by Philemon Zachariou » June 11th, 2011, 3:34 pm
Dear MAubrey,
Your questions and remarks are welcome. I commend you for taking time to listen to my audio and look at my pdfs, as you put it. I will preface my responses by saying that it is partly for this reason that I recently requested of B-Greek a link to my website. It seems, right from the stat, that it would be necessary to post three or four chapters of my book, Reading and Pronouncing Biblical Greek, in their entirety so that readers like you would have a clearer picture of the historical evidence upon which I base all findings. Doing so, however, would be too burdensome for the majority of those who might otherwise be unprepared to read and digest several vital sections of the book, yet would like instant answers. The sections I have extracted and posted are mainly to draw the reader’s attention to topics the book addresses, not to satisfy a host of questions. It would not surprise me, therefore, if well-meant questions and comments, like yours, were based on the incomplete information posted, on incomplete reading, or both.
Now, back to your observations and comments. I am glad you are raising these points. First, I see that your comment regarding my wanting to suggest that there has been no change in the pronunciation of Greek from the classical period is safeguarded by a conditional “if,” which indicates you did not actually see such a claim stated in my excerpts. Indeed, that is not a claim stated anywhere in my book, nor would I expect cautious readers to conclude that that is what I claim.
As I mentioned earlier, there are sections in my book not included in the excerpts posted on my website. Thus, I will quote here two parts—I will refer to them as A and B respectively—from sections not posted and which should have helped answer at least parts of your questions before posting them:
------
Part A.
Definition “c” (one out of 10 definitions in par. 1.12)
1.12 Phonological definitions
Orthophonic - correct sounding. The isolated pronunciation of a single sound segment, syllable, or word.
Part B.
A paragraph:
1.13 On pronunciation
Pronunciation in a narrow sense can be understood as the orthophonic (correct-sounding) utterance of single speech sounds, syllables, or words. In a broader sense it may be viewed as part of intonation, which entails additional features that fall within the acoustic properties of regular speech—stress, pitch-accent, juncture, rhythm, length, and voice quality. Specifically with regard to a diachronic view of the historical sounds of Greek, we will adhere to the narrow definition of pronunciation.
-------
These two parts are stated in my book early on, i.e., before the discussion of the historical evidence for the development of the phonology of Κοινή and its similarities to Neohellenic Greek. I am sure that these preparatory statements and definitions would have guided the thinking of an observing reader. Obviously you had no access to these, as they are not included in my excerpts.
Even so, it appears that you missed a vital point I make at the very end of the main excerpt, which reads: “In the light of evidence, no pronunciation method can get closer to the pronunciation of New Testament and classical Greek than the pronunciation of Neohellenic, the Greek of today.” That is what is clearly stated within a blue frame. One reading through the excerpt can’t miss it.
Now, your second comment: “The papyri most certainly do *not* demonstrate that the sounds of the language have remained the same from the time of Alexander up until Byzantine times, much less Medieval and Modern Greek!”
I have extended the main excerpt on my website—though it is still about fifty percent abridged, mind you—to include sections that are vital to an understanding of the papyrical evidence, how it dovetails with the inscriptional record of pre-Hellenistic times, and how it continues through Byzantine times down to the very present. I suggest you read those pages carefully. That should relate as well to the rest of your emphatic claim—i.e., “The papyri most certainly do not …”
Your final comment regarding the lifespan of the LXX translators. In your own words, “… considering the average lifespan during the Classical period, its also quite unlikely that any of the LXX translators would have been educated while Aristotle was alive--perhaps born, but not being educated.”
Consider this: Sophocles died at age 90+, Plato at 80, and Aristotle at 62. The average lifespan of these men, including Socrates’ premature death at 70, is 75.5 years. These men were no exception to any lifespan rule. It would be hard to argue that none of the LXX translators was over 40. But even so, their Greek teachers were contemporaries of Aristotle.
Cheers,
Philemon Zachariou