Wonderful work, I speak Brazilian Portuguese, and it is amazing how much we find greek structures, syntax, morphology, semantics in our day to day conversations. Greek is definitely a sacred language. No wonder it was chosen to write the New Testament. Keep the good work!
Estou tentando aprender essa língua, e esse canal t ajudado muito, a medida que vamos compreendendo o grego, aprendemos mais o próprio português do BRASIL. Onrigado
Maria, obrigado pelos comentários. Concordo com você que estudar outra língua nos ajuda a aprender melhor nossa língua materna! Grego é uma língua maravilhosa e fascinante, e fico feliz que você use meus vídeos para praticar grego. Bênção para você! - PZ
Thanks for another excellent video! I have a question about a random word I am having trouble pronouncing. Is the word ἔλλειψις pronounced something like el-lee-psees...... with the emphasis on the first syllable? Also, is the diphthong ει and the vowel "ι" in this word pronounced identically? Thanks in advance.
I was wondering if you could provide some arguments for including the doxology "ὅτι σοῦ ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία καὶ ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοῦς αἰῶνας" to verse 13, I see it is included in older versions like the KJV but is omitted in modern versions like NIV, ESV. Apparently, older manuscripts found in more recent times don't include the doxology, additionally, early church fathers don't mention it. Thank you for your work!
Hello, ChumX100, Translators who used the Byzantine text, e.g., for the KJV, were faithful to the (majority of the) manuscripts they had at the time, which included the doxology at the end of the Lord's Prayer. By the same token, translators who used the Alexandrian manuscripts were faithful to the more recently discovered manuscripts available to them, which did not include the doxology part of the Lord's Prayer. My position is, If it is there, do not take it out; and if it is not there, do not add it. That is a matter of a footnote. Nor can I say that the older the manuscript the more reliable. After all, whether Byzantine or Alexandrian type, all manuscripts are practically about the same "age." We should all be thankful that both "earlier" and "later" manuscripts are nearly 100% alike, and any differences between them do not affect doctrine. That in itself is miraculous. -PZ
How does a Greek differentiate ἡμεῖς from ὑμεῖς? If someone wanted to speak Κοινή, how would they distinguish a phrase like δὸς ἡμῖν from δὸς ὑμῖν? Thank you.
Thank you, dear Niko Caraballo, for your question. In Κοινή "Koine" the personal pronoun forms ἡμεῖς, ἡμῶν, ἡμῖν, ἡμᾶς (first person) and ὑμεῖς, ὑμῶν, ὑμῖν, ὑμᾶς (second person) sounded alike. To differentiate between the first and the second person, one needed to see or hear these forms in context. For example, in the sentence, ἡμεῖς πεπιστεύκαμεν καὶ ἐγνώκαμεν ὅτι σὺ εἶ ὁ Ἅγιος τοῦ Θεοῦ (John 6:69), ἡμεῖς (subject) is followed by two verbs, both in the first person plural. That leaves no room for doubt as to who the doer (subject) of the action is: ἡμεῖς "we." Likewise, δὸς ἡμῖν "give us" in the Lord's Prayer (Matt. 6:11) could not be confused with δὸς ὑμῖν "give to you" because the context dictates that we, as the petitioners, are asking God to provide something for us-and not for Himself! Even today, a Greek couple may use the Koine form ὑμῶν in saying to some friends who are leaving their house, ὁ Θεὸς μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν without the slightest doubt in the minds of the departing firends that the couple did not mean "God [be] with us" but rather "God [be] wih you." Actually something of the same nature is observed in English when it comes to the use of the pronoun "you" or "your(s)." Suppose, for example, that you were about to take a quiz in a classroom along with a dozen other classmates and I, the instructor, said to the class, "Please remove all your books from the table." I am sure that each student would surmise that by "your" I was addressing the whole class collectively. If, however, you were the only student who had not yet put your books away, the situational context-whether a direct eye contact, nod, or smile-would have indicated to you that "your" applied specifically to one person: you. Bottom line: without a context, any word would be technically meaningless. So, how would one in NT times differentiate between ἡμεῖς, ἡμῖν and ὑμεῖς, ὑμῖν? Simple: By the context. -PZ
@@PhilemonZachariou That was the best explanation I've ever come across regarding these pronouns. Thank you so much for the excellent lesson, professor! I'm an advocate of the modern/historical pronunciation of Koine Greek, and it's hard to find materials (grammars, audios, etc.) with the modern pronunciation. Most of them use the Erasmian pronunciation. That's why your work is extremely important. I'll be reading your book soon. It's already on my reading list for this year. All the best!
You do an excellent job explaining the Greek grammar! The Jehovah Witnesses, translate John 1:1, "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God and the word was God." Their translation adds an article in front of theos to read, "...and the word was with God and the word was [a] god." This drastically changes the nature of the person of theos and logos. Is it grammatically possible that John 1:1 can be translated "...and the word was a god?"
