วีดีโอ

You are very welcome, friend! -PZ

Friend, you remind me of Matthew 13:44-46 ! You have found a treasure that seems hidden under the noses of those seminarians who are, or choose to be, unaware of what they miss. Reading the NT and the LXX using the right Greek pronunciation, as you do, brings you closer to the very sounds encapsulated, as it were, in the folios of the original Greek MSS. Thank you for sharing! -PZ

Hello, dear friend in Zambia. May you be blessed as you practice the Biblical sounds of Greek. -PZ

I am glad you were pleased. -PZ

@@PhilemonZachariou I am glad you replied, I just love the passionate way you teach. I begun to learn Biblical greek about 5 months ago, I already learned to recite Páter Imón and I am half way the Nicean Creed! Both your site and your YT Channel are outstanding contributions! Thanks!!!

Feedback and responses like yours make work a pleasure. Thank you! -PZ

Thank you for your question. If by "aspirating" you mean audibly pronouncing the symbol H you see in Attic inscriptions or the breath mark ( ῾ ) in modern print as "h" in "have" or "hello," then you are following the tradition of the uninformed (or the well-informed-but-die-hard) Erasmian or some other associate; hence, it would be wise to cease that practice. But if you simply mean treating the rough breath mark as a silent mark, then that is fine, at least for technical purposes. For example, in so doing, you would be in a position to understand elision forms such as ἀπὸ + οὗ = ἀφ᾽ οὗ, forms that became phonetically standardized earlier on in archaic Greek and eventually reached Classical Attic. Such elision forms were passed on to Hellenistic Greek, and from there to Byzantine and down to Neohellenic (Modern Greek). I am glad that you saw video #12. -PZ

I am glad you saw this video. -PZ

Thank you. That's the plan! -PZ

@@PhilemonZachariou 👍

Your comments, my friend, are deeply appreciated. Thank you for sharing. Your experience of reaping the fruits of diligence and persistence will continue to encourage others, your friend being an example. You will find that the more you read, whether (semi-)silently or audibly, the more you develop an intimacy with the Greek language. Reading out aloud any part of the Greek New Testament with the historical Greek sounds preserved in Modern Greek (Neohellenic) makes you as intelligible to Greek-speaking people today as it would have made you intelligible to Greek-speaking people in Byzantine and New Testament times. Realizing this can have a profound impact on the ramifications of the significance of the right pronunciation of New Testament Greek. -PZ

I am with you, friend. You are doing the right thing. -PZ

Very well said, Cedric, that the Greek language was stolen and misappropriated, as though the people living in Greece today have nothing to do with their language or history. In this regard, I see Kantor's work as a sign of progress toward the opposite direction. -PZ

@@PhilemonZachariou can you teach me the Historical Pronunciation of Koine Greek rightly?

Hello, please take the time to view my Greek pronunciation videos, as they were made with people like you in mind. Video #2, whether the original or the revised one, will prove particularly helpful. Thanks for your interest. -PZ

Thank you, too, for your encouraging feedback. -PZ

Hello, Iberius, There is not a word in the whole classical literature about quantity, nothing about short, long, or common syllables or vowels. All these technical terms made their first appearance in late grammatical treatises in Greco-Roman (Hellenistic) times. All vowels and syllables orthophonically pronounced (e.g., in isolation) are isochronous “equally timed.” Granted, accented syllables in regular speech may be imperceptibly to noticeably longer and louder depending on the speaker’s intonational patterns, background, mood, or occasion. But that is not what quantity with respect to Classical Greek is all about. Vowel quantity in Attic Greek is a technicality of the art of metrical verse, not of ordinary speech. -PZ

​@@PhilemonZachariouVery interesting answer. So not a single word about this in Classical Greek literature, then? So would you say Mr. Ranieri is mistaken when he insists on his website and in his videos that Ancient Greek grammar is "impossible" without phonemic vowel length? I mean, on the other hand he still presents evidence of iotacism and of loss of phonemic vowel length in Classical Attic in his "Vulgar Attic" video, and he is not ignorant of the same occuring in Palestinian Koine, as Benjamin Kantor has presented. So do you feel Ancient Greek having had phonemic vowel length and pitch accent has been a misinterpretation by philologists and that it NEVER existed in speech? I myself consider it irrelevant to my learning of Ancient Greek. I've been able to read a lot of Koine Greek with the historical pronunciation, namely The Gospel of John, without worrying about these things. What difference would it make with Attic or Homeric? Also, despite going back and forth on which pronunciation to utilize, I always settle on modern or historical pronunciation and I hope to not deviate from continuing my learning with this living pronunciation. It will always be a better alternative to Erasmian, for sure, and I personally promote the teaching and learning of Ancient Greek with the living pronunciation as it has been handed down through the centuries. A.P.

