israel, the creator who made him (עָשָׂ֔הוּ ā·śā·hū). The LXX clarifies this Eloha as the God who made him (Θεὸν τὸν ποιήσαντα αὐτὸν), as well as the God of his salvation (Θεοῦ σωτῆρος αὐτοῦ). In Deut 32.17 there’s a difference between Eloha (אֱלֹ֔הַ God) and elohim (אֱלֹהִ֖ים gods). The Septuagint presents the dichotomy as one God (Θεῷ) versus many gods (θεοῖς). Although in 2 Chronicles 32.15 ’ĕ·lō·w·ha (אֱל֙וֹהַ֙) is used as “god,” but not as the true God, in Nehemiah 9.17 ’ĕ·lō·w·ah (אֱל֨וֹהַּ) is now the true God (Θεὸς LXX). In fact, in Ps. 114.7 ’ĕ·lō·w·ah (אֱל֣וֹהַּ) is the God of Jacob (τοῦ Θεοῦ ᾿Ιακὼβ LXX). So context is king!

El, on the other hand, is usually a reference to the Almighty, but the term could also be used to refer to both God or god. For example, in Gen. 14.18 Melchizedek is priest of God (לְאֵ֥ל el) most high (עֶלְיֽוֹן׃ el·yō·wn), which in vv. 19-20 is associated with the God of Abram (Αβραμ τῷ Θεῷ τῷ ὑψίστῳ LXX). But in verse 22 he is identified as יְהוָה֙ Yah·weh God (אֵ֣ל el) most high. The Septuagint confirms this viewpoint as it says in v. 18 that Melchizedek is a priest of God most high (Μελχισεδέκ ἱερεὺς τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ὑψίστου). In verse 22, the LXX calls God, the most high, the creator of heaven and earth (τὸν Θεὸν τὸν ὕψιστον, ὃς ἔκτισε τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν). In Gen. 16.13, Yahweh (yhvh is the proper name of the God of Israel) is also the el (which depending on the context can be interpreted either as sg. God or pl. gods) or the true God (ὁ Θεὸς LXX). In Gen 17.1 Yahweh appeared to Abram and said I am el Shadday (the almighty). However, the LXX renders it simply as your God (ὁ Θεός σου). Gen. 21.33 renders *Yahweh el olam* as Yahweh God the eternal (Θεὸς αἰώνιος LXX).

So, we should not be confused by the terms used for God simply because they’re sometimes used to refer to false gods. The context will always indicate which is which. The name Yahweh especially differentiates God most high from all other gods. But, as you can clearly see from our brief study, the term “gods” can only be applied to the heavenly host, not to human beings!

——-

Divine Providence & Concurrence

By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim

——-

The Doctrine of Providence

The classical doctrine of “divine providence” asserts that all events occur according to God’s sovereign will. The Reformed tradition rejects “chance” as having any consequence or playing any part in the natural world. The Latin word provideo, from which is derived the term “providence,” means “foresight.” So, etymologically speaking, the term “providence” means foreknowledge & is related to predestination. In Calvinism, providence highlights the complete sovereignty of God & the radical corruption of man.

However, Arminianism theology doesn’t agree with Calvinism on the issues of election & predestination. Arminianism asserts that God has a limited mode of providence. According to this mode of providence, divine foreknowledge & free will are compatible but theological determinism is not. In this view, predestination is based on foreknowledge, and on conditional election (human faith), not on God’s absolute Sovereignty.

According to Paul’s teaching, God “will repay according to each one's deeds” (Rom. 2.6 NRSV). But how can there be moral culpability in a hard determinism model? Calvinists argue God has predestined everything “according to the purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to his counsel and will” (Ephesians 1.11):

τὰ πάντα ἐνεργοῦντος κατὰ τὴν βουλὴν

τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ (προς Εφεσίους 1.11

SBLGNT).

Yes, everything works according to God’s will. But neither Calvin nor this verse tells us specifically to what degree or to what extent do all things work according to his will. To assume or presuppose that everything is wholly and completely working according to his will creates an inherent logical fallacy that implies either that God’s will is ineffective or that it is flawed. It would be considered ineffectual in bringing about the desired result, specifically when his will is seemingly opposed, or flawed in the sense that there is an unfavorable result as concerns his benevolent divine attributes. In either case, God would not be “God” in terms of sovereignty. In other words, the attribution of pure evil to the divine will would contradict his attributes of omnibenevolence (see Ps. 92.15; Ps. 106.1; 135.3; Isa. 65.16; Nah. 1.7; Mk 10.18; Jn 17.17; Tit. 1.1-2; Jas. 1.13). If we are to attribute the cause of all the horrific acts of evil in this world to the very God who is said to fight & oppose them, we are doing him a disservice. Calvin’s theology does not square well with the New Testament notion “that God is light and in him there is no darkness at all” (1 Jn 1.5)!