No, my friend, it is not possible to translate θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος "the Word was a god." Where is the indefinite article "a" in the Greek text? Greek does not even have an indefinite article (a, an) as does English. Greek ὁ means "the," which is the definite article that goes with the subject λόγος. When in Greek you see a construct in which you have two nouns (here λόγος and θεός), with the one noun being articular (with the definite article) and the other one anarthrous (without the definite article) and the two nouns are joined with the verb "to be" ( ἦν "was"), the anarthrous noun, being in the predicate (i.e., not the subject) becomes adjectival in function, meaning that it describes the articular noun. What θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος in John 1:1 means is that the Person of the Word was everything that the Person of God the Father was in nature, substance, mode of being, attributes, and so on. Inserting the indefinite article "a" in English is arbitrary and unfounded. It simple speaks of a lack of understanding this area of Greek grammar. (Please let me know if you would like me to elaborate further.) -PZ
@@PhilemonZachariou Yes! Make an in-depth video please. Can you show in other places where this rule is applied? It's mind-blowing to me that Greek grammar has a construct like this to convey such a profound idea that even though a sentence can have to subject nouns in a sentence (e.g., Theos and Logos are both subject nouns, ending in "OS"), that God (without the definite article) is an anarthrous noun," [making God] "...adjectival in function. God is not the subject-focus, but the Word: Jesus! That's profound, that Logos is really the subject of focus, "What θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος in John 1:1 means is that the Person of the Word was everything that the Person of God the Father was in nature, substance, mode of being, attributes. That's amazing. This is really important Greek rule, f not the most important Greek lesson, a person could ever learn.
I would add this for now, which is an excerpt from one of my books. -PZ The sentence θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος can be arranged six different ways without a change in meaning. In each of the six ways, ὁ λόγος remains S, and θεός PN. John chose to use #1. 1. θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (PN-V-S); 2. θεὸς ὁ λόγος ἦν (PN-S-V); 3. ἦν θεὸς ὁ λόγος (V-PN-S); 4. ἦν ὁ λόγος θεός (V-S-PN); 5. ὁ λόγος ἦν θεός (S-V-PN); 6. ὁ λόγος θεὸς ἦν (S-PN-V). This flexibility of the Greek syntax, however, can pose challenges to translation in English. For one thing, in English the subject is typically placed at the beginning of the sentence. So when θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (#1) is translated the Word was God, the word order in English looks reversed. John could have certainly written ὁ λόγος ἦν θεός (#5), which would have fit the English word order. But John meant to place θεός at the beginning of the sentence for a reason: to emphasize the divine nature of λόγος. Thus the word order in θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος is the same as in President is now my son!, where President is placed at the beginning of the sentence for effect. Just as President describes my son, so does θεός describe ὁ λόγος. Note: An anarthrous Greek noun (in this case, θεός) is not necessarily indefinite and therefore in need of the indefinite article "a" in translation. Else, Jn 1:6 would be translated, "John was sent by a god"; and Jn 1:18, "No one has ever seen a god." Imposing equivalency in translation is like altering the original text.
Hello, Ryan, I am not sure whether or not you have seen video #15 "God Was the Word," but I had your request in mind when I put it together. Thanks for the idea! -PZ
(Παρακαλώ ενημερώστε με αν αυτὀ εδώ το κείμενο χρειάζεται να μεταφρσθεί στα Ελληνικά.) Friend, you are correct that the translation "daily bread" for Greek ἐπιούσιον (accusative of ἐπιούσιος) in "The Lord's Prayer" as recorded in Matthew 6:11 and Luke 11:3 is not quite accurate, but neither is it inaccurate enough to be misleading. So, what is an accurate translation of ἐπιούσιον? Because of lack of space here, I will get to the point quickly, but please bear with me a moment as I find it necessary to clear the way with some clarifications. First, this compound Greek word occurs only in these two verses in the NT, so we rely more on context than on the literal meaning of its parts. Some scholars associate ἐπιούσιος with ἐπιοῦσα "next day," i.e., the day that is upon us, the coming day. But then the meaning would be something like, "Give us today our bread of tomorrow." That, of course, makes no good sense, especially in light of what Jesus says in Matthew 6:34: " Do not therefore be anxious about tomorrow. . ." Here I will take a shortcut, else I will be writing a lengthy treatise. As already mentioned, ἐπιούσιον is a compound word made up of the preposition ἐπί "upon" + a word associated with οὐσία "substance." So some understand ἐπιούσιον to mean literally "supersubstantial." Now let us translate again: "Give us this day our supersubstantial bread." Again, nonsense. Finally, let's look at the context: Since (1) bread (not hamburger!) is an essential staple for our daily sustenance-bread in NT times was probably considered more of the main daily staple than it is considered in our modern culture today; and (2) bread is literally and metaphorically a good representative of the "daily substance" we need to stave off hunger pangs quickly, inexpensively, and effectively, a safe way to understand the meaning of τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δὸς ἡμῖν σήμερον is a paraphrase, for the sake of close equivalence, "Give us this day our bread of sustenance." This "translation" implies that we are not asking God to provide us, as it were, with a down payment for tomorrow's survival, nor are we audaciously asking God for anything in excess of what may be necessary for our daily living. All we are doing is petition humbly that God would keep us from day to day. Anything in "excess" of what we receive is God's department! So, is the standard translation "daily bread" off limits? I would say, translationally, yes, it is off; pragmatically, though, it is close. What matters is that we understand that Jesus taught us to depend on God for our daily sustenance by asking Him, who is “the Bread of Life," to provide just the substance that meets our daily need. I hope this not-so-brief response is of some help. -PZ
Hello, Lee Quino, The verb ἀφήκαμεν [afikamen] is aorist (past tense) meaning "we forgave," while ἀφίεμεν [afiemen] is present tense meaning "we forgive." Either way, they are the same verb, ἀφίημι. Ἀφήκαμεν is based on the Alexandrian text-type manuscripts, while ἀφίεμεν is based on the Byzantine text-type (Textus Receptus (TR)) text-type manuscripts, the latter being also the text used for the King James version. Obviously, my reading of the Lord's Prayer is based on the TR version. -PZ
@@PhilemonZachariou thank you very much Dr. Zachariou. It is now clear to me. Your video on the Lord's Prayer, as well as your explanation now, opened my eyes. Your explanation guided me to check all Tagalog/Filipino translation of the Lord's Prayer. I am from the Philippines and sometimes attending in the EP parish church here.
