Benjamin Kantor’s “Pronunciation of New Testament Greek”

Notably, however, at the end of his Guide, Kantor recommends as well the Neohellenic (Modern Greek) pronunciation for New Testament Greek (121). In fact, Kantor equates the Judeo-Palestinian-based Historical Koine Greek Pronunciation with the Neohellenic pronun-ciation in terms of benefits to the learner (121–122). Thus, according to Kantor, learners of New Testament Greek can be recipients of the same benefits whether they use Kantor’s Judeo-Palestinian-based pronunciation, or the Neohellenic pronunciation.

Let us first see what those benefits are and then assess how they apply to each of the two pronunciation systems. According to Kantor, one of the benefits of using either the historical Judeo-Palestinian-based pronunciation or the Neohellenic pronunciation is that “Koine Greek has been and is regularly recited in Greek Orthodox churches as part of the liturgy to this day.” Another benefit, Kantor says, is that “Plenty of Greek scholars regularly publish linguistic work on Classical and Koine Greek (and always have) in Modern Greek.” Yet another benefit is that “Anyone using a historical Koine pronunciation system or a Neo-hellenic (Modern Greek) pronunciation system will have this invaluable resource wide open to them from the very beginning of their Greek study,” and that “Their study of Koine or New Testament Greek will offer them a head start, rather than a hindrance, in learning to speak with Greeks.” “All in all,” Kantor concludes, “using a historical (or Neohellenic) pronunciation of Koine Greek will open up the countless linguistic and cultural resources which will prove invaluable for growing in one’s understanding of New Testament Greek and Greek in general.”

Personally, I feel that in order for one to become a recipient of these benefits, including particularly opportunities to converse with Greeks, he or she must be in Greece, or within an environment that is typically Greek in character; and that under such circumstances, that person would naturally need to adhere to the Neohellenic pronunciation.

The question then arises: If  the two pronunciation systems Kantor recommends are quite similar, why not keep the Neohellenic pronunciation, since it is directly and clearly associated with each of those benefits, and drop the other? On the flip side, if the two pronunciation systems are substantially different, how could benefits of this nature even be associated with a theoretical Judeo-Palestinian-based pronunciation of Greek?

Let us then examine Kantor’s Judeo-Palestinian-based historical Koine Greek pronun-ciation (110–112), and compare it with the Neohellenic pronunciation. In so doing, we will focus on the key differences between the two pronunciation systems.

Listed on the left side of the table below are Greek letters and the phonemic sounds they represent in IPA ³ (Column A) according to Kantor’s Judeo-Palestinian-based historical Koine Greek pronunciation. Likewise, listed on the right side are the same Greek letters, along with the phonemic sounds they represent in IPA (Column B) according to the Neohellenic pronunciation.

The difference in speech (e.g., during conversation) between bilabials /β/, /ɸ/ (Column A) and labiodentals /v/, /f/ (Column B) may be visually and acoustically perceptible. Regardless, that difference would betray the presence of non-Neohellenic speech sounds—a difference equally observable by speakers of English.

But of far greater significance is Kantor’s pronunciation of η as /e/ rather than /i/, on the one hand, and of υ and οι as /y/ rather than /i/, on the other. This difference, accentuated by the use of bilabials /β/ and /ɸ/, would make a learner of New Testament Greek more often than not unintelligible to speakers of Neohellenic. Additionally, the combination of such phonetic, acoustic, and phonemic differences in a learner’s speech would doubtless hinder the learner’s ability to become a recipient of the above benefits.

In light of (a) the differences between Kantor’s theoretical Judeo-Palestinian-based historical Koine Greek pronunciation and the Neohellenic pronunciation, and (b) the fact that Kantor presents the two pronunciation systems as options, one would hardly expect a learner of Greek who is desirous of said benefits to opt for a pronunciation of New Testament Greek other than Neohellenic.

As for the application of the term historical, it must be borne in mind that the Neohellenic phonemic sounds are not “modern” or new but historical. They are the meaningful sounds that have traversed through many centuries since Classical Attic and are preserved in today’s Greek. Neohellenic therefore uses the historical phonemic sounds that are collectively referred to as Historical Greek Pronunciation (HGP)—not to be confused with Kantor’s “Historical Koine Greek Pronunciation.”

To recap, it must be said here that the afore-mentioned benefits cannot be associated with an alternative pronunciation to Neohellenic; and that such benefits, as the evidence shows,  draw their true value from the fact that no pronunciation comes closer to the historical phonemic sounds of mainstream Koine Greek than that of Neohellenic.⁴