Calvinism also entails a theological contradiction because humans could not be held morally responsible for their actions and therefore could not be judged. Besides, if everything worked according to the will of God, then why does Paul say: “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling”? (Phil. 2.12). We wouldn’t need to work out anything. God would do it all. But that’s not what Paul’s teaching implies.

In my view, the doctrine of providence, expressed as the complete sovereignty of God, is as faulty as the pre-trib rapture doctrine. Both are based on wishful thinking and a false sense of security.

——-

The Doctrine of Concurrence

The term “concurrence” refers to the cooperation of God and a human being in a combined attempt to generate an action. In Calvinist theology, this means that human beings do not operate autonomously but that every one of their actions and thoughts is controlled by the sovereign will of God. Calvinists often present Biblical support for this view by quoting passages that might be misconstrued as referring to predestination when they’re actually talking about foreknowledge. For example, in Jos. 11.6, God’s assurance to Joshua of Israel’s victory may be due to foreknowledge rather than predestination. They also interpret many passages in the literal sense of the word, rejecting shades of meaning, nuances, or other levels of interpretation. So, for example, 1 Kings 22:20-23 says that “the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets.” In the narrative, it appears as if God is causing these actions, if read literally. However, the development & continuation of the scene shows that God permits rather than causes these actions to take place. And because he has the final say on the matter, it is written as if he has done it himself. In fact, this shows us, metaphorically, how the process of evil works and how God grants it permission. It’s the same story in Proverbs 21.1, which says that “The king's heart is … in the hand of the Lord; he turns it wherever he will.” These interpreters jump to conclusions without knowing if this is due to God’s permission, foreknowledge, or will. In fact, in Calvinism, God is said to cooperate with evil. In his book, “systematic theology,” Louis Berkhof writes:

it is also evident from Scripture that there is

some kind of divine co-operation in that

which is evil. According to II Sam. 16:11

Jehovah bade Shimei to curse David. The

Lord also calls the Assyrian ‘the rod of mine

anger, the staff in whose hand is mine

indignation,’ Isa. 10:5.

He goes on to say:

The work of God always has the priority, for

man is dependent on God in all that he

does. The statement of Scripture, ‘Without

me ye can do nothing,’ applies in every field

of endeavor.

However, what Jesus means by this saying is that without a spiritual rebirth we can do nothing. He’s not necessarily referring to the doctrine of concurrence per se. The doctrine of concurrence in Arminian theology rejects the Calvinist notion of exhaustive determinism. Calvinists have fired back at Arminians that they deny the sovereignty of God. Roger E. Olson, a classical Arminian, says:

If we begin by defining sovereignty

deterministically, the issue is already

settled; in that case, Arminians do not

believe in divine sovereignty. However, who

is to say that sovereignty necessarily

includes absolute control or meticulous

governance to the exclusion of real

contingency and free will?

In other words, there is no hard determinism in Arminianism. In this view, the implication is that God is not the author of sin or evil. He simply permits these to exist for a greater purpose. Arminians believe in God’s sovereignty. But that doesn’t mean that God controls every thought, every behavior, every word, or every choice one makes. The problem with Calvinism is that although they support the concurrence of God in all actions and events, they nevertheless deny that God is the author of evil or the responsible party for all corruption.

In discussing Wayne Grudem’s Calvinist views, Ken Schenck, a New Testament scholar, writes:

The understanding here of God's

‘cooperation’ with human action is subtle

and needs to be understood very carefully.

In Grudem's view, humans feel like they are

acting freely even though God is really

behind the scenes making them do what

they do. We experience our actions as free

actions even though God is really directing

them. This is a position that William James

called ‘soft determinism’ in the late 1800s.

——-

Conclusion

The absolute sovereignty of God presupposes that God is the author of sin. However, the attribution of pure evil to the divine will would scripturally contradict God’s attributes of omnibenevolence (e.g. Ps. 92.15; Ps. 106.1; 135.3; Isa. 65.16; Nah. 1.7; Mk 10.18; Jn 17.17; Tit. 1.1-2; Jas. 1.13). To attribute the cause of all the abominable acts of evil in this world to the very God who is said to fight & oppose them is equivalent to a misunderstanding of the fundamental “truths” of scripture. Calvin’s theology does not square well with the New Testament notion “that God is light and in him there is no darkness at all” (1 Jn 1.5)!

——-

Is There Really a Virgin Birth?