Friend, your question is too broad to address here. Such issues are dealt with in my new book, Reading and Pronouncing Biblical Greek: Historical Pronunciation versus Erasmian (Wipf & Stock Publishers, Aug. 10, 2021). In any case, I will give you a couple of snippets from my book that will show you that phonological developments were at work much before classical times (500-300 BC); and that such changes are not made on purpose but come about "naturally." Bear in mind that prior to 403 BC, the Attic dialect did not have a definitive alphabet. Inscriptions prior to the mid-fifth century BC, for example, did not have Ωω or Ηη. The letter then E represented E [e] and H [i] sounds, and the letter O represented O[o] and OY[u] sounds. H and Ω were initially borrowed from the Ionians and used in versification, and later (403 BC) they were officially introduced in Attic writing. Athenians simply adopted the Ionian alphabet so they could show grammatical distinctions by the various alphabet symbols. Classical Athens did not invent any new sounds. The merging of ι, η, υ, ει, υι, οι into the [i] sound (a phenomenon known as iotacism or itacism) took place over many centuries prior to Classical Attic. So classical Athens was the recipient-not the inventor-of such changes. Here are some excerpts: οι, ι. Thucydides (460-395 BC) informs us that the Athenians were uncertain whether an oracle had warned of λοιμός plague or λιμός famine (cf. Luke 21:11). The oracle said, ἥξει Δωριακὸς πόλεμος καὶ λοιμὸς ἅμ᾽ αὐτῷ There will come a Dorian war and a plague with it. Sturtevant however attempts to explain away the Athenians’ confusion through Thucydides’ remarks surrounding the historical background of the oracle: “If the two words had been pronounced alike,” remarks Sturtevant, “there could have been no dis-agreement as to what had been ‘said’.” But that is exactly the point: there was confusion among the Athenians, and the confusion could not have come about if λοιμός sounded different from λιμός (e.g., like Allen’s “mixed diphthong” [oi] in toy or coin). That οι at any rate is confused with ι in classical times is supported also by the fact that οι inter-changes as well with ει and which, since earlier times, sounded like ι (cf. above table). υ, ι. Evidence of υ = ι in the late archaic period (from 600 BC) is cited by Threatte, e.g., Ἀριστονίμο for Ἀριστονύμο, Διονισιγένες for Διονυσιγένες, Τύρινθι for Τίρυνθι, etc., with words such as ἤμυσυ for ἤμισυ, Εὐτιχίς for Εὐτυχίς, Σύρυλα for Σύριλλα being attributed to assimilation. The confusion of υ and ι is further corroborated by the fact that υ interchanges with η and οι, both of which had also begun to acquire the sound of ι already by the 4th c. BC; and that υ interchanges also with ει by the 5th c. BC. Timayenis says that in the 6th c. BC “the pronunciation of υ as an ι was not unknown to the ancients” and cites δρίος for δρύον, μόλιβος and μολύβδαινα, τρυφάλεια for τριφάλεια, μυστίλλω for μιστύλλω, μίτυλος for μύτιλος, βύβλος for βίβλος, ῥύπτω for ῥίπτω, ψιμύθιον for ψιμίθιον, πύστις for πίστις, ἵψος for ὕψος, ἱψηλός for ὑψηλός, ἱπέρ for ὑπέρ, ἱπαρ for ὑπαρ, all of which “show how easily υ was exchanged with ι.” The foregoing samples of spelling errors speak of a phonological process known as iotacism (or itacism). The term originally described the pronunciation of η as iota ι [i] but is now used to include other letters used for this sound. Clearly, the effects of iotacism are traceable to classical times; its origins, to pre-classical. Iotacism may be illustrated thus: . . . (image not shown clearly) . . . Robertson refers to the evidence of iotacism in the 1st c. BC in Attica, saying that αι = æ, ει = ι, η = ι, υ = ι, υι = υ, οι = ι, and that “in Attica in the first century B.C., in spite of Archinos’ law, the inscriptions use sometimes αι and αε, ει and ι, η and ι, υ and ι, υ and υι, ι and ει interchangeably.” Like Blass, however, Robertson makes no allusion to the classical or pre-classical origins of iotacism. αι, ε and ω, ο. Concurrent with iotacism was the leveling of αι = ε and ω = ο. Blass holds that “the confusion of αι and ε began in ii BC according to the testimony of the papyri,” and that of ω = ο “appeared the earliest iii/ii BC.” However, the testimony that predates the papyri traces αι = ε and ω = ο to 4th-5th c. BC. The interchange of αι (æ) and ε in classical times can be seen in words such as Ἀρισταίου for Ἀριστέου, 450 BC; πεδίαρχος for παιδίαρχος, 4th c. BC; Ἐλέρα for Ἐλαίρα, 5th c. BC. The addition of ι after αι in Ἐλαιῖται 452 BC, ἐλαίινος 378 BC, Ἀθηναιικόν 300 