Grace Theological
Journal 5.2 (1984) 197-203.
[Copyright © 1984 Grace Theological
Seminary; cited with permission;
digitally prepared for use at
THE CASE FOR
MODERN PRONUNCIATION
OF
BIBLICAL
LANGUAGES
GARY G. COHEN AND C. NORMAN SELLERS
In the majority of Christian educational institutions
today artifi-
cial pronunciations for NT Greek and OT Hebrew are used--often
attempts at a recreation of the true ancient sounds. However, Modern
Greek and Modern Hebrew voicings are in reality the most effective
ways to teach these ancient biblical tongues. This is especially
so
because within the last forty years (a) audio-visual teaching aids
have
become available so that NT Greek can be taught as a living
language,
and (b) OT Hebrew is actually living again in
mastered with a new thoroughness. One difficulty is that the current
generation of teachers was trained in the "older"
pronunciations
themselves and are thus hesitant to make such a change.
*
* *
INTRODUCTION
EVERY
foreign language offers unique learning experiences to those
who study it. Often these experiences are only
indirectly related
to the actual study of the language and include
the understanding
and appreciation of their cultures, modes of
thinking, and a general
broadening of intellectual horizons.
Students of NT Greek sometimes
encounter statements such as
"Say
something in Greek," which are often the cause for some em-
barrassment and bring into focus
certain problems with pedagogical
methodology often used in the study of ancient
foreign languages.
How
to respond to such a request is particularly a problem for the
student of NT Greek or OT Hebrew. The student might
decline by
explaining that NT Greek is studied only for
translation purposes,
not for conversation. But this sounds strange to
anyone acquainted
with the study of modern foreign languages, and one
must wonder
about a teaching method which prepares a student to
verbalize little
more than a list of words from his grammar book or
the Greek NT,
to say nothing of auditory comprehension or
composition.
198
GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
And it is not only the Greek student
who is at a verbal or
auditory loss. Even after years of working with
the language, and
after having mastered the translation and exegesis of
the NT, many
Greek
scholars would be incapable of communicating on the streets
of
This raises several serious
questions: Have the scholars of biblical
languages always been content with translation
alone? Have they
always neglected the learning of the language in a way
that would
enable them to communicate with native speakers so as
to benefit
from the native intuition of usage and syntax?
And what about
students of biblical Hebrew? Is it not possible
that even more than in the case of Greek, Modern
Hebrew offers
students an opportunity to understand their
Hebrew Bibles better? Is
it not possible that the pedagogical methodology
of American biblical
languages teachers is past due for extensive
revision?
As A. T. Robertson said, "this
is indeed a knotty problem and
has been the occasion of fierce controversy."l It is not the intention of
the writers to feed this controversy, but it does
seem that something
needs to be said today in defense of treating NT
Greek and OT
Hebrew as older dialects of languages which are
still living today.
HISTORICAL
METHOD
Invariably, when the subject of
Greek pronunciation is broached,
this is the question: How did native speakers during
the apostolic
period pronounce it? Robertson wrote that "we may
be sure of one
thing, the pronunciation of the vernacular was not
exactly like the
ancient literary attic [classical] nor precisely
like the modern Greek
vernacular, but veering more toward the latter.”2
Howard recognizes
the complicating factor of dialects when he
observes that "it is prob-
able that considerable differences existed between
the Greek of Rome
and
It is generally recognized that it
is impossible to reconstruct pre-
cisely the pronunciation
system of 1st century Greek speakers. And as
a result some have preferred a reconstructed
classical [attic] pronun-
ciation, while others have
preferred to use a real pronunciation that is
capable of being tested by actual first-hand
observation, the pro-
nunciation of Modern Greek.
It is Erasmus (1466-1536) who is
generally credited with formu-
lating the reconstructed
classical pronunciation, generally popular in
1 A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the
Light of
Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman, 1923), 236.
2 Ibid.,
239.
3 lbid., 41-42.
COHEN
AND SELLERS: CASE FOR MODERN PRONUNCIATION 199
the West today. At about the same time Reuchlin (1455-1522) intro-
duced the Byzantine (modern)
pronunciation in
The debate over the relative merits
of these two systems became
so heated in
to distinguish ai from e or ei and oi from i, under penalty of expul-
sion from the Senate,
exclusion from the attainment of a degree,
rustication for students, and domestic chastisement
for boys.”4
But
in the end it was Erasmian pronunciation that won the
day
in the West.
Comparison of the Two
Systems
One might think that the differences
between the two systems are
very large, but they are in fact less different than
they are similar.