By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

The Hebrew word “almah” means “young woman,” but the Septuagint translated it as “virgin” (ἡ παρθένος). Since the New Testament writers usually quote from the Greek Septuagint rather than from the Hebrew Bible, Matthew 1.23 follows suit and uses the word “virgin” (παρθένος) in quoting Isaiah 7.14:

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/5959.htm

So, that’s how we got the word “virgin” in our New Testament. Henceforth, Marian theology emerges. From here begins Mariolatry, the worship of Mary as a Goddess, otherwise known as the “Theotokos” (God-bearer) in the Greek Orthodox Church. And although it is true that Luke praises Mary for being chosen as the mother of God, in time, however, Mary’s status is elevated, so much so that she becomes almost the fourth person of the Trinity, as the dogmas of Mary gradually become intertwined with doctrines of the faith with regard to redemption, intercession, and grace. Christian Mariology became an integral part of the Catholic church as the faithful began to pray to Mary for intercession and help, such as praying the rosary or glorifying Mary as part of their daily prayer. She became like a Goddess. Of course, there is no Biblical support for these Marian dogmas, prayers, devotions, and exultations.

——-

If that’s not enough, the Catholic church then went on to devise the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, the idea that Mary was like a divine being who was born without sin. This Catholic dogma was created in 1854, declaring that Mary was conceived free from original sin, which was then followed by the doctrine regarding the Assumption of Mary, the notion that Mary was taken up or raptured into heaven like Elijah. The dogma is unclear as to whether Mary died or not, only that she was taken up into heaven, perhaps imitating the ascension of Jesus.

——-

The earliest writings of Christianity are Paul’s letters, written between 48-60 AD. Paul does not mention the nativity (the birth of Jesus), or the magi, or the star of Bethlehem, or the massacre of the innocents, or the flight to Egypt, or the virgin birth! These embellishments come much later (between 70-100 AD) with the writings of the gospels, and even then the virgin birth is only recorded in Matthew and Luke. So, it appears that Paul doesn’t know anything about a virgin birth. Otherwise, he would have told us about it!

——-

Conclusion

The Greek term παρθένος can be masculine or feminine. The definite article (“the”), which precedes it, tells us the gender, whether it is male (o/ho) or female (eta/η). At any rate, the point of the Septuagint’s translation, regarding the Messianic birth, is to show that the male child (cf. Rev. 12.5) is special. He is holy: a virgin, so to speak. He is monogenēs (“the only one"; cf. Heb. 11:17-19). That’s what the Bible is trying to depict. Not that he simply appeared out of nowhere, defying the laws of nature. His birth is natural. But he himself is more than human (cf. Isa. 9.6). That’s the point! The reason Joseph is depicted as Jesus’ nonbiological father has nothing to do with biology and everything to do with THEOLOGY! The gospels are theological narratives which are trying to show that Jesus is not simply a descendant of Adam, but of God. That’s the reasoning behind the theology of the virgin birth! So, the so-called “virgin birth” has been blown out of proportion to the point that even Muslims are talking about a literal, miraculous virgin birth. This is utter nonsense. In his book “miracles,” CS Lewis says that God never breaks the laws of nature; he only transcends them. That’s why Paul tells us nothing about the virgin birth. That’s also why Galatians 4.4 doesn’t say that Jesus is *born* of a virgin but rather “of a woman” (ἐκ γυναικός). Yes, Jesus is God and he certainly has the power to do miracles. But his birth doesn’t break the laws of nature. He is born naturally, like every other human being!

Hebrews 2.17:

For this reason he [Jesus] had to be made

like them, fully human in every way.

——-

BIBLE EXEGESIS RESOURCES LIST (ONLINE)

Compiled by Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

Critical Bible Commentaries

https://libguides.twu.ca/religiousstudies/ecommentariesNT

Bryan College Library - Bible Study Resources - Compiled by Kevin Woodruff, M. Div, MS

https://library.bryan.edu/christian-studies-subject-guide/bible-study-resources

Interlinear Greek English Septuagint Old Testament (LXX)

https://archive.org/details/InterlinearGreekEnglishSeptuagintOldTestamentPrint/page/n5

Internet Archive

Interlinear Greek English Septuagint Old Testament (LXX) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Interlinear Greek English Septuagint Old Testament (LXX)Does not include the deuterocanonical books. New Testament is here...

Hebrew---English Interlinear Bible (Old Testament)

https://www.logosapostolic.org/bibles/interlinear_ot1.htm

Greek—English Interlinear Bible (New Testament)

https://www.logosapostolic.org/bibles/interlinear_nt.htm

Academic Bibles: The Hebrew OT, the Greek NT, the Septuagint, and the Latin Bible—which scholars prefer to use for research and publications—share the same link:

1) Hebrew Old Testament following the text of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia

2) Greek New Testament following the text of the Novum Testamentum Graece (ed. Nestle-Aland), 28. Edition and the UBS Greek New Testament 5. Edition.