BC further confirms that αι was pronounced as ε. That αι was pronounced monophthongally in classical times is supported also by the fact that in Boeotia borrowed monoliteral Ionic η before 400 BC was used in place of αι, as in χΗρε for χαῖρε, ΘειβΗος for Θειβαῖος, κΗ for καί, θεράπΗνα for θεράπαινα, etc. Robertson concurs. The interchange of ω and ο is seen from the mid-5th c. BC when Attic borrowed Ionic ω. Allen curiously places the equation ω = ο 600-700 years later, saying that the distinction between “long” ω and “short” ο in pronunciation began to disappear “[i]n the 2-3 c. AD . . . and consequently o and ω began to be confused in spelling.” The inscriptional evidence, however, does not support Allen’s claim. See, for instance, A8, where Ω interchanges with Ο in 5th/4th c. BC. Likewise, we see Σάμων for Σάμον (433/2 BC), λιπόν for λιπών (326 ΒC), Διώνυσος for Διόνυσος, and Δίφιλως for Δίφιλος (5th-4th c. BC).
It is "Modern" Greek. But be sure you understand that the phonemic sounds of today's mainstream Greek are not "modern" (they were not formed in modern times) but historical. In this sense, I will say to you that the pronunciation in this video is the Historical Greek Pronunciation (HGP) whose phonemic sounds are preserved in today's Greek. Whenever I pray this prayer I am in awe that the Lord Himself prayed this prayer in pretty much the same way! Thank you for your expressed interest. -PZ
(Edited) Dear Wind Face, I appreciate your question. Yes, New Testament (NT) Greek words that begin with a vowel have either a comma-like symbol ( ᾽ ) or a reverse comma-like symbol over them. Such symbols may be accompanied by an accent mark or some other symbol. Please know that these symbols are meaningless. Just IGNORE them. It would take me a few long paragraphs to explain what these symbols mean, where they originated, why they are still being used today, etc., but instead I will give you a very brief response which, I hope, will satisfy your question for now. If you wish to know more about these symbols, please write me at NTGreek@att.net, and I will be glad to explain things to you in greater detail. So, my brief response here is this: The NT scriptures had no such symbols. These symbols were added to Byzantine Greek manuscripts starting in the 7th century, and from the 13th century on they became obligatory. The comma-like symbols are supposed to represent breathing or non-breathing. For example, if the comma-like symbol faces to the right, it means that you have to start pronouncing that word with the sound "h" as in "have." But please know that no NT Greek word was pronounced that way. Unfortunately, old theories about the way NT Greek was pronounced still hold sway today. Modern Greek, too, used those symbols until 1982. The Greek government then decided to drop those symbols because they were useless and made Greek more complicated to learn. I use those symbols in my videos because I want the NT text to look "normal." Today those symbols are still being used in print, although you can find Greek New Testaments that do not use those breathing marks. Fortunately, the meaning of the NT scriptures, with or without those symbols, is still the same. In other words, these breathing symbols are useless even though they are still used in the printed text today. I hope this helps. -PZ
Wonderful work, I speak Brazilian Portuguese, and it is amazing how much we find greek structures, syntax, morphology, semantics in our day to day conversations. Greek is definitely a sacred language. No wonder it was chosen to write the New Testament. Keep the good work!
Many thanks for your insightful view of Greek and for your encouraging words! -PZ
This just came up in my feed! I'm so happy to have found it; it helps me continue to practice what I have learned in my Greek classes! Ευχαριστώ!
Thank you! -PZ
God bless you for your excelent work.
Thank you kindly! -PZ
Estou tentando aprender essa língua, e esse canal t ajudado muito, a medida que vamos compreendendo o grego, aprendemos mais o próprio português do BRASIL.
Onrigado
OBRIGADO
Maria, obrigado pelos comentários. Concordo com você que estudar outra língua nos ajuda a aprender melhor nossa língua materna! Grego é uma língua maravilhosa e fascinante, e fico feliz que você use meus vídeos para praticar grego. Bênção para você! - PZ
Well done. covered all the important points
Thanks! -PZ
Excellent Phil - please keep making these videos teaching us how to read Greek. Your videos help me so much. Your friend - John from New York
Will do! Thanks! -PZ
Αμήν ☦️🙏🏽
Excellent- THANK YOU!