There
are only six letters of the alphabet in which there are
pronunciation differences:
Erasmian
Modern
b b -boy v -victory
g g -got g -got, but also y
before e,
as in yet
d d -dog th
-the
z dz -ads z -zoo
h a -late ee -feet
The larger differences are found in
the pronunciation of the
diphthongs, among which only ou is pronounced the same in both
systems. The differences are:
Erasmian
Modern
ei a –late/i -ice ee -feet
oi oi -oil ee -feet
ui uee -queen ee
-feet
ai ai -aisle e -let
iu eu -feud ev
or ef (depending on the following sound)
au ow -cow av
or af (depending on the following sound)
In
addition to these differences, two consonant clusters vary
between the two systems:
nt nt -sent nd -send
(e]ntolh< = entole)
(endole)
mp mp -lamp b
-biscuit
It is clear, then, that except for
the diphthongs and these conso-
nant clusters, there is
little difference between the two systems of
pronunciation.
4 Ibid.,
237.
200
GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
Since one cannot reconstruct
precisely the 1st-century pronuncia-
tion of NT Greek, one must
make his decision about the system he
will use based on the relative merits of each. The Erasmian system is
based on the principle that each letter should be
pronounced as dif-
ferently as possible from every
other letter. This is its chief peda-
gogical advantage for beginning
students, even though it is obviously
phonetically naive. The similarity
between Erasmian b and English
"b" is pedagogically more simple to teach than the
modern phono-
logical value, "v." The same is true
of ai and English ai
in "aisle."
Thus,
if the student is not expected to speak to anyone in Greek, the
relative ease with which the transition from
English to Greek can be
made is advantageous. But the advantage is very
small indeed if in the
process the student is giving up the possibility
of learning to speak
and hear the language--something which every modern
foreign lan-
guage teacher would consider
a sine qua non. It is not a great
burden
to learn the extra few sounds necessary to make
the transition from
English
to Modern Greek pronunciation as opposed to Erasmian
pronunciation. After all, there are
considerable differences between
English and either system which must be mastered
in any event.
The
supposed advantage of Erasmian
pronunciation shrinks even further
when it is realized that there is no unanimity even
among Erasmians
about how some of the consonants and vowels are to be
pronounced.
For
example, ei is long a to some and
long i to others; o (omicron) is
long o to some and short o to others.
There are other more obvious
advantages to using Modern Greek
pronunciation. One of these is that
the student is learning the sounds
of a living language. A
knowledge of the modern pronunciation will
make it possible for the student to converse with
native speakers,
whether in his own country or abroad, and this
will be a great source
of encouragement as he struggles to master the
rudiments of the
language.
Another advantage of the modern
pronunciation is that it makes
it possible for the student to use a number of
audio materials now
becoming available. Spiros
Zodhiates, for example, has produced
cassette tapes of Machen's
vocabularies and exercises, as well as both
the Koine NT and Modern
Greek NT. Those who have actually
gained thinking, speaking, hearing, and composition
facility in a
second language will recognize immediately that such
kinds of audio
aids are invaluable.
Yet another advantage of the Modern
Greek pronunciation is
that it makes much more possible an approach
(however slight at
first) toward the acquisition of language intuition.
Native intuition it
may never become, but the constant hearing and
speaking of a real
pronunciation system will undoubtedly
facilitate a better intuition for
semantic range and grammatical nuance.
COHEN
AND SELLERS: CASE FOR MODERN PRONUNCIATION
201
Should One Change?
The circumstances today are much
different from the time of
Erasmus and even A. T. Robertson. Access to study
opportunities in
are more readily available. In light of the
advantages of the modern
pronunciation and the easy access to
modern Greek materials as well
as native speakers of Modem Greek, there seems to
be no compelling
reason to retain the Erasmian
pronunciation system.
HEBREW PRONUNCIATION
Many of the arguments in favor of Modem Greek pronunciation
apply to the employment of Modem Hebrew pronunciation
as well.
But
there are some differences.
Hebrew is a Semitic language, is read from right
to left, and has
gutteral sounds not regularly
utilized by speakers of English. Its
alphabet is radically different from the Latin
alphabet of English, and
Hebrew
words cannot be readily associated with English vocabulary
for easy memorization. In general the mastery of
Hebrew seems to
procede more slowly than Greek,
and its biblical. literature is much
more voluminous (about 70% of the Bible) as well as
more varied.
Professors
of Hebrew, therefore, even more than those of Greek,
must try hard to find teaching methods which produce
good results.
