I think the “reconstructed Koine” is Randal Buth’s brainchild, I’m not advocating that, rather the Modern Greek pronunciation.
By the way, I wasn’t “mocking” anyone, just being brutally honest.
Isaac, the modern pronunciation destroys the distinction between the subjunctive, optative and indicative moods, but use whatever pronunciation you like. If you want to help others learn and internalize Greek, then you should use your abilities and compose some simple short stories in idiomatic Greek using a limited vocabulary. There is a great lack of simple Greek material for intermediate learners, so instead of complaining that no one understands Greek like you do, why not help produce the materials? If your fluency in Greek is as great as you claim it is, then maybe that is your calling.
Calvinist, has it occurred to you that there was nothing to “destroy” here to begin with ? That by the time of Christ, [many of the] Koine verbs in the indicative and subjunctive moods were already being pronounced identically ? As for your comment concerning optatives in the NT, I think you’re just wrong . . I did a statistical analysis and got the following results (there are only about 60 optatives in the NT, they were already virtually obsolete even as the NT was being penned ) :
(A) The following do not “destroy the distinction between the subjunctive, optative and indicative moods” with modern pronunciation in the NT:
γένοιτο (17)
εἴη (12)
ποιήσαιεν (1)
δυναίμην (1)
εὕροιεν(1)
ἔχοιεν(1)
Εὐξαίμην(1)
δύναιντο (2)
δῴη(6)
τύχοι(2)
κατευθῦναι(3)
πλεονάσαι(1)
τηρηθείη (1)
λογισθείη (1)
ὀναίμην(1)
πληθυνθείη(3)
Ἐπιτιμήσαι (1)
(B) Following sound identical (to the aorist infinitive active) not because of modern pronunciation but due to identical spelling:
πληρώσαι (4) – i.e. spells like πληρῶσαι
παρακαλέσαι(1) – i.e. spells like παρακαλέσαι
κατευθῦναι(2) – i.e. spells like κατευθῦναι
(C) That leaves us only with the following –
θέλοι (3) – which in modern pronunciation sounds identical to θέλει
and
ἔχοι (2) – which in modern pronunciation sounds like ἔχει and ἔχῃ
Though wholly irrelevant to the point at issue and riddled with error, these figures are not without potential interest. In themselves they tell us very little, but if sorted by function and by author they become more significant.
E.g.
Luke and only Luke uses the optative in the classical way, in historic sequence. (I am bracketing Acts with the so-called gospel of Luke.) This accounts for all instances of ειη and εχοι, εχοιεν, and for the instances of ποιησαιεν, δυναιμην, -ντο, ευροιεν, ευξαιμην, and one of γένοιτο. He also uses opt.+αν, the “potential” optative (τί αν θελοι twice), uniquely(?) among NT authors. It’s well known that Luke’s Greek is more educated than all other gospel-writers’ (canonical and non-canonical alike). It’s striking that such use is totally alien to Paul (unless we count idiomatic ει τuχοι twice in 1 Cor.) and all the other NT letter-writers.
Most of the others are in Pauline (and “Pauline”) prayers, where naturally they tend to cluster (e.g. 1 Thess.3.11-12, 5.23). Opt. also in opening prayers in 1 and 2 Peter and Jude. Independent μη γενοιτο is frequent in Paul but occurs in Luke too. The prayers show, perhaps surprisingly, that the optative, in a wide variety of verbs and in a variety of tenses and voices, was still alive and well in its proper optative function.
Exx. are δῴη (4x, as distinct from δώῃ subj., to which however I expect it owes its form), κατευθύναι (as distinct from κατευθῦναι inf.), παρακαλέσαι opt., επιτιμήσαι, οναιμην, πληθυνθειη, τηρηθειη. Plus at least three missed by Isaac (perhaps he or his source mistook them for infinitives), περισσεύσαι, ἁγιάσαι, and στηρίξαι, each in company with others.
So while only Luke retains the full range of classical usage, the optative as optative (prayer, wish, curse) was still current for most if not all of the letter-writers, its use extending well beyond the all-too-familiar (ὃ) μη γένοιτο.
Point out these many, many errors (so we can all learn something).
E.g.
Luke and only Luke uses the optative in the classical way, in historic sequence. (I am bracketing Acts with the so-called gospel of Luke.) This accounts for all instances of ειη and εχοι, εχοιεν, and for the instances of ποιησαιεν, δυναιμην, -ντο, ευροιεν, ευξαιμην, and one of γένοιτο. He also uses opt.+αν (τί αν θελοι twice), uniquely(?) among NT authors. It’s well known that Luke’s Greek is more educated than all other gospel-writers’ (canonical and non-canonical alike). It’s striking that such use is totally alien to Paul (unless we count idiomatic ει τuχοι twice in 1 Cor.) and all the other NT letter-writers.Most of the others are in Pauline (and “Pauline”) prayers, where naturally they tend to cluster (e.g. 1 Thess.3.11-12, 5.23). Opt. also in opening prayers in 1 and 2 Peter and Jude. Independent μη γενοιτο is frequent in Paul but occurs in Luke too. The prayers show, perhaps surprisingly, that the optative, in a wide of variety of verbs and in a variety of tenses and voices, was still alive and well in its proper optative function.