Iberius, Per the second part of your comments, I commend you for your resolve to pursue the historical Greek pronunciation (HGP), as it is a better alternative to Erasmian (or other concocted pronunciations of Greek). As for the first part of your comments, I will say this: The Athenians’ intense interest in perfecting the art of rhythm in metrical verse-the heartbeat of education in classical times-has apparently (mis)led many a Greek scholar to characterize Attic Greek as a flawless tonal tongue admirably filled with musical contours of metered long and short sounds, as though Attic Greek had been all poetry in song-and without a vernacular! It is no wonder that in sheer contradistinction to artistic Attic, the Attic vernacular, particularly at the colloquial level, was referred to as κοινή “common (tongue).” The HGP is closer to the phonemic sounds of Attic Greek, whether at the colloquial or the artistic level. But, again, there is no evidence that in the Attic vernacular vowel quantity, as today's scholars view it, existed. -PZ

​@@PhilemonZachariouVery interesting answer. Sure to be hotly debated by philologists and such if presented by me on any academic or Ancient Greek platform. Χάριν σοὶ ἔχω, ὦ διδάσκαλε·

​@@PhilemonZachariouI'd also like to humbly add a correction: Ancient Greek is posited to have had a pitch accent, not a tonal, system. So like Japanese rather than Chinese. So were the Romans mistaken when transliterating ω, ει η as long vowels?? Particularly η as ē? Can there not have been speakers that pronounced, say, ἡμέρα one way and others another way? One thing I will say: The fact that, thanks to scholars like Teodorsson and other textual evidence from Attic Greek authors themselves, we can know that phonemic vowel length and even pitch accent were dropped in common Attic Greek, as well as heavy ioticizing to the point of even ει merging with ι was taking place, makes me feel secure in adopting the living pronunciation and not deviating from it. If ioticizing and homophones, especially for inflected verbs, were not at all a problem in Attic speech, then I fail to see how it should be so for a Greek learner like myself. Perhaps you've heard of the hilarious τί σείει ὁ κύων; anecdote in Classical Attic literature (The author's name escapes me at the moment)?

Hello, @jorgesantelli7270. Today's Neohellenic (Modern Greek) is phonologically very much the way Greek was two millennia ago. This means that the phonemic sounds of Greek, the sounds that make a difference in meaning, are the same: 15 consonant phonemes, and five vowel phonemes. Neohellenic is more simplistic in grammar, though both share the same grammatical categories. For example, Neohellenic preserves the two numbers, (singular, plural), the three declensions, the four cases (the dative is used in various fixed expressions), the same articular forms, inflectional and conjugational endings (with some variations and differences), pretty much the same verbal system, e.g., the same active, middle, and passive voices, the same verbal aspect, the same tenses (with an additional continuous future in Neohellenic), the same moods (indicative, subjunctive, imperative, and the use of the optative), limited use of the infinitive (e.g., in fixed expressions), and the use of the participle. In other words, NT Greek and Neohellenic are in certain areas similar-to-identical, while in other areas they are different. I would dare say that typically those who are not intimately familiar with both NT Greek and Neohellenic tend to point out their differences, while those intimately familiar with both see the many similarities the two share, while acknowledging their differences as well. Bottom line: the Κοινή "Koine" [kini] of NT times and today's Greek are one and the same language, and they are in every respect more similar than they are different. Look for a TH-cam video on 1st century vs. modern-day Greek in a video that is going to be released shortly. -PZ. PS. It just occurred to me to have you look at my article, "VERBAL ASPECT in NT GREEK - A Practical Approach through Neohellenic." This article points out the similarities between 1st century Greek and Neohellenic. Go to www.Greeklinguistics.net and click on "Articles." -PZ

I'd like to also add here that I'm a staunch supporter of the HGP over any other reconstruction, but even I occasionally read ημείς out loud as εμείς (as in Neohellenic) and ημέτερον as εμέτερον (as in Pontic Greek) to distinguish their ύψιλον-using counterpart words (υμείς, υμέτερον). What are your thoughts on this?

