Thanks for the question! There are a few considerations ... 1. NA28, Tyndale NT, are all copyrighted 2. Byzantine text and Vaticanus are not copyrighted (I use both for different texts) 3. We do not know if anyone in ancient times ever read exactly the text of NA28, THGNT, etc. 4. We DO know that some in history read Vaticanus I would love to also do recordings of modern critical texts, but copyright is an issue. I will say, though, that if your goal is to read like the ancients did (as far as the experience goes), Vaticanus will be much better than any modern critical edition, even if there are places where its readings are unlikely to be original. Note, however, that most modern critical texts rely heavily on Vaticanus, Sinaiticus.

Thanks for the question! Luke and I know each other and we discuss Koine phonology, etc. now and then. I think he is amazingly talented and he does really good work. I think we both acknowledge that there was a diversity of pronunciations and registers in the Koine period and the first and second centuries CE more specifically. So a few points that might help contextualize some differences ... 1. My pronunciation is not exactly the same as that described in Buth's BLC article on the topic. I have integrated some of the findings of my own research to make my pronunciation somewhat more historical, such as palatalization of velars before front vowels and the stop pronunciation of β γ δ following nasals. Not all of this has been updated in the pronunciation guide on the website, but I intend to do so by the time my new book comes out (later this year). 2. Neither Luke's pronunciation scheme nor mine is strictly historical for the first century. We both adopt the fricative pronunciations of χ φ θ, which was unlikely to be universal until later in the Roman period, even if certain areas like Anatolia seem to exhibit it earlier than other regions. 3. One thing that is fairly clear to me after analyzing every single spelling of every single word in 4,500 inscriptions and papyri is that there were multiple pronunciation registers that co-existed in the first and second centuries. Most notably, these register differences come to fruition in how various speakers pronounced historical phonemic length. In the more high register conservative pronunciation, phonemic vowel length was maintained. It is probable that maintenance of certain diphthongs (e.g., αι as /ae̞̯/) might also have been part of this register. In the lower more innovative pronunciation, phonemic vowel length was already neutralized for some speakers as early as the first century. So in short, based on my research, I think Luke's pronunciation is closer to the higher register of the first and second centuries CE, whereas my pronunciation is closer to the more colloquial innovative register of the first and second centuries CE. During the first century itself, both pronunciations were probably fairly common. By the end of the second century CE, pronunciations that maintained phonemic length were not as widespread as they used to be, though they were definitely still present. So it is quite likely that someone living in the first or second century would hear pronunciations that sounded like both of ours in different regions and different contexts. Note the caveat above about the fricatives, however. This is especially the case because when we do have evidence for a conservative pronunciation maintained at a later date (I'm thinking of a Greek papyrus written in Armenian script), they don't necessarily adopt the fricatives but maintain the aspirated stops. Hope this helps!

Good questions Kyle! There was actually variation with words like υἱός and υἱοί in the Koine period as well. The evidence suggests that the below pronunciations were all valid: υἱός = [yˈo̞s], [yiˈo̞s] υἱοί = [yˈy], [yiˈy] We know this from spellings like υος and υειος, the first showing the contraction with the [i] vowel and the latter showing the preservation of the [i] vowel. Hope this helps!

I can say that although I haven't read the entire book yet, my impressions are similar to Tim's. By the way, thank you Tim for posting this review! In short, I think that there are a lot of really good things in the book--and a lot of really helpful points--but there are some issues with methodology as far as analyzing ancient material for reconstructing historical phonology. I do plan to post a review eventually, where I can go into more depth and actually provide some statistical percentages to show, just like Tim was saying, how just finding an interchange at a certain time does not prove a merger. Only attestation rates of particular interchanges relative to other interchanges relative to correct spellings can give us enough material to talk about mergers. But still, I agree with Zachariou about a lot and definitely think his book is a welcome contribution, though like Tim said it might not be the best introduction to the field, since his views go against consensus in a number of cases.

Wipf and Stock has been kind enough to send me a review copy, so I hope in time to post a review on the blog of this website. Stay tuned!

I've been able to glance through it a bit on Google books. This looks like it could be a very helpful book and it is good to see more being published on pronunciation. I didn't get a chance to see what exactly the end result/historical pronunciation is, though. I think I should probably get the book :) But feel free to share your opinion on the book as you look into it more. I know I, for one, would appreciate it.

Very nice! Also, for what it's worth, there is certainly no expectation of uniformity. As long as there is some historical basis for a pronunciation that someone is using, I am all for all of us getting acquainted with pronunciation diversity (which has always existed in the Greek-speaking world, especially during the Koine period). For example, those who pronounce η as /i/ might resemble those of Anatolia in the Roman period more than those in Palestine. The same goes for fricatives vs. stops in the voiceless unaspirated series. Similarly, even if one wants to use Modern Greek I am all for it, since that is also a real historical attestation. I'm all for these different sorts of pronunciations being experimented with and used. I think it is good for us to get used to that, since the ancients were as well. The only thing I would be hesitant about is using pronunciations that have no historical basis for any point in the history of Greek.