Exx. are δῴη (4x, as distinct from δώῃ subj., to which however I expect it owes its form), κατευθύναι (as distinct from κατευθῦναι inf.), παρακαλέσαι opt., επιτιμήσαι, οναιμην, πληθυνθειη, τηρηθειη. Plus at least three missed by Isaac (perhaps he or his source mistook them for infinitives), περισσεύσαι, ἁγιάσαι, and στηρίξαι, each in company with others.So while only Luke retains the full range of classical usage, the optative as optative (prayer, wish, curse) was still current for most if not all of the letter-writers, its use extending well beyond the familiar (ὂ) μη γένοιτο.
Interesting that you’re using my findings as a backdrop to make your arguments even though you claim my figures are “riddled with error.”
Semantic distinctions are not dependent on sound distinctions. Randall Buth reminded me of this eons ago. I had received an early demo of his restored koine system in the mail. I raised a question about blending omicron and omega into one sound.
Good point.
The optative in Hellenistic Greek: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3268663?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Use of the optative seems to be yet another connection between Luke and Josephus.
Regardless, I’m sorry for posting the audio and making this thread into another “What is the best way to pronounce ancient Greek?” discussion. I meant to illustrate what I’m hearing with Romans, and that I don’t hear elsewhere in the NT (or any other Greek that I’ve read).
Calvinist doesn’t need me to come to his defence, but this blindingly obvious fact (nothing is more sole-destroying than overcooking) misses his scarcely less obvious point, which was that the modern pronunciation “destroys” i.e. effaces the distinction among moods which remained graphically and semantically distinct but are now pronounced identically. Isaac’s response was hilariously obtuse: No it doesn’t, because they were pronounced identically!
@jeidsath. Off-topic though my last post also was, at least I have steered clear of “What is the best way to pronounce ancient Greek?” question. 
And I gave all I could to your topic.
Joel, I think the question of “What is the best way to pronounce Ancient Greek?” is a different question than the question of “How did the NT authors pronounce Greek?”. The former is a personal opinion, the latter is especially relevant to the topic at hand. I’m open to the idea that vowel length may have still been phonemic at the time, but I think the evidence against it is compelling. I do believe there is a “euphony” in the opening of Romans, as I hear something of what you’re talking about when I read it aloud with Buth’s pronunciation. I think it has to do with the numerous genitives as Stirling has pointed out, which of course all have either ου or ων and account for most of the long vowels. But, again, the question of how it was pronounced is very relevant if we want to discuss sonic qualities of the text.
For the readers’ edification here again is my actual statement:
"That by the time of Christ, [many of the] Koine verbs in the indicative and subjunctive moods were already being pronounced identically ? "
I’m also not surprised that mwh seems to be oblivious to the fact that Paul’s contemporaries most likely pronounced the following verbs identically :
λῡ́ω (indicative)
λῡ́ω (subjunctive)
λῡ́εις
λῡ́ῃς
λῡ́ει
λῡ́ῃ
λῡ́ομεν
λῡ́ωμεν
etc…
I agree (bold above).. Further, I bet the farm that the NT authors did not pronounce Greek using Erasmian, the 16th century Cuckoo lingo.
Am I right to say that you go by the name “ACInstructor” at Carm ?
In any case, you wrote flashily and flamboyantly (no doubt to impress readers), yet said very little of substance. I think your posts would carry more weight if they were not so pretentious.
I just don’t see how any serious person could think that Erasmain was ever actually spoken by the Greeks at any period of their history. This (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSluzkpuZ5A&list=PLKz_TV1qkWzkq8uRqqWIiwrXClL3uuujV) is apparently a good representative of the Erasmian system, yet all I hear from start to finish can be summarized at around the 55 second mark of the video - - crisp , somewhat shrill, bird like sounds ..“ouu, tu ku, cu cu..” I’m afraid that it’s rather bizarre . “Exotic” is the most charitable adjective I could think of to describe it.
The lingo reminds me a little of the sounds made by the !kung San Bushmen (perhaps because of the abrupt stops it incorporates, not so much the Bushmen clicks ) , with a tinge of old latin phonetics thrown into the mixture, and a few other hard to describe sounds. Even heard a Japanese sounding word (starting around the 40 second mark) .