Legitimate questions, @E45F678. There is no historical record to date that Greek-speaking individuals ever faced any such communication issues due to homophony. I am sure you will take my remarks below not personally, but in the right spirit when I say to you that you are looking at the Greek language from the outside, that is, as a learner of Greek. The picture from the inside is drastically different. So, please draw parallels and do project what I am saying here to yourself as a native speaker of English. A native speaker has what we might call a “feeling” for the language, i.e., language intuition. Language intuition has profoundly expansive dimensions, particularly during communication between two or more individuals, as it combines living sounds with body language, gestures, facial expressions, conversational idiosyncrasies such as speed, loudness, voice contours, occasion, physical disposition, and other factors that converge upon one’s expression of what he wishes to convey to his audience-whether that consists of one person, a small circle of friends, or a large auditorium-all of which make up the context. Take this a level higher and think in terms of well-educated individuals. Do you suppose that Aristotle, for instance, standing before an audience of officials; or Paul the Apostle, addressing a group of believers, would hesitate to use ὑμεῖς / ἡμεῖς, μεθ᾽ὑμῶν / μεθ᾽ἡμῶν, etc. lest he be misunderstood? Using your personal knowledge of Greek-I take it you do have a solid command of it-see how often, if ever, a speaker, in trying to communicate with another individual or a group of people, would use such words/phrases in isolation in order to communicate a thought. (Picture yourself, for a moment, standing in front of an audience. Looking down from the stage you appear to be looking at one member of the audience as you are saying, “You!” Would the audience think that you are addressing the entire gathering, or just an individual in the audience? Within barely a second, you continue, “You…all…” Well, now the audience is aware-not that there was any doubt in anyone’s mind a couple of seconds earlier-that you had all along been addressing the entire gathering, not a single individual in the crowd. That, again, is context, made up of all those things mentioned above.) So, it is context-context in oral communication between two or more individuals and under circumstances that automatically eclipse any confusion or concerns regarding homophony. But let me put a cap on everything I have already said regarding context by sayin this: Context in oral communication is formed by an expressed thought or thoughts. Most thoughts we articulate extemporaneously, but especially when we prepare and organize them, are expressed in the form of sentences. Think of “You!” (above), vs. “You all!...” Take now Greek _μεῖς θέλετε. What is the missing letter? Is it ἡ- or ὑ- ? Why? Now take _μεῖς θέλομεν. What is the missing letter? Is it ἡ- or ὑ- ? Why? Do you see now? You do not communicate by the use of a single pronoun or phrase. You have personal verb endings that take the role of the subject or the object, making things absolutely clear to the point that native Greeks do not consciously wink at something homophonous and therefore not clear. So, enter the Greek world and see things from the inside. A homophone should never be a concern to the extent of pointing out how Greek has this and that spelled alike or sounding alike, and so on. A homophone reveals its identity always within a context. Today you can bid a Greek friend or friends Μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν ὁ Θεός. (You can address an individual by using the plural as a polite expression.) The Greek friend knows that your greeting is addressed to him/her/them, so there is no room for misunderstanding about what you are saying. Other times you might say, Μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν καὶ ἡμῶν, not an infrequently used expression among church goers. This applies to homophones such as εἰ, ἥ, οἱ, ἡ or εἴη, οἵη, etc. Utter the word not by itself, but let it be accompanied by the rest of the thought. Then homophony vanishes, especially among speakers equipped with the power on language intuition applied in full expression (=completed thoughts) and therefore within proper context. Friend, detach now yourself from the ranks of those stuck with the classic crutch of ἡμεῖς / ὑμεῖς and the like, and who go as far as to use that as an excuse to adhere to Erasmian or some other concocted pronunciation idea on the faulty basis that it makes it easier to distinguish Greek words! All the best. -PZ

Good. Stay with the HGP! -PZ

Μάλιστα. Η προσπάθεια του εχθρού να καταστρέψει την γλώσσα της μετάφρασης των Εβδομήκοντα και της Καινης Διαθήκης. --ΦΖ

@@PhilemonZachariou Ευχαριστώ!!! Είναι τόσο άθλια αυτή την προφορά και όμως την διδάσκουν σέ όλα τα θεολογικά πανεπιστήμια στην Ρουμανία, αλλά και στο Cambridge και Οξφόρδης.