You are welcome! -PZ
Thanks for another excellent video! I have a question about a random word I am having trouble pronouncing. Is the word ἔλλειψις pronounced something like el-lee-psees...... with the emphasis on the first syllable? Also, is the diphthong ει and the vowel "ι" in this word pronounced identically? Thanks in advance.
Friend, you are correct on all counts. -PZ
@@PhilemonZachariou Thanks very much for your response :).
Efkharisto Para Poly, Armenese eme
Thank you! -PZ
I was wondering if you could provide some arguments for including the doxology "ὅτι σοῦ ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία καὶ ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοῦς αἰῶνας" to verse 13, I see it is included in older versions like the KJV but is omitted in modern versions like NIV, ESV. Apparently, older manuscripts found in more recent times don't include the doxology, additionally, early church fathers don't mention it. Thank you for your work!
Hello, ChumX100, Translators who used the Byzantine text, e.g., for the KJV, were faithful to the (majority of the) manuscripts they had at the time, which included the doxology at the end of the Lord's Prayer. By the same token, translators who used the Alexandrian manuscripts were faithful to the more recently discovered manuscripts available to them, which did not include the doxology part of the Lord's Prayer. My position is, If it is there, do not take it out; and if it is not there, do not add it. That is a matter of a footnote. Nor can I say that the older the manuscript the more reliable. After all, whether Byzantine or Alexandrian type, all manuscripts are practically about the same "age." We should all be thankful that both "earlier" and "later" manuscripts are nearly 100% alike, and any differences between them do not affect doctrine. That in itself is miraculous. -PZ
Gracias por pronunciación! Me encanto que vivo una era de internet que puedo aprender la lengua antigua griega de koine😁😁 muchicimas gracias~
De nada. Estoy agradecido de poder ser fundamental para llegar a personas como usted. -PZ
Helped my daughter a lot
Good news. Thanks for sharing! -PZ
How does a Greek differentiate ἡμεῖς from ὑμεῖς? If someone wanted to speak Κοινή, how would they distinguish a phrase like δὸς ἡμῖν from δὸς ὑμῖν? Thank you.
Thank you, dear Niko Caraballo, for your question. In Κοινή "Koine" the personal pronoun forms ἡμεῖς, ἡμῶν, ἡμῖν, ἡμᾶς (first person) and ὑμεῖς, ὑμῶν, ὑμῖν, ὑμᾶς (second person) sounded alike. To differentiate between the first and the second person, one needed to see or hear these forms in context. For example, in the sentence, ἡμεῖς πεπιστεύκαμεν καὶ ἐγνώκαμεν ὅτι σὺ εἶ ὁ Ἅγιος τοῦ Θεοῦ (John 6:69), ἡμεῖς (subject) is followed by two verbs, both in the first person plural. That leaves no room for doubt as to who the doer (subject) of the action is: ἡμεῖς "we." Likewise, δὸς ἡμῖν "give us" in the Lord's Prayer (Matt. 6:11) could not be confused with δὸς ὑμῖν "give to you" because the context dictates that we, as the petitioners, are asking God to provide something for us-and not for Himself! Even today, a Greek couple may use the Koine form ὑμῶν in saying to some friends who are leaving their house, ὁ Θεὸς μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν without the slightest doubt in the minds of the departing firends that the couple did not mean "God [be] with us" but rather "God [be] wih you." Actually something of the same nature is observed in English when it comes to the use of the pronoun "you" or "your(s)." Suppose, for example, that you were about to take a quiz in a classroom along with a dozen other classmates and I, the instructor, said to the class, "Please remove all your books from the table." I am sure that each student would surmise that by "your" I was addressing the whole class collectively. If, however, you were the only student who had not yet put your books away, the situational context-whether a direct eye contact, nod, or smile-would have indicated to you that "your" applied specifically to one person: you. Bottom line: without a context, any word would be technically meaningless. So, how would one in NT times differentiate between ἡμεῖς, ἡμῖν and ὑμεῖς, ὑμῖν? Simple: By the context. -PZ
@@PhilemonZachariou Εὐχαριστῶ, διδάσκαλε!
@@PhilemonZachariou That was the best explanation I've ever come across regarding these pronouns. Thank you so much for the excellent lesson, professor! I'm an advocate of the modern/historical pronunciation of Koine Greek, and it's hard to find materials (grammars, audios, etc.) with the modern pronunciation. Most of them use the Erasmian pronunciation. That's why your work is extremely important. I'll be reading your book soon. It's already on my reading list for this year.
All the best!
Thank you for your kind words and positive feedback! -PZ
Thank you!
You're welcome! -PZ
amazing
Thank you! -PZ
You do an excellent job explaining the Greek grammar! The Jehovah Witnesses, translate John 1:1, "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God and the word was God." Their translation adds an article in front of theos to read, "...and the word was with God and the word was [a] god." This drastically changes the nature of the person of theos and logos. Is it grammatically possible that John 1:1 can be translated "...and the word was a god?"