I'm now surveying interest here: https://twitter.com/KoineGreek_com/status/1220371190407143425 We'll see if it gets enough interest to motivate me to start the project earlier.

I have actually been thinking about the same thing. I started doing these verse-of-the-day in Koine Greek Q & A posts on the KoineGreek.com Twitter and it got me thinking to do something a bit more comprehensive. I came up with the following idea (as something to do potentially down the road): What do you think about a commentary series that takes a book of the Bible in Greek and just has simple (and ranging to more complex) questions on every verse of the text in Koine Greek. In this way, you could use it as a self-study guide that helps you think through the book in Greek and you could also use it to teach the text. Each verse would begin with simple questions and gradually progress to more complex questions so that real exegetical questions could actually be addressed in Greek. What do you think? If there is enough interest, maybe I'll do something like this for a short book to start and see.

@Mark J This is very nice Mark! I love hearing the pure first century pronunciation :) I have actually thought about Koreans learning Koine Greek before in this context. If I lived in Korea, I would teach Koine Greek with the aspirated stops. I think that would be ideal, but it is too difficult a distinction to make for most of the English-speaking world, unfortunately. However, I think that there is certainly room for more than one pronunciation, as long as it is historical. I would love to see a day when we have such a large community of Koine Greek speakers that we can say, "Oh, you're one of the ones that pronounces the aspirates...I do fricatives, etc." There was, after all, a time in history when this probably applied. Anatolians seem to have gotten fricatives earlier than Egyptian and Palestinian Koine speakers. By the way, downloads are now available: https://www.koinegreek.com/member-downloads

Thanks for the post! The option for unlimited downloading (for a low price) is mostly set up and should be up and running sometime this month. Stay tuned as a blog post announcing it should be coming soon.

Thanks for the post! The option for unlimited downloading (for a low price) is mostly set up and should be up and running sometime this month. Stay tuned as a blog post announcing it should be coming soon.

Also, I just finished the initial completion of my database and can provide very very rough initial statistics on this in the Palestinian epigraphy and documentary material. Before 200 CE: αι → αι = 1431 αι → ε = 32 ε → ε = 3943 ε → αι = 5 After 200 CE: αι → αι = 439 αι → ε = 144 ε → ε = 2750 ε → αι = 6 So there is definitely an increase in the αι → ε interchange from the Middle Roman period to the Late Roman and Byzantine periods. This database is so exciting to me. I'm really looking forward to being able to do many many more queries and get into it! If you have any other specific searches you would like me to do, just shoot me a message :)

Very nice. I love things like this in the early NT manuscripts. One thing you'll find (I think both in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) is that they often have a superscript letter to correct the αι = ε variant. I think I've seen this in both. It would actually be a very helpful study for what you are going after to take a look at these. In other words, look at every single αι/ε interchange in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and see which ones are corrected with a superscript and which ones are not. That may actually help with what you are after if any clear distributions emerge.

Ideally, you can find just one other person you can speak Koine Greek with. However, if you can't find someone else to talk with, there are other options. If you can't find someone like that, then speak to yourself. Talk about everything you are doing during the day. That is how I started before I first took a course with BLC however many years ago that was. Look at the videos on this website of the Colloquia of the Hermeneumata Pseudodositheana (found under Second Temple Period videos). These give you daily life language for Koine Greek. They were designed to teach ancient language learners. Go through these and then try to narrate everything you do in a day (eating, getting dressed, washing up, etc.). I would be happy to give you some more info on this if you are interested. Exposure to authentic Koine is, of course, going to give you good fuel for fluency as well. This website has a lot of good resources available for that, as you know. Listening to the interviews (where people are actually having a conversation) will also help. Any other questions, feel free to ask!

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.

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 earier 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.

Excellent post, Diachronix. I generally agree, though I would make a few points: 1) By a pronunciation system “working” I mean that it matches the phonemic contrasts present in the Koine period. In that sense, only a restored pronunciation can work since both Erasmian and Modern have a different number of phonemes. 2) In the above sense, it should be noted that the Greek language of the Koine period could not “tolerate” the Modern pronunciation without exception. Once the “Modern” pronunciation (used loosely here) became universal—namely, after υ came to be pronounced as ι—the language began to change morphophonologically. Note the entrance of εσεις and εμεις instead of υμεις and ημεις in the Middle Ages. I do agree, though, that one’s own personal reasons can lead to using another pronunciation for a number of reasons. That is totally fine :) At the same time, though, there is no problem arguing for what would be ideal and most pedagogically beneficial with a tabula rasa, even if that might be modified based on life and social circumstances.

Care to share it? (If you can upload it somewhere and then link to it) Yes, recordings involve a lot more than meets the eye at first. I'd be curious to hear more about your experience and what you found difficult or surprising in the process. I know simply technical issues and audio became something I had to give more attention to the more I got into things.

@Diachronix PERFECT explanation