A discussion was going on the "Nerdy Language Majors" facebook group about the pronunciation used in the Gospel of Mark film in relation to Greek pronunciation today. I thought I would address some of the points here (due to length):
Thank you for the feedback and the constructive criticism. Definitely appreciated. Let me address a few of your points...
First, I would not suggest that a native speaker of Greek today should adopt a restored Koine pronunciation. They can if they want to hear the phonology of the ancient language, but they already grew up with their pronunciation and it may actually cause too much interference if they try to switch over at this point. For that reason, I would recommend that a native speaker continue to interact with the scriptures in their native pronunciation. After all, their pronunciation is only different in a few main particulars from that of the Koine period.
Second, for non-native speakers of Greek learning the language, it is very important to use a pronunciation system that reflects the phonemic oppositions that were in play during the Koine period. For this reason, a modern pronunciation will not work. There were a number, few but important, phonemic contrasts that existed in the Koine pronunciation that are no longer present in Greek today. These can affect morphology.
So in terms of why we didn't get a native Greek speaker to do the recording: A separate Modern Greek pronunciation version of the ancient text would be ideal for a native-Greek speaking audience. It should be done in addition to what I have done. Let me just say that first. For non-native Greek speakers learning ancient Greek, a restored Koine pronunciation is ideal (it is more similar to Modern Greek than an "academic" pronunciation so it is still like the real living language today) and it most accurately reflects the phonemic contrasts of the ancient period. I might finish here by noting that if someone finds a native Greek speaker who is willing to do a recording of the Gospels with a restored Koine pronunciation (I could coach them in that if they don't already study historical phonology), I would be happy to work with them on that.
Now, in terms of the actual critiques of my pronunciation from the perspective of a native Greek speaker. Let me divide these into three categories: (1) differences based on diachrony, (2) differences based on influence of my linguistic background, and (3) prosodic differences (i.e., inflection, rhythm, etc). Only the last two of these categories are real critiques.
1) DIACHRONY (i.e., chronological change)
If you present my recordings to a native Greek speaker who does not have a background in historical phonology, they will think it sounds strange. The vowels η and υ-οι are pronounced differently: i.e., ἥλιος [elios] and λύω [lyo] (or lüo). Also, the fricative consonants β, γ, δ maintain their ancient stop realizations after nasals: e.g., λάβε [laβε] but λαμβάνω [lambano]. There are a number of other nuanced differences, but these are the main ones. This will probably always sound unusual to a native Greek speaker today, but it is the way they pronounced it in the Koine period.
2) VERNACULAR INTERFERENCE
I am not a native Greek speaker and thus it is inevitable that some of my own linguistic background will seep into my Greek. I won't be perfect in my pronunciation. I fully admit that and am always trying to get better. Any pointers are gladly received. I especially appreciate the pointer on the /o/ vowel. I will do my best to imitate native Greek speakers on that one, since it is presumably the same as it was in the ancient period.
Let me make another point here, though, that might help brings us back to the reality on the ground in the Koine period. Take a look at a quote from Josephus:
Josephus, Ant. 20.263: ἔχω γὰρ ὁμολογούμενον παρὰ τῶν ὁμοεθνῶν πλεῖστον αὐτῶν κατὰ τὴν ἐπιχώριον παιδείαν διαφέρειν καὶ τῶν Ἑλληνικῶν δὲ γραμμάτων ἐσπούδασα μετασχεῖν τὴν γραμματικὴν ἐμπειρίαν ἀναλαβών, τὴν δὲ περὶ τὴν προφορὰν ἀκρίβειαν πάτριος ἐκώλυσεν συνήθεια.
For my compatriots willingly acknowledge that I far exceed them in Jewish learning. I have also made a great effort to acquire Greek learning by taking up the study of the grammatical discipline, but my native language has prevented me from attaining precision with respect to Greek pronunciation (προφορά)
Josephus wrote in a higher literary register of Greek than just about all (if not all) of the New Testament authors. Nevertheless, as a Greek-speaking Jew living in Palestine, he could not avoid his native pronunciation of Hebrew/Aramaic affecting his pronunciation of Greek, even if only slightly.