No, my friend, it is not possible to translate θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος "the Word was a god." Where is the indefinite article "a" in the Greek text? Greek does not even have an indefinite article (a, an) as does English. Greek ὁ means "the," which is the definite article that goes with the subject λόγος. When in Greek you see a construct in which you have two nouns (here λόγος and θεός), with the one noun being articular (with the definite article) and the other one anarthrous (without the definite article) and the two nouns are joined with the verb "to be" ( ἦν "was"), the anarthrous noun, being in the predicate (i.e., not the subject) becomes adjectival in function, meaning that it describes the articular noun. What θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος in John 1:1 means is that the Person of the Word was everything that the Person of God the Father was in nature, substance, mode of being, attributes, and so on. Inserting the indefinite article "a" in English is arbitrary and unfounded. It simple speaks of a lack of understanding this area of Greek grammar. (Please let me know if you would like me to elaborate further.) -PZ
@@PhilemonZachariou Yes! Make an in-depth video please. Can you show in other places where this rule is applied? It's mind-blowing to me that Greek grammar has a construct like this to convey such a profound idea that even though a sentence can have to subject nouns in a sentence (e.g., Theos and Logos are both subject nouns, ending in "OS"), that God (without the definite article) is an anarthrous noun," [making God] "...adjectival in function. God is not the subject-focus, but the Word: Jesus! That's profound, that Logos is really the subject of focus, "What θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος in John 1:1 means is that the Person of the Word was everything that the Person of God the Father was in nature, substance, mode of being, attributes. That's amazing. This is really important Greek rule, f not the most important Greek lesson, a person could ever learn.
I would add this for now, which is an excerpt from one of my books. -PZ
The sentence θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος can be arranged six different ways without a change in meaning. In each of the six ways, ὁ λόγος remains S, and θεός PN. John chose to use #1.
1. θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (PN-V-S); 2. θεὸς ὁ λόγος ἦν (PN-S-V); 3. ἦν θεὸς ὁ λόγος (V-PN-S); 4. ἦν ὁ λόγος θεός (V-S-PN); 5. ὁ λόγος ἦν θεός (S-V-PN); 6. ὁ λόγος θεὸς ἦν (S-PN-V).
This flexibility of the Greek syntax, however, can pose challenges to translation in English. For one thing, in English the subject is typically placed at the beginning of the sentence. So when θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (#1) is translated the Word was God, the word order in English looks reversed. John could have certainly written ὁ λόγος ἦν θεός (#5), which would have fit the English word order. But John meant to place θεός at the beginning of the sentence for a reason: to emphasize the divine nature of λόγος. Thus the word order in θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος is the same as in President is now my son!, where President is placed at the beginning of the sentence for effect. Just as President describes my son, so does θεός describe ὁ λόγος.
Note: An anarthrous Greek noun (in this case, θεός) is not necessarily indefinite and therefore in need of the indefinite article "a" in translation. Else, Jn 1:6 would be translated, "John was sent by a god"; and Jn 1:18, "No one has ever seen a god." Imposing equivalency in translation is like altering the original text.
Hello, Ryan, I am not sure whether or not you have seen video #15 "God Was the Word," but I had your request in mind when I put it together. Thanks for the idea! -PZ
Hi Professor. Σας παρακαλώ εξηγείτε το νόιμα της λέξης "επιούσιο" στο βιδεο. Πολούς μεταφράζουν "Daily" bread. I don't think that is right
(Παρακαλώ ενημερώστε με αν αυτὀ εδώ το κείμενο χρειάζεται να μεταφρσθεί στα Ελληνικά.) Friend, you are correct that the translation "daily bread" for Greek ἐπιούσιον (accusative of ἐπιούσιος) in "The Lord's Prayer" as recorded in Matthew 6:11 and Luke 11:3 is not quite accurate, but neither is it inaccurate enough to be misleading. So, what is an accurate translation of ἐπιούσιον? Because of lack of space here, I will get to the point quickly, but please bear with me a moment as I find it necessary to clear the way with some clarifications. First, this compound Greek word occurs only in these two verses in the NT, so we rely more on context than on the literal meaning of its parts. Some scholars associate ἐπιούσιος with ἐπιοῦσα "next day," i.e., the day that is upon us, the coming day. But then the meaning would be something like, "Give us today our bread of tomorrow." That, of course, makes no good sense, especially in light of what Jesus says in Matthew 6:34: " Do not therefore be anxious about tomorrow. . ." Here I will take a shortcut, else I will be writing a lengthy treatise. As already mentioned, ἐπιούσιον is a compound word made up of the preposition ἐπί "upon" + a word associated with οὐσία "substance." So some understand ἐπιούσιον to mean literally "supersubstantial." Now let us translate again: "Give us this day our supersubstantial bread." Again, nonsense. Finally, let's look at the context: Since (1) bread (not hamburger!) is an essential staple for our daily sustenance-bread in NT times was probably considered more of the main daily staple than it is considered in our modern culture today; and (2) bread is literally and metaphorically a good representative of the "daily substance" we need to stave off hunger pangs quickly, inexpensively, and effectively, a safe way to understand the meaning of τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δὸς ἡμῖν σήμερον is a paraphrase, for the sake of close equivalence, "Give us this day our bread of sustenance." This "translation" implies that we are not asking God to provide us, as it were, with a down payment for tomorrow's survival, nor are we audaciously asking God for anything in excess of what may be necessary for our daily living. All we are doing is petition humbly that God would keep us from day to day. Anything in "excess" of what we receive is God's department! So, is the standard translation "daily bread" off limits? I would say, translationally, yes, it is off; pragmatically, though, it is close. What matters is that we understand that Jesus taught us to depend on God for our daily sustenance by asking Him, who is “the Bread of Life," to provide just the substance that meets our daily need. I hope this not-so-brief response is of some help. -PZ
Why in the Bible text it is ἀφήκαμεν instead of afiemen?