Some
components which have proven to be highly successful in teach-
ing Hebrew are:
1. Adoption of the modem Israeli pronunciation.
2. Utilization of modern audio and video tools
for learning.
3. Integration of simple conversation into first
and second year bib-
lical Hebrew teaching.
4. Emphasis on reading large quantities of
Hebrew, even if this
involves using some of the modern lexicon indexes, in
contrast to
the much out-dated and pedagogically weak method of forcing
elementary students to spend the bulk of their time hunting
for
words in the lexicon.5
What precipitates these suggestions? In the
first place it needs to
be understood that Modern Hebrew was revived on
the basis of
biblical models, and where these could not be
found, Mishnaic and
later Hebrew models. Israeli Hebrew, thus, is much
closer to biblical
Hebrew than Modern Greek is to Koine. In fact, the average Israeli
5 Using such helps, for example, as T. A. Armstrong, D. L. Busby, and
Cyril F.
Carr,
A Reader's Hebrew-English Lexicon of the Old
Testament (
dervan Publishing House,
1980-); John Joseph Owens, Genesis (
Harper & Row, 1978); Bruce Einspahr, Index to
the Brown. Driver,
& Briggs Hebrew
and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody, 1976).
202
GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
high school student can read the OT fluently and
older children can
read it with better comprehension than some American
Hebrew
scholars, to say nothing of college and seminary
students. Hebrew is a
living language, which one can study and hear in the
classrooms and
on the streets of the land of the Bible, and there
is now available a
large mass of material from books to newspapers to
tapes and records
and Ulpan courses of
every description. Israelis teach in schools all
over the world, but for the serious student of
Hebrew, the wise course
is to follow in the footsteps of Jerome, who in
the 4th century went to
which is prepared for teaching Hebrew to all comers,
and its teachers
are very good indeed.
American college and seminary students as well
as teachers have
the opportunity to benefit from this new
availability of resources for
learning the language of the OT. And Modern
Hebrew provides the
essential, but often neglected, ingredients for
any language learning
which will be truly meaningful: hearing, speaking,
and composition.
To
neglect these in favor of reading only puts the student of biblical
Hebrew at a disadvantage which slows progress
immensely.
If the
exegete realizes, as do the teachers of any
other modern language
such as German or French, that all four aspects of
language learning
(hearing, speaking, composition, and reading) must be
incorporated
in the instructional process, he will immediately
recognize the ad-
vantage of using Modern Hebrew. Protestant
evangelical Hebrew lin-
guistic scholarship is far
behind Israeli scholarship because it has
refused to recognize this basic fact of language
learning: one cannot
approach native intuition (which should be the
goal of all language
learning) unless he incorporates all four aspects
of language learning.
The
result is often a weakened understanding which sometimes results
in artificial exegesis and translation.
Modern Hebrew pronunciation follows the
Sephardic (eastern
and vowels which differ from the pronunciation in
the Ashkenazi
(European and eastern European) and
"Rabbinic" systems. The system
has been adopted almost world-wide by Jews except
in some syna-
gogues. The main differences
between Modern and the other systems
is in the pronunciation of d, v, t, and the vowels A and a Israelis
pronounce d as "d"
(instead of dh without the dagesh), v as v (instead
of w), and t as t (instead of th without the dagesh). Both A and a are
pronounced like "a" in
"father." Other differences between what one
would hear in an American seminary and on the streets
of Jeru-
nounced, and words pronounced
in flowing speech and real phonetic
environments.
COHEN
AND SELLERS: CASE FOR MODERN PRONUNCIATION 203
There is absolutely no compelling reason to
continue the
"American-Protestant"
pronunciation of biblical Hebrew, whose
original pronunciation cannot be accurately
reconstructed in any
case. Modern Hebrew is the key to a whole new world
of OT study,
and opponents only impoverish themselves and their
students.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
On the basis, then, of the overwhelming
advantages of using
modern living pronunciation systems for the teaching
of biblical Greek
and Hebrew, we conclude that the path of the future
ought to lie, and
indeed will lie, in that direction. The transition
from the outdated
systems to the modern ones will require some
patience and under-
standing, especially among teaching colleagues.
But it is worth the
effort, for everyone will benefit: the teacher
himself, the student, and
the future recipients of the student's exegesis
from the pulpit and in
the classroom.
This
material is cited with gracious permission from:
Grace
Theological Seminary
www.grace.edu
Please
report any errors to Ted Hildebrandt at:
thildebrandt@gordon.edu