So, it appears after much searching on the internet, that the only version of the Bible I can find that has both NT & OT together in one volume is an interlinear text featuring the KJV English version. Found at the following site:
http://septuagint-interlinear-greek-bible.com/
Has anyone ordered this, or seen this particular Bible? I’m very intrigued by it!!
John
The pronunciation guide is ludicrous! It makes Erasmus sound like a plagerizing hack. Listen to this:
http://septuagint-interlinear-greek-bible.com/pronsem1.mp3
Otherwise the texts are lovely.
Whoa there Equus! 
Biblical Greek should be pronounced differently than Classical Greek. No matter what the story behind how Erasmus came up with the reconstructed pronunciation (and there are many theories afloat) it doesn’t matter. Classical Greek (and Homeric Greek) were not pronounced as modern Greek. Koine though, biblical Greek, was pronounced almost exactly as modern Greek is.
Since therefore there are roughly two models of pronouncing it to choose from (different reconstructed ones and modern Greek) it is more “correct” to go with the modern Greek.
Mind you, I am not saying that someone who has learnt i.e. Homeric Greek should learn a different way of pronouncing Koine Greek; I don’t bother with utilising my knowledge of how to pronounce Homeric and Classical Greek (there are distinct differences between the two especially after the 400 - 300 BC) and use MG pronunciation after all
P.S. I can understand the “atonic” text, OK. I cannot for the life of me understand why they plan on using a monotonic (modern Greek after 1982) accent system though unless the reason is that it’s simpler to use for searching words maybe? Still puzzling though (if you visit myriobiblos, the Greek Orthodox Church’s site, you’ll see that all biblical exts are written using all the accent and breathing marks
I don’t like reading an interlinear Bible. The English words are so close to the Greek ones that it is almost impossible to read the Greek without being influenced by the English.
Hehe.
Naturally! By Classical Greek, we mean 5th century Attic, and the Greek of the Apostles was the Greek of the Romans. In the first century, some deviations had occurred from the Attic and very many from Homer, including the loss of pronunciation of subscript iota, the closing of omega and eta to parity with Latin long o and e respectively, epsilon + iota had closed to be identical to long iota, and zeta was just like the Modern. However, quantity was still recognized, including double consonants and long vowels, the only fricatives were sigma and zeta, and the rough breathing was still pronounced at least by some. The Koine of the Apostles rather resembled the Attic, though the divergence from Homer is distinct.
Málistá ge.
That modus agendi is just too limited for me. Since we have a very clear idea of Greek pronunciation in the first century, it appeals to me to read, for instance, the Greek of my namesake in the voice that he himself employed. Discriminating just two, very divergent pronunciations separated by 1000 years and an entire Roman Empire as the only “correct” models would devalue Greek as a much less colorful and complex entity than it truly is.
I do say.
Ok, I have to ask then! How many different pronunciations should one master for Ancient Greek?
P.S. The “correct” was in brackets to signify that, once again, my English failed me (my Greek too; I couldn’t think of the correct word to use in any language 
)
I am curious of what you guys think about this:
http://www.biblicalgreek.org/links/pronunciation.php
Would this be a good way to pronounce NT Koine? I wish I knew more Linguistics… or had a time machine…
As many as are required for accurate interpretation. It’s a fairly easy thing to switch between accents once you get used to it; I can switch between British, Irish, German, Italian, French, and various American accents in English at will, which comes from practice (usually for comic purposes). Just the same, I can change from an Ecclesiastical to a Classical Latin accent when I wish; I practice both with a friend of mine. For Greek, we have at least three significant sets in the ancient aeras: Homeric, Attic, and the Greek pronunciation of the Apostles, the same as the Greek of Classical Rome (Caesar to Augustus). Each represents about a century. Beyond that, we have the emergent Modern pronuntiation along with the Byzantine. I’d reckon that quantity were still important in the early Byzantine locution. So that’s about five main ones, which isn’t too many.
Easter, that chart leaves a lot to be desired, in my opinion.
That’s amæzing.
That chart seems to be based on the conclusions in http://biblicalulpan.org/PDF%20Files/PRONSYS1_US.pdf, which it also links to. If you haven’t read it already, it’s a good read as it shows how evidence is used to support the dating of the sound changes. But in general I don’t think there’s a scholarly consensus on when certain sound changes occurred, since I’ve come across all sorts of datings from very early to very late, and the evidence doesn’t seem to be very good once the spelling of words became fixed, so probably no one will ever no for sure, until you do get that time machine .
There are some errors in the table though, the worst probably being that neither the Historical Biblical Pronunciation nor the Modern use the French or German r, or maybe the Historic Attic Pronunciation of ευ, which was not that. It also pushes a number of technicalities under the carpet but I guess that’s to be expected in a chart.
When spelling became more fixed the amount of evidence you could find in a given document might be less but there is a huge amount of liturature to work with so that still amounts to quite a bit of total evidence.
Spelling (at least in English) is quite fixed but I often catch myself writing “there” instead of “their.” That could be used by future generations as evidence that these to words are pronounced the same.
That also goes for words like “no” and “know.”
I see what you’re saying, and I understand that misspellings are the primary way of tracking sound changes in Greek (followed by the transcription of words borrowed into and from Greek?), but I’ve always had a few troubles with things like, if so much of our material comes from Egypt, how do we distinguish whether something represents a particularity of Egyptian Greek, an influence from Coptic, or a genuine sound change that occurred throughout the Greek world, even in cases where this sound change matches what we know happened because of modern Greek? And then I’ve read many arguments about what the evidence means (e.g. writing β for Latin v in the first century AD might mean that β had the v sound already, but it might not mean that because once Latin v changed pronunciation, β would have been the best transcription anyway), and this has also made me skeptical of a final solution.
I’m also not sure what you mean by literature? I thought for dating purposes you have to limit yourself to texts that physically date to the period, since later manuscripts might reflect later changes. I’m thinking this means inscriptions and papyrus, but I don’t know how much of this there is.
I am also curious about something else. I have read a lot that the Latin ‘v’ is more of a ‘w’ sound. If that is true, how does that mean that the β was pronounced ‘vita’?
Late Latin’s v became a modern Greek’s β.
What we write as V in Classical Latin is all but identical to English W. This sound eventually changed to the present Spanish pronunciation of that letter, and finally to English V.