Hello, Lee Quino, The verb ἀφήκαμεν [afikamen] is aorist (past tense) meaning "we forgave," while ἀφίεμεν [afiemen] is present tense meaning "we forgive." Either way, they are the same verb, ἀφίημι. Ἀφήκαμεν is based on the Alexandrian text-type manuscripts, while ἀφίεμεν is based on the Byzantine text-type (Textus Receptus (TR)) text-type manuscripts, the latter being also the text used for the King James version. Obviously, my reading of the Lord's Prayer is based on the TR version. -PZ
@@PhilemonZachariou thank you very much Dr. Zachariou. It is now clear to me. Your video on the Lord's Prayer, as well as your explanation now, opened my eyes. Your explanation guided me to check all Tagalog/Filipino translation of the Lord's Prayer. I am from the Philippines and sometimes attending in the EP parish church here.
How nice of you to share this. Thank you! -PZ
Well then: if every word was pronunciated with "i", why was introduced into the greek alphabet the "η" and "υ" letters?
Friend, your question is too broad to address here. Such issues are dealt with in my new book, Reading and Pronouncing Biblical Greek: Historical Pronunciation versus Erasmian (Wipf & Stock Publishers, Aug. 10, 2021). In any case, I will give you a couple of snippets from my book that will show you that phonological developments were at work much before classical times (500-300 BC); and that such changes are not made on purpose but come about "naturally." Bear in mind that prior to 403 BC, the Attic dialect did not have a definitive alphabet. Inscriptions prior to the mid-fifth century BC, for example, did not have Ωω or Ηη. The letter then E represented E [e] and H [i] sounds, and the letter O represented O[o] and OY[u] sounds. H and Ω were initially borrowed from the Ionians and used in versification, and later (403 BC) they were officially introduced in Attic writing. Athenians simply adopted the Ionian alphabet so they could show grammatical distinctions by the various alphabet symbols. Classical Athens did not invent any new sounds. The merging of ι, η, υ, ει, υι, οι into the [i] sound (a phenomenon known as iotacism or itacism) took place over many centuries prior to Classical Attic. So classical Athens was the recipient-not the inventor-of such changes.
Here are some excerpts:
οι, ι. Thucydides (460-395 BC) informs us that the Athenians were uncertain whether an oracle had warned of λοιμός plague or λιμός famine (cf. Luke 21:11). The oracle said, ἥξει Δωριακὸς πόλεμος καὶ λοιμὸς ἅμ᾽ αὐτῷ There will come a Dorian war and a plague with it. Sturtevant however attempts to explain away the Athenians’ confusion through Thucydides’ remarks surrounding the historical background of the oracle: “If the two words had been pronounced alike,” remarks Sturtevant, “there could have been no dis-agreement as to what had been ‘said’.” But that is exactly the point: there was confusion among the Athenians, and the confusion could not have come about if λοιμός sounded different from λιμός (e.g., like Allen’s “mixed diphthong” [oi] in toy or coin). That οι at any rate is confused with ι in classical times is supported also by the fact that οι inter-changes as well with ει and which, since earlier times, sounded like ι (cf. above table).
υ, ι. Evidence of υ = ι in the late archaic period (from 600 BC) is cited by Threatte, e.g., Ἀριστονίμο for Ἀριστονύμο, Διονισιγένες for Διονυσιγένες, Τύρινθι for Τίρυνθι, etc., with words such as ἤμυσυ for ἤμισυ, Εὐτιχίς for Εὐτυχίς, Σύρυλα for Σύριλλα being attributed to assimilation. The confusion of υ and ι is further corroborated by the fact that υ interchanges with η and οι, both of which had also begun to acquire the sound of ι already by the 4th c. BC; and that υ interchanges also with ει by the 5th c. BC. Timayenis says that in the 6th c. BC “the pronunciation of υ as an ι was not unknown to the ancients” and cites δρίος for δρύον, μόλιβος and μολύβδαινα, τρυφάλεια for τριφάλεια, μυστίλλω for μιστύλλω, μίτυλος for μύτιλος, βύβλος for βίβλος, ῥύπτω for ῥίπτω, ψιμύθιον for ψιμίθιον, πύστις for πίστις, ἵψος for ὕψος, ἱψηλός for ὑψηλός, ἱπέρ for ὑπέρ, ἱπαρ for ὑπαρ, all of which “show how easily υ was exchanged with ι.”