3) Greek Old Testament following the text of the Septuagint (ed. Rahlfs/Hanhart)

4) Latin Bible (Biblia Sacra Vulgata) following the text of the Vulgate (ed. Weber/Gryson)

5) King James Version

6) English Standard Version

7) NetBible

8)Luther-Bible 1984

https://www.academic-bible.com/en/online-bibles/novum-testamentum-graece-na-28/read-the-bible-text/

Erasmian vs. Modern Pronunciation: Philological & Linguistic Considerations

Researched by Eli Kittim

I’m not a linguist and I will not illustrate phonetic diagrams in philological nomenclature (e.g. IPA, etc.) lest I lose the audience's attention with such complicated jargon. I’m simply trying to understand the literature and summarize it in the best possible way. Since there’s not much interest in Ancient Greek pronunciation on the web, I compiled some material from a handful of links that might be of interest. Most of the paper is actually excerpted from various articles that are mentioned at the end of the paper.

——-

The History of the Reconstructed Pronunciation of Greek

“The study of Greek in the West expanded considerably during the Renaissance, in particular after the fall of Constantinople in 1453, when many Byzantine Greek scholars came to Western Europe. Greek texts were then universally pronounced with the medieval pronunciation that still survives intact.

From about 1486, various scholars (notably Antonio of Lebrixa, Girolamo Aleandro, and Aldus Manutius) judged that the pronunciation was inconsistent with the descriptions that were handed down by ancient grammarians, and they suggested alternative pronunciations. This work culminated in Erasmus's dialogue De recta Latini Graecique sermonis pronuntiatione (1528). The system that he proposed is called the Erasmian pronunciation. The pronunciation described by Erasmus is very similar to that currently regarded by most authorities as the authentic pronunciation of Classical Greek (notably the Attic dialect of the 5th century BC).” [1]

——-

The Reuchlinian Model

“Johann Reuchlin (1455 – 1522) was a German Catholic humanist and a scholar of Greek and Hebrew.” [2]

“Reuchlin, it may be noted, pronounced Greek as his native teachers had taught him to do, i.e., in the modern Greek fashion. This pronunciation, which he defends in De recta Latini Graecique sermonis pronuntiatione (1528), came to be known, in contrast to that used by Desiderius Erasmus, as the Reuchlinian.” [3]

“Among speakers of Modern Greek, from the Byzantine Empire to modern Greece, Cyprus, and the Greek diaspora, Greek texts from every period have always been pronounced by using the contemporaneous local Greek pronunciation. That makes it easy to recognize the many words that have remained the same or similar in written form from one period to another. Among Classical scholars, it is often called the Reuchlinian pronunciation, after the Renaissance scholar Johann Reuchlin, who defended its use in the West in the 16th century.” [4]

“The theology faculties and schools related to or belonging to the Eastern Orthodox Church use the Modern Greek pronunciation to follow the tradition of the Byzantine Empire.” [5]

“The two models of pronunciation became soon known, after their principal proponents, as the ‘Reuchlinian’ and the ‘Erasmian’ system, or, after the characteristic vowel pronunciations, as the ‘iotacist’ (or ‘itacist’) and the ‘etacist’ system, respectively.” [6]

“The resulting debate, as it was conducted during the 19th century, finds its expression in, for instance, the works of Jannaris (1897) and Papadimitrakopoulos (1889) on the anti-Erasmian side, and of Friedrich Blass (1870) on the pro-Erasmian side.” [7]

“The resulting majority view today is that a phonological system roughly along Erasmian lines can still be assumed to have been valid for the period of classical Attic literature, but biblical and other post-classical Koine Greek is likely to have been spoken with a pronunciation that already approached that of Modern Greek in many crucial respects.” [8]

——-

Controversies about Reconstructions

“The Greek language underwent pronunciation changes during the Koine Greek period, from about 300 BC to 300 AD. At the beginning of the period, the pronunciation was almost identical to Classical Greek, while at the end it was closer to Modern Greek.” [9]

“The primary point of contention comes from the diversity of the Greek-speaking world: evidence suggests that phonological changes occurred at different times according to location and/or speaker background. It appears that many phonetic changes associated with the Koine period had already occurred in some varieties of Greek during the Classical period.” [10]