Anyone who has studied a number of regional varieties of Koine Greek, with respect to pronunciation, realizes quite quickly that there are essentially two main factors in the different pronunciations of Koine around the Mediterranean: (i) the rate/time at which certain universal changes take place and (ii) the impact of the local languages on the pronunciation.
Therefore, while I always want to get better and pronounce my Greek like a native as much as possible--where the sounds have stayed the same from the Koine period--local languages influencing the pronunciation of Greek was a hallmark of the Koine period, and that surely did not stop communication.
3) PROSODIC FEATURES:
Again, here I fully admit that this is something that I want to get better at. I believe prosodic rhythm and inflection is one of the last features of speech to become "nativized" for non-native learners. It takes a while to get this just right. Without real effort, non-native speakers might speak a language for decades and never adapt here. So I fully appreciate advice and pointers here. In fact, if your friend would like to give me more detailed critiques I would be glad to receive them and improve on the next time.
Hope this is helpful. If anyone has any further questions, feel free to keep them coming.
I appreciate the excellent information. I always purchase papers online. Considering how much time I can save, I find it to be really convenient. In exchange for a small fee, they do my dissertation with their lengthy papers. The biggest benefit is that they carefully research topics before writing, which is crucial for achieving top grades in college.
Quick response with thumbs: Points well taken. I really don’t have a strong view on the “it didn’t tolerate it” idea, but I would note that υ was not /i/ universally until probably late in the Byzantine period, so maybe within a century or two or three of the first appearance of εσεις. But some (e.g., Brixhe) say it happened in Asia Minor earlier. Though I am somewhat suspicious, since Brixhe tends to paint Roman Asia Minor like Modern Greek in numerous respects, even though the evidence could be interpreted otherwise. So I really don’t have a problem with saying that the Koine language could tolerate υ = /i/ at an earlier stage, I’m just not sure we have any evidence that it did on a wide scale. I accept that some regional dialects merged these earlier than the universal Late Byzantine date.
You raise some excellent points.
IMO, one can safely ignore criticism from Greeks, since most of them are quite uninformed on the topic of historical pronunciation. As the Greeks say, "it's all Chinese" to them ;)
One can certainly argue for the merits of various pronunciation systems in Greek pedagogy, and other applications. But it seems problematic to over-extend those arguments to some kind of universal prescription for EVERYONE (outside of forums like these) - i.e. declaring by fiat that "a modern pronunciation will not work", full stop. Ultimately, it should boil down to the subjective personal preferences of individuals or groups that employ a particular method for a particular purpose.
If one is going to make a universal prescription for what pronunciation system SHOULD be used by everyone, I fail to grasp why an exception should be made for Greeks (special pleading). Either their pronunciation works or it doesn't work (whatever "work" means). And if it doesn't work now, then presumably it didn't work throughout the Byzantine and Ottoman periods of Greek history (reductio ad absurdum). And, by extension, it then doesn't work for recitation of the Lord's Prayer, or the Nicene Creed, or any text regularly read and recited in the Greek Orthodox liturgy.
So, if some reasonable level of flexibility is extended to the Greeks, to allow for their age-old practice that conforms to their native language, why should this leniency NOT be extended to non-native speakers of Modern Greek, for example? What if someone who doesn't speak wants to learn Biblical Greek in an Eastern Orthodox seminary? What if someone has Greek parents? Or what if someone simply prefers the Modern Greek system for some other personal reason? Where does one draw the line and arbitrate objectively between the various options available, declaring who is right and who is wrong?
I know I'm never going to quell the pronunciation debate. And I'm probably inviting a lot of criticism on this forum of like-minded people. But I wish a mutual understanding could be reached that this is not black-and-white issue that boils down to right vs wrong. I think people should be free to use whatever pronunciation they prefer, and find to be effective, based on individual circumstances. If Erasmian floats your boat, so be it. If you want to speak Greek with a Texan twang and refuse to try to roll your R's, who cares? I certainly don't denigrate anyone's personal choice, based on my own subjective aesthetic preferences.