Υπάρχει και "φόβος" οτι όταν αλλάξουν προφορά και χρησιμοποιούν κανονικά την Ελληνική προφορά, ο καθηγητής Ελληνικης στο Cambridge και στην Oxford θα πρέπει να κάνει αναφορά στον κοινό Ελληνα πολίτη! --ΦΖ

Thank you, Dave. Your feedback is received with gratitude. -PZ

Hello, Nicolas, Around the time of Julius Ceasar (1st c. BC), Latin adopted Y to represent Greek words and loanwords containing the grapheme (letter) Y. Latin phonology of course already had the sound [i], but its alphabet did not have the grapheme Y for Greek loanwords containing Y. At the time of its adoption into Latin, Υ(υ) had long been confused with I(ι), e.g., CIGNVS cignus for ΚΥΚΝΟΣ κύκνος "swan." To differentiate between I and Greek-invented Y, the Romans named Y i-Graeca “Greek [i]”-NOT [ü]!-a name still used among Romance languages today. Now if you go back to the video you saw and fast-forward to 17:37 min., you will see that the confusion of graphemes that stood for the sound represented by ι was already in effect by classical times. As for the letter η, it was introduced into Attic around mid-5th century BC-officially in 403 BC. But it, too, was taken from the very start as a substitute for ει, the latter having already been confused with the sound represented by ι. I hope this helps. -PZ

​@@PhilemonZachariou Oh I must have overlooked that bit. Thank you. There's just a couple of other questions I'd like to ask you - What about the quote from Cratinus: "The fool walks saying βη βη like a sheep"? Or the one from an anonymous writer: "The dog says βαύ βαύ..."? (or something along that line, I don't remember the exact wording). In comedies or tragedies you also often find onomatopoeic expressions such as "αιαι", which seems to have been used to express pain. It's hard to believe they were pronounced the way they would be according to modern Greek pronunciation rules... especially if one considers that in Italian for instance the dog says "bau bau" too, and "ahi ahi" is also an exclamation used to express pain (the English equivalent is ouch)

Hello again, Nicolas, I appreciate your questions. What Erasmians probably consider as the strongest evidence in support of the pronunciation of η as ε are the two fragmentary lines you are referring to by Kratinos and Aristophanes where βηβη and βη respectively represent the bleating of sheep: Ὁ δ᾽ ἠλίθιος ὥσπερ πρόβατον βῆ βῆ λέγων βαδίζει. -Kratinos Θύειν με μέλλει καὶ κελεύει βῆ λέγειν. -Aristophanes First, the vowel H(η) cannot belong to Kratinos (520-423 BC) and hardly to Aristophanes (450-386 BC). In Kratinos’ case the vowel H had not yet been introduced to the Attic script, and in Aristophanes’ case H had not yet been introduced officially. Kratinos, accustomed to the old Attic use of E both for [e] and [i] sounds, would have written ΒΕΒΕ (βεβε), not ΒΗΒΗ (βηβη), and Aristophanes ΒΕ(βε) not ΒΗ(βη). Thus it cannot be deduced from these fragmentary lines that Attic H can be interpreted as E[e]. Cries of animals cannot be relied upon as a guide to the pronunciation of language sounds. For if a sheep goes bεε in Greek but baa in English (and I am not sure about Italian), one might as well adduce that the same kind of animal, be it a sheep, a dog, a cow, or a lion, must make a different sound in every country where a different language is spoken! Let me clarify further even at the risk of repeating myself. After the Persian wars, the Athenian came to realize that their pronunciation was much different from the Homeric sounds. At the same time, their old Attic script was inadequate in representing long and short syllables in metered verse-mind you, in metered verse, not in regular speech. So, around 450 BC they began to borrow the Ionian symbols H(η) and Ω(ω) as compensatory symbols in verse. Soon, however, Η and Ω began to creep into prose as well. According to Plato (Πλάτων), that is when the Athenians began to spell a word, such as ημέρα, also ιμέρα or είμέρα, since these three symbols represented the same sound. The confusion that resulted from the interchange of ι, ε, and η did not depart even when Athens ratified the Ionic alphabet (403 BC) as the new Attic alphabet, which included H and Ω as regular alphabet letters. I trust the foregoing addresses your question regarding βῆ βῆ vs. βε βε. -PZ