“An opposition between learned language and vulgar language has been claimed for the corpus of Attic inscriptions. Some phonetic changes are attested in vulgar inscriptions since the end of the Classical period; still they are not generalized until the start of the 2nd century AD in learned inscriptions. While orthographic conservatism in learned inscriptions may account for this, contemporary transcriptions from Greek into Latin might support the idea that this is not just orthographic conservatism, but that learned speakers of Greek retained a conservative phonological system into the Roman period. On the other hand, Latin transcriptions, too, may be exhibiting orthographic conservatism.” [11]

“Interpretation is more complex when different dating is found for similar phonetic changes in Egyptian papyri and learned Attic inscriptions. A first explanation would be dialectal differences (influence of foreign phonological systems through non-native speakers); changes would then have happened in Egyptian Greek before they were generalized in Attic. A second explanation would be that learned Attic inscriptions reflect a more learned variety of Greek than Egyptian papyri; learned speech would then have resisted changes that had been generalized in vulgar speech.” [12]

By the 4th century, “The pronunciation suggested here, though far from being universal, is essentially that of Modern Greek except for the continued roundedness of /y/.” [13]

Single Vowel Quality

“Apart from η, simple vowels have better preserved their ancient pronunciation than diphthongs. As noted above, at the start of the Koine Greek period, pseudo-diphthong ει before consonant had a value of /iː/, whereas pseudo-diphthong ου had a value of [uː]; these vowel qualities have remained unchanged through Modern Greek. Diphthong ει before vowel had been generally monophthongized to a value of /i(ː)/ and confused with η, thus sharing later developments of η. The quality of vowels α, ε̆, ι and ο have remained unchanged through Modern Greek, as /a/, /e/, /i/ and /o/. The quality distinction between η and ε may have been lost in Attic in the late 4th century BCE, when pre-consonantic pseudo-diphthong ει started to be confused with ι and pre-vocalic diphthong ει with η. C. 150 AD, Attic inscriptions started confusing η and ι, indicating the appearance of a /iː/ or /i/ (depending on when the loss of vowel length distinction took place) pronunciation that is still in usage in standard Modern Greek.” [14]

Consonants

“The consonant ζ, which had probably a value of /zd/ in Classical Attic (though some scholars have argued in favor of a value of /dz/, and the value probably varied according to dialects – see Zeta (letter) for further discussion), acquired the sound /z/ that it still has in Modern Greek, seemingly with a geminate pronunciation /zz/ at least between vowels. Attic inscriptions suggest that this pronunciation was already common by the end of the 4th century BC.” [15]

——-

A Critique of Erasmus’ Knowledge & Methadology

Erasmus “succeeded in learning Greek by an intensive, day-and-night study of three years.” [16] That’s hardly the time needed to become competent in Greek. What is more, he sometimes confused the Greek with the Latin:

“In a way it is legitimate to say that Erasmus ‘synchronized’ or ‘unified’ the Greek and the Latin traditions of the New Testament by producing an updated translation of both simultaneously. Both being part of canonical tradition, he clearly found it necessary to ensure that both were actually present in the same content. In modern terminology, he made the two traditions ‘compatible.’ This is clearly evidenced by the fact that his Greek text is not just the basis for his Latin translation, but also the other way round: there are numerous instances where he edits the Greek text to reflect his Latin version. For instance, since the last six verses of Revelation were missing from his Greek manuscript, Erasmus translated the Vulgate's text back into Greek. Erasmus also translated the Latin text into Greek wherever he found that the Greek text and the accompanying commentaries were mixed up, or where he simply preferred the Vulgate's reading to the Greek text.” [17]

His 1516 publication became the first published New Testament in Greek:

“Erasmus used several Greek manuscript sources because he did not have access to a single complete manuscript. Most of the manuscripts were, however, late Greek manuscripts of the Byzantine textual family and Erasmus used the oldest manuscript the least because ‘he was afraid of its supposedly erratic text.’ He also ignored much older and better manuscripts that were at his disposal.” [18]

So although the modern critical edition of the New Testament rejected Erasmus’ versions, those same scholars that sat on these editorial committees nevertheless adopted his pronunciation (odd)!

On the other end of the spectrum, Johann Reuchlin was a German Catholic who had no axe to grind. He neither defended the Eastern Orthodox Church nor the Greek heritage per se. So he had no conflict of interests. He didn’t have a dog in this fight, so to speak. His interest was purely intellectual and academic.

——-

German Reconstructions

“The situation in German education may be representative of that in many other European countries. The teaching of Greek is based on a roughly Erasmian model, but in practice, it is heavily skewed towards the phonological system of German or the other host language.