The foregoing samples of spelling errors speak of a phonological process known as iotacism (or itacism). The term originally described the pronunciation of η as iota ι [i] but is now used to include other letters used for this sound. Clearly, the effects of iotacism are traceable to classical times; its origins, to pre-classical. Iotacism may be illustrated thus:
. . . (image not shown clearly) . . .
Robertson refers to the evidence of iotacism in the 1st c. BC in Attica, saying that
αι = æ, ει = ι, η = ι, υ = ι, υι = υ, οι = ι, and that “in Attica in the first century B.C., in spite of Archinos’ law, the inscriptions use sometimes αι and αε, ει and ι, η and ι, υ and ι, υ and υι, ι and ει interchangeably.” Like Blass, however, Robertson makes no allusion to the classical or pre-classical origins of iotacism.
αι, ε and ω, ο. Concurrent with iotacism was the leveling of αι = ε and ω = ο. Blass holds that “the confusion of αι and ε began in ii BC according to the testimony of the papyri,” and that of ω = ο “appeared the earliest iii/ii BC.” However, the testimony that predates the papyri traces αι = ε and ω = ο to 4th-5th c. BC. The interchange of αι (æ) and ε in classical times can be seen in words such as Ἀρισταίου for Ἀριστέου, 450 BC; πεδίαρχος for παιδίαρχος, 4th c. BC; Ἐλέρα for Ἐλαίρα, 5th c. BC. The addition of ι after αι in Ἐλαιῖται 452 BC, ἐλαίινος 378 BC, Ἀθηναιικόν 300 BC further confirms that αι was pronounced as ε. That αι was pronounced monophthongally in classical times is supported also by the fact that in Boeotia borrowed monoliteral Ionic η before 400 BC was used in place of αι, as in χΗρε for χαῖρε, ΘειβΗος for Θειβαῖος, κΗ for καί, θεράπΗνα for θεράπαινα, etc. Robertson concurs.
The interchange of ω and ο is seen from the mid-5th c. BC when Attic borrowed Ionic ω. Allen curiously places the equation ω = ο 600-700 years later, saying that the distinction between “long” ω and “short” ο in pronunciation began to disappear “[i]n the 2-3 c. AD . . . and consequently o and ω began to be confused in spelling.” The inscriptional evidence, however, does not support Allen’s claim. See, for instance, A8, where Ω interchanges with Ο in 5th/4th c. BC. Likewise, we see Σάμων for Σάμον (433/2 BC), λιπόν for λιπών (326 ΒC), Διώνυσος for Διόνυσος, and Δίφιλως for Δίφιλος (5th-4th c. BC).
@@PhilemonZachariou Thank You!
2:28
is it modern greek?
It is "Modern" Greek. But be sure you understand that the phonemic sounds of today's mainstream Greek are not "modern" (they were not formed in modern times) but historical. In this sense, I will say to you that the pronunciation in this video is the Historical Greek Pronunciation (HGP) whose phonemic sounds are preserved in today's Greek. Whenever I pray this prayer I am in awe that the Lord Himself prayed this prayer in pretty much the same way! Thank you for your expressed interest. -PZ
(Edited) Dear Wind Face, I appreciate your question. Yes, New Testament (NT) Greek words that begin with a vowel have either a comma-like symbol ( ᾽ ) or a reverse comma-like symbol over them. Such symbols may be accompanied by an accent mark or some other symbol. Please know that these symbols are meaningless. Just IGNORE them. It would take me a few long paragraphs to explain what these symbols mean, where they originated, why they are still being used today, etc., but instead I will give you a very brief response which, I hope, will satisfy your question for now. If you wish to know more about these symbols, please write me at NTGreek@att.net, and I will be glad to explain things to you in greater detail. So, my brief response here is this:
The NT scriptures had no such symbols. These symbols were added to Byzantine Greek manuscripts starting in the 7th century, and from the 13th century on they became obligatory. The comma-like symbols are supposed to represent breathing or non-breathing. For example, if the comma-like symbol faces to the right, it means that you have to start pronouncing that word with the sound "h" as in "have." But please know that no NT Greek word was pronounced that way. Unfortunately, old theories about the way NT Greek was pronounced still hold sway today. Modern Greek, too, used those symbols until 1982. The Greek government then decided to drop those symbols because they were useless and made Greek more complicated to learn. I use those symbols in my videos because I want the NT text to look "normal." Today those symbols are still being used in print, although you can find Greek New Testaments that do not use those breathing marks. Fortunately, the meaning of the NT scriptures, with or without those symbols, is still the same. In other words, these breathing symbols are useless even though they are still used in the printed text today. I hope this helps. -PZ
@@PhilemonZachariou I like ψιλή and δασεια🥰
Look for a video on the rough breathing mark (δασεια) in NT Greek. Coming up soon. -PZ
Thank you!
You're welcome! -PZ