Hello, Dietfried, You did well with the translation into English. Greeks have always pronounced Ancient Greek using the phonemic sounds they have used in their daily speech. The pronunciation of Ancient Greek in the manner of Neohellenic (“Modern” Greek) had been accepted prior to and through Byzantine times as a matter of incontestable fact. Objections to it were first raised by Renaissance scholars, chiefly Erasmus, who noted its incongruity with the pronunciation of Latin, the then academic language of Europe. As you may know, Constantinople fell in 1453 and Greece came under Turkish rule. This means that at the time of Erasmus, Greece had no national voice to defend her own language. So while the country of Greece was under Turkish rule, the Greek language eventually came under the rule of prominent European scholars, such as Erasmus. Now you know the roots of the problem, a problem that did not exist prior to Erasmus’ day. You have two questions. Responding to your questions satisfactorily would take more than just a paragraph or two, but I will try to respond as concisely as possible and still try to make sense to you. Regarding your first question: Following the end of the Persian wars in Greece around the mid-5th century BC, the Athenians saw the need to fix their writing system. In 403 BC, Athens adopted the 24-letter Ionic alphabet, an alphabet their kinsmen, the Ionians, had perfected. Until then, Old Attic E stood for [e] and [i], sounds, and O stood for [o] and [u] sounds. (See the video “Greek Pronunciation 1 (Historical Development)” at 12:10-13:45.) At the same time, a number of consonants took a more definitive form. (Mind you, these are the same 24 alphabet symbols used in Greece since 403 BC.) At this point, I would also recommend that you view the video “Greek Pronunciation 11 (1,000 Words),” which shows that many Greek words used today were spelled and understood the same way in New Testament times and in Attic Greek. Grammatical rules regarding the use of ει, η, ι, οι, etc. (e.g., verb ending -εις = 2nd person singular; noun ending -οι = nominative plural, masculine; -ῃ dative singular feminine; -οις dative plural, etc., etc.) are not modern inventions but are traced all the way to Classical Attic, officially from 403 BC on. Your second question: Erasmian, slowly but surely, is going out of fashion. Seminaries here in the United States, for example, are well aware today that the Erasmian pronunciation is artificial and incorrect. Even old die-hards would admit this. My belief is that Erasmian will eventually be replaced by the historical Greek pronunciation (HGP), which consists of the Classical Greek phonemic sounds that have stood the test of time and are preserved in Neohellenic today. This saying, of course, may cause many a brow to be raised, but that is something expected of those who are not fully informed or those who remain unwilling to change for whatever reason. So, Erasmian is not really unshakable, to use your term, although that may have seemed to be the case up until a decade or two ago. Personally, I have had encouraging reports of individuals and institutions that have switched from Erasmian to the Neohellenic pronunciation or are using the Neohellenic pronunciation concurrently with Erasmian. I hope this helps. -PZ