Thus, German-speakers do not use a fricative [θ] for θ but give it the same pronunciation as τ, [t], but φ and χ are realised as the fricatives [f] and [x] ~ [ç]. ζ is usually pronounced as an affricate, but a voiceless one, like German z [ts]. However, σ is often voiced, according like s in German before a vowel, [z]. ευ and ηυ are not distinguished from οι but are both pronounced [ɔʏ], following the German eu, äu. Similarly, ει and αι are often not distinguished, both pronounced [aɪ], like the similar German ei, ai, and ει is sometimes pronounced [ɛɪ].” [19]

“While the deviations are often acknowledged as compromises in teaching, awareness of other German-based idiosyncrasies is less widespread. German-speakers typically try to reproduce vowel-length distinctions in stressed syllables, but they often fail to do so in non-stressed syllables, and they are also prone to use a reduction of e-sounds to [ə].” [20]

French Reconstructions

“Pronunciation of Ancient Greek in French secondary schools is based on Erasmian pronunciation, but it is modified to match the phonetics and even, in the case of αυ and ευ, the orthography of French.” [21]

“Vowel length distinction, geminate consonants and pitch accent are discarded completely, which matches the current phonology of Standard French. The reference Greek-French dictionary, Dictionnaire Grec-Français by A. Bailly et al., does not even bother to indicate vowel length in long syllables.” [22]

“The pseudo-diphthong ει is erroneously pronounced [ɛj] or [ej], regardless of whether the ει derives from a genuine diphthong or a ε̄. The pseudo-diphthong ου has a value of [u], which is historically attested in Ancient Greek.” [23]

“Short-element ι diphthongs αι, οι and υι are pronounced … as [aj], [ɔj], [yj], [and] … some websites recommend the less accurate pronunciation [ɥi] for υι. Short-element υ diphthongs αυ and ευ are pronounced like similar-looking French pseudo-diphthongs au and eu: [o]~[ɔ] and [ø]~[œ], respectively.” [24]

“Also, θ and χ are pronounced [t] and [k]. … Also, γ, before a velar consonant, is generally pronounced [n]. The digraph γμ is pronounced [ɡm], and ζ is pronounced [dz], but both pronunciations are questionable in the light of modern scholarly research.” [25]

Italian Reconstructions

“Italian speakers find it hard to reproduce the pitch-based Ancient Greek accent accurately so the circumflex and acute accents are not distinguished. … β is a voiced bilabial plosive [b], as in Italian bambino or English baby; γ is a voiced velar plosive [ɡ], as in Italian gatto or English got. When γ is before κ γ χ ξ, it is nasalized as [ŋ] … ζ is a voiced alveolar affricate [dz], as in Italian zolla … θ is taught as a voiceless dental fricative, as in English thing [θ], but since Italian does not have that sound, it is often pronounced as a voiceless alveolar affricate [ts], as in Italian zio, or even as τ, a voiceless dental plosive [t]) … χ is taught as a voiceless velar fricative [x], as in German ach, but since Italian does not have that sound, it is often pronounced as κ (voiceless velar plosive [k]).” [26]

Spanish Reconstructions

Due to Castilian Spanish, “phonological features of the language sneak in the Erasmian pronunciation. The following are the most distinctive (and frequent) features of Spanish pronunciation of Ancient Greek: following Spanish phonotactics, the double consonants ζ, ξ, ψ are difficult to differentiate in pronunciation by many students of Ancient Greek, although ξ is usually effectively rendered as [ks]; … both vocalic quantity and vowel openness are ignored altogether: thus, no effort is made to distinguish vocalic pairs such as ε : η and ο : ω; the vowel υ, although taught as [y] (absent in the Spanish phonological system), is mostly pronounced as [i].” [27]

——-

What Do the Experts Say?

Nick Nicolas, PhD in Modern Greek dialectology & linguist at Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, outlines the 3 current pronunciation models of Ancient Greek:

1. Erasmus' reconstruction of Ancient Greek phonology, as modified in practice for teaching Greek in Western schools.

2. The scholarly reconstruction of Ancient Greek phonology.

3. Modern Greek pronunciation applied to Ancient Greek (“Reuchlinian" pronunciation). [28]

Nicolas’ Critique of Erasmian:

It's not quite fully there with the scholarly

reconstruction of Greek; so some of the

phonology and morphology of Ancient

Greek still doesn't make sense.

Particularly with diphthongs, and

aspiration, if your local Erasmian doesn't

do them accurately. [29]

“Extreme variability from country to country, because of the concessions each country's teaching system makes to the local language.

Speak in Erasmian to a Greek, and they'll look at you like a space alien. … But they will genuinely have no idea what you are saying, or what language you are saying it in. … It's quite far from Koine. Koine was still in flux, and some critical changes were underway when the bit of Koine most people care about (New Testament) was spoken. But overall, Koine was much closer to Modern Greek than Homeric.” [30]

——-

Here’s what Daniel Streett, Ph.D & Associate Professor of Biblical Studies at Houston Baptist University, says about the pronunciations debate that occurred approximately 10 years ago at the annual Society of Biblical Literature meeting in San Francisco. It was sponsored by the Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics Section & the Applied Linguistics for Biblical Languages Group, which addressed the topic of Greek phonology and pronunciation.

Dr. Daniel Streett says:

“There is a widespread consensus among historical linguists as to how Greek was pronounced at its various stages. If you want a good summary of the consensus, check out A.-F. Christidis’ History of Ancient Greek, which has several articles on the various phonological shifts. Especially relevant is E.B. Petrounias’ contribution on ‘Development in Pronunciation During the Hellenistic Period’ (pp. 599-609).” [31]

Then he critiques the Erasmian Pronunciation that was presented by Daniel Wallace of Dallas Seminary. Dr. Streett writes:

“He was asked to argue for the Erasmian pronunciation, although, as he explained at the outset, he has no firm conviction that Erasmian pronunciation best reflects the way Greek was pronounced in the Hellenistic world.

I found Wallace’s presentation very easy to follow and enjoyable to listen to, but frustrating at the same time. I think he seriously misrepresented the state of our knowledge on Greek phonology in the Hellenistic and Roman imperial eras. He did not deal with any hard evidence from manuscripts or inscriptions (as subsequent presenters Buth and Theophilos did). He merely pointed out a few of the difficulties with assessing such evidence and then (IMO) cavalierly dismissed them.” [32]

Dr. Streett Comments on the Reconstructed Koine:


“Randall Buth of the Biblical Language Center presented third and advocated his reconstruction of 1st century Koine Greek. If you want a summary of his system, take a look at his page on it here: https://www.biblicallanguagecenter.com/koine-greek-pronunciation/

Biblical Language Center

Koine Greek Pronunciation

For a downloadable PDF of this page see  Koine Pronunciation 2012. The PDF is workbook size and fits within both A4 and US Letter paper size

Buth’s presentation contained what Wallace’s lacked: a lot of evidence which demonstrated that however they were pronouncing Greek in the first century, it sure wasn’t Erasmian! Furthermore, he showed that the regional differences objection did not really hold, as the same sounds were ‘confused’ in texts from across the ancient world. So, while the pronunciation might have differed slightly from region to region, the phonemic structure remained stable.

Neo-hellenic or Modern Pronunciation

Michael Theophilos, who teaches at Australian Catholic University, presented last and advocated the modern pronunciation. Theophilos speaks modern Greek but also believes that most (or all?) of the modern phonology was in place by the first century. He made some very helpful methodological points. For example, he argues that we should be looking for phonological clues mainly in the non-literary papyri, which are more likely to contain phonetic spellings. He also offered several examples of iotacism in early papyri to show that there is at least some evidence that οι, η, and υ had iotacized by the 2nd century CE.

By the time you heard Simkin, Buth, and Theophilos, Wallace’s agnosticism seemed thorougly untenable. Theophilos didn’t have a whole lot to say about the practical reasons for using the modern pronunciation. I wish he would have, since it’s helpful for Erasmians to realize there’s an entire country of people who speak Greek and can’t bear to listen to the awful linguistic barbarity known as Erasmian. When Wallace was making the argument that Erasmians are by far in the pedagogical majority, he conveniently left out the millions of Greek students on this little peninsula in the Aegean.” [33]

——-

Conclusion

In the words of Daniel B. Wallace:

“Erasmian pronunciation is often considered cumbersome, unnatural, stilted, and ugly. The implication sometimes is that it must not have been the way Greek ever sounded; it is too harsh on the ears for that.” Not to mention fake and fabricated!

As regards Koine Greek, no one from our generation was there to hear the words being spoken. So no one really knows exactly how it sounded. But just as the closest pronunciation to Middle English is Modern English, so the rightful heir and descendant of Koine Greek pronunciation is obviously Modern Greek. It should be closer to the Koine Greek pronunciation than an invented phonetic system from the Renaissance. Just as Albert Schweitzer realized that most authors had interpreted Jesus in their own image, so Erasmians have interpreted Greek pronunciation in their own image as well. That’s why the Erasmian speakers don’t sound Greek but have the accents of their native countries.

What is more, many of their theories are erroneously based on Egyptian Greek papyri. Suppose that 2,000 years from now linguists try to reconstruct American pronunciation via English literature that was found in Australia. The pronunciations are vastly different. By comparison, what was spoken in Egypt or Palestine was certainly not spoken in Athens.

Besides, there’s much more literature on Erasmian pronunciation and a relative neglect or disinterest to write anything about the Reuchlinian or Modern Greek pronunciation. That’s a western bias that has been in place for centuries.

Let’s not forget that we learned so much about Koine Greek from the discoveries of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, such as the Oxyrhynchus Papyri, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the like. The addition of approximately 5,800 New Testament mss. that we currently have just in Greek, compared to a handful that Erasmus had at his disposal, shows how much more equipped we are in understanding the intricacies and complexities of Koine Greek than he was in the early 1500s.

Philemon Zachariou——Ph.D Bible scholar, linguist, & native Greek speaker——uses various lines of evidence, including Plato’s writings, to show that ι = ει = η = [i] (kratylos 418c) is similar to Neohellenic Greek. He summarizes the evidence as follows:

“iotacism is not a ‘modern’ development but is traceable all the way to Plato’s day.” He further claims that “the phonemic sounds of mainstream Modern Greek are not ‘modern’ or new but historical; and the Modern Greek way of reading and pronouncing consonants, vowels, and vowel digraphs was established by, or initiated within, the Classical Greek period (500-300 BC).” [34]

He concludes that no pronunciation comes closer to Koine than Modern Greek.

Similarly, David S. Hasselbrook, who studies New Testament Lexicography, says that a number of new words that occur in the New Testament continue to have the same meanings in modern Greek. These words are closer to modern Greek than Classical Greek. Constantine R. Campbell, Associate Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, also says that Modern Greek helps to resolve text-critical issues related to pronunciation, whereas the Erasmian may lead down the wrong path! [35]

——-

Notes

1 Pronunciation of Ancient Greek in teaching (Wiki).

2 Johann Reuchlin (Wikipedia).

3 Ibid.

4 Pronunciation of Ancient Greek in teaching.

5 Ibid.

6 Ancient Greek phonology (Wikipedia).

7 Ibid.

8 Ibid.

9 Koine Greek phonology (Wikipedia).

10 Ibid.

11 Ibid.

12 Ibid.

13 Ibid.

14 Ibid.

15 Ibid.

16 Erasmus (Wikipedia).

17 Ibid.

18 Ibid.

19 Pronunciation of Ancient Greek in teaching.

20 Ibid.

21 Ibid.

22 Ibid.

23 Ibid.

24 Ibid.

25 Ibid.

26 Ibid.

27 Ibid.

28 What are the pros and cons of the Erasmian

pronunciation? (Quora).

29 Ibid.

30 Ibid.

31 The Great Greek Pronunciation Debate (SBL)

32 Ibid.

33 Ibid.

34 Philemon Zachariou, PhD - YouTube Video

35 Ibid.

A Comparison Between Erasmian & Modern Pronunciation

Matthew 7 - Erasmian Pronunciation -https://youtu.be/vKrqwhBwur8

Matthew 7 - Modern Greek Pronunciation -https://youtu.be/ktmnpVzxPw4

——-

Selected Bibliography

Allen, William Sidney (1987). Vox Graeca. A Guide to the Pronunciation of Classical Greek (3rd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. pp. ix–x. ISBN 978-0-521-33555-3. Retrieved 22 June 2019.

Jannaris, A. (1897). An Historical Greek Grammar Chiefly of the Attic Dialect As Written and Spoken From Classical Antiquity Down to the Present Time. London: MacMillan.

Papadimitrakopoulos, Th. (1889). Βάσανος τῶν περὶ τῆς ἑλληνικῆς προφορᾶς Ἐρασμικῶν ἀποδείξεων [Critique of the Erasmian evidence regarding Greek pronunciation]. Athens.

https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/1466927

Academic Dictionaries and Encyclopedias

Ancient Greek phonology

is the study of the phonology, or pronunciation, of Ancient Greek. Because of the passage of time, the original pronunciation of Ancient Gre

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koine_Greek_phonology

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pronunciation_of_Ancient_Greek_in_teaching

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iotacism

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erasmus

en.m.wikipedia.org

Erasmus - Wikipedia

Erasmus - Wikipedia

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Reuchlin

en.m.wikipedia.org

Johann Reuchlin - Wikipedia

Johann Reuchlin - Wikipedia

https://quora.opoudjis.net/2016/01/24/2016-01-24-what-are-the-pros-and-cons-of-the-erasmian-pronunciation/

https://danielstreett.com/2011/12/01/the-great-greek-pronunciation-debate-sbl-2011-report-pt-3/amp/

καὶ τὰ λοιπά

The Great Greek Pronunciation Debate (SBL 2011 Report, pt. 3)

At this year’s annual Society of Biblical Literature meeting in San Francisco, there was a session sponsored jointly by the Biblical Greek L

https://youtu.be/wYtrVlpnpg4