@@PhilemonZachariou Dr. Zachariou, Thank you very much for your detailed and very interesting answer! The so-called Reuchlin reading of ancient Greek really dominates in seminaries, not only in the USA. But there are no questions about this; the texts read in them usually do not go beyond the Hellenistic and Byzantine periods, and their pronunciation is already better known. In secular education and scientific circles, on the contrary, Erasmian (relatively Erasmian, there are more modern variants) reading still dominates. When questioning about pronunciation based on the Greek tradition, its opponents usually cite the following arguments. Why retain redundant letters and letter combinations in spelling if they initially represented different sounds and then mixed into one? Or why introduce new different designations for the same sound if they were pronounced the same way, for example, why η meaning the sound ει, if ει already existed? Examples are given from the same Mycenaean, for example Ἥρα, which was written there as e-ra, etc. The same described sounds of animals, sheep, dogs. The argument of spelling is also given - how to distinguish words with such pronunciation (like ἡμεῖς and ὑμεῖς for example), according to the Greek tradition, an abundance of homonyms arises and you will have to remember the spelling of many words, in the absence of spelling rules. How do you know which letter, or diphthong, denoting the sound - ι, to write in a word and why exactly in this way, in the same way you need to write it, and if they come in a row in a word. It is impossible to read ancient Greek poetry with Byzantine pronunciation, observing the rhythm, only in prose, which means that the ancient poets certainly did not speak like that. And the argument is Historical Phonetics, which as a science has existed for a long time, its achievements in the field of ancient Greek do not coincide with the Greek tradition. I do not claim, I am not a specialist in the field of linguistics and philology of ancient Greek, I cannot refer to studies or specific articles by prominent scientists in this field, I have listed the arguments given in the course of disputes in various forums by supporters of reading according to Erasmus. I would be very interested to know your opinion on these arguments, whether anything can be countered to them. I looked on TH-cam and other resources for many options for reading ancient texts on Erasmus. It always looks forced and slow, unnatural, or the speakers completely ignore the duration of vowels, stress, etc. IOANNIS STRATAKIS is probably the best thing I’ve ever heard, th-cam.com/video/wN5ltc7pK-U/w-d-xo.html, but even in his performance I can’t imagine how people could talk like that in classical ancient times. Sorry for asking so many questions, but I have no one to ask except you.

Hello again, Dietfried, I recommend that you oder the Kindle version of my book from Amazon for $2.99. Here is the link: www.amazon.com/Reading-Pronouncing-Biblical-Greek-Pronunciation-ebook/dp/B08BT6NKQR/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr= This will likely help you with the many questions you have. To satisfy all such questions regarding Erasmian, Reuchlinian, Modern Greek, and a host of other issues will take, I am afraid, many lengthy paragraphs such as the ones we have already exchanged. I am not sure whether you can read English, but if you can manage, this may be a good part of the solution. I am sure there are also technological ways to have the book translated. Thank you for your patience. -PZ

I am the teacher, but unfortunately I do not offer any lessons now. -PZ

@@PhilemonZachariou Do you teach English online? I want to learn and will pay for teaching by the hour

Thanks for liking it. -PZ

You are welcome, Robert. And thanks for being a part of a deserving audience! -PZ

Dear Stephen, thank you so much for your thoughts and comments. I am sure that in due time we will connect and have a session together for the benefit of your deserving viewers. -PZ

As the article points out, the New Testament Greek pronunciation the author of these two books, Benjamin Kantor, portrays is not the Modern Greek pronunciation, though he himself does recommend in these books the Modern Greek pronunciation for New Testament Greek. The phonemic sounds of today's Greek are not modern or new, but historical, therefore the so-called "Modern" Greek pronunciation is actually a misnomer. In any case, Modern Greek (Neohellenic) preserves the historical phonemic sounds of Greek, which collectively are referred to as the Historical Greek Pronunciation (HGP). -PZ

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

Keep at it with patience and persistence. Regards, -PZ

May you succeed in your endeavors!! -PZ

Insightful feedback. Thank you! -PZ

Very magnanimous of you. Thank you! -PZ

My pleasure! -PZ

It is "Modern" Greek. The quotation marks mean that the sounds of today's Greek, whose official name is Neohellenic "New Hellenic" of Greek, are not modern but historical. Therefore we refer to this "Modern" Greek pronunciation as the Historical Greek Pronunciation (HGP). So, yes, you can call this Modern Greek pronunciation but, again, it would be good to remember that the historical phonemic sounds of today's Greek are also those of New Testament Greek. -PZ

@@PhilemonZachariou Thank you for your feedback.

Hello, Maia, I am impressed by your resolve to teach Greek to your little boy. A superb decision! I am responding to you via e-mail. Thank you. -PZ

Thank you! -PZ

@@PhilemonZachariou You're welcome 🤗

My mom is one and the older I get the more it hurts, but I am slowly starting to see why she stays in. She is the ONLY family member to EVER be an active JW so her learning they are not the real deal wouldn't cause her to loose not a one person. So I think she stays in for the (how do I say this without being mean) the perceived family closeness.

I appreciate your positive feedback. -PZ

John 14:8: Philip says to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it suffices for us." 9 Jesus says to him, "Philip, I have been with you for so long and you haven't known me? Whoever sees me has seen the Father. How come you are saying, 'Show us the Father' ?" Rick, you need not rely on just John 1:1 to be able to figure out that Jesus was/is the exact representation of God the Father. But to address your specific concern, let me say that "God was the Word" does also say that the Logos was the exact representation of the Father in attributes, essence, nature, and qualities. Remember Jesus' words: "He who sees me has seen the Father." -PZ

The preposition πρός implies not merely existence alongside but personal communion. It is more than μετά "with" or παρἀ "beside, next to." It expresses the presence of one person with another. The word for "face" πρόσωπον is a compound that includes πρός (πρός + ὤψ, ὀπός "eye, face"). Ὁ Λόγος was face to face with God, in communion with God. Compare: Paul stayed πρός with Cephas (Peter) three days (Gal.1:18); John says ἐλπίζω γενέσθαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς "I hope to be with you." The preposition implies distinct/separate personality. -PZ

You are welcome! -PZ

My pleasure! -PZ

Assuming you have viewed the video, Historical Greek Pronunciation vs. Erasmian, you may recall the phenomenon of Greek dimorphia (abridged video at 1.17, full video at 5.06). This phenomenon is still in force today, though less pronounced than in centuries past. The point is that in making references to Greek morphology you must be aware that in comparing the use and pronunciation of ἡμεἰς/ὑμεῖς vs. εμείς/εσείς in the same breath, you are mixing the two levels of dimorphia. If your question is in relation to the literary level of the language, then, yes, ἡμεἰς/ὑμεῖς has been a part of Greek to this day. No Greek today questions the pronunciation or meaning of these pronouns. As for εμείς/εσείς, the development of these forms did not affect the use of ἡμεἰς/ὑμεῖς at the literary level. By the way, the confusion of η, ει, and ι is traceable to Plato’s comments, and υ [i] is traceable to the 6th c. BC (for the latter, see abridged video at 10.07, full video at 17.42). You are right, though, per your question, that “Greeks used both [ἡμεἰς/ὑμεῖς] and managed to understand the difference just fine.” Coincidentally, no one has proved that the “Modern” Greek pronunciation was set in place by the 10th century! -PZ

@@PhilemonZachariou Thank you for your thorough response, Mr Zachariou. So, are you saying that the Byzantine texts used ημείς/υμείς in literature, yet had already made use of εμείς/εσείς in everyday colloquial speech? When did the advent of εμείς/εσείς take place, then?

In early Byzantine times, υμων was gradually taken over by σεις (formed from singular σε) by analogy with ημεις. The fuller forms of εμε, εμου, εμοι, εγω caused an analogous formation of the second person forms: εσε, εσυ. All such forms affected their respective plurals, forming εμεις for ημεις, and εσεις for σεις (=υμεις). Ημεις resisted the longest, probably because of its daily use in the Lord’s Prayer, in which plural forms of εγω (ημεις, ημων, ημιν, ημας) occur nine times. So, εμεις and εσεις were the result of the evolution of the standard vernacular from early Byzantine times on. -PZ

@@PhilemonZachariou That is fascinating, thank you for your help.

You are welcome! -PZ

I thank you for your kind words and valuable observations. Indeed, Rev. 19:13 strongly speaks of the One "whose name is ὁ Λόγος τoῦ Θεοῦ" "the Word of God." This is the closest allusion to Jesus Christ as the Λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ besides the four references to Him in John ch. 1 as ὁ Λόγος. The reason I did not group Rev. 19:13 with the four references to Λόγος in John ch 1 is that it does not as absolutely and as directly identify ὁ Λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ with Jesus Christ by name-even though we have no doubt whatsoever that that is the Person it is referring to. I do make a reference to Rev. 19:13 (see video at 3.15) but, again, do not line it up with the four direct and absolute identification references of Λόγος in John ch. 1. Remain blessed. -PZ

Thank you ! I take your comments as a sign of fulfillment. -PZ

My pleasure! -PZ

Interesting

Awesome, thank you! -PZ

Thank you, my pleasure! -PZ

Oh? Good to know - Χάρηκα!

Thank you! 😃 -PZ

Thank